Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Consensus?

I doubt there is consensus on the historicity of Jesus. I think the views described in the Christ myth theory article very much make clear that the belief that Jesus did not exist, is as mainstream as the belief he did. There seems to be POV in the sources saying there is a consensus. 131.155.204.21 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you should mention the Christ myth theory Wikipage, given that it also says that hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus. And who are these large number of well known scholars who deny existence that led you to your personal opinion? Do you have a list of their recently published (before the 1970s) books? That should be easy to find if your opinion is correct. You need scholarly sources, not personal statements of your own. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the multiple sources explicitly spelling out the consensus for us include by Ehrman, an agnostic, and Price, himself a mythicist. How much less biased can our sources be? Huon (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, if G. A. Wells came out and said that, it would go even further. But I have said this before, and let me say it again: if some scholar writes "all scientists agree that there is no global warming" the screams of protest by the opposition will be heard all the way to the moon. In this case these scholars write this again and again, and the semi-opposition like Wells and Dawkins (neither of whom deny existence) are silent, and Price (who does deny existence) agrees with it. There is solid scholarly consensus on existence of Jesus. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

One again, I'm sure a lot of this disagreement can be avoided if we state abundantly clearly in the Introduction that the "historicity" of Jesus refers to "any man named Jesus/Yusuf/etc who might have been the original basis of the Biblical figure", and not to "the incarnated God of the gospels". Wdford (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may help. I will try to find a source for it that says in similar words that existence does not imply divinity, etc. and that he walked the streets of Judae, but did not necessarily perform any miracles, etc. as part of the historical record. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of history, this is an issue of historical methodology. Historians (as historians) cannot claim that Jesus was more divine than Augustus or Vespasian. As Bart Ehrman puts it in some YouTube debates, historians have no access to God: they cannot say that Jesus was or wasn't divine, because that is not a scientific statement, but it is a theological statement. They can say that most Christians now believe that Jesus was divine. Historians cannot say that God fought for the Protestants against the Catholics, only theologians could say that (unless they are Catholic). Historians cannot prove or disprove theological statements and cannot prove or disprove that a certain person was divine. So, obviously, historians mean that Jesus was the flesh-and-blood man who was crucified and gave birth to Christianity. Mythicists say there was no such person, but they are a fringe position. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But I really do not know why that is not obvious to some people. That is also true of all religious statements (about Buddha, Muhammad, etc.), not just Jesus. Do you have a book reference to Ehrman's statement of that, so we can triple clarify it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that Bill himself doesn't see his explanation as historical is that he claims that his conclusion is that Jesus was raised from the dead. Well, that's a passive -- "was raised" -- who raised him? Well, presumably God! This is a theological claim about something that happened to Jesus. It's about something that God did to Jesus. But historians cannot presuppose belief or disbelief in God, when making their conclusions. Discussions about what God has done are theological in nature, they're not historical. Historians, I'm sorry to say, have no access to God. The canons of historical research are by their very nature restricted to what happens here on this earthly plane. They do not and cannot presuppose any set beliefs about the natural realm. I'm not saying this is good or bad. It's simply the way historical research works.

— Bart Ehrman, "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

Perhaps by "natural realm" he meant "supernatural realm". Quoted from http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm There are more quotes about this view to be found there. Also available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but those are not exactly WP:RS sites. And the other issue is that resurrection is a really extreme case - the hardest miracle in some sense. There is scholarly disagreement on even more basic episodes - I vaguely remember a few references, will look for them later... History2007 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The sites themselves are no RS, but Ehrman is a RS. There's little doubt that he had been there and told that. Besides, as you mentioned above, the point made by Ehrman should be obvious for anybody who has some idea of how historical research works. Otherwise we would have history professors claiming that according to historical evidence Vespasian was divine or that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just hope for a book reference so the matter can be set aside even if the youtube video goes away next week. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead Citations

Well, we had done a good job in reducing the number of citations in the lead from 54 to 20...but the number has crept up to 34. Most featured articles in Wikipedia have no more than 5 citations in the lead. Even in the very controversial featured article atheism there are only 26. In non-featured articles describing entire religions there are fewer lead citations (Christianity has 31, Islam has 16). So I think in an effort to cull some of these citations and make this article more readable I'm going to review each cited statement, as well as my opinion on the citations. If you feel differently about this feel free to chime in. I will be using WP:V, WP:LEADCITE, WP:MINREF, and WP:CITEKILL as a guide. Keep in mind, most if not all of the citations in the lead are repeated in the article, so if I recommend a citation be removed I'm not saying it should be taken out entirely, just taken out of the lead.

