Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Another ANI

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

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 [2]. 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)

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. [3]
• 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."[4]. 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"[5]. 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." [6].
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". [7] It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity [8]
• 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: [9] 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.[10] The author, Robin Lane Fox, is an atheist.[11] 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.[12]

"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)

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)

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)

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)

How about make it to a bullet list ...

--Kslotte (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeaah, that looks cool. I think it might be better if you place it on top because I am inexperienced with this, and am likely to commit some faux paus with its placement/formatting. I tried doing it, but left it because I don't think I got it right.--Civilizededucation^talk 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC

I copied it to the RFC section. You may not want it right at the top; if not just move it wherever.

—WWoods (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rubenstein RfC

Noloop has posted a request for comment concerning my behavior, in part at this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 12 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)

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 [13] 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 [14]. 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 [15] is a better source than the same theologian publishing in Theological Studies, Inc.: a Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology [16] 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: [17] 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)

Let's say, just for discussion's sake, that there are not agnostic/atheistic sources on the historical Jesus. So accordingly with the "Christian faction" should the wiki reader not be informed that the scholars mentioned are priest or christian minister? Apart that, without having read his writings, maybe Bruno Bauer, Albert Kalthoff, Arthur Drews can be alternative sources? --Dia^ (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are modern secular sources, though, such as G.A. Wells and Robert Price, so we can use them without having to dip back into Bauer or Drews. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes Price secular? He's a practicing Episcopalian, he got one of his degrees in theology, and he teaches at the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary. Each one of these factors (practicing Christian, degree in theology, teaching at a seminary) has been brought up as reasons why other scholars are not secular... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He describes himself as an atheist, so he works for our purposes of making sure we include alternative, and specifically non-religious, perspectives. And both his PhDs are in this area, not just one of his degrees. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're moving the goal posts. What do all the people that Noloop wants to label Christians "describe themselves as"? For the record, though I'm not sure this was being argued, neither Bauer nor Drews can be called "secular" by these standards either.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the earlier discussion. I've tried to read it but can't follow it, so I don't know where or what the goal posts even are. The only point I am making is that Wells and Price will offer an alternative view. I don't mind whether we call them secular, atheist, agnostic, non-religious, or the Man in the Moon. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but there was a discussion about "secular sources" already. Since you used the term "modern secular sources" it might be good to explain what you mean by it then. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I don't know in what context Price called himself a "Christian atheist" (not just an atheist), but I can't see how he'd say that without a fair bit of irony. Certainly in his contribution to The Historical Jesus: Five Views he says that he goes to church; he even says that "I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and sing the great hymns of the faith." (Sorry I don't have a page number, but it's near the beginning of his piece.)

I'm glad you're not committed to labeling Price as secular (or anything else), but a basic problem is that editors who desire "secular" sources aren't offering any clear definition of what they mean by the term. If you're not interested in making it a requirement that sources be secular, then there's no particular reason for you to define it; but I wish the editors for whom being "secular" is important would clearly define what they mean. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian atheism is not so unusual e.g. the great Don Cupitt. What I mean by secular here is not religious, not believing in God, in a supreme being, in the creation of humanity by that supreme being, and so on. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert M. Price

The desire to call Robert M. Price a secular source along with the idea that "Christian sources" are biased is a perfect example of the problem with the arguments forwarded by Noloop and maintained by Slimvirgin and others. Price is a former minister, and a biblical scholar. He apparently still identifies with Christianity but does so as a "Christian atheist". At some point Price clearly reflected upon what he knows about the historical Jesus and decided that he cannot with certainty believe Jesus existed. Good for him. Other Christians who are also biblical scholars have reflected on the evidence as they see it and have decided something quite different. As biblical scholars what differentiates Price from these others? What makes his conclusion less biased than theirs? I also wonder if Price came to this conclusion before or after his more general atheism? Does anyone know?Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He's regarded as secular by secular publishers who ask for his views e.g. New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. But I can't see the significance of your question for the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is a "secular publisher" in your mind? Please take some time and explain what you mean by "secular sources" and "secular publishers" and how you think they relate to 1) Christian sources and 2) attribution in the entry. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim, it is significant because virtually all of the fuss on this page has been over whether or not to identify "Christian sources" as such, and what qualifies as a Christian source, and what is meant by a "secular source". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to focus on fixing the article. It isn't well-written or structured, to the point where it's quite unclear what it's saying, and it has religious stuff in it ("stuff" for the want of a better word, referring to people's "earthly" existence, and so on, as though it's a Sunday sermon). It also has that over-egging the pudding quality to it, with multiple sources for one small point. So we need to clean it up so it's written in a disinterested tone. When that's done, we can afford the luxury of ruminating about what we mean by secularism. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent plan, but it means bracketing what's been the focus of discussion here (and other Jesus articles) for almost a month now. I'm not sure that it's possible to drop that discussion, because cleaning up the article (which I agree is needed) will involve sourcing issues. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What sourcing issues are outstanding? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at Noloop's post in the section below this one. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That was nine days ago. I think if we include Wells and Price, write up the minimalist/mythist positions properly, and get rid of the multiple sources for each tiny point, that will go a long way to resolving things. That and careful writing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're right; but could you explain further what you mean by including Wells and Price? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we have some new and thoughtful enthusiasm for this topic, and what SV is saying sounds entirely reasonable, and I look forward to the proposed changes. But I have to agree with Akhilleus that it seems like we are bracketing or outright ignoring Noloop's concerns. Maybe that is an appropriate response at this point. We'll just see how things go once the page is unprotected. I really am eager for SV's contributions! I'm glad there is progress and a positive move towards improvement and working together.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:42, 18 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)

Noloop and SR

I cannot in good consience retract my assertion that Noloop has made bigoted comments. However, it was unnecessary and wrong to personalize it by saying that Noloop himself is bigoted. For what it is worth, I apologize for that and through this statement retract comments about Noloop him/herself. I will strive in the future to limit myself to addressing editors' comments, rather than editors themselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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 theologian 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)

• (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)

• (RFC comment) I think the lead fo the article should have both positions articulated in as short a paragraph as possible. This isn't the Jesus article, this is the article about the efforts to establish a historical basis for whether Jesus existed. I suspect that there are some Christians who might feel threatened by an article about this topic. If that is the case, it doesn't make sense. As a matter of faith, both the historical existence of Jesus or his divinity are irrelevant. Faith doesn't require evidence. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The lead definitely needs to note the range of opinions with in-text attribution where appropriate. As it stand it leaves out the perspective that Jesus might not have existed (at all or in any form we would recognize), which is actually a wider perspective than simply Christ myth theorists. But even if it were only Christ myth theorists, it would still be worth noting in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• (RFC comment) I say, let's (as Wikipedians) stop putting words into the mouths of "all scholars"/"vast majority of scholars" unless we have proof of their individual views. Let us also not allow 4/5 other unscrupulous scholars to put words into the mouths of "all scholars"/"vast majority of scholars" who choose to stay mum, and who can very well speak for themselves. They are all scholars after all, they are not word challenged, and being objective minded individuals, cannot be expected to all agree on any difficult issue. Anyone who tries to make out that a large group of objective minded scholars-"....all agree..." should be viewed with suspicion. Let us also not allow 4/5 scholars to "tactically defeat" contradictory/competing views by asserting that "All scholars agree...such and such view is nutty." We should give more importance to the arguements of various sides rather than let one side cover the whole argument tactically. Instead of helping people hide their bias behind designations like scholars, etc. we should attribute their POV.--Civilizededucation^talk 08:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• RFC comment Over in the Christ Myth Theory I listed all the general relevant fields I could think of that related to the whole Historicity of Jesus issue: Historical Anthropology (Ethnohistory), New Testament archeology, Theology, Mythology, New Testament History, New Testament Literary criticism, and Philosophy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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)

Secular peer reviewed etc.

