Talk:Historicity of Jesus

RfC

I posted notice I was going to be opening this up 3 days ago to Griswaldo and Bill's talkpages, because they seemed most active in the opposing camp and neither seems to have drafted a response and I'm not going to hold off indefinitely, so I'm opening this up and posting links in the appropriate places (RfC lists, Village Pump). Since neither stepped up to write an opposing side, I welcome any editor who takes that position to draw up the response. We seem to have several (Myself, Cyclopia, Peregrine) editors stating that attribution should be required, and several (Gris, Bill, Ari) Saying it should not. The appropriate course now is to open it up to the wider community to determine consensus. -- ۩ Mask 17:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The view that the lede should note the source

The language in the lede cites a evangelical Christian blanket asserting that the view Jesus existed is held universally without revealing possible bias from the source. Furthermore, the source does not provide any evidence that that is the case, but simply asserts it. A look deeper reveals an Agnostic position from many theologians and historians:

Reasons

Robert M. Price, a theologian with a PhD in The New Testament and a second PhD in Systematic Theology, explains that view well: "And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities"

Even Christian scholars acknowledge that all sources for the life of Jesus came generations after he lived. The Gospels were written, according to mainline theologians from the Christian faith, up to as late as 150 CE. And the Gospels are the closest any writings get, secular sources are all centuries after. This led David Noel Freedman, a Christian thologian writing in Bible Review magazine, December 1993 to remark "We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything." followed by "When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards."

Bertrand Russell, a historian in addition to being one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, laid it out quite plainly in his book 'Why I am not a Christian': "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

Taking a look at another historian, rather then theologian, Earl Doherty pieces together early Christian culture to show a mythical beginning for Jesus, a work well regarded by many in the field. Religious Historian R. Joseph Hoffmann called it plausible, but that there is reason to hold the view. Richard Carrier, who holds a PhD in Ancient History, praised it in his review. Even those who do not support the view, such as Hector Avalos, called the work plausible, but pointed out it lacks the same hard evidence that the hypothesis Jesus was a real person does. A quote that sums up the text nicely for our purposes rests on page 141: 'Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.'

George A Larue, a Biblical Archeologist at USC and the first head of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, wrote that "We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world." in the compilation 'The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read'.

Conclusion

In secular histories of Religion, there is a strong current, of not disbelief in the Historical Jesus, but agnosticism, that the evidence is not present to support the claim. I haven't even touched on prominent secular scientists who hold the view such as Dawkins, because this is out of their field, but I will throw that out there because those in such fields are well acquainted with standards of evidence and burden of proof. All in all, if the lede is going to place a simple, bare assertion that the view is universally held, the reader should be informed of possible bias in the source, through the simple attribution of the quote, eg: 'According to Christian Theologian xxx'

Discussion (2)

• This is utter nonsense. There are very, very few ancient historians or critical biblical scholars (you know, the people who went to school to specialize in scholarly methods related studying the New Testament times and location) who support this "agnostic" or non-history view of Jesus. You sure wrote a lot, but cherry picked basically the only people who have written about this topic in the manner you support (and many of them simply are not scholars or specialize in a relevant field). It's like citing a couple MDs who disagree with evolution, or an engineer or physicist who disagrees with Global Warming. If you look at the university level text books on this matter, or write to just about any other published scholars who teach undergraduate courses on this topic at secular universities, you won't find people that support this view. We site a source which says as much (or points out the near unanimity of scholars supporting a historical Jesus). There is absolutely no reason at all to not believe this source. Saying the source comes from an "evangelical Christian" is religious prejudice. Unless we have other sources accusing that source of bias, criticism from that angle is only representative of some anonymous Wikipedian's personal prejudices, nothing more. We have no reason to think that someone who is trained in a field of study, published in that field, is somehow magically unable to be professional simply because they are Christian. That sort of prejudice disgusts me, and I find attempts to push the POV that question the historicity of Jesus is akin to creationism, global warming denial, AIDS denial, (dare I say holocaust denial?) -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparing it to holocaust denial? Laugh. And I left out quite a few names (Elaine Pagels, for one, the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University) who hold a 'we can't know, there arent enough sources from the time period' view just to keep it concise and avoid a TLDR. -- ۩ Mask 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed this comment. As for Elaine Pagels, she is a very notable and respected scholar in this field. She hasn't published any claims against the historicity of Jesus to my knowledge (and I'm pretty sure I would have known if she did). While perhaps not the best, most RS source, I found this, where Pagels says comments critical of various reconstructions of a historical Jesus (two paragraphs, starting with But now, given these discoveries, we are rewriting the history of Christianity). I think that, perhaps, is the sort of POV balance that could help this article. But even this skeptical Pagels presupposes the historical existence of Jesus. She's just pointing out that the conflicting reconstructions of a historical Jesus are estimates at bests, none without problems or selection bias. But then again, maybe we should discount Pagels arguments entirely because they were never published in a secular, peer reviewed academic journal ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC Comment The language used in the lead section is a little ambiguous, and perhaps that's what's causing some of the debate. It says that "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields" agree that Jesus existed. What is a relevant field? If the relevant field is Christian theologians, then it seems to be almost a self-evident truth. I would deprecate this sentence solely on these terms, and seek a better quote, ideally one that less ambiguously qualifies what kind of scholars believe what. Given that counterexamples of unbelieving, credible scholars have been produced by editors here, some actual evidence would be useful. A poll, however informal, would be preferable to Stanton's unsubstantiated declaration. (Is it unsubstantiated? I'm guessing, not having the source in front of me.) And if no such evidence exists, why not just do away with that phrase entirely? The lead section will look just fine without a declaration of how many people believe there's evidence for his existence. --RSLxii 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Another RFC Comment I've had a quick look at the article and the troublesome sentences, and I must agree with RSLxii. The sentence ""essentially all scholars in the relevant fields" is a little bald, but it may reflect current thinking by scholars. However, I think the Lead does only introduce the article, and doesn't do a thorough job of summarising it (as per WP:LEAD). A bit more context taken from the article would improve it, and a statement that mentioned the consensus (assuming there is one) which relevant scholars have should go after brief discussion of the sources and analysis. It may be useful to mention the nay-sayers, even if it were only to say that they were in a minority (bearing in mind WP:UNDUE) My only further comment is that if notable figures have at some time in the past had a view (you mention Bertrand Russell) , even if that view was subsequently shown to be invalid, I think that is notablility enough to be included; although the weight given to it in the article should reflect their impact on the Historicity issue. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @AKMask Actually, you might want to listen to this. Ehrman basically says that if one ignores evidence, then even the Holocaust can be denied. That's how sure scholars are about the historicity of Jesus. Therefore, Andrew C is correct in his assessment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @Bloodnok. To say "essentially all scholars" is accurate and, more importantly, verifiable. Even proponents of the CMT acknowledge it. And when both sides of the issue agree that that is the case, then hiding that fact is a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:Fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided to take search around and see if there were any polls regarding the issue. The most promising lead I found was this:

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=96

Does anyone want to try and track down more information about this survey?

Other than this, all I found were internet surveys, which are clearly not up to snuff:

http://www.answerbag.com/debates/jesus-historical-figure_1855544

http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=6793870036&linkback=

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7923

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/69002-atheist-poll-there-historical-yeshua-2.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TAAT95C1MK0DAHR4E

If actual polls can be cited, I feel they would be better sources than those listed in Bill the Cat's CMT FAQ page, which, though voluminous, seems to lack anything published in peer-reviewed or academic journals, and none of which are based any anything more substantial than "based on all the historians I personally know..." (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't read every single quote word for word) --RSLxii 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• long version. Short version:

1. Do any reliable sources explicitly challenge the consensus statement regarding mainstream scholarship? No.
2. Does original research and synthesis (e.g. misusing references to Freedman and Larue to advance a theory neither hold) take precedent over reliably sourced consensus statements? No.
3. Does the personal belief on the topic by philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1927 replace reliable consensus statements on the state of scholarship? No.
4. Do mainstream reliable sources from a wide range of religious and non-religious perspectives agree that there is a clear consensus within scholarship that Jesus existed as a historical figure? Yes. --Ari (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the single best source ever for the consensus, and why? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quick answer is, Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. The longer answers can be found here and here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question at all. I've been here for over five years (written FAs, GAs, answered hundreds of WP:RSN questions, etc.), so I know those policies. Can you give me a non-TLDR that will easily convince me per those policies? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. Can you please be more specific about what you are looking for? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Peregrine Fisher wasn't talking in the abstract, but wants you to provide a specific source for a consensus statement regarding the historical Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry for that last comment, it wasn't super helpful. Anyways, what is the very best single source that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed? Is it "Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii" (which is used right now in the lead)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari would probably be the best person to ask. But, in my opinion, the statements by the CMT proponents themselves are pretty compelling. You can find them here. They even say that the CMT is dismissed with "amused contempt", "universal disdain", and held in "contempt". If that doesn't convince a person what the consensus is, then I really don't know what will. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps convincing in arguments, I don't think citing fringe/controversial scholars in the lead (which arguably aren't reliable in terms of the topic of ancient history) is a good idea. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But I was just talking about a consensus, not what should be in the lead. Of course, no amount of evidence and facts will dissuade those who have there minds set on pushing a POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I answered Peregrine's question below, by picking 4 items on your list that I thought met WP:RS. Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules which exclude people based on where they went to school, or where they worship in their personal lives, etc...-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• (RFC comment) Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, not a historian. I thought that most reputable theologians regarded the gospels as written in the period 60-90 AD; Matthew and John are by eye witnesses; Mark may record what Peter preached; Luke collected information from reliable wintesses (see his prologue to Theophilus). Of course the surviving MSS are much later. Paul probably wrote his letters about AD 50-60. Certain skeptics who do not wish to find reasons for explaining away the evidence, because this is not a topic on which it is easy to take a neutral view. The lead seems to me to adopt a reasonably neutral postion on the subject. The opposing view is dealt with in the secion Jesus as a myth. I am not clear where the person who started this RFC is coming from, but WP is not the place for conducting a debate on this; it should merely be recording what scholars are saying. Anything else is contrary to the WP:NPOV principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Religiously biased sourcing

• The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted. [1]
• Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]

• 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith."[2]. The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith"[3]. The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [4].
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". [5] It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity [6]
• Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
• 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted. Noloop (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew C has cited an article above that on a quick review seems to satisfy your sourcing requirements. As I pointed out numerous times before; the religion of the author is not relevant so long as it is a WP:RS --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Fringe theory noticeboard, the goal posts have been moved. It's no longer OK for the journal to be non-religiously affiliated, and peer reviewed, but the publishing standard of Noloop and crew is superior to that of these journals, because they exclude priest[s] teaching at a religious university. I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice. There is no evidence that one's religious background affects their ability to do their job as being prominent, learned scholars. One's gender identity, ethnicity, and political views also do not affect scholarship either. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the reasons I jumped out of this whole debate... not sure why I came back in retrospect --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing the Wikipedia world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems that 90% of the people who believe this fact are Christian. If it's a fact, why don't non-Christian historians believe it? Noloop (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How am I to respond to numbers you made up? I was about to list off Jewish and agnostic scholars, but I'm not going to humor this line of argument. Unless we have a valid reason to think there is some sort of institutionalized bias coming from the Christian camp (and spilling into the Jewish/agnostic/etc camp), this is nothing more than your personal prejudices. You think there is bias, but luckily we shouldn't write articles based on what you think. only what notable, reliable sources have published. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Name-calling, e.g. calling people "bigots" is really not helpful. The personal attacks on me, Noloop, and others, from Christians on these talk pages violate a number of Wikipedia rules, and it needs to stop. There is a legitimate concern about the quality of the sourcing for the statements made in this article. If these were Muslim scholars asserting that all the mainstream scholarship agrees that Mohamed rose to heaven on a winged horse, where "mainstream scholarship" was defined as Muslims who published their views in Muslim publications, you would probably see the problem. Demanding an objective standard for truth claims is not bigotry. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a diehard atheist I find some of the comments pretty bigoted. There is very little legitimacy behind the assertion that Christian scholars are considered non-authoritative on this. I've always argued that a cross section of sources should be used with preference - but not because the Christian ones are flawed or undermined by their religion. It should be very easy to do such sourcing. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taken this to a reliable sourcing noticeboard: [7] Noloop (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PeaceLoveHarmony, your comparison is a strawman. There are tons of "Christian" scholars who say that Jesus miraculous resurrection, virgin birth, etc are not historical. There are only very few "scholars," if we can even call them that, who argue along evangelical lines regarding the historicity of the crazy stories in the gospels. Yes, if all the scholars we were citing were not using the historical method, and coming up with fanciful junk, then perhaps your argument would be on strong footing. But the likes of Crossan, Meier, Borg, Sanders, (Vermes, Eherman), etc all use historical methodology, and are respected scholars in their professional field. I don't appreciate unsourced, contrived efforts to discount professional scholars based on their religious background. If that isn't bigotry, then perhaps I am utterly confused about what has been going on. I've yet to see a reliable source making claims against a whole branch of scholarship. But I'm starting to think these arguments are along the lines of the ones Ben Stein made in Expelled accusing the system of peer review in biology of selection bias. Is there any evidence of institutionalized bias in the field of critical bible studies?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, it doesn't matter if we are talking about stories of miracles, or just claims that someone existed; both categories are truth claims that are subject to objective standards of proof. Is there anything non-obvious about the assertion that one's faith can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence that threatens that faith? (There is a big difference between faith based simply on faith, and a belief in a scientific theory, based on empirical evidence. Belief in evolution, for example, is not a matter of faith; belief in Jesus is.) Where is the support for the claim that "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence"? How can the claim be made when there are no secular ancient historians to back it up? Furthermore, there are a growing number of scholars who have published notable books and articles that describe in detail the poor quality of the evidence for the existence of a single Jesus as described in the bible stories that were written decades after his alleged life (stories which contain many contradictions). As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old FAQ that Bill the Cat keeps referencing, at least 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. Can anyone find a secular reliable source asserting the universal certainty among all scholars of Jesus' existence? If not, this statement needs to be modified to reflect reality. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this more, but I feel like it is getting a bit off topic, and it may turn more into an internet forum debate, than what Wikipedia talk pages are intended for. I'm curious who the "growing number of scholars who have published notable books and articles" are. I'm curious why you think belief in Jesus is faith based. Is it your position that all historical inquiry is faith based? Or historical inquiry that lacks direct physical archaeology? or just history concerning religious figure or what. I'd also like to respond to one's faith can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence that threatens that faith. Care to take this to our talk pages?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad there's no preview for this.[8] The author, Robin Lane Fox, is an atheist.[9] He seems to have good credentials (Oxford), and he might make some statements about scholars in general in his book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is fun. My library has the 1992 edition, so I'll pop over there now to browse through it. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Very cool.

