Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

POV Pushing

This article has really suffered because of POV pushing. Bruce is a conservative Christian scholar while Erhman is a non Christian liberal scholar. Both are recognized. The scholarship of both liberals and conservatives is legitimate.

The way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is is not supported by the evidence.
3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.

As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not deleting material until after a discussion would be helpful. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to lump together an Ehrman with the likes of FF Bruce. Bruce is fringe, Ehrman is mainstream. What do we do if someone starts bombarding Wikipedia with material from the likes of Acharya S or M. M. Mangasarian ?-Civilizededucation^talk 11:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to see someone with some actual expertise in biblical scholarship reflect on the "fringe" status of scholars, or else see reliable sources backing up such statements. Having a religious POV that goes to one extreme I think makes a source less than ideal for sure, but whether or not it is "fringe" is a whole other matter, and not one Civilizededucation is qualified to make unless I'm missing something. From what I can see it is probably best to avoid Bruce when possible, but can someone with some actual knowledge of the field comment on this please.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an expert. But I am not talking shit.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "talking shit" and "absurd"? - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I have already explained why it is absurd to lump together Ehrman with FF Bruce. Bruce is an inerrantist, which is fringe. The other extreme is the CMT camp. Ehrman is not CMT, he is on record as having said that it is now virtually certain that Jesus did exist. Bruce is beyond conservative. Conservatives are the ones like Meier. When I say I am not talking shit, I mean I know what I am talking about. I am not just a schizophrenic who is imagining things. I thought that much would have been clear.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean Bruce's writings on this subject are from within a scholarly perspective that takes the Bible as an inerrant document and that as a scholarly perspective on history this is "fringe"? Can you confirm this please with something other than, "I'm not talking shit", because that statement isn't particularly convincing. His entry on Wikipedia makes it sound like he did not believe the Bible was inerrant, but that he thought claims that were important to the Christian faith were reliably attested by it. Clearly, even this is an extreme POV, but if his work is actually considered fringe, Civilizededucation, we need something stronger than your word. I, once again, think that Bruce is best not used here, but I sense some objections to your arguments based on the strong reactions people are having to your own strong, and unsupported claims of "fringe" status. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the moment you presume that a document is inerrant, there is no possibility of genuine scholarship with regard to it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, the issue is whether or not that is a fair description of his biblical scholarship in the first place. The entry on F.F. Bruce makes it sound like he was not actually an inerrantist, though certainly on the extreme end of belief in the reliability of the Bible either way. That fact is good enough for me to think that the entry is better off without Bruce. However, unlike those who have decided that they are arbiters of fringe in Biblical scholarship I do not actually know if Bruce was fringe. Do you really know this? Do you know if he believed the Bible was inerrant? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the

New Testament affects no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. (The New Testament Documents:Are they reliable? FF Bruce, p. 20) I think this is enough to say that he is an inerrantist. Most other sources do have doubts about material questions of historic facts in the NT?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The statement is almost meaningless without a context, and even so it discusses "variant(s)" making it de facto not inerrantist. That he is on the extreme end of the spectrum I believe, but inerrant in this context means inerrant and not "the important issues are attested to accurately by the bible". I'll say this one last time. I also do not think Bruce should be used here if possible. However, exaggerating his positions and making unbacked claims about how he is viewed by mainstream scholars is completely unhelpful. You're just ruffling feathers and giving people fodder to react against you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of a meaningful difference. And much of what you say is the same as what I was trying to make out. I think he should not be used, so do you. This is the meaningful and operative part. I think we have a consensus on this?-Civilizededucation^talk 13:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Right about now, I think we should take a step back and forcefully remind ourselves that this is not a forum. We all seem to be agreed regarding Bruce's unsuitability as a source, so let's just agree to agree, and move on. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce is not unsuitable as a source, because he represents a significant point of view. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So is he a reliable source for the extreme conservative position but not a reliable source for the mainstream one? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't call your distinction entirely unreasonable, but I'm concerned about where to draw the line. How extreme does a conservative view have to be in order to be fringe? Would outright inerrantism suffice? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would count inerrantism as a significant point of view. It deserves to be mentioned, but it shouldn't be given undue weight. Given that the NT is the main source for the life of Jesus (doubts as to its historical reliability notwithstanding), one needs to consider the point of view that it is factually correct. The mere fact that this was historically a very important point of view is also another reason for at least mentioning it. That gives a perfect opportunity for mentioning Bruce's views, as well as pointing out how widely (or narrowly) held they are. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would not. It's certainly a significant point of view among conservative Protestants, but it's completely fringe among scholars. It is impossible to be scholarly about a document after you've assumed it cannot be false. Anyone endorsing inerrantism is, by that fact alone, not a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the traditional church view with apologetics. If we allow extreme right into the article, we would also have to equally describe the extreme left-like Wells for instance.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I object to fringe views from either wing. Let's just stick to the mainstream. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilizededucation, I just came from editing the Jesus Seminar and have some serious concerns. We must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. Wikipedia must never be a mouthpiece for the Jesus Seminar or any other group. See Google Books --- Ret.Prof (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) - PS - Do you have any sources to support your POV about Bruce?

This is essentially what I asked him several replies above. I have seen nothing but his say so.Griswaldo (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The comment that we must "fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic" requires qualification. The vast majority of what has been said about this topic is that Jesus is real and is the Lord and Savior. The vast majority of what has been said about the origin of the species and the creation of the Earth is similar. The vast majority of what Christian presses like Eerdmans and InterVarsity have to say on this topic is also that the universe, the Earth, and homo sapiens were created by an intelligent being. In other words, Chrsitian presses are not reliable sources on whether Christian doctrine passes objective tests. This doesn't mean Christians can't be good scientists--or historians--so let's not start that again. It does require us to be critical, limit the use of overtly Christian sources, and not merely reflect what has been said on a topic. Noloop (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? The only problem I see is if we present people like Bruce as if they are historians. Conservative religious views need to be described. Do you think readers will not be interested to know what the thinking among conservative theologians is about this? Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the only subject of this article is historical. If Bruce cannot be presented as an historian, there is no reason to be presenting him at all. Conservative religious views do not need to be described, they need to be ignored: this article is not about religious belief. It is about historical belief. Of course there are religious views on this topic, but that is irrelevant, just as the fact that there are religious views on the origin of homo sapiens is irrelevant to that article. The fact that certain editors don't recognize this is a constant problem. Noloop (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

To decide on FF Bruce, we should look at the publishers of his books. If his work is academic, it should have been published in well regarded academic presses. If his work is something else, it must have been published somewhere else. If he is an apologist, his work must have been published by apologistic presses. The publishers are pros, they should know what is academic material and what is apologetic. A well regarded academic press would want to stay away from an apologetic work, they have a reputation to maintain.

Most of FF Bruce is published by IVP, an apologetics press meant for forwarding the christian cause.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilizededucation please tell me where in our sourcing policies it says that we judge all works of an author by the publishing houses of the majority of that author's works? That's not how it is done. If Oxford University Press, for instance, is a reliable publisher then it is a reliable publisher for all it's published works, whether or not an author it publishes also publishes with other publishing houses. That said, the book in question is published by IVP, which is an Evangelical Press. However, it needs to be noted that some Christian Presses, are in fact considered reliable for some mainstream research because they publish both Christian apologetics and mainstream scholarship. The way to go about figuring out if IVP would be reliable here is to post to the RS/N or another forum where editors who actually know something about this press might respond with outside input. My inclination is to say that this book is reliable for the evangelical perspective and not mainstream POVs, but I'm not qualified to say that for sure. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Griswaldo. You and I seem to have a consensus that FF Bruce and or IVP need not be used. In this situation, why would it be necessary for you to take me through the whole process? You can take me through it, but we should at least have a meaningful difference of opinion?-Civilizededucation^talk 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Because little is meaningfully resolved on this talk page, especially now as most of the more neutral parties have fled. Members of two warring POV groups sound things off other members of their particular clique and make it sound like there is consensus for making decisions that neither has the expertise to make ... like for instance a proclamation about the reliability of IVP. You like the fact that I've said that I doubt it is a good source here so you want to go with that. I say bully. Take it to a neutral forum where people might actually have some expertise and get a real resolution. Otherwise you will be arguing over this for the next millennium. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I find the accusation of being in a "POV group" or "clique" quite offensive. Perhaps you need to consider the possibility that someone who is objective might still favor a view that contradicts your own. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I'm not sure that you know what my view is nor that you know the history of this entry over the last few months. Neutral parties have been pretty much driven off the page as people with an extreme secular agenda battle people with an extreme religious agenda. I just call it like I see it. But that's besides the point anyway. Who here is an ancient historian or biblical scholar? Who is even a historian or a religious studies scholar? No one. The notion that a certain academic publisher, publishing in a field you all are not experts in is unreliable because you say so is absurd. Seek better input. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is good reason to check further by the way. Publishers like William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company publish both Christian books for christian audiences and scholarly books by reputable scholars. I do not know about IVP and lean towards it simply being Christian, perhaps having a strong scholarly basis in certain types of theology and the like, but not history. But the operative thing here is that I do not know. Do you? Doubtful. Ask for some advice instead of saying ... "it is a Christian press so clearly it is not reliable". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Eerdman's describes itself as a Christian press. It aims to publish "the finest in religious literature." It is not going to publish research concluding that Jesus is a myth (it does, however, publish a fair amount of creationism). So, we should not have a majority of sources being ideologically opposed to publishing all sides equally. Noloop (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Eardmans does publish both types of stuff. Academic, and also apologetic. So, for Eardmans, I think we have to be careful about saying anything one way or the other. We might need to find some other way of determining which of Eardman's publication is academic and which is a christian book meant for christian audiences. It would be a wrong to reject all of it's publications. Anyway,why do we need to consider Eardman's in this thread?-Civilizededucation^talk 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Eerdmans does not publish based on solely on the academic merit of the manuscript. It publishes only what advances a Christian POV. It's "About" page states that its primary mission is to publish the finest religious literature. It classifies its own books in two ways" "Ministry resources" and "Academic resources." The ministry resources page says "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians, and lay people will find a wealth of resources here." The academic resources page shows books that support, within a range that allows debate, a Christian POV. There is a book that says the ultra-Creationists are wrong, but the ultra-Darwinists (like Dawkins) are wrong too (presumably it argues for micro-evolution). There is a social sciences book about neo-natal care that affirms the human worth of the tiniest baby. And so on. Eerdman's exists to promote a particular view, and such sources need to be used with care. When the majority of our sources are ideologically opposed to one side, the article can't be neutral. So, that's how it relates to the subject of this thread. Noloop (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember the attribution RFC? The book I had cited there was published by Eardmans. Dale Allison is no apologist. I have also noticed some other level headed authors getting published there.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What if scholarship as a whole is biased? Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Say so in the article (support with a source).-Civilizededucation^talk 16:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What if we can't find a source? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Then, it probably is not important. If it is important, some source must have said it, and it happens that you have not stumbled upon it as yet. Actually there are some sources who think the other way round.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dale Allison is a Christian theologian. He's not an exception to the point that Eerdmans exists to promote Christianity. If we peruse the catalog extensively, we can probably find some exception somewhere (maybe Ehrman), but that doesn't address the general point. Eerdmans is never going to publish someone like Dawkins or Hitchens. As a general rule, it exists to promote a particular view. We should rely on it guardedly, or not at all. Noloop (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No one even remotely associated with the academy and the study of religion (within any discipline) respects Dawkins or Hitchens as scholars of religion. Academic presses wouldn't touch their work on religion with a ten foot pole. What's your point?Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian presses are not reliable sources