Secular peer reviewed sources (SPRS) don't exist, so the only way we could say that "Christian scholars agree that Jesus existed" is by using OR. We can't do that, so the lack of SPRSs binds our hands, and we have to use a bunch of impartial scholars. That's the issue. The answer is that, until SPRs discuss the issue, the Christian scholars are who will be cited. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How so? It would be OR to say secular scholars disagree, or only Christian theologians think that. It's consistent with the sources to say that agreement is widespread within the Christian community. The main problem with that is that it is trivially true, not worth mentioning. Noloop (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that your assertion that the scholars you've identified as Christian somehow stand apart from secular scholars. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made no such assertion. Noloop (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! So you'll agree, then, that the views of a scholar like John P. Meier aren't limited to the "Christian community", but reflect the perspective of mainstream academia? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. (When you start by hating an editor for what he believes, you don't get far in learning about his beliefs.) Noloop (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are no sources that say that "agreement is widespread within the Christian community." If we do have such sources then lets see them.Griswaldo (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding - you won't have us cite Jewish scholars? Isn't that racist? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case you can forget about citing Fredriksen, whom others above have falsely assumed is Christian. The false assumption, of course, is exemplary of the general level of ignorance amongst those who are insisting on this ridiculous identification and attribution of religious identity.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Question: What on earth do those who bandy this phrase about think it means - secular peer reviewed sources?

• Publications (or publishers) without a religious affiliation?
• Publications (or publishers) who publish scholarship from academic fields that have no religious affiliation (history, archeology, physics, etc.) as opposed to fields that do (theology)?
• Scholars who have no religious affiliation of their own?

In academia only the first two options would ever matter and the first two options are satisfied here without question (Note: that even the first two do not always matter, depending on the context in question). If a scholar has a religious affiliation and wants an un-scholarly piece of religious apologetics published, peer-reviewed publications and academic publishers are not going to publish it as "history". They are going to hold what they publish to the same standards whether the author is Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist or Pastafarian. Insisting on the third option is highly irregular and has no basis outside of this discussion. There certainly are not reliable sources suggesting that there is any reason to consider the secularity of sources based on the third premise. If there were we'd have seen them by now.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Church, secular clergy are the parish priests (as opposed to those belonging to Monastic or missionary orders like the Franciscins or Carmelites). "Secular" means lots of things. In sociological terms, it means aspects of society not related to the Church as an institution. But is Notre Dame's football team really best described as "religious" rather than "secular?" What about a hospital owned by the Church - are its doctors practicing secular surgery or religious surgery?

I think the editors pushing this word into these articles are opposing it to atheeist. Which means that "secular" is a point of view in a debate about thee existence of God. A theological debate. Well, if we have articles on theological issues, "secular" may be a good name for a particular point of view. But in my research the biggest fault line is between fundamentalists and critical scholars. I do not see how it matters whether the critical scholar is Buddhist, Jewish, Presbyterian, or Ethical Humanist - if they adhere to the principles of critical scholarship they will produce the same kind of work.

Can anyone provide empirical evidence to the contrary? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have 4 peer reviewed, secular sources to consider. First is the Oxford Encyclopedia of World History from 1998 which on page 349 assumes Jesus to be a real historical person in its entry on him. This proves the expert historians who wrote and reviewed the book hold to the historicity of Jesus.

Secondly there is the Encyclopedia of Religion, part of the Macmillan reference series. It was written and edited by several "secular" experts in religion, including historians, anthropologists, comparative studies professors, linguists, even Women's studies and English professors, so it is not a source from "biblical historians". In volume 7 on the article on Jesus it briefly discusses the mythical hypothesis of the 19th century and then says "The future was not, however, with such radicalism, which could never really explain Paul or Josephus's two references to Jesus. Far more lasting in their influence were Weiss and Schweitzer..." So this claims that scholarship today is not influenced by the mythical hypothesis.

Thirdly, there is Man, Myth, and Magic, a secular encyclopedia series which is definitely not some pro Christian source. The very first thing it says about Jesus is "It was once fashionable in certain circles to deny that Jesus of Nazareth had never existed. Although this view never became widely established and was rejected by most scholars it was not wholly wrong." It then goes on to differentiate Christ from the historical Jesus, gives the standard evidence of his existence (i.e. he was definitely someone who had been executed according to all refs to him ect.) and presumes he was historically real.

