Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

Questions about an apparent logical fallacy

My questions relates to this line from the article: Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[42] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[43] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[44] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[43][45][46][47][48][49][49][50][51]

Why does a negative tone preclude a forgery? To me that sounds like a logical non-sequitur. The fact that it was negative has no bearing on whether its true or not. Actually, since the story is that Romans executed Christ, it would make for a stronger forgery for the Roman historian to be negative about Christ. Apparently there is a source (43) that supports this line but it is not readable and in any case if source 43 does provide a sound logical argument as to why being negative means true, it has not been accurately captured in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.178.71 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:RS only applies to things we state in Wikipedia voice, doesn't it? We can still cite notable opinions that might not satisfy WP:RS as attributed opinions, can't we? Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarfication in response to a lot of venting below: Sources "who say Jesus didn't exist while dismissing anyone else as a fundamentalist theologian" would not be likely to be reliable sources, but biased one. I'm talking about peer-reviewed history, biblical archaeology, and other journals, in which it's not likely that authors of particular pieces are going to be advocating their personal beliefs without evidence and attacking others who believe differently, or they wouldn't get published. Books by "theologians" and "researchers" who aren't being peer reviewed strike me as unlikely to be reliable on this topic, whatever side they take. An exception would be solid, well-reviewed secondary sources taht summarize avialable research and views (whether taking a position on the matter in the process or not), but they'll be reliable as as summaries of facts presented by others, not as sources of facts themselves. I.e., an investigative journalist might accurately summarize a debate over interpretation of various peer-reviewed papers, but is not separately an authority on the question being debated. Further more, "peer-reviewed" theology journals that only accept theological views don't count as reliable sources. Nor would a pseudo-peer-reviewed journal edited by Richard Dawkins that selectively ignored all input peers who were not self-declared atheists. And, frankly, we all already know this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: Since sources "who say Jesus didn't exist while dismissing anyone else as a fundamentalist theologian" would not be likely to be reliable sources, but biased one[s], does that mean that sources who say Jesus did exist while dismissing anyone else as not competent or respectable also "would not be likely to be reliable sources, but biased one[s]?" Hypothetically, of course. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is what reliable sources say, then no, the same would not apply. Fringe is defined by reliable sources and if virtually all reliable sources say that something is fringe, then that is how it must described in the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a balance of scholarly opinion on the matter

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

Attempted to remove some bias

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

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

But seriously:

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

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

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

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

The difference between historicity and existence, redux.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what about his existence?

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

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

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

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

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

Which do you think is more valuable?

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

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

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

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

The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts. There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

Herewith v2: There is little scholarly agreement on any single portrait of Jesus, with widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings. A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

To be positioned at the beginning of the "Accepted historic facts" section – the next para will commence with "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity…". Comments please? Wdford (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's good. Are we quoting from any source for the phrase "specific agendas"? My understanding is that while some scholars may have an agenda (eg in the sense of wanting to promote, say, an apocalyptic or non-apocalyptic interpretation) others may simply be seen as having an unconscious bias - eg George Tyrrell said the 19th Century Liberal Protestants' view of Jesus was just their own face reflected back at them, and John Dominic Crossan has spoken of a tendency 'to do autobiography and call it biography'. That seems to me bias rather than a clear agenda. Also, what do we mean by "by the 21st century"? Scholars have been focusing on what is historically probable and plausible at least since the mid-19th century, but certainly since the work of Ernst Käsemann in 1954 that has been the main thrust of historical Jesus studies. We could say, since the latter half of the 20th century, or something like that. --Rbreen (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not married to the 21st century thing - I was just copying in from the main article, where that line has stood unchallenged for months. The "diverse agendas" comment is the title of an entire chapter - see [3] at pg 985 and following. The lead of the main article (Historical Jesus) has many citations for this issue, which we can import as needed. Wdford (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's become increasingly clear that the vast majority of contributors to this talk page are here to inject theology into the discussion, and limit their involvement in the article to reverting or removing any material that doesn't match their ideology.

I had hoped that by focusing the discussion on the basic question of what historicity is, it might be possible to improve the article -- to the point where it actually discusses a historian's view of Jesus. I've tried to approach this issue from multiple directions, yet, the contributors to this page can't help but pivot the conversation to their theological view of Jesus.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the subarticle of the Jesus article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary entitled "Indices to Historicity and to Nonhistoricity" which discusses the historical existence but only rarely if at all the question of religious bias in the observers is sufficient to indicate the attempted differentiation of meanings is not necessarily supported by the sources themselves. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence.

— B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: Writing in the name of God

In the first place, what does it mean to affirm that ‘Jesus existed’, anyway, when so many different Jesuses are displayed for us by the ancient sources and modern NT scholars? Logically, some of these Jesuses cannot have existed. So in asserting historicity, it is necessary to define which ones (rabbi, prophet, sage, shaman, revolutionary leader, etc.) are being affirmed—and thus which ones deemed unhistorical. In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality (the same is true of the King David of the Hebrew Bible, as a number of recent ‘biographies’ show)[4].

— Did Jesus Exist? By Emeritus Professor Philip Davies, University of Sheffield, England, August 2012

Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a theological view of Jesus being given here? All I can see is an attempt to establish whether he existed at all. That's a historical question, not theological. --Rbreen (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Among other things, the concept of "portraits," drawn from "historical Jesus" research is theological. "[T]he 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a ninteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 126, bold added.) As to whether Jesus existed at all -- See the quote from Philip Davies above. For that matter, click on the link and read the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me just point out that this talk page is already over 40,000 words long. I've seen novels shorter than that.

The Davies article is interesting, but unfortunately it's just one person and it's a web page. I don't see a sign that the ground is shifting. To change the consensus would need more that that. As to the simple question of the historicity of Jesus (=the existence of a man called Jesus in the first century) that is not theological. True, most of the people who write on the subject have a theological agenda, but this is basically a historical question even if it has theological implications. If there were enough non-religious scholars who looked at the question would they decide Jesus really existed? Isn’t that a bit like asking ‘if you had a brother, would he like noodles?’ We don’t know; there just are not enough such people. We do know that lots of scholars who stop being Christians still accept a historical Jesus (Geza Vermes, Reza Aslan, Maurice Casey, Gerd Lüdemann, Bart Ehrman). When you come to the question of baptism and crucifixion, it’s a bit more complex, but again the basis on which most scholars accept those is good historical method – that both of these claims are so disturbing for the early Christian movement that it is difficult to see why they would have made them up. I don't think other scholars generally disagree.

When you come to the 'portraits' of the historical Jesus, the concept of 'portraits' is, again, standard historical approach to a historical figure. Of course, the portraits they come up with are overwhelmingly theological. Some of them are borderline: are Aslan's zealot or Morton Smith's magician theological portraits? Perhaps. But none of these really escapes from the theological framing of Jesus. This is what Dunn is admitting. And what we should address in the article. Can we focus on this aspect, rather than trying to find a phantom consensus of non-Christian scholars, with no alternative agenda, that Jesus never existed?

That's over 300 words added, now. I'm reluctant to add anything else unless we are genuinely doing something constructive. --Rbreen (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, then take the discussion somewhere that you consider constructive. Below, I have addressed a point that we have been hung up on almost forever, but for the first time, there is a WP:RS in that picture. Complaining won't yield us any progress. Give it your best shot. I'm open to another approach. Evensteven (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Folks, we recognize the shortfall, and we are trying to correct it by adding an extra paragraph. Rather than complaining, please all work together to build a paragraph that solves the problem. As this section of the article is a summary of a main article, we don't want a huge manifesto, we want a short summary paragraph, so lets try to avoid extensive quotations and paraphrase rather. FOR, would you like to propose a paragraph please? Wdford (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to second Wdford here. Evensteven (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We note that when Fearofreprisal was asked to discuss in good faith a paragraph to resolve his claimed concerns, Fearofreprisal chose instead to start off on a new tangent entirely. This is not helpful to the development of the article. Wdford (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And I note that I already wrote such a paragraph (and actually more), and included it in the article. You deleted it. Unilaterally. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No you did not write such a paragraph, you clogged up the lead with a splurge of quotes, which I paraphrased to reduce the sheer quantum of words. Please offer a paragraph (not a page, a paragraph) that addresses criticisms of methodology in a balanced and coherent manner. Wdford (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good try, but no dice. Had you paraphrased the material, you would have left the citations. You didn't. You removed them. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations, diversions, but still no paragraph. Mmmm. Wdford (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC?

I indicated 2 weeks ago that I thought it reasonable to start an RfC, perhaps specifically dealing with (1) the scope and title of this article, (2) whether a separate article dealing with Fear's preferred definition seems to have the required notability based on the evidence so far provided, and (3) to determine, roughly, how much WEIGHT to give that topic here. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What is my preferred definition? Please do tell me, I'm interested to know. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

if you were really interested in helping the article along, you would state your preferred definition openly, and allow it to be debated. The fact that you continue to demand changes, without explaining what changes you wish to see, is a cause for some concern. Why don't you state you preferred definition for the record? Wdford (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Look here [5], where I say:

Wdford -- Since this section is about changes to the scope of the article, and you've actually proposed a changed scope - unrelated to the topic of the article - I'll also propose a changed scope:

The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus.

I'm interested in hearing comments in favor of or opposed to this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice that I originally addressed that directly to you, and even put it in a quotation box, to avoid misunderstanding? Is that "open" enough?