Noloop has raised an important point. Indeed it may be the essence of the problem. Many editors believe "Christian presses are not reliable sources". It is important that we reach a consensus and decide to what extent we "limit" Christian scholarship. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that they're Christian instead of scholars, there's no room for them here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources on what? I think they may be pretty reliable on what theologians think. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources as historians, not theologians. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This opens up a huge can of worms whose road we have been down before and it wasn't pleasant the first time around. Strictly speaking the Queen or King of England is the head of the Anglican Church and the Crown still has copyright control over printing of the Authorized Version of the King James Bible in the UK which it has granted (among others) to Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press. Does this connection make them "Christian" presses or should any statement made about the historical accuracy bible made by them be taken in the same vein that statements about the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon by Brigham Young University Press? WP:NPOVT makes is clear that everything has a POV. Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance is the one thing we need to look at here. The sources themselves can have POVs but we must take what is there and create a NPOV presentation

I need to restate this is NOT the issue of where Jesus Christ existed but rather how well the documents we have reflect his actions and we seem to be getting bogged down into turning this into Jesus Myth theory part 2.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Is someone claiming that the KJV can't be used as a primary source? If not, then how does it relate? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, perhaps check out the article List of Bible verses not included in modern translations for interest? Wdford (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, but could you please relate it back to this topic? I'm sorry to say that I don't follow. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply speaking there is some degree of prestige (and I imagine money) in being two of the four publishers in the UK able to print the authorized KJV Bible. That means you likely want to keep your client (ie the Crown) happy and since your client also happens to be head of the county's main religion that puts you in an awkward position regarding the existence of the founder of your country's very religion. The Morman Church and Brigham Young University have a similar relationship with is why I used them as a comparison.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP is supposed to rely on publishers with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For controversial articles, we should use nonsectarian publishers for the mainstream view and use Christian sources to describe the Christian view (and Muslim sources to describe the Muslim view, etc.). Luckily, "Jesus" is a big topic, and we have good, tertiary sources (university-level textbooks, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.) to help us find the mainstream center. If an editor is using a Christian source because they can't find what they want in nonsectarian sources, that should clue everyone in that the Christian source is outside the mainstream. There are plenty of reliable Christian scholars (Brown, Borg, Crossan, Wright, etc.) who are in the mainstream, and there are plenty of Christian sources (IVP, Thomas Hennel, College, Baker Academic, apparently Apollos) that are outside the mainstream. That's why mainstream editors don't like them and minority-view editors do. Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no clear understanding of what constitutes a religious source in this type of scheme. Some editors here have repeatedly suggested that the publisher doesn't matter if the author is actually a member of the religion. This means that virtually no sources on religion would be considered reliable outside of the "religious view" as most scholars of Christianity are Christians, of Islam are Muslims, of Judaism are Jews, etc. etc. As long as we focus on publihers themselves I'm OK with this, but as soon as we start slipping down that slope I'm not.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, merely being Christian is no impediment to studying this topic. However, swearing an oath to follow a particular ideology does pose a problem. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Swearing an oath? We're not talking about the Knights Templar here but religious people who may have very varied beliefs.Griswaldo (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about the Knights Templar. Like all good Catholics, I am a secret member of the Bavarian Illuminati. Wink, wink, say no more.

Weird conspiracy theories aside, I was talking about the oaths that academics at certain religious schools must swear in order to hold their jobs. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know of any such oaths. What do you mean, and how does it affect the current entry specifically?Griswaldo (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you're not familiar with them, as they're not uncommon among Christian institutions. The faculty are required to sign an oath of fidelity, in which they agree to support the core beliefs of the school/church, such as this. This example is Catholic, but there are many Protestant schools with their own oaths. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the link. I did not know that this stuff went on today. It is out of the dark ages! You have also set the example as to how we should edit. (ie concern backed by source) Good work - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic oath is actually old, but some of the Protestant ones are more restrictive, in that they require strict adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible. If you can dig up the oath from bju.edu, it might curl your toes. :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You learn something new every day. I do not have much knowledge of small conservative religious universities and colleges, but I guess in retrospect I'm not surprised that such institutions may require these oaths. The reason I asked how this effects the current entry, however, should not be glossed over. Is there a source being used here that is written by an author who had to take this oath? I do not think such oaths are required at more mainstream Christian universities, Catholic or Protestant. There is no way that Georgetown or Boston College require this of their faculty, for instance. So while I'm happy to have learned something new I wonder how it applies here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To my way of thinking, the publishing company is entirely irelevant. It is the academic background and expertise of the author which matters. ^rossnixon 02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the opposite of how Wikipedia approaches this type of issue. We look at the publishing process and the reputation publishers have for fact checking and accuracy to determine reliability. Only when sources are self-published does this begin to matter.Griswaldo (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Page locked

All of the contentiousness on this page has caused it to get locked. OK we need to figure out what the sources of dispute are and arrive at some kind of consensus. What changes, from the current version, need to be made?RomanHistorian (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sources of dispute" -- um, considering this is the second page you've gotten locked in a week, I'd say the answer to that should be obvious. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, I would prefer that we look at this more optimistically. Maybe Roman has started to notice the pattern himself and will therefore begin to engage in productive discussion instead of edit-warring. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian's problem seems to be that he sees things from an extremely orthodox christian POV. There seems to be no other way that he could see folks like Vermes and Ehrman as anti christian. It would be no surprise if even Meier may look anti christian from this POV. He could do well to start to see things from the "current academic thinking" POV.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And, RH, if you want to get an idea of what is "current academic thinking", or which authors represent it, you could get it from looking at the archives and fishing for comments by SlRubenstein/Andrew C/Wdford/Leadwind/Griswaldo/BruceGrubb/Nishidani and some others. They are, IMO, very knowledgable in these issues. It would be a thorough crash course on the NT scholarship.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of one or two edits, I didn't find RomanHistorian's changes disruptive. There were many tiny changes that made it easier to revert individual ones, which I found helpful. Maybe he could make only a handful of changes first and await other editors' reactions next time? Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with his editing was that he continued to revert with little or no discussion. He has a pattern of such behavior [1]. Some of the content of his edits was disruptive as a well. He reinserted contentious material from FF Bruce that has already been the subject of one edit war. He reinserted off-the-wall material about an alleged eclipse of the sun that had previously been reverted by just about everyone. He made passive-aggressive edit comments like "directly relevant, though it appears some editors here regard this as dangerous to their beliefs." He added "dubious" tags to statements that have multiple references, but never explained why he found the statements dubious. He added the most proselytizing publisher we've yet seen, knowing that the number of Christian presses in these articles is a constant and unresolved dispute. His only particpation in Talk on these edits concerned the publisher, after I initiated the discussion, his discussion was not very sincere, and he continued to revert during the discussion. He seems a bit trollish, in the way he beelines right for the heart of controversial and disruptive issues. Noloop (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bigotry and prejudice have no place on Wikipedia

I have recently been doing some edits at the Historicity of Jesus and noticed that a number of editors believe that Christian publications should not be considered reliable sources. Only non Christian references are acceptable. Material from the Church Fathers to Eerdmans Publishing must be deleted! This sort of attitude has no place on Wikipedia. It goes beyond POV pushing into the realms of bigotry and prejudice. To ban Christian scholarship from Christian articles would seriously undermine Wikipedia's credibility. Indeed this kind of prejudice is simply wrong.

Some of the best work on Jesus comes from Christian scholars. To ban their work would be like banning American publishers from articles on America or banning British publishers from articles on Britain. In truth Christian scholars do have varying degrees of bias but no more so than non Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman. Indeed Ehrman because of his bad experiences as a young Evangelical Christian is very biased, as are many estranged Catholics.

Now do not get me wrong. I am not suggesting we ban Ehrman or other scholars with an anti- Christian bias just because they are outside the mainstream. What I am saying is that we must put aside our silly game playing and put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our "opinions" aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.

Also concerns about a source must be backed up by references. Simply because some editor does not like a source is not not grounds for deletion. I know this sounds like common sense but common sense is often lacking in religious articles. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Be very, very careful about accusing editors of "anti-Christian bias" on the basis that they want the secular, non-apologetic mainstream to be reflected. Please don't make this mistake again. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan: Do not misrepresent what other editors said. RetProf did not accuse any editors of bias. WP succeeds because of civil collaboration, and I think you owe RetProf an apology. Regarding the sourcing issue: RetProf was making the eminently reasonable suggestion that scholars - who happen to be Christian - should not be excluded as sources merely on the basis of their Christianity. Of course, if the scholars are biased or apologetic, that should be noted when they are cited. --Noleander (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested excluding scholars just because they happen to be Christian, but nobody should ever be accused of being "anti-Christian" for insisting on a neutral, secular approach to scholarship. As a Christian who favors such an approach, I find his remarks personally insulting, which is why I cautioned him about confusing the two. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, please do not misrepresent what I said. Bigotry and prejudice have no place on Wikipedia. There is no problem with wanting the secular, non-apologetic mainstream to be reflected. But non Christians such as Ehrman have bias as does Bruce. Books should not be prejudged because the come from a Christian publisher. Also concerns about a source must be backed up by references. Simply because some editor does not like a source is not not grounds for deletion. I know this sounds like common sense but common sense is often lacking in religious articles. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that bigotry and prejudice have no place on Wikipedia. Now take a step back and look at your own words.

In accusing Ehrman of being anti-Christian, you are tarring his supporters with the same brush, even when they are themselves Christian. Now do you see what I'm getting at? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I like much of Bart's work and cite him regularly. But he himself is very open about his bias. That is one of the things I like about him. But as editors we must not be "his supporters" but "NPOV editors". Ret.Prof (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You very clearly did accuse editors of bigotry and bias. You titled the section Bigotry and prejudice have no place on Wikipedia and immediately stated that " a number of editors believe that Christian publications should not be considered reliable sources...This sort of attitude has no place on Wikipedia. It goes beyond POV pushing into the realms of bigotry and prejudice." You explicitly described the attitudes and beliefs and editors as bigotry and prejudice. Your representation of the debate is a dishonest strawman, as such representations have been ever since these accusations of bigotry began months ago. It is rare that anybody has proposed "banning" any type of source: you are misrepresenting the general concern when you say that. Religion is different from nationality: being Christian is not like being American or being British. Americans are not required by any doctrine of citizenship to worship America. But even so, it is perfectly reasonable to object to having a controversial article on the United States (say, U.S. foreign policy) sourced overwhelmingly to Americans. Calling people bigots is a personal attack. Next you'll announce it's bigotry that Christian publishers and priests aren't given proportional representation in the article on evolution. Noloop (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being a little harsh. I do not think you are a bigot. I was using the terms advisedly... I don't think I have ever mentioned evolution??

If someone says that Eardmans Publishing is "Christian" and therefore material from an Eardmans book is not "a reliable source" this would be prejudging the book. That I believe is wrong.

What I am suggesting is if an editor has a concern about about a source is to carefully outline the concern and then back it up with references.