Lastly there is the Encyclopedia Britannica. The article on Jesus was written by E.P. Sanders, showing the editors of it think he's enough of a expert to have him write a article for a secular peer reviewed publication such as theirs and all his claims were reviewed by the world's highest experts on the subject and found credible so any objection to him as a reliable source would seem silly. The article assumes he was a real historical person and doesn't discuss the mythical hypothesis much at all, nor is there any article in any of these books about the mythical hypothesis at all, showing it does not have any following among the secular academic experts who compiled them. The article on Christianity (written by several scholars) only mentions it thus "The allusions (to Jesus) in non_Christian sources ... are almost negligible, except as refuting the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed." Thus the Encyclopedia claims that the myth hypothesis is "unsubstantiated", meaning that the scholarly consensus among experts, including expert historians who surely reviewed the article, is that Jesus was real. Any objections to these sources? And if not, then certainly we can say more than experts in biblical history hold to the historicity of Jesus. This was just from an hour of looking at the library, so more is to come if Noloop and others continue to demand more. And what exactly would satisfy him other than an article in a historical journal tallying scholars opinions, which surely either doesn't exist or is seriously old due to the fact the issue is a dead one among historians. Roy Brumback (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not peer-reviewed nor are they academic nor are they reviewed by the world's "highest experts" (as if such a thing existed). They're intended for the public. Wikipedia doesn't regard them as high-quality sources: “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.” WP:RS It's impossible to evaluate any of these sources without actually seeing them, but basically what we have is your interpretation of what E.P. Sanders said, and Sanders is already a source in all these articles. Noloop (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is false. Wikipedia considers mainstream tertiary sources to contain uncontroversial views that reflect majority scholarly opinions -- see WP:DUE part of WP:NPOV-- "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Our policy on reliable sources also tells us that tertiary sources are fine to use for summaries and overviews of topics -- WP:RS -- "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. The claims Noloop makes are patently false. Tertiary sources may clearly be used in this case as strong proof of what the mainstream position in scholarship is.Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They were all signed articles, Wikipedia regards them as acceptable sources (although I'm not advocating using any of them as sources in the article as we have plenty of reliable secondary sources also making the same claim), and why don't you go down to your local library and check them out. I assure you Sanders was not the author of them all. Questions for you. Is Britannica a "secular" source? Is it reviewed by experts at all? Would you say it was more reliable than Wikipedia, which is what the reliable source page claims? If I were to produce 10 encyclopedias stating the same thing, would any be accepted? What would be accepted? And have you produced any evidence that would contradict the dozens of sources cited in this article?Roy Brumback (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A signed article in an encyclopedia is a good source. If Noloop or any other editor has doubts about this, the place to go is the reliable sources noticeboard. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think. I quoted WP:RS. Encyclopedias are not peer-reviewed nor are they academic. I've actually read an article comparing their accuracy unfavorably to Wikipedia's. We already have the opinion of EP Sanders (a theologian) so I'm not sure what that adds. What is wanted is a peer-reviewed, secular, academic basis for these articles. Or, failing that, an alert to the reader of the lack of neutrality (different from reliability) of the sourcing.Noloop (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And above, Griswaldo quote the part of WP:RS that says that encyclopedias may be used to give overviews. I know there's a lot of text on this page (and in WP:RS), but really, Noloop, it would be good if you read all of the discussion carefully.... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop is deaf to most things I post on this talk page or other talk pages and community forums. As long as other people are capable of seeing how he ignores the comments of others per WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT I'm satisfied.Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said encyclopedias couldn't be used. The name of this section is "secular, peer-reviewed." Those sources aren't peer-reviewed. EP Sanders isn't secular. That doesn't mean he can't be used as a source. The only exclusion of sources in all these debates is by your "side", attempting to exclude skeptics. You really don't understand my point. I've never said these sources can't be used. Noloop (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No but what you did say is equally false. Nowhere in your quote from Wp:RS does it say that encyclopedias 1) are not high quality sources, 2) are not peer-reviewed and 3) are not "academic". Are they peer reviewed the way a journal is? NO, but WP:RS does not insist on that particular process, because there are others (and indeed makes not mention of the quality of encyclopedias as sources based on some peer-review litmus test). Are they high quality sources? YES of course, and that's exactly what I was trying to point out. They are high quality sources, indeed the highest quality sources, for certain things, like general overviews and establishing mainstream POVs. This is 100% clear in our policies, and is highly relevant here since the acceptance of basic historicity is not a matter of specialization that requires secondary sources. Are encyclopedias, and other reference works, academic? Absolutely, but like everything it depends on the specific encyclopedia. Most tertiary sources are written by experts who try very hard to tow the mainline POV, not to mention published by publishers who are in the same boat. I see nothing in your quotes or anywhere else to suggest differently. If there is no attribution to the content then sure, lets not assume it was written by an expert, but you'll find that most tertiary sources applicable here do have attribution.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing the evidence that E. P. Sanders is not secular. What does this mean? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Loop, is Britannica a secular source or not? Roy Brumback (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Noloop (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So then do you trust what it says about the scholarship on the issue? Do you generally trust who wrote and reviewed it? Do you think anyone else it declares historical was really not? Roy Brumback (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the articles, so I have no idea if I trust them. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I expressed concern with particular text and sources, none of which were the sources you've recently mentioned. I've said that if something is so definitely factual it's denial is like Holocaust denial, you can find matter-of-fact mention of it in secular, peer-reviewed sources. I've complained that this article implies to the reader that secular peer-reviewed sources indicate Jesus existed with the certainty that it indicates the Holocaust existed. Yet there is little sourcing from secular peer-reviewed sources. Encyclopedia Brittanica is a secular publisher, but it is not peer-reviewed or academic, and Sanders is a theologian. Furthermore, we have reliable sources that question Jesus' historicity; even if they are in the minority, they are reliable enough that the reader deserves to know about them. We should not contemptuously dismiss them as pseudoscience. Noloop (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How is Britannica not academic? Do experts review it at all? If it states Jesus was historical, and that the myth hypothesis is unsubstantiated does that lend weight in your mind to the claim that that's what most historians conclude. And this article does not claim his existence is a fact, like Britannica does. It claimed that's what historians and scholars in general conclude, which is a different statement. Major myth proponents are listed and linked so how are people being denied an ability to hear about them? Do you personally believe most historians think Jesus did not exist at all? Will you admit you have no sources contradicting the claim under dispute, that historians and scholars in general hold to the bare historicity of Jesus? Roy Brumback (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The article treats the existence of Jesus as fact in a number of ways, such as treating skepticism about it as a fringe theory. Based on the research I've done, I think most historians don't believe it's an answerable or well-defined question. I've answered and explained these questions before. Britanica is written for a general popular audience; it is not academic or peer-reviewed. I just gave a source saying there has never been an agnostic approach to the subject.... it was ignored. Noloop (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we end this nonsense per WP:UNDUE

For the record I believe several secular scholars who accept the basic historicity of Jesus have been mentioned here and elsewhere already -- e.g. Will Durant (a humanist), and Michael Grant (an atheist??). Can we put to bed the idea that no such sources exist? Since these sources exist but since a vast majority of authors on this question are religious, mostly being Christian, can we accept the fact that a majority of our sources will be religious, and even more so Christian (per WP:DUE? Labeling such sources as Christian, in the face of these facts would be a violation of WP:ASF because it would suggest that the notion of historicity is not mainstream but "Christian" or "religious". When every tertiary source imaginable reproduces the same POV, we can safely say it is mainstream and also safely say that the request to label sources by the religious affiliation of authors is not just unnecessary but misleading.Griswaldo (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the premises on which the dispute is based—the alleged distinction between "Christian" and "secular" sources—is BS. That said, I haven't seen good evidence that Michael Grant is an atheist—is there such evidence? Also, in the lead of Christ myth theory, the classicist Graeme Clarke is cited (oh, I see it used to be cited, but is not currently in the article—not sure what hapened there) as saying that "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." G. A. Wells, a one-time proponent of the theory, says that "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches..." ("Jesus, historicity of," from The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, Prometheus 2007) You can find plenty of quotes from other "mythicists" that say their perspective is not accepted by mainstream academia—Wells even says somewhere that it is customarily regarded with amused contempt. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The Clarke quote is a poor source because it comes from an op-ed by John Dickson recounting an anecdote in which he called up his pal Graeme Clarke, and Clarke produced that quote over the phone. Not a reliable source. 2. Wells is a much better source, but his comment is much different in character than what this article currently says, and Wells is obviously not a basis for calling CMT a "fringe theory" in the Wikipedian sense. A fringe theory isn't merely a minority view; it is thoroughly discredited like Holocaust denial. Wells doesn't consider himself on par with Holocaust deniers. 3. If acceptance of something as a fact is widespread outside the Xian community, it is trivial to find matter-of-fact mention of it in peer-reviewed, secular journals. That may be possible with the historicity of Jesus, but it is obviously far from trivial. 4. One doesn't find scholars suggesting there has never been a "methodologically agnostic approach" to the reality of the Holocaust, but one does find that regarding the existence of Jesus [18] Noloop (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this source?

Does The Historical Jesus in Context, a collection edited by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, and John Dominic Crossan (Princeton 2006) qualify as "secular, peer-reviewed"?