Now, ask John Carter what he thinks my preferred definition (of the scope) is. I think you'll find it hilarious.[6]

As for "explaining what changes [I] wish to see": Really? Do you need me to provide diffs, including your responses to what I wrote?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll. PS: I was not actually proposing a change of scope, that accusation was just more of your trolling, which you appeared to have based on the assumption that a dictionary is an unreliable source of definitions. Do you have an actual point to make? Wdford (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Circular. Not helpful. Here is a reminder of what scope is all about. Evensteven (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - Suggesting that the scope of the article is (or should be) "historicity of Jesus" *is* a good faith suggestion for improving the article. Again, do you need diffs of where I've talked about this?

As for you not proposing a change of scope, let me quote you:

The question thus is: should we rename this article Scholarly opinions on the historicity of Jesus and narrow the scope, or should we keep it as is? The rules say that unless we have a consensus to change the scope, the scope of the article remains as is.Wdford (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please take your "trolling" accusations to my talk page. They're really not appropriate here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

More trolling. I clearly stated that the scope of the article should remain as is described in the opening sentence, unless a consensus emerges to change it. The opening sentence clearly describes the scope as being the "Historicity of Jesus." You made no effort to offer an improvement, you merely disputed the reliability of dictionaries. Wdford (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"accepted facts"

what is this section?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity (who) agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars (who) and classical historians (who) see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[4][6][7][18][51]

I checked the sources and these citations are dubious. They don't all class that the idea that the Jesus didn't exist are "effectively refuted". Someone put this ridiculous paragraph in all the Jesus articles and all the Christian apologists insist that there is nothing wrong with it. Break it down and if there are so many who say that it has been refuted, put them individually.should be no problem, right? Accept that the sources don't say what the Christians claim they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.248 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations 6 and 7 don't really apply to the statement, but, taken at face value, citations 4, 18, and 51 do. I wrote citation 4, so I've verified it -- and there was extensive discussion about it on this talk page. Citation 18 is close to what the author said, but it's an intentional misquotation, so I'm marking it with a "failed verification" template. I've requested a quotation on citation 51, as the first page of the citation (the only one I can find on google books) raises a suspicion that it may not be verifiable.

Whether or not a claim is dubious to you, if it's backed up by reliable sources (and, Ehrman, Van Voorst, and Dunn are all reliable), the claims stay. Ehrman says "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity." He's probably overstating, but unless you can find a source that says "Ehrman is full of it" there's not much to do. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations failing verification

I've added a number of "failed verification" templates to the article. In all of these cases, I've read the cited text, and found that it didn't match the material in the article. In some cases, I've requested quotations where I couldn't find an online source to read the article.

I know it's tempting to remove these templates. Please don't do it, unless you change the article to reflect the actual content of the citation, or find a citation that accurately reflects the content of the article. Frankly, I could have corrected the article in all of the cases -- but if I did that some chucklehead would start an edit war. I'll also suggest to Wdford that he leave it to some of the other editors here, as they seem to be terribly concerned about the article, despite the fact that they rarely or never actually contribute to it. (Now's their chance.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If no other editors have objected or stepped up to fix the failed verifications, I'll take care of it within the next several days. I'll take a look at the article, and the citation, and if I can fix it easily, I will. If I can't fix it easily, I'll remove the offending material and citations. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Resurrection

[T]he accepted facts, and the minimal facts in particular, are not only established historically but are recognized by virtually all critical scholars as well. The advantages are that these facts provide a strong basis for belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus and, at the same time, should not be rejected since they are recognized on strictly historical grounds. The facts that almost all scholars accept provide a strong basis for belief in Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead, especially in the absence of viable naturalistic theories. On this basis, then, we may conclude that the early Christian creeds and accepted historical facts prove the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

— Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, p 170.

Any reason this shouldn't be included in the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The source appears to be a Christian apologist whose views are not accepted by mainstream historians. Ehrman (who wrote the most widely-used undergrad NT studies textbook in the United States) and Martin (a Yale professor) are more reliable sources on the matter.[7][8][9] Upstairs they are discussing which dramatically summarized points of historical scholarship on the historical Jesus should be included in this article, and you are asking why we don't discuss something that no one thinks can be demonstrated historically? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't exclude a source based on bias. The source notes that the "accepted facts" are recognized by "virtually all critical scholars." (This is rather like Ehrman, who uses the term "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity.") Habermas is claiming his is the majority viewpoint (and he backs it up with survey data [10]), so this material should be included. If you have some offsetting citations to the minority viewpoint, provide them. Your original research ("...whose views are not accepted by mainstream historians," or, "something that no one thinks can be demonstrated historically") are not relevant or appropriate here or in the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty much agreed with FOR on this point. You can't exclude a source based on bias, especially because there is no source without bias. The question is not whether or not the source has bias, but whether or not his research has bias. The Habermas survey is not biased. He carefully surveys the range of viewpoints, discusses them neutrally, classifies them, and provides summary weights indicating their relative occurrence. In many cases, it is crystal clear that not every scholar agrees with a single view; in some, it is equally clear that scholarly opinion is near unanimous. But FOR is correct also, that you are welcome to provide offsetting sources if you have them. But you may not present your own research. Evensteven (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

From a brief and interesting read, it seems that Habermas is claiming that "most scholars" support the contention that the disciples BELIEVED they had seen Jesus alive. This is obviously based on the assumption that the gospels are authentic, and that the few mentions of post-resurrection appearances are not later interpolations. Habermas does NOT appear to claim that "most scholars" agree that Jesus was in fact resurrected - that seems to be his own conclusion. It will be interesting to see how Fearofreprisal proposes to incorporate this info into the article - will Fearofreprisal break his trend tonight and actually propose a paragraph? Wdford (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Habermas does not extend his survey to include the question of actual resurrection. But as far as it goes, I find it to be unbiased and scholarly. The unanswered question might be relevance to the article. Now we're back at article scope. I too would like to see FOR's proposal for that reason. Evensteven (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - Please provide citations for your observations about Habermas' claims.

Here's a diff of one of your recent edits [11]. You'll find that I already wrote the paragraph you asked me to propose, and included it in the article. You deleted it.

Now, tell me: Why I should take the effort to do the careful research required to contribute to this article, only to be accused of edit warring, pushing POV, pushing fringe, and ultimately have my contributions deleted? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "careful research" has nothing to do with edit warring. That would be for other reasons. Pushing POV also may not have anything to do with the research itself, but for other reasons. The fringe may also not be in the research. How the research is characterized in the paragraph is significant, and that is apparently where the source of the rejection lies. The question then becomes, is there another way to characterize it, suitable to you, that is also suitable for inclusion into the article? Evensteven (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're making inferences based on no evidence. You don't know why Wdford deleted the contributions I mentioned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No, of course I don't. Irrelevant. The three things you mentioned are policies on editorial behavior, not on their research. Do you disagree? Evensteven (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

He says that the "facts" are accepted by virtually all scholars, that these facts "provide a strong basis for belief in the [...] resurrection of Jesus", and that "accepted historical facts prove the historicity of the [...] resurrection". This is not a historical view. Let alone that nowhere in the quotation provided are disciples mentioned (hence debunking User:Wdford's main point), historians don't even accept that as evidence of a miracle because the historicity of miracles can never be "proven". Please watch any of the debates I linked in my previous post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The two things that require citations are "this is not a historical view," and "historians don't accept..." But, even then, it's a challenge to deal with it without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYN. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Here you go – I don’t have the book you mentioned, which was apparently published in 1996, so I picked an article on that topic from Habermas’ own website, dated 2006, which is presumably an even more up-to-date rendering of his position: see [12] If you read it all the way to the end, you will see that the word "disciples" appears about 40 times. Wdford (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I stated clearly enough, the reason I made the edit in your diff above was to reduce the lead to being a summary of the article content, rather than have the lead be a full article in itself. The issue under discussion here is about the bias of scholars and criticisms of methodology – why don’t you word up a paragraph for discussion on the talk page? Wdford (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As for Habermas: You can find the book I cited on books.google.com. Not all pages, though. The citation you provided is what I was asking for. Thank you.