I also have concern about the level of drama. Expletives such as "random shit", "talking shit" and "absurd" are no substitute for for references. Nor is this kind of drama helpful. I do not agree with everything RomanHistorian said on my talk page but he does have some valid points. Now do not get me wrong. You are a good editor but you have to work harder at getting along with people you don't agree with. (Sorry about the dangling participle) Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "random shit", please specifically talk to the one who hurled this term, so far as I can see, you are the first person to use this term. Regarding "talking shit", I had used this term in relation to what I had said, so it should not be a concern to anyone else? And "absurd" is about your comments on Ehrman, which you continue to make and which are getting even more absurd. Ehrman is a mainstream academic scholar. FF Bruce is an extreme, non mainstream, apologist. There is no reason to lump them together. But what can be expected from ill informed guys who think even Geza Vermes is anti Christian. I am inclined to think that he may be a conservative. I see the attempt to bring in apologetic presses as an attempt to turn the basic focus of WP articles from academic thinking to something like a church organ.

Regarding the old "irritation" thing, you had been making a number of judgemental comments at that time without providing ANY reasoning for saying "X is correct" or "Y is wrong". It is irritating to have someone say things like that without having provided any reasoning and without having contributed to the discussion in any meaningful way.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, editors like Dylan and Leadwind might say they don't object to Christian-leaning publications, and in a narrow sense that is true, but look at the discussion on the talk page of Gospel of Luke and see how open they are to Christian-leaning authors and publications. Leadwind's idea of an ideal scholar is Vermes, who is pretty hostile to Christianity (and an atheist or at least secular Jew I believe). Apparently Vermes, according to Leadwind, represents the majority view among 'serious' scholars, although his anger at Christianity boils to the surface in his works and his view that Christianity was an invention of Paul is itself a fringe view. Apparently too, scholars like Guthrie are "minority sectarian" because they think Jesus was who the gospels say he was (or at least this view makes Guthrie ipso facto unreliable). It is very difficult to work with people who define the playing field so narrowly, and who just so happen to define it on pretty anti-Christian terms. I have seen this fight (editors saying that Christian-leaning sources should be excluded) and the people fighting for exclusion usually lose, so keep up the good fight, and I am more than willing to assist you if you need backup.

I will also say that Dylan and Leadwind are certainly not bigoted, but they are biased (like everyone else) and don't realize it. Same with their sources: they claim non-Christians like Ehrman are 'impartial' and 'reliable' while Christian scholars are typically too moved by their religion to be objective or impartial. Scholars who are personally religious like Guthrie should apparently be referred to rarely, and when they are as 'minority conservative scholar Guthrie' whereas scholars like Ehrman as 'scholars like Ehrman' or 'mainstream scholars like Ehrman'. Atheists like Ehrman apparently 'follow the evidence wherever it leads because they aren't influenced by religion' while Christian scholars simply cannot see past their own bias. Everyone is biased (myself included certainly) but this is only a problem when you think yourself 'neutral' or 'impartial' and your opinions being the same. None of the sources that were deleted should have been.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You just called Ehrman an atheist, which we all know is a falsehood. I would call that extreme bias on your part. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point when you said "Everyone is biased (myself included certainly) but this is only a problem when you think yourself 'neutral' or 'impartial' and your opinions being the same. None of the sources that were deleted should have been." That is the problem. The editors that you mention think they are mainstream when they are no more mainstream than the those they say are fringe. I think it is time to reflect on what our bias is and work to at writing from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think should be restored? With two editors, it we will have more luck in restoring good sources to this article.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me think about that. I don't want to "defeat" them. I want to win them over to editing from a NPOV. Does that sound naive? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC) PS it is a beautiful Fall day and I am going for a long walk with my wife (Who by the way hates Wikipedia with a passion. It is too bad as she is a gifted writer but she was badly "bitten" as a newcomer. This sort of drama does hurt Wikipedia.

The someone saying that Eerdmans is Christian is Eerdmans. We know that its mission is to promote Christianity because it says so. It is simply not going to publish books unfavorable to Christianity. I agree it is hard to know how to regard such sources. I waver between wanting to severely limit them--just as we would in an article on evolution--and merely using caution and alerting the reader about their nature. We should not have a majority of claims about Jesus sourced to those who worship Jesus, with no mention of that in the article. It does matter. How, exactly, it matters, is something about which reasonable people can disagree. Noloop (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For example. RomanHistorian just added a book from this publisher (I reverted it):

Our Mission & Values
The Reason We're Here
Zondervan is a mission-driven and value-based company. Our organizational culture is uniquely centered on biblical principles. All our employees—from entry-level to leadership—are focused on and passionate about upholding the mission and shared values of this company.

OUR MISSION

To be the leader in Christian communications meeting the needs of people with resources that glorify Jesus Christ and promote biblical principles.

Is it really hard to understand why some of us want to limit the use of such sources? Do you really believe nothing in the guidelines about reliable sources supports limiting such sources? Do you really think those who are skeptical of such sources are prejudiced and bigots? Noloop (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Address the substance of the edits, not the supposed motivations of the publishers. What about the SUBSTANCE of those edits don't you like?RomanHistorian (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Supposed" motivation of the publisher? The publisher describes itself as glorifying Jesus Christ. One problem with this discussion is the lack of sincerity. Noloop (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, the publisher admits outright that they are not neutral or scholarly. Their goal is purely apologetic/evangelical. As such, we know that they will only publish non-scholarly books of this sort. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, speaking of which, your last set of changes violate NPOV very drastically. Please justify them here before reinserting them, per BRD. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I can go in there right now and delete a lot of sources whose authors or publishers I don't like. Instead of holding such an arbitrary standard, tell me what about the substance of the edits don't you like? RomanHistorian (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, since it is apparently legitimate to delete authors who one thinks are biased, I just deleted several citations from Bart Ehrman as he is an author who is an apologist for atheism. Such authors have no place on Wikipedia.RomanHistorian (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, Ehrman is no apologist. Show an RS if you want to hold on to your comment. When you are talking of atheistic apologists, you may mention someone like a Carl Sagan. Even an Acharya S. And Ehrman is "agnostic", which is different from "atheistic" FYI. If liberals like Ehrman need deletion, it would mean that conservatives like N.T. Wright or Meier or Brown would need deletion. What you are doing is unreasonable. -Civilizededucation^talk 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, this is my point exactly. The view here is that if scholars are too Christian, they are unreliable, although scholars who are athiest are by defintion not biased. What is so hard to understand about this point: atheist/agnostic scholars are just as biased as Chrisitan scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources are only as reliable as their academic standing shows. Their being christian/agnostic/atheistic has nothing to do with reliability. Apologetics is WP:QS. I have said this several times and no counterclaim that I can see. No one has claimed that an author becomes unreliable merely by being a christian. This is irrelevant. Unreliability is related to their academic standing etc. On the Gospel of John talk page you had wanted to know how Ehrman > Bruce. Your query has been answered. Please review it.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a few minutes ago, I reverted a series of bias-inducing changes by Roman and wrote a note above, asking him to justify them. Instead, he as RossNixon have blatantly edit-warred. At what point does the weight of evidence overwhelm the assumption of good faith? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. While you all engage in your POV war you're missing the innocent casualties. When Noloop reverted every edit from the past 8 hrs he also reverted these uncontroversial improvements made by Martijn. That's not the way to do things folks. Large scale reverts like this are seldom a good idea, they are just lazy. Take the time to see what you actually object to and revert those things only. Then be sure to address them all on the talk page when you're challenged. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to fully explain this here, in advance, instead of simply edit-warring. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan it takes two to tango. Are you telling me that if Martijn decides to make a couple of improvements after a series of edits you object to then his improvements are just necessary casualties? I agree that a lot of people are edit warring here, but that does not excuse Noloop's laziness. Please restore the non-controversial edits. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it does not take two. I limit myself to 2RR. Roman does not. As a result, the articles he feels strongly about tend to get protected. Add it up. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan I didn't say that you or anyone else reverted as many times as Roma, but it always takes more than one person to have an edit war. It's a simple matter of logic. That said, you continue to avoid answering my question. What is the excuse for being lazy and reverting Martijn's edits? I'm still waiting on that. Please tell me there is a better answer than ... "if RomanHistorian hadn't started this edit war that would never have happened." Everything that goes wrong cannot simply be blamed on RomanHistorian. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that RomanHistorian is making disruptive edits. That's not my concern. Those edits will get reverted, as they were, but more care is needed when that is done. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't disagree with that conclusion. However, the disruptive edits are one of my concerns here, so I'm on both sides of this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Of me, Roman says, "Leadwind's idea of an ideal scholar is Vermes." In fact, I don't much agree with Vermes. But my university-level textbook names him as one of the most important voices in contemporary Jesus research so I cite him anyway. What's that? I cite someone who I don't see eye-to-eye with? Roman might be surprised at this revelation. Maybe even incredulous. But it's WP policy to cite what the experts say, and Vermes is an expert, so I cite him. Roman, you would have a smoother time here on WP if you did the same: cite what the experts say instead of trying to squeeze everything to fit your personal view. You think everyone else is as biased as you. Start citing experts you disagree with, then indeed you can be as biased as I am. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A Proposal

I suggest the way we should approach this difficult topic and write a NPOV article is:

1. Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced.
2. Then present why "critical scholars" believes this position is not supported by the evidence.
3. Any other referenced scholarship should be added.
4. Try to find sources that fairly present all views. Take a broader, fuller view.

I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions.

The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic. As this topic is so very difficult, I think it is best if every single sentence has a footnote, citing an academic source and a Google Link. Also references should be varied ie old, new, conservative, liberal, etc in order that all aspects of this topic are covered from a neutral point of view. Also keeping good humour and not editing material until after consensus is reached is important.

• As there are many, many issues that are interrelated, we take them one at a time.

• When consensus is reached, we publish our edit and move on to the next topic.

• We find an unbiased Admin. to help us though the rough patches.

• Cut back on the drama. Expletives such as "random shit", "talking shit" and "absurd" are no substitute for for references. Nor is this kind of drama helpful.

I hope this proposal addresses our concerns. It is open to modification. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem with saying "I am not talking shit". I am not disparaging anyone else's comments, nor mine.

Regarding the drama thing, I have explained why I was irritated with you at that time, so I don't see why you should continue to bring this up without explaining how my irritation is unjustified.

