Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Regarding recent unsourced changes

User:Herbie_keys, also as the IP 90.198.74.91, has been adding unsourced commentary, and is reaching WP:3rr ([1], [2], [3]).

Wikipedia requires sources for new information and does not take original research. It also does not take the opinions of individual editors over published mainstream academics, nor does it create artificial balance between mainstream academia and WP:FRINGE positions.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ian and would like to remind User:Herbie_keys and the IP that Wikipedia operates by consensus and by WP:RP. Personal opinions and editorializing has no place here.Jeppiz (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Herbie Keys----

I am trying to add a helpful edit to the article on the Historicity of Jesus. I did explain the edit and the need for it- i wrote that the article was imbalanced, but your objection to my edit said that the edit was "unexplained". Perhaps I should have explained it at greater length. The edit was essentially threefold. Firstly, I clarified the fact, provided by the sources already cited, that there is no direct physical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. This is acknowledged by all the scholars who were already sourced at the end of the relevant phrase, and so no additional sourcing was required. The edit is not a rebuttal of fact. Secondly, I clarified that we do not posses any firsthand or eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and that the sources we have are not contemporaneous, something to which the existing article already alluded but did not state in a clear manner (as if whoever wrote the article was not keen to put it in plain english.) Once again, the materials already sourced in the relevant paragraphs covered this point adequately, and so no further referencing was required. Thirdly, i added a reference to an existing wikipedia article listing a number of notable, respectable scholars, including Bertrand Russell, who do/did not posit Jesus of Nazareth as an historical personage. All these corrections are, so far as I can see, valid, and none of them require further sourcing. Had any been required, i would have provided it. In any article pertaining to the historicity of any personage, the most important thing to be absolutely clear about is whether or not the sources cited provide any strong primary or secondary evidence. In this case, by the admission of the sources already cited we have neither, and to omit that is to present an incomplete account. I am going to redo the edit, and if that's a problem, please explain fully why. Your previous explanation, Jeppiz, said that the edit was contrary to consensus. How so? Herbie Keys (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You did not cite a single source. You added a link, which is not the same thing at all. None of your changes were supported by mainstream academic sources. Notice the word "sources" keeps coming up? That's because you're supposed to cite them for any new information, as has been explained repeatedly. Of the edits that could possibly be drawn from the existing sources, you would still be placing undue weight on particular facets of the text, and engaging in original research to read between the lines.

For example, the line "Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed," is sourced to Bart Ehrman, who says, (quote) "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." It is also sourced to Michael Grant, who says (quote) "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus." To change "virtually all" to "most" deviates from the source -- If you bothered to check the sources at all, you misinterpreted them to fit your POV, either out of incompetence or outright dishonesty.

As for the link to the article on the Christ Myth Theory, you do realize that there's been more than a dozen historians who've studied Jesus, right? The figures in that article are a fringe minority.

If the edit was supported by consensus, the edit would be supported by sources, policies, and other editors. You have either ignored or misrepresented sources, and do not seem to be aware of polices despite their repeated summary and explanation for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, one at at a time then Ian, and please take the time to read the whole thing. Firstly you say: "None of your changes were supported by mainstream academic sources." As i have said, they were supported by the sources already cited. Then you say: "Of the edits that could possibly be drawn from the existing sources, you would still be placing undue weight on particular facets of the text, and engaging in original research to read between the lines." I'm afraid you are not right about that. The article pertains to the Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, and here we have, already cited, bona fide scholars, all of whom readily admit that they have only indirect and non-contemporaneous evidence to go on. That's a salient point. In any case, that much was already in the article, albeit a little obfuscated. I have not added any statements of fact that require any sourcing additional to what was already there. The sourcing was adequate as it was and I have not misrepresented the sources. If you can show me where i have misrepresented them, I will admit as much. Or if you can show me where I would have to add extra sources, I will add them. Incidentally, it doesn't matter that Michael Grant doesn't regard his opponents as "serious". That's up to him. Thirdly; "Virtually all" is not objective language. "Most" is more factual, and does not contradict the source, who might well choose to say "virtually all". Academics can write in such terms in their own published works, but here on wikipedia it's not appropriate to simply parrot the sources word for word when they make assertions like "Virtually everyone serious agrees with me." I don't think it's helpful to accuse me of incompetence or dishonesty, or to make any other personal remarks like that. It is you who are engaging in an edit war. I can't see the point of it. Herbie Keys (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Herbie, you might want to look at WP:3RR closely, because you're in violation of that policy, so you may well be blocked.

If the sources support your edits, you need to actually cite them, by placing a footnote at the end of the sentences you add. I notice that your edits changed the wording of material that already had citations; if you think that a sentence that cites, say, Robin Lane Fox, needs to be changed to better reflect the source, you need to discuss the change on the talk page and convince other editors that your changes better reflect the cited source. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Akhilleus. You say "you need to discuss the change on the talk page and convince other editors that your changes better reflect the cited source". It's not that they BETTER reflect the sources. The reflect the sources just as well, and they do so without making unsupportable assertions and trying to pass them off as objective fact. What is all this bullying talk about being blocked? Why would i be blocked? Something funny is going on here. Herbie Keys (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you read WP:3RR yet? That will explain why you might be blocked. For that matter, have you read WP:V yet? That policy explains that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources; for this article, that means that everything in this article is based on books/articles written by experts in the subject matter--usually professors at colleges/universities who do research on early Christianity. Your edit changed the wording in a sentence that cited a book by Robin Lane Fox; if you want to make that change, you need to explain how your wording better represents what he wrote. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cited sources for "virtually all" when the sources say "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity... agrees" and "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus." "Virtually all" is pretty objective. Downgrading it to "most" is like saying "the Age of the Earth is between 4.5 billion and 6000 years old," or "the Scientific opinion on climate change is that humans might be causing it," or "some scientists deny the claims of Parapsychology." The sources cited almost say "no real scholar argues for non-historicity." The individuals listed at the CMT article are the notable exceptions, which is why "virtually" is perfectly accurate.

That you don't get that makes it very hard to trust your assessment of already cited sources. That you're accusing me of edit warring when you've reverted 4 times within the past 24 hours, by yourself, against the reverts of multiple editors -- do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

As for your comment about bullying, you're the one completely ignoring the policies and guidelines that multiple editors have linked to and explained for you. You're the one disrupting our community and flouting our social contracts. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've not violated the rule. I reverted twice. Why are you all going on about the 3 revert rule? I have also read the other edit policies. I have already explained in so many words that the edit does not put words into Lane Fox's mouth that Fox does not say himself i the source material. I am beginning to think that this article needs a complete overhaul. It's simply not very educational, poorly worded, and I see from the above threads that various attempts to improve have been met with the weirdest objections. "Virtually all" is not objective when you consider that those it excludes are serious scholars with their own wiki pages. Sorry to have disrupted your community, and all that, but really, that's not what this is about. It's about this article not being up the scratch. Herbie Keys (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that this edit (which is a manual revert meant to restore this edit) was carried out by you when you were logged out. That's sockpuppetry. The language is identical in a number of places, and the IP address locates to England, where you admit you are from on your userpage. That edit came only an hour and a half before this one (which counts as a manual revert), about six hours before this one, and about seven hours before this one. That's four reverts within less than eight hours. WP:3RR forbids making more than three reverts in less than 24 hours. This has been explained to you before. If you really have read it, then you do not appear to care, which is not a good sign. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your point Ian and I stand corrected on that. I do care. I did not intend to sockpuppet and I will be less hasty on the button in future. Re: the edit, I am not trying to do anything bad. There is a problem with this article. It repeats itself in its reassertions from selected authorities and marginalises their opponents without ever explicitly iterating the perfectly logical and undeniable point upon which all opposition rests, namely that the evidential trail is weak. Even the sources, all of them, including Michael Grant, themselves accept as their starting point that their various arguments for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth are not substantiated by any primary evidence or eyewitness accounts. None of them overreach themselves on this point. As far as I can tell, all acknowledge that, in the absence of any direct physical evidence or contemporaneous accounts, the debate about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is essentially a debate about the reliability of later sources who wrote about him in posterity. That the article has omitted to mention, in plain english, this crucial and universally acknowledged statement of fact, skews the article. How about this; rather than continuing to argue in this way, I will simply redo the edit, only this time adding further scholarly sources who are totally unambiguous on this basic point. Does that sound right? Herbie Keys (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you present the sources here for others to approve first, since you have a tendency to place undue weight on particular facets of given works, and given that you are focused on an intended result rather than dispassionate summarizing. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying, with the whole 'undue weight' thing, that you would prefer sources who argue against jesus' existence, basing their arguments on the lack of evidence, or sources who argue for jesus' existence whilst acknowledging that they can't refer us to any hard evidence? Either would not be hard to find. Do you want christian sources (whose main focus is unlikely to be on the non historicity of jesus, which means that if i quote them, you might say i'm placing undue weight on their admissions) or non-christian sources (who could always be marginalised as anti-religious)? You are right that in this I am pursuing an outcome, but the outcome I am pursuing is not a biased one. I am not a religious person, i just enjoy reading history, and I personally don't give a monkey's whether jesus was real or not. The bible is real, and that's good enough to make me interested in him. I came to the page hoping to learn about jesus, 'the man', and, reading through the whole article, couldn't find any reference to whether or not there is any direct evidence to go on. I went away and read around and watched a few debates, and discovered that there isn't any, and that no one disputes this. I still haven't made my mind up, although I am beginning to think that no one will ever get to the bottom of it because the attitudes surrounding this debate are not, as you might say, dispassionate. I guess on balance right now to me he seems not quite as real as Socrates but more real than Robin Hood. I might give him the benefit of the doubt. That's where i'm coming from, just so you know. Forgive me for asking but can you understand that it seems odd to me that you apparently would prefer the article, which is supposed to be about the historicity of Jesus, to remain as it is, i.e. with no mention of the fact that we have absolutely no primary evidence of Jesus' existence, and no eyewitness accounts? Herbie Keys (talk) 21:22 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The article cites mostly secular sources, many by non-Christians, which present the non-historicity position as fringe at best. Even Robert Price, who is a Christ mythicist, holds that it is far from a mainstream position.

By merit of pursuing an outcome, instead of dispassionately summarizing sources with due weight, you are editing with a bias as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It does not matter whether that bias is "right" or "wrong."

If you can find mainstream academic sources that heavily focus on the lack of primary sources, instead of just mentioning it in passing, that would be a start. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your last response made strange reading. You say that the non-history position is "fringe at best", and then you ask for 'mainstream academic sources that heavily focus on the lack of primary sources'. Do you see the contradiction? If the mainstream position is that Jesus really existed, then why would its proponents heavily focus on the lack of primary sources. They must ask us to disregard the lack of primary sources before they can make their case. There are plenty of scholars who write about the lack of primary evidence, but i don't see how they could fit into that definition of mainstream. What about (even) Robert Price himself? He draws attention to the lack of evidence, but that's not how his name appears in this article. In this article, he is called upon simply to admit that his position is not widely accepted. Is that itself not undue weighting? I can't imagine he went to all the trouble of making his case, just so someone could quote him admitting that his views aren't fashionable. So then, is Price an acceptable source? He's already mentioned in the article, and from what I can gather he's a well respected scholar. If for some reason he's no good, then perhaps you can tell me why not and I'll suggest some others. In order for this article to be of any use to the reader, the reader needs to be informed plainly as to what evidence there is for the Historicity of Jesus. Let's improve this article :) Herbie Keys (talk) 03:10 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Non-historicity position" - the position that Jesus did not exist. There is no contradiction between pointing out that, per the sources in the article, that's the mainstream position and asking for mainstream sources that focus on the lack of primary sources. To force the contradiction is a bit of a strawman. To say that mainstream academics must ask us to disregard the lack of primary sources is interpretation, or original research, which we do not use. It could be entirely possible for a mainstream academic source to address the primary source issue in a discussion about how this is handled by mainstream historians, but since I'm not the one looking to add information to the article, the WP:BURDEN does not rest on me to determine if that is the case.

Wikipedia sticks to summarizing mainstream academic sources, without interpreting them. That's all. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "mainstream academic sources" but this is not true. Wikipedia's reliability guidelines looks for the most reliable sources which are typically from peer reviewed scholarly journals or university presses. The word "mainstream" is used to describe opinions held within those sources, but not for the sources themselves. You might have simply mispoken, but just in case, I'd thought I'd clarify it for you. You can not disqualify a source for not being "mainstream" and WP doesn't even define what mainstream is in regards to source selection and verifiablity. It only does it in terms of weight.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Again I'm not sure I agree. It is plainly not in the interest of anyone advancing the case for Jesus' historicity to focus heavily on the lack of evidence. They might mention it, but they're not going to focus heavily on it. That's not original research, and it's not interpretation; it's logic. I also don't agree that wikipedia sticks to summarising mainstream academic sources if by "mainstream" you mean "majority". According to the guidelines, minority views should be mentioned, so long as they are propounded by reliable sources. My question was; is Price an acceptable source? I am compiling a shortlist of good alternatives in case he's not a good source but i haven't finished going through them all to check that they are proper scholars before I submit them for your approval. Herbie Keys (talk) 04:32 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Herbie, I think if you do some reading on how historians and biblical scholars treat the evidence for Jesus you'll find they think there's a good amount--there's much more than there is for some ancient figures. If you're unfamiliar with ancient history, you may not realize how patchy the evidence can be. We have no eyewitness accounts of the battle of Thermopylae, the battle of Salamis, and many other major events in antiquity, and yet we feel like we can learn quite a bit about those battles and the wars they were part of. I think Ehrman says something about this, but he's not the only one.