Your edit did reduce the size of lead, but you didn't put the removed material back into the body of the article. Here is material you removed that I think is relevant:

The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which, according to James Dunn, "is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then," (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition." (Jesus Remembered Volume 1, by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 pp. 125-126. See also Meir, Marginal Jew, 1:21-25; T. Merrigan, The Historical Jesus in the Pluralist Theology of Religions, in The Myriad Christ: Plurality and the Quest for Unity in Contemporary Christology (ed. T. Merrigan and J. Haers). Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, & Charlesworth, J. H. Jesus research: New methodologies and perceptions : the second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007, p. 77-78: "Dunn points out as well that 'the Enlightenment Ideal of historical objectivity also projected a false goal onto the quest for the historical Jesus,' which implied that there was a 'historical Jesus,' objectively verifiable, 'who will be different from the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels and who will enable us to criticize the dogmatic Christ and the Jesus of the Gospels.' (Jesus Remembered, p. 125).")(Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2, chapters 13, 15)

Philip Davies points out that Christians have a stake in the "unanswerable question" of Jesus’ historicity, and that scholars such as Ehrman use "highly emotive and dismissive language" to attack, "ad hominem, as something outrageous" the whole idea of raising this question. Davis suggests that the idea of testing the "rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth," or even working out what kind of historical research might be appropriate, is controversial among New Testament scholars. He notes that, while he is inclined to believe that a historical Jesus existed, arguments that Jesus was invented more soundly demonstrate that nothing reliable can be known about the historical Jesus's life, teachings, or even initial followers before Paul of Tarsus. (Emeritus Professor Philip Davies, of the University of Sheffield, England. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml)

If you think this material is a good starting point for a paragraph about the bias of scholars and criticisms of methodology, let me know, and I will summarize some other materials that directly address methodology. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a start. However this section is a summary of the main article Historical Jesus, so we should not bloat it too much with extensive quotes. Could you perhaps paraphrase this into one paragraph? Wdford (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Main article? Historical Jesus is not the main article. It's an entirely different article, dealing with non-historical recreations of the life of Jesus based on the Synoptic gospels. The name "historical Jesus" is a well known misnomer (citations available.) This article deals solely with the historicity of Jesus. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas

Habermas is a scholar, trained and recognized as a historian, notable enough for a WP article. I entered nothing in my edit that he did not support fully in the citations I provided. I did not state them as truth, but as the conclusions of a scholar. I did not state them in WP's voice; that is, I followed WP:NPOV. It does not matter if it is also a Christian belief. It is a scholarly view, and therefore eligible for use in WP. Evensteven (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but while writing my most recent comment I noticed a recurring theme in a lot of these posts: which university does Habermas teach at? Independent researchers, regardless of what kind of academic qualifications they have, should not be treated as reliable sources for the opinions of the majority of scholars who teach at accredited institutions. Especially if they are openly advocating for a particular religion. If Habermas does meet GNG (I think he does), then you can cite his opinion as his opinion. But per WP:DUE you would need to give just as much weight to the opinions of other independent scholars, balanced so as not to give undue weight to any one theological persuasion,and more weight to the opinions of highly-regarded professors at prestigious universities...

Can you see why this would be problematic? Are you willing to do the work for that? You'd almost certainly wind up with a worse, likely-unintelligible article. When determining WEIGHT it would be better to just see what well-regarded encyclopedias, or undergraduate textbooks, or the like, say about the issue.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

He states that his own religious beliefs are supported as historic fact and that most scholars agree that the resurrection is supported by historical documents. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and the notion that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is accepted as a historic fact by most scholars is extraordinary beyond all reason. Find multiple reliable sources that claim that the resurrection is supported as historic fact.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of his religious beliefs are supported by most (virtually all) scholars as established historic fact. It's still scholarly. It just happens also to be religious belief. But he does not say that the resurrection is accepted by most, although it may be. Neither did I, nor did the text I entered. Read more closely. At least one unbiased scholar did describe the resurrection of Christ as historic fact. Your reversion is out of order. Evensteven (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, you really need to qualify these "most scholar" statements: most scholars have never published an opinion on the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Second, "'facts admitted by virtually all scholars as knowable history are adequate' to historically demonstrate the literal resurrection of Jesus" is a statement which indicates that the source takes an extremely fringe position overall. Even those that believe in the resurrection of Jesus (something which only Christians take as fact ... since Muslims believe that Jesus still lives in physical form, they do not believe in the resurrection) do not generally make the claim that they have historical evidence of that resurrection.—Kww(talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to get rid of all the "most scholar" statements in the article - and I've been forthright about that in the past (that the article should focus on the analysis of historical evidence, and not big conclusions, such as "of course he existed.") But deleting one of these statements, while keeping the others doesn't seem very NPOV. Habermas backs up his statement with survey data (as already linked to in this talk page), and he claims 66% of scholars accept the "empty tomb."[13] So, showing it's fringe may be hard. I personally think Habermas is conflating historicity and belief, but the citation is so clear and on-point that I don't know how to say "no it doesn't fit here" without being inconsistent. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If all the tenured professors at prestigious universities are on the record as saying "most scholars" accept a certain historical claim, then we are violating WP:NPOV by not using the terminology used in all the reliable sources. Additionally, Ehrman (a much more reputable scholar in this field than anyone else who has been cited) has stated numerous times that, by definition, history cannot prove the resurrection and other miracles. The "empty tomb" statistic is irrelevant, since historians regularly change their opinion on that point (again, Ehrman has changed his opinion on this in the last couple of years) and all the historians who accept the empty tomb (even believing Christians) reject the idea that "he was raised from the dead" is a historically-acceptable explanation for that datum. They may choose to believe in the resurrection (although only Christian historians do, and Christians form a minority of all the world's historians), but no professional historian considers the resurrection to be a provable (much less proven!) historical fact.

End of story.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Grant, Nobbs, Lane Fox and Akenson are much more reputable scholars than Ehrman, a former fundamentalist apologist, and a current HJ scholar whose work would lose all value if the CMT were to gain wide currency. This is an example of the sort of bias I'm trying to avoid: not so much a bias in favour of historicity, but a bias in favour of the credibility of biblical scholars in general and HJ scholars in particular. We're not here to promote the authority of biblical scholars. On the other hand, I have precisely zero objections to saying historians almost unanimously reject the CMT, because that's a statement we have excellent sources for. I do object to using someone like Ehrman as a source for that, though using an attributed citation as an example of a widely held opinion among biblical scholars would be fine. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mmeiieri: Grant, Nobbs, Lane Fox and Akenson Which of these has written an undergraduate textbook on New Testament Studies? If any of them have, how many universities have courses that require students to use these textbooks? Ehrman's is the most-widely used in the English-speaking world, with Dale Martin of Yale University for instance using this textbook in his courses and encouraging his students to read Ehrman's other book on the historical Jesus. As for the relationship between "New Testament Studies" and "Historical Jesus Research", Ehrman's research has (as already noted) also dealt extensively with the historical Jesus. "Historicity of Jesus", as opposed to "Historical Jesus Research", is not a well-researched field since there really isn't much to say -- "Jesus definitely existed and here's why" is something Ehrman also wrote an acclaimed book on, though. How exactly do you measure the "reputability" of scholars, so as to suggest that all four of the names you dropped are more reputable than Ehrman? Additionally, "if the CMT were to gain currency" is a GROSS violation of WP:CRYSTAL. HJ researchers (at least those with graduate degrees, who teach at accredited institutions) are historians: the opinions of historians in other fields, let alone scientists and others, are pretty irrelevant to this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