And it is absurd to lump Ehrman with Bruce. They are in altogether different leagues. I have explained this a number of times. Holding Ehrman as unreliable is as unjustified as holding that "Raymond E. Brown is unreliable" is unjustified. Both these authors are leading academics and the best in terms of reliability. While Bruce is nowhere near them. Bruce would be somewhat comparable to Wells/Doherty etc. Please do some research on this and state specifically if you think that the "academic standing of Ehrman is comparable to that of Bruce". Otherwise, please do not do absurd things like lumping together mainstream authors like Ehrman with extreme, unreliable sources like Bruce.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are several academic sources whose statements would leave a bad taste in the mouths of christian believers. eg. the Jesus seminar, Ludemann, Crossan, etc. Even Vermes is being seen as anti christian. But all this has nothing to do with their academic standing. And academic standing is the only thing which matters for Wikipedia, not conformity to traditional church positions or likeability among christians.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And don't blame me if I actually go hyper the next time you modify my comments.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could propose a possible revised version in a sandbox (/Sandbox 1) and we can see about coming to a consensus on that. Maybe we should also open a page on Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal to get a mediator involved. I am up for it if anyone else wants to do it.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Up above, Civilizededucation says "And academic standing is the only thing which matters for Wikipedia, not conformity to traditional church positions or likeability among christians." Yes, that's right. Note, however, that F. F. Bruce had good academic credentials—he was a fellow of the British Academy, was the head of the biblical history and literature department at the U. of Sheffield and then held a named chair at the U. of Manchester. So he shouldn't be rejected out of hand as an apologist, which some editors here seem inclined to do. Rather, it's whether his scholarship is considered important for this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad we can agree on the value of academic thinking. Actually I had no doubt that you would agree on this point. Anyway, I did not reject Bruce out of hand as and apologist. How could I? There are good reasons to think that he is an apologist. I have visited several sites where he and his work is described as apologistic. Secondly, if his academic standing is so fine, how is it that most of his works have been published by apologistic presses instead of getting published in more reputable academic presses?-Civilizededucation^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What "sites" did you visit to read about his apologetics? I want to repeat what I said above as well here. We need outside input on the publishers publishing his books because no one commenting here so far really understands how these publishers are regarded in the field of biblical studies or history.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, you can see the article on F. F. Bruce. It says in the lead, His work New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? is considered a classic in the discipline of Christian apologetics. I would provide more backup for my claim that he is an apologist, but do you even doubt that "F. F Bruce is an apologist"? I also note that my question in my preceding post (about his academic standing)

is unanswered.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"And academic standing is the only thing which matters for Wikipedia, not conformity to traditional church positions or likeability among christians." Yes, that's right. I don't think it is. The criterion is notability, not academic standing. The only reason an article on the historicity of Jesus is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia is that the pictures that emerge from (semi-)historical research differ from the traditional religious ones. If the article doesn't address these differences of opinion and the dialog between proponents of the various points of view (to the degree there has been any), then it is worthless. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some misconception here about the criteria for article inclusion and material inclusion. They are not same.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:N and also the section WP:NNC.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Any book that vouches for the reliability of something is by definition a piece of apologetics. You confuse the goal of Bruce with the effect of his work. His goal is reliable scholarship, the effect of good scholarship is a work that has the effect of defending his faith. It is none-the-less good scholarship. He is widely cited and held in high regard. There may be other scholars with even better reputations, but the article should reflect the work of scholars, not a specific class of scholars. Your claim that certain other scholars are held in higher regard than him is dubious anyway, because you can't prove it. Cite for me a source that says some other scholar is thought of more highly than Bruce? You can't do it. It is his theology that you don't like and makes you want to delete references to him.

Why is Bruce so dangerous for your faith in non-religiousness? If his opinions were motivated by an irrational desire to defend something undefendable, then there should be a great amount of work by 'neutral' scholars showing his conclusions invalid and his reasoning to be poor. Where is this? Rather than deleting Bruce, find sources that show his reasoning to be bad. Otherwise you are attacking the motives of the author because you can't attack his substance.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to single out the Church: "Fully and fairly present the scholarship of "the Church and conservative scholars" but fully referenced." This is not a theological subject. It is pure history. Noloop (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is pure history. Why? Most of the (semi-)historical inquiry into the subject is religiously inspired and the subject is only notable because of the (historical) existence of religious points of view on the subject. The same cannot be said of the theory of evolution, the big bang theory etc. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the historical inquiry into the origins of life and the universe is religiously inspired. Noloop (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How is the big bang and evolution not historical inquiry into the origins of life and the universe?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that was true historically, but not anymore. And research into those questions would be notable even if there had never been religiously inspired theories. The same cannot be said for research into the historicity of Jesus, on both counts. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. The subject of this article is not Jesus. Nor is it religion. The subject of this article is historicity. It is purely historical. If this is not the article that takes a purely historical approach to the existence of Jesus, then kindly point me to the article that does. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the title as "did Jesus really exist as a historical person", not as "what does historical research indicate concerning the question whether Jesus existed as a historical person". The purely historical approach should theoretically be one of the views presented in this article. It is probably going to be hard to sift purely historical conclusions from the mass of semi-historical and sometimes pseudo-historical publications that appear to dominate the landscape. I've seen no convincing evidence that there even exists a mainstream branch of history that concerns itself with this topic. For that reason it couldn't be the sole topic of this page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand it more as "what, if anything, can history tell us about Jesus?", where it may well be that history can tell us nothing, that even belief in His existence requires a leap of faith. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is what it means, then maybe we need a better title, or at least a clear explanation of its meaning. But do we then still have enough reliable sources to write a meaningful article? Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this interpretation changes much of anything. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I still can't understand what Martin is saying. It may be that pure historical research has little to say about this topic. In that case, the article should be short. That's all. Noloop (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Martijn has made this point previously too. Theoretically this article should be based on what conventional historians say. But we make do with biblical scholars with a historical bent and anthropologists and other scholars because conventional historians do not have much to say on this topic. There is some discussion of this topic in some circles and this issue exists. That is why we have this article. Since we are using the best available sources, it should be enough. That there should be better sources in an ideal situation is no reason to make this article short. It can only be a reason to try to find better sources whenever possible.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't base sourcing on who has "much to say on this topic." We base it on quality. If there are few quality sources with much to say, then what follows is that the article should be short. Anyway, I still don't see what this has to do with singling out the Church's POV as being more essential than anyone else's. This article is not about the theology of Jesus; there are other articles for that. This article is supposed to be purely historical. Noloop (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we could source this, or other articles like HJ or "Historical reliability of the Gospels" from hardcore historians? Please be practical. Wikipedia is part of the virtual world, but not of the "ideal".-Civilizededucation^talk 09:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheistic, Christianity, and Deist label insanity

I have seen the "atheistic" label slapped on deists and I don't see what merit it has in any case. There are atheists that believe there is just enough to show that Jesus was a flesh and blood person that lived in the time the New Testament says he did and deists that feel that the Gospel-Acts account is so full of pre-existing and after the fact mythology that nothing even the existence of the man described can be shown to be true.

The thing is Paul himself said "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14 KJV) so even the idea that Jesus was just a normal man upsets the Christian apple cart never mind the idea that the Gospel version is a composite person that may include a 1st century teacher-philosopher named Jesus as a component (ala Robin Hood) or that the Gospel version is an Euhemerism of a teacher that actually lived much earlier but who was made to seem more recent (such as King Arthur and his knights c500 CE being often shown in a type of plate armor which wasn't seen until nearly 1000 years later)

The purpose of this article (as opposed to IMHO now equally dysfunction Jesus myth theory article) is to go over the quality of the documents about Jesus not get into the issue of the man existing or not. To be fair to my fellow editors the Jesus myth theory is itself a confusing mess with varying and conflicting definitions making it unclear if everyone talking about it are on the same page. So can we PLEASE deal with stuff that goes into why various source may or may not be reliable?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So can we PLEASE deal with stuff that goes into why various source may or may not be reliable? I think you have raised a very critical issue. At present we are doing a poor job on that count. So, we could do well to concentrate on this issue. But, would it not be helpful to avoid third rate sources? Do we want Wikipedia to be bombarded with apologetics, and the likes of Acharya S, for that matter? There seems to be no shortage of good academic sources for most points. Of course we can use sources from a variety of disciplines.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify things here a bit. When I say "various source may or may not be reliable" I mean the original sources regarding Jesus--ie the Gospels, Acts, Josephus, etc. We need sources that actually examine the material rather than what we see out of apologetics and others like Acharya S with is either fell good theory with nothing behind it, outdated information or a mixture of both.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's clear. In your first post, you were talking about the Primary sources for HJ. Like Josephus, Pliny the younger,....etc. No confusion about that. What is not clear in the article is that many of these sources are not quite helpful, and some are not even talking about Jesus. But they are mentioned because some scholars cite them anyway.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologetics, primary sources

Apologetics is WP:QS. FF Bruce is an apologist. IVP is a non academic press. NT is an unusably problematic primary source for Wikipedia purposes. Please don't add such sources to Wikipedia. This article is already suffering from a predominance of christian sources which make it totally biased.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, most cited scholars who have expertise in this area happen to be Christian. That is no reason to assume bias. ^rossnixon 01:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So if a source happens to be Christian, then that means they can't be trusted to be fair with the evidence? You're kidding, right? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between being Christian and being an apologist. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(I have restored the F. F. Bruce cite's pending any consensus that may be reached here. ^rossnixon 02:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

Ok, I'll bite. What's the difference? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice question. A scholar is one who is objective and tries to lead us to a deeper,closer,real understanding of things regardless of the consequences. An apologist is one who is merely trying to confirm what the bible says or the church says, regardless of what is correct. He has a preset goal and only tries to reach it by whatever means possible. A scholar does not have a preset goal and goes on wherever the evidence leads him. When I look at an encyclopedia, I am looking at getting a closer understanding of things, a bank of knowledge, real knowledge. I am not aiming to get my head stuffed with apologetics. Apologist are not looking for knowledge and they do not look at evidence. They are just looking to reach a preset conclusion and they are apt to screw up the reality for all it matters.

FF Bruce is an apologist. Is this contested?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all.

I would say that an apologist is a partisan. Consider a defense lawyer, who has a commitment to doing whatever he can (within the law) to reduce or eliminate their client's punishment. Then again, the prosecution's lawyers have a similar commitment to the opposite. Both are partisans. Now consider the judge, who has no commitment to either the defense or prosecution. That's what a scholar is. The scholar seeks truth, the partisan seeks to win. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A qualified scholar may or may not be (or become) an apologist for a particular view. In general though, their academic record trumps any alleged bias. ^rossnixon 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If his academic record is soooooo illuminating, why does he mostly get published by apologetic presses? Why wouldn't academic presses take interest in his work. I believe they even take the initiative in approaching the top guns.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the Bible as a source is blatant original research. FF Bruce is exactly the kind of source we should be limiting in these articles. Noloop (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your point. Even the extremist 'Jesus Seminar' uses the Bible as a source of their research. ^rossnixon 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? The Jesus Seminar is entitled to do original research. Wikipedia is not. Noloop (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rossnixon. I think Noloop is not objecting to FF Bruce using the bible and doing OR on it. Noloop and I are objecting to the use of bible verses which are directly used for OR in the article. You seem to understand that Noloop is objecting to FF Bruce using the NT. And JS is not extremist. It is almost completely mainstream.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am confused in reading this discussion why a Christian apologist source should be questionable, but an Atheist source (dedicated to disproving the historicity of Jesus) should not be a questionable source. Since the topic is being pursued by those who refuse to accept his historicity regardless, why shouldn't it be countered by those who believe in his existence regardless? If you disallowed them both, this entire article would evaporate. 72.201.150.86 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat myself: secularism is not the same thing as atheism. Our very best sources are secular scholars, whatever their personal religious beliefs may be. Apologists, whether Christian or atheistic, are too biased to be used without immediate balancing. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two sides to every story

Every story has at least two sides. This topic may have more. For Centuries, Christians have put forward their belief that Jesus was a historical being. This belief has been seriously challenged and some solid evidence has been put forward.

For this article to work two things must happen

Christian Position

The position of Christians must be put forward fully with proper references. The article must present fairly why Christian Scholars take the position they do.

The scholarly challenge

There has been scholarship that shows that Jesus may be a myth. This must also be fairly presented.