Price is not a great source for this article, because he is not a mainstream academic--he teaches at an unaccredited theological seminary, he is not published by academic presses, and his views are (as he himself says) atypical. He's worth citing for his own views, but not for characterizing the state of the field. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok Akhilleus. So you're saying that Robert Price, who has two doctorates from Drew University, one in theology and one in new testament studies, is not qualified to state that there are no primary sources, eyewitness accounts or contemporaneous documentation to back up the historicity of Jesus. It happens to be an undisputed fact, so I'm not sure why we can't quote him on that. He would be on safe ground, and even those who would like to dismiss him altogether would not be able to contradict him on that point. But ok, what about Richard Carrier? Can he do it? Incidentally, can you refer me to an example of an historical figure or event for whom/which there is as little evidence as there appears to be for Jesus? In the case of Thermopylae, we have archaeological evidence, and an account from someone who knew some of the participants and the politicians who sent them into battle. It was a major war that redefined the power balance of a whole region, and there is clearly more evidence for that than for jesus, not to mention the fact that no one, from then until now, has ever accused him of making the whole thing up. A major war involves many many thousands of people. He might have made some errors, but if Herodotus had made the whole thing up, he would have been called out on that and never taken seriously again. Basically, he couldn't have made it up. Same for Salamis. Which events in history, or personages, do we admit as having been real despite no primary evidence, such as archaeological evidence, no eyewitness accounts, and no contemporaneous documentation? I realise that this is just an aside, since you and I aren't the guys who will be sourced in this article, but I'm trying to understand the field a little better, and I'm trying to work out why I'm meeting with this kind of resistance, when all I'm trying to do is draw attention to something that everyone acknowledges to be true (that we have no primary sources for the existence of Jesus). I thought that when you have no direct evidence of a personage or an event, that casts legitimate doubt on its having ever existed, or taken place. Are there really lots of events and people in mainstream history for whom there is as little evidence as there seems to be for Jesus? I don't know of any. Anyhow, Richard Carrier- Is he qualified to speak about this? He's a peer reviewed scholar of ancient history who got his doctorate from the University of Columbia. Herbie Keys (talk) 19:48 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is starting to sound a bit repetitive, but I have to be the third person to refer Herbie Keys to WP:UNDUE, just as Akhilleus and Ian Thompson have already done. Richard Carrier and Robert Price are both scholars, but part of a tiny majority (WP:FRINGE). As per Wikipedia's policies, we don't include fringe theory proponents in mainstream articles. Which is exactly what WP:UNDUE says.Jeppiz (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, (WP:FRINGE) relates to theories, not sources. Theories, not sources, are either fringe or mainstream. Reliable sources might present arguments that back up fringe positions. To the extent that they are considered credible as sources, their arguments should be entertained, so long as their conclusions are not presented as mainstream. I am not suggesting, and never have once suggested, that we devote a portion of the article to 'why jesus in all likelihood never existed.' For all i know, maybe one day that will be the mainstream position, but for now, that would be a violation of (WP:FRINGE). Nevertheless, some of the sources who hold that particular point of view are reliable scholars with doctorates from respected institutions and whose works enjoy a wide readership amongst academics and the public. The central point on which their (admittedly unfashionable) views rest is the lack of hard evidence for jesus' existence. It's the most convincing aspect of their argument, and this article is incomplete without reference to it. It sounds, Jeppiz, as though you would like to keep these reliable sources out of the debate, even though the point they raise is undisputed even by those who disagree with their conclusions. I don't think that muzzling dissenting academics, when they make reasonable and undisputed points, is at all in the spirit of wikipedia, and it's unhelpful in terms of helping the reader to get a full picture of what evidence there is for jesus, and what evidence there isn't, which is the whole point of this article. Once again, Jeppiz, to be crystal clear, it says nowhere in (WP:FRINGE) that scholars whose views are in a minority should not be given a fair shake. This is not a subtle point; it's the line between editing and censoring, and you appear to want to cross it. These guys are saying there's no primary evidence. No one is arguing with them. The point they are making couldn't me more pertinent, and no one is disagreeing with them. We don't have to lend undue weight to their conclusions, but let's include their input. I don't like your attempt to use the language of the wiki guidelines to marginalise reliable sources. Sources can be reliable even if their arguments are not widely held. Scoobydunk has already alluded to this. Herbie Keys (talk) 20:23 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Herbie, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on mainstream scholarship, and Price and Carrier don't fit the bill. As I already said, it's not hard to find mainstream scholars saying that the letters of Paul and the Gospels weren't written in Jesus' lifetime, so there are no eyewitness accounts--and said scholars discuss the problems this creates when trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus. This is not the same as saying there's no "primary" evidence--the New Testament is surely a primary source here. Although I think the primary/secondary distinction is of very little use when dealing with ancient history. As I've said already, very often there are no eyewitness accounts, and other types of sources that we think of as primary in a modern context--video footage, newspaper reports, diaries--simply don't exist in antiquity. Even letters are rare--the epistles of the New Testament are one of the major letter collections from antiquity, in fact.

To go back to Salamis/Thermopylae: you said that we have "an account from someone who knew some of the participants and the politicians who sent them into battle". I'm not sure which account you're referring to here: do you mean Herodotus? He was writing in the 430s, so over 40 years after the battle; he may have spoken to participants in the battle, but I don't think we know that for sure. And as far as I know, he's the earliest account of the battle. The gap between Thermopylae/Salamis and when Herodotus was writing is longer than the gap between Jesus' death and Paul's letters, and about the same as the gap between Jesus' death and the conventional date of the Gospel of Mark. If we assume that Herodotus spoke to eyewitnesses to the Persian Wars, it's reasonable to assume that Paul and the writer of Mark spoke to eyewitnesses--especially since Paul tells us that he did so.

As far as archaeological evidence, I don't think there's any for Thermopylae or Salamis that would mean much to us in the absence of Herodotus' narrative. Yes, there are some amazing pieces--for instance, there's a helmet that Miltiades dedicated to Zeus in the museum at Olympia. It was probably dedicated in the wake of the battle of Marathon, but the helmet doesn't give us that information--it's something that we deduce, mostly on the basis of information from Herodotus.

By the way, the credibility of Herodotus was widely questioned in antiquity and in modern scholarship. No, no one's accused him of making up Salamis or Thermopylae--as you note, that would be basically impossible--but he's often been accused of making up all sorts of stuff about those battles. The Decree of Themistocles might be worth reading here--and note that this is an archaeological find that gives us important information about Salamis precisely because it is a *text*. (If it's authentic, that is, which is a huuuuge *if*.) It's possible to learn a lot about antiquity from archaeology alone, but if you're interested in narrative history, you need texts. Unsurprisingly, then, the main sources for most people working on ancient history are texts, and quite a lot of thought has been expended on exactly how one can use these imperfect sources to learn about the past. So, if you want this article to clearly state what the evidence is, what the problems with the evidence are, and how reliable the evidence is (or isn't)--that's a good idea! But the article needs to be based on what mainstream scholars say about these issues. So instead or Carrier or Price, why not consult Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, or Helen Bond (just to name a handful of people in an overcrowded field)? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot--a person whom we believe is real despite a lack of eyewitness accounts and archaeological evidence: Pythagoras. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia articles are suppose to be based on the most reliable sources available. Then editors are suppose to write articles to reflect what those strongest sources say. Depending on how many of those strong sources hold a particular opinion, gives that opinion a certain amount of weight in the article. "Mainstream scholarship" is not a term used by WP:reliable and the only times "mainstream" even appears in the guidelines is when talking about newspaper publications or journals/publications that don't have a reputation for scholarship. So you can't automatically discount a scholar because of a made up rule about not being a "mainstream scholar". If they are published in a reliable source, then the source can be used like any other source, the only thing that comes into play is weight. However, weight is irrelevant when other sources of equal or higher reliability don't hold a contradicting viewpoint. So, if a person was trying to cite Carrier for his belief in the non-existence of Jesus, then there are certainly other equally reliable sources that contend that view and it wouldn't make it into the article, except for the mention of a minority viewpoint. However, if an editor wanted to cite Carrier for his acknowledgement that scholars disagree about what is fact/fiction in regards to Jesus or about how prevalent the viewpoint of Jesus's historicity is, then there is nothing wrong with that unless you or someone else can show equally reliable sources that directly contradict those claims.

The rest of your comment is a red herring argument. Our personal viewpoints on the reliability of available evidence or the lack-thereof are irrelevant to this article. The only thing that matters is what the strongest of sources say and that we accurately represent those sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, all three of which directly contradict what you claim. As for your claim of "strongest source", it's novel. Who do think should judge which individual source is the strongest? Jeppiz (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am correct and none of those contradict my claims about using the strongest sources. BTW, WP policy clearly outlines which sources are the strongest and sources that have undergone peer review and have been published by university presses or in academic journals are the strongest sources. So rest assured, the decision isn't up to me or you, it's already been decided for us.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Scoobydunk's argument seems strange to me, and I don't see how is really contradicts what I was saying. If we're looking for the most reliable/strongest sources available, that's going to be the most well-regarded experts in the field, i.e., mainstream scholarship. It certainly wouldn't be Price or Carrier. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, expert opinion does not trump articles written in scholarly peer reviewed publications. If those "experts" can't get their opinions past peer-review, then they don't merit inclusion when others have passed the peer-review process. You're attempting to use argumentum ad hominem to discount Price and Carrier and, unfortunately for you, WP policy doesn't support that. We evaluate sources, not the individual.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Has Price published any peer-reviewed work? His books don't seem to be with academic presses. At any rate, there's a vast universe of peer-reviewed work on this topic, so it's still necessary to use editorial judgement to decide which sources to draw upon here. As you've noted, WP:WEIGHT comes into play, and Carrier is decidedly not on the heavier side of the scales...

BTW, you seem to have missed the part of WP:RS that says "The word 'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings..." One of the three is the creator of the work, so it's certainly germane to consider the individual when deciding whether to draw upon his/her work here. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Carrier does have a peer reviewed work that was published last June. Also, I didn't miss anything in WP:RS. Yes, people can be used as sources, but there is still a hierarchy of which sources should be used over others, with peer reviewed, secondary sources being the top of that hierarchy. Weight doesn't apply to the selection process of authors, only to how prevalent their ideas/opinions are in the field. Also, evaluating the creator of the work doesn't mean you get to instill your own subjective dislikings to try and disqualify a scholar. You compare them objectively based on their level of education from an accredited institution.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I take it, then, that the answer is Price doesn't have peer-reviewed work? And you are missing the point of what WP:RS says about people--articles and books are written by people, after all, so if we're going to say that some sources are more reliable than others, the track record of an author should be taken into account when assessing a particular work. Which you seem to agree with, anyway, since you say that we should compare scholars based on their level of education. Carrier, by the way, is not a biblical scholar nor a specialist in early Christianity; he was trained as an ancient historian, and it looks like he specialized in the history of science in antiquity. So in terms of his education, he's an amateur in the study of the historical Jesus. It shows in his work. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Price's works but assuming he doesn't have any because I haven't mentioned anything about it is a logical fallacy in the form of an argument from ignorance. If we were having this discussion on an article about the bible, then you might have an argument where biblical scholarship is relevant. Yet, We're having this discussion on a historical article, hence why it's called the Historicity of Jesus. Historians, and more specifically, historians that specialize in antiquity are the ones best suited for this information because it's a matter of history, not religion. As a matter of fact, having deeply rooted connections to a religious institution can be argued as a conflict of interest. If Carrier had an education in psychology, then you might have some merit to your argument. But, the fact that he's a historian and we're discussing the science of historicity, means he's perfectly suited for this discussion since historicity is determined by a number of factors and not just based on some mythical text. That's why we don't use "Illiadical Scholars" when discussing the Historicity of Helen of Troy. The end of the matter is that Carrier has a peer reviewed published work and is an expert in the field with a PhD. in a relevant field of study. Sorry, but peer-reviewed authors with doctorates are not "amateurs" in the field that they've studied in and have published in.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

_________ Ok, Akhilleus, now you are calling Price an amateur. The man has written extensively on this subject and been quoted by others in his field. As for Carrier, well, what can I say. I realise now that there is a bias at work on this thread, and that's what's going on here. This entire article is poor. It's repetitive, it relies on selective sources who are trusted to proclaim themselves right and marginalise their opponents, and the only time anyone from the other side is called upon is to admit defeat. In some instances, the sources are actually ordained priests, which would be fine if the article was about dentistry, or charles dickens, but it's about jesus, so we shouldn't have too much of that. Others are experts on entirely the wrong areas of history to be trusted to make such pronouncements as "no serious scholar blah blah". Basically the whole article read top to bottom as though it were written by believing christians. It's supposed to be a history article, yet there's no section on archeology, no section on methodology and no section given over to dissenting views. It repeats ad nauseam that everyone agrees with the same selected sources, ignoring all others. It needs a rewrite. Some of what's there will survive but much of it is fluff. I will get to work on it but it will take a while. Any help would be appreciated. I'm not sure I believe in Pythagoras. It wouldn't matter to me if Pythagoras were made up. He's about at likely to exist as Jesus, I would guess. If you go to the wiki page on Pythagoras, you get the following sentence right up front. "Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him." That's helpful. Herbie Keys (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.74.91 (talk)

Sections on archaeology and methodology would be fantastic. But whatever material gets added should be based on mainstream scholarship. This doesn't mean that Price, Carrier, et al. have no place in this article, but that they should be properly reported as adherents to a non-consensus view, and they should not be used as sources for what the consensus view is.