All of them are bona fide historians, unlike Ehrman and most HJ scholars. I didn't doubt his credentials in the field of New Testament studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "bona fide historians"? Your contrast implies that "HJ scholars" and people with "credentials in the field of New Testament studies" are not historians? Could you be a little clearer? My understanding was that people who get paid to teach history courses in universities, and to write books on history, are by definition "historians", but it seems we have a difference of opinion on the definition. Oxford University Press either called Ehrman a historian in 2006 or (less likely) passively approved of him calling himself a historian. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In light of the well-documented criticism of the lack of methodological soundness and impartiality coming both from within and outside biblical scholarship, we cannot treat biblical scholars as if they are just historians. Individuals may well be both, but in general we cannot simply assume they are. They still remain notable scholars, but we need to distinguish between historians and biblical scholars, and not exaggerate scholars' qualifications. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Ehrman literally wrote the book on NTS. If what you are saying is that historians in every field other than the relevant one are more reliable than Ehrman because they work in unrelated fields, then you are, simply put, WRONG. But anyway, what does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? Which of the people you named stated that "the resurrection of Jesus is historically provable and the majority of scholars accept this"? I gave a very reliable source that stated directly that miracles are by definition outside of the historian's toolbox; and you haven't even indicated why the people you named are relevant to the issue at hand... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by unrelated field? A historian writing about the historicity of Jesus is not writing from an unrelated or even a neighbouring field, historicity is a historical question, and historians are precisely the people we would look to for answers. If anything, NT scholars are the ones commenting from a neighbouring field. The fact that they reach similar conclusions as the biblical scholars doesn't take away from that. As for miracles, that's not what my comment was about. I merely object to saying biblical scholars are historians and to exaggerating their credentials. We also shouldn't pretend that they rather than historians represent the "voice of science" on this topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? "Historians" are people trained in the study of history, who analyze various historical data and make probability judgements. New Testaments scholars are historians. The historical data (in this case almost entirely textual data) for the existence or non-existence of Jesus are the New Testament texts. (Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny are valuable, but nowhere near as much as Paul and the Synoptic authors.) Believe it or not, I actually had this exact same discussion over on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura as to whether "literary historians" count as "historians", or whether we should be taking the views of the one or two political historians who hold a contrary opinion on an 8th-century poet should be given as "what historians think". I won that debate then, and I am pretty confident I will win it again now. Ehrman is a historian, and he is one of the most respected in his field. You are claiming that people outside of the relevant field should be granted more weight because they are outside the relevant field. According to Wikipedia policy, you are wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the criticism section I linked to above, including things like "doing theology and calling it history" by no less an authority than John P. Meier. I also refer you to the booklet "Theologians as historians" linked there. I respectfully submit you are the one that is wrong. You assert without evidence that biblical scholarship is the 'relevant' field, when the relevant field for historical questions self-evidently is history, not biblical studies. Biblical studies is not a branch of history any more than it is a branch of literature studies, Semitic studies, archaeology, philosophy or theology even though it has points of connection and overlap with all of these. Your approach to this matter is precisely what I see as one of the main biases in the article, far more than any supposed bias towards historicism, which at any rate is almost unanimously supported in the scholarly literature. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, while I know lots of bloggers like to trot out the claim that "Ehrman is not a historian", I would like to see you present one reference from a reputable university professor in any field remotely related to this one that makes this claim. Otherwise, please stop making the unsourced accusations about living people by claiming they are "bending the truth" when they publicly refer to themselves as historians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth, BLP has nothing to do with this. I'm not calling Ehrman a liar, I am saying you are wrong. I don't know about Ehrman in particular, but I do know that biblical scholars are not ipso facto historians any more than they are archaeologists, though individual biblical scholars may well be archaeologists. The fields are related but distinct. There has been severe criticism of the historical soundness of their work where they venture into writing history, so in the case of individual scholars the onus is on you to show they are historians. I don't know why you would even bother, since we have bona fide historians on record already, and biblical scholars are notable in themselves. If the aim is to puff up the credentials of biblical scholars, I must respectfully object. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the first part of my above post is about the historical existence of a man called Jesus. I was not talking about the resurrection. However, it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand what FOR is going for changing positions on whether we should say "most historians" or imply that the resurrection is an accepted historical fact. I'm not going to go as far as a growing number of other users and throw the word "troll" around, but... FOR, what exactly do you want this article to say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last question is very good. I've been wondering that myself. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for FOR, but I would like it to say that a small subset of historians have published papers supporting the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Those historians certainly make sweeping statements about how widely supported they are, but that doesn't substitute for evidence of that wide support. That support actually seems to be concentrated in Christian Biblical scholars, not in the more general field of historians.—Kww(talk) 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Historians in other fields are irrelevant. Not all biblical scholars are Christian -- that's a pretty gross generalization. Non-Christian biblical scholars also universally (read: 99.999999%) consider Jesus to have existed. And all reputable historians (Christian or not) consider the resurrection to be a non-historical explanation for the data: Christians can believe it, non-Christians don't have to, history doesn't make theological claims like that either way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The definition of "other fields" is the rub. If you mean people that study ancient Latin American civilizations, I'll concede your point. If you mean people that study roughly contemporaneous events in the same region of the world, I'll strongly disagree. "Biblical scholarship" is such a narrow field with such a concentration of specific religious beliefs that it has to be placed in a wider category to be judged meaningfully.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"roughly contemporaneous events in the same region of the world"? Are there any Josephus specialists who consider the resurrection of Jesus to be a historically provable (or proven!) fact? How many scholars of Philo consider Jesus to have never existed? Seriously, name one scholar who teaches anything remotely related to this field in a reputable academic institution, who has publically that either (1) Jesus never existed or (2) Jesus' resurrection is a historically demonstrable fact. So far no one has done this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And no, assuming Josephus and Philo specialists who just happen never to have made a public statement on either of these issues just happen to disagree with virtually all mainstream New Testament scholars is not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as it is unacceptable to presume that they agree.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixing this article

(I am splitting this into a new thread at this point, as this is developing into a constructive discussion, which is not really about Habermas anymore).

"FOR, what exactly do you want this article to say?" - a fair question. Here's what I'd like (not perfectly described): Scholarly viewpoints on what evidence relates to the historicity of Jesus (all majority and minority opinions, but no fringe), and a discussion of each of those pieces of historical evidence with the majority and minority analyses of each. And, as much as possible, clarity about the methodological issues related to these analyses (probably favoring sources that are transparent about their methods and agendas, as these might be considered more reliable.) So, rather than focusing on statements such as "of course he existed", the article focuses on the analyses of the historical evidence related to Jesus. I'm not suggesting fringe, POV, or anything outside of WP policy. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well well, finally. Of course most (if not all) of this material already exists in other articles, so we have been attempting to summarize that material here with links to the various main articles for the detail. Are you proposing that all that material should be duplicated here, or are you content to help us to summarize that material here with links to the main articles? Wdford (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• A distinction that I think it's important to preserve is that "historicity" is looking at Jesus through the lens of "historical evidence." Though the quest for the historical Jesus overlaps in the material covered, it looks at Jesus through a different lens -- and has a different agenda, and often different methodologies and assumptions. I think it's reasonable to characterize Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus as being different sides of the same coin.
• I certainly think it makes sense to summarize information from other articles here, so long as we're conscious of the lens we're looking through.
• I think the Sources for the Historicity of Jesus should be reintegrated here, as its scope is a subset of this article's scope (whatever that may be), and it is itself a summary article.
• Your thoughts on methodological issues are on the right track, though I'd probably give it a bit more length than you'd be inclined to. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense on the surface, but the reason I split off Sources for the Historicity of Jesus in the first place was sheer size - that article on its own stands at about 79k. We could save a bit by removing a separate lead and some other duplication, but the merged result would still be a very big article and probably unbalanced. I therefore would prefer to leave it as a daughter article with a summary, as it stands at present - I think it is doing the job?

We could however reconsider the balance between Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. The Historical Jesus article stands at 113k, and needs to be split as well. I was in the process of splitting off the Methods of Research and Criticisms of Research sections into a new daughter article when this article got busy again, but perhaps they might find a logical home here instead, with a summary left on that side?

I would also strongly support moving the Widely accepted facts and Possible historical elements discussions here as well, and reducing them to summaries on that side. After all, much of that material is already duplicated here. This would make for a smaller and more focused Historical Jesus article, and a more detailed discussion of the "actual" historical elements over here, which might possibly address the neutrality tag as well?

Comments everyone? Wdford (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sources: If it's going to be separate, I'd like to see a parallel structure, with more focus on the historical analysis of those sources in this article.
• The perspective on methods would be different between "historicity of Jesus" and "historical Jesus." Though there is overlap, some methods are really only used in historical Jesus research. You could share a lot, but I think there would be differences between the articles. I can provide some help on this, but it might make sense to email you copies of the reference material I've collected.
• I've actually renamed "accepted facts" in this article to "generally accepted historical events." The reason for this is that historians, and especially religious historians, use the term "facts" in a different way than, for example, archeologists. Dunn explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data. (Jesus Remembered, p. 102) ("facts" also vary, based upon whether you use "historical truth" or "religious truth." ibid p. 71. Dunn actually has a habit of putting 'facts' in quotation marks to denote this difference.) "Generally accepted historical events" as a category seems quite neutral, accurate and inclusive, and is less likely to be vandalized than "accepted facts" If you think "widely" is better than "generally", that's fine. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to change the structure of the Sources article just yet - let's start with adding missing material, if any. Some of the historical analysis already exists in the Tacitus on Christ and the Josephus on Jesus articles - again, do we want to duplicate or merely summarize and link?
• I do not follow your statement that the "perspective on methods would be different between "historicity of Jesus" and "historical Jesus." " Please email me what you have - wdford@global.co.za
• I have no issue with the section heading of "Generally accepted historical events". However I see that somebody else has already decided its time for more drama here.
• Dunn's statement about "interpretations of interpretations" is valuable. I would support it being added here.

Wdford (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Summarize and link. When this article becomes more stable, revisit how much of the source article's content you want to incorporate here.
• No major issue on methods. I'm just saying that methods vary depending on research agenda. A secular historian and a quester would tend to focus on different methods.
• Will pull together the material to email it. It's a bit ragged now.
• The term "Widely accepted historical events" seems to be acceptable, and is not getting reverted anymore (knock on wood.) It's a little more general, not implying universal consensus, but still excluding fringe.
• Speaking of section names, I'd like to see the "Myth theory" section here renamed "Non-historicity" or "Disputed historicity." My rationale is that either would be more inclusive and descriptive terms than CMT. It would include reference to CMT, but could focus on less extreme viewpoints -- such as those questioning the historicity of individual events or pieces of evidence. Examples would include James Ossuary and the virgin birth. (See Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Historicity for a nicely done section on historicity.) ( @Bill the Cat 7: - since you have a big interest in CMT, your perspective is important.)

Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"most scholars"

COULD EVERYONE PLEASE READ THE FAQ AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE? Particularly Q6. If hundreds of super-reliable sources all say "most scholars" or "99% of scholars" or "virtually all scholars", then we as Wikipedians are NOT ALLOWED to second-guess those reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What happens if one reputable scholar makes an extraordinary statement and then claims that "most scholars" actually agree with him - despite other scholars claiming that "most scholars" believe something else? What do we do then? Did we not previously agree that in these cases, we should NOT say "most scholars" in Wikipedia's voice, but rather that "Dunn states that most scholars agree on XXX", or "Habermas states that most scholars agree on ZZZ, but Ehrman states that ..." ??? Wdford (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If this article actually included any super-reliable sources, that comment would have an effect.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Or if FAQs were authoritative. In any event, I think the main problem is that people want to see *what kinds* of scholars say this. So far we know it includes historians in general and biblical scholars as well. Individual exceptions can be discussed separately. Simply add this well-sourced information, and most of the problem goes away. Unless someone insists on calling biblical scholars historians in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, there is no problem. And even if they were bona fide historians, it is still more specific to call them biblical scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Where can one find Wikipedia's definition of "super-reliable sources" that haven't already been referenced? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine and good. However how do we categorize them? Take Habermas for instance. His wikipedia article says that "Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion and an M.A. (1973) from the University of Detroit in Philosophical Theology." Liberty University is apparently "the largest Evangelical Christian university in the world". Habermas is open about his strong religious beliefs and motivations, but among other things, he has a PhD in a historical field, and he writes books and articles which he and many others consider to be historical. Is he therefore a historian? Any offers? Wdford (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say Habermas is not a historian. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Habermas quotation is mincing words. The facts are that virtually all scholars believe Jesus was crucified, and apparently a smaller majority believe he was buried and his tomb was later found empty. If you read the quote carefully he doesn't say "most scholars consider the resurrection to be a historically viable explanation for the data; he just gives that impression. Ehrman is, by the definition I already provided (wrote an undergrad textbook used in a large number of reputable universities), a super-reliable source. If he or another such source states something directly ("historical method doesn't consider the resurrection or other miracles to be a viable explanation"), then we don't need to second-guess him by quoting a less reputable source who deliberately used vague language to give the (false) impression that most historians support his theological view. 182.249.240.36 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88)

Ehrman is not a super-reliable source. He's certainly good, and certainly well-known. But his reputation is not perfect, as a little bit of research readily shows.