We're already using Michael Grant (author) a bit (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels), but he may have more. This isn't a reliable source site, but I think it may be quoting Grant directly from that book, or it may be summarizing.[10]

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

It sounds like Grant is an atheist, although I can't find an RS on that. This quote, if correct, is one of the better ones I've seen that directly says what scholars in general think, and why. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is quoting Grant directly. I'm pretty sure my library has that book as well, as I've looked through it years ago. BTW, I listed Grant in my 4 possibly good sources in the topic above ;) My only concern with Grant is it predates the resurgences of Christ Myth in popular works (not in actual scholarship, mind you) from the early to mid 2000s (Doherty, Frake and Gandy, Acharya S, etc), so I can imagine someone arguing that Grant is out of date because he hasn't considered those loons. I have also read on apologetic websites that Grant is an atheist, if that matters to some (not to me), but obviously the sourcing for that isn't reliable.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Grant seems like the best we have. The one thing I'm concerned with is the single quotes and ellipses in that quote. It makes me think it may not be a direct quote. For instance, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.'" The "To sum up" part may not be Grant, while the "'again and again" part may be Grant. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed my library has the 1977 edition. I can stop over and get that one as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All the text comes from Grant, though it appears he is quoting other sources at times (the single quotes). After the first ellipses is a paragraph describing the history of the myth view, starting with early Christian docetism, and then the eighteenth century views onward "In particular, his [Jesus'] story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods". Then is a paragraph with a couple more arguments, such as the idea that "mighty religions" don't necessarily derive "from mighty founders", i.e. Hinduism. And then a counter argument that the idea of rebirth mythical gods seems entirely foreign to the milieu of Judaism. Then the quoted text continues. The second ellipses omits two sentences: "That there was a growth of legend round Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly. But there had also been a rapid growth of legend round pagan figures like Alexander the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious." Emphasis in original. I can see why an apologist may want to omit saying a lot of legend grew around Jesus (ha). Finally, the single quoted elements I guess are associated with footnote 13: "R. Dunkerly, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin, 1957), p. 12; O Betz, What Do We Know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968), p. 9; cf. H. Hawton, Controversy (Pemberton, 1971), pp. 172-82, etc." I'm guessing the quoted parts are derived from those cited works, so not only is Grant presenting his own view, he is supporting it with other sources (although, as I said, earlier, possibly dated sources). Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Grant is an OK source, better than, say, the John Dickson (author) that Ari89 keeps inserting. He is an author of popular books, so his goal is to write stuff that sells and there's no vetting by a scholarly community. It would be nice to find some high-quality secular sources in academic presses. Noloop (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Redux

Regarding my recent edits to the section mentioned above, my reasons are the reasons given above. Noloop (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Unauthorized Verion by Robin Lane Fox

p.27

Whereas scientists have tested the stories of Creation to see if they correspond to the facts, it is for historians to test the stories of the Nativity to see if they correspond to historical truth. It is not that there was no Nativity or that Jesus was not a historical person. The question is merely whether the Gospels' stories knew when and where he was born.

p.285

those who do not accept the 'Christ of faith' are still confronted with four accounts which are attached to a person of history, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived, taught and died, and was believed to have related himself to the idea of a Messiah and a God who was already known. This historical Jesus is directly relevant to the future 'Christ of faith'; God was not believed to have raised just any old person from the tomb. What, then, can historians know about him? The secure minimum lies in actions which were publicly recognized and on which all Gospels agree....

p.243

When we come to the New Testament, we are within reach of primary sources. The texts tell us about people in a historical setting which we know independently: we do not face the problem of a Solomon or Joshua, and we need not wonder whether Jesus of Nazareth lived and could have visited the places which the Gospels name."

I haven't read the whole book, so I don't see any statement regarding a "consensus statement" of historians. But clearly Jesus' historicity is presupposed, and the author accepts a historical Jesus, even if many of the Gospel accounts lack historicity. Is any of this helpful? Want me to look through more. I have it checked out till November, but will probably return it in a day or so. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is helpful. With those quotes on the talk page, we can use them whenever we want (since we have the page numbers). Then you can take it back to the library. If you're willing, check to see if he says anything about other scholars. Also, did he have succinct answer to "What, then, can historians know about him"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"The secure minimum lies" is the beginning of a long paragraph about the basic stuff that he believes is unambiguously historical. Namely "Jesus regarded the Twelve as a special group among his disciples" but we don't know who the Twelve are because their names are all different in different sources. "We also know that ... [Jesus] spoke in some sense about a kingdom of God". "The inscription on the Cross, a public fact, labelled him as king of the Jews" "We know that he came into conflict with some of the Jews, the he was arrested..., the he was put to death by the Roman punishment of crucifixion".

After the secure minimum paragraph, he goes on to "ways to move forward from the secure minimum". He discusses methodology a bit, touches on few other things, then devotes most of the rest of the section (page after page) discussing and analyzing Jesus' arrest, questioning, and execution. Also, he begins the chapter discussing sourcing, ancient contemporary historical writings, and the Gospels. In other chapters, Fox argues little bits and facts, such as "nothing yet found makes it likely that Jesus himself spoke fluent Greek". He attacks the historicity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb as places for Jesus' historical burial/death. He says Jesus, like Jews, "observed the food rules and the Sabbath." Jesus taught in parables. Jesus did not "anticipate a written New Testament." Fox dates the crucifixion to the year 36, and discusses some of the possibly authentic and inauthentic sayings of Jesus. And so on. BTW, the format of this book is a bit odd, because the NT and the OT are discussed sometimes in different section of the same chapters, or sometimes there will be an OT chapter followed by a NT chapter. Instead of having a big OT section (say, the first half of the book), and a bit NT section (say the second half of the book), various topics, such as textual authorship, or archaeology are discussed in individual chapters which cover both NT and OT.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is his "style" have you read Pagans and Christians yet, it has the same jumping around as you mention. The book is very unsympathetic to the Christians and I got the feeling that he wished Christianity had not supplanted 'old" roman culture. Hardyplants (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, is that quote above (the one from page 243) an exact quote? I'd like to add it to my list of sources on my user page. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, direct quote, unless I made a typo. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition of more Chrisitan sources and publishers, in response to concerns, e.g. "essentially all historians"

The contested sentence in the lead has now become: "essentially all historians believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]"

• Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for such a sweeping claim. It is different from saying that most scholars believe Jesus existed.
• Sources haves been added, all of them Christian theologians. This, in response to widespread concern about near-exclusive sourcing to the community of Christian theologians.
• In addition to Stanton (a theologian, not peer-reviewed), the sources are:
• Charles E. Carlston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3, "a view that no one holds in any case". The sentence fragment "a view no one holds" is unclear. Again, saying "everyone" believes Jesus existed differs from saying everyone believes it "can be established using documentary and other evidence."
• John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23. This is the "co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to "promote the public understanding of the Christian faith". The publisher, Lion, is a Christian press: " specialising in Christianity, fiction, the church, the Bible". [11]

Folks, it is one thing to have a different opinion from others. It is quite another to continue ramming your opinion down the throats of others. Concern has been raised about the near-exclusive sourcing to the theological community. Please respect the concern, even if you don't agree with it.

If "essentially all historians" believe this, it should be easy to find statements from the community of essentially all historians. Instead, there are only sources from the Christian theological community. Noloop (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with scholars as it was before. Again, as before, there is no requirement for secular sourcing. Quit pushing this relentless POV. It is making it very very very hard to argue for a rewording and broader range of sources. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As above: I believe instead that there is a very strong case for including non-Christian sources along with the Christian ones, even if only to settle the issue. I'll dig in the discussion and add the relevant ones. --Cyclopia^talk 19:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just changed this statement to "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence." If we say "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history", or some such similar wording, we at least are being more specific than just saying "scholars in the relevant field". Let's name what that relevant field actually is. It is not correct to say "all historians" since many, if not most, historians have not studied this issue and have no official opinion on the matter. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Be careful everyone, you have now changed a cited statement. Does the cited source say "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history" or the original wording. Can anyone with the sources cited let us know what they exactly say, otherwise we risk having an inaccurate cite, and having accurate citations is far more important than achieving wording consensus among editors. And since no one has produced any source contradicting the original wording, just trying to pacify people who object to the statement isn't enough of a reason to mess with cited information. Roy Brumback (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the previous statement was not supported by the cites. I think the citations have been updated and more were added. I think the current statement accurately reflects what we can conclude from the current citations. All of the citations are individuals who are expressing their opinion that a majority of a certain group of people believes in an historical Jesus. Both the old version and the current version made an inference about the definition of that certain group of people (i.e. old version: "all scholars in the relevant fields" vs. new version: "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history" ). The sentence may still be overstating the case for a current consensus view on the historical Jesus; the cites all predate recent publications by Christ Myth Theory proponents Freke, Gandy, Price, and Doherty. The quote from Price is in the past tense, reflecting what Price believes the vast majority of scholars believed in the past. Nevertheless, I think this current phrasing may be a reasonable compromise. I am open to hearing other opinions, as always. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are tweaking the wording for this sentence, and we have much agreement on the sourcing. I don't think continued claims for standards above and beyond WP:RS from Noloop should be responded to further, per WP:SHUN. a peer-reviewed, secular source is not requred for WP:RS. We have found and discussed at least half a dozen different sources from a diverse group of sources published in different prominent, university and/or otherwise scholarly presses (especially Grant!, though that hasn't been added to the article yet). There is no suggestion from any source to believe anything otherwise. We have a couple individuals who hold minority views regarding the historicity of Jesus, but they are saying nothing of the state of the majority view (except for when the do!). This is not a situation where some scholars say X in the majority, while others say Y is the majority. Per WP:RS, we have no conflict in our cited sources, and we have no VALID reason, per Wikipedia policies, to discount the plethora of sources we have found. OK, time to move on. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What we have is an article that asserts its a fact Jesus existed and that is sourced almost entirely to Christians. Noloop (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost. That's a big improvement. --Cyclopia^talk 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't assert it's a fact he existed, it asserts that's what the majority of scholars and historians think, and they are not giving their opinion they are asserting a numerical fact, that the majority of group x concludes y. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? And these are people who spend all their professional lives dealing with historians and biblical scholars, so they would be experts on what the people in those fields conclude. Again, your only argument seems to be you don't trust them. If so, prove those statements false. Roy Brumback (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus' historical existence is established using the New Testament documents, the theoretical Q source upon which the synoptic gospels may have been based,[2][3] statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds." The article treats the existence as a fact. It does this by making factual references that involve Jesus, and by treating the idea that it's not a fact as a fringe theory. It does this mainly based on Christian sources. And, the fact that the sourcing is almost entirely Christian is hidden from the reader. Noloop (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know why this is "hidden" from the reader? Because wikipedia DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT. Is the source reliable? Yes? Then its ok. Period. End of story. Game over. That's it. There exists no policy, regulation, or even wiki-essay that says the bias of a source should factor into the acceptability of that source. Nor is there any policy that demands we make the reader aware of this bias - which is, by the way, your own personal opinion that they are biased. How many of these Christian historians were non-religious, recieved their education, concluded that Jesus was a real person and THEN became Christian? You cannot in any way reasonably call into question their motivations for believing Jesus was a real person. I will reiterate one more time - that most of the sources provided are Christians is about as relevant as the color of an elephant. They are WP:RS and that is all we need.Farsight001 (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Going Forward

Ok, with the 24H protection in place it might be a good opportunity to mull over the current state of the lead and consider what issues are resolved and what are outstanding. Let me take a quick stab. I think we have resolved:

• The issues of the mention of theoretical documents and how to source that
• Consensus that Christian sources are acceptable provided they sufficiently pass WP:RS but that a secular or peer reviewed source, as an addition, would be a good improvement to make.

What I think lise unresolved or at only quickly growing consensus:

• Settling on a secular or peer reviewed source to use
• Settling on the exact wording of the lead statement (about academic consensus)
• Deciding whether brief mention of counter theory is relevant in the lead or if it is undue

In terms of the latter I think it would improve the sentence - because we could split it into two (as someone higher up suggested) and show what the alternative fringe/non-consensus theory is. Thoughts?--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but not at the level of undue weight. My primary concern has already been addressed (as I mentioned in a follow-up above) so I'm rather amenable to a compromise for the exact wording of this. -- ۩ Mask 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Explicitly stating the Q source gets around this to some extent - although I am still uncomfortable as to how this provides evidence beyond what is in the source(s) that are evidence for the hypothesis. I can see how it might narrow down what is known, but that is qualification of evidence rather thand evidence itself. I am glad that somebody has engaged with this problem, rather than knee-jerking.

I have no doubt that Jesus existed, but it is important that we do not mislead readers as to the allegiance of those who talk about this, and that there are those who have different opinions. - MishMich - Talk - 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The allegiance? Are you guys really saying that you think what they assert is false, that most experts on the subject think Jesus really existed, and if so why, as you have not provided any evidence to the contrary? And Van Voorst for instance clearly says "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it (Jesus myth) as effectively refuted". He's claiming not just biblical scholars but classical historians, who would be experts on all classical history, not just biblical history. If you're only argument against this statement is he's a New Testament scholar so he has some nefarious allegiance, than that's not an argument at all, but if you want everyone to know where the info comes from without simply clicking on the footnotes then why don't we just say "Michael Grant asserts x, Van Voorst asserts y" and then everyone will know with no additional effort who is claiming this and make up their own minds accordingly. As soon as you guys start changing what they have said to pacify those who refuse to believe what a Christian says about the state of scholarship on the issue, then we're making inaccurate claims. Again, just one source claiming something to the contrary of say what Van Voorst asserts would help your case, but those who object have provided no such source. No matter what you tweak about the wording int the intro, someone, likely me, will just put the claims of those who assert what it originally said in the article anyway somewhere else (like it already does at the end of the article) so what's the point? And we list pretty much every scholar who thinks he didn't exist, what more could we do? Roy Brumback (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead:

"While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."

This is different from saying "The majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed." Yet, that's all the sources seem to support. Some of the sources here are CMT advocates, who might agree on a popularity of belief, but not that the belief is "established using documentary and other evidence"

Isn't "majority of biblical scholars" better than "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history"

When I google "biblical history" I get information about the history of the Bible--not what is intended.

None of the sources are high-quality. One of them is 60 years old. Dickson has been objected to elsewhere, and was a contentious addition by Ari89.

Contextually, it seems very clear we are misinforming the reader if we imply that secular, academic research routinely refers to the fact of the existence of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical documents

I don't have an easy source that says all of this: historical existence is established using the New Testament documents, the theoretical Q source upon which the synoptic gospels may have been based, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds. in one neat place. But then after thinking, I don't think we need one. That sentence is basically summarizing the table of contents. We discuss "New Testament writings", "Early Church fathers", "Greco-Roman sources", "Jewish Record", "Gnostic texts", and "Ancient Christian creeds". We just don't have a section discussing the sources behind the gospels. So instead of coming up with one or two sources to add in the middle of the sentence to support the one clause about theoretical source documents, I think we should instead not worry about adding citations to the lead (WP:LEADCITE), and instead add a paragraph or maybe even a subheader (so it shows in the ToC) about this issue. Ehrman devotes maybe 4 pages on this in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet... (1999) Oxford pp.80ff. Stuff like "One of the most controversial and talked-about sources that scholars have used for studying the life of the historical Jesus is, oddly enough, a document that does not exist..." and also discusses the special material in Matthew and Luke, and "We do not know, for instance, whether M (or L) was only one source or a group of sources, whether it was written or oral." and sums up "These Gospels were based on earlier sources--such as Q--that can be reconstructed, at least to some extent". Meier in A Marginal Jew (1991) Doubleday p. 43ff also discusses Q, M, and L: "In short, our survey of the Four Gospels gives us three separate major sources to work with: Mark, Q, and John. I call these sources "major" to contrast them with the two minor and problematic sources, Namely, M and L." I'd think both of these could be used to write about how theoretical documents are important in sourcing the historical Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I think the onus of identifying the source is completely on us(editors). We don,t have to make it appear as if the whole world/whole world community of all scholars, believes in the historicity of jesus, even if some source is trying to do so. If we think that the historicity of Jesus is taken as granted only by a narrow band of scholars,(i.e. christian scholars), we can say so because the onus of properly identifying the sources for the historicity of Jesus is on us editors. There is no need to source the identity of sources and there is no need to identify sources the way someone else has done it. I hope I have got myself understood clearly.Civilizededucation (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if you wish to claim only Christian scholars conclude Jesus was a historical figure you have to provide evidence for such a claim, which would say something like the majority of non-Christian scholars think he's a myth. Now it's up to you to find such a source. Roy Brumback (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm... please be more careful where you all are placing comments. This talk page is already all over the place, and these comments have nothing to do with my proposal, nor the discussion relating to the fact tag on the "theoretical documents" clause in the lead. Thanks for your care. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nowhere else to answer him. We can certainly use the Q hypothesis as we have to as all historical Jesus scholars use it, so leaving it out would leave out the state of the scholarship relating to the historicity of Jesus. Roy Brumback (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if the details of Q are in the text and TOC, you do not need a source in the lead - however, there was no such reference, and that is why that was tagged. Now it has sources, but I think a brief entry that deals with how Q is arrived at, and how it operates as evidence beyond the sources it is derived from, would be helpful. Then the citation in the sentence in the lead could be considered redundant, I guess (although I am in favour of sourcing everything anyway, to make it bullet-proof - especially in the lead, as the lead tends to attract most attention).