Yes, I agree that the evidence for Pythagoras is unsatisfying. But you'll notice that (as far as I know) no classical scholar has made a serious argument that he didn't exist. And the evidence for him is much weaker than the evidence for Jesus... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Akhilleus, perhaps Pythagoras never existed, and maybe Jesus never existed either. If the evidence isn't there, I see no need to make assumptions. I think you might be conflating "mainstream" with "majority". Please explain why Carrier, who is a widely respected academic with sound credentials, is not mainstream. Please don't say it's because he disagrees with his peers. They all disagree with each other to varying degrees. I don't see that his views per se put him outside of the mainstream, just because he has the nerve to confront bible scholars on their own ground. Please don't say that the evidence for Jesus is so good, and that so many academics believe in his existence, that anyone who doesn't believe in him is "fringe". It's not your place, or mine, to make statements like that, and in any case there is nothing "wacky" about saying that jesus might not have existed. Carrier's arguments are scientific and thorough, and neither you nor I have ever conducted a census of scholars across the world, asking them if they believe in the existence of Jesus, (neither has Michael Grant) so we shouldn't even be convinced that the default position of a mainstream academic is that jesus existed, even if certain blowhards like to try to win arguments by pronouncing themselves in the majority. That's not scholarly debate; it's bluster, and we shouldn't include any quotes of that nature from academics who go on about how many people agree with them, and how those who don't are not "serious". This article should be about what evidence there is and isn't for the existence of Jesus, and whether there is any truth in the accounts of him given by later sources. The article needs to be stripped back so that it's presented simply as an argument between the majority of new testament historians and theologians who claim that the historical literature available is enough to assume that Jesus existed and, on the other side, a growing minority who denies the likelihood of his existence on the grounds of inadequate evidence and poor source material. It's a good debate and people should be given a chance to explore it. The article should be up front about the paucity of hard evidence, just like the article on Pythagoras. The point of wikipedia is not just to amass quotes and paraphrases from academics. It's supposed to be accessible to ordinary people like you and me. It's supposed to be informative. The first thing a person wants to know when they decide to read an article about the historicity of jesus, is whether we have any physical evidence of him, whether he said or wrote anything that can be reliably attributed to him, whether his name turns up in any official records, and whether anyone ever set eyes on him. If so-called mainstream scholars choose not to bother addressing those questions, because the answers don't serve their arguments, and they leave it up to others to point out that the evidence doesn't stack up, then they force us to look elsewhere for some straight answers. Herbie Keys (talk) 019:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You make a lot of sense, Herbie. But I'm afraid you are going to fail. This article vehemently and oddly pleas, rather than informs. There is a very tight-knit group here that will immediately revert any edit that attempts to moderate the pleading. So it goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:2C47:BC61:B95A:E31B (talk • contribs)

We could go arguing on and on, but do mind that the applicable policy is WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion is obviously futile. I always hope that newcomers to this page will try to learn a little bit about what kinds of evidence is available for the ancient world, but it doesn't seem to be something that interests very many readers of Price, Carrier, et al. Anyway, Ehrman discusses this issue at length, and makes the point that there are no eyewitness accounts of Pontius Pilate, and also that there is only one literary text surviving from 1st century CE Roman Palestine, namely, Josephus.There just isn't much documentation from this area during the period when Jesus lived. I don't think it would be a bad thing at all to begin the article by discussing the sources for Jesus, as long as it's clear that the vast majority of scholars don't think that the sources give us reason to doubt Jesus' existence. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman and much of the oftly mentioned "consensus opinion" have recently come around to agree with a few of Carrier and Price's main pillars they support mythicism on. In Ehrman's latest book "How Jesus Became God," he makes a complete reversal on the authentic letters of Paul and now agrees with Carrier and Price (and many other scholars) that Paul never talks about a historical Jesus and is speaking about a pre-existent being. This is a pretty big shift, and I believe that Price and Carrier at the very least deserve a mention in the Christ Myth section as they have been making the case for this despite being being ignored (for no good reasons we can see now) for awhile now. Miss guidance (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Please don't say that the evidence for Jesus is so good, and that so many academics believe in his existence, that anyone who doesn't believe in him is "fringe"." That's exactly what's being said it seems to me. I'm new here but after following this conversation and reading the relevant wikipedia policy it seems that the view that Jesus never existed is indeed "fringe". I believe you are thinking the label is somehow meant to be derogatory and that's why it bothers you, but it seems to me that it simply means it is a viewpoint that is held by a small minority of experts in a particular field and contradicts the consensus of that field. It doesn't mean the experts who hold to that view are somehow demoted, in fact it seems that in order for a view to be "fringe" it must have at least some experts who adhere to it. As others have stated the point of wikipedia is to present the consensus of experts on a particular subject. You may not like the consensus of the experts on this topic, but it's irrelevant as the others have pointed out. Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with whether the 'miraculous' events ascribed to Jesus happened or not, it's merely about whether a 1st century Jew by the name of Jesus (Latinized from the Greek Ιησους) actually existed who was the basis of the Christian New Testament. I think you misunderstand what a 'Bilical Scholar' is. According to the wikipedia article on 'Biblical Studies': "For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences." That is, it's much more than just reading the Bible and trying to understand it.

You also failed to grasp the importance of the point made about Pythagoras. The statement in the Pythagoras article says "Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him." You missed the huge point, i.e. the article _nowhere_ states that because of that his existence is in doubt, in fact the statement assumes that he does indeed exist. The statement is saying that we can't be sure about facts of his life, but in no way is it stating that his existence is in doubt, quite the opposite. So the question now is: Are you working for the same changes in the Pythagoras article? Do you want the Pythagoras article to state that his existence is therefore in doubt? For some reason I don't believe you do. I'm not a historian, but I am pretty fluent in Latin and Classical Greek and obviously ancient history and literature are a big hobby for me. I know very well what others have pointed out here, that what we know of ancient history is built on very scanty sources. The oldest copies of Homer are from around the 10th century AD. Almost 2000 years after the originals, and yet no one seriously doubts the authenticity of the poems or that major changes have been made. Archaeology has small relevance to narrative history. It may verify things, but the history that we know about the ancient world is based upon texts, that's why we know pretty much nothing about the world before the invention of writing, although we have archaeology for that time period, we can construct almost no narrative which is what is usually meant by history. I come across people regularly that insist that ancient history be based upon archaeology and texts should be put to the side or given secondary importance. That would indeed present a different view of Jesus, but at the same time it would wipe out most of the ancient history that we have. We may not like having to trust the ancients for history, but it's pretty much all we have. Having texts written within a couple decades of Jesus' death is amazing evidence for an ancient person relatively speaking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk • contribs)

Whoever wrote that, I am not convinced that you are sincerely engaged in this. Please try not to condescend. The more I read the way that opinions are expressed in this thread, the surer I am that something is amiss. I don't know what a 'Bilical Scholar' is, and I don't think there's any point in debating on this talk page whether or not Pythagoras existed. The place to do that, if I knew anything about it, and if I had published something about it worth quoting, would be in an article on the historicity of Pythagoras. There is no such article as far as I know. The article which states that most sources we have relating to Pythagoras are from long after his life, is not an article about the historicity of Pythagoras. It's just the standard wiki page for Pythagoras, No doubt, if there were an article on wiki about the historicity of Pythagoras, somewhere within that article would be a summary of the case against his having existed. I don't see how it's helpful to tell me what I have failed to grasp, or to say that we have texts about jesus written a couple of decades of his death, as if you knew that to be true. I have no idea how small a minority jesus deniers are in, and neither, I bet, do you. I wouldn't take Robert Price's word for it, and I can't find any academic census material on that. In such matters, speculation is no use. I am taking time out from this talk page to go and do some research about who is saying what and where they went to school etc... I'll be back when I know where to begin with this obviously biased, poorly sourced, poorly written article.

Herbie Keys (talk) 023:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"No doubt, if there were an article on wiki about the historicity of Pythagoras, somewhere within that article would be a summary of the case against his having existed." No, there wouldn't be, because no academic has ever made the case that Pythagoras didn't exist. That's precisely why I brought him up: the evidence for him is less strong than the evidence for Jesus, and yet scholars have no doubt that Pythagoras existed. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"say that we have texts about jesus written a couple of decades of his death, as if you knew that to be true." The scholarly consensus is that it is indeed true, you don't seem to have done much research on this issue. The gospel of Mark is dated to around 60-70 AD by scholarly consensus. The letter of Paul to Rome is dated to around 55 AD by scholarly consensus. So yes, we know, with as much certainty as can be had about the ancient world, that there are texts about Jesus within a few (2-4) decades after his death, i.e. at a time when eyewitnesses would still be available to confirm or refute.

"with this obviously biased, poorly sourced, poorly written article." Really? The article represents the scholarly opinion on the issue, which is indeed "biased", yes. The opinion of the scholarly community that deals with this issue is that Jesus' existence is a solid historical fact, so yes, that's their bias and the article should represent that. Science articles on wikipedia are biased in favor of scholarly opinion also. Fringe theories like the earth being flat etc. are not given equal prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

_______________

A few paragraphs ago it was a couple of decades. Now it's 2-4 decades. Maybe if we keep talking it will become six. Look, I don't know about all that. I'm sure you are very well read, but you are comparing the unlikelihood of the non existence of a man with the unlikelihood of the earth being flat. That tells me everything. I'll see you when I've done my homework, and you can condescend to me all over again, and you can explain why all the sources I bring forth are not mainstream enough for the church of this thread. Herbie Keys (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"A few paragraphs ago it was a couple of decades. Now it's 2-4 decades. Maybe if we keep talking it will become six" I meant 'couple' in the sense of 'a very small number', I thought that was clear from the context, perhaps 'few' would've been better but it's accepted English usage to use 'couple' in that sense according to these dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/couple http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/couple Anyway, from what I recall the majority of the Pauline letters are dated (by scholarly consensus) to the mid-late 50's AD which puts them less than 3 decades after the death of Christ (traditionally dated to 30 or 33 AD) so even if you believe these dictionaries are all incorrect my statement is still technically correct.

"but you are comparing the unlikelihood of the non existence of a man with the unlikelihood of the earth being flat. That tells me everything." Now you're taking it personally, which isn't good. I'm not implying that the Christ Myth Theory is a silly idea like the idea of a flat earth. I'm simply saying that both of them are "fringe" ideas not accepted by the consensus of modern scholarship. Many other topics could be compared, but that's a widely know one that is easy to cite.

"Look, I don't know about all that." I believe that's a big part of the problem. I was once very skeptical of these same types of things, not just about Jesus but ancient history in general, my public education instilled in me a sense to trust nothing except the accepted knowledge of 'textbooks' which supposedly distilled all the knowledge down to what was true and necessary to know. My love for languages led me to Latin, then Classical Greek, Hebrew, and some dabbling in Arabic, Chinese and Syriac (Aramaic). I started reading what we call primary texts in the original languages and came to realize how dependent we are upon the ancients and especially what they wrote for our knowledge of history. It's an amazing experience to read Cicero's own words in his native language and understand him as if he's speaking to you himself after your initial exposure to him was a summary of someone else's interpretation of the man in a textbook. Any history book you read on the Roman Republic (I don't care when it was published) will rely heavily on the primary sources written in Latin (sometimes Greek) by the ancients. We try to determine when they're exaggerating and consider motives like propaganda and such but we cannot discard it all and say "Let's write the whole history based on what we find in the dirt, that is archaeology". Archaeology is seriously limited in what it can tell us about history. Archaeological finds are not understood or interpreted by themselves, they are understood in the context of what we already know (or think we know) about that time and place from texts. Even then, the most important archaeological finds are textual in nature! Preserved papyrus documents, inscriptions in stone, etc. We know little about the past beyond what the ancients said (in writing). Where they are silent, we are.

"the church of this thread." I'll just leave that alone. I don't like where you're going with this conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is believed by the vast majority of Biblical scholars that Jesus existed historically. Many claim near-unanimity of this belief among their fellow scholars, and even dissenters admit that their view is a small minority. While every individual piece of evidence used in making the case for an historical Jesus has been challenged in varying degrees, and despite the fact that scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, support for the historicity of Jesus remains strong, while support for the theory that Jesus never existed (known as the Christ myth theory) remains rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:A12B:2159:8F7A:4908 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Cicero. That's good. You can't just say "Cicero" and make dozens of peer reviewed scholars go away, you know. What if told you I had also read Cicero in latin? What if I told you I had read early accounts of jesus in aramaic? Would that help our discussion? I'm not taking anything personally, don't worry. You are saying that the number of historians who doubt the existence of jesus is in the same ball park as the number of natural scientists who believe the earth is flat, and you are backing it up by saying "Cicero". ___ In response to that last comment, which begins "It is believed by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars..."; Two questions: How vast is that majority? How do you know? Any academic census data would really help to resolve this.

Herbie Keys (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you've read early accounts of Jesus in Aramaic, you shouldn't be wasting your time here--you should be bringing these unknown texts to public attention!

As for your questions about a census of academics who think the historicity of Jesus is secure, I don't think anyone has done a formal census. But there are a number of sources who have looked for academics who endorse the Christ myth theory, and the only people who come close are G.A. Wells (a professor of German, and has greatly modified his position on historicity), Price (doesn't hold a position at an accredited institution), and Carrier (does not hold a position at a college or university). The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:RS/AC, as has been pointed out already in this section; a census is not necessary, because statements of the academic consensus by authoritative sources are sufficient. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"the only sources who come close"? --Akhilleus, that is outrageous. You appear to be actually claiming that there are only three academics in the world who question the historicity of jesus, or two perhaps, depending on whether you count Wells. I have hardly begun researching this and already I've found plenty of scholars with apparently good credentials all around the world who doubt that jesus existed. I haven't even been down to the library yet. Are you saying I'll get to the library, go to the relevant section, and the shelves will be empty, except for a few books written by three people? Who are these "sources who looked for academics who endorse the Christ myth theory," and did they have access to google? BTW, it's no secret that there are sources in aramaic written hundreds of years ago that may or may not refer to jesus. I'm sorry if i got you excited; I didn't mean to imply that I had dug them up myself. :) Herbie Keys (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Herbie, I have to admit I made a mistake in the last post--I meant to write "biblical scholars who endorse the Christ myth theory", not "academics who endorse"... So, I'm sorry about that. I know that Frank Zindler, a retired prof of geology and biology, thinks that Jesus didn't exist, and I know of at least one professor of English--but when we're assessing academic consensus, we mean consensus within the relevant discipline. I'm actually curious to know what books you find, and who they're by--I don't think you're going to find much more that's recent beside Wells, Price, and Carrier. A few names spring to mind, but none who actually hold a college or university position in religious studies who specialize in the study of the historical Jesus. If you go back to 1880–1920 you'll find quite a few more works, of course.