NPOV is a core policy at Wikipedia. All one sided articles will eventually be discarded. The POV pushing is destroying this article and wasting everyone's time. Let us work together to write a NPOV article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Most of the NT scholars are on the "Jesus did exist" side. And the article reflects this heavily. It's hardly scholars vs christians.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there something to be accomplished in just repeating this view over and over and over? Again.... We don't present the Christian view merely because it is Christian. We present views in accordance with guidelines on neutrality and reliability (they are different). If that means excluding Christian views, as it does in an article on evolution, then we exclude Christian views. I doubt the historicity of Jesus is comparable to Creationism (in terms of the absurdity of Christian doctrine), but the applicable principles are the same. We don't include, or exclude, Christian views merely because they are Christian. We do limit what needs to be limited for the sake of neutrality and reliability, and that does mean limiting sources that exist to "glorify Jesus Christ"--as some publisher state they do in their own mission statements. Noloop (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I was not talking about the "Christian View" but allowing "Christian references". My concern is that by not allowing Christian scholarship such as Bruce or Erdmans Pub, that this will bias the article and result in it being protected or continued edit wars. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what evidence could you discern on the CMT side. I don't see anything solid on either side. Both are dealing in probabilities and the "Jesus did exist" side has most of the NT scholars. Even Wells says he is not CMT. Though others don't seem to wholly agree. There is no certainty about Price either. The way I see it, the article is heavily christian POV because of problems in the field, as pointed out elsewhere. I don't see the need for flooding the article with substandard sources. There are already some substandard sources, even Bruce has some references, without any objection. If more such sources are needed, we may perhaps have to begin to use sources like Acharya S,M. M. Mangasarian, infidel.com, and Prometheus press, etc. too. There are enough academic sources to say most anything you want to see in the article. If you can't find it, it doesn't necessarily mean that some academic has not said it. And if they haven't said it, it probably is too weird to be needed. Why do we need more biased sources for a christian POV when 80% of the article is already having christian authors as sources. Are they anti-christian? You are talking as if there are absolutely no christian presses or authors in the article. Please review the references if you don't trust what I say.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Trust but verify: I did what you said and you have won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything about not allowing Christian scholarship. It has been stated repeatedly that nobody is saying that. When it is said repeatedly "This doesn't mean we ban Christians." and the view is promptly and repeatedly characterized as a proposal to ban Christians, one starts to suspect that certain editors are intent on obstructionist bullshitting. Ditto for accusing editors of prejudice, and then promptly claiming you didn't accuse editors of prejudice, as you did above. Noloop (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, till the other day, I too was under the impression that you were talking about limiting christian scholars. This may be astounding to you, but that was the impression I had. Only a few days ago did I understand that you were rooting for academic publishers. And to do away with books which are product of christianty promoting presses, by christian authors, meant for christian audiences. The books in the CCC category can be expected to be full of mindless hyperbolic promotional stuff. Do I get you correctly now?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "myth" in relation to the Historicity of Jesus

We have to be careful about the use of the word "myth" here as the layman and scholar have VERY different definitions. As I said before Bulfinch in his 1881 compilation Bulfinch's Mythology with various methods of myth creation being involved and Remsburg reiterating this.

Robin Hood and King Arthur as we generally know them certainly didn't exist but they are more on the level of legend than what the layman considers myth. The problem is you can have a myth about a totally historical person: Columbus sailing West to prove the world was round, Washington and the Cherry Tree, Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn, nearly every known outlaw and sheriff of the Old West, the whole President Kennedy administration as a modern Camelot, and many others.

Modern scholarship agrees that the Gospels are mythical stories. The real issue is how much of them are mythical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally. Over the pat few months I have been trying to put my own bias aside and objectively evaluate the sources . . . a difficult job, as people have strong convictions. I too have strong convictions which I have tried to put on hold. Much evidence has been lost. Some evidence has been doctored by Christians and non-Christians alike. As to the basic question as to whether Jesus was a "Man' or a "Myth" the evidence clearly indicates the answer is "YES".

Jesus the Man

The Sitz im Leben of Roman occupied Judea makes it highly unlikely that the Jews would create a Jewish mythical God as in Greek mythology or Roman mythology. Indeed none of the historical sources from the time of Christ to Constantine ever argue that Jesus was a mythical creation. The sources both Christian and non Christian are remarkably united in their portrayal of the Historical Jesus:

At the time of Pontius Pilate, there was an outspoken Jewish Rabbi from Nazareth who preached against the Roman occupation and those who got rich by collaborating with the regime. He was a Jewish sage who condemned the collaborators, calling them "snakes", "hypocrites", a "brood of vipers", "hypocrites" and "sons of hell".

Those in authority, both Roman and Jewish responded in an unfavorable fashion. They pointed to his humble beginnings saying that Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus, who became a sorcerer and led many in Israel astray. For this he was executed near the time of Passover.

The non Christian historians such as Josephus, Thallus, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion confirm the above in varying degrees. So do several sections of the Talmud (these sections have been removed from modern editions). Of equal importance is the fact that no early historical source, Christian or non Christian, disputes the historicity of Jesus.

Christ Myth

However, the evidence does point to a Christ myth being developed sometime after Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. The Sitz im Leben would be Roman and Greek. This mythical Christ bore remarkable similarities to the gods of Greek mythology and Roman mythology. It was developed by Gentile Christians and was eagerly accepted by "Pagan" Christian groups. They eventually prevailed over Jewish Christians. The following is a summary of the Gentile Christ Myth:

God came down from Heaven. He found a girl named Mary who was and would remain a perpetual Virgin. God had relations with her and she became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. As a result of these relations, the Gentile Christ God was incarnated.

The Christ God was begotten before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with God the Father. It was for humanity and for our salvation, that he came down from Heaven, and was made man. He taught us how to live and was the propitiation for our sins. He remains seated with God on the right hand side, from where he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead and whose kingdom shall have no end.

This "myth" has nothing supporting it from the early historical sources. Indeed, the eyewitness testimony referred to by the Church Fathers i.e. (Peter's Gospel of Mark, Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and John's Signs Gospel) records that Jesus was anointed Messiah and becomes a child (or son) of God at his baptism. Also that Jesus had brothers James, Jude etc born in the normal way. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This line of argument runs into several issues.

The key issue is how was myth viewed in the time period we are talking about? If Euhemerism was common then the very concept of Jesus not being a flesh and blood person may have not even occurred to the scholars of that time. As I showed previously as recently as 1919 the Encyclopædia of religion and ethics put Osiris, Attis, and Adonis into this category ("They died as men; they rose as gods")

As for Josephus, Thallus, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion supporting the Gospel account that is not true.

Josephus is known to have been tampered with--the only issue is how much. Thallus has numerous problems in terms of what he actually said and the time period his work covered. Suetonius and Mara Bar-Serapion seem to be at best desperation references with little real reference to Jesus or even Christ. Celsus and Lucian of Samosata are more interesting but they well over a half a century after the events at best more than enough time for any real trail to have gone cold.

The biggest problem with the Gospel account even if you dismiss the supernatural stuff leaves events that contemporaries and even some of the above should have noted but didn't: a man considered so dangerous that he was tried on the eve of the holiest day of the Jewish religion, a prefect so desperate to save him that he used a known murder of Roman citizens as a bargaining chip, a state punishment being meted out for what was a religious matter, and so on. If these things happened then certainly someone shoudl and most likely would have recorded them and yet they seem to be off nearly ever non-Christian's radar.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, several sources say "Josephus is known to have been tampered with" but how do we know this? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I could flood you with links, but it might be better if you just googled "Josephus interpolation" and picked some sources you find acceptable. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you missed my point. When you look at the evidence these sources present, it is very, very weak. That is reason you cannot put your position into words. Anyway, we are getting off point. Cheers, - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Origen writing in the 3rd century shows that Josephus has been tampered with.

Origen: "And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

Josephus (as we have him): "He was (the) Christ."

The two key things forgotten about Josephus is that he was a Jew writing for a Roman audience. In a world where family names as we know them didn't exist for most of the Roman population linage would be the way to identify people. Another factor is that Christ is a title not a name and by Josephus' own accounts there were many would be "Christs" running around so identifying Jesus as "Christ" would have told his Roman readers nothing. So why use that as an identifier?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To get an overview of what is, and, is not helpful, and why it is, or, is not helpful, you could also listen to this [2].-Civilizededucation^talk 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ARRRGGGGH! I really wish people would NOT do that. If you are going to link to something at least tell us what it is rather than doing this pig in a poke nonsense. For the rest of you this is the "Other Sources" part of the Bart D. Ehrman's The Historical Jesus audio lecture series at Internet Archive. On a side note Professor is using 100 years from the death of Jesus (c130 CE) as his cut off date.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on. It's nothing to be outraged over. I did not think anyone would mind. Anyway, I would take your advice and try not do it next time.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just annoying and I also like to plan for someone who looks at the archives some time in the future and knows what the link goes to without clicking on it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I enjoyed it. Bart and Bruce have made some good points to which I would like to respond. However I am going to put my remarks on the Josephus talk page. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Talk:Josephus or the Talk:Josephus on Jesus page? The later seems more relevant to this issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Given that the last thread was starting to get cluttered, I am starting another one. A major dispute seems to be sources that certain editors don't like/view as dangerous for their non-belief systems. One dispute has come up over F. F. Bruce. Some have said his work "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" is a work in "apologetics" which apparenlty disqualifies it. The book is not a classic in apologetics because it vouches for the reliability of the New Testament (many books do that) but because it does with such a high quality of scholarship. It is a classic (i.e. one of the most notable works) in apologetics, not just another work. It is a piece of apologetics because it argues that the NT is reliable, although it does this because this is where the evidence lays, as Bruce points out nicely. It is a scholarly work, written by one of the most important NT scholars of the 20th century, that just so happens to conclude with an apologetic conclusion (the NT is historically reliable). The simple fact is that the reliability claims can easily be defended historically. The way in which hostile editors defend their views is by 'disappearing' these sources as though the arguments don't exist. F. F. Bruce was:

Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield in 1947.... In 1959 he moved to the University of Manchester where he became Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. In his career he wrote over forty books and served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly....Bruce was a distinguished scholar on the life and ministry of Paul the Apostle, and wrote several studies the best known of which is Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (published in the USA as Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free). He also wrote commentaries on several biblical books including Romans, Acts of the Apostles, 1 & 2 Corinthians, The Gospel and Epistles of John, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.....Most of his works were scholarly, but he also penned several popular works on the Bible. He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hingeing on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to considerable confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.....He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy, and served as President of the Society for Old Testament Study, and also as President of the Society for New Testament Study. He is one of a handful of scholars thus recognised by his peers in both fields.

If any editors think some of his claims are wrong, feel free to add another source that refutes the claim in question. The fact of the matter is that they have criticized none of Bruce's claims as being wrong. Doing so might show evidence that they are right and Bruce isn't a RS. Instead they have attacked his motives. What about the list of his qualifications do any editors not think is scholarly?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(again) If Bruce has such a commendable academic standing, why are most of his works published by apologistic presses and not in well regarded academic presses?-Civilizededucation^talk 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet again you refuse to comment on the merits of Bruce's writing. There are many reasons to publish with a Christian-leaning publisher (many economic--they often have deep connections with religious book stores or seminaries or other Christian-leaning scholars for example). Publishers with a Christian bent are RSs, so long as they fact check and are accurate. I would ask you, again, to provide evidence that Bruce is inaccurate somewhere but I am not so naive as to think you care to defend your point or that I will convince you of anything or change your mind on anything.