While Ehrman spends a great deal of time analyzing the evidence, he does so in ways which ignore the more recent critical scholarship which undercuts his entire position. In other words, the case for a historical Jesus is far weaker than Ehrman lets on. [14]

— Thomas Verenna, Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship

Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And once again, @182.249.240.36, Habermas did not say that most historians support his view. The quotation is not mincing words. These comments are being left by people who are not reading carefully. Also, I am not claiming that Habermas is a WP:RS who is superior to any other particular source; only that he is WP:RS. By all means compare with Ehrman! The man's view is one man's view. My main point has always been that the definition of historicity ought not to be restricted artificially, and that it is not restricted to the facts themselves. Historicity considers more. Habermas is quite good enough to demonstrate that. Evensteven (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I know. That's precisely why we shouldn't be quoting him. He doesn't directly say most historians support his view, he just goes out of his way to give that impression. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

He only gives that impression to people who refuse to read carefully, to people who want no more than an impression. That is not a proper way to read something scholarly. Reading takes work, and so does understanding. Those who won't do the work, won't get the understanding. That's not his fault. Evensteven (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas redux

The discussion in the above section took one possible course, but it strayed from some useful points that still need clarity. There seems to be confusion about what he actually says. Please examine not my edit so much, but particularly the Habermas source where I pointed to it (pages 166 and 170, and surrounding) for confirmation of what I now say.

He does not say that accepted historic facts prove the literal resurrection of Jesus. He does say they "are adequate to demonstrate [it] according to probability" (page 166). In other words, objections having been sufficiently refuted, the strength of the evidence lies in favor, still only based on accepted facts. And he has talked about why. It's a scholarly opinion. And this particular opinion he does not describe as any other scholar's. (Although it is, he does not say so here as a scholar.)

One thing he does say is that the historicity of the literal resurrection is shown. This is not the same thing. Historicity does not just examine those historic facts and what they prove. It also examines the circumstances and environment in which those facts came to be. He expresses that there is wide (almost universal?) acceptance that the disciples believed in the literal resurrection, and that that is known at least as surely as eyewitness testimony and verified newspaper accounts would give us today. (It is my impression that the actual evidence is better than that. It is at a level wherein such testimony and verified accounts are working at optimum reliability by the standards of professionals, rather than the lower standards that do admittedly appear quite often today.) The point to be taken in this regard is that historicity itself is not to be taken in too restrictive a manner of definition. Whatever one wants to say about the evidence about the literal resurrection itself, that is not now the point of focus of this paragraph. The point is that we have a professional historian, an accepted WP:RS, giving a scholarly example about what can be included within the definition of historicity. I believe this has been a point of contention in this discussion. I want to insist that if there are further inquiries beyond dictionary definitions and into interpretations of what those definitions mean, that we have here a WP:RS that provides an interpretation. Evensteven (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are we citing Gary Habermas? He's a professor of Apologetics at Liberty University. He is not a substantial mainstream New Testament scholar.--Rbreen (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying he's not a reliable source? Or that his viewpoints are fringe? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now, we're citing him as to a point of discussion. He's a trained historian. What's the beef? Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows he is a trained historian? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mmeijeri: See Gary Habermas: "He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion..." You really could have found that one yourself. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We rarely apply WP:FRINGE to religious articles (primarily out of courtesy), but the theory that this particular Christian belief has sufficient historical evidence to support it as fact is so far away from the mainstream as to be discounted. It's unreasonable to present him as a historian.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a historian? Not my presentation. Argue with others who have said so; I got it from them. And you're confusing fact with historicity again. Evensteven (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Evensteven: You are aware that you have now opened two off-topic threads on the same irrelevant topic, right? This article isn't about whether the resurrection can be proven historically; it is only about whether Jesus existed or not. If you want to talk about whether the resurrection can be proven historically, take it to Talk:Historical Jesus. A number of people have already pointed out how bloated this page has become, and while I'm inclined to think the main reason is User:Kww and User:Fearofreprisal drilling questions that were already solved years ago and are answered in the FAQ, another major reason is off-topic discussions like this one. If you continue to argue over topics will not lead to any improvement of the article, your probably going to get a CIR block, or at least a TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't about "whether Jesus existed or not." The article is about the "historicity of Jesus." Feel free to look at the article's title, and if that's not clear enough, let me know, and I'll give you some citations. (On your talk page, since we want to avoid bloat here.)

Is it your contention that historicity doesn't mean existence, but historically ascertainable (preponderance of evidence) existence? If so, I'd like to see a source to that effect. Also, we'd need to spell this out in the lede, otherwise it is likely to confuse readers. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be confused about "historical Jesus." Again, I'm happy to give you some citations.

As for this talk page being bloated: Don't worry. I donated to WP, so there is plenty of room. If we start running out, I'm sure Jimbo will ask for more money.

Finally, please read WP:ASPERSIONS, and take your threats to the proper page (not here.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting article content discussion on user talk pages. It annoys me personally, and it's not very transparent. Looking at the above discussion, you don't seem to have convinced many other editors of your perception of the meaning of "historicity". And no, filling this page up with off-topic nonsense is disruptive not because of bandwidth restrictions, but because it makes it very difficult to read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I dare say that what historicity is, is not an issue I first raised, but is indeed not off topic. You say the article "is only about whether Jesus existed or not", and Habermas says that is not the meaning of historicity. Furthermore, no one has been saying Christ's literal resurrection is generally accepted. But Habermas has clearly said that it is generally recognized that the apostles thought so. And that is the fact that causes Habermas to declare its historicity.

First of all, I would suggest that it is constructive to gather some material on what our WP:RSes say historicity is rather than to hear editorial blather about what everyone says it is. If you like, Habermas is a starting point. Surely there are other sources who can say something about it, yes? If you don't like what Habermas says, or you don't like Habermas, I don't mind. But quit telling me what historicity is in your opinion. We've both been there and done that and that is what won't help. It's time for WP:RSes to give the guidance. I'm not demanding that Habermas is the ultimate source on this issue, but he is what we currently have. What does Ehrman say it is? Or does he also disagree with you? Evensteven (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not oppose the idea that historicity is largely focussed on existence. In fact, I don't think Habermas would argue with that either. It's just not restricted to only existence as you were saying. This meaning he has suggested does not extend far from historical facts at all. It's as direct as existence facts themselves. Evensteven (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas, p 163: "It is admitted by virtually all [critical scholars - see p 162] that the disciples had real experiences that caused them to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead." Am. Heritage Dict, 5th ed: "historicity - Historical authenticity; fact." The fact Habermas cites as accepted by virtually all critical scholars establishes it as a fact, and that is what gives it fully-recognized historical authenticity. That's historicity, folks. The rest is about article scope. Is the disciples' belief close enough to the heart of the historicity of Jesus himself to qualify as being within the article scope? If not, why baptism, etc.? Evensteven (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what evidence Habermas cites in support of this claims. Most scholars believe that the narrative as it is presently understood was that the disciples believed in various aspects of Christian mythology (and resurrection cults were a dime-a-dozen in that time), but I haven't found any secular scholar who argues that the disciples had "real experiences that caused them to believe..." in such. Or, if what Habermas is saying is that the disciples lived actual lives, it's a throwaway statement ("When Abraham Lincoln was in Washington, his left foot was also in Washington.") Surely, the disciples' lives affected what they believed. Whether they experienced any plausible evidence for a resurrection is the very thing which secular scholars would be highly critical of. So what is the intent of including this tortured wording from an apologist with a known agenda? jps (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

jps: The consensus here has long been that it's acceptable to include "throwaway statements" from biased sources, so long as the source claims to have evidence and some concurrence from others. Until that consensus changes, it's going to be hard to justify removing the Habermas citation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Obviously, that kind of outlook is against multiple policies and guidelines, but I note the Habermas citation is not in the article as of right now. jps (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish I was being sarcastic/sardonic/ironic/funny. But it's the truth. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally accepted vs accepted

FOR made a B, and I made a R in the BRD process. Time to discuss. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The criterion for historicity is historical authenticity. "Virtually all critical scholars" meets that standard, and that is the equivalency that items must meet to be included in the section, or indeed in the article. The section title is therefore appropriate as it stands. If an item missed meeting the standard, that is the thing that would need changing, not the section title. Evensteven (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Correction Evensteven (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Virtually all critical scholars" decidedly does not meet that standard. This is why the idea that biblical scholars are historians is so pernicious. But the claim is false on the face of it, and in addition we have many reliable sources inside and outside biblical scholarship who say this. Methodologically unsound, unhealthy reliance on consensus, lack of objectivity, doing theology and calling it history, an embarrassment, "need to acknowledge historicity isn't entirely certain to nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability" and all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already discussed this. See [15]. You might notice that my discussion is actually supported by quotations cited from a reliable source.