Even if not, I think this collection could be useful here. Amy-Jill Levine's introduction is useful on the history of the study of the historical Jesus, the methods used by historians, and what scholars generally agree on, for instance, and many of the contributions to the volume cover the ancient sources for Jesus' life that this article deals with. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The upside is that it is published by Princeton, which, while it has historically had a tie to a specific religious denomination, is now primarily involved in secular publishings. Levine & Crossan are both as I remember Christian biblical experts, with Levine specializing in feminist theology, but I would accept it as secular and peer-reviewed. I also have argued, repeatedly, that the Encyclopedia of Religion published by Thompson-Gale is one of the better sources for a lot of the lesser known topics it covers, particularly for subjects not covered often in English, and have, to date, encountered no substantive opposition from anyone on that subject that I can recall. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this one?

The Jesus Project, as CSER has named the new effort, is the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence. But we are not neutral, let alone willfully ambiguous, about the objectives of the project itself. We believe in assessing the quality of the evidence available for looking at this question before seeing what the evidence has to tell us. We do not believe the task is to produce a "plausible" portrait of Jesus prior to considering the motives and goals of the Gospel writers in telling his story. We think the history and culture of the times provide many significant clues about the character of figures similar to Jesus. We believe the mixing of theological motives and historical inquiry is impermissible. We regard previous attempts to rule the question out of court as vestiges of a time when the Church controlled the boundaries of permissible inquiry into its sacred books. More directly, we regard the question of the historical Jesus as a testable hypothesis, and we are committed to no prior conclusions about the outcome of our inquiry. This is a statement of our principles, and we intend to stick to them. (emphasis added)Noloop (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This quote by Joseph Hoffmann seems to havea strong bearing on that source:

Alas, The Jesus Project itself became a subject for exploitation: news stories, promotional material and the reactions in the blogosphere focused on the Big Question: “Scholars to Debate whether Jesus Really existed.” Given the affections of media, the only possible newsworthy outcome was assumed to be He didn’t. Such a conclusion had it ever been reached (as it would not have been reached by the majority of participants) would only have been relevant to the people April DeConnick ( a participant) has described as “mythers,” people out to prove through consensus with each other a conclusion they cannot establish through evidence. The first sign of possible trouble came when I was asked by one such “myther” whether we might not start a “Jesus Myth” section of the project devoted exclusively to those who were committed to the thesis that Jesus never existed. I am not sure what “committed to a thesis” entails, but it does not imply the sort of skepticism that the myth theory itself invites.[19]

Hardyplants (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Jesus Project, I'm not sure what Noloop is proposing, if anything at all. Is no loop saying we adopt the values of the Jesus Project? Or suggesting we simply use them as a source (representing a minor/minority source or a mainstream/majority source?) It's odd that their association with Prometheus Books and the Center for Inquiry isn't setting off POV flags for Noloop. Griswaldo, below, touches on that. I'm concerned that they haven't actually produced anything yet (or anything besides a few meetings and a few articles by individuals, and a bunch of blog posts), as their project had an initial 5 year time table (which is only 3 years into, and which some members suggest may not even be met). Additionally, this is quite telling:

Further, the Project has focused on an incoherent set of some of the least important questions in scholarship. For example, it keeps asking “Did Jesus exist?” as if that issue had not been raised repeatedly during the past two centuries and yet also features James Cameron’s film, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which has been thoroughly discredited as an archaeological travesty.[20]

The project may be promising, but it seems premature. But before I pass any further hypothetical judgement, I want to know what Noloop is proposing (or why the JP was brought up).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a reliable source stating that investigations into the existence of Jesus have not been methodologically agnostic. Noloop (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear to me also what Noloop is proposing, but it should be noted that the Jesus Project seems to be defunct—its webpages are up, but this blog entry by Joseph Hoffman (also quoted by Hardyplants above) says that the project's funding was suspended in June 2009, and that he withdrew from the project shortly thereafter. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We should definitely be using G.A. Wells's article on the historicity in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. It has some very distinguished contributors, and there's no reason at all not to use it here. Well has referred people to this article of his if they want a summary view of his position. I'd also recommend The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James Beilby and Paul Eddy. The contributors are all specialists, including Robert Price, a quasi-myther, so it has a broad range of views. The format is that each contributor writes a response to the articles of each of the others, so you can see how each position is countered, which makes it a useful format for our purposes.

I'm not clear why the article was protected, but is there a reason to keep it protected, or can we start adding some of these views? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for unprotection, as I have various non-myth related things I am working on, as seen above. I always (as best as I can) abide by a personal 1RR, and if I edit war, I should be blocked. I'd encourage other users to likewise limit their reverting or risk the consequences, as opposed to running to RPP when you get reverted. Is anyone itching to restore controversial content from the last page unprotection? Do we need to discuss anything further? I'd like to insert the proposed sentence discussed above (the one summarizing the ToC), in addition to restoring my minor edits here (note the Durant stuff isn't mine). Wikilink events, change manuscript to book, note that Paul converted, remove the empty section header, and remove the 2 year fact tagged sentence. But I'd be glad to discuss further. Otherwise, I'd like to hear what sort of edits others have in store, and move forward with page unprotection.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to flesh out the Christ myth section a little and make it more respectful. I will make clear that it's a minority position, but I want to get rid of the green cheese insult, or whatever it says. I also want to add the views of GA Wells and Robert Price as appropriate throughout the text, though I have nothing prepared so that would be a longer term proposal. And the lead has to say something about the doubts, again making clear that it's a minority position. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And Andrew if you want to limit the edit warring, I'd recommend 0RR, and making an effort instead to develop what other people write, rather than removing it. The problem I have found with all these articles is that certain editors (and I am not including you in this as I'm not familiar with your editing) instantly revert whatever they dislike, which is why other editors have to request blocks and page protection. Those are legitimate requests when people are holding up article development. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I have no problem if my edits are improved upon, or even reverted for some meaningful reason that I can see.Civilizededucation^talk 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said 1RR, I did not mean I reserve the right to restore information that I add to the article. If I am reverted, I won't revert back to my version (but again, hopefully we can work in an environment where no one is being reverted, but instead changes are being discussed, and content being improved by multiple parties). And I agree with the sentiment of improvement as opposed to blanket revert. I'm also for communicating problems, and working out compromises on talk. But 1RR to me means someone may reserve the right to revert bold, controversial new content, per BRD (though I don't think it should be viewed as a right, or abused), I guess in extreme situations. 0RR definitely to be favored, if at all possible, but I hope everyone can respect BRD, and not fight to keep new content in. If someone doesn't like it, discuss it further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

but I hope everyone can respect BRD, and not fight to keep new content in.

Well, BRD is an essay which suggests ways to get new material in and kick-start article development. You are trying to say that people should stop trying to get new material in - out of respect for BRD.