In terms of the suggestion that this statement asserts this existence in some way, I do not read it that way, I see it as saying that these sources are used to establish his historical existence in a certain way (but I am familiar with primary sources listed, so when I see the list, I read that with a pinch of salt). That could need qualifying, to avoid misunderstanding, something along the lines of 'scholars working in this area establish the historical existence of Jesus using...' That is affirmed by the sources, and and would do no harm, as it might help avoid misunderstanding in future. - MishMich - Talk - 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I wrote this in my long paragraph above, but I think we do need to rephrase the sentence in the lead, so it doesn't imply that every scholar uses all the sources we discuss in this article. It's more like a list of any source that any scholar has discussed, so we probably need to rephrase to make that distinction clear. I find it odd to have two citations in the middle of a sentence, when the rest of the sentence isn't cited in a similar manner, and I don't think we necessarily need sources in the lead, but I guess it isn't hurting anything either. Anyway, this is what I'm working on:

The four canonical gospels were based on earlier, no longer extant sources.(Ehrman (1999) p.83) Famously, the most common solution to the synoptic problem, which explains the interrelation of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, is the two-source hypothesis which posits the authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark and a theoretical Q source as the basis of their gospels. Scholars also suggest the material unique to Matthew and Luke represent independent source traditions, usually called M and L, whether they actually represent a single source or multiple sources, an actual document or oral tradition.(Erhman (1999) p.80ff; Meier (1991) p.43ff) The Gospel of John, often seen as the product of more than one author or redactor, has been suggested to have a number of written sources behind it as well, such as the signs or semeia source, a source for the discourse narratives, and a source for the passion narrative.(Ehrman (2004) pp.166ff; Koester (1990) pp.250ff) An important aspect of identifying sources underlying the gospels is that they may qualify as independent lines of inquiry when it comes to the criterion of multiple attestation.(Meier 1991, p. 174)

Is this on the right track? Suggestions, improvments, etc? Are we missing anything? Are we saying too much. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to add a concluding sentence: The importance of identifying sources underlying the New Testament documents is that they may qualify as independent lines of inquiry when it comes to the criterion of multiple attestation.(Meier 1991, p. 174) Does the criterion of multiple attestation need more explanation, as it may be jargon with which our readership is not familiar. With all that, does anyone object? Any suggestions, comments, or improvements before I take it live? -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be jargon, but providing a wikilink to a page that explains what this is, then the reader can follow that link if they want to know what it means. So, I don't see this as a problem. - MishMich - Talk - 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The above text looks good, it summarizes well the general idea in a clear fashion. Hardyplants (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw some edit warring in the lead, should we discuss that further. I realize Q is by far the most important, most notable, and most discussed hypothetical document, but should we mention in the lead the "other sources behind the gospels" besides Q per our discussion above and the paragraph I proposed. Or is it more simple to just mention Q? We don't name Josephus or Tacitus, but instead mention Jewish and Roman histories. We don't name specific church fathers, we don't mention specific new testament books, or gnostic books, or single out any creeds. So why out of all the sources discussed in the entire article are we singling out Q in the lead? Isn't enough just to add a line among the list of others regarding hypothetical sources behind the gospels?? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I refactored that and added sources due to the incipient edit war between Noloop and another guy, but your solution seems much sensible. --Cyclopia^talk 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the lead before some started adding tags to it:

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.

The lead should be a summery of the article and the references are best placed in the body. Hardyplants (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would strike produced decades or centuries later. I'm for replacing The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include... with Evidence for the historical Jesus includes ... as it is more concise, less verbose. And I would favor changing gnostic to apocrypha, as that is the word found in the parent section title, and surely not every non-NT text is "gnostic", and furthermore people debate about how gnostic Thomas. Main point being, I like theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament as it doesn't single out Q over M or L or any of the John sources, so the format is more in line with the rest of the list.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the part of the lead were users were "edit warring" yesterday, and which got the page protected again, yet there is very little talk here about this. Can't we discuss now, so we can try to reach a consensus before protection ends, or maybe request lifting protection early if we are in agreement. My proposal would be to restore the longstanding text from a few weeks ago which hardyplants quoted above. I also proposed 3 modifications to that text, so I guess the new proposal would be

Evidence for the historical Jesus includes the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents, statements from the Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, apocrypha documents, and early Christian creeds.

. Any objections, suggestions? -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my book, Apocrypha does not equal gnostic. Apocrypha refers to a set of books written BC, but after the OT canon, a set of books generally accepted by the RC church but not by protestant denominations. This is different from the Gnostic texts, such as the gospels of Thomas & Mary Magdalene. The only theoretical text I am aware of is referred to as the 'Q source', which is a constructed name to refer to the main source behind the synoptics. It is better to state what you are talking about, otherwise people will come across this and go 'evidence based on some theoretical document' - WTF? Giving the scholarly name (which is wikilinked) means people have some kind of clue what this might mean. 'Q' is the accepted terminology amongst scholars, as established in plenty of WP:RS - so what is the problem with using this? By all means spell out all the synoptics by name - although I might want to take exception if you sought to demarcate John apart from 'Gnostic texts' specifically, as I read John as being all about gnosis, and phenomenologically different from the synoptics. - MishMich - Talk - 23:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using it is what you described. The logical response to the idea that a hypothetical is evidence for something is WTF? There is no such thing as "theoretical evidence." We might as well cut to the chase and say the existence of the Judeo-Christian god is theoretical evidence. The basic idea seems to be that the common elements in Mark, Luke, and Matthew are evidence that Jesus existed. So just say that, or something in similarly plain English. It would be nice to have secular, academic sources.... Noloop (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to our topic but something for Noloop and anyone else that wants to know how often "theoretical evidence" is used in science and other academic fields.

[12] Hardyplants (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence looks good and your wording is an improvement. Christan Apocrypha texts produced during the first 200 years after Jesus, include gnostic, somewhat orthodox and others that were different.[13][14] There have been a few different sources proposed that were used do produce the final text we have, Q just being the major one. [15] and [16] One every one has an explorative back ground on the issues we can then commence real work. Hardyplants (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to MishMich above, I'm not sure to what book you are referring, but there is OT apocrypha and NT apocrypha, and our articles on apocrypha and New Testament apocrypha seem to explain this well. To me, it seems like general usage for this context. But perhaps you have a better word for it besides the exclusive "gnostic", such as "extracanonical" or "noncanonical"? "Apocryphal gospels" is the phrase Meier uses in his chapter title. I'd prefer apocrypha because that is what our section header says, and it doesn't exclude non-Gnostic apocrypha. As for Thomas being gnostic, just read the last paragraph of Gospel of Thomas#Importance and author or the lead. If there is a dispute over it's status, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, should it? Finally, when you say The only theoretical text I am aware of I feel like you haven't read the paragraph I proposed and added above. The one that lists 5 other theoretical sources besides Q. This is exactly why I don't think we should single out Q, if we aren't singling out other sources in this sentence. I think general, and simple is good for a lead overview, and still think something along my proposed wording is best. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

For the lay person, "Apocrypha" means the Biblical apocrypha, not the non-canonical New Testament apocrypha. This is an encyclopedia article for the general reader, and we need to be wary of using terms that are no-brainers to academics, and saying so little it renders the text meaningless. It is important not to give so much detail that it makes the article incomprehesible, and you must not assume that lay readers will have the understanding you have; similar we must not assume people are half-wits. So, you need to provide some specificity when talking about theoretical other non-canonical documents (to get around the WTF factor) - so simply say "Q and other theoretical sources", and if you are talking about apocryphal writings, don't say apocrypha, but something that gives some specificity (not too much, not too little) - for example "gnostic and other apocryphal texts". Remember, we write this stuff for people who will read it, not for academics, so we have to be accurate, reliable, and provide means to follow things up further; at the same time it has to be written in a way that somebody completely ignorant of the topic can make sense of it, and if necessary find out more if they are not clear. Q source gives such a link some obscurantist "theoretical documents" (which may well not have been documents at all, but a verbal narrative) is not only inaccurate (as no such documents exist) it gives no way for a reader to follow up what that means. It is an appalling way to treat the readers, to insert something that you know the meaning of, but provide little clue to them what you are talking about. Like me they will go "Theoretical documents as evidence, WTF are these guys on about?" - MishMich - Talk - 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I can live with your compromise text for sure.

Evidence for the historical Jesus includes the New Testament documents, Q and other theoretical source documents, statements from the Church Fathers, brief references in histories by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.

. Does this work for everyone now? what about "texts" vs. "documents"? -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, where there is no surviving text, that it was a document (rather than oral narrative) is itself hypothetical - so why not just leave out text or document, sidestep the issue, and just leave it as 'other theoretical sources'? - MishMich - Talk - 14:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I struck "documents" in that one clause, what about in the others. does it work there just as well or better than "text"? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How can Q be evidence for the historical Jesus? What are the the "other theoretical sources"? I don't see much explanation for this in the sources. In fact, the first source, James R. Edwards, doesn't seem to support the text at all. The idea seems to boil down to saying that common elements in the Gospels are evidence for the historical Jesus. Why don't we just say that, since it's clearer? BTW, how about some secular, peer-reviewed sources?Noloop (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the proposed text above. I didn't add any sources, as all the statements are later discussed further down in the article, and aren't necessary. I also think it is problematic to introduce sources in the lead that are not used anywhere else in the article. That said, if others feel like sources are helpful for specific clauses, or every clause, feel free to restore (or add sources from the respective sections). I'd be glad to assist if that is what the community wants, but as I said, lead does not require them. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the sources? How can Q and possibly non-existent sources be evidence? Noloop (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of whether you think it is plausible or even possible. It is simply a matter of what our cited sources discuss. See the section I added Historicity of Jesus#Sources behind the gospels (which cites Ehrman, Meier, and Koester), or look at the previous revision of the article which had 2 additional citations, such as The sayings source Q and the historical Jesus. Are you disputing that Ehrman and Meier say that these theoretical documents are used in HJ research? Or are you saying they are lying? I really don't understand the nature of your complaint.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of whether to represent it as fact or opinion. I didn't make a complaint: I asked for the sources (since you deleted them). I also asked for understanding through discussion: How can a hypothesis be evidence for the existence of something? Noloop (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I felt like we had good discussion on this, and there was support for my proposed text for the most part (or that it was a good starting point for others to tweak). I'm trying to find a way to incorporate the text in a manner which is clear, factual, and supported by the community (and as I mentioned above WP:LEADCITE does not necessarily require citations for basic information which is repeated and cited further down in the article... the section on Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources_behind_the_gospels is clearly sourced and I've yet to see anyone dispute that content). What if we changed the intro to point out that various scholars have discussed one or more of the various documents as sources in their HJ research. Something like:

Scholars may consider the following sources as evidence for the historical Jesus: New Testament documents, Q and other theoretical source documents, statements from the Church Fathers, brief references in histories by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.

Hopefully more people are watching this article, and we can get a broad array of input, find a wording that suits us all, and move forward quickly on an edit-protected request.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I started this problem, asking how a theoretical document can be evidence. The problem is what these documents are evidence for. I don't see this in terms of whether Jesus existed or not, but who this person who we refer to Jesus was (if he existed). This is why I have issues about saying stuff like 'prove the existence of'. We can only 'believe in' this character through faith, but we may know who he was in history through certain texts. Reading the gospels alone does not give us the character in history, as these are documents of faith - what the hypothetical source does is provide a reduction - like a distillation - that eliminates those things that may be gloss, leaving us with a core. When police sift through eye-witness statements, they eliminate discrepancies to get at a common record of witnesses in their attempt at getting at an accurate picture of what happened. So, as far as Q is concerned, I see this as being an abstraction arrived at by piecing together the commonalities to arrive at a core narrative upon which the individual gospels were based and elaborated upon. So, Q works as evidence by eliminating extraneous information that is not verified through all the statements. I am sure that the way we treat it is inadequate - but any further detail and explanation would be undue. I can see why it is important to include Q (although I have insufficient awareness to comment on any others, I have to admit), but it is evidence, although in a negative way. I haven't explained what I mean very well, but hopefully somewhere in all that something makes sense. - MishMich - Talk - 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So do you have a proposed wording? Or are you OK with one of the ones I presented? Or do you think the current state of the lead is best? IMO, this is a non-issue, and has gotten a bit out of hand. We are simply, basically, summarizing the friggin' table of contents for goodness sake! We are giving an overview of the article to come, and pointing out the various sections that will follow, in terms of what sources do scholars discuss related to this topic.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It might help to describe Q as "reconstructed" rather than theoretical. It's been awhile since I looked in detail at two-source hypotheses, but I thought Q was simply the sayings material common to Matthew and Luke. Saying that their common material derives from a common, otherwise unknown source is a "theory", I suppose, but it's one that's won very wide acceptance. Describing it as "theoretical" or "hypothetical" underrates how strongly accepted Q is by the scholarly community.

If Q is considered evidence for the existence of Jesus (as opposed to being evidence for what he was like), it's because Q shows that the gospel material is based on earlier traditions (oral or written depending on how you think of Q), that go back to the time when Jesus was alive. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

(EC, and maybe completely off topic) I hate to sound like Noloop, but have we still come up short on a secular peer reviewed source that says that Jesus existed? It is a bit weird that that source doesn't exist. Or maybe it's behind a paywall, and no ones looked. I kind of think the latter, but I'm not paying myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that they say he existed, it's that the majority of historians and expert scholars on the subject say they conclude as historians that he existed. Peer reviewed sources saying that do exist as I've pointed out three times now. Brittanica says it, but it is behind a paywall. I'll go look up a written copy at my local library tomorrow probably, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica is certainly peer reviewed and "secular". Encarta also made the same claim but it's now defunct and you can't see any old versions online, but check out archive 23 under theologian vs. historian (yes, these objections have been brought up for years and for years no one has ever been able to show any evidence contradicting the claims that almost all historians hold Jesus really existed) where you'll see I linked to the encarta article making the claim and the editor who was challenging the claim of most historians conceded encarta said as much (but then of course said that was irrelevant). And again, since this is a dead issue among historians you are not going to find any journal articles about the subject, unless you go back to the beginning of the 20th century. Roy Brumback (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Most journal articles (and thus "peer reviewed" articles) are about particular biblical pericopes, or about a specific issue regarding the historical Jesus. More general overviews on the historical Jesus are published in monographs, books, textbooks, etc, which aren't "peer reviewed" but are often published by very prominent, university/scholarly presses. IMO, the 4 sources I pointed out above all meet WP:RS, and the often repeated sourcing "requirements" seem to go above and beyond WP:RS are often based on personal religious prejudice on behalf of anonymous internet users. I'll grant that I have yet to find a statistical analysis on what sort of scholars accept Jesus' historicity and how many, in a peer reviewed, or otherwise, source. But I did post an example of a single peer reviewed article in a secular journal which discussed a specific issue regarding the historical Jesus (which presupposed Jesus' existence), but Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry. So I gave up really searching, because I felt like the goal posts were being moved, good faith was not being assumed, and I thought WP:RS was already met. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a sticking point with me at all. If they don't exist, as far as we know, then maybe we can just tell Noloop that, and that it isn't relevant barring a contradictory statement by a RS. He just keeps asking, and I think we have an answer of some sort. Also, I would like to not here the word "bigot" anymore. Even if someone is bigoted, saying the word means they've baited you well, which reflects poorly both ways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bigot is a loaded word, but if he really objected to a journal simply because anyone who wasn't an agnostic or atheist was allowed to contribute (which would be pretty much all academic journals) he certainly seems to have a serious problem with anyone who isn't an agnostic or atheist. Roy Brumback (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what he thinks, but as you say, it's a loaded word, and the only thing that using it will cause is possibly getting some good faith editors to have sanctions levied against them, which I don't want. Basically, instead of using loaded words, we need to explain what we mean in non inflammatory words. It's a weird system, but the way to "win" the game of wikipedia is to always remain calm with what you write. Especially if you don't feel calm. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's bad form for statements that amount to "Christianity is right" to be sourced mainly to Christians. We should avoid that. If we must have text that consists of Christians saying Christianity is right, the reader should know it. We should identify the sourcing. There's nothing bigoted here. Substitute "liberal" for "Christian" in what I just said, and I will still agree with it. It's just fair. Noloop (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, so i just want to point out that we now have attribution to biblical historians in the lede, which implies, somewhat explicitly, a christian source. These are not scholars studying the bible as literature but as a historical source, which tends (overwhelmingly but not universally, I don't want to paint with TOO broad a brush, just a moderately sized roller) to be the domain of believing christians, that they implicitly accept the Capital-T-Truth of the source document. That part of the dispute has been more or less resolved to everyones satisfaction with one exception, Roy. We have reached consensus, no small task on this talkpage. Since we now have the attribution resolved, Im assuming it meets with your approval as well, but I could be wrong on that. We need to move on to the next dispute, with the exact wording of the myth hypothesis in the lede. I do hope since we have demonstrated our ability to work collaboratively and get past the battlefield mentality, to see that we are all working to improve the project no matter our viewpoint, that Phase II of this process will go more quickly. -- ۩ Mask 07:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not true at all. There are plenty of historians who believe that the Bible contains useful historical information without believing in the "Capital-T-Truth of the source document". I'd also dispute that there's such a clear distinction between studying the bible as literature and studying the bible as history. The biblical texts were obviously written in a time and place, and studying them can give us an understanding of that time and place whether or not the text itself is giving an accurate history. john k (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You agree that saying Jesus simply existed and is not wholly a myth is equivalent to saying Christianity is true (that he rose from the dead, God and Heaven exist, ect...). Really? I'd like an answer to that one please. And when I do produce a "secular peer reviewed" source soon saying most scholars hold this, that he at a minimum existed, then what. And there is no consensus as to the wording. Please tell me who exactly agrees to it as it currently stands, as Andrew doesn't, neither does Bill the Cat or Carlo, and that's almost half the discussion right there. And what other wording besides the truth that you can count the Jesus-myther scholars on your fingers do you want to put in. Call them a "minority" maybe? We already list them all by name in the article, how much more can we do. You guys have not produced one valid reason for questioning the sources assertions, just complained that you don't trust Christians, and you have not produced one source to the contrary, and we have no source claiming what the article currently asserts in the intro. Again guys, just find one valid source claiming something else. Just one. Otherwise, the article should clearly go back to the previous wording. Otherwise it not only will conflict with the sources but itself as well and any future addition with someone saying the same thing about how many scholars hold to Jesus's historicity (I know the Historical Jesus for Dummies book makes the same claim, it's peer reviewed and published by a secular company, and was cited here before being edited out, but I'll be putting it back in soon). Again, just one source to the contrary. Good luck. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of discussion, so maybe this was missed, but let's not forget that a good number of us liked citing the NON-CHRISTIAN Michael Grant to bolster our sentence in the lead, although that citation was never entered into the article (despite talks of doing so). The second we introduce Grant to support the sentence, we stop relying on only Christian sources... So I don't see why we are still talking about this, when there was strong support for Grant days ago (see #Lead Rewording and #Religiously biased sourcing).-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have that if someone uses the Bible as a history source, not an inerrant history source mind you, but just a source that automatically implies they are in the domain of believing Christians. Put differently, what evidence do you have that the majority of non Christian historians don't use the Bible at all to investigate history, especially the history of the Jews? Roy Brumback (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roy.Until you produce a “secular, peer reviewed” source, we don’t have it. Why should we make it appear that the whole world/all scholars believes in the historicity of Jesus? Why should we misinform the reader by making our sources look broader than they actually are. We know that they come from a narrower band (i.e. Christianity). Even the source of the claim “essentially all scholars ….” should be properly identified so that the reader may be able to form an informed opinion.Civilizededucation (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