As for the Aramaic, if the sources were written hundreds of years ago, that's not that early, is it? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As Akhilleus pointed out, simply being an academic doesn't make one's position on the historicity of Jesus carry any weight, unless they are in the relevant field. If I cite English professors, economists, biologists, and psychiatrists who believe global warming isn't occurring or isn't caused by man no one will care, because they're not in the relevant field. Modern day scholarship is highly specialized (for better or worse) and so we go on the consensus within a particular field. Also, the statements about the consensus of the field are taken from the experts themselves and are not simply the conclusions of the editors here, as has been said before. One final interesting thing to note that Akhilleus alluded to above is that roughly a century ago the scholarship was much more hostile to a historical Jesus and indeed much of ancient history in general, including the Old Testament of the Bible, the Trojan War, etc. In the last century scholarship has slowly acquired much more respect for what the ancients passed down to us. They certainly don't take everything in Homer or the Bible at face value, but the idea that it was all completely fabricated and made up has been mostly rejected by modern scholarship (although in many segments of the population outside of scholarship the older idea still holds). The Christ Myth Theory is essentially a hold-over of that position, i.e. that the New Testament and the movement that came to be called Christianity which dramatically changed the course of human history was entirely made up by people who would've been aware that they were completely fabricating stories about a man that never even existed. Very few who have the appropriate educational background and have examined the evidence and arguments accept that idea today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Very few", eh? I keep hearing the same thing, but no one seems to be able to back it up. Don't worry; when i lay out a list of sources, they won't be zoologists or neuroscientists, they will be historians, bible scholars, archeologists, experts in classical literature, and so forth. There are plenty. Herbie Keys — Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What's stopping you from laying out the sources right now, then? Don't keep us in suspense... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

All i have right now is an initial list. I don't know enough about each one. There's no point in just throwing a load of names out there if some of them are much stronger sources than others. I am going through the list to make sure they are all proper reliable sources. So far, judging from what biographical info i can find online, it looks like a number of them are perfectly positioned to be included in this article, but i'll know more when i've had more of a read around. I have a life though so I can't do this overnight. Herbie Keys (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Herbie, the consensus of the field as presented in the article is not the opinion of the editors, it is the opinion of the experts in the field. It is based upon direct quotes from those experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely true. There is at least some editorializing that isn't represented by sources which show a clear POV.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a forthcoming survey of historians on historicity. Finally, we will have actual data on whether Christ myth theory remains unsupported, as is asserted here. Included in the results will be data on the numbers of those biblical scholars who are contractually obligated to assert historicity. This is a really good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:7012:1B4D:EBA0:68B9 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The quality of this article is substandard.

The repetitiveness (how many times does the article need a variant of "virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" before it sounds like pleading? I count six times currently), the tone of defensiveness, the inaccuracies, the overly broad statements saddled by fortifications of footnotes (that do not actually support the overly broad statements), the failure to identify apologists when used as sources ... all this and bad writing creates a poor article.

And then there is the problem of the self-styled Crusaders who tirelessly work to prevent modification of this amateurish work. I plead with these folks: step back and actually READ the damn article in its entirety. Fix the thing! Because there is a very small number of you who will be allowed to do so. Please do it.Jrwsaranac (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The defensiveness makes the article look bad. I know there are a lot of challenges from the mythicist crowd but that's no reason to devoid this article of any dignity! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears no one really cares, so long as it remains in its silly and irrelevant state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:8DEE:A95:6941:3403 (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not reality. And in reality no historicity for Jesus has been established. The sources used in this article are a bad joke. There is no mention of Jesus in any primary source until well over 20 years after his supposed execution. Unfortunately WP allows the reference of historians based on their alleged reputation instead of their ability to demonstrate any evidence. Heck, WP even allows theologians as historians. In no other biographical article would this be admissible. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article that's probably in already

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

Viewpoints within CMT

Dissenting from or skeptical of the orthodox historicity position, but not a historicity denier.

Historicity Skeptic, promotes historicity refutation.
Supernatural Skeptic, promotes supernatural refutation.
The Jesus character of the Gospels was based on the historicity of a surrogate(s).
Jesus lived in a remote past prior to Year One.

Historicity denier

Jesus did not exist and no further theory elaborated beyond historicity refutation.
Literary character rather than a historical character.
Astrotheology-cosmological-pagan cult origin of Christ.
Originated as a supernatural heavenly Christ.
Gnostic.

Carrier's viewpoint of the supernatural heavenly Christ origin should be the Prima facie CMT noted in §Christ myth theory. However it also should be clearly stated, that other viewpoints historically were noted to varying degrees within academia and some even become part of the mainstream scholarship, like David Strauss. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Question? How should Carrier's WP weight be described in §Christ myth theory. "Per Wikipedia policy, Carrier's CMT viewpoint is authoritative within CMT" or "Carrier's CMT viewpoint is notable within CMT" or "Carrier is the leading academic within CMT", etc... 74.136.159.171 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's important to mention his weight here, but it is important to mention his point of view. The article for CMT is better suited to discuss the weight of proponents to the theory. Here, the CMT section is a minority viewpoint and doesn't necessitate the same level of detail as other sections. However, despite the CMT being a minority viewpoint, there criticisms that exist in virtually every facet of the historicity of Jesus that Carrier can be cited in.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody have the citation source given by Richard Carrier (2009), Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 18-19 given for James Patrick Holding, The Impossible Faith.

note: Casey, Maurice (16 January 2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 166–167. ISBN 978-0-567-01505-1. On Richard Carrier (2009) "Innana death-and-resurrection narrative", Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 18-19: "The Sumerian story of Inanna is older than Carrier claims. In it, when Inanna had descended to the underworld and was stripped of all her clothing, [then] "Inanna was turned into a corpse, A piece of rotting meat, And was hung from a hook on the wall." (Wolkstein and Krammer, Inanna p. 60) It should be obvious that this has nothing to do with the Roman penalty of crucifixion. Moreover, after a few pages, Carrier goes back on himself, though not without repeating his major mistake. He [Carrier] comments: "[James Patrick] Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn't really crucified. But being humiliated by being striped naked, killed and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer." In the context of discussing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, it is not the same thing at all. Jesus suffered the Roman penalty of crucifixion, and Inanna, a godess worshipped in Sumer two millennia previously, did not. Thus Jesus was nailed to a cross so that he would die, whereas Inanna was "hung from a hook on the wall", as large joints of meat were and still are. On the previous page, Carrier has a caveat of which he should have taken much more notice: "[M]y point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult [...] I always caution strongly against over zealous attempts to link Christianity with prior religions." It is regrettable that he did not take this advice to heart himself." 74.136.159.171 (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone want to update §Christ myth theory with the point Carrier is making when he says, as noted above, "[M]y point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult". I do not want to do this particular initial editing task. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article should say anything about Carrier's opinion about the relationship of Inanna cult to Christianity. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason you should say James Patrick Holding's opinion about the relationship of Inanna cult to Christianity. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And what reason is that? Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Simply noting that the Holding opinion isn't included in the article yet either, or for that matter the more clearly directly relevant article to that topic, Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. I am also curious as to the reasons the IP believes they are both so important and significant so as to be included here. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The topic "Historicity of Jesus" is clearly noted by Casey (2014), "He [Carrier] comments: "[James Patrick] Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn’t really crucified. But being humiliated by being striped naked, killed and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer." In the context of discussing the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, it is not the same thing at all. Jesus suffered the Roman penalty of crucifixion, and Inanna, a godess worshipped in Sumer two millennia previously, did not." Casey (2014) thus criticizes Carriers viewpoint on this topic in the context of Carrier's criticism of Holding's viewpoint on this topic. Thus per WP:NPOV the viewpoints on this topic of all parties noted should be clearly stated. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, se we don't cite Casey (2014), we don't cite Holding and we don't cite Carrier. What's the problem? Jeppiz (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the problem might be a bit of a disconnect regarding what is "encyclopedic", which is to say, appropriate for an encyclopedia, and what is part of a broad overview of the kind that our policies and guidelines demand our articles be. We cannot include everything that is, reasonably, included in full-length books regarding topics. And, yes, this is a rather serious and real question. Look at some of the 100+ page articles in Encyclopedia Britannica and you will see that it is certainly possible that a much greater amount and variety of material than the length standards of this site will allow is reasonably relevant to a given topic. But, because of our guidelines,including particularly our article length guidelines, we are, more or less, forced to abridge a lot of that material found in much longer pieces in other reference works. We could deal with that by creating a number of spinout articles, which we have done in many cases where those separate articles can demonstrably meet our notability guidelines. Otherwise, by and large, I've always thought that the best way to really determine WEIGHT and other matters is to look over as many of the highly regarded encyclopedia or dictionary type sources out there which cover the topic and try to, basically, adapt what they have in them to be in accord with our policies and guidelines, generally proportionally. Unfortunately, that still means, in many cases, including I think this particular subject, that we wind up leaving a lot of reliable broadly "encyclopedic" material out of our main articles on those subjects. They can be, and often are, appropriate for articles on individual works or individual authors or similar, but the rules of the site simply do not allow us to include everything every one of us thinks should be included, or, even, a lot of what is included in other reference works. And, in a lot of cases, I think like this one, it even means some trimming from the other reference overview works on the topic elsewhere, if they are much longer than our own articles can ever be. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus." Both written after and from the bible this is NOT historical. That's just a lie, How is their writings 25-50 years after the bible and from the bible ment to be historical or different its just writing about the bible stories. I was going to say try to be honest..... § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trrrrrrtttrrr (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Logan (1842) is a reliable source

Shortcut

WP:BIASED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not a vote. Present evidence that you can identify a real person named Jesus who is the cornerstone of the MYTH of the "New Testiment". That is what matters. FACTS not expltives about facts or who has the most published books. This article needs to be reduced to the FACTS of its case, and not a survey of opinions. Fact, there is NO EVIDENCE. And Jeppiz is a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

About the edits by the IP SPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please take note that the +cite for Carrier (2014), has the weight of an elephant, compared to the weight of 2 mice for the other two basic book citations —in regards to Due and undue weight. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Per @Chaoyangopterus's source citation from youtube —Dr Richard Carrier - Christianity without Jesus and the Ascension of Isaiah as a pre-Christ description of Jesus Christ. I assume that it may be cited as an authoratative source with the caveat that a link to the youtube video may not be included. It should be noted that there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by WP guidelines.
note: Richard Carrier Ph.D. "2015 Speakers". 2015 Pennsylvania State Atheist/Humanist Conference. PA State Atheist/Humanist Conference. Retrieved 20 September 2015. 2015 PA State Atheist/Humanist Conference : September 11-13, 2015 : Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA 74.136.159.171 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Question, is the above noted Template:cite web of Carrier speaking at the PA State Atheist/Humanist Conference sufficient to use as a source for quoting the talk at said event featured on a youtube video ? 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Historical? NO

" two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus"

How is this historical? Its two people writing about the bible myths. If thats historical read historical writings about harry potter. You know the stories written by unknown people about unknown people after being passed thru unknown people and with not evidence. Please be honest about it.--Reterterterter (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere: The standards on WP are very low. The presumed popularity of a source is put above the evidence the source actually provides. And because this part of WP is dominated by religious editors, all articles about anything the bible narrates are practically fundamentalist pamphlets, for the OT/Tanakh even more than for the NT. This article does not present any evidence but only cites beliefs of individual "academics". Heck, it even allows theologians as historians. Frustratingly ridiculous. The first writings about Jesus appear 20 years after Jesu alleged execution, written by Paul of Tarsus (the L.Ron Hubbard of his time) in his convoluted fanatical epistles (which btw are nauseating to read). Every "source" after that only regurgitates those writings, including the pseudo-historian Josephus and then all Christian "historians" through the centuries up until today. The gospels do not even come into the subject. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. And while you're perfectly free to think our insistence on scholarly sources instead of personal opinion is "low standards", it's not going to change much. Jeppiz (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your insistence on RS? Are you kidding? Where are the secondary sources here that provide solid evidence in the evaluation of primary sources? Especially in the absence of primary sources, as in the case of this article. This entire article is build on OR and SYNTH. Reliability on WP is defined as the assumed authority of someone in a specific field, while everywhere else (especially in scientific research) it is defined as the presence and confirmed validity of evidence. But hey, since you are so convinced this article is sound, it should be easy for you to point me to the primary sources about Jesus that predate the Pauline epistles and to the reliable secondary sources that have evaluated and critically analyzed these primary sources and have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals for everybody to read and confirm. Go on and make this article encyclopedic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cush, there are no primary sources that predate Paul. This article build on what scholars in the field say, whether you like those scholars or not is of little importance. I've already pointed out WP:SOAP and WP:AGF, further violations of these policies will be reported. This is not the place for you or anyone else to state their personal beliefs, it's a place to discuss how to improve the article. The current article build on a large number of academic sources. If you want to suggest different reliable sources, you are welcome to do so. If you just want to soapbox about your personal opinions about "Paul of Tarsus (the L.Ron Hubbard of his time) in his convoluted fanatical epistles (which btw are nauseating to read)", then be prepared to be reverted and reported. Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Scholars in the field of determining anybody's historicity are historians and archaeologists, not theologians and preachers. I will write up a list of the sources used in this article to find out how many are in fact historians and in no personal affiliation with the subject matter (i.e. religious COI). If possible, I will contact the sources. I may also suggest other sources. Then we can rewrite this article together. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cush made me laugh: Wikipedia articles on religious subjects are likely to offend the fundamentalists of the discussed religion, not comfort them. E.g. one fundamentalist wrote "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." If the Inquisition were still active, you would see burnings of Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can this troll who has vandalized the article numerous times in the last couple days be banned? The text that was inserted sounds like something straight out of the youtube comments section, i.e. "we have NO direct evidence..." with all caps to show the writer is really mad and not going to take it anymore! This kind of garbage is so unacademic and childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3844:D320:D836:D696:F6AB:EE62 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that your approach is likely not going to get good results. You would be much better off adding critical analyses and helping teach critical thinking than attacking religious beliefs, which are resistant to just about everything except a strong magnetic field. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, [User:Reterterterter|Reterterterter]], most of my recent religious-related activity on WP has been arguing against Christian beliefs, I've written at least 30-40 posts and done several edits in the last month to oppose an effort to portray the exodus as factual or to change the article Jesus to rely more on the gospels. I opposed those changes as they were not supported by WP:RS, the very reason I oppose your changes. But at least those users were honest enough not to create multiple socks and violate WP:NPA all the time.. Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Christian bias?