Let this discussion be read by other editors who might be more neutral. This is what myself and other editors are working against: editors who categorically rule out publishers they don't like, and not because the publishers are unreliable or publish books without fact checking. They are unwilling to compromise, hold an absolutist position, and are incapable of seeing that they might not be right about everything.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with this point. The use of independent publishers should be kept to an absolute minimum. However, this also applies to Prometheus Books, which is not a reputable academic publisher, and is no better than any of the Christian publishers. The bulk of this article should rely on books published by academic presses, but if we have a section on myth theory, largely based on non-academic presses, I do not see why the conservative view is completely excluded from this article. Vesal (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh so there are secular-leaning publishers. I had not realized that. What other ones are there out there, or that are cited on some of these articles? If some editors are intent on pushing the view that some publishers should be disallowed, then we have to apply this both ways.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Prometheus isn't secular, it's atheistic. There's a difference. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd cite Bruce when his work is published by a mainstream press, but this one's from IVP. If you have to go to IVP to find support for a view, then the view isn't mainstream. Bruce even wrote a section on Bible scholarship for Encyclopedia Britannica, and I'd cite that. It's mainstream. IVP? Not mainstream. We could readily cite it to describe a Christian POV. Leadwind (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely arbitrary. Either Bruce is reliable or he isn't. His publisher is irrelevant. You have used this claim elsewhere to delete claims you cannot dispute.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says the publisher matters. Noloop (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

While not a WP:RS, TruthSurge on you tube does show why Noloop and others have misgivings about some of these scholars in his armchair dating of Mark. You have a work that describes events known to taken place c70 CE and yet there are scholars that insist in dating this work earlier when simple logic would suggest otherwise with FF Bruce being one of them: "In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100. I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards." (The New Testament Document: Are they Reliable? Chapter 2)

Clearly it is more probable that Mark was written c70 with (then) recent historical events being portrayed as prophecy and yet "a majority of modern scholars" including FF Bruce dates Mark a full 5 to 10 years earlier with no reason given. If someone like TruthSurge who admits having no degree in religion can see the problem of dating a work before the events described within happened then why can't these scholars see it? It is things like this that send up the red flags.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Keeping an open Mind

I think we need to work harder on keeping an open mind. The truth is that there are scholars who believe Josephus, Thallus, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion etc provide solid evidence for the historicity of Jesus. There are others that disagree. "Pontificating" or taking the position that our POV is the "Gospel Truth" will lead us into edit wars without end. None of us is "infallible". All of Wikipedia policy can be summed up by:

User:Henrik

The basics

• It's really pretty simple:
• → Remain neutral ←
• → Don't be a dick ←
• → Ignore all rules←

.

. I think what he is saying is that there are three rules that sum up Wikipedia policy:

1. NPOV
2. Keep an open mind
3. Have fun, being pleasant and of good humour.

Although being a 'dick' is open to some scholarly interpretation.

Josephus 101

If you found the following question on an examination paper at Trinty College: " 'Josephus is known to have been tampered with' but how do we know this?"

How would you grade the following learned response...

"I could flood you with links, but it might be better if you just googled 'Josephus interpolation' and picked some sources you find acceptable."

On the other hand, although I disagree with Bruce, I do respect the way he handles himself. We could all try harder to follow his good example. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a course on Verifiability 101, it would be a fairly good answer. I think we would all do well to follow Dylan Flaherty's example in this regard. Vesal (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually in this case Dylan Flaherty is not a good example to follow. Not all that Google finds meets WP:RS. Contrast this with using Charles Guignebert or even Remsburg to support arguments against Josephus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I wasn't making any attempt to provide a WP:RS, so it would not be helpful to measure my response on that basis. I thought Ret simply wasn't aware of the wealth of evidence for there being an interpolation, so I gestured at it broadly. When I saw his response, I realized he wanted one, but you had already provided it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that a reference to something as an example (even if only Scott Oser's "Historicity Of Jesus FAQ" (1994) would have been better than what we did get.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with trying to be helpful. It's not like someone was soapboxing or anything.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but I agree with Ret.Prof that the tone of the response came off as a little flippant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Frustrating

This discussion is frustrating. It seems there is an obvious conflict of interest going on where christians are citing biased christian sources to show Jesus's existence. I for one as a non believer would love to know if he did in fact exist as he would be a great moral philosopher of the time, and perhaps for all of time. But because there is so much junk history skewing the real facts I cannot make a decision on the reality of Jesus's tenure on Earth. Non Christian sources should be cited where possible to give objectivity to this discussion. We are not discussing the truthfulness of Christianity here, we are discussing the existence of a man called Jesus (even if you believe he was god in the flesh)

I love curry for example, and it would be like me writing a wikipedia article about it. I would exaggerate certain aspects of the benefits of curry, selectively pick studies showing how curry is healthy, and why it's taste is supreme.... you get my point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We have been discussing this point endlessly. Could you provide some suggestions for some specific changes, and some specific sources which you think should be used?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of the article

The opening sentence reads, "The historicity of Jesus concerns how much of what is written about Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable." Problem is, that's not what historicity means, historicity means "historical authenticity" and "nature of historical existence", not about whether what's written about him is reliable. MoeDew (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What, IYO, should be the lead sentence?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. MoeDew (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I do not disagree with your suggestion, it may be good to keep in mind that we have a separate article on Historical Jesus, and it is better to not confuse this topic with that article. The sentence which you propose can also cover the "Historical Jesus" article's scope? -Civilizededucation^talk 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus is a reconstruction of a person. Historicity of Jesus is a concept, two distinct issues. And it makes no sense to put the wrong definition up because it might overlap with another article. MoeDew (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MoeDew is perfectly correct. The word 'Historicity' refers to the historical existence of a person. In order not to confuse this article with the Historical Jesus article we need to use appropriate language in thre lede. Paul B (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a false distinction. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Jesus existed precisely as documented in the gospels, complete with miracles.
2. The Jesus of the Bible is largely based on an actual individual who lived much as the gospels say, except there are clear contradictions, significant omissions and other errors, and the historical method is unable to confirm the miraculous.
3. There was some guy named Jesus, whose life was nothing like what the gospels say, but is clearly the source of those stories.

Which of these suffices as a historical Jesus? Think this through and I'm sure you'll understand. Dylan Flaherty 06:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the word "HISTORICITY" means. the historicity of Jesus concerns whether or not he existed. Of course there are debates about the degree of relationship to the story presented in the gospels, and there comes a point where a figure is so mythical that historicity becomes rather meaningless. There may have been an original Hercules, for example. The stories may trace back to a figure in Argos, but we simply don't know. With others there are real questions about whether a real historical figure can be recovered (as for example with King Arthur). The "historicity of Arthur" is a real issue that bears on how we model the developments of the myths concerning him. The point is that if we have an article called "historicity of Jesus" then it should use the word properly in the lede. Look it up in a dictionary. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the definition of this article is directly related to the Historical Jesus article, and thus have proposed previously that the two be merged. However, sheer size does not permit a merger. Therefore, this article covers the aspect of "did Jesus exist at all", and since the mainstream answer to that seems to be "yes, in some form, but not necessarily as portrayed in the Gospels", the Historical Jesus article then goes into "what can we assume about Jesus the man with any degree of confidence?" In the article Historical reliability of the Gospels I had a long argument with an editor who refused to accept the dictionary definition of "historicity" as being "historical authenticity", and a number of editors here agreed with him that "historians" use a different definition of "historicity" (although nobody ever got around to explaining what that alternative definition might be.) I am more than happy to apply the dictionary definition, although we do need to ensure that its explained in plain English as well, for all the non-historians. Wdford (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the requirement for historicity would be (2), not (3), in my list above. Dylan Flaherty 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The introductionary section has the following sentence "There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from his time—no writings or artifacts of his, no accounts of him written in his lifetime" which completely fails to mention evidence which comes AFTER his lifetime. This sentence is not balanced.MoeDew (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the majority of us perfectly know that historians have no problem with the historicity of the existence of Jesus (and I think historians should have some voice in dealing with historicity issues...). The sentence you quote is a good example of the need to improve this article: in ancient history it's very common to rely on sources written many decades (or centuries) after an event. There's nothing strange. What is very strange is the rethoric of the sentence, with his growing pathos: 'no evidence, no writings, [no] artifacts, no accounts'. Nothing else? :-) Any feedback is welcome. Thank you. --F.giusto (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is skewed in favor of a christian POV, and the NPOV tag was put up to reflect that. You two seem to have the opposite idea! And what all of us know is generally based on gut feeling. In order to find out what historians actually think, we have to get a historian to air his views. Fortunately, we have one. Just look at Torstendahl's statement in the article, you may also read his original statement from the reference. And the sentence that you two are talking about, has been extensively discussed and is referenced, and is necessary to inform the reader about what it says. A consensus between two eds, within five hours, with no opposing ed, is a false consensus. There are other eds involved too. Please don't be so hasty in jumping to the impression that you have a consensus. Actually the sentence which suggests that almost all biblical scholars agree to the existence of Jesus is unnecessary in the lead because the lead should only mention what historians say. What biblical scholars say about historical existence is of little academic value.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

F.giusto, what you find when you try to get reliable sources on the matter is that historians, by and large, don't seem to care much at all about Jesus. Instead, we find Bible scholars and theologians taking his existence for granted while debating related points.

I don't happen to have any doubts about his existence, but I do think we must distinguish between the tenets of our faith and what we cam know through the historical method. Just as I'm not bothered by science's inability to prove (or disprove) God, I'm not personally concerned about whether historians can show Jesus lived. In both cases, failure to directly support my religious beliefs is simply a result of the limitations inherent in the method; science cannot account for the miraculous.

So, to address MoeDew's complaint, it happens to be true that the writings we have about Jesus are all dated decades after his death. The reason the article points out that we have nothing from his time is that contemporaneity is one of the requirements of the historical method. It might not be your requirement or mine, but in an article about historicity, it is absolutely relevant. There is no bias in this.