First, fact statements are not attributed to any source, they are just presented as fact. That's why you don't see sentences such as, "according to American historian x, America did y on date z." Facts do not need to be cited by sources with different backgrounds, which is why we don't have Russian, Chinese and German sources confirming every detail of American history. Furthermore, we have secular sources anyway. Peer reviewed sources would be nice but is in no way a requirement. Flash 11:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can equate 'Jesus existed' with 'Christianity is right', Noloop. Christian scholars have made a case for Christianity being sustainable even had Jesus not existed in the way Christians tend to believe he did, and there are Jewish as well as Islamic commentators who affirm he existed, but do not believe the significance or nature of that existence in the way Christians have tended to historically.

We do not attribute facts, but the question is whether this existence is a universally held truth or a belief. To say that because certain scholars take this to be a fact begs that question really. We do not attribute a statement about US independence was gained in such-and-such a year because that is a fact that can be proven in certain ways and is not disputed. If we were to work on an article on Palestine, and a Palestinian scolar argued that Israel does not exist as a legal entity, and we could find no Palestinian scholar that said it did exist - my bet is we would want to mark that clearly as a POV of such authors, rather than a fact. This is the same, although the belief amongst such scholars is pretty near universal (it would be unlikely that any academic would be funded by the institutions involved to try and disprove this), it is still their POV that the historical record evidences this 'fact'. So, it needs to be clearly attributed, as it is not a 'fact' in the way other facts are arrived at - it is fact derived primarily from documents that promulgate certain beliefs about an individual. Independence of the US is based on legal documents that still exist - Jesus' existence is 'proven' (primarily) by evangelists recollections and through access to source(s) recounting the eye-witness reports from the time. - MishMich - Talk - 12:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact I'm referring to is that almost all scholars accept the existence of a historical Jesus, and that CMT is rejected by almost all scholars. That fact does not need to be attributed as the opinion of "Christian scholars". Flash 12:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the majority of Muslim scholers (and I will go as far as to say all untill a sources can be found saying otehrwise) bleive in his exsistance. So to say that the majority of scholers who bleive i his exsistance are chritian is not true. Lets stop then western bias.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it would be appropriate to talk about this as (all/most?) scholars in the relevant fields accepting this - clearly not 'all scholars' accept this, as few scholars outside the field seem to take any view on this.- MishMich - Talk - 21:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

oh no, not this s**t again - Folks, I would love to find the peer reviewed source above. I think that in this specific issue the background is very relevant and I believe that there could be a religious bias in scholarship. But as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, we do not need to dive in the issue anymore. We already have found, after ten days of painful discussion for both sides, non-Christian strong sources that document the consensus between scholars. That is what we need. I agree also on making explicit, whenever possible, the background of sources. But we don't need such a source to put at rest the CMT issue for the encyclopedia purposes. --Cyclopia^talk 12:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

also are thre any peer reviewd journels that say that the majority of historians who study the subject are chrisitan, or is it just the opinion of some edd?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cyclopia.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if our sources on CMT rebuttal have a background limitation, we should let the reader know about it.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the majority of non-christian historians accepct the christ myth thoery?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) 1) that is not part of WP:RS or any other Wikipedia guideline. It reminds me of a user who wanted to put a disclaimer that any study sourced to say the Lancet or the WHO at Abortion needed some sort of "pro-choice" disclaimer in front of it. 2) That isn't even true. We've been discussing the use of the non-Christian Grant heavily, and we have comments from other non-Christian sources as well, so any claims of a Christian conspiracy are ignoring a number of previously discussed sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the majority of non christian scholars accept the CMT. The issue is proper identification of sources and identification of their background limitation. Why should we misinform the reader by making our sources appear broader than they are when we know that they have a background limitation? As yet, I can't see any strong non christian sources.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So if a amjority of non-chrisitan sources have not accepted then its fair to say that majority of historians do not accept it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem impatient. This has been going on for quite awhile, and when I see "I can't see any strong non- christian sources" I feel like you just haven't been looking hard enough. But I know there is a lot to read on this page. Michael Grant is a non-Christian source which makes a very strong statement regarding the state of scholarship in a WP:RS. Needless to say, there are also countless non-Christian scholars of the historical Jesus, Ehrman and Vermes come to mind as two of the biggest names in the field, but I guess they haven't published a tabulation of who believes what and what are their religious backgrounds are, though Ehrman has made clear statements in interviews/debates, as cited in Bill's FAQ. Furthermore, we have Wells, who is mostly in the JM camp, making published statements the view that there was no historical Jesus... is today almost totally rejected. So when you keep repeating that you think there are "background limitations" to our sources, I strongly disagree (although I will concede that not all of our discussed sources have made it into the article yet). But I hate even humoring this line of reason, because I don't believe Wikipedia policy supports such suggestions in the first place. It should be good enough that the individuals we cite hold multiple degrees from prominent institutions, that they are employed by some of the top universities in the world, and that reliable scholarly presses have published their works, with no sourced criticism. And that last point is important. Sure, anonymous dudes on the internet can look at a source and say "I think it is biased and problematic", but when it comes down to it, only published criticisms should count. If we have no reason to question these sources outside of the personal preferences of some anonymous internet dudes, then I don't know why we keep discussing this over and over. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some principles of high-quality sourcing, from WP:RS:

1. "Briefly: published scholarly sources from academic presses should be used.
2. "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
3. "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis added)
4. Somebody mentioned using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source: “Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.”

Combining #2 and #3 ==> secular and peer-reviewed is the preferred source for this topic. The RFC [17] above brought two editors not part of the regular brouhaha in these articles. Both were supportive of the idea that the source should be mentioned, if there's a reasonable suspicious of bias. Christian theologians are biased about whether their Savior has a basis in reality. Noloop (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Noloop (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

For an overview of the topic, which rejects some of the above arguments, noting that all sides have their own biases [18]. Hardyplants (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I kindly disagree with your assessment of WP:RS (which we don't really need to quote here, at least in that depth). First, you are focusing on only the reputable peer-reviewed sources clause, and ignoring the well-regarded academic presses clause. Second, I do not believe you have established that #3 translates to "secular". I believe #3 has been set up to exclude joke journals like Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or Journal of Creation / CRSQ that have a claim of a "peer-review" process. I would need a better explanation of your line of reasoning to get to the conclusion that #3 above should exclude various sources we have suggested (such as Stanton or the Journal of Biblical Literature). And I'll repeat myself that I disagree with your notion of a reasonable suspicious of bias in regards to individuals who happen to be Christian, and I'll refer to SLR's long comment at ANI explaining why. Cheers! -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say we should exclude people; I said we should include people. If we have to rely heavily on Christian sources for a factual statement, acceptance of that fact may not be as widespread as it seems. "Care should be taken..." with overtly Christian sources, as item #3 above says. That also means we should avoid heavy reliance on presses like... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here.". I documented the sourcing problem above, in Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Religiously_biased_sourcing. Every single source there is overtly Christian. We should find an equal number of high-quality secular sources, and if we can't, we should mention to the reader that that sources are predominantly theological Noloop (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your claim of "particular point of view" doesn't even begin to apply here. Unless, of course, you want to question articles in Science because the hold it pushes the point of view that truths found through scientific method are more valuable than those that aren't. Or reject Time magazine articles on politics, because they push the view that the decisions and actions of individual politicians have more impact on the world than the generalized actions of classes or groups of people. Furthermore, as someone pointed out, you have a tendency to prefer peer-reviewed journals and exclude book length works, even though the works are still vetted by the community (if published by a reliable press).Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Care should be taken..." with overtly Christian sources. How do we determine if a source is overly Christian? The section you link to above does a poor job discussing Stanton, and I don't think you have ever discussed Grant (and I'd propose keeping Stanton, and adding Grant, to support the sentence we are working on regarding the majority view supporting Jesus' historicity). That said, I'd concede avoidance of Eerdmans in lieu of better sources. I think you do have some valid points for sure, but I think you are using too broad of a brush stroke which ends up nixing valid "secular" scholarship. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples of overtly Christian sources are priests (John P. Meier) , bishops (NT Wright), and publishers like Eerdmans and Theological Studies, Inc.: a Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology. That's not a limit; don't accuse me of moving goal-posts if I develop it later. Noloop (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

in An Historian's Review of the Gospels, 'Atheist' historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed. Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ that jesus never exsited .Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So Stanton is OK now? Oxford University Press is clearly a notable, scholarly, "secular" publisher, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't a priest (not that I'll concede that that matters). I guess this is settled then! Also, I don't understand why you can discount a source solely based on the author being a priest. You have simply asserting the claim, with no substantiation. I can equally assert that being a priest does not automatically discount someone from using the historical method, or publishing peer-reviewed article in secular, notable journals who don't reject submissions on the sole criteria of whether they are a priest or not.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "OK" or not OK. I said nothing about discounting solely or "automatically" on the basis of anything. I quoted WP:RS. Noloop (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Going Forward: New Sources

Andrew has added several sources from the Christian community. We need to reach an agreement. I am saying we need to collaborate. It is no good to have this discussion until it peters out or somebody gets fed up, and then people go back to editing the way they want, and then others figure there is nothing more to be said and start reverting, and so on. I listed some principles of high-quality sourcing above. they are straight from WP:RS. All Jesus articles rely heavily Christian sources, both author and publisher. Very few have anything in the way of peer-review. As far as I can tell, there are no sources from secular, peer-reviewed presses--despite the claim that such sources are widespread. Please stop using people like John P. Meier and publishing houses like Trinity Press for the time being. It is not that they intrinsically bad. It is that the article is already very overweighted in them, and they are predisposed to promote a particular view. Noloop (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. No. Just no. You don't get to dictate a religious litmus test above and beyond WP:RS. I can understand trying to avoid using presses and authors that have no reputation for scholarship, but the only and I mean ONLY thing you have said against Meier is that he is a priest. I don't know your problem with Koester, but these are top names in the field, not uncritical zealots. I can understand needing care for making consensus statements regarding ALL scholarship's belief in a historical Jesus. But for minute details on the ancient documents, the sources I provided are top notch, and I have seen NO valid reason for exclusion. Again, as I have said in the past, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just say no to religious litmus test. Examine the sources based on their scholarship, not their religion. I really thought we were getting progress, but it seems like the above arguments are no more developed than what you were saying 2 weeks ago. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say anything about a litmus test.
• I didn't say anyone is a zealot.
• I didn't say anyone should be excluded.
• I said we should follow WP:RS and strive for balance between religious and secular sources. The problem with Meier IS that he is a priest. He is not neutral on the existence of Jesus. I pointed out the article is sorely lacking in secular sourcing.
• You keep saying academia is full of secular, peer-reviewed research on these matters. You keep failing to produce a single example. Noloop (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no need to exclude any of the present sources. We only need to properly attribute and to identify Christian sources as such. Why let them hide their bias behind designations like "scholars", etc..... ? This step alone should go a long way in making the article NPOV.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We have taken this to numerous boards adn none that I can see have agreed to this. Also if we lable christian sources we will also need to label athiest and non-chrisitan sources too. Also to those who want more neutraiity, find the sources then. Nuetraility does not mean we represent information i a way POV we represnt it in was way that refelcts the RS. So if RS do not say something is boas neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to start labeling scholars by religious affiliation. It would not improve, but in fact fly in the face of WP:NPOV to do so. Adding those kinds of labels implies that religious affiliation is meaningful, that there is a known "bias" as you put it. No reliable sources have ever been produced to suggest that such a bias exists. It is not up to us to decide it does. When is this going to stop?Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Noloop, the only problem you have stated you have with Meier is that he IS a priest. So what? This is rather frustrating. Read the content I posted. Is it false? Is it inaccurate? Are these scholars lying? Are they mistaken? Do you have any conflicting sources, or any reason to believe the information I added and citations, are not up to Wikipedia standards? If you are OK with citing some "religious" sources, whatever that means, then why are you making a fuss about my last post. I also cited Erhman, mixing secular with what you'd call "religious". I am taking care to cite expert scholars, and it is frustrating that you don't recognize that in any regard, and are simply raising this fuss, not over scholarship or any valid criticism, but instead over religion (what I call a litmus test... as I can't see how it can be construed in any other fashion). If you can't recognize that someone can happen to be Christian, and who also can be a leading expert in their field of secular biblical history/biblical criticism, then I really don't know how to move forward. If you aren't saying we should exclude Christians, then why raise a fuss over my latest additions?? These are prominent, notable scholars. The content I added isn't disputed in any way. I don't why I need to hold each source up to your personal religious litmus test to decide whether we should use them or not, and I don't think I need to go out of my way to research the religious background of all my sources in order to find someone that meets your religious standard. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may answer to Andrew_c and Griswaldo for Noloop, since I share some of his concerns:

• not over scholarship or any valid criticism, but instead over religion: Some editor has argued that a Christian agnostic on the existence of Christ can exist; as far as I've seen, if true, this is relegated to a few particular theologians. In the vast majority of cases, Christians will obviously have a bias when talking about Christ, because of their background. It's not that I am anti-Christian: I would raise the very same issue for Islamic sources on Islam articles, Scientologist sources on Scientology articles, Buddhist sources on Buddha-related articles, etc.
• If you can't recognize that someone can happen to be Christian, and who also can be a leading expert in their field of secular biblical history/biblical criticism, then I really don't know how to move forward. - I can recognize it in full. What I'd ask is for balancing the background of sources. I understand you think it's irrelevant, but other editors (me, Noloop, Elen of the roads, etc.) think it isn't. So, in your case, it should be no problem: for you, sources are always sources, regardless of their background. In my case it helps making the article more balanced.
• Adding those kinds of labels implies that religious affiliation is meaningful, that there is a known "bias" as you put it.: Since a few editors think it, well, why not adding them? People like you, that happen to think that is means no bias, won't be put off by the label. People like me will find what they feel is an important background and contextual information. I see no reason in either case for hiding this information. --Cyclopia^talk 12:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is a misunderstanding of my position. I am agnostic on the issue of whether or not religious affiliation means bias, and will remain agnostic until I see some peer-reviewed literature that confirms or disputes this bias. We can describe scholars in a million ways (gender, age, nationality, religious affiliation, etc.). Until any of these are rendered meaningful to the contemporary debate of the historicity of Jesus by qualified experts (e.g. not Wikipedia editors) we do not start applying these labels. That fact that some editors believe that such affiliation is correlated with bias, only re-affirms the fact that the label is inappropriate because it might suggest the same correlation to other editors, once again without verification. That is in fact a violation of WP:NOR as well as WP:NPOV. It is also essentially the same as using "weasel words".Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of us might want to have a look at this- Confirmation bias.Civilizededucation (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is (i bleive) generaly accepted on wikipedia that most sources will in some have have a bias. That has never been a reason as far as I am aware (except here) to point out any potential (and remeber its only potential, not clearly proven) bias.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there is bias everywhere, but we do not deal with potential biases, we deal with known biases, or at least notably argued biases. We also accept the fact that due to our reliance on reliable sources we are going to reproduce the biases of these sources, if and when such biases exist.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it doesn't answer explicitly to your concern, but this (page 2) is a strong clue anyway: "Finally, the widespread conception of the historian as a neutral interpreter is becoming harder and harder to defend. The historian, unfortunately, is frequently unable to distinguish between what her office as a historian enables her to discover and her decision as a human being about her proper relationship to the events of that discovered past". If events=life and history of Jesus and relationship with Jesus=religion, it comes out pretty obviously. --Cyclopia^talk 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

These general types of statements do not help us sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what relationships are meaningfully exposed. To go by what only seems "obvious" to us is to succumb to exposing what we believe is the "truth" as opposed to what we can verify in reliable sources. I believe that matter has been settled in policies like WP:V and expounded upon in essays like WP:TRUTH.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would add that if the bias is obvious (I.e. of course christians will belive in christ) we do not need to pont out such bias, the reader will see it. If the bias needs ppointing out its not that obvious then that might be becasue its not there in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To let the reader see it, it has to be explicit the root of this potential bias.--Cyclopia^talk 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This pretty much settles the quest of Griswaldo for bias in Historical Jesus scholarship: this, chapter 14: The oft-touted "subjectivity" of historical Jesus research is simply a function of the fact that, unlike certain other forms of New Testament scholarship, the link here is still patent between who the particular scholar is, including the social groupings to which she or he belongs,and the preferred form(s) into which the Jesus data have been made to fit". --Cyclopia^talk 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The context of that quote is not clear in your comment. It is not referring to the basic question of a historical Jesus but referring to the particular shape of the quest for the historical Jesus amongst scholars of different types. As several editors have stated before, there is a wide range of conclusions drawn about the "historical" Jesus amongst scholars who all believe Jesus did exist. It is this variety the author is discussing, and not, once again, the basic question of historicity. If I'm wrong I'd like to see a quote to the contrary from the source because I was unable to find one. Now, if and when specific issues of disagreement have been discussed in terms of various affiliations then clearly I'm all for bringing those affiliations to light. I remain, as I stated above, agnostic however to the actual application of labellings that we have been discussing now for too long, and that is specifically in relation to the statement that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a historical person.Griswaldo (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't referring to the existence of Jesus -we know from the old discussion that this particular issue is settled, and I am not going to revisit it again. But the source is explicit in (i)making clear that there is an "oft-touted subjectivity of historical Jesus research" and (ii)the social background of the scholar has a bearing in scholarship produced. So, in general, this source supports that we should, editorially, make it clear the affiliations of the scholar, because it is known that, in general, they can shape scholarship (I would go as far as including this reference in the article, actually). In general I can see no reason not to make it clear, at this point. --Cyclopia^talk 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also it does not say the bias may come just from chrisitsn, its seems to be talking avbout all possible bias. Foe example he talks about the issue of jesus Jewisness, and the bias in the approach to that. Thus he seems to be talking not about bias in the examination of jessu's reality, but bias in describing who and what he was. So all this source can be used for is to say that there is bias, not from whence the bias origionates. Nor can we use (as far as I can see) the source to say there is bias in the scholership behind the search for jesus, it does ot seem to say that. only that there is bias in research into who he was, not his exsistance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To re-ground the discussion in WP:RS:

• "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
• "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis added)

Thus, peer-reviewed, secular sources are preferred. Care should be taken when citing priests and Christian presses. Observing this is not saying anyone should be excluded, there should be a litmus test, or anything like that.

• Everybody says acceptance of historicity is widespread in all scholarly communities.
• Every source is either from an author of popular books or the Christian scholarly community.
• If something is a significant historical fact, it is easy to find non-Christian historians mentioning it in peer-reviewed journals. Julius Caesar is analogous in fame and era. Is it hard to find matter-of-fact references to him in high-quality secular sources? Don't think so.
• The article needs more secular sources; it doesn't need more and more and more religious ones.

Regarding bias, there are two kinds. First, religion is bias. If you have a religious belief X, you are not neutral about X. It is not analogous to being an African-American or a woman, or any of those examples. It is not even analogous to being liberal or conservative. None of those groups eschew logic and scientific method in forming their beliefs. Faith is a declaration that your mind is made up, period. That's bias. The other kind of bias in this article is more mundane, analogous to a political belief. If we wrote an article on socialized medicine, we wouldn't cite only liberals. Sometimes, we would identify a source as liberal. That doesn't mean we exclude liberals or have a litmus test. It's just a matter of alerting the reader to the background of the source. Noloop (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ther is such an atciel and I can find (after a quick scan) no such labels, establiashing potential bias of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am taking all this too personally, because it seemed like you were specifically referencing content and sources that I added yesterday (after making a proposal on the talk page with no comment days ago....) What do you propose we do when we are citing Meier and Ehrman to support the idea that the two-source hypothesis is the most common solution to the synoptic problem, and that Q, Mark, M and L also represent source traditions behind the gospels (citations #21 and #22)? Do we say "Christians and agnostic scholars claim X..." or do we just need to qualify the Christian? or, as I propose, we have NO reason to point out the Meier is "Christian" in the context of the content I added yesterday. I'm all fine and dandy with you guys continuing this RS/Christian bias stuff that's been going on for weeks (well, actually, I'd prefer it not continue on indefinitely.. but that is beside the point). I'm only trying to ground this in actual content, since I felt like actual content and sources were what spurred the creation of this thread. Can't we agree that we should be able to cite notable, prominent, mainstream scholars in a field, regardless of their religious affiliation when it comes to matters outside statements of faith/dogma? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars."

By the way a type of source being preferd does not mean (and no policy requires) that we identify the biase of sources. It would be a good idea for soome secualt sources to be found, but its is not required. Sslo for you ppoint to bbe valid you would have to deminbstate that "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." has this been demonstated? Also I note that on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia there is no labaling of muslim sources to indicate potential bias.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Noloop has made a good point about the sources and his reference to the WP policy is valid. At the very least, we should try to work into the article somewhere something about the fact that the vast majority of the scholars who believe in the historical Jesus are Christians or have their degrees from Christian and/or theological schools. Can we find sources to back that up, so it is not WP:OR? This would also be good to put into the Christ Myth Theory article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What we should try to do is find more secular sources such as http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/index.php, not label those we have. Also I would suggest that if we do this we would have to do this on all pages where such bias might exists. Also we have Dr. Robert Eisler http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LnEqFoNwVGcC&pg=PA79&dq=atheist+says+jesus+existed&hl=en&ei=39taTP2aG9WNsAbB8ZyTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=consensus&f=false to use as a source. So lets stop asking to label sources and actually do some work to improve the article by finding sources that fit policy and not push POV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow this line of reasoning. We don't need to find obscure scholars to cite just to please atheists. If scholar X says Y and scholar A says Y, how do we decide whom to cite, if they are saying the exact same thing. I'd say that we should cite the more notable of the sources, or the source that is more scholarly (more citations, better methodology, better publisher), or the source which is cited more by other sources. There are a number of determining factors, NONE of which is a religious litmus test. We shouldn't look past X, and cite A instead on the basis of religion, especially if they are saying the same thing and X is more notable than A. I was trying to get this discussion centered on actual content, not hypotheticals. Slatersteven. The block of text that I added yesterday that cites Ehrman, Koester, and Meier, do you think that it doesn't fit policy? Do you think I was POV pushing? Is there any reason not to cite Meier in regards to the specific content I added? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

how do we decide whom to cite: We shouldn't decide. We should cite both. --Cyclopia^talk 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying we need to find an atheist to cite along side a Christian in order to present any information as neutral? And if we can't dig up some obscure atheist, then we have to say "Christian scholars argue that Y..."? What if it's the other way around? How do we present information that is only found in the writings of obscure atheists? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we move away from this abstract and generally ideologically-driven (or seeking) debate and talk specifics? Who are the most important historians writing on Jesus? To my knowledge, the leading (most respected by other 1st century historians) scholars are Sanders, Vermes, Meier, Ehrman and Fredricksen, and many would add Crossan. I know others here have mentioned some other names, but in my own readings these are the most commonly and most highly praised. If you think you know a historian who is a bona fide expert (fluent in Aramaic and Koine Greek, knows the sources, well acquainted with archeological and comparative data) who has written something significant about Jesus who is not on the list I just mentioned, who is it? By all means add the name! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should also attribute atheists as atheists.Why hide their bias too?Civilizededucation (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Civilizededucation above. --Cyclopia^talk 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion is biased. Atheism is not. An atheist is not predisposed by faith to believe there was no historical Jesus; a Christian is predisposed to believe there was. That's why we need to find secular, peer-reviewed sources for these articles. A theologian publishing in, say, Classical Antiquity [19] is a better source than the same theologian publishing in Theological Studies, Inc.: a Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology [20] or Eerdmans ("...publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians, and lay people will find a wealth of resources here"). Yet, we have tons of the latter and little of the former, in violation of WP:RS. A neutral expert from a neutral publisher is obviously better. Why don't we just assert it's a fact God exists. The sourcing used here would be equally supportive. By the definitions in use in these articles, atheism is clearly a fringe theory. Noloop (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you regard atheists as unbiased, still, what is wrong with attributing atheists as such? When you first started this discussion, you yourself were asking that the sources be attributed, why change mind now?Civilizededucation (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree again with user above. An atheist can be biased in desiring to show that Jesus does not exist and that therefore religions acknowledging this existence are wrong -to pursue an ideological agenda. Being myself a member of an atheist organization, I sadly know for sure that some atheists can be sometimes as ideologically driven as theists. But even if not so, I see no problem in attribution. --Cyclopia^talk 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheists are just as biased as anyone else (especially the militant ones). To say otherwise is to display a profound naivete and arrogance (i.e., as if they are superior to theists).

Good job flatly contradicting an opinion without responding to any of the reasons given. Your suggestion that I'm naive and arrogant is equally constructive. Of course, people who are atheists can be biased. Beekeepers can be as biased. Scientists can be biased. That isn't the point. Atheism, the belief system, is not biased. Atheism doesn't assume as a matter of faith--regardless of fact and logic--anything about the existence of historical anything. Christianity does. Thus, Christians can be assumed to lack neutrality on the existence of Jesus. Atheists cannot be assumed to do so. Next you're going to announce that it is a "display of profound naivete and arrogance" that articles on evolution are 100% science and 0% religion. Noloop (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This has gotten off track. Or at least it seemed to have started as a comment on specific new content, but no one seems to want to talk about that anymore. If anyone has specific issues with the section I added yesterday or the sources I used or the lack of qualifying text, please raise them 2 topics up Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Theoretical documents. Thank you. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article misinforms the reader. It presents a picture of the scholarship as being grounded in the world of peer-reviewed, secular academic research. In fact, the research in this article is grounded in the world of Christian theologians and popular books. It is dishonest to hide that. Editors here insist belief in historical Jesus is widespread in mainstream academia, and yet keep failing to produce any secular, peer-reviewed sources for anything. WP:RS explicitly recommends avoiding reliance on sources that promote one particular view. Noloop (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are dishonest, you are the one who wants to use this article to lie. I suspect your dishonest comes from your blind adherence to your POV, or your bigotry against Christians, but instead of making these kinds of false blanket statements you should point to specific historians and look at what they wrote and identify the bias in what they wrrote. I have yet to see you provide any "evidence." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Or how about some sources that say that the majority of historians who support the reality of Jesus are chrisitan (I notice we are still ignoring Islam here, please stop this western-centric bias please).Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this for you: [21] Hardyplants (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in response to the concerns raised here, Hardyplants promptly adds to the article: " According to Edgar V. McKnight, the non gospel books of the New Testament do not contribute much to our picture of Jesus, but they do confirm the historicity of Jesus." The press is Mercer University, which describes itself as "committed to an educational environment that embraces intellectual and religious freedom while affirming values that arise from a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world." The author is, of course, a Christian theologian. This is the source for a factual statement about the existence of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is getting off-track. There is no reason to attribute to a historian that they are an atheist or a Catholic or a Methodist, unless we are quoting work that is specifically promoting that point of view. Anything that involves Jesus being born of a virgin, or one with God, or resurrected I would say is clearly pushing a Christian bias. To say that Jesus aspired to restore the Kingdom of Judea independent of Rome is neither a Christian nor an atheist view. To say that Jesus thought that a apocalyptic Kingdom of God would be restored soon (i.e. that his is a prophet but not God, and was not resurrected) is neither a Christian nor an atheist view. To say that Jesus was a revolutionary stirring up the landless or poorest of the peasants against a Jewish elit is neither a Christian nor an atheist view. There are a whole range of views different historians have expressed that are neither a Christian nor atheist views.