Have you read BRD? --Civilizededucation^talk 02:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't articulate myself well enough. I am not trying to say people should stop trying to get new material in. I'm saying people should not edit war to keep new material in. Bold edits are great, and should be encouraged. Edit warring is disruptive and should be discouraged. Hope that is clear ;)

p.s.I also don't appreciate the belittling comment at the end, but I guess I'll live. :p-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying people should not edit war to keep new material in. What am I expected to do if people just revert my edits with a mischaracterization, and do not provide any meaningful objection/criticism/suggestion?--Civilizededucation^talk 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(again)I'm saying people should not edit war to keep new material in. Why do you want to keep new material out/favor people who want to keep new material out? Is it necessary to stop trying to add to the article just because you don't like the new material. There are lots of new material that can and will be added to this article by me and other users, it is unreasonable to try to keep out new material or to see the addition of new material as to source of trouble. If you see fighting to keep the new material in as the source of trouble, I see fighting to keep the new material out (without providing any meaningful objection, etc.) as the source of trouble. You may also want to reflect on the fact that it wasn't me who reverted first, actually I was the last.--Civilizededucation^talk 05:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning on reverting anything right now. It's not like I'm secretly scheming to block new content or anything of the sort. But you have to realize, that in a controversial topic, where two sides disagree, it is plausible that an edit will be made that the other side disagrees with. New disputed content should never be restored, until there is talk page consensus. If I make a bold edit, I would hope that someone doesn't revert it, but in the case that it is reverted, it is never, ever OK for me to re-instate the bold new content. Instead, I should discuss my proposal further on talk, and try to reach a consensus or a new compromise wording. This is BRD. When you say what am I expected to do if people just revert my edits with a mischaracterization it seems like you have full intentions to continue edit warring. I'll tell you what you are expected to do, and I hope you can agree to it: DON'T edit war to restore your bold new content (with that caveat that we all should do our best to not simply revert others). It doesn't matter that you don't agree with those reverting you, and believe their revert was off basis. We have to assume good faith, and work out compromises on the talk page, even if you know in your heart of hearts that you are right. Remember, Wikipedia isn't about The Truth, but instead working together with other editors, and attempting to accurately representing previously published material. So, assuming we all don't intend to revert, and to focus on improving edits and discussing problems and all that, can we also all agree that if we are reverted, that we won't stoop to "edit warring" to try to force the disputed new content?-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that people not being allowed to restore material halts article development. I think there has to be a commitment not to remove new material unless it really is nonsense, or so poorly written that it can't be fixed. We can work out compromises in the article—not just on talk—through good writing, with each person building on the edits of the last (where possible), not destroying them. That has to be the way ahead here because the article is not in ideal shape. A very conservative attitude toward new material won't get that changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all in agreement with all that. Maybe I'm just being too pessimistic, or thinking of the worst. In the rare event that someone may do a whole-sale revert (which we all are currently discouraging), I don't think anyone should fight through edit warring to restore that content. Here, or anywhere. I've probably put too much emphasis on that hypothetical situation, because we all are going to behave and never end up there in the first place, eh? ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to sourcing. I explained why I think the Jesus Project quote is significant, but the discussion moved so quickly, I think my comment was buried. The significance of the "first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence" quote is that it is a reliable source saying Jesus research hasn't been neutral. Editors have been wanting evidence of that (and rejecting the predominance of Christian sources as such evidence), so there it is. (It is also implies skepticism about Jesus' existence isn't fringe.) Noloop (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am more focused on article content at this point. How does this affect the article specifically? Are you proposing inserting new content (if so, how would you phrase it)? or is this to support or rebut current content (if so, what content)? That said, what do you have to say about edit warring? Can you make any commitments to avoid reverting? A self imposed 0RR? Improve edits, not revert, and all the stuff we have been talking above? And is there any particular edits you are itching to make when the page is unprotected, or anything you feel may need more discussion? Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A good starting point would be the edits by CivilizedEd and myself which you reverted, calling them disruptive POV-pushing [21]. The statement from a reliable source that Jesus research has not been methodologically agnostic is relevant to all these articles, and something everyone should discuss. Do you agree the Jesus Project as a whole weakens the fringe theory designation? Noloop (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Le sigh. I don't think we should focus on moving backwards, but instead focus on moving forward. I'm inspired by SVs recent comments, and am eagerly awaiting to see what sort of rewrite she can come up with in regards to the JM stuff. For what it's worth, I don't believe there is consensus for the changes I reverted in that diff, and it is a bit surprising to see you still wanting to restore that content as you haven't been discussing those proposals further (unless I missed something, which is quite possible on this busy talk page). CivilizedEd and myself discussed these changes a little bit elsewhere on this page. I explained my rational, CivilizedEd replied, and I replied to that. Not a whole lot, but it is a start. I thought came to me, similar, but less strict than your mutual topic ban proposal for you and SLR, I'd propose that myself and you don't edit anything in regards to the JM stuff, and allow SV and others to work up a new version, which we can comment on here (and not focus on going back, but instead forward!)

As for the JP, this may be more appropriate for the criticism section of the historical Jesus article, not here (I don't really see a place for it fitting well). I have my concerns with this source, as mentioned above, and I don't believe this is evidence that Christian sources are biased, but instead that a minor POV think tank has reservations with mainstream Jesus scholarship. A project that is now possibly defunct, never published anything of significance, and never reached it's 5 year projection, with internal conflict and wrought with other problems... I'm concerned with the significance/notability, and concerned with what you are suggesting above may not be clearly derived from the quoted text (seems a bit like a stretch), but I'm not entirely opposed to mention the Jesus project, depending how it is presented, and to what purpose. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The changes I propose, for starters, are what you reverted. You asked my opinion, and then "sighed" at it. I wasn't saying anything about the Jesus Project; that was merely the framework of the quote. I was saying something about a reliable source for the idea that mainstream Jesus scholarship is religiously biased. Noloop (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope before restoring the content which I and others don't agree to (and thus, it lacks consensus), I'd hope you'd read my first post under Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Full_Protection, the numbered points 1-6, then read Ed's replies to those points further down, and my replies to that, and see what you can contribute in order to convince us those edits are appropriate and needed. But again, I'd much rather forget about the past, and allow SV and others to rework the JM stuff and see what they can come up with. I'm fine not editing anything related to the JM stuff once the page is unprotected, and I'd be nice if you didn't as well (or better yet, discuss further the controversial changes which were edit warred over and lead to page protection in the first place, before restoring the material.....)-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:19, 21 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.

[22] 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.[23][24] There have been a few different sources proposed that were used do produce the final text we have, Q just being the major one. [25] and [26] 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)

So where do we stand with this. If anyone objects to my proposed wording, please participate here so we can work towards getting the wording right. If no one objects, I'd like to move forward with a edit-protected request. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So this is what we have:

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

Last call... -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should wait until the article is unprotected, Andrew, rather than requesting edits that are arguably contentious, because that's in effect moving ahead as if protection didn't exist. The point of protection is in part to get people to re-adjust their attitudes, not only to halt editing for a short time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What is contentions about this? It is putting the table of contents into prose format. Protection is supposed to make editors talk about their differences and how to improve the article. We have been doing that above, and there seems to be consensus/silence in regards to this summary of the ToC. It is a shame that ALL progress on the article must stop because there is a POV dispute going on regarding a sentence or two dealing with the dominance of the JM view. If editors are here to improve the article, and are tired of arguing the same stuff over and over again, and want to focus on other less controversial content, you'd discourage that? We either have to find another article, or participate in the JM stuff? Anyway, maybe I should just request that the article be unprotected, and also ask for a voluntary 1RR by all editors (heck, mandatory 1RR is fine with me to), just so we can get working on other aspects besides calling out what sources are Christians, and trying to tabulate just how few people accept or don't accept a historical Jesus.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect, is this not the attitude that is causing the problem? That one group is right and just wants to work on the article, and another group is doing nothing but distract with irrelevancies? When someone objects to an edit, and you have to respond with "We are simply, basically, summarizing the friggin' table of contents for goodness sake!," it strongly implies that it's a contentious edit and not appropriate for an edit-protected request.