In summary, I find myself agreeing with Civilizededucation and dismissing the claims put forth by MoeDew and F.giusto. Dylan Flaherty 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to turn around and now ask ask Civilizededucation what's so POV about the article as it stands? We've had that badge of shame up for half a year now. What will it take to get it removed? Dylan Flaherty 03:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I have concerns about the POV character of this article, I am not insisting on putting up this tag now. Am I? You can take it off. We can continue to discuss the POV issues without the tag.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Civ, you are not wrong to have concerns. Given the hot-button nature of this topic, I don't think there will ever be a time when everyone is happy with it. As you suggest, while a tag requires a discussion here about POV issues, the discussion does not require (or benefit from) a tag. Dylan Flaherty 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was never against mentioning contemporary sources, but it is unbalanced to mention that there are no sources within Jesus' lifetime and not mention the sources which come from AFTER his lifetime. MoeDew (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is very much not the case. The historical method requires top-quality evidence to be contemporaneous and independent. Such evidence is not available regarding Jesus. The earliest gospels come decades later and are not independent of each other. Mentioning this is in no way a POV violation. Remember, WP:NPOV is not about agreement! Dylan Flaherty 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I NEVER said information should NOT be included. Do not argue against a straw-man! Furthermore, in ancient history, the sources used to confirm MANY events and people's historical existence were written AFTER the fact! MoeDew (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi MoeDew. Your above comment may be veering towards, what may be seen by some, as bordering on the uncivil. It may be better to try to keep a cool head, especially on this page, because it has had a history of complex, controversial, frustrating debates. But we have discussed them nevertheless, and WP:CIVIL is the basis for it. Secondly, no one is saying that evidence from after the lifetime of Jesus do not confirm the existence of Jesus. It is mentioned in order to avoid giving it more value than the value that a non contemporary evidence should have. Clear now?-Civilizededucation^talk 04:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, implying someone of being uncivil is itself uncivil. And your tone is very condescending. I suggest you read over what you write and see how it might be perceived. And actually mentioning the sources that do exist much later than mentioning that there are no known sources from within his lifetime is unbalanced. IF sources exist is more important than WHEN they were written. MoeDew (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MoeDew, your reaction was clearly stronger than the discussion called for, so Civ was not out of line to ask you to ease off. The fact that sources are second-rate, not first-rate is extremely important among historians. Dylan Flaherty 04:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To show you the importance of independent contemporaneous evidence, I offer you this: http://books.google.com/books?id=roDHlzkM6EsC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=independent+contemporaneous+evidence&source=bl&ots=pQs39AoAGh&sig=1nSjR5Jh4LbypluUDIW6R_oldoI&hl=en&ei=IAMDTfmyA8KB8gaEnYjsAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=independent%20contemporaneous%20evidence&f=false. Dylan Flaherty 04:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, please read what I wrote. When have I EVER said that "independent contemporaneous evidence" is not important? I said it is unbalanced to mention the absence of a specific type of evidence much earlier than mentioning any of the evidence which DO exist. And I don't like you critiquing my "reaction" when you're spending time arguing points which I haven't made. MoeDew (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the importance of Jesus, it is precisely this absence of first-rate evidence that is notable. Dylan Flaherty 05:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have modified my last comment in view of MoeDew's irritation with it. I have tried to adopt a somewhat roundabout &/ delicate &/ tongue in cheek type of tone. Do you think it has some degree of an improvement in tone? Coming to the POV issue, it was not clear previously what you objected to. But I think I can see your objection more clearly now. It can be easily solved by reorganizing the placement of one or two sentences in the lead? I don't see much problem in this.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK now?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another farcical discussion of history on this talk page. Why am I not surprised? Torstendahl is not an ancient historian, and ancient history, as MoeDew points out, often, if not usually, relies on non-contemporaneous sources. The fact that historians who don't deal with the ancient history, or more precisely the ancient history of the Near East, don't care about this issues should come as no surprise to anyone. Would a historian of Antebellum America care about questions concerning Charlemagne? I think the answer to that is pretty self-evident. It is also a fact that most historians who deal with the topic of Jesus are often referred to as scholars of "Religious studies", "Biblical studies" or "New Testament Studies" (for reasons I'd be happy to explain if anyone was willing to listen). Take for instance someone like Paula Fredriksen. But this fact is quite unfortunately not accepted around here by many. It's really a shame, but what can you do. I've pretty much stopped engaging these questions here because of the POV pushing of stubbornly held but erroneous notions of what constitutes "history" or specifically historical scholarship about Jesus. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Torstendahl is a much better source on what historians think, than biblical scholars. And, if you read his statement, you may find that he is not talking about his own individual interest in this topic. It is ridiculous to suggest that he is talking about his own individual interest in this topic. Fredriksen can be a source for most points on this article, but not on what historians think. We need a hardcore historian for that. And if you think it is stubborn to think so, I think it is POV to not think so. I still think that there is no need for the Stanton quote etc. but tolerate it because I am not the only ed around here. And I find this issue no more alluring than you do.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen has a PhD in the history of religions from Princeton University. When bios of her are published she is described as an "historian" or scholar of "history" by reputable institutions, publishers, other scholars and media outlets ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Are you seriously debating the fact that one of the most renowned living historians of ancient Christianity is not an historian? What, pray tell me, do you think she is if not a historian? This is pure madness.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know about her. She's a historian, but a strange one. Her views are not always in line with the mainstream, so we need to use third-party sources here. Dylan Flaherty 19:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan I have a hard time making sense of what you have written here. "... but a strange one"? What does that mean? Not in line with the mainstream ... according to whom? Of course also, what does she claim that is not mainstream precisely? And the last part makes no sense to me at all. We need "third party sources'? Huh? You mean other scholars than her? Why?Griswaldo (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I will speak more bluntly. She is a convert from Catholicism to Judaism and sees Jesus through an idiosyncratically Judeo-centric view. Dylan Flaherty 23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed Fredriksen before too. I have already said that you can attribute her as a historian if you can find an RS which says she is a historian. But I will add "Professor of religion/scripture/x$" if I can find such an RS. Secondly, Fredriksen being a historian or not, cannot be extrapolated to claim that other biblical scholars too have an equal standing as a historian. Fredriksen and Pagels are somewhat closer to being something like a historian than most other biblical scholars. But they too, do not make the grade completely, as far as I can see. To be seen as clear historians, they must be recruited in the department of history, as professors of x$ history. As I said before, they can be sources for most other points regarding the historicity of Jesus, but not for making statements on behalf of historians. Only a historian who is employed in a department history is a clear enough historian to be able to do that. How would you feel if some historian went ahead and made sweeping statements on behalf of theologians? And is it sure that she has converted to Judaism? I know that she is married to a Jew, but not sure if she converted to Judaism. Anyway, that doesn't matter much? And I would not see her views as idiosyncratic. My impression is that she is a moderate, not even a liberal, and closer to mainstream than most others.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming at this from a different perspective than you, so I may be noticing things that you're not, and vice versa. First, yes, she converted to Judaism [8], and I think both her ex-husband and her current husband are Jewish. And, yes, it shouldn't matter, none of it should, but maybe it does to her.

I would call her views idiosyncratic more for the questions that interest her than for her answers, which are not particularly radical, or even liberal. Chiefly, what weirds me out is how she keeps asking, "Yes, yes, but what about the Jews?". For example, the link I mentioned is about her book on Augustine and... the Jews. As a single data point, it's absolutely nothing. As part of a pattern, it gets a bit strange. It's as if she's studying the same topic from a totally alien place, in that most non-Christians are fairly apathetic about Jesus, but she has retained the interest while embracing a religion which is, from my POV, distinguished by its rejection of his status as messiah.

As for being a historian, I would still call her one, but I'm fine with being a purist about it for the purpose of this article. In my view, her interests make her a poor candidate for representing the mainstream, anyway.

Full disclosure: I happen to be close to someone who is acquainted with her, and not in a positive way. Also, I should mention that I'm Catholic, in case I haven't already. Dylan Flaherty 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that having different perspectives can make people interpret the same set of info in completely different ways. Some would concentrate on one set of things, and others would fail to see it completely and concentrate on another set of points. And I am as susceptible to this phenomenon as anyone else. But somehow, I too have managed to get the impression that she does have a tendency of slipping into talking about Judaism. But I think this tendency of hers is less pronounced in her scholarly work than it is in casual life. But I wouldn't give much importance to this unless she was a rabbi, & / saying something which is out of the mainstream. It also seems to me incomprehensible that she should be so moderate despite having a strong interest in Judaism. But that's the way it is. Anyway, why are we discussing Fredriksen at all, has she made some comment about a consensus among historians regarding Jesus existence? -Civilizededucation^talk 09:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Let's drop it and move on. Dylan Flaherty 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I'm a bit troubled by the nature of your comments about Fredriksen given the "full disclosure" you have given. You appear to base your assessment of her work on personal information shared by someone who knows her personally "and not in a positive way". For you to call her a "strange" historian and to make connections between what you see as idiosyncratic scholarly interests and her personal religious life would be inconsequential original research if not for this connection. Now it looks like inappropriate COI commentary on a BLP. Can you please redact your comments and stick to discussing her, and any other scholar, through published commentary on their scholarship? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilized (and Dylan to a lesser extent) I feel compelled to point out that you appear completely confused about how "ancient history" fits into the academy. Civilized claims that only historians with appointments in history departments count as bona fide historians. Well those who deal with ancient history simply don't have such appointments (if you don't believe me then accept a very basic challenge ... find some ancient historians with appointements in history departments). These scholars have appointments in classics, archeology, and other fields like religious studies. Historians of ancient Christianity specifically, will almost exclusively work in religious studies departments or at schools of divinity or theology. Of course Near Eastern studies programs might also have some historians of Near Eastern antiquity. Anyway your demand is entirely nonsensical. If you disagree then take my challenge. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

When my father (a professor emeritus of the history of dogma) studied classics and theology in Leiden the subject of Ancient History was taught by the history department. I believe it still is. Obviously there is close collaboration with the classics department. Civilised's point stands: judging by the citations trotted out by Wikipedians theologians and scholars of religion like to enlist the support of historians (clearly not meaning their fellow theologians and scholars of religion with a historical bent), but somehow Wikipedians have been unable to come up with support for this point of view from bona fide historians. Sure, a few bona fide historians have been quoted, but while they support the historicity of Jesus they don't say anything about a consensus among historians. Such a consensus may exist, but it may also be wishful thinking. Just because some people call themselves historians doesn't mean they are. The reliable sources on who is and who isn't a historian are people who are employed by departments of history and pretty much no one else. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Martijn, we've been down a similar road before and I'll repeat again that I have no idea how Dutch structure their various departments or what thy mean by "theology" or "history", etc. I'm talking about the United States specifically, where Fredriksen teaches. I apologize for not making that clear, but the American and European academic systems differ in countless ways and using one to answer questions about the other just wont do. Paula Fredriksen is a "bona fide" historian of ancient Christianity, and I've provided several sources that call her one. If you want to adress the larger issue then take my actual challenge, and find me an historian of ancient Christianity in the United States with an appointment in a department of history. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it were typically Dutch, I expect it to be a general (continental?) European phenomenon. But I'll ask. As it happens my father also studied in Chicago, under Robert M. Grant, whom you may know. In any event, why is the US the relevant context? Just because Frederiksen is American? Or because of WP:BIAS? I'll have to think about your other points. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think we can all agree that Paula Fredriksen is best described as a historian of religion, maybe of Christian origins in particular. In fact, I believe we have agreed on this before. The disagreement is over whether that automatically qualifies her as a historian. I would argue it doesn't, just as a military historian wouldn't automatically qualify. Saying that in no way disparages their academic credentials. Consider the phrase "A majority of both NT scholars and historians believes in the historicity of Jesus". The separate mention of historians becomes pointless if the term historian is taken to include historians of religion and NT scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Has Fredriksen made a statement about a consensus among historians regarding Jesus' existence?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but I never made that argument anyway. I was pointing out what historians of "ancient Christianity" are usually "professors of ..." something other than "History".Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we have been discussing this unnecessarily. Whether Fredriksen is a historian or not does not have a bearing on other biblical scholars. We have to investigate them individually to find out if they themselves are seen as historians or not. Just because a Fredriksen or Pagels may be seen as historians by some sources would not mean that all biblical scholars would be historians. And why do we need to discuss this at all, I have been saying repeatedly that if you find an RS which refers to them as historians, you can attribute them as such, I would add "...and Professor of X$" or "...and New testament scholar" etc. if I can find such an RS. This should solve the issue?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This whole discussion is indicative of the fact that people like Dylan, Martijn and yourself are making all kinds of judgements about the qualifications of various scholars that are at best entirely specious. None of you show a clear understanding of the related fields at all. You argue without evidence repeatedly that a to be a "historian" one must meet this or that criteria. This is very relevant to any and all claims you lot are making about scholarly qualifications on this talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