Before we worry about how to identify views, and certainly instead of all this disruptive editing that does nothign to improve the article, lets just identify top historians writing about Jesus that we can draw on. I mentioned several: Sanders, Vermes, Meier, Ehrman and Fredricksen, and many would add Crossan. Noloop, Cyclopia, if you know of better historians, more respected among specialists, who have written on Jesus, please please just name them, share with us their findings. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS is not concerned solely with who is important. I've quoted it twice above. The article misleads the reader. Christians are biased on the existence of Jesus. You argued that a wide range of views on historical Jesus are not Christian views. The problem is that the only sources for those views are Christian theologians and the authors of popular books. So, it seems that they are not views found in secular peer-reviewed academic sources. Noloop (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Price is a prominent Christian who does not believe Jesus ever existed. And the authors I cited, including Meier, are assigned in undergraduate and graduate university history courses, so I am not talking about books written for, or exclusively for, a popular audience. Your secular/Christian POV campaign is just a red-herring. E.P. Sanders received a Doctorate in Theology from union Theological Seminary, and you seem to be ingorant enough to think that makes him a theologican. In fact, he was a historian who taught at Oxford and then Duke University, two of the best universities in the world. He was also made a Fellow of the British Academy, which puts him in the upper echelons of British scholarship. You can call his history of Jesus as the views of a Christian theologian in a popular book. That just proves that you are ignorant, bigoted, or for some other reason a POV pusher. The University of Notre Dame may be run by the Catholic Church, but it is nevertheless considered a fine university in the US and the members of its faculty are well-respected by scholars throoughout academe; its students are not just Catholic, they include Jews and even atheists. John Meier may be a priest, but the books he wrote are well-respected by all historians with any expertise on the subject, anywhere, and his arguments are presented using criteria that non-catholics (Jews, atheists) can agree to, which is in fact why many people admire his work. He makes it clear that whether one believes Jesus committed any miracles is a theological question he cannot and will not address, and it is not a historical question. Your ignorance and bigotry shows clear: you have not read these books, or you do not understand them, and I do not think you know or understand much about academic history at all. Or you just do not care. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In any event, this section is on "new sources" and this is now the third time I have asked you to propose a new source and the third time that you have not. I think you cannot because you are ignorant about this topic. But if you propose a source, do not propose one because it has a POV you like. Propose a work that is well-respected by historians who have expertise on the history of 1st century Roman-occupied Judea. Now, can you do that? If you cannot, just stop writing stuff in the "new sources" section. You are wasting our time. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem intent on hating in the name of Jesus. You haven't shown any interest in listening to what I have to say. "My" secular/Christian "campaign" is based on what the article says. It says certain views are widespread in the secular academic community, yet that community is almost completely lacking in the sources. WP:RS states that sources that promote a particular view should be used with care, and this article uses them willy-nilly. This comment ends the discussion, in more ways than one: " E.P. Sanders received a Doctorate in Theology from union Theological Seminary, and you seem to be ingorant enough to think that makes him a theologican." Noloop (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Parading your ignorance of academia one more time is no excuse for you yet again failing to suggest any "new sources." Slrubenstein | Talk 03:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's true, I've "failed" to follow your orders. Have you considered working toward consensus with your dog? Noloop (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You have not failed to follow "my orders." You have failed to demonstrate any knowledge on the topic. You have failed to provide any "new sources," the name of this section. You have failed tocontribute anything to making this article better. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, proving that I'm a bigot and a failure is the purpose of this Talk page. Meanwhile, the page still lacks peer-reviewed secular sources, while suggesting to the reader that such sourcing is widespread. Noloop (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I am tired of dealing with you not listing to other perspectives, and simply repeating nonsense over and over again. The RS policy which you have quoted twice on this talk page does not only say "peer-reviewed" but also says or by well-regarded academic presses. Furthermore, I don't think anyone agrees on your definition of secular, or that RS requires "secular" either. I have presented a peer-reviewed journal article, that appeared in a journal which is secular, in that it is not affiliated with any religious body or denomination, that it's core values are tolerance and inclusiveness, that accepts contributions from Christians, Jews, non-religious, and others, but you discounted this source or claimed that we needed something far and beyond RS based solely on the religion of the person who was published by the secular, peer reviewed journal. We don't have to follow your standards when you are more strict than the prominent, scholarly publications in the field. I would appreciate if you STOPPED repeating your claims over and over, and I agree with SLR, that if you actually want to help this article, why not suggest sources that you think meet RS. If you are asking us to do it, why not simply do it yourself? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, I'm tired of you no listening to others' perspectives. Such as, every time I voice a concern, you distort it, misconstrue it, and respond with a strawman argument. My concerns don't revolve around any one particular source. It is about the pattern of sourcing: the heavy reliance on christian and popular sources, while presenting a different picture to the reader. (You did not, in fact, produce a secular source. You produced an article by a priest in a journal dedicated to the Bible.) I am also tired of you trying to pretend this is all about me. The concern that we need more secular sourcing, and/or that overtly Christian sources should identified as such, is not restricted to me. Noloop (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about you and it is not bout Andrew c and it is not about me. It is about our finding the best sources on the historicity of Jesus. I think Meier, Sanders, Ehrman, Fredriksen and Vermes are top-draw. You have yet to provide an example of their forwarding a Christian POV, or providing a secondary sources that criticizes any one of them for forwarding a Christian POV; that information would be welcome. Instead, we are subjct to more of your bigoted POV-pushing. That is too bad. But be that as it may, this section' is called "new sources" and you keep yammering and yammering but have not provide any new sources. Well, will you or won't you? Please, please prlease if you think the sources I propose are bad, by all means, can you propose better sources?Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not about me, yet the majority of what you just wrote is about me. Figure it out. Also, stop calling people bigots. Attacking people suggests you can't attack ideas. Noloop (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of what I wrote is about sources. What you have written is bigotted, because ou have yet to provide a reliable source to support your claims, or to provide specific examples. But this i sjust identifying you, it is not an attack. How can I attack your ideas when you have none? Try proposing an actual source. Then we can argue over whether it is a reliable source or not. This section is for new sources. How can I disagree with you ntil you actuall propose a "new source?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I created this section, and did not do so merely to propose new sources. I wanted to discuss what policy of sourcing we will have going forward. My claims are about the sourcing in the article, so what exactly do you want when you demand RS? A quote from the Pope saying "That Wikipedia article on Jesus needs more secular, peer-reviewed sources!"? Noloop (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a policy is called RS. That is the poplciy we use, not one policy per page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Noloop, if you need Slatersteven to explain to you what we at WP mean by "reliable source," maybe you should take a few days off and finally read ou various policies, NPOV, V, and NOR, guiding us in such matters. In the meantime, we could just as well blank this whole section, as so far no one has suggested any new sources. Are you now admitting that you do not know any sources? Do you know anything about historical research on Jesus? Can you say what, since so far it is far from evident? If your intention was not to propose new sources, what exactly are you trying to do? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You've spent the last ten days launching personal attacks. Follow your own advice: "take a few days off and finally read ou various policies". 23:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actualy that may be a good idea. Shall we drop this for now and pick up the slanging match in a couple of days.Slatersteven (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How about a meaningful discussion instead?--Civilizededucation^talk 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Take 2

The article relies heavily on overtly Christian sources and authors of popular books, while suggesting to the reader that secular, academic sourcing is widespread. Two natural courses of action: 1) scale back use of sources predisposed to believe in Jesus and/or increase use of secular, peer-reviewed sources, 2) Alert the reader to the religious orientation of much of the sourcing. By "overtly Christian" I mean priests, bishops, and other professional Christians, as well as presses with Christian mission statements or backing. Noloop (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another ANI

Edds might like to comment here [22]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Regarding the recent archiving of talk page threads, I think it might have been better if they remained on the active page because they are very much part of an ongoing discussion and it would be difficult to understand or find out which are connected with the ongoing discussion. Maybe we should just place a list of links to the threads that are connected with the ongoing discussion.Civilizededucation (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tmbox or a sticky thread can be used to summary consensus or recurring topics. --Kslotte (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

Is this OK with everyone?--Civilizededucation^talk 12:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles

For some reason the titles "Dr." were attached to a mention of Geza Vermes and L. Michael White. I am not sure why these are the outlier. I removed them and Wikiposter0123 reverted the removal here on the basis that they have doctorates. Yet so do most of the in-text attributions in this article and as far as I am aware of it is never the standard to prefix everyone with "Dr." So, any reasons against again removing them? --Ari (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Basic MoS issue. WP:CREDENTIAL. --Andrew c ^[talk] 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You do realize you are looking at a naming convention that applies solely to how to refer to someone in their own biography and not how to refer to people in general? In one's biography you shouldn't refer to them as Dr. So-and-so because the article itself should inform the reader that they have a doctorate. However in an article like this adding Dr. to let the reader know they have a doctorate is perfectly acceptable. I would also be fine with stating something like "Biblical scholar so-and-so" or "Biblical historian So-and-so" but as it stands you have provided the opinions of two people, Geza Vermes and L. Michael White, but haven't informed the reader as to why their opinions matter.

If you notice other people are introduced as being scholars such as: "Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars" let's the reader know that Shlomo Pines is a scholar. "Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that:" informs us that Bart D. Ehrman is a biblical scholar. I have however noticed some problems with this article. "In contrast, Charles Guignebert, Professor of the History of Christianity," this introduction of Charles as a Professor of history comes after he has already been mentioned multiple times; the reader should be made aware of his position the first time he is mentioned.

Still others have no indication of why their opinion on a matter is important at all and we should start introducing them in the article with info on what they study.

Basically to sum up my point: If you're not going to include Dr. then please indicate that they're a scholar in their field.Hope I've clarified my position.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is why we have links to articles about them, otherwise articles and wikipedia would fill up with redundant information about their credentials every time they are used as a source. Hardyplants (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So the reader must go to another page to confirm someone's credentials?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It very much depends on context, in my opinion, but if "credential" equals merely "has a Ph.D.", then yes. --Cyclopia^talk 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"References"

The bibliography under the heading "References" is sufficiently confusing and seems to have developed in order to POV push. What is its purpose? To provide full citations of works referenced or as further reading? If for referenced works, it tends to have nothing to do with those works actually cited. If for further reading, it is most definitely not neutral. What is the selection criteria? A third of the references advance the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist. Talk about undue weight. These works are by amateurs and even include self-published works. I started correcting this by Noloop has taken to obstructing it.

So:

1. Is it a reference list or further reading list?
2. What references should be added/removed?

--Ari (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

General references are for works that relate generally to the content. See the policy and guidelines. The works you removed related to a section of the article and the topic as a whole. In an amazing coincidence, the works you deleted happen to disagree with you on the content. The rest of your comment is antagonistic. People who disagree with you are not POV-pushing obstructionist. You need to assume good faith. Noloop (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Add/Remove

As I noted above, a third of the works in the list are related to advancing the theory against the historicity of Jesus. As I am sure we can all now agree, this view is fringe among academic studies. This reference/further reading list should reflect this instead of giving undue weight.

For removal:

• Drews, Arthur & Burns, C. Deslisle (1998). The Christ Myth - No mention in the article and a fringe theory published in 1910.
• Ellegård, Alvar Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ - no mention in article and a fringe theory by a non-specialist.
• Leidner, Harold (1999). The Fabrication of the Christ Myth - no mention in article and a fringe theory by a non-specialist.

In the interest of giving the fringe theory a voice (generally for the sake of the peace in clear contravention to wp:undue) the best to keep would be Price and Wells, although there is no reason to list more than 1 of their books. --Ari (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, Alvar Ellegård is not a non-specialist in this regard, he's a world-class linguist who analyzes close-source (the dead sea scrolls, in particular) to deconstruct them and look at what the linguistics and grammar can tell us about their creation. His conclusion drawn from that that they were typical mythic archetypes drawn not from eyewitnesses or even secondhand sources but a oral tradition mixed with some corruptions of Zoraster myths, is entirely in his specialty. No opinion on your other points, but you might want to be a little more careful before discounting things on the basis of 'they dont know what they're talking about'. -- ۩ Mask 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd been fine with their removal if they're not actually referenced in the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Being an academic in English linguistics is not a speciality within ancient history, ancient languages and biblical studies. Therefore, he is not a specialist in the field no matter what special pleading you present. --Ari (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

He's an academic in linguistics, not specifically english linguistics, and writing on the linguistics of the sources, that is in fact his field. Also, the misuse of a logical fallacy is amusing but besides the point. -- ۩ Mask 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not an expert in the field. --Ari (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be all for redoing all the footnotes for consistency, and would propose, that if we were to keep a reference section that a) it only contains works used as references b) possibly create further reading for the other, or outright delete if not notable and c) if a work is fully referenced in the reference section, us a summary style in the footnote, to reduce redundancy and page size. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Ari (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual citations are contained in the footnotes. General references are in the the "Reference" section. It is format (one of many) specifically endorsed by policy. Ari89 didn't actually apply a consistent principle to his deletions, other than deleting books that question the historicity of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While the MoS does not proscribe how we present footnotes and/or reference sections WP:FNNR, and leaves that up in the air, and up to individual article discretion (with talk page consensus), it is clear that "general references" not cited directly in the text belong in a "Further reading" section. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was removing works by amateur non-experts that were not referenced in the article. That was quite consistent. --Ari (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That section has many works, pro and con, that are not cited in the article. Renaming it to "Further Reading" would be fine. Selectively deleting books based on what they say isn't acceptable. It is not agreed upon that disputing the historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory, in the Wikipedian sense that Holocaust denial and the flat earth theory are fringe theories. It is a minority view that deserves inclusion. 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't simply rename the section, because we need to decide what books ARE being used, and which are not first. Has anyone done that? Do you have a list? I think we should work on at least separating them out, and creating a "Further reading" section. Once we have that section, then we can discuss how the editing community feels about the specifics.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Sources

Since almost all, if not al, major critical historians consider the Testimonium Flavianum to be inauthentic, I think it is highly misleading to discuss it as the first relevant passage from Josephus. I think this gives it undue weight. I frankly think it should just be in a footnote. But if it must be in the section on Josephus, I think that First we shoul ddiscuss what josephus almost certainly wrote, and only at the end mention what he almost certainly did not write.

Second, I think the whole section on the Yeshu stories in the Talmud should just be deleted. I know of no historian who uses these as source on Jesus' life. I know of no historian who sees them as evidence that Jesus existed (Yeshu is not Aramaic for Jesus). Scholars debate whether they are about Jesus at all, but those scholars who do see them as refering to Jesus see them not as referring to a historical figure but to a Christian belief. For example to fact that the Talmud refers to a Jesus who was killed as Passover time is evidence only that Jews knew about a Christian belief. in fact, there is a great deal of material in Rabbinic literature on Christianity, and one excellent secondary source, Daniel Boyarin's Dying for God on Rabbinic views of Christianity. But the point is, these stories are about Christians and Christians beliefs.

The Talmud was edited in Babylonia (i.e. not in Judea, not even in the Roman Empire - in a place where there were no Christians) in the 5th century based on material that dates from the 3rd and 4th centuries. It is not a primary source on Jesus any more than St. Augustine's Confessions are a primary source about Jesus. Seriously. The article cites Eusibius, but goes to great pains to show how Eusibius's sources were people who talked to people who were or could have been eye-witnesses. There is no such chain of authority in the Talmud. The Talmud presents the stories about Yeshu just as that: stories in circulation. It does not claim to have any evidence, and it does not provide a source for the story.

Every other source provided either claims to be eyewitness, or contemporary, or based on eyewitness accounts through a chain of named individuals. Among such sources, the Talmud sticks out like a sore thumb. I am not accusing the Talmud of being a spurious primary source, I am saying the talmud doesn't even claim to be a primary rouce or to be quoting a primary source or to be relying on a primary source. To include it in this article is at best gratuitous and actually I think makes a mockery of the whole article.