Specifically, as has been explained already, the wording of your edit implies that reliance on the Q document, which does not exist, is not controversial. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c's proposed edit says that scholars "may consider" Q as evidence for the historical Jesus, among other sources. And I can't see how that statement is controversial: Q is indeed among the sources that scholars consider when studying the historical Jesus. That's a very mild statement—it doesn't say that scholars always consider Q, merely that it's among the sources that they use. Why do you think this is a controversial thing to say? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The first major sections of this article discuss the various sources scholars have discussed in relation to content which may serve to establish the historicity of Jesus. Some is rarely used in historical Jesus reconstructions, some are heavily relied upon, and some is worthless. The table of contents clearly shows the sections, breaking down the various ancient document sources on the historical Jesus. Scholars rely pretty heavily on various "theoretical documents" in determining what aspects of the gospels is earliest, and what, if any, represent independent traditions. Even if someone may think it is odd or controversial to use hypothetical documents, the mainstream scholars DO use so, and we describe this in the article already. Maybe I didn't phrase it as best as possible, which is what talk pages are for. I'd welcome any changes or counter proposals. I just think it is important to have a sentence in the lead describing the various sources which we later discuss in the article. How would you phrase such a sentence? Do you think Q needs to be singled out in the lead, any more than the controversial TF Josephus passage? or the controversial Talmud? or the controversial NT books themselves... -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I really think the phrasing I came up with sounds quite awkward: Scholars may consider among the following sources evidence for the historical Jesus. Any ideas how we can rephrase it, or any further comments. I want the sentence to convey "here is a list of general types of ancient sources that mention Jesus, which scholars have commented on and analyzed their historical significance and credibility in relation to their discussions on the historicity of Jesus, but keep in mind that not all scholars use all of these sources in their reconstructions of the historical Jesus". Maybe something like "Jesus' historicity is established through critical analysis of..." I dunno. Any ideas? -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What about Evidence for the historical Jesus, which scholars may weigh and consider, includes... -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Controlling sources, and WP:OR/SYNTH violations

The lead has:-

Theoretical evidence comes also from the hypothetical Q source upon which the synoptic gospels may have been based

The Sayings Gospel Q: collected essays, as far as I can see, from reading the article directly cited, makes no such point. To the contrary, it argues that Q and pre-Q are, unlike Matthew and Luke, and indeed unlike the unhistorical pericopes in Mark, not 'historical' narratives, but simply a collection of sayings which communities conserved, not the ipsissima verba Christi, but sayings that a mid-Ist century CE community ascribed to a Jesus. If that article has a specific section backing the statement about 'theoretical evidence' from Q that points to the historicity of Jesus, then cite that page. I can't see it, and it looks like a deduction from the article. I.e. since the article talks about an early group of saying more attributable to Jesus than the patent fabrications in Matthew and Luke (all the pre-baptism material), this means the scholars are proving Christ was an historical figure. That is not the problem focused on in the article cited.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed above changing that sentence, so that it isn't singled out in that manner. Look at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Theoretical_documents, and the proposals there.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I'm afraid I haven't read it all. I think many calls are rather straightforward and do not require much extended discussion. The question was, is that point made by the source cited, or is it inferred from the source. If it is inferred, that source should go out, and if no other source there supports the statement explicitly, a citation required tag should be edited in.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The only statement I would support, is not the one quoted above, but one found in the proposals a few sections up, namely something along the lines of "evidence for the historical Jesus which scholars may consider include NT texts, q and other reconstructed sources on which the gospels were based, Jewish and pagan histories, etc" And yes, our cited sources do include discussions of scholars considering Q (and other sources behind the sources) among the various textual evidence for Jesus. Theissen p. 27ff, Ehrman p. 80ff, Meier p. 43ff. I'm not sure what synthesis we would be pushing here. There is no inference going on. Ehrman "Since these sources also predated the Gospels into which they were incorporated, they, too, could provide early access to the sayings and deeds of Jesus." -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement I quoted is based on two sources. Andreas Lindemann (2001) (no page given), and Christoph Heil & Jozef Verheyden (Eds.) The Sayings Gospel Q: collected essays, Vol. 189 of Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium, Peeters Publishers Pub., 2005, with 2 pages supplied, neither of which support the statement. So for that sentence, Heil and Verheyden are not appropriate, and the Lindemann source cannot be verified. Improper editing. Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have no intention of defending that text or those sources. I've been working to change that sentence. I'd be glad to defend my proposals above. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, then, I think within a day one should simply remove notes 3 and 4 and replace them with a request. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the fact tag, but I wonder whether it might be possible to change the content to say that some have seen the theoretical Q source as being an implicit evidence of the existence of Jesus. Such a statement seems more in line with what the sources do say. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt some sources will state this, John. I haven't examined Lindemann, but I the other source does not say that, or speak of implicit evidence. That may well be an implicit assumption of the writer, or perhaps be inferred by a reader, but we don't, as you know, make inferences from sources. It shouldn't be hard to find a scholar adducing the recent Q-work as evidence, in any case. Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, instead of deleting notes 3 and 4, we replace the two sentences making up the last "paragraph" of the lead entirely with my proposal from above.... -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see some anxiety about retaining cited sources, while making improved phrasing or varying the ideas ostensibly derived from them. In the present case, the ideas here do not seem to derive from the sources listed. Surely, the most economical method is to work out what is to be said, find a strong source that says it, and just paraphrase it, with a footnote to that source? I mean, this is basically what wikipedians are supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with your proposal Andrew. All you need is a fresh source for it.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is to make a prose sentence describing the first part of the table of contents. If there is a section of this article, listed in the table of contents, which is unsourced, it should be striken, and removed from this article (or find sources to rewrite the section in question). Otherwise, by following my proposal, we are simply listing what our article later discusses. The subsections will be the place to locate those sources.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop's recent edit

I reverted Noloop's insertion of Christian attribution (restored by PeaceLoveHarmony) because there is no consensus to label scholars like that. If this position is only held by one "Christian minister and theologian" then it is WP:UNDUE to include it here. If it is a wider position the current attribution is misleading and simply an attempt to make it seem idiosyncratic or biased. I think the current option, Noloop's option, does this and should be reverted. The sentence should be re-examined in terms of WP:NPOV and other issues, but Noloop's version should not stand.Griswaldo (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with your concern about the current quality of sourcing for this claim, which may indeed be WP:UNDUE. But until some additional sourcing is provided, I do not see how the descriptor "Christian minister and theologian" can be construed as a negative label intended to smear the source as "idiosyncratic or biased". It seems to me to be an objective and accurate description which gives the reader a better idea of who the source is. Are we supposed to eschew all objective descriptors that might trigger a prejudiced reaction from a biased reader? I think not. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per noloop's logic, Agnostics and other non-Christians should be labeled as well. After all, CMT is a theory held only by non-Christians. Flash 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If the author isn't himself the subject of a biography here, I can see having the "Christian minister and theologian" phrase added to establish that he has some qualifications to speak. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

John, part of the problem I'm having now is that I cannot find any reference to Edgar V. McKnight as a "Christian minister and theologian." He is prof. emeritus at Furman University where he held the William R. Kenan, Jr. endowed chair in the study of religion. He has an Mdiv and PhD (in what I'm not entirely sure). At Furman he apparently taught in the departments of classical languages and religion, chaired the department of classical languages, and served as associate dean of Academic Affairs. He did study theology at Oxford on a sabbatical and produced a book out of the endeavor. A second book which deals with both biblical studies and theology was apparently also authored by him, but from what I can see this man is a biblical scholar first and foremost, and not a "Christian minister and theologian." Here's the source of the information I found Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, I'd like to know what sources Noloop and PeaceLoveHarmony have consulted. Also, WP:BLP applies to all entries, and not simply the ones about living people specifically.Griswaldo (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. My edit was an undo of Andrew's deletion, as the edit comments indicate
2. If you look at archived discussion, which Andrew linked to, you find: "McKnight has served in Baptist churches and institutions since his ordination...seven years after his ordination he earned a Ph.D in New Testament studies from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."
3. The so-called "academic press" is Mercer which is a Christian university with a Christian press.