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

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

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

The article also has people watching it with blatant religious agendas. Do you really believe that Bart D. Ehrman is an unbiased writer on this topic. Have you ever asked him his views on evolution? Is every wikipedia reader supposed to be an idiot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Did you not just create strawmen critics to knock down yourself? It seems like you are misrepresenting views based on outright distrust for people who have differing views, despite having very legitimate perspectives. 68.189.34.91 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding the issue at hand. I am a newer user and trying to figure out how everything works. It does not seem to me to be wrong to include Christ mythicism as a minority view. Although there are some who hold that Jesus was merely a myth the overwhelming majority of New Testament and historical critical scholars believe that at least a person named Jesus existed. This includes scholars from various theological persuasions. John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, and Wolfhart Pannenberg would be among those who hold to this view. This view is upheld by the fact that Jesus existance is testified to in the earliest and best sources like the first century gospel documents, Josephus, Tacitus, the early Church fathers and many others. All of that is to say that Jesus as myth really does constitute a minority view that is not recognized by the majority of the scholarly field. This evidence is much more than Ockham's razor. These conclusions have been reached by applying historiographical research methods to the question of Jesus. Vega 70 (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Christian bias

This article is heavily biased in favour of the historicity school, which is mostly just Christian writers quoting each other and then calling that a "consensus." The assertion that the overwhelming majority of historians accept the historicity of Jesus may have been true 20 years ago, but it's not true now - the work of Richard Carrier and others has sharply shifted the balance of opinion. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect that fact. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

~~Thanks for that example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.~~ Do you have any actual academic sources to propose? We're not changing an article just because you~~r religious beliefs~~ don't agree with the academic sources we have, but you're perfectly free to argue for a change based on sources. Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about my religious beliefs. The point I was making is that this article no longer adequately reflects "the academic sources we have", because they are changing quite rapidly. The statement "There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically" is no longer true. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, but we go by sources. You mentioned Carrier, a fringe view but one we still do mention. If there are other reliable sources, feel free to mention them here. Jeppiz (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, please reconsider your personal attacks and assumptions of other editors. It is not constructive.

@ Intelligent, the "near universal consensus" was a direct quote from Richard Carrier's peer reviewed work and I'm the one that put it in the article. I believe I replaced text that said "near unanimity" or "unanimity", which was inaccurate because there are a quite a few opponents to the arguments made for the historicity of Jesus. However, it is clear that there is a consensus in scholarship regarding the historicity of Jesus. The change I made is a commentary on consensus, while the previous one made an unsubstantiated, blanketed statement about all scholars. If the consensus has actually changed, then you'd need a peer reviewed source that says this. Richard Carrier is the most recent peer reviewed source and even though he's a detractor from the historicity of Jesus, he admits what the near universal consensus among experts is.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

For the lay-reader, I think this breaks down into two threads:

What is the evidence for Jesus' physical existence?
What is the evidence against the assertion of his existence?

Now there are many arguments going one way or the other, but those are theological debates and they belong elsewhere. I'd much rather this article just focus on the evidence for and against rather than "this scholar has this theory." He or she may be the flavor of the day, but if we follow that approach then this article will swing back and forth as the decades roll by with ongoing arguments here on the talk page over which scholar's work is most popular. If we give each bit of evidence along with its refutation its own section, then we'll really have something worth reading. Other articles can focus on defining various schools of thought as each gains sufficient notability. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors, we have a responsibility to write these articles to reflect what the most reliable sources say about the subject. As new information becomes available and if consensus changes, then we can accommodate that information into the article. However, we can not give undue weight to counterarguments. The scholarly/expert consensus is very clear on the historicity of Jesus and most of the debate is over what information actually counts as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. We can not write the article in a way that attempts to refute the arguments presented by scholars. It's fine to have a separate section that discusses dissenting opinions, but to thread them throughout the article will mislead readers to doubt what the scholarly viewpoint is, when such a doubt does not exist among scholars. WP:WEIGHT speaks to treating minority viewpoints as equal, and it is against WP:NPOV. Though this proposal would be perfectly fine in a debate or forensic exhibition, this is not a debate, this is a Wikipedia article. And as such, we can not present the information in such a way.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A Historicity Article

This article is about historicity. Please treat it as the same. John Croft (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Zarcusian has removed my edits which apply to the subject of Historicity. In writing about the Historicity of Jesus, it is important that the readers know what is Historicity? What is the difference between historicity and history? What is the subject of historicity? For these reasons I am re-establishing my post. Zarcusian, if you delete what I have written, please state your reasons here, and if you can replace my discussion about historicity with something you think is better. John Croft (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. You should not redo your edit unless there is a consensus for it. Jeppiz (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Similarly Zarcusian should not delete my edit without discussing the reasons here on the talk page. It is for this reason that I have redone my edits. Presenting the nature of Historicity in an article which claims to be on this subject is an important addition in quality of the article. John Croft (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is specific to the historicity of Jesus, not the nature of historicity in general. Your placement of such a paragraph isn't apprpropriate within this article, let alone at the beginning of the lede. If you are concerned that a reader might benefit from additional clarity regarding the term, please review the Historicity entry and edit or propose edits there. I'll take the liberty of linking to that page for clarity. Also, when referred to an essay like WP:BRD, as Jeppiz did above, please take the time to read it, not just respond. It will benefit your time here. Best regards Zarcusian (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Zarcusian for your suggestions. Regarding the article, it is about the science of historicity applied to a study of Jesus. As you say it is not just about historicity in General, but about a specific application of the historicity approach to one person, namely Yeshuah, called Jesus in the Latin West. I believe the article could benefit from inclusion of a small paragraph on the nature of historicity, and some reference to Historicity in the article. Otherwise it is not about Historicity at all, but just about Jesus. If that is the case the article should be renamed or merged with the article on Jesus. Regarding the reference that Jeppiz gave I did read it. Thanks John Croft (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Note: "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring"[4] Scoobydunk (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

John, I don't have any major problem with your edit as such, though I think Zarcusian has a point is saying that it was a bit chatty. In an encyclopaedia, it's important to remain as neutral and factual as possible. I did not revert your edit when I first saw it even though I shared Zarcusian's concern, but once it was reverted, I did re-establish the consensus version; not because I didn't like the idea, as Scoobydunk suggests, but as I did not believe it made the article better. That is not to say I could not support some version of what you wrote, but I do not think a general discussion historicity is the best introduction to this article. Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest anything. "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work" is the part that's most relevant and that's exactly what you did.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You're perfectly right, a mistake on my part. I've seen BRD invoked so many times (I've been reverted myself with that argument) that I honestly thought that was the policy. I'll keep this in mind. As we're exchanging pieces of advice, comments like these are better left on user's talk pages as they don't concern the article. Jeppiz (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, thank you for your constructive comment. I would like to add something on Historicity as an article on the Historicity needs I feel a brief description of the way in which it is different from the quest for the Historical Jesus or Jesus in History. Could you help me find a way to introduce the topic that will not get immediately deleted. John Croft (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just as pertinent as this [5] comment and informs users editing this article not to invoke BRD as the reason for the revert. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What if the section on historicity is inserted in the place that discusses the difference between history and historicity, as I have done. Is this any better? Regards John Croft (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got a major problem with any edit that treats the historicity of Jesus as something different than or separate from the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Scholars assess the historicity of Jesus, or of particular episodes of his life, as part of figuring out who he was and what he did. Writing as if historicity is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus does not truly represent the scholarship in this area. When the article claims that historicity and history are separate subjects and then cites scholars such as Ehrman and Powell in support of this assertion, it is misrepresenting those scholars. It is telling that the latest edit that tries to assert there is a difference cites an article about social psychology that does not mention the historicity of Jesus at all. This is simply not a distinction that scholars who study early Christianity make, and this article shouldn't try to make it either. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, or Jesus of Nazareth

I feel we need to take care in historicity of describing Jesus as "of Nazareth". Early sources refer to him in Greek as the Nazarene, a version of which he is known in Syriac and Arabic (Christians are called Nazarenes there to this day). Some authors consider him to have been a Nazarite, not from Nazareth. Contemporary archaeology has failed to find any structures in Nazareth prior to the period before the Jewish revolt of 135CE, and the enforced diaspora of Hadrian. By the time of the first Jewish revolt, there is little evidence of Nazarites left, although James, the brother of Jesus, is described as a Nazarite from birth, and there is a version of the Nazarite oath in the Gospel accounts. For this reason I have amended the text from Jesus of Nazareth here to just Jesus. John Croft (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

This edit request to Historicity of Jesus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First request:: Opening paragraph:: "The historicity of Jesus concerns whether Jesus of Nazareth, born c 7–2 BC, existed as a historical figure, whether the episodes portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life.[1][page needed][2]:168–173" The historicity of a person examines only that persons historical existence. Everything beyond "existed as a historical figure" needs removal. Whether the events portrayed in the Gospels are accurate is obviously far beyond the scope of this article as it concerns the accuracy of the Biblical narrative of Jesus' life, not the accuracy of the claim of a historical Jesus - which is the premise of this article.

Second request:: Second paragraph:: "One of the chief problems confronting scholars interested in the historicity of Jesus is that there are no contemporary records of his life or existence.." Needs removal on two counts, first, any lack of contemporary document for a historical figure of ancient history is in no way anomalous and does not present a problem to scholars, as the overwhelming majority of relevant scholars agreeing on Jesus' historicity demonstrates. Second, it is a statement without a source, against Wikipedia editing guidelines. This entire paragraph needs to be removed as it is first from an atheist attempting to cast doubt by pretending a factoid is relevant when it isn't, and then the irrelevant point is countered in the rest of the paragraph.

Third request:: Third paragraph:: "Although there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the...." The second "although", needs removing.

Fourth request:: Fourth paragraph:: It vindicates my first request, and once the first request is corrected, this paragraph becomes irrelevant and can be removed.

Fifth request:: Fifth paragraph:: Is beyond the scope of the article, discussing the historical Jesus, ie what Jesus did and said, and not the historicity of Jesus - the subject in question - which discusses the historical truth of the existence of the person. This paragraph must also be removed.

I will be making many more requests regarding this article as, frankly, it is a mess. Not once are the reasons for scholars agreeing on Jesus' historicity discussed, which is by far the most important omission from the article. Davelaneward (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Davelaneward (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that things are beyond the scope of an article, while also arguing that the scope of an article should be reduced, seems tautologous. Support third request, oppose all others. Myk (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a source for your second concern and will remove the second "although" if it hasn't been done yet. Despite your personal arguments, scholars do speak to the fact that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus in full detail. Contemporary or primary evidence, both of which Jesus lacks, are part of the pillars of determining historicity.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, @Davelaneward:, you have had your account since 2013, so you should be able to make these edits yourself. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done Your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so you can edit the article yourself, but you must ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and that you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. I was unable to edit before, but now I am. I will be editing when I have the time for the following reasons. Regarding point 1: Historicity refers to the authenticity of a historical claim, namely that Jesus Christ existed. The authenticity of what is said about the subject in xyz source is not relevant here and has its own article - "The historical reliability of the Gospels" Point 2: I am not questioning the non-existence of contemporary documents regarding the historical Jesus, I am questioning that their non-existence poses a problem in determining historicity to the majority of scholars, which it clearly does not. Point 3 regarding Politas: I have not requested the scope of the article be reduced, only that we remain within the scope of the article which the fifth paragraph does not, hence I will remove it. Lastly I will add a new section indicating why the majority of scholars hold their consensus.

Carrier and WP:RS

Recently, several users have added parts about Carrier. No problem there, Carrier is noteworthy (though as a proponent of a small minority, WP:WEIGHT is relevant) and could be cited. However, WP:RS still applies. A blog is not a reliable source, so using a blog called Debunking Christianity is just as unsuitable as using a blog called Defending Christianity. We do not use blogs, particularly not blogs with a strong POV one way or the other. Likewise, a book by a Professor is usually WP:RS, but then we should refer to the relevant page in the book, not to a description of the book at Amazon; I'd like to remind everybody that added sources we have not read isn't allowed. Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

Per WP:USERGENERATED, Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.

Thus the following web citation should be restored to the article: Richard Carrier (Jul 31, 2015). "Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did". Freethought Blogs. Freethought Blogs.com. Retrieved 24 November 2015. I do wonder where the confusion arose among people (and I've seen a lot of them online) thinking euhemerization means turning a real person into a god. That's not euhemerization. That's deification. Julius Caesar was deified. He was not euhemerized. Euhemerized gods are always historically non-existent.

Since Richard Carrier is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's only in absence of more reliable sources. Yes, blogs can be used as a RS, but not when when there are more reliable sources readily available. In general, articles should be built upon the most reliable sources available.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently there are Zero other sources cited for Carrier euhemerization, thus the previously deleted citation should be restored until a "most" reliable source citation is given to replace it. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

An idea that in itself is very much WP:FRINGE (no disrespect intended, just that it's an idea not held by almost any expert) and is only publish on on a blog should not be included, no. What Carrier argues in his books is another matter and should probably be summarized in the article (due given due length). Jeppiz (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. It's equivalent to saying "Currently there are no reliable sources for my opinion in the article, so my facebook comments should be restored". No, this article is mostly built on peer reviewed reliable sources and so that is the standard. If his point of view is noteworthy enough, then it should be easy to find in a peer reviewed reliable source. The fact that Carrier has published such a source and doesn't speak to euhemerization in it, means that it probably wouldn't have passed academic scrutiny of that caliber.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked up Carriers main book when I read the term "Euhemerization". Carrier apparently uses a historically correct sense of the word which is opposite to how it is currently used. This was confusing so I rewrote the bit using clearer language.AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Weasel much?