Perhaps people working on this article need to make a decision I think the original authors of the article did not think through: is this meant to be a compendium of every source that mentions Jesus that was written maybe before the fall of the Roman Empire? Or should it provide an account of all the actual primary sources used by historians who debate whether or not Jesus existed? I think it should be the latter; I think any primary source included has to be pegged to a secondary source that discusses the hsitoricity of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I not agree on the Testimonium Flavianum, except that it has problematic christian interpolations that crept in and there is general agreement amongst historians that they can get at much of the authentic text. I agree completely that the Talmud is historically worthless when in comes to the Jesus of history, as Slrubenstein says in was composed outside any window of value. Any mention that it might have about Jesus, is a response to gentile Christian proselytizing that occurred after the first century. 12:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Meier devoted 10 pages to the TF, and ~2 to the shorter passage. Meier also concludes that if you bracket the 3 clear Christian interjections, "the most probably explanation of the Testimonium is that... it is what Josephus wrote". I'd be fine switching the order of how we present the two passages, as Meier discusses the shorter first as well. As for the Talmud, Meier devoted just over 4 pages on that. Ehrman likewise accepts a non-Christian basis for the TF, and likewise discusses it in his book. Ehrman also covers the Talmud (and concludes they are too late, too reactionary to be of any historical value). I'd disagree with SLR that this article should be about the sources used by historians exclusively. I think most overviews of the historical Jesus discuss these sources, if only to write them off or disqualify their reliability, and I think in this historicity article we should do likewise. I have a more inclusive approach, I guess (and I think my approach follows reputable source's discussion of the ancient literature dealing with Jesus). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would then say this: the TF should have its own section and begin by saying that the author is unknown, that it is found in Josephus, and say something about when it was composed. Obviously someone wrote, it, i don ot contest that, but who and when? I just think it is too problematic to make it a prominent part of the Josephus section. As for approaches to the article, I would just like to see thoughtful discussion, I won't demand any one position. Nevertheless, neither of you have said anything that I think justified keeping the Talmud material in the article. Why not include St. Augusting then? Or Origen? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought my justification was good. Prominent, cited sources cover the Talmud, but they don't cover Origen. Isn't that reason enough? :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i misunderstood, according to you Ehrman dismisses the Talmud as a source, so shoultn't we? That a good scholar cites a source only to say it is no good as a soure annot mean it is worth inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think is scholars are devoting time and space to discussing these topics, it belongs in a holistic discussion concerning the sources, even if the majority view is the source is inauthentic, or too late for historical method, or discount it for other reasons. I guess I'm an inclusivist like that. As for deletions, I just think we should not include the sources that get little to no scholarly discussion, and it is my opinion that the Talmud meets my personal threshold for inclusion based on my vision/scope of this article. I can totally understand if people disagree. I just thought it would be simplest to check if our cited sources discussed these topics. Meier discounts Thomas, after devoting a whole chapter to the topic. So should we not include Thomas (or is that a bad comparison because someone like Funk/Crossan think the world of Thomas, where I can't cite anyone who cares about the Talmud). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should divide this article into two major sections: one on sources historians use in arguing for Jesus' existence or in reconstructing his life, and ones that scholars have considered and rejected. I realize there is a grey area in the middle but I am less concerned with how we handle that. My concern is that misixng up sources from both of these broad categories misleads readers, and also is a bad way to organize an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for further reference, Theissen and Merz discuss the James verse in Josephus first before the TF (which, BTW, they conclude "the second version of the revision hypothesis is the most probable...") Then they discuss the "rabbinic sources: Jesus as one who leads the people astray (bSanh 43a). They present both sides: Maier who argues none of the rabbinic material goes back to Jesus, and name Jesus was added later to certain passages during the formation of the Talmud; Klausner who finds "at least some old and historically reliable traditions in the Talmud". I don't see any of the above sources splitting up content based on what the majority rejects and what they accept, but for an encyclopedia, such a format may be helpful to the reader. I'm ambivalent on that front. I'm going to at least re-order the Josephus stuff (and maybe create subheaders), if that's OK. Strike that, basically the whole section is on the TF. Maybe the one sentence could be moved up....-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the interpollated text in the TF needs to be set off more clearly. Real Josephus scholars do not include it in Josephus and to present it as if it is "Josephus" is disingenuous - I am not talking about the whole TF but the lines that all major scholars agree were added later by someone not named Flavius Josephus.

As for the Talmud, you have not convinced me. So far you mentioned Meier's four pages - but what does he say? Andrew, it is not enough to say that a historian "refers" to them. If every historian referred to them only to conclude that they were uninformative as to whether Jesus really existed or if he did, what he did, I would say we should delete the section. The fact that an expert concludes that "this material is not important" is an argument to delete the material, it is hardly an argument to include it. If Ehrman concludes "they are too late, too reactionary to be of any historical value," that is NOT a reason to keep them, it is a reason to delete them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is, leading scholars may not accept them as authentic or what have you, but they feel that there is a big enough minority out there that it does warrant discussion (unlike, say the JM hypothesis, which Meier and Ehrman do NOT discuss). Klausner is the name that is brought up as a defender of some historical value (though little) in the Talmud. I guess I could phrase it like this. Is Klausner fringe and should be ignore completely, or minority and should be mentioned, with due weight? I'm siding with Meier and Ehrman and Theissen in that it deserves mention, but maybe as an encyclopedia, we don't need to be as complete and thorough as them. But then, do we need to mention Thallus, Lucian, and Celsus? Acts of Pilate? The early Creeds? Even Tacitus.... Perhaps we should write the section and make it a lot shorter? Maybe not include the quoted passages...-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole article on this, Yeshu. I would create a new section called highly questionable sources or highly controversial sources or rejected sources or something like that - any of these lables applies to the Talmud as a historical source on Jesus. For the Talmud, I would say According to Klausner ... and provide a direct quote so we know exactly what and how much value he puts on this material and why. Then I waould have a second sources saying, "Most historians, such as Meier and Ehrman, reject the Talmud as a relevant source on Jesus." And then a third sentence, "For a detailed account, see "Yeshu" and I would do the same for any source people have proposed to use and most historians reject. I think anything else is misleading and CERTAINLY violates UNDUE. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

The analysis that the Dead Sea Scrolls "shows" the actuality of the New Testament is an opinion and needs to be attributed as such. Wikipedia doesn't believe it is a fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls mean anything as far as the authenticity of the New Testament. That is an expert's opinion, and should be attributed. Ari89 and HardyPlants have decided this is a good new topic for an edit war. Noloop (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear more about the justification for keeping in anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls - I do not think they say anything about Jesus. They might belong in a differetn article, on the cultural context for Jesus' life, but they predate Jesus and are not sources on Jesus and indicate nothing about Jesus' historicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pressed for time over the next few days. here is one argument for inclusion [23]. They are used in presenting the Gosples as having historically representive data. Since the Gospels and other NT documents are the well head of information on Jesus. So they are used to show that the NT sources have a context in location and time. A number of events in the later half of the 1st century changed the way Jews understood and interpeted their place in the world and how they related to their religious texts. I agree that for now the Dead Sea Scroll section, along with a number of other sections need to be tied together with more cohesion with the article topic, and given time I can work on how historians sift historical data from the Gospels and how historians confirm or reject textual events, sayings, stories, etc. Hardyplants (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"That is an expert's opinion, and should be attributed." How do you know the citation (with multiple references by different scholars) is only an individual experts opinion that must be attributed? Have you read the citations or did you just decide it was a single opinion? --Ari (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, why is something citing BOTH Brooke and Chadwick "according to Chadwick..." --Ari (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that scholars generally agree that the DSS help us better understand the landscape in which a historical Jesus lived. But they do not established the historicity of Jesus. A summary of discussions of these sources in relation to Jesus might better belong in this article: Cultural and historical background of Jesus .

I am trying to make a larger point: we have two articles, this one and that one, which both link to the Jesus article as representing historian's views. I do not think they should be merged 9too long) but it has been some time since they were removed from the Jesus article and turned into their own articles and I think it is time to discuss the relationship between the two. What should the difference between the two be? There is no obvious answer to this question.

• This article can be a discussion of the sources, and that article should be about actual accounts of a "historical Jesus" - that would be logical, but then perhaps this article should be renamed to be Historical sources relating to Jesus.
• Or, this article could be about specific arguments as to why historians believe Jesus existed, and the other article can be a reconstruction of the "historical Jesus."
• Or, maybe one of you has another idea about how to distinguish them

These two articles are clearly related. They ought to complement one another. I do NOT think anyone has a clear idea of how and why they should be different and I am suggesting now is a good time to have that conversation. Then it will be much easier to know what does and does nto belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Meier discusses Qumran in 2 paragraphs, saying "All this has not kept some imaginative scholars from seeing Jesus and John the Baptist in certain Qumran texts". and he cites Thiering of all people as his example. Ehrman doesn't even discuss this and says that in the DSS and Philo "Jesus is never mentioned". Ehrman later gives a more detailed background of the DSS and discusses them as giving "contextual credibility" to apocalyptic material of Jesus. Theissen and Merz are silent on DSS as a source for the HJ. Based on that alone (which may not be a good criteria, granted), I'd suggest keeping DSS discussions out of this article, and instead in Cultural and historical background of Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edgar V. McKnight

Can we have some sources that say Prof McKnight is a practsing chrisitan pleasehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9FBv-c8siSwC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=Edgar+V.+McKnight&source=bl&ots=A0ePhxJ9Og&sig=gBN39JwhyA01Ebj1SE6cAusJiYY&hl=en&ei=zhNcTNSwKJ280gT34_Bj&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Edgar%20V.%20McKnight&f=false.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, what perspecticce does he take when he writes about the Bible? Does he have training in history or literary criticism, for example? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No the question is do any RS sugest he does. Its not for us to judge sources, just report what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And then we have to find a RS that says that your RS is an RS. And then we have to find an RS that says that your RS for the RS is an RS. And then we have to find a RS that says that your RS for the RS for the RS is an RS. And then we have to find a RS that says that your RS for the RS for the RS for the RS is an RS.

The question is, is McKnight a reliable source. Using policy as a guideline, it is indeed our job to figure that out. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well given that he meets all the criteria (he is a respected accadmic in the field with a large body of work) yes he is RS. Now in what way does he fail ?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Slatersteven, I actually have to say that you are perhaps right that we cannot determine what is a RS just on our own, but I have one method I find very useful: how often do other historians cite him? If they discuss his own ideas, do they accept them as reliable scholarship, or do they examine them critically, as controversial, or do they reject them? One can always find a small circle of scholars who always cite one another with copious praise. That is why the larger and more diverse a number of scholars cite person x's work, the more respected that work is. If you know that two scholars sometimes disagree but agree on certaibn things, that is meaningful too.

I also think it is useful to talk about the book or the article rather than the scholar. Many authors of great work have also published crap, and all their peers know it. So let's be careful and ask how widely cited a book is, how well respected a book is, what views or arguments that book makes. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was n ot aware that this was how you estbalish RS, and wonder how easy it would be to even determine how often a given book is cited. Howoever I think I shall seek community consnesu on this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to answer your first questions, there are Citation indexes. Google scholar is one that we can all access, and they track citations of books like Meier's A Marginal Jew and Ehrman's Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How many citations are needed (if we accept that as a critria, and I don't bleive such citeria exsists).?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS does mention citation indexes as a tool in helping determine the scholarly acceptance of a particular work. But is is only a rule of thumb/tool, not a strict guidelines, so there isn't a specific number of citations which equals "OK". I guess that would vary from field to field. See Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to look at citation indices to determine whether this source is RS—it's by a specialist in the field, and it's published by a university press. The number of citations would speak to whether it is a significant work in the field, but that's more a question of NPOV, not RS. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ehrman has a similar statement in his book, but notice the big difference between the two: There is very little mention of Jesus by early and reliable sources outside of the New Testament--whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian--with the notable exceptions of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas. Not sure we should be presenting McKnight, without adding a clause that some scholars use Peter and Thomas in HJ studies. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry that was in haste. I didn't realize McKnight was just discussing within the NT. Ehrman agrees: Within the New Testament, apart from the four Gospels, there is very little information about Jesus' life. Ehrman however does not make any claim about the non-gospel NT books establishing historicity. My concern would be, do we really need to attribute at least the first half of the clause to McKnight. Seems like something most scholars agree with, as demonstrated by a similar sentiment in Ehrman. I would propose removing "According to McKnight..." -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note 3

The reference to Lightfoot refers to ideas that are no longer current, since it reflects opinions around 1865 and his dating of the letters from 48 CE to 68 CE no longer accepted, at least by those who accept only 7 epistles as genuine (Peter F. Ellis, Seven Pauline letters, Liturgical Press, 1982 p.10). Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Full Protection

This is the second time I've had to fully protect this page from editing per the edit warring and content dispute. As the protecting administrator, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like a statement below from each of the involved parties explaining their side of the story. This dispute needs to be resolved - I can't just go on and keep reprotecting the page each time the previous protection period ends. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

When I express my concerns, I am called an ignorant bigot. My position is mischaracterized for the purpose of dismissing a strawman argument. See [24] and [25]. See also the recent ANI regarding the conduct of Andrew-c and Slrubenstein [26]. Noloop (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Although, I would like to hear from several other parties first before taking any further action. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Noloop's comments have to do with page protection, but I have been very careful to be civil and not advance anything that anyone could construe as a personal attack for over a week (since the ANI thread that Noloop brought regarding me, where I acknowledged what I had said, and apologized, and which resulted in no sanctions on my part). I'll explain what happened since the page was unprotected.

I added a sentence which I had proposed a few sections up. Noloop and Civilizededucation then made these edits, (and with a small exception) completely unrelated to my first edit. I reverted those string of edits, because I thought they were POV, and went against what a lot of us had been discussing here. In brief: 1) There is no consensus to qualify certain sources as only representing "Christian theologians". 2) Ehrman does not say "probably". 3) Who is arguing that Jesus isn't mentioned twice in Josephus? 4) Brackets were changed to parentheses in a quote, against MOS:QUOTE. 5) Few vs. some WEIGHT issue. 6) Identifies vs. perceive WP:SAY issue.

After my revert, I then went through and made a few neutral edits, and another edit related to prior talk page discussion regarding McKnight. While I was going through the article, Noloop not only restored the material which I removed, but also reverted my new and neutral edits, which IMO have nothing to do with this dispute. Restoring previously reverted material is against BRD, and IMO how edit wars start. I had no intention of editing the page further, and told Noloop I though the revert was a sign of bad faith, and that the edit summary was a personal attack. Noloop replied by bringing up something that I apologized for over a week ago (showing to me that we haven't moved forward at all, despite my efforts and good faith). Griswaldo and Civilizededucation continued the edit war, each reverting once, before the page was protected, on Noloop's request. So the question now, how to move forward? Maybe we could all do self imposed 1RR? What changes do we feel need to be made, and what require further discussion?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew's synopsis, including the analysis of Noloop's edits, is correct. Since I promised that I would not comment on Noloop's behavior anymore (after twice suggesting failed topic bans at AN/I) I really have nothing else constructive to add here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved on this page very much, but I've noticed Noloop over at Christ myth theory. In my opinion, he's been trying to impose a ridiculous standard of sourcing upon this article and other articles about early Christianity—basically, if there is any possibility that a source used on this article was written by a Christian, he believes that the source is biased, and declares that it needs to be balanced by sources from "secular, peer-reviewed presses." The sources that Noloop objects to, however, are academics who specialize in the field, and who are considered leading authorities on the historical Jesus—John P. Meier is one example. Sources like this are the expert sources that this article should use; they are scholars, who publish through normal academic channels like peer-reviewed journals, academic presses, etc. They sometimes publish books for a wider, non-scholarly audience, and these are also good sources for a Wikipedia article, since they are written by people whose expertise in the field has already been demonstrated.

Some of Noloop's statements seem to contain a certain bias that is guiding his evaluation of the sources. For instance, above, he says "Atheism, the belief system, is not biased. Atheism doesn't assume as a matter of faith--regardless of fact and logic--anything about the existence of historical anything. Christianity does. Thus, Christians can be assumed to lack neutrality on the existence of Jesus. Atheists cannot be assumed to do so." I guess I'm not supposed to call this bigoted, so I'll just point out that this statement claims that atheists are able to think rationally about Jesus' existence, but Christians' position on Jesus' historicity comes from faith, not reason. This opinion apparently allows Noloop to reject the scholarly consensus that there was a historical Jesus, because only "theologians" say that, and make edits such as this, this, and this. The edit summary on the last is inexcusable. I think a good solution to this issue would be to topic-ban Noloop from all Christianity-related articles, for at least a short period. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a disagreement on sourcing. Some want more non-Christians or non-Theologians or whatever as sources, and some feel the article accurately weights the various experts as it stands. People feel strongly both ways, and I'm not sure there is a good way forward. Most of the headway I've seen made in either direction is through blocking, which isn't ideal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, Akhilleus's summary of what I think is pretty typical of what a certain group of editors here think. It is not, however, how I describe my own position. There is also a request for arbitration that is about to be declined (mostly by way of asking me to file an RFCU first). [27]. Note also that it is wrong to represent the concern about Christian sourcing as mine alone, and that two attempts to topic-ban me have already been shot down in ANIs. Noloop (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"People feel strongly both ways"? Huh? This has never been an issue between two polarized crowds of people who feel strongly about their positions. Painting that particular picture is akin to teaching the controversy. There is no legitimate controversy here. This is simply quackery vs. scholarship. Since religious affiliation is apparently the end all be all determinant of bias I have a solution. Why don't we ask anyone who is either a Christian theist or an atheist to take a week long break from the article while all the agnostics and Buddhists sort it out? Sound fair?Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I became involved in the Historical Jesus quite recently, where I guess my concern was the reliance on one type of source, and the exclusion of any other. Obviously the bulk of sources will be Christian academics, because most people who have no belief will not waste their time working on something that is of little interest to them, and ultimately limited in terms of verification or falsification. So, if non-believers who are notable academics have spoken about this issue (from outside a discipline which has a certain faith as the baseline), then we need to include something about that. This straw-man about certain editors trying to exclude relevant scholars has to stop - that is not the argument, but a recognition of where they are coming from, and this misrepresentation has simply inflamed the situation. The opposite is the case, it is those who are accusing others of seeking to exclude sources who are the ones actually being excluding. - MishMich - Talk - 08:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And my own position? Anglican who refuses to attend church because of the bigotry of some parts of the communion towards other parts. My faith is based on Jesus, but understood through Eckhart's mystical theology and Mahayana Buddhism, rather than dogmatic Christianity. - MishMich - Talk - 08:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus among scholars that Jesus existed. That consensus exists, though both whether he existed or didn't exist is beyond the normal modern legal criteria of proof. The case for the former consists of a reasonable inference, which in turn is based on a methodological argument. The methods and evidence to argue for Jesus as an historical figure must not be more severe than they are for any other historical figure in antiquity, most of whom are known through late reports postdating their assumed existence. The case for the sceptical position is, in itself, 'religious' in the sense that there can be no proof Jesus did not exist, only inferences based on criteria for the acceptability of evidence that are far more stringent than those applied to other figures for the period. Some theological positions within Christianity dispense with the concept of an historical Jesus, which, it is argued, is not necessary in order to be a Christian, any more than being a devout Jew means necessarily that one must believe in the historicity of Abraham or Moses.