If the sourcing in this article represents the available scholarship, then the available scholarship is predominantly Christian, and the reader should be alerted to that. It is something some readers will want to know (I would want to know it) and it is relevant. If the sourcing in this article does not fairly represent the scholarship, then we should bring the sourcing more in line with secular sources. Noloop (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

New Testament studies is not "theology". A Ph.D in this discipline makes you a "New Testament scholar" and not a theologian -- irregardless of the University. A lot of NT scholarship is published by academic Christian presses. Mercer is an academic press with a Christian affiliation and not a "Christian press". It is not equivalent to something like Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. What does his ordination have to do with anything? His academic qualifications have nothing to do with being ordained, they revolve around his expertise in NT studies.Griswaldo (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Griswaldo here. Being licensed to be a minister through academic qualifications and actually being an acting minister are not the same thing, because on might get that degree for other reasons. I have to agree that calling him a "minister" is not substantiated by any sourcing I have found either. I would definitely favor removing that material per BLP immediately, until and unless the requisite sourcing is found. Regarding whether it is required that it be mentioned that Mercer is a religious school, no, I can see no reason to say that. What we know is that it was published by an academic press, not a "so-called" academic press. That comment itself is completely out of line. Nowhere in WP:RS does it say that we have to qualify the terms of who publishes material. If Noloop wants to change that policy, then the correct way to do it is by making comments on the appropriate policy page to that effect, not here. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He has a Masters of Divinity. That's a theological degree. He is ordained. He is clergy. Noloop (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, you are mistaken, and obviously so. An ordination is a religious function, entirely separate from having a degree. The two do not go hand in hand, particularly considering that some individuals actually get masters degrees from churches which they themselves do not belong to. Your statement indicates a rather obvious lack of awareness of the subject, and I would very strongly suggest you cease making such irrational and unsubstantiated allegations. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's your point about having a "theological degree"?

I didn't say they are the same. He has a theological degree AND he is ordained. Please read. Noloop (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Eerdmans publishes plenty of academic books.

As for McKnight, this entry in History of Biblical Interpretation: a Reader by William Yarchin says that McKnight was ordained in 1953; but the bulk of the entry concentrates on McKnight's activity as a scholar, including characterizing his approach as "understanding the documents of the Bible as literature", adopting a reader-response method. Since McKnight isn't taking a historical approach to the NT I'm not sure he's the right guy to be citing here, but if he's going to be cited, his description should concentrate on his scholarly credentials. I can't help but think the push to label various people as ministers, priests, Christians, etc. springs from a desire to mark certain sources as inherently untrustworthy, without any attempt to discover whether the scholarship being cited is sound, well-received in the field, or representative of a widely-held point of view. It seems like ad hominem labeling without any interest in the underlying scholarship, and I don't support it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Eardmans does, but they also publish popular books from a Christian POV, whereas an academic Christian press like Mercer does not as far as I know. But you are right.Griswaldo (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An argument, although not necessarily a particularly strong one, could be made that because Mercer is the only Baptist university press in the US, that should be mentioned. However, I see nothing in any of the policies or guidelines which would indicate that there is any sort of obligation of any sort to indicate as much. If we did go to that point, then we would also probably have to question other university presses which have adherents of some faith or other as their primary editor as well. Mercer Press is counted as a creditable academic press, and, for our purposes, that is all we need to know. And, like I said, being ordained a minister and actually functioning in any sort of ministerial capacity are not identical. If we have no clear and direct evidence of his being an active minister, and only evidence of his academic work, then there is no reason to indicate he has what might be a functionally "honorary" position. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I showed some years ago Eerdmans is does not do a very good of checking what its authors write as shown by Jesus Now and Then By Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould: "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius." (pg 37). Strictly speaking that statement is not true as none of these authors specifically mentions "Jesus" at all! Rather at best Tacitus mentions Christ dieing under procurator (wrong title) Pontius Pilatus with no other details. Pliny only shows there was belief in a Christ providing not one detail about the man behind the title while Suetonius could be talking about someone else as he specifically said Jews while showing in Life of Nero he knew enough about the Christan sect to separate them from Jews. Let's face it, allowing its authors to misrepresent things like this does not put Eerdmans in a good light as a "scholarly" publication.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(redent) I find it very interesting that some of you feel that the descriptor "Christian minister and theologian" is an ad hominem attack. I disagree. Noloop has provided the sourcing to prove that this descriptor is factually correct. How does it not improve the article to inform the reader with an objective factual description of the source? Why would you want to censor this type of information? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're using sources who are ordained ministers, I see no problem with pointing that out. The source and his publisher find no problem with it, and some of our readers won't either, but some will, so there's no reason to hide it. Just to use an anology from another area I edit in, animal rights, if I use an academic source who I know is an animal rights activist, where there is no ambiguity about it, I usually add something like "X, himself an animal rights advocate, argues that ..." It signals to the reader that this is a good source, but that there may be a POV issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much ad hominem labeling, isn't it? No one's provided any evidence that McKnight's scholarly work is actually biased in any particular direction. Instead, people are saying because he's an ordained minister there might be a POV issue and we need to warn our readers. Meanwhile, those who feel the need to inform readers about this problem also leave out salient features of McKnight's biography like he taught for 36 years at Furman University (a private, non-sectarian university), that he has Ph.Ds in New Testament and Philosophical Theology (the latter from Oxford), or that his primary research interest seems to be the application of postmodern literary theory to the New Testament. None of this is as important as warning people that the author has been a priest... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed a lot here and elsewhere, and there's no consensus that it's ad hominem. If someone has strong ideological beliefs that may be guiding their scholarly work (animal rights activism, Christian activism), it's reasonable to let the reader know when they are being used as a source in the area where their beliefs may have been most affected. Here is an example, which I'll mention without a name for BLP reasons. There is a physician who lectures in a mainstream university, and who specializes in nutrition and cardiology (I'm writing this from memory; I forget his exact specialism, but ignore that detail). He strongly advocates keeping cholesterol low, as do most doctors. He says the only effective way to do this is to eat no animal products of any kind, ever. This is his considered medical advice: no pills to lower it, just no animal products. Should we add that to articles about cholesterol and human health without mentioning that he is also an animal rights activist? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about someone who has views that differ from standard medical advice (which I guess would be along the lines of "exercise more, eat less food that encourages 'bad' cholesterol, including red meat, use pharmaceuticals to reduce cholesterol if needed," but I'm not anything close to a medical doctor). That gives you good reason to suspect that this person might be biased because of his beliefs about animal rights, and just from your description I'd say it's fine to indicate that (assuming that his opinion needs to be included in the article at all). Can you say anything similar about McKnight's scholarship being non-standard? All I've seen is people asserting that McKnight might be biased. If his views are not mainstream, then he shouldn't be used here; the point of the sentence in question ("The non-gospel books of the New Testament do not contribute much to our picture of Jesus, but, according to the Christian theologian and New Testament scholar Edgar V. McKnight, they do confirm the historicity of Jesus.") is to give a mainstream opinion about the historical value of the non-Gospel portions of the NT. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're focusing on the distinction and not the similarity. The point is that he's an academic with a strong ideological viewpoint that may be affecting or determining his scholarly judgment, and so as a courtesy to readers, and in my view as a matter of commonsense (and I say this as someone very sympathetic to animal rights), we signal that in the text. It does no harm at all to the source, who is what he is because he wants to be that thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it "does no harm at all to the source." The assertion that someone has a strong ideological viewpoint that affects their scholarship is harmful; it implies that their scholarship is not guided by a rational consideration of evidence, but is an exercise in ideology, religion, etc. In the case of McKnight, it looks to me like some editors add the information that McKnight was a priest as a way of saying "don't take this guy seriously, you can't trust him because he's just a Christian activist." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All those points have been addressed repeatedly. You should know what the responses will be. Yet you just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over. Why don't you apply your ideas to SlimVirgin's example? Is identifying the background of the doctor saying "don't take this guy seriously, you can't trust him because he's just a animal rights activist." No. THINK. This is such a waste of TIME. Noloop (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is how all the edit warring and page protection stuff starts up again. Everyone, please chill out. We had discussed above NOT reverting the work of others, yet we get nearly a dozens undos in the past half a day. This is unacceptable on all sides. If there is controversial content which is disputed in the article, even if we know it is for the better and True, what is the harm in allowing the text to stay out of the article temporarily while it is under discussion (until there is clear consensus to reinstate the text). This goes both ways. There is a phrase in the article that I want gone, but some want to keep. There is another sentence I want to keep, but others want gone. I'm not saying "let's leave controversial stuff out of the article while it id sunder discussion" to secretly try to 'win'. It goes both ways. I'm just trying to be consistent, and acknowledge that it is harmful for ANYONE to try to attempt to FORCE (by means of edit warring) disputed content into the article. Case in point: PeaceLoveHarmony's last edit with the summary Added 'Christian theologian' to the descriptor of McKnight, as it is clear from the discussion this is accurate. It doesn't matter that you are personally convinced it is accurate, what matters is there hasn't reached a consensus to re-instate the content, and by trying to force it, and others undoing it, and you re-instating it, it starts an endless cycle that is going to get this page protected and/or editors blocked. We have to break the cycle and rise above. Someone has to be big enough to let the other side 'win', and I think my rule of thumb, of not including disputed content until there is consensus to do so, is an idea that may keep the peace, since all our promises above to NOT edit war have gone out the window.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The content was in the protected version--which you requested. You deleted it. Your deletion was undone. Now you are complaining about edit warring, and picking and choosing your rhetoric to portray PeaceLoveHarmony as edit warring. You're right, there is no "consensus to re-instate the content". There was no consensus for your deletion.