@Bill the Cat 7:, I do agree with Mmeijeri that your edit comment ("They are effectively universally accepted, except for fringe proponents") is POV, but, beyond this, removing the qualifier on "accepted" reduces the clarity and accuracy of the article. Notice the paragraph in the article that begins "Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes?" That's hardly "universal" acceptance. Given this, I think the qualifier is better as "widely," rather than "generally."

I already discussed the problem with "facts" in the diff I provided above. I won't repeat the discussion here, except to sat that, if you insist on titling the section "facts," an explanation of what facts are, within the context of historical research, should be included in the article. That's going to create unnecessary article bloat.

In any event, please provide citations supporting your edit. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

@Meijering, to address just one thing: "lack of objectivity". Objectivity is a phantom among human beings, a vanity that is the uncalled-for assumption (sometimes even arrogance) that one can supersede the condition of having a perspective. An example from the history of science (physics). When the electron was discovered in 1897, it dented the Newtonian (even ancient) view that the atom was a dissoluble indivisible thing. Ernest Rutherford soon after reformed the atomic model (1911) to accommodate the discovery, but even then it did not suffice for long. By 1919, experiments in radioactivity proved atoms could be transmuted, yielding the proton ("hydrogen nucleus") in the process. It took a year even for him to accede to the idea that it was a proton, a particle from an atomic nucleus, which could no longer be viewed as indivisible either. Rutherford's story goes on, but it is revealing the struggle the physics community as a whole had with the unraveling of this ancient idea of indivisibility of the atom, even among its most brilliant members. Each step required considerable convincing, and by no means was the process objective. An enormous amount of the research and its interpretation, and theorizing, was based on intuitions about what it all meant and how it fit together. There were disagreements at times, etc. You know how it can be among people. But the physicists knew and respected each other, and they also knew how to reason, and eventually came to consensus. The popular culture seems always to wish to present the idea that science is objective. Rubbish! Physics? It is experimental, and also theoretical, and the two alternate at the forefront of new developments. That's how it works, and there is nothing objective about it. How about history? One can't do history experiments. One can't gather the sort of data to support one or another historical idea the way one can in physics. The very nature of the facts are of a different kind. But the human activity that supports both is still very much human, and not objective. In history too there is intuition, theoreticizing, testing, observing, verifying, and so on. Those techniques aren't scientific in themselves; they're just useful to many things, and the sciences (and history) are among those things. Take issue with a historians' conclusions if you will; it's normal to question. But here, your criteria do not matter, and may not even be right. The historians' criteria do matter. Just present various historians' conclusions, not your own. They may disagree. Present them in their variety then. This is what we do. That's normal too. For a source on history of science, you may wish to consult Rhodes, Richard (2012), The Making of the Atomic Bomb (25th anniversary ed.), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 978-1-4516-7761-4 (winner of Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, National Book Critics Circle Award). It's a great read, too. Evensteven (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity was not my judgment (though I agree with it), but criticism of Historical Jesus scholarship by a reliable source. You insist on calling people historians who aren't. If we call them what they are (biblical scholars, NT scholars, scholars of religion, HJ scholars or whatever), then the problems go away. By all means represent all notable views, but don't present mere opinions in Wikipedia voice, or sell biblical scholars as historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas has a PhD in History. He is a historian. Apologetics is something that he does in his job. So is being a historian. Christianity has a history. Of, course Christians are interested in that history. But history does not occur in a vacuum. Christian history is mixed in with all the rest of history. The Bible has a history too. Scholars who work in these areas are not less scholarly because those are their areas, nor are historians no longer historians. Criticize their work if you like. Others do. But there is no problem with calling them what they are: historians. They're in the other classifications as well. I expect you have heard of cross-disciplinary scholarship, yes? Evensteven (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean Habermas wasn't a historian, but that he describes a consensus among critical scholars, not historians. The odd critical scholar may be a historian as well, but most of them aren't. The fact that there is a consensus among the "critical" scholars he cites about the historicity of the resurrection appearances (however they are explained, as hallucinations or real appearances) doesn't mean there is a consensus among historians that these reported appearances are historical, and we shouldn't say there is or use Wikipedia voice to state the appearances are historical facts. We can and probably should cite Habermas in evidence of such a consensus among biblical scholars. It won't do their credibility or claims to being historians any good, but that can't be a criterion. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's mincing words. Evensteven (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, without mincing words: you can't treat a biblical scholar as a historian. They aren't the same thing, and a consensus among biblical scholars has no relationship to a consensus among historians. They may agree, they may not, but they aren't the same thing at all.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can, if a biblical scholar is also a historian. And the two studies are not unrelated. Besides, this was about "critical scholars" earlier. Exactly what is the focus of your point? And wherever the focus is, these scholars do not fit into discrete boxes, and all must have training and fluency in the skills of a historian. And what is a "critical scholar" supposed to be anyway? No kind of scholar can do without a critical faculty. So without mincing words, you're both talking nonsense. Evensteven (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No you can't, individuals can be historians and historical-critical scholars (that's what they mean by critical scholars) at the same time, but you cannot assume they are. I'm not sure what you mean by mincing words in this context, perhaps you mean splitting hairs? That would not be true either though, it's a fundamental difference. You say biblical scholars are also historians. With respect, I think this is absurd, and I would want to see very strong evidence before I'd be willing to accept that's true. This goes to the heart of the whole POV issue, so I don't see how it could be described as splitting hairs. Actually, I see you don't quite say that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there's room for some agreement here. When activities cross disciplines, the degree of crossing, and the degree of expertise exercised by those who do, does vary. Then, if you insist on keeping things separated, historians are not biblical scholars or necessarily critical scholars either. By your reasoning, they are not qualified to judge the scholarship outside their field then, either. I think that's absurd.

This comes back to my response about objectivity. The community of physicists who solved problems with the atomic models between 1900 and 1945 had a similar variety of specializations. They often worked outside their disciplines, or at least with others in related disciplines, and especially with chemists. And they all needed to work together on the same problems because those problems had impacts on all their specialties. They couldn't any of them make sense of it until they did. It's a perfect example of what scholarship is designed to be: a community of individuals, each with their own strengths and abilities to contribute, to arrive at understanding that surpasses the ability of any individual to get to alone. Their were tons of Nobel Prizes among the group I mentioned. It is exemplary. Historians and related scholars are capable of the same thing (if they are that capable). I don't think we're talking about as stellar a group of scholars here as the one in my example, but this notion that scholarship generally is somehow all divided up and sequestered and that people had better not stray "outside their expertise" (to use a common phrase) is nonsense. The more that train of thinking persists, the more scholarship suffers. And it's no wonder then that we end up with scholarship itself being disrespected, when it ends up doing such a poor job. This is what I see you advocating for. I just couldn't disagree in stronger terms. Evensteven (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of multi-disciplinary approaches, I studied mathematics and computer science myself, and a year of physics too. All I'm objecting to is labeling biblical scholars as historians. The reverse would also be wrong, but I don't see that happening right now. Can scholars from one field judge those from another? To a degree I think they can, though it might be hard for an outsider to judge to what degree. But historians can certainly judge how well biblical scholars do when they venture into historical territory and vice versa. Akenson has made such a judgment of biblical scholars, and he was scathing, though he allows for exceptions. That doesn't mean we can no longer cite biblical scholars who engage in history, as long as we make clear they are mainly biblical scholars. Why would we insist on choosing the less precise term historian when we have the more precise and less misleading biblical scholar? I suspect that many biblical scholars would prefer to be thought of as historians because that profession is more prestigious and people might be less likely to suspect them of bias if they thought of them as historians. If so, it would be less than neutral of us to accommodate such considerations. Of course, many historical Jesus scholars do strive to follow sound historical methodology (or at least claim to do so), and we can report that, as long as we also report the criticism that doubts this. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I grant your points, basically, as far as they go. Scholars do a lot of complaining and criticizing. That's part of what I'm complaining about too. We pay too much attention to it.