-There is "near universal consensus"
-with very few exceptions, such critics do support
-it is broadly agreed upon
-"few have doubted the genuineness"
- it is only disputed by a small number of scholars
-Almost all scholars of antiquity agree
-"almost universal assent"
-only two events subject to "almost universal assent"
-nearly all modern scholars consider
-'almost impossible to doubt or deny'
-most scholars agree
-there is widespread scholarly agreement
-a basic consensus
-Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity, which is the majority viewpoint, agree
-most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted
-There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity
-This theory has very little support among current scholars
-support for the theory became almost non-existent

"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged." Weasel word - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal comment: This is easily one of the most embarrassing Wikipedia pages I have ever come across. Whoever is Godfathering this page needs a talking to.... I guess I need to go somewhere else to get any real information on this subject. Janus Shadowsong | contribs 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. Unfortunately, this article is entirely built on circular justification rooted in theology and doctrine with no verification from scientifically sound historical research whatsoever. This is an article to be ignored. And oh, the "godfather" can be easily pointed out. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the bitter WP:NOTAFORUM violation by Cush, I agree there are too many weasel words in the article. At the same time, it's important to remember what's weasel and what's not. If any Wikipedia user says there is near consensus, this it is weasel and should be removed. If we cite a source saying there is near consensus, then it is not a problem provided that the source is representative of the field, not just a fringe view. When it comes to the question of Jesus' historicity, there are two vocal groups. One group who believes the Gospels to be literal truth, and one group who believes Jesus never existed at all. Neither of these groups have any academic support, but they sure are vocal and, if they don't get their way, typically resorts to arguing either that Wikipedia is run by awful lefty atheists or awful conservative Christians. (I've been called both, often enough). Under NPOV, we should not give equal balance to views held by a large majority and a tiny minority, though I've come to realize some users will never accept that and just continue to insist it's all just an atheist/Christian conspiracy. Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not WP:RS claim for Strangenotions.com to rv valid edit

Strangenotions.com is not a blog and is a non-commercial website, the article on the website, "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" was authored by an expert scholar, Dr. Richard Carrier. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not much to say, really. If you think that everything apart from blogs and commercial websites are WP:RS, you're mistaken. I already encouraged you to read up on this. I personally think Strangenotions is a rather nice idea for a webpage, but that's beside the point. There are lots of nice non-commercial pages that still are not RS. Jeppiz (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that Carrier is relevant for the CMT article but WP:FRINGE here, the problem is the site, not Carrier. Having said that, Carrier is already given way too much space in this article and should be reduced considerably according to WP:NPOV. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." CMT is such an ancillary article, this one is not. Jeppiz (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet the reverts were done on the basis that the work is not an RS. That is the subject of this post. There is a case for it being an RS which can be discussed here or at the appropriate noticeboard. Simply saying it is not an RS by pointing at the website and ignoring that the publisher is only one of three things to consider when weighing sources WP:RS is a bit too dismissive. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Given historicity of Jesus experts: Allison, Ehrman, Levine, Vermes, Carrier. How is Carrier a "vastly limited" minority ? If we consider just secular scholars solely focused on the historical Jesus, the list is Ehrman, and Carrier. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As usual, you fail to distinguish between what is and what you know. That you only know Ehrman and Carrier is one thing, but does not mean that an entire field of academics do not exist just because you don't know them. You mention Allison, Levine, Vermes, none of whom you knew before I told you about them. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, nobody can know everything. But several weeks of relentless repetitions just because you don't know anything about the field gets disruptive. I don't think you intend to be disruptive, but there's a point where WP:COMPETENCE becomes an issue and well-meaning ignorance eventually becomes disruptive. Everything you keep repeating has been discussed ad nauseam before, and the talk page archives are open for everybody. Personally I'm getting sick and tired of this endless stream of conspiracy theorists who come here, month after month, year after year. It's a matter of fact that almost all experts believe Jesus existed. They don't believe he was God, they don't believe he performed miracles, they don't believe in his resurrection, but they do believe he existed. That's not something we're making up, it's just a matter of fact of how modern scholarship views the question, and it's well-sourced. I'm leaning towards suggestion we should just deal with these conspiracy theorists the way we deal with those who want to delete images at Muhammad at just say "no" and move on. We know they exist, those who believe 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Kenya, Jesus never existed, Big Foot does exist, the Holocaust never happened, the moon landings happened, and so on, sometimes with one or two lone experts whom the conspiracy theorists appeal to time and time again to create a false balance. But no, we're not putting it in mainstream articles and, quite frankly, we should not even waste much time on discussing it. This is not a place to uncover the WP:TRUTH, and not a place to put forward new theories. This is a place to represent sourced facts, rooted in modern mainstream scholarship. Jeppiz (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist, or even possibly didn’t exist, but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability." (Emeritus Professor Philip Davies, August 2012 Did Jesus Exist?) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed	Current 13:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Other than Carrier, notable experts who have published academically peer reviewed books on the historicity of Jesus using the most current scholarship available on the subject include: Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Amy-Jill Levine and Geza Vermes, all of whom believe that the historical Jesus existed and oppose the Christ Myth Theory, but who tend to see the historical Jesus as a Jewish preacher who never claimed to be God nor had any intention to found a religion. However some authors disagree with this consensus. Whereas Carrier notes the scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus, those being: Arthur Droge, Kurt Noll, Thomas Thompson, Thomas Brodie, Robert Price.[ref.1][ref.2]	Other than Carrier, notable experts who have published academically peer reviewed books on the historicity of Jesus using the most current scholarship available on the subject include: Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman, Amy-Jill Levine and Geza Vermes, all of whom believe that the historical Jesus existed and oppose the Christ Myth Theory, but who tend to see the historical Jesus as a Jewish preacher who never claimed to be God nor had any intention to found a religion.
[ref.1] Dr. Richard Carrier. "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus". Strange Notions. Brandon Vogt. Retrieved 6 April 2016. The hypothesis that Jesus never really existed has started to gain more credibility in the expert community. Some now agremaintinge historicity agnosticism is warranted, including Arthur Droge (professor of early Christianity at UCSD), Kurt Noll (associate professor of religion at Brandon University), and Thomas Thompson (renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen). Others are even more certain historicity is doubtful, including Thomas Brodie (director emeritus of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland), Robert Price (who has two Ph.D.'s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies), and myself (I have a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University and have several peer reviewed articles on the subject). Still others, like Philip Davies (professor of biblical studies, emeritus, at the University of Sheffield), disagree with the hypothesis but admit it is respectable enough to deserve consideration. [ref.2] Lataster, Raphael (29 March 2016). "IT'S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE". Think. 15 (43): 65–79. doi:10.1017/s1477175616000117. Think, Volume 15, Issue 43, Summer 2016, Published online by Cambridge University Press

96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC) & redaction 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

IP, it would be helpful if you'd stop filling talk pages with all these tables. They add absolutely nothing, are not helpful and seem rather WP:POINTy. Anyone can read the discussions and check the edit history for themselves. Your entire Wikipedia history seem to consist of pushing a conspiracy theory by cherrypicking the few persons favouring it and ignoring mainstream research. We understand you've read "Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" as you continue to tout it in every article imaginable, but it's really not a significant work in any sense, rather a marginal work by a marginal publisher. Jeppiz (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Any objection to to adding Hector Avalos, professor of Religious Studies, to the above list of those scholars on record doubting the historicity of Jesus ? or list of marginal crackpot conspiracy theorists, as some would say. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite strong WP:DUE objections. Why should we even have such a list, what's the purpose of it? In which way is it due here. It would be like having a list on Climate change on scientists who deny human caused climate change, just an effort to make a fringe view seem more popular than it is. Jeppiz (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You may want to WP:RFC that, seeing as how the list of scholars is WP:DUE. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is an article here listing scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming. (List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming) I acknowledge the consensus of scholars regarding Jesus's existence. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a list of notable folks who disagree is unencyclopedic though. I'd stop short of giving it much weight, but perhaps a compromise would be to put the list of names into the footnote? That way it doesn't take up space in the article itself, but it is available in a note for those who want to look further. The sentence in the article that points to it could be as short as "Some authors disagree with the consensus." --Airborne84 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am OK with keeping the Carrier Ref quote and removing the list of names from the article. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed era change AD to CE

As per WP:ERA I would like to open a discussion on the date system used in this article. Currently the BC-AD system is in use. I think it could be beneficial to change over to the equivalent BCE-CE system for the following reasons:

This page is apparently about a controversial Christian subject. It would make sense to try to avoid even the mere appearance of a POV.
Doing so might also limit the amount of attacks on the page.
The use of "Before Christ" is weird when referring to Jesus related subjects. It now literally reads that Jezus of Nazareth known as Christ, was born before Christ.

AlwaysUnite (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While this is a well-meaning suggestion, the premise that a change in the ERA used will resolve disputes seems rather naive to me. The two systems are almost identical and in either case, who believes that Jesus was literally born in year 1? Dionysius Exiguus was a highly influential scholar, but he is not considered an authoritative source on chronology. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think BC/AD is fine for this article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dimadick that the dating systems are almost identical and a change does nothing to resolve disputes. We should stick with the system already in use. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

James Ossuary

Any reason not to mention the James Ossuary? The jury's still out on its authenticity, and even if it would be proven a forgery, the disproven claim that it would be archeological evidence of Jesus would still be relevant for the article (kind of like, "In 2001, the James Ossuary was found, but..."). --79.242.222.168 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over no reason at all

A user called "Johnuniq" says my edition should be discussed in the talk page, and that I should "campaign on another website". I don't know what's that supposed to mean, and I'm not sure about what exactly do you want to discuss here after all Johnuniq.
The NPOV article of this wiki specifically says that biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution, and that's precisely what I did. I have merely converted a direct quote into an encyclopedic text, clarifying that the assertion made by the christian author is a personal opinion, and not (by far) academic consensus - there is no POV in that conversion, but there is definitely something wrong when three different editors would reverse such a small edit with no plausible explanation whatsoever.
PS: I tried to talk to user Donner60 ‎through his talk page before I restored my edition, and he seemed to have understood my position. Also tried to talk to user Smeat75, but I had no response. 177.20.243.189 (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

177.20.243.189 made three identical edits: diff + diff + diff. Three different editors have reverted. The proposed edit starts:

"In the opinion of a christian historian named Michael Grant..."

whereas previously it was "Historian Michael Grant...".

Was the lowercase "c" in "christian" intentional? Is Michael Grant an historian, or can his views be discounted because he was a "christian historian"? What is the point of the new reference? Why is the edit needed to "restore npov" (second edit summary)? Naming Michael Grant is obviously attributing the view. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Three different editors have reverted for no reason (you among them), I tried to talk to them here and here: one of them made no objections to my edit, the other one made no reply to my pleas. Now let's talk about your questions:
1) Was the lowercase "c" in "christian" intentional? No, and that was a pretty silly question. Just correct the word, no need to reverse the edition.

2) Is Michael Grant an historian, or can his views be discounted because he was a "christian historian"? Michael Grant is an historian, but also a devout Christian. His personal opinion may or may not be biased (that is up to his readers to decide), but his personal writings certainly do not reflect an academic consensus, and that should be specified in the article.
3) What is the point of the new reference? The point of the new reference is to establish Michael Grant as a Christian scholar (and when we are talking about Christ that's a viable information, unless you want to hide something).
4) Why is the edit needed to "restore npov" (second edit summary)? That edit wasn't mine, Smeat75 did it.
177.20.243.189 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea that a devout Christian must believe in the Resurrection etc. is nonsense. Many theologians and priests don't. The present Pope himself has recently stated he has his doubts about God.

Grant was a first class scholar, who chose to write for the general public. The point he makes is quite valid, an acceptable methodological argument. Most historians, atheists among them, accept it. We have ample attestations that atheists with classical expertise accept that someone called Jesus existed at that time. Who Jesus was, of course, is a completely different question.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP says "What is the point of the new reference? The point of the new reference is to establish Michael Grant as a Christian scholar (and when we are talking about Christ that's a viable information, unless you want to hide something)". It is the obituary in the Telegraph of Michael Grant and it does not say he was a Christian. Not that it would matter if it did.Smeat75 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Grant was not a 'Christian' scholar, any more than Geza Vermes was a 'Jewish' scholar. They were scholars who happened to be, respectively, Christian and Jewish. I suggest editors read his appendix:'Attitudes to the Evidence' (An Historian's Review of the Gospels 1977 oo.197ff) where he declares he is writing as an historian, not as a believer. We don't have to take his words, but the essay on method that follows has nothing fideistic about it.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The addition of "in the opinion of" is an example of using weasel words to undermine what follows. It is unnecessary. However, the entire argument from Michael Grant also seems to be unnecessary. We're not suppose to include every single argument from every single scholar about why they think Jesus existed. The arguments that we do include should be representative of scholarship. For example, most scholars don't believe the gospels are evidence for the historicity of Jesus. However, most scholars do believe that a person named Jesus was crucified. These are arguments that are shared by a large portion of academia. I don't see any evidence that Grant's argument is one made by other scholars. Therefore, it's also a violation of WP:NPOV to include his argument because it's giving undue weight to an individual's opinion, especially when we already have plenty of arguments from other scholars. I believe the entire quote should be removed.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Gospels are evidence, for Grant at least, like most historians, for the existence of Jesus. Whether he was crucified or not, like any detail, is disputed, depending on how one reads the evidence for being judged by the Sanhedrin, by a crowd in front of Pontius Pilate, or both. Grant's opinion is widely shared:it was not personal. If you can find some source saying Grant's generalization, one of several available, is questioned as representing a scholarly consensus among historians, then add it. NPOV again has nothing to do with this. I'm not a Christian, but I was trained in classical Greek, and know intimately the methodological criteria he is referring to. Unless you read the whole appendix, arguing about this is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75 - the fact that Michael Grant is a Christian is common knowledge to someone who actually read one of his books on early Christianity, and the obituary published by the Telegraph mentions that when he is quoted as following "A classical Roman would have said Quo Is. What a pity that our Lord spoke such late and inferior Latin.", referring to Jesus Christ. So yeah, he is a Christian and the reference makes it pretty clear. This information is relevant when we are talking about Christ, and I actually don't see any of you opposing the edition that stated that "Robert M. Price" is an atheist. Why the double standards?
Scoobydunk - the addition of "in the opinion of" is NOT an example of "using weasel words", it is the recommendation of the NPOV Article (and please, don't talk to me like that cause I haven't attacked anyone by merely converting that direct citation to encyclopedic format). But I agree with your evaluation of that paragraph - it is clearly undue weight and I tried to correct that without removing his personal opinion from the article completely.
Nishidani - your statement is false. The gospels are not evidence, otherwise there would be no doubt at all about the historicity of Jesus Christ. Grant's opinion is not widely shared because the existence of that "mass of pagan personages" is being constantly questioned and scrutinized - like the narrative of the Trojan War or the existence of Ragnar Lodbrok, to name a few examples. 177.20.243.189 (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If you go around adding "in the opinion of" to every statement made by a scholar, the article becomes unreadable. The fact that inline attribution is used is enough to indicate that it's a person's opinion. Adding "in the opinion of" is redundant. Also, your link to the NPOV article speaks to including inline attribution, but says nothing about adding "in the opinion of". The quoted material was already properly attributed to Michael Grant according to NPOV guidelines.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nishdani, you're wrong, it's clearly stated in the article. The two things that scholars agree on is that Jesus was baptized and that he was crucified. There is wide dispute over there being any reliability in the gospels and the fact that so many scholars disagree on which ones are accurate and which ones aren't if further proof of that. On top of that, the burden of proof is on you or anyone arguing that Grant's argument is commonly shared among scholars and academia. I can't just add "Unicorns are evidence for Jesus" and then demand that you provide a source explicitly saying "Unicorns aren't evidence for Jesus". Adding in the arbitrary arguments of every scholar that supports the historicity of Jesus is ridiculous and makes an unreadable encyclopedia. Our responsibility as editors is to create an article that best represents all of academia on the subject. Giving Grant's argument this much coverage requires some evidence that his argument is widely shared among scholars. On top of that, it appears neither of the Michael Grant sources are peer reviewed and shouldn't be included when there is such a large amount of peer reviewed available on the subject. One of the key principles of WP is to use the strongest sources available and non-peer reviewed books don't compare to peer reviewed ones.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sheesh, people quoting people quoting people quoted in wikipedia, Grant being reported as saying Christ spoke poor Latin when Grant, unlike the editor of the Daily Telegraph or the editors here citing him, knew Latin was not spoken in Palestine at that time, Peter was a fisherman and, if he existed, would only have spoken Aramaic and broken Greek, and Christ had he met Peter outside Rome, would have addressed him in Aramaic or Greek - all that is another fable, etc. Meaning Grant was quoted for a wisecrack. 'Crucified': if he was condemned by a Beit Din, or religious court, as Maimonides maintains, then the punishment was stoning to death: if he was crucified by the Romans, it was for undertaking an insurrection. Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please cascade comments appropriately. Your comment should immediately follow the one you're responding to and should be indented one more than the one you're responding to. I can move your comment if you'd like, but won't do so without your permission.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I was replying to you. Some advice. Read some scholarly works on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down and consider the relevant guideline in Wikipedia:Citing sources: "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question." ... "Simple facts such as this [the abundance of oxygen] can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution".