What is needed is some resolution to this endless debate about how to handle 1) the heavy reliance on Christian sources, and 2) refusal to alert the reader to the fact. Noloop (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, you suggested before that people shouldn't add to the article even if there's one objection, but others (myself included) didn't agree that that was the way ahead, because it's too conservative and would hinder article development. It makes more sense to discuss new content without removing it, unless it's patently false or so poorly sourced/written that it can't be fixed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, SV, that's exactly what I said. :p I'm not trying to hinder progress. You made significant changes to the lead, and I've never suggested removing that or anything of the sort. No new "progress" related changes are under disputed. There is one controversial phrase related to McKnight, and there is one sentence related to eyewitnesses. Neither one of these seem related at all to this great overhaul and progress we are all looking forward to. Multiple editors are adding and removing, adding and removing these parts. And it needs to stop. Note, I have not reverted once in this whole mess. I have no intention of adding or removing this disputed content, but at least for the past couple hours, a half dozen editors felt otherwise. I just suggested a way for it to stop. You don't like my suggestion, fine. Now that we have the article the way one side like it, we have to convince the other parties to stop reverting back to their preferred versions. Let's see how well that goes. But seriously, temporarily removing the "Christian theologian" bit and the eyewitness stuff while we discuss them isn't hindering progress, IMO.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You did revert once today when you removed the description of McKnight, [27] which is what caused someone else to replace it. My suggestion is that we try not to remove reasonable content without discussion, rather than have a situation where we can remove it without discussion but not replace it, which privileges the status quo. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the record and say I was wrong, above. I guess I got confused. I didn't realize the "eyewitness" statement was something you added recently. I thought it was something that had been in the article for quite some time. So my above post isn't accurate because of that. Sorry about my mistake. As for the post directly above this, I felt that we had previously discussed McKnight and were in loose agreement that the qualification was not needed, as long as we felt it was a reliable source for the topic in the first place. At this point, I'm not trying to get into an argument (any further) over process or reverting (if it continues, I'd hope the culprits get blocked, and the article left open for those willing to edit in a productive manner). I'll just skip to the nitty gritty. I'd like to discuss removing the qualification, I feel it is well poisoning, and a possible BLP issue (implying his work is theological in nature, when he has a background in history). If we need a qualification, why not "Furman University professor of religion"? And just curious, does anyone have actual problems with the CONTENT associated with McKnight, instead of the ad hominen stuff? Is there a reason to think the content is inaccurate, disputed, or representative of a distinctly Christian POV? -Andrew c ^[talk]

Just noting that I didn't add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, there has been a lot of discussion about this, and an RfC that was loosely based around it, and the way I read the discussion there is consensus to add that someone is a priest or similar, because many of us see it as directly relevant. If you want to add that he is a professor of religion too, that's fine, but I don't think it's productive to keep on discussing the other issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies again. Now I'm really mixed up ;) When you say "add it" you are referring to the "eyewitness" sentence? As I know you didn't have anything to do with the McKnight stuff. With that out of the way, WTH. Rossnixon, if you are reading this, stop reverting. Everyone else reading this, stop reverting. Just make it stop!! Ok, moving on.. SV, I really don't think there is consensus to label someone a "priest". SLR and myself argued extensively against this in the past (with others on our 'side'). As recently as a few hours ago Griswaldo, Akhilleus and John Carter argued against this as well. I'm a bit confused by your comment concerning the consensus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rossnixon has never made a single comment on this Talk page. He seems to just show up and make pro-Christian reverts whenever he sees a controversy. It also borders on a single-purpose account... Noloop (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Factual correction, yes he has: Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_9, Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_15, Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_23. Though they are not very useful comments.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) We weild our criteria to get what we want. This one line should help us make up our minds on attribution. Excerpted from pg. 59 "The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus" by Dale Allison. Please also read around a bit to see what is being said about bias, etc. Here's the gbooks link.[28].-Civilizededucation^talk 06:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)