1. Defining the "historicity of Jesus" -- the definition of historicity of Jesus is not likely to be challenged. These are quality sources, but I think we can remove all three citations.
2. Contrasting historicity with historical -- once again two more quality sources, but the distinction between the two is not a controversial subject, but rather a benign scholastic classification. I think we should remove both citations.
3. Virtually all scholars agree -- obviously this statement is likely to be challenged so it requires citation, but I feel that four citations saying the same thing is too many for the lead. I propose that we keep Ehrman and Grant and remove Price and Burridge, based on the pedigree and perceived neutrality of the authors.
4. Arguments against existence effectively refuted -- this is essentially a direct quote of Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, so we should keep Van Voorst and remove the other two.
5. Little agreement on historicity of gospel narratives -- I do not think this is a particularly contentious claim, so I think we can remove all four citations.
6. Agreement about Jesus' life -- I actually don't like either citation here because both authors appear to be primarily theologians, though I could be wrong here since I'm not intimately familiar with their work. I do feel this needs a citation. I believe we should replace current citations with The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders that was removed from the previous cited statement.
7. Most scholars...Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea -- when the article says "most scholars," it's usually best to cite a single reliable reference that states "most scholars," rather than actually citing multiple scholars per WP:PSTS. Also, I don't think we need to break this sentence into two parts, so I suggest we remove all three citations.
8. Jesus' languages -- this could potentially be contested, so I think this entire sentence can be covered with two citations. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research appears to cover multiple topics, so I think we should keep McKnight/Dunn. Also, since it addresses the language question we should also keep Barr and then remove the rest.
9. Universal assent -- since this is another direct quote we should keep Dunn and remove the rest.
10. Other facts...widely discussed -- I do not think this is a contentious point, so I suggest we remove all citations.
11. Scholarly agreement...not universal -- I think this whole section can be summed up by the Powell reference. So I say we keep Powell and remove the rest.
12. Methods have been developed -- this is not a contentious point, so I believe we should remove all citations.
13. Various sources used -- not a contentious point. Remove all citations.
14. Non-Christian sources are compared to Christian sources -- not terribly contentious but there might be some disagreement with regards to the methodology. Here is a good place for a citation, and I feel that the best one is Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research. So we keep Porter and remove the rest.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Since the article draws heavily from a few key sources (The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, Jesus and His Contemporaries, and Prophet and Teacher for instance) I think this article could benefit greatly by moving away from its current inline citation format to a more bibliography-based format (using shortened footnotes for page numbers). But that's a task for another day, and probably another editor because apparently I'm far too busy writing lengthy talk page entries to be bothered with any actual editing... ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That may have worked for a less contentious topic. If just a single reference is used in the lede here, next week an IP from nowhere will say it has too few sources or this or that, and the debates will start, e.g. please see Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#ATTENTION:_Van_Voorst. So in a non-contentious topic that could have worked, but here it will just consume time on the talk page for ever. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I tend to agree with History2007. Even the parts of the lead that are currently heavily sourced are routinely challenged - if we had fewer references or, as it's usually supposed to be, had no references at all in the lead and only summarized the sourced content of the article proper, that would get much, much worse. Huon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you find an instance where something in the lead was altered because it had "too few sources"? The example you cited had nothing to do with the number of sources, but rather it was a legal threat stemming from a dubious claim of conflict of interest. Most of the discussions I've seen on this talk page relate to the quality and neutrality of the sources, not the number (though admittedly I haven't been through the entirety of the archives). Also, can you explain how anyone could reasonably contest points 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13? Typically defending against changes by adding a large number of citations is frowned upon (even in controversial topics) as it tends to makes the article less readable and actually has the effect of making the sources appear less reliable (see WP:BOMBARD, WP:CITEKILL, and WP:FACTS). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what will the change you suggest buy us here, apart from future debates and waste of time/life? As for reasonably we will of course AGF on that, even this one, of course. I really think asserting anything in the lede here sans citation will be just an exercise in romanticism which ignores the reality of how IPs come over and edit things. And I really do not see any benefit in doing what you suggest, just a serious downside. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the items you mentioned, WP:FACTS, etc. are all user essays and have no applicability as policy or guideline in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For an example of an instance where someone considers the lead insufficiently supported by sources, see the thread immediately above. I somehow doubt the claims of misrepresentation or bias will get fewer when there are fewer sources to accuse of bias... Huon (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The thread immediately above is claiming a lack of neutraility in the sources, not an insufficient number of sources. The edit you cited was a good faith (but ill-informed) edit by a newcomer. Again, I will ask that you provide an example of a time when something in the lead/lede was contested due to a low number of sources. You are correct; I did site a few essays in my response. I was not trying to quote policy, but rather I was simply giving advice that addressed common problems (such as what's happening to the lead of this article). The other things I cited -- WP:V and WP:AGF -- are policies. WP:LEADCITE is from the manual of style. There is no policy, essay, info page, manual of style entry, or guideline I know of that agrees with the statement: "I really think asserting anything in the lede here sans citation will be just an exercise in romanticism which ignores the reality of how IPs come over and edit things", though I have already quoted several that disagree with that statement.