In this case, do we have a simple statement of fact or is there a lack of clarity in the attribution? The editors' personal beliefs about a specific source are not supposed to affect the attribution policy. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There are several instances of "most scholars agree" or "most scholars believe" without proper references and sometimes contradictory in nature. Reviewing the book and paper references I found no statistics backing up this claim of what most scholars agree. I request a revision of the matter. What most scholars agree should not be a quote in some book where the author claims most scholars agree. That's hearsay and propagation of an unsubstantiated claim. Consider replacing with "Scholars x, y and z believe that most scholars..." unless there are clear statistical analysis that show that a significant sample of scholars was analyzed and determined to hold that belief. Thank you. 2001:8A0:7C21:C901:FC39:7568:A7E7:56FE (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Zidane [guest]

three separate scholarly quests - Synoptic Gospels - The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels

These points need clarification/rewritting:
Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place but not a word about what these quests are
the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources but the definition of "Synoptic Gospels" follows several lines afterwards.
The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels but not a word about these differences. 194.174.73.33 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

One aspect of the difference between synoptics and John inserted and referenced. John D. Croft (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theory in the lead section

Please see this edit. It has moved the following sentence to the lead paragraph.

However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesi" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Just by reading this Wiki page alone should be enough to convince that the above sentence is a fringe theory. According to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, it gives the undue weight to the fringe theory by placing it in the lead section. I think it should be moved to "Christ myth theory" section.
69.75.54.130 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The chiefmost objection I have to this is that Jesus is a IVth declension, so the plural would be Jesūs, not Jesi. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit of the opening

As this is meant to be a historicity of Jesus page, I have included a link to historicity in wikipedia, and a brief referenced statement of what historicity is.John D. Croft (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A matter of faith

It should be noted that where some BELIEVE in the historicity of Jesus, this is faith based and that no one has any actual evidence that Jesus existed.(42.114.178.49 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

That is a prime example of original research. We don't report our own ideas here, we report what sources say. While we don't have firm evidence for any historic person until fairly recently, academics are more unanimous that persons such as Caesar, Hannibal, Socrates, Jesus, Plato or Augustus did exist. Whether you believe it or not is actually irrelevant. Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

42.114.178.49: The concerns you've expressed are addressed in the article by including some coverage of the Christ myth theory. It's clearly a minority, or even fringe, opinion in contrast to the mainstream view which is given, properly, the priority in this article. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Powerless, I hereby register my opinion for the public record that this article almost entirely consists of folly and delusions. Knowing that modern religious movements nearly exclusively reimagine, rebrand, copy-paste and reshape previously held myths I see no reason why christianity shouldn't follow this pattern. After careful reading of several sceptic works on this issue I am now convinced it is far more likely than not (by a factor of about 1 against 100) that the jesus character is entirely made up. The "most scholars agree" phrase rings hollow since it turns out basically all these scholars are christian and thereby prejudiced. That is, they literally were already convinced of jesus' historicity before they went to do research because they were brought up to believe so. Consequently I think this article should be deleted since we do not have an article on the historicity of Zeus. Now believing masses, go ahead. Archive this section, you cannot expunge it from the public record. ScienceDawns (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think an article should be deleted, you can take it to WP:AFD, but that would just be a waste of your time in this case. With regard to the rest of your post, please see what it says right at the top of this page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historicity of Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Talk pages of articles should not be used to register personal opinions on the article's subject. Your opinion does not matter here, and neither does mine, what matters is reliable sources.Smeat75 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"that the jesus character is entirely made up"

You are not alone in believing that. We already have an article on the Christ myth theory. Dimadick (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"I hereby register my opinion" -- In other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The theological options for a Christianity without a historical Jesus have been around far longer than any "sceptic"-al claims that there was no historical Jesus. Considering that and that even the Catholic Church now largely regards Genesis 1-6 as poetic rather than historic (indicating that even the intentionally slowest moving Christian organization can readily adapt to new scientific findings), a lack of means to "reshape previously held myths" is probably not the reason why most scholars don't accept the Christ Myth Theory. I'm afraid you will just have to find a different ad hominem dismissal of all of mainstream scholarship minus Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price. Perhaps the CMT is dismissed because it confuses "we can't identify which Jewish messiah claimant (a rather common phenomena) with the dead common name 'Yeshua' was the Jesus of Christianity, despite there certainly being a dedicated following for such a figure by the end of the first century CE who produced writings that require unparsimonious mental gymnastics and conspiracy theories to claim did not assert historical existence" with "there were absolutely no Jewish messiah claimants named Yeshua and even if there were, none of them could have possibly had anything to do with Christianity." That, and it ignores the fact that Judea was a backwaters boonies that Rome wanted to forget about, while holding that region to standards of evidence that would "prove" that Alexander the Great didn't exist either. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice opinion. Mine and your opinion are irrelevant. We go via sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ was originally just an allegory for the Sun

"Jesus Christ was originally just an allegory for the Sun" that's unsubstantiated and anti-historical. At best it could be nothing more than someone's opinion, based on assumptions. In this case, though, it is an unsourced and biased statement, and does not belong in Wikipedia. Pooua (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Other non-Christian sources?

The article says "Non-Christian sources which are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus." Which are those "other sources"? The sentence now suggest that there is a broad range of historically accurate sources which establish the historicity of Jesus, but mentions only two. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Since you have been editing Sources for the historicity of Jesus you will be aware that Tacitus is the major Roman source and less important ones include Suetonius and possibly Pliny the younger as well. The Babylonian Talmud,as the article states, may be a Jewish source in addition to Josephus that includes references to Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Confused. How can authors, who were born a generation or more after the alleged death of the figure about whose historicity we are talking, and who have written about that person another generation or so later, even be considered sources in the context of historicity? Suetonis' reference is pretty much discredited by the "spelling issue", and all three of these sources are purely hearsay. Neither source is either quoted of having actually met that person or even at least met on direct witness of his existence. In any other context but Christian Apologetics this would get anyone laughed of Wikipedia. Let me be more precise about the source of my confusion. The historicity of Jesus cannot and must not be about if anyone had heard of someone by that name or whether there was an ever-growing following. We know that both answers are yes. in 122 A.D. we are 1/3 the way to the First Council of Nicaea, so spread of this new religion is really not at issue for a writer in the second century. For heaven's sake (pun fully intended), we have more proof of the historicity of Urim's and Thummim's use by Joseph Smith in decoding the Golden Plates.Krautkontrol (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

See Historiography of Alexander the Great. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that Alexander was a mighty emperor, while Jesus was a lowly peon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Keeping records of Jesus's trial and execution would have been a waste of papyrus, as far as the Romans were concerned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Romans had state archives, libraries, and every single document that was in them is lost. There is nothing at all unusual about major personages being known from a single reference a hundred years or more after their death in the pitifully few works of ancient history that survive. To people who study ancient history, the striking thing about Jesus is how much evidence that he existed there is, not how little, independent Jewish, Roman, and Christian sources, exceedingly rare.Smeat75 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And a related question: "The sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, and are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources)." Does this mean that the Roman sources also don't draw upon Jewish sources, and that both do not draw upon the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels? And if the Jewish and Roman sources do not draw upon Christian (written) sources, than what was their source? A source which was completely independent from the Christian communities of their time? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not know where most ancient historians got their information, they almost never discuss that. It is felt by most people who study the subject that it is most unlikely that Tacitus, for instance, a senator who felt utter contempt for Christianity as the passage where he discusses it shows, would have known about or consulted Christian sacred writings. As a senator he had access to official archives and was also a member of a board called the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis whose job it was to monitor foreign religions brought into Rome.Smeat75 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smeat75: thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "overwhelming."

"An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not"

The term "overwhelming" seems inappropriate to me. The word describes an emotion, not a degree of measurement. There are many appropriate terms available, e.g. "substantial" or "significant," both of which are supported by the citations. "Overwhelming" is not; let's replace it.Jrwsaranac (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, "overwhelming" is not an emotional term but reflects the scholarly consensus. Bart Ehrman has said ""every single scholar of early Christianity...universally, as an entire body...(every) recognized scholar in that field of scholarship" agrees that Jesus was historical.Smeat75 (talk)

I do not see the use of the term "overwhelming" as emotional either. It is simply being used to convey the fact that virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure. You changed it to instead say "substantial." The problem I have with this revised wording is that it seems to be intentionally downplaying the number of scholars who support historicity. Referring to the Historicist position as merely "a substantial majority" would seem to imply that the minority view in this case also has a noteworthy following. The problem is that the Mythicist view does not have a noteworthy following at all; it is a fringe view with extremely minimal academic support. I can count on one hand the number of serious scholars who actually believe in it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It is the term, not the degree. Overwhelming: "tending or serving to overwhelm." Overwhelm: "upset, overthrow" and "to cover over completely" neither of which is appropriate here (Merriam Webster). If Ehrman is accepted as the primary authority, then we can replace "an overwhelming majority of" with "every." Let's do that, then "Overwhelming" is still incorrect. The word is squishy and pleading. Another option would be to use "almost every" if the references support that.Jrwsaranac (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with changing it to say "Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians..." or perhaps "Nearly all New Testament scholars and historians..." Saying "Every New Testament scholar and near Eastern historian..." may be going a step too far. We want to indicate that the Mythicist position comprises a tiny, relatively insignificant minority, but we do not want to totally discredit it entirely. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If the citations support, I agree. Either "Virtually all" or "Almost every" would be a vast improvement.Jrwsaranac (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

^{@Katolophyromai: The deletion of your post appears to have been an accident resulting from an Help:Edit conflict. I've seen it happen before if a user opens a window at just the wrong moment and takes their time typing their message. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)}

I have changed "overwhelming" to ""virtually all" per what seems to be consensus here.Smeat75 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Virtually all" is what it should be. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Modern peer-reviewed book on the historicity of Jesus?

Suggestions please? Jrwsaranac (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The question of Jesus's historical existence has pretty much been seen as a non-issue in mainstream scholarship ever since the First Quest for the Historical Jesus in the early 1900s. Consequently, there are not many modern sources that really discuss the issue. I would recommend reading Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist and Maurice Casey's Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths; neither of them are peer-reviewed, but they are both written by reputable scholars with PhDs in relevant fields and teaching positions at major universities. Ehrman's book will provide a sound introduction and Casey's book will provide a more in-depth discussion. Both books support the Historicist position, which is the position of mainstream scholarship. The only peer-reviewed work arguing in favor of the Mythicist position that has ever been published is Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. I would not recommend it, though; the whole book is filled with really bizarre historical errors and mistakes. For instance, Carrier claims that the Sumerian goddess Inanna was crucified, which is a complete misunderstanding of the myth of her descent into the Underworld. Crucifixion did not even exist in ancient Sumer; it only first became widely used as a method of execution during the time of Alexander the Great, nearly two thousand years after Sumerian civilization had collapsed. Also, Carrier's whole "Crusading genius" persona gets really annoying after a while and his attempt to use Bayes' Theorem for historical analysis is an obvious red herring. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am familiar with Ehrman; less so Casey. They are both theologians, however. I am actually more interested in recent examinations of the material often cited as evidence of historicity. Carrier presents one side; I am looking for more.So much has changed in recent decades as to Biblical historicity; I am rather surprised there is not some new peer-reviewed work. I'll keep lookingJrwsaranac (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You say that, "So much has changed in recent decades as to Biblical historicity..."; I am not aware of any major shifts in scholarly perspective on this issue. The scholarly consensus is still essentially the same as it was a hundred years ago: Jesus was definitely a real person who lived in first century Judaea and did at least some of the actions attributed to him in the gospels, but the gospel accounts often exaggerate, inflate, and, in some instances, even outright fabricate stories about his life. I do not think that the scholarly consensus is going to change on this issue anytime soon. In thirty years, or even a hundred years, scholars will probably still be saying pretty much the same thing as they are today. The Mythicist position is still very much viewed as a conspiracy theory and it is highly unlikely that it will gain much traction in scholarly circles in the coming decades. It is worth noting that Mythicism actually enjoyed a brief period of scholarly acceptance in the Soviet Union during the mid-1900s, largely due to the fact that Vladimir Lenin had ordered for all schools to teach it, but, in the late 1980s, during the collapse of communism in eastern Europe, all of the major Soviet historians who had previously held the Mythicist position changed their views in light of the evidence and concluded that Jesus was indeed a real person. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

All good points Katolophyromai and I would not call Bart Ehrman a "theologian" but rather a "historian and professor of religious studies", as NPR does [6] "'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case"Smeat75 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I would certainly not categorize him as a "theologian." He is an agnostic after all, which I suppose would probably make it rather difficult to theologize. His official title is "James A. Grey Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies." --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

To be sure, he is an atheist and agnostic. His usual defence in respect to Evangelical scholars is that he doesn't do theology, he does history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jrwsaranac: There's no such book in existence - not one single book is peer-reviewed, not Ehrman's, nor anyone else's from "historicity" camp - simply because they are all theologians. "Mythicist" camp is peer-reviewed, but "mythicist" camp is, actually, completely unnecessary, imo. They have nothing to prove - "historicists" should bother with proving Jesus existence, since the "onus probandi" is in their court anyway. There's great quote from "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" show:

Dr. Maier, Paul L.: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't exist."
- Michael Shermer: "Sorry - in science, we don't allow that form of reasoning."