Given this, all Noloop can do is, in support of his thesis, add to the page a scholarly source or two by reputable and reliable scholars that remark on what supporters of the non-historicity of Jesus regard as the 'systemic bias' of mainstream scholarship, which has been indeed dominated by learned Christians. Other than doing this, he cannot hold the page hostage to a personal belief that scepticism on the issue is a qualification to be added to WP:RS, in order to winnow out 'partisan historiography'. Wikipedia editors are not competent to rule on what sources are or are not germane to an article based on their personal sectarian, faith- or disbelief-based presuppositions. If a source fits the most stringent qualifications for WP:RS, i.e., it is written by an academic specialist and published by a quality publisher, with peer-review, it is usable, whether written by a Christian, an atheist, or Balaam's ass. I say this from the personal position that Jesus as the Gospels recount his life almost certainly did not exist, and that it is not an unreasonable position to argue that he did not exist. It is simply a minority view, one that makes as many assumptions as the mainstream scholarship affirming his historicity. That personal conviction cannot sway my interpretation of WP:RS, however.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Iagree with the sentiment that if those who are claiming biased sources would provide some claims from reputable peer reviewed journal written by respected experts in the field that there are in fact neutrality issues with identifying the historical Jesus then OK, that Christian scholars (I see we are still ignoring Muslims) are unreliable fine but lets actually see the evidence. So far they have not provide such sources they have effectively just told us they believe this to be the case (because the sources are christens (they must be the believe in Jesus) so they must be bias). I would also point out that the bad attitude has not all been one way. Also the claim that atheism is not a belief system but one founded on science is false. Most Atheists admit you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god (and much of the CMT seems to use much the same argument, there is no real evidence either way, so we assume he was not real). As such if an atheist says Christ doe not exists he is not basing that on empirical data but on assumptions and his own disbelieve in divinity. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been asking Noloop to propose a new source for some time and she cannot - clearly, she is entirely ignorant about the scholarship on the subject. In the meantime, I would like to clear up another misconception - it really seems like a number of people who are ignorant of the scholarship think their views here will be helpful, which is hardly the case (can you imagine someone who has never read any physics trying to address content issues at the physics article? Now, I agree that for obvious reasons many Christians will study the Bible. Many of them may start out with the belief that each of the Gospels had one author; that there are no inconsistencies among the four Gospels, and that they are reliable historical accounts. This is a very particular point of view and while I think we should include it in the article, it should be clearly identified. But there are other views, and many peopl here seem utterly oblivious to them.

let's look at MishMich's comment, "Obviously the bulk of sources will be Christian academics, because most people who have no belief will not waste their time working on something that is of little interest to them, and ultimately limited in terms of verification or falsification." I am sorry, but this is a ridiculous comment. Obviously people who are not interested in something will not likely work on it. But the idea that only people who "believe" in the text will be interested in the text is just ... bizarre. I know scholars who spend years writing articles or a book on Mme Bovary. Do you think such people "believe" in Mme Bovary? Ther are scholars who spend month after month translating and writing commentary on Homeric myths. Do you think they "believe" in Aphrodite, for example? What about the scholars who figured out the meaning of Mayan glyphs. Do you think they "believe" in Hunahpu and Xbalanque? Historians work on all sorts of things they find interesting without "believing" in them. This whole point about believing/no-believing strikes me as a simple but obvious mistake, to think that people with PhDs who teach in universities are necessarily interested in the same things that non-scholars are interested. Sometimes they are, but often they are not. As long as you have Christian missionaries and parroquial schools, you will have adult men and women who still argue over whether God exists or whether Jesus was God. That does not mean that these arguments are what drive professors of religion, or professors of the Bible.

Here is how historians think: a text exists. Someone wrote it, and someone read it. The further back we go in time, the less certain we can be about who the author or audience was. Alas, the further back in time one goes, the more ambiguous the archeological record and the fewer texts one usually has. And yet these artifacts say something about the times in which they were made and used. How one figures this out - well, this is one question academics find interesting and important and debate. Let's say you find a settlement in which there are several small separate structures, each of which have evidence of a hearth (preserved charchoal) and a small number of jars and drinking vessels, and there is one much bigger structure with many jars and drinking vessels. Was the big structure the ome of a wealthy man? Or a communal space?

Historians take the same approach to documents. We actually have very few texts from first century Roman occupied and controlled Palestine. The Mishnah is a Jewish text that was edited at the end of the second century. It was edited with a fairly strong hand, and most of it consists of laws and statements attributed to men who were supposed to have lived in the second century. But it also refers to the "houses" of scholars from the first century CE and the from earlier centuries. Do they literally mean houses, or do they mean "house" in the sense of school? This is realy important, because a law attributed to the House of hillel could come from the first century BCE if we mean house literally, and from the first century CE if we mean house metaphorically. This is a book of laws, but these laws were formulated by the Pharisees, and we know that the Pharisees did not always have political power in the Hasmonean Kingdom, and were one of several well-known sects after the Hasmoneans - so, did anyone actually obey these laws? Whether they were obeyed or not, what can we infer from them about life in the 1st century? Do you really think you need to "believe" that God revelaed all these laws at Mt. Sinai, to want to try to use them to reconstruct the world of 1st century Jews in Palestine?

And we have Josephus, who wrote very detailed work but who sided with the Romans after a bitter war - was he trying to make the Jews look more understandable and civilized to Romans, or trying to ingratiate himself personally with the Romans by telling them what they wanted to hear?

So we have all of these sources that claim to be talking about 1st century Roman-occupied or controlled Palestine. Given the problems with the mishnah and Josephus, you better believe historians are very interested in Matthew and Luke and Mark. We have the synoptic Gospels. There are other Gospels, but most of them are believed to have been written later. There are papyri with fragments of the Gospels that date to the second century. Does this mean that Matthew was written in the second century? That there is a book called "Matthew" means that at some point in time someone produced a book called Matthew. Maybe this happened later than the second century. But was the Book of Matthew actually written by one person, or did one person edit together things written by different people? If parts were written by different people, might they have been written at different times? Based on what we do know of the very radical changes in the organization of political and religious life in Palestine from Pompey's occupation until the destruction of the Temple, from then until the Bar Kozeba rebellion, the disappearance of the Essenes and the Saducees and the rise of the Pharisees and Christians to form new religions, can we take different elemnts of the Gospels and attribute them to authors living at different times? Can we look at a verse or passage and tell from either style or content that it was more likely composed in the second century, or in the first? If we can rearrange passages basedon when we think they were written, do they provide us with a different view of Christianity? A different view of Jesus? These are the kinds of questions historians ask and they way they go about looking for answers.

You do not have to "believe" anything. All you have to do is be interested in the history of 1st century Palestine. if you are you have a very limited number of texts that claim to be from or about that period and place. Then you examine the documents clearly and try to sort out as best possible which segments were likely to have been composed at a particular time. And then, what doe they tell us about the time when they were composed? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

""Obviously the bulk of sources will be Christian academics, because most people who have no belief will not waste their time working on something that is of little interest to them, and ultimately limited in terms of verification or falsification." I am sorry, but this is a ridiculous comment. Obviously people who are not interested in something will not likely work on it. But the idea that only people who "believe" in the text will be interested in the text is just ... bizarre. I know scholars who spend years writing articles or a book on Mme Bovary. Do you think such people "believe" in Mme Bovary?"

Great - so where is your evidence? Wheel out all these scholars of the historical Jesus who do not believe in him, if that is the case. Rather than spouting tedious paragraphs and rhetorical and offensive commentary on what other people say, you could avoid all this discussion by simply putting your money where your mouth is. But you won't, because you can't, and as usual avoid the issue and deflect discussion to something else. Sure people do not have to believe in Jesus to be scholars about the history - but it appears that the vast majority do. Or have I misunderstood something? - MishMich - Talk - 15:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Boy do you miss my point. My point is that real historians are not interested in "verification or falisfication." And my point is that people have plenty of other reasons for studying these texts than the fact that they are Christian. But okay, you are not capable of understanding how people in universities work. Okay, I will answer your question.

Believe that Jesus in the Christian sense? Okay. Shaye JD Cohen. Geza Vermes. Paula Fredrickson. The problem is, most good historians will say that it is likely Jesus existed. The big problem here is that most non-historians understand historians as well as most non-scientists understand science. Most scientists will never say something is "proven." in the sense that most people mean by proof - and creationists jump all over this to say that this means Darwin was wrong. Most historians will say that the further you go back in time the harder it is to say with absolute certainty that anyone existed. But virtually all historians who focus on 1st century Jewish history think it is likely that Jesus existed. Now, do you think Pilate existed? Do you think Gamaliel existed? Caiphus? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What comes forst the beleife or the research? you have to demonstrate that such a confliuct exsists, not mearly assert it. you might be right, or it might be that the evidance just works to re-enforce a scholers beleife. We do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, Mish. When you say "believe in Jesus", do you mean "are of the Christian faith" or are you referring to the possibility of say the JM crowd's argument? "believe in Jesus as savior deity" or "believe in a historical figure named Jesus"... -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If something is a fact, it is widely believe by non-Christians. It is trivial to find matter-of-fact references to the existence of Julius Caesar in peer-reviewed, secular academia. Why isn't it the same for the existence of Jesus? And why do we try to conceal that difference from the reader? Noloop (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bull. I read peer-reviewed, secular academic journals every day and have yet to find a reference to Julius Caeser. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop can you name a single reference work published by a reliable press and dealing with the history of Christianity that does not include "matter-of-fact references to the existence of Jesus"? That would include anything from an encyclopedia to an introductory religion or history text. Also, can you name a single non-religious historian who has published anything in a peer reviewed journal that includes a "matter-of-fact reference to the existence of Julius Caesar?" I think you have absolutely no clue about what your asking. When you produce some of this evidence we can discuss your nonsensical demands.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, what you appear to be asking us to do is to review the historical Jesus literature, and instead of checking to see if the scholars are notable, if the presses are scholarly, if the work has been accepted into the academic debate, you are asking me to do a statistical analysis of their personal religious backgrounds. How is that not a religious litmus test? I'm tired of these games. Weeks ago, people held up Ehrman (the agnostic), Grant (the atheist), Vermes (the Jew), among others, as examples of top scholars in their field who are not Christian, and who accept a historical Jesus, yet you continue, on and on, not moving one step forward, not acknowledging any of this (except to say that Ehrman is not a good enough agnostic for you). Yet, you don't provide any counter examples of non-Christians believing anything else. If something is a fact, it is widely believe by non-Christians.' What then? In light of ALL our sources coming from many different types of scholars (including non-Christians, not that I acknowledge that that should even matter) who ALL claim the majority of biblical scholars and historians accept the existence of Jesus, please tell us what then is the widely held belief? -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Muslims bleive in Jesus, they are non-christian so its a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that we are going nowhere thru the same spot in time and space repeatedly perhaps the only way to have (what seems a needed) a calling of period is an enforced break on all edds on this page. Perhaps extending the protection th the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this article, though I've been involved in a similar dispute at Christ myth theory about the quality of sourcing. In order to resolve the issue of which sources to use, I'd like to suggest that editors who want to see more non-religious sources (whether Christian or otherwise) produce those sources; and that the other editors not try to exclude them if they're compliant with this section of the sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sources do not have to be academic specialists to be deemed reliable within the terms of the sourcing policy, so if that's one of the issues that's causing the problem, it's easily resolved by sticking to the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sources do not have to be academic specialists to be deemed reliable within the terms of the sourcing policy" -- would you care to expound upon what you mean by this? Perhaps an example or two would also help narrow down the variety of ways I can imagine reading that statement.Griswaldo (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean that the policy allows a wide range of sources, and if one of the issues here is that the range is too narrow, it might be resolved by adhering to the policy and opening things up a little, within reason. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For me, Bertrand Russell is the litmus test. This is where I got involved on the Historical Jesus article. He would be a relevant and notable non-specialist, in my book. The haughty appeals to superiority in this discussion go against the grain of the encyclopedia. I am an expert in LGBT studies - but we do not prevent people who are completely ignorant on these issues commenting on that project articles; we have lots of Christians, for example, quite eager to insert their lack of understanding of human sexuality and gender into articles covered by that project. This is the way of this encyclopedia, we do not restrict contributions to experts only; although we value the access to experts for comment and contributions. So, dismissing what people say in an off-hand way, as un-knowledgeable, and so on - this is all very poor behaviour. If we were all such experts, most would not be wasting time here, but getting papers published. - MishMich - Talk - 07:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For me, Bertrand Russell fails the litmus test. As far as I know he did not speak Aramaic and had no expertise in 1st century Jewish history. He was a philosopher, not a historian. I think we need to distinguish between two issues here. There is a theological question about the status of Christianity and claims about miracles and claims about the dividnity of Jesus. As a philosophe, I have no problem using Russell as an important source. But there is another issue, the historical question of the value of the New testament as a historical source, which is tied to debates about the authorship and time of composition of the New testament and segments of the NT. I think we need to treat these theological and historical issues separately. Someone can be significant regarding one issue, but not another. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@Slimvirgin. Slrubenstein is correct to frame this in terms of "significance". WP:RS is simply a minimum standard for the types of sources that may be used across the encyclopedia and all of its contexts, and as such it does not actually guide what sources or what content are appropriate for specific entries. This is why I asked for (but did not receive) more specificity from you. We have other policies, like this section of our policy on WP:NPOV, for instance, to help us figure out what content to include and what sources to use. I fail to see how your statement, as it stands, is helpful to the discussion. There are many opinions given by a large number of notable people, but we do not include them in our entries unless they are significant and relevant views.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@MishMich. You have invoked two types of expertise here -- the expertise of sources and the expertise of editors. It is not always clear in your comment which you are referring to at what times. You write that we have lots of Christians, for example, quite eager to insert their lack of understanding of human sexuality and gender into articles covered by that project. There are POV pushers out there pushing a POV without expertise, and so what? Glancing quickly at Homosexuality, for instance, makes it is clear that such non-expert POVs are not accepted in that area of the encyclopedia either. I don't see the opinions of notable non-experts who are critical of homosexuality because of their religious POV, for instance, used as sources in the entry. That fact is of course something positive. Yet this is what including Bertrand Russel in the current entry would be, almost to a T. A notable philosopher, who was an atheist, and who expressed opinions about the historicity of Jesus specifically without the expertise to do so. What policy suggests that this content should be included, or that this source should be included? None. Non-expert editors are not being bullied here. Non-expert sources simply do not belong unless they are relevant, and no such relevance has ever been shown to exist.Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the articles' main problem is with NPOV. Will be posting a fuller response covering Fastily's concerns later.(please excuse for the delay.)--Civilizededucation^talk 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The articel refelcts the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin. The article implies that secular academic support for the historicity of Jesus is widespread. The problem is that such claims are sourced primarily to the Christian community (including scholars) and authors of popular books. So, the article either needs to present a different picture, or editors need to find secular, peer-reviewed and widespread support. I've looked for evidence that the secular, peer-reviewed community believes that Jesus existed, to the same degree it believes the Holocaust and moon-landings existed, and not found it. I don't think such sourcing exists. So, the designation of skeptics as fringe theorists strikes me as absurd. Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell don't advocate fringe theories. Noloop (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)