The example isn't just about scholarship either. It also applies very well to WP editing: consultation, discussion, consensus. It's time to look up and get some perspective. Isn't the lack of that what this whole long dry wall of text has been all about? Wouldn't scholars do well to do the same? Criticism itself isn't scholarship. Evensteven (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean that you finally recognize that the article's presentation of biblical scholars as being unbiased historians is a problem? If so, we've achieved a major breakthrough.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean that we'll have achieved a breakthrough when we see editors who are able to get a little perspective. Evensteven (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Have any luck with that beam in your eye lately? You might want to see about getting it extracted.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to budge, then you won't budge. It's not like I had a grand anticipation of changing everyone's mind. It's not a beam in my eye, and it's not all about you. It's about perspective, and how it's needed. I think I've said what has needed to be said. Evensteven (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have imported two additional sections, to address the issues of methodology and the criticisms thereof. This will need a fair bit of cleaning up, but its a start. Please help. Wdford (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford: You also removed a considerable amount of material. On the one hand, your edits have improved the article substantially, and are helping us move forward what has been just a [WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] too long. On the other hand, an explanation of the reasons for your removal would be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I began by importing a lot of material wholesale from a related article. I then removed various parts of my own additions which I considered to be relevant to the original article but not to this article. I could have copied it all down to MSWord, deleted what I thought was not relevant to this article and then uploaded the reduced version. It's just a start-point, and more material will need to be added and removed to clean it up properly. If the deleted item/s are considered by other editors to be relevant here after all, they can easily be added back. Wdford (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I imported a whole section on methodology from the Historical reliability of the Gospels article. This material overlaps somewhat with the related material from the Historical Jesus article. We need to decide which version we prefer, and eliminate duplications. Please help. Wdford (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RFCs (again)

A few weeks ago there was discussion of whether a Request for Comments was appropriate, either with respect to the scope of this article or on any other issues. Is there a desire for an RFC, or are we satisfied that the article is moving forward with help from Wdford? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We do appear to be making progress, maybe we should see how that goes first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of the warriors here are yet able to express their issues with the clarity necessary for an RfC to actually be useful. Maybe later.Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mmeijeri: You "made progress" in your previously expressed agenda of making the article make the (entirely unique and unsupported) claim that "biblical scholars" are by definition not "historians", and that the opinions of a tiny minority of "historians" of unrelated fields should be given more weight accordingly, solely because I was busy with real life for a couple of days and was unable to respond to you. Claiming "a minority of historians" support the historicity of Jesus just because the majority of historians of unrelated fields have never made a statement about it is ridiculous, and you're going to get TBANned if you're not careful. Ehrman and many other historians have criticized some HJ researchers for their flawed methodologies; you are apparently trying to misrepresent this as them arguing that Jesus never existed.

I'm sick and tired of your uncivil behaviour and repeated attempts to intimidate people you disagree with. And don't put words into my mouth. I never said that biblical scholars are by definition not historians, in fact I have several times denied this is the case. What I did say is that biblical scholars aren't automatically historians, while explicitly allowing for the possibility that individuals can be both. This is neither false nor unsourced, and I have repeatedly referred to multiple sources. I have objected to your characterisation of real historians as scholars from unrelated fields. You are asserting that the scholars we should listen to are HJ scholars, which is totally non-neutral. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon: I would be fully in favour of a (carefully-worded) RFC so we can inject some sanity into this discussion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, you're elected to write the first draft of the carefully-worded RfC. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be pointless to have an RfC about the scope of this article, or on any other metaphysical issue. It is always best to focus on text in the article so any RfC should be about a specific proposal to change the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think an RfC about the scope of the article would be pointless? And why do you equate scope with metaphysical issues? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Because coming up with some wording about scope would solve nothing. If an RfC concluded that the scope was X, people could still change text in the article and claim that it satisfied X—the result would be simultaneous discussions about four things:

1. Is the proposed change desirable?
2. Does the proposed change to the article satisfy the scope?
3. Should an exception be made for the proposed change, and can an RfC permanently inhibit future edits?
4. Does WP:CCC apply (has consensus about the scope changed)?

Actually, it's only #1 that matters, so any RfC should be about that—what difference would a rule about the scope make? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding scope: In this article, as in many WP articles, the first sentence or two of the lede are statements regarding the scope. So, an RfC about the scope of the article would likely be about "text in the article." But, since no one seems to be expressing any interest in an RfC on the scope of the article, I don't get why you brought it up.

Regarding metaphysical issues: Historicity can be thought of as denoting historical "actuality", and actuality is very much a metaphysical concept. But, again, no one even suggested having an RfC on metaphysical issues, so I don't get why you brought it up.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a really good idea to focus on discussing text in the article. My comments do not do that, but they were focused on the question in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for an RFC on this issue - the scope as defined in the opening sentence is very clear, only one editor has actually complained about it, and even he is not keen for an RFC at the moment. If Hijiri88 has specific concerns about the scope, it's best to air them on the talk page first. Wdford (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, per User:Fearofreprisal's nomination: Should this article state that "the majority of historians" accept the historical existence of Jesus? Some users consider the "majority of historians" not to have made a statement regarding the existence of Jesus. Additionally, do scholars who apply historical criticism to the New Testament count as "historians", or should we use the phrase "New Testament scholars"?

This comes pretty much exclusively from my involvement in the dispute. Areas that I wasn't involved in might not be covered. Therefore, the above should be considered a "first draft". Any suggestions?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You need a lot more clarity I think. Though I may be misinterpreting, it seems like the root issue you're trying to get at isn't too far from the one that I've raised a number of times, about the essence of historicity. It comes down to the question of what makes something "historical?" Or, stated differently, what methodologies and protocols, when used by a scholar to create a reconstruction of past events are likely to provide a result that can be called "historical?"

The Habermas example that's been disputed here recently probably provides a good example of this: His assertion of the historicity of the resurrection is based on the assumption that the creeds and gospels are reliable starting points for his analysis. This isn't too different from, say, Dunn, who says "in burden of proof terms we can start from the assumption that Synoptic tradition is a good witness to the historical Jesus unless proven otherwise" (The Historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution, ed. William D. Farmer [Livonia, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 1995], 216).

For purposes of the "quest for the historical Jesus" (which is targeted to an audience of Christians) such assumptions are both reasonable and necessary. Yet, for purposes of academic history -- understanding "what actually happened" with no value commitments -- such assumptions are probably not justifiable (cite available.)

Should we dismiss an assertion of historicity based on methodologies and protocols (which include assumptions) that likely wouldn't have been used by a secular historian? I suspect that doing so may be a slippery slope, leading us to substitute our value judgments for those of "reliable sources." If you dismiss Habermas, you probably have to dismiss Ehrman.

I think the only thing we can reasonably do is focus on transparency, including, where we can, information on the methodologies and protocols used by reliable sources. Yet, this raises a couple of questions:

• Often times, a scholar's methodologies and protocols can be inferred fairly directly from context, or reference to their other written material. How far can we go in incorporating this inference before we've crossed over to synthesis or original research?
• In cases where it's not easily possible to discern a scholar's methodologies or protocols (or where no WP editor wants to go to the trouble), should nothing be said in the article? Or should these sources be deprecated?

I don't think these questions are well-formed enough for an RfC, but maybe they'll spark some thoughts you can use in refining your proposed RfC questions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't think it's time to call in the rest of the Wikipedia on the Habermas problem. I still stick to my guns that the historicity of the resurrection is a separate issue from the historicity of Jesus himself: I actually started re-reading Ehrman 2012 and I noticed that (on page 35) he specifically supports me here. It's a commonly used mythicist non sequitur argument that "Jesus performed miracles, therefore non he must have been famous, therefore contemporary pagan sources should mention him", and bringing the historicity of the resurrection into an article on the historicity of Jesus is actually making the mythicist case for them...

The quest for the historical Jesus is not targeted to an audience of Christians. The historical Jesus is entirely unrelated to the Jesus of Christian faith. Please see Martin 2010. The quest for the historical Jesus is targeted to an audience of historical researchers. Now, if we are talking about changing the scope of my proposed RfD wording, I am interested. How about this:

Four points: (1) Should this article state that "the majority of historians" accept the historical existence of Jesus? Some users consider the "majority of historians" not to have made a statement regarding the existence of Jesus. (2) It is acceptable on the talk page to refer to scholars who apply historical criticism to the New Testament as "historians" if reliable sources use this terminology, or should we use the phrase "New Testament scholars"? (3) What should the scope of this article be? Some users consider discussion of the historicity of Jesus' miracles (namely the resurrection) to belong in this article, but others (per Ehrman 2012:35) consider discussion of the historical view of Jesus' miracles to belong in the other article. (4) Should we be specifically discussing the methodologies applied by specific historians to historical Jesus research, or should we simply state the historical consensus of scholars that Jesus did exist, and cite the evidence the historical community considers most convincing? Some editors on this article consider the historical methodology of certain historians to be questionable; should we discuss these methodologies and let readers make their own decision, or would this violate WP:NOR?

Habermas is a Christian apologist who works in a Christian institution. Ehrman is the dean of New Testament historians (per one of his textbooks being the most-widely used in the United States). Your comparison is flawed, and I really don't want to include it in an RfC until more discussion has taken place here, since I thought you (and everyone else) had gotten over the "you can't dismiss Habermas or else you have to dismiss everyone else" thing yet.