Per WP:WHYCITE (an editing guideline): "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." So using this guideline, can you demonstrate how 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 are "particularly controversial"? If you cannot I will start removing them from the lead/lede. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not agree with your reasoning, or your unilateral "I will delete it" declaration. I respect WP:AGF but note that it is a two way street you need to respect it too. Please do not issue a "I will do X" type statement that does not affect content, and avoid a potential edit war. If people do not agree with you, there is no need to start that. There is really no need for a revert cycle here over a totally trivial issue of no encyclopedic import to speak of. I see WP:V as support for having references, not deleting them. And encouraged and discouraged are one thing, required is another - there is no requirement to delete these references anywhere. Again, from a practical standpoint the references help a user get a perspective of who supports those statements without having to dig through the body of the article. Do you think I wan to keep the references because I like to waste my time talking here? No, it is because I really see them as necessary. This is a controversial topic for many readers, given the edit histories and stating which scholars supports the statement helps. I really believe that. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We all AGF here of course ColorOfSuffering, but I just noticed that your edit summary here said: "Sometimes when I get bored I decide to write lengthy missives about citations and references on Wikipedia". Is that what this long missive has been about? Then your next edit summary said other things that I find as baffling as this discussion. I don't know about you, but I don't do this just out of boredom. If boredom was the reason for your "lengthy missive" here, please seek other remedies for said boredom. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks, I have assumed good faith, and my reason for editing is irrelevant. Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Speaking of which, I do not believe you have answered my question. In order for us to begin building a consensus I'll ask again: can you demonstrate how points 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 are "particularly controversial"? I'm not asking about your opinions regarding citation requirements, the handling of controversial topics, lead writing, edit warring, or the notion that "discouraged" and "required" are not analogous. We can discuss that later if you like. I am only asking if you consider the points I highlighted to be "particularly controversial." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the rationale for the classification of conroversiality on your points, given that I have stated why I disagree with them and your entire approach. And if you can show disinterest in my views, that is not good. You are eating up time that could go to more productive use, than settling your boredom. And now that your say that the statements in your edit summaries can not be taken seriously and are just jokes, then that makes me very, very uncomfortable in the conversation here given that it builds on the confirmation of the boredom angle. This page is not a boredom remedy. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not my approach, it is the approach recommended by the guidelines. Again, whether or not I'm actually bored (I'm not) or how I feel about Coke Zero (I love it) or whether I think you're a very nice person (I do) is totally, completely, utterly, and fully irrelevant. Also, if you have more pressing matters, then feel free to attend to those matters, and I will work with other editors to build a consensus here. I can repeat my "rationale". From WP:WHYCITE (a guideline): "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." Items that are "discouraged" are "undesirable," and something that is "undesirable" should be "removed." Of course there is no requirement, but there are recommended guidelines that we follow in the case of an editing dispute. That is my rationale. Now, can you please provide me with an explanation as to why these statements could be considered particularly controversial? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I see this as getting repetitive and heating up, so I am invoking WP:Calm here so we can stop for a day, then continue. History2007 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note, WP:CALM is an essay and has no applicability as policy or guideline in Wikipedia. :) I'm just kidding. Yes, let's take a breather. I cannot wait to be showered with Wikilove at some point in the near future. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let us take a break for a few days and see what other editors may say. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward

So we've had a chance to sleep on it. Personally I feel refreshed, and I hope you do too. Before we start to involve other editors (either via WP:EA or WP:3O and make our way down the dispute resolution process I'll ask -- is there any chance you'd be willing to compromise and consent to me removing only the lead citations that are listed on points that are unlikely to be challenged? If, you are unwilling to consent, can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest your desired version here and I will comment. WP:3O will not apply since there were 3 comments already, myself, you and Huon. WP:EA is not for general assistance, not opinions and disagreements. Your next step would have to be to look at the top of this talk page, and post on the message boards of the "relevant projects" listed and ask for opinions, e.g. WikiProject Christianity, Religion, etc. That will probably generate more comments. But type your desired version below and we will see. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard from Huon after his initial post so I assumed he was no longer involved in this dispute. Have you been in conversations with him? Either way, I assume you mean WP:EA "is for" general assistance, correct? I don't see that anywhere on the page. I do see a sentence that reads "This process can also help in resolving disputes," but nothing about only using it for general assistance. Anyhow I will edit the article to show how I think it should look (I'm not going to post my proposed edit on the talk page for for approval, as I've already posted the changes I'd like to make). If you do not like my edit you can suggest an alternative, or revert my changes altogether. This is good. I'm glad we are getting somewhere. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, let us try that. I have no conversations outside talk pages, given that I have not enabled email. I think if you just trim the ones that will certainly not be challenged we may get somewhere... where that will be is unclear... But let us make sure we do not inadvertently step over 3RR as we do that. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ColorOfSuffering that the lead currently heavily cites sources even when the statements probably aren't controversial, and that we could remove quite a few sources for points no one disagrees with, such as the definition of historicity and distinction between the question of historicity and the historical Jesus (points 1 and 2 of his list above). I'd be willing to try the removal of the citations for what we believe will turn out to be uncontroversial statements in the lead - if the experiment fails and the statements we believed no one would doubt get criticized, we can put the citations back in. On the other hand, from past experience here and at the main Jesus article I'd say we should keep the citations for the controversial parts (such as the consensus about existence) at the current level - we still see people doubting those heavily-sourced statements and dispute the sources' neutrality; if there were fewer sources for such statements, the criticism would likely multiply. All that criticism probably is in good faith, but arguing against it takes lots of time, and it's much easier to point out that we have multiple sources from various backgrounds for those statements when the lead explicitly cites those sources. Huon (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is in effect a WP:3O. So let us make a list of items in the lede that are "not likely to get challenged". History2007 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you for chiming in, Huon -- I suppose the next step is to shower you both with Wikilove, as long as it's cool with you. I completely agree with the idea of keeping the number of citations for the parts that are likely to be contested, and they appear to be very solid sources from what I can tell. As for the points I think are unlikely to be contested, I would vote for points 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 from above. Is this agreeable? I'm by no means an expert on this topic, but as a layperson I feel that these are fairly innocuous. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My view:

• Items 1 & 2: Maybe, maybe not. I think not having any is asking for trouble, but if we can make a deal with just one citation for each that may be settled.

• Item 5: The refs for item 5 about little agreement were suggested by another user, so I can not fully speak for them, but some need to be there, so the article does not just say it. Many people are not are of these issues and may challenge that one. But we can just use 2 sources instead of 4 and I am not even sure which of those are scholarly assessments. Needs to be checked.

• Item 10: The widely discussed issue of the 8 facts is not well known but just Authenticating the Activities of Jesus as a source is good enough I think, the other 2 refs can go.

• 12&13: I think 12 and 13 are less likely to get challenged and can go source free.

If that works, we may have an agreement. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I had roughly the same impression: I'd consider 1, 2, 12 and 13 harmless, but for 5 and 10 some sources might be necessary or helpful. For item 5 I could well imagine claims that there's a consensus that the gospel narrative isn't historical, thus sources on a lack of agreement would be useful. Huon (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. History2007 (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, hope you both had a great weekend. I've given it a first pass per your recommendations. We're now down to 26 references in the lead. This is on par with atheism (another controversial article) which I think is a pretty good benchmark. I noticed that the sentence about Jesus' languages has 5 references. Do you think we can take the recommendation I gave above -- removing 3 and keeping McKnight/Dunn and Barr? I'd love to get back down to 20, since it's such a nice, round, divisible by 10 number...but I'd be happy with 23 or 26. Thoughts? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a piece of text was inadvertently lost there too. I will try to touch that up. Will also reduce language sources, but I don't know of a policy that says round numbers are better than others, but let us not make a big deal there so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda in this article

I have invited User:Michael2012ro to explain here why he thinks that this article spreads "Anti-Christian propaganda". He thinks that the editors of this article are part of an Anti-Christian plot. See details upon Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda on the Romanian Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the VP post: well this is Wikipedia, all kinds of funny suggestions. If Michael2012ro says Ehrman is anti-Christian he has supporters. If he says Ehrman is a former Christian he has supporters. I have said this before: Ehrman is really "middle of the road" because both the atheists and the Christian fundamentalists hate him. The atheists think he is a former Christian, the Christians think he is a turncoat who no longer believes in God. But they all respect his scholarship, for he knows the topic. Anyway, in the larger context, there are over 200 sources here. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he chickened out of this discussion, knowing that his paranoid accusations, which were tolerated on the Romanian Wikipedia won't be tolerated on the English Wikipedia. If he has some balls, let him say it here that in his opinion you are all enemies of Christianity, all part of a Satanic plot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see you don’t stop with your manipulations and attacks. Let anybody know that in your profile you have jokes about the Bible,(you say there also that “Bible is absurde”) and you also tried to include the apostle Paul into the wikipedia category of communists ...

I never said anything about the english form of this article, but about your interventions into romanian variant of this article. I’m perfectly satisfied with the form of this article in English language. So your accusations are parte of your personal attack campaign against me. As I said, I don’t have time for such conflicts...Michael2012ro (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)