By the way, Smeat75 seriously stated: "I would not call Bart Ehrman a 'theologian' but rather a 'historian and professor of religious studies', as NPR does", while Katolophyromai agreed and complained further by stating "I would certainly not categorize him as a 'theologian'. He is an agnostic after all, which I suppose would probably make it rather difficult to theologize. His official title is 'James A. Grey Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies'." This is really shabby attempt to "re-defined" terms around here, and maybe even against few WP rule(s) as well, while being great example how sometimes Wikipedia collective operate with reasoning as follows: let's muddy the waters to make a situation or description of same thing - in this case title and profession descriptions - even more confused and less easy to understand or deal with, which will in this case bury this "theologian" term while acquiring more credibility for (our) "historicity" camp sources. Eh!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Most peer-reviewed books written by scholars pre-assume the existence of Jesus since the fact that Jesus existed was agreed upon a long time ago. Saying that the Mythicist camp is peer-reviewed and the Historicist camp is not is entirely false. Pick up any peer-reviewed book about Biblical scholarship aside from Carrier's and you will find that it assumes a historical Jesus. They just do not write scholarly books specifically trying to prove that Jesus existed because that matter has already been settled for over a century. If you want a peer-reviewed book that touches on the question of Jesus's historicity, read the expanded version of Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The book mostly deals with reconstructing the historical Jesus, but the expanded version does briefly address and rebuke some of the major Mythicist arguments. It was first published in German in 1913, but most of Schweitzer's rebuttals are still relevant today since the Mythicist argument has not really changed since then. Your Penn and Teller quote has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and I am not sure why you have even brought it up. We are not debating who must carry the burden of proof. We are debating what the current scholarly consensus is. You seem to be constantly trying to change what the subject of debate is. I am not trying to change the definition of the word "theologian." I am simply saying that I do not think Bart Ehrman is one. You keep trying to insist that he is a "theologian" and that this means he is not a reliable witness. Your definition of theologian seems to be overly broad to such an extent that it would seem to include anyone who is a scholar of religion. A person can be a scholar of religion without necessarily being a theologian. Furthermore, even if we agree to go along with your extraordinarily broad definition of the word, what exactly is it that makes these "theologians" you keep complaining about unreliable? Does being what you call a "theologian" somehow automatically disqualify a person from historical research? --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Books don't get peer-reviewed. That's for articles in scholarly journals.PiCo (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I just looked it up and it sounds like PiCo is right. Books do not normally undergo peer review, even if they are published by academic institutions. I was falsely assuming that all scholarly works undergo peer-review, which is not necessarily true, apparently. Carrier's book is not peer-reviewed, nor is Schweitzer's. They are both scholarly works, though and they are both written for a scholarly audience. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and unlike Carrier's, not one book from "historicity" camp has been published by any academic press - academic presses has ever published anyone from "historicity" camp.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read anything at all that I just wrote? Your claim that no academic press has ever published any book written by anyone in the Historicity camp is completely false on all levels. Bart Ehrman alone has published over twenty books through the Oxford University and Harvard University Presses alone, including three college textbooks. It is the Mythicists who are unable to publish their books through academic presses. Once again, virtually all books published through academic presses already presume the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth since that is an issue that has been seen as resolved for over a century. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katolophyromai (talk • contribs)

Systematic bias & other manipulation

This one paragraph exemplifies problematic way in which all articles on research about existence and life of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) acquire this aura of apparent agreement between "most scholars today":

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]

1 Virtually all New testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation

Are the New Testament scholars theologians ? I believe we can agree they certainly are.
If we accept that regular historians are indeed attached to standard criteria, such as referenced scholar Richard Carrier, who don't agree with this statement when it comes to religiously biased scholars, then we are left with referenced theologians like Craig Blomberg. Now, who can confirm that "virtually all" of them, meaning theologians, do applying the same standard criteria of historical investigation, just like "Near East historians" ?

Scholars referenced:
- theologians
Craig Blomberg - professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado;
Robert E. Van Voorst - professor of the New Testament, served for twelve years as pastor at Rochester Reformed Church, and at various churches in Pennsylvania;
William R. Herzog - professor of New Testament Interpretation at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School;
John Dickson - Australian historian & founder of The Centre for Public Christianity, with banned book from public schools.
- historians:
Richard Carrier - his books on the historicity of Jesus have established him as a leading supporter of the Christ myth theory;
Robin Lane Fox - his primary field of study is Islamic history and classical antiquity history (Greece).

2 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness

Now which "scholars" - theologians or historians (maybe some anthropologists, archaeologists, etc.) - criticized "Jesus scholarship" for religious bias and flawed methodology ? (There is just one ref for this claim [nb 7], by the way)
This is important because on this comes pretty tendentious claim of "very few exceptions" among "such critics" - which, theologians or historians - to generally accepted historicity of Jesus and rejection of myth theory.

As we can see, it could be said it's other way around, because referenced historians, actually, reject historicity of Jesus and accept of myth theory.

This kind of mixing-up and confusing references and scholarships, non-specificity and vague attributions are prevalent in all articles concerning existence and life of Jesus - a mirror image of studies flaws itself: religious bias and methodological inconsistencies - which in essence claim unequivocal agreement of scholars, while pushing myth theorist to the fring.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What you are effectively trying to do here is change the definition of the word "historian" to make it so narrow that it can only be applied to those who support your views. This is very similar to the No True Scotsman fallacy, with which I am sure you are familiar, considering your apparent love for Mr. Carrier. The fact remains that nearly all mainstream historians have rejected the Christ Myth theory. Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, and Thomas L. Thompson are perhaps the only semi-respectable scholars I know of who have claimed that Jesus never existed, but, even then, their views have still been widely rejected by mainstream scholarship. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:RGW applies in this case. It does seem that all claims of this unanimity of "scholars" is supported by a) very old claims, or b) more recent claims by Christian apologists. And "virtually all" of the claims of consensus are unclear about exactly who was surveyed, or even of any survey took place at all. I wish this claim seemed less shaky, and was more convincingly supported. Jrwsaranac (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

First, RGW ? Please, get a hold of yourself, I wasn't born yesterday.

Second, I am not, "effectively" or otherwise, "trying to do here" anything, and that's all too obvious unless you're pretending not to see that. Third, you are already pulling assumptions out of thin air - e.g. I don't "love Mr.Carrier" !

Of course, you are so sure you know what is my view on this issue - based on what exactly, that's less obvious ?
Talking about fallacies, eh.

Why would I want to re-define anything - i.e. "change the definition of the word 'historian'" ?

Is it not true that this paragraph itself doing something of that sort, I mean, something which you obviously considering to be "re-definition".

What I am trying, however, by simply describing paragraph and the way it uses refs - yes Carrier too, but along with him all the other referenced people also - is to point on that fact, and the fact that all articles on the subject appear to obscuring and confusing scholarly acknowledged existence of religious bias and flawed methodology. Case for "virtually all scholars applying the standard criteria of historical investigation" and "semi-respectable scholars... who have claimed that Jesus never existed, ...their views have still been widely rejected by mainstream scholarship" has glaring inconsistency: "scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness".

Here we can see some of you testing WP:RGW on me just for pointing this out - that's OK, but let's stay calm and on topic.

So, what is it ? If "scholarly" criticism of "scholarship" itself for being religiously biased and for lacking in methodology is, according to you and probably few others watching over these articles, "widely rejected by mainstream scholarship", then we shouldn't cry foul over questioning "scholars"/"scholarship"/"historians" confusion - if that is what you are defending, then maybe you should state that more clearly. Trouble is, seems to me, that's not easy, no matter how hard you want to make it appear that way.

Your "mainstream scholarship" is still vaguely defined, especially since definition conflates theologians with historians, with the former being the ones subject of criticism for their bias and lack of methodological soundness in the first place, even according to this article and very paragraph I'm pointing at.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your alleged "inconsistencies" are not inconsistencies at all. Just because some "scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" does not in any way imply that those scholars have accepted the Christ Myth theory. There is a tremendous difference between criticizing the methods used by scholars attempting to determine information about the historical Jesus and outright claiming that Jesus was not even a real person to begin with. Likewise, just because there is a tiny handful of a few very vocal advocates in favor the Christ Myth theory on the outermost fringes of academia does not in any way imply that their views have somehow become accepted by mainstream scholarship. As for your remarks regarding the definitions of the words "historian" and "scholar," my previous comment still stands; you are just lumping together all the authors you disagree with and dismissing them all as "theologians."

Jrwsaranc claims that the statement that "virtually all" scholars have dismissed the Christ Myth theory is cited to old, outdated sources and to recent claims by Christian apologists. This is simply not correct. The oldest of all the sources cited come from 2004, which is not that long ago at all. There are several sources from more recently, including Price and Carrier, both of whom freely admit that their views are a minority. In his book Did Jesus Exist? published in 2012, Bart Ehrman states that he was not even aware that the Mythicist position existed at all until he received some letters from people in Scandinavia asking him about it.

I know that many Mythicists on the internet like to claim that Carrier's book has somehow revolutionized Jesus scholarship by conclusively demonstrating that Jesus never existed, but the problem is that all Carrier has really done is give Mythicism a thin varnish of respectability. I do not know of any qualified scholar who has ever been won over by Carrier's reasoning; the closest any of them have come is simply stating that he is not downright crazy, which is a far cry from saying that he is right. Mythicists receive much more media attention and exert a much higher profile on the internet than is proportional to their actual influence in mainstream scholarship. This may result in the illusion that they exert much greater influence on scholarly consensus than what they actually do. Nearly all of the people on the internet claiming that Jesus never existed are not scholars; they are just ordinary people with no professional training who do not really understand the evidence and who make half-baked arguments based on their own intuitions. Most real authorities on the subject of Near Eastern history do not even mention the Christ Myth theory, let alone lend any sort of credence to it. I currently see no reason to conclude that this article is in any way deliberately trying to manipulate any evidence to suit any kind of agenda or to reach any kind of ultimate conclusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Just because some 'scholars have criticized X scholarship for Y bias and lack of methodological soundness' does not in any way imply that those scholars have accepted the Z theory" (and rejected XY). "There is a tremendous difference between criticizing the methods used by scholars attempting to determine information about the XY and outright claiming that X was not even a real person to begin with."

On which "planet" is this true ?

I just mentioned above - there's great quote from "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" show:

Dr. Maier, Paul L.: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't exist."
Michael Shermer: "Sorry - in science, we don't allow that form of reasoning."--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, your Penn and Teller quote has nothing to do with this discusssion. You seem to be equating criticizing scholars who study the historical Jesus with saying that Jesus was not a real person. They are not even remotely the same thing. Let me use an anology to demonstrate: imagine there are a whole bunch of biographers who write books about Charles Darwin portraying him as a romanticized heroic genius incapable of any fault for anything. I criticize those biographers, saying that their portrayal of Charles Darwin is inaccurate and based on what they themselves would like for him to have been rather than the man he actually was. Does that mean that I do not believe Charles Darwin was a real person? No. Of course not. It just means that I think his biographers are biased and are using flawed methods. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting analogy. It fails a bit though, because there is plenty of hard evidence of Darwin's existence; including contemporary reports of his existence. Further, there is simply no analogous subject to the situation of Jesus' historicity, in that so large a percentage of "experts" are also Christian apologists, and thus have committed their life to spreading the word of Jesus as Christ. So we should a t least be wary, if not skeptical, of them on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.34 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the complaints you raise are beside the point and have nothing to do with what I am actually trying to use the analogy for. The analogy is simply to illustrate the fact that criticizing the work of the scholars studying a particular historic individual is different from saying that the individual him or herself never existed. I am in no way trying to suggest that the evidence for Jesus's existence is comparable to the exidence for Darwin's existence. There is definitely more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus was a historical figure, but I will admit that the evidence for Darwin's existence is still a great deal stronger, considering that we have actual photographs of him, his house, his tombstone, his handwritten manuscripts, etc. In any case, that is not what this analogy is for. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not interested in your reasoning and rational, nor your examples of it, what interest me is agreement on what is valid and credible scholarship on historicity of Jesus and what's not - theologians are not credible scholars because they are biased. That's about all what's matters. It gets worse - almost all of them were, at one point or another, pastors, preachers of some sorts, priests, etc. And they are unbiased, credible scholars and researchers, and they should be taken seriously - OK, if that's how science works ?!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few quotes for you, ౪ Santa ౪, from classical historians who could not in any way be described as theologians,"pastors, preachers of some sorts, priests, etc." Michael Grant there is "very abundant evidence" for Jesus' existence, Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University "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",Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs, Jesus' existence is "historically certain",Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University" "Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance."Smeat75 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)