Per "methodologies": I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here? Are you saying we should discuss the evidence provided by historians for the historical existence of Jesus? If so, does my new proposed wording deal with your concerns?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hiriji:

• I think it would be a waste of time to undertake an RfC on anything in this article, until we were able to distill down to a really clear question where "the rest of Wikipedia" could provide useful input.
• Regards your 4 proposed RfC questions: My opinion is that they're way too complex and ill defined. But I'm in no position to tell you not to go with them.
• Regarding Habermas: So what if he's an apologist? So long as he's not an abcderian, it doesn't matter. This has been discussed over and over and over, both here and in ANI: We can't exclude sources because of bias. In this field, all sources are biased. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Professor Gary Habermas a Reliable Source? Q&A

Two off-topic threads on the same subject is enough, right? If you want to have a general discussion as to whether an author is a "Reliable Source as per Wikipolicy" please take it to WP:RSN. This page is for discussion of content specific to this article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Hijiri 88 asks us to consider the question: Is Professor Gary Habermas a Reliable Source as per Wikipolicy (bottom of immediately preceding thread). Discuss. 103.23.134.190 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC) No. No I do not. Don't put words in my mouth. He is a notable conservative evangelical scholar who teaches at an evangelical university, and whose views on the historical verifiability of the resurrection are not shared by the majority of historians. He is a reliable source on his own opinions, when they are correctly attributed to him. However, unless he has written on the historicity of Jesus (i.e., whether Jesus himself existed), he doesn't belong in this article. His views on the resurrection are completely irrelevant to this article, but I never claimed he fails WP:RS per se and have actually encouraged discussion of his views to be taken to Talk:Historical Jesus. No comment on whether that article should cite him; as far as I can tell, the only people who agree with him on whether historians can prove the resurrection are fundamentalists and evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig (in his debate with Ehrman, extracts cited here) and Mike Licona (see, for example, here and here). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous tag? Not

@Slawekb: In your edit comment [16], you wrote Widely accepted historical events: removed ridiculous tag. A quotation was given to verify what this source says. "Not in citation given" refers to... that quotation? Possibly you should have checked the source, as I did? The article contains a direct and intentional WP:POV misquotation of the source. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had the exact quotation at your disposal, then I am puzzled to say the least why you would have added a {{verification failed}} tag instead of just correcting the quotation in the first place. Surely there is simply no excuse for that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sławomir: There are a couple of reasons: First, I've found that my edits get reverted a lot by people who never contribute a thing to this article. So, I thought it was better if someone else did the edit, rather than starting an edit war. Second, I was looking at a bunch of citations, and thought it better to just tag 'em all, and sort them out later.

Rbreen: As for citation 55 -- I don't have a problem with the quote per se (other than the use of "and" instead of "or"), but footnote 35 in the source amends the quote, using the qualifier "known to me." There's a big difference between a scholar saying certain claims have never existed, versus saying he doesn't know of any such claims. I reverted the tag (just the tag, not the addition you made to the cite), until someone can figure out how to incorporate this qualifying language in a way that won't get kneejerk reverted.

By the way, early Christians had a tendency to suppress or interpolate any writings which might not support Jesus' historicity, so I'd say that the claim "In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity" is extreme, and fundamentally unprovable. It might be made more reasonable to change the article text to something like: "Van Voorst has stated that he knows of no cases in antiquity where pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied or even questioned Jesus' historicity." Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee".[5][not in citation given] Did you actually read this and find it wasn't in the citatino given? Because she does say it here http://books.google.ca/books?id=nqKpSKq0v6oC&pg=PT330&lpg=PT330&dq=The+Classical+World:+An+Epic+History+from+Homer+to+Hadrian+%22jesus+was+born+in+galilee%22&source=bl&ots=5IqAFGwN-v&sig=72-knc-kVlyKQTWpnsKT_IyWeoo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DMggVPiFGtW2ogTXrIGIAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Classical%20World%3A%20An%20Epic%20History%20from%20Homer%20to%20Hadrian%20%22jesus%20was%20born%20in%20galilee%22&f=false

It's unclear whether she's talking about a historical or theological context. Well, it seems clear that she's talking in a thological context, because saying "Jesus was born in Galilee" is something only a Christian would say. Is your problem with the citation that she means it in the sense of "according to Christian mythology, Jesus was born in Galilee".

Richard Carrier quote for article

With all of the discussion about what is, and isn't historicity, and the arguments coming from Christians that theologians are historians, and their bias is a non-issue, I was shocked to see above one user comment something along the lines of Richard Carrier cannot be included, because he is bias and anti-Christian. He has just published a new book, and it is peer reviewed and published by an academic press, so that should be the end of that. He is a PhD in ancient history, and he is not a Christian. This is the perfect source for unbiased historical analysis, because he doesn't fear that his soul will be burned for eternity if he uncovers the facts.

Could one of the more experienced editors do something with this paragraph from his new book, and add it to the article?:

“In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

I've got the book, so if anyone wants me expand on it, just ask your questions and I'll find quotes from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.195 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is certainly an interesting source, but he holds a minority position, maybe even a minority of one, and that needs to be stated. While it is true he doesn't need to fear for his eternal soul if it's true there was no historical Jesus, he is also a well-known self-employed new atheist activist and speaker, which might also be a source of bias. I think that like all other people we cite, we should add a brief description of his credentials and any potential sources of bias. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn here, provided we can source their credentials objectively (probably not hard) and provided we can identify their probable biases objectively (basically impossible?) Wdford (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Martin, the book is published by an academic press and is peer reviewed, bud. I don't get what your point is, are you saying it can't be included because it's not the position held by most theologians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, I'm merely pointing out we cannot cite his opinions in Wikipedia voice. By all mean do quote him, but as an attributed quote and with proper explanation of his credentials and potential biases. Simply saying he has a PhD in ancient history (I think) and is a self-employed atheist activist and speaker would be enough as far as I'm concerned. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So when it's an atheist we point it out, but when it's a Christian: irrelevant? Do all the other authors who are confirmed Christians, say so? How is atheism a "bias"? You'd want people who are detached from the faith. Are Buddhists "bias" as well? Someone can add the information if they want, I don't have much faith in this article due to reverts by all of the apologists, and all these double standards for Christians vs. non Christians. I don't get why non-Christians are "biased". Almost all of the people saying Jesus is a real person are Christians. Atheism means you don't believe in magic, it doesn't mean you can't understand how history works. Christianity means you believe in magic, supernatural stuff, and by default that Jesus existed in real life. Wow, real objective. I'm done. I've done all I can, and I'll leave it to you editors to do the right thing. Good luck. This article is garbage and so are all the articles about Jesus and anything to do with Christianity on Wikipedia. That's because people don't understand that Christians aren't able to write about this stuff without letting their "faith" get in the way, and people like you don't understand what bias is, and the difference between a scientific approach and a faith based approach. You'll NEVER see a Christian "historian" saying Jesus didn't exist. But you may see a buddhist or atheist, or Hindu or other saying that. Why is that, bud? Doesn't that make you question your views on "bias"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we should do the same thing for Christians and everyone else, which is why I said "all people we cite" above. Also: kindly consider WP:CIVIL, I don't appreciate your calling me 'bud'. It looks as if you came here to pick a fight, which isn't very constructive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph

Please remove the following paragraph:Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Unlike for some figures in ancient history, the available sources are all documentary. In conjunction with Biblical sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus. These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three passages has been disputed to varying degrees, most biblical scholars believe that all three are at least partially authentic.

It is not sourced, and it is vague. First off, who are the "most biblical scholars" and what parts do they believe are/aren't authentic? This paragraph violates so many wikipedia policies it is not even funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.225.190 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As per policy, the lead summarizes the content of the article. If you read the article you will see all the sourcing etc there. We can add all of that to the lead, but will it make things better, or will it just clutter things up again? Wdford (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Josephus testimonium flavium

Guys, it's time update the information about this Christian interpolation in the work of Josephus. Here is the scholarship on the item:

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus." More Info: vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 Journal Name: Journal of Early Christian Studies

Sources: Journal of Early Christian Studies vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 http://www.academia.edu/2329601/Origen_Eusebius_and_the_Accidental_Interpolation_in_Josephus_Jewish_Antiquities_20.200 http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

As you can see there is no mention of an "authentic nucleus". It was talking about a totally different Jesus. 1 in 26 people in that time and place were named Jesus, so this should not come as a surprise. The citation needs to be included to balance the vague, misleading language currently in the article which states " Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery"

Could one of the more experienced editors include the above mentioned citation from Richard Carrier's published work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey Blainey

Hey guys, I think citations from Geoffrey Blainey ought to come with the disclaimer: *Christian

Apparently, he believes in magic, and believes that the resurrection of the dead body of a man actually happened. He certainly can't be trusted about anything he says with regards to historicity of Jesus. Peruse these two stories about him with regards to his belief on the resurrection of a dead body.

"Blainey applies the test of an empirical historian before concluding that, by the standards of the first century AD, the voluminous accounts of Jesus' life count as reasonable documentary evidence. Jesus did exist. He hedges his bets on the resurrection, giving ample voice to its sceptics, but notes that Christ's virtual presence in the minds of his disciples gave Christianity an edge over older, less dynamic competitors."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/gadfly-geoffrey-blainey-comes-to-praise-christianity-not-to-bury-it/story-e6frg8n6-1226179886632?nk=ee1ed1034064ef12a6f53ad1a537deff

"Apparently, Blainey 'hedges his bets' on the resurrection as an historical event giving 'ample voice to its sceptics'."

http://citybibleforum.org/city/brisbane/blog/jesus-history

So from what I understand, his religion doesn't affect his bias, but Richard Carrier, because he doesn't believe in magic, is "bias" and sould have an asterisk beside his name? That's fine, but as long as you put an asterisk beside the name of Blainey and his ilk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant sentence

"There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity."

This sentence is irrelevant. Why would people deny someone who they've never heard of? We don't have records of people going around saying Zeus wasn't real, does constitute evidence for the existence of Zeus? Also, cited to the encyclopedia of THEOLOGY, not an encyclopedia, not a history book, it is about theology.This is called Christian apologetics, it is irrelevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)