[9] Just a link which may interest Griswaldo.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations you found a professor of "classics and history", who also has training in archeology. Morris has appointments in both the classics and history departments of Stanford, and so does his colleague Richard Saller. However the history department has no other ancient historians, while Classics has four additional ones (remember that Saller and Morris are also in the classics department) - [10], [11], [12], [13]. More important than numbers, is the fact that the Stanford program for Ancient History, falls within the auspices of the Classics department and not the History department. The reason I wanted you to take my challenge was not because it is impossible to find an ancient historian with an appointment in a history department, but because that scenario is not the norm. Stanford University illustrates this very well, it is just too bad that you didn't see this, instead cherry picking a faculty page for your purposes. Do you have another example?Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it is common for ancient historians to hold dual appointments and I further suspect that most of them will have studied both classics and history. The current Leiden professor of Ancient History studied both and even taught Roman law for a while for a university law school. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the same were also true for historians of religion. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are just moving the goal posts.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is you argument that because ancient historians occasionally have appointments in history departments that nobody without an appointment in a history department can be considered a historian? john k (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please ask Griswaldo. He had put up a challange that there are no ancient historians in history departments. I merely showed him that there are. Maybe he is making this argument.-19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Martijn has repeatedly claimed that unless a scholar has an appointment in a department of history they are not a historian. I tried, very unsuccessfully, to point out that most ancient historians do not have such appointments. I then issued a challenge to find an ancient historian in a department of history. Civilized education found one, which was great, because I wanted him to so I could illustrate a point. He found one at Stanford, where two professors of ancient history have dual appointments in Classics and History, and four more only appointments in Classics. Further more, at Stanford "Ancient History" is only a program offered by Classics, and not the department of history. I felt that this was a great illustration of the problem, but apparently neither he nor Martijn understood much of anything from the exercise.Griswaldo (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Martijn has repeatedly claimed that unless a scholar has an appointment in a department of history they are not a historian. No I haven't. Someone who has studied history (at a department of history) and goes on to become a scholar of religion employed at a department of religious studies is still a historian. Someone who is acknowledged as a historian by professors of history employed by departments of history is a historian. As for ancient historians, are you saying it's not true that most of them studied both classics and history? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Most ancient historians in the United States did not study at a department of history. Ancient history graduate programs are generally offered through classics departments. john k (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Martijn? Try [14] and [15] ... for starters. Consider what John K writes just above. Where do you think people get trained as ancient historians if ancient historians are not usually employed in departments of history? Clearly not departments of history which are largely devoid of ancient historians. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In those quotes I'm not saying one needs to be employed by a department of history in order to be a historian. I have stated an education at such a department, or recognition by those employed at such a department would be enough. More generally a short chain of acknowledged authority from undisputed experts would do. I would say that professors of history employed by departments of history at major universities qualify as undisputed experts. In other words, I'm saying the chain of ultimate authority is rooted there, just as for physics the chain starts with professors of physics employed by physics departments at major universities, not with mathematicians who happen to have also written brilliant articles on physics. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

History of religions

Martijn, your claim that "history of religion" isn't "history" in a proper sense remains entirely without justification. I already provided you with this list of sub-disciplines in history, and this list of history journals published in the taxonomy of history journals by the American Historical Association. In the United States, at the very least, some of the sub-disciplines are more commonly taught and researched by professors with primary appointments in different departments (and that is not only true of ancient history -- see Stanford example above). You have provided no evidence of your assertions though you make them over and over and over again.Griswaldo (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not how reliable sources work. If you show me a quote from a professor of history who states that historians of religion employed by departments of religion are generally considered bona fide historians by historians employed by history departments, then I'll be satisfied. The mere fact that practitioners of one discipline considers themselves bona fide practitioners of another discipline doesn't mean that it is true. Consider practitioners of homeopathy who may consider themselves bona fide medical practitioners, while MDs would beg to differ. The main sticking point for me is that someone who studied religion has not necessarily been trained in historical subjects as thoroughly as someone who studied history. Comparing the curricula for the history and theology (old name, this means religious studies although there there are also subjects taught by various denominations) departments at my alma mater you can easily see the difference. The history curriculum consists of a handful of methodological or general historical subjects while the majority of subjects deal with various areas of history. This means that a student of history has been exposed to enormous amounts of bona fide historical research on all sorts of periods, geographical areas and topics. The theology student on the other hand has been exposed to very little of that, focussing on much more specialised study of biblical and other religious texts. Clearly such knowledge is indispensible for a historian of religion, but in my opinion not enough to automatically qualify as a bona fide historian. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered my other point by the way: "historians" are enlisted as supporting the historicity of Jesus, which becomes meaningless if the term "historians" is only justified by support of historians of religion. For example, would you object to replacing the term "historians" with "historians of religion"? The answer to that question may be enlightening. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Do we need to write "historian of ..." every time we call someone a historian at Wikipedia? All historians have sub-specialties. It is of course logical that the ones dealing with a specific subject matter are being referred to in discussions of that subject. If you wrote, "Most historians agree that Napoleon Bonaparte was ..." then I assume that by "historians" you don't mean ancient historians, or medieval historians, but a historians who focus on the Napoleonic Era, and hopefully who focus on Napoleon specifically. What you and the rest of the crowd seem to be asserting is the opposite. You want non-ancient historians to pronounce the case, but why would they even bother with this since it is outside their expertise? A historian of religion, or more specifically, of ancient Christianity, is exactly what one would be looking for here, and what one would assume is meant by "historians generally believe ..." in reference to Jesus. How are you missing that?Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not object to quoting a historian of religion and describing him/her as a historian if he/she either were employed by a history department or had studied history. I know that scholars of religion tend to look down upon theologians (other than the famous ones they study!). I suspect historians look down on historians of religion who did not study history but religious studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion. Wikipedia doesn't function based on what you "suspect". What qualifications do you have to make these pronouncements? I suspect none.Griswaldo (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In the case of scholars of religion vs theologians I know this, having been reliably informed. In the case of historians I merely suspect, which is why I ask for supporting evidence ("dubious, discuss"). Again, I think this is standard Wikipedia policy, not my personal opinion. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of the policy that you keep on claiming exists. This discussion has nothing to do with "theologians". Paula Fredriksen is not a "theologian". "History of religions" is not "theology" or a sub-discipline of it, nor is "religious studies". So I fail to understand what you mean by this.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kindly don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say Frederiksen was a theologian (I said she was a historian of religion) nor did I say history of religion is either theology or a sub-discipline of it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this before, but your list of bona fide historical publications includes such gems as the "American Baptist Quarterly: a Baptist journal of history, theology and ministry". This is not usable as a reliable source on the thinking of historians because it is impossible for a layperson to tease out the bona fide history from the theology and ministry and general Baptist bias that surround it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not "my" list, it is a list compiled by the American Historical Association. Do you doubt their expertise?Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I doubt whether they intend it to be a seal of approval of bona fide historical research. Seriously, do you really think they consider the American Baptist Quarterly a serious historical journal? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please define "bona fide historical research." Who gets to decide whether a journal qualifies? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Professors of history, employed by history departments. I think this is Wikipedia policy, not my personal opinion, but if I'm wrong about this I'd be happy to be better informed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Provide a link to this policy because as far as I can tell it doesn't exist. You may believe that this is more than your opinion but if you want to prove it provide evidence. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The AHA still places the American Baptist Quarterly in its list of history journals. Perhaps the professional historians are better qualified to decide what a history journal is than Wikipedia editors? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the AHA an association of university professors? Who knows who gets to decide what should be on this list, and who knows what criteria is sufficient to get on this list. Maybe membership is enough. Do we have any filtering if that is the case? -Civilizededucation^talk 16:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A description of the AHA is available on the organization's homepage... [16] --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ABSURD! We have an entry on the AHA which I've linked many times now. They are the association for professional historians in the United States.Griswaldo (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the AHA article and at the organization's homepage. They are not an association of professional historians. They even include students, school teachers, public historians, and about anyone else who would apply and pay the membership fees. That's it.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Every academic association in the United States accepts student, and non-university faculty as members. Do you often comment this freely on things you have absolutely no clue about? Pure madness.Griswaldo (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You start off saying they are an association of professional historians. I ask if they are an association of University professors, and you say They are the association for professional historians in the United States. What does that mean? Now it turns out they include even public historians, who are clearly non academic. And you suspect me of madness? They also have a graded fees structure with some fabulous fees for affiliate organizations. Now would that not be a basis to suspect that the affiliate organizations would all get to place a journal on this list, regardless of their quality or content?-Civilizededucation^talk 18:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good God, you are completely bonkers. The American Historical Association is the professional organization for historians in the United States. It is not just an organization for tenure track and tenured professors of history at universities, but it is the organization that defines the historical profession in the United States. You are being absolutely ridiculous. john k (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

God may be good. But are you bonkers enough to think the American Baptist Quarterly is an RS on history just because the AHA lists it as a historical journal.-Civilizededucation^talk 20:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The American Baptist Quarterly is a journal apparently affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA, which is a long-established mainline protestant denomination. I am not familiar with the journal specifically, but its affiliation with a very mainstream religious organization is no particular reason not to view it as at least potentially a reliable source on Baptist history, which appears to be its primary purview. It obviously seems like a journal that would approach Baptist history from a particular perspective, but that doesn't make it a priori an unreliable source. john k (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to take a definitive stand on the journal, which we see as a non RS for history, despite it being listed by the AHA as a historical journal, I don't see what we could discuss?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with John K that the ABQ could be a reliable source on Baptist history or on Baptist views on church history. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, that is its purpose. It is published by the American Baptist Historical Society, which is an archive of materials relating to the history of Baptists in the United States. The journal's purview, at least as it pertains to history, would fall under the same heading. I doubt this journal would spend much time publishing articles about the ancient Near East. Look at the themes of the various issues of the magazine here. All seem to deal either a) with questions about Baptist history; or b) with issues relating to the proper role of Baptists in the modern world. The journal, I'm sure, tends to publish articles written from a Baptist standpoint, but every source has a POV; such a point of view does not necessarily make the journal a priori unreliable. As far as a definitive stand, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I've never read the journal, so I wouldn't want to make any overarching claims as to its reliability, but I think that, given that it is listed by the AHA, and that there is nothing inherent in its nature that would make me doubt its reliability, I would give it the benefit of the doubt unless pointed to some direct evidence of unreliability. More broadly, I'm not sure I really grasp what your argument is here. You seem to have simply decided that the idea that a journal called the "American Baptist Quarterly" could not possibly be reliable, and that, as a result, the AHA is a worthless source on what might be the reliable journals in the historical field. That isn't really an argument. john k (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would agree that it could be a, more or less, reliable source on Baptist history, and a more reliable source for a Baptist view of things. But do we need the AHA listing to tell us this much? The AHA listing should either mean that it is a RS on history, or, alternatively, that it is just a publication from a member organization. In the second case, there is no indication about it's reliability as a source of history. And it is good to keep in mind that the AHA is a union, not an academic institution. The priorities and considerations of a union would be vastly different than that of an academic institution?-Civilizededucation^talk 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The AHA is not even slightly a union. john k (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Another point to consider: a quick scan of the article suggests that all cited statements in the article concerning a consensus among historians come from people who are not professors of history at a history department, but from NT scholars, clergymen and historians of religion employed by a department of religious studies or divinity. The statements we do have from professors of history employed by history departments are critical about how much can be said with reasonable certainty. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Statements by ancient historians, or historians who focus on ancient Christianity more specifically?Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your question is a bit elliptic. Do you mean the critical statements? I don't think we have any statements from ancient historians or from historians of religion who are employed by a history department in the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have statements like "Virtually all historians agree....", well, even historians of ants should get to issue a disagreement. In any case, historians are a better sources for what historians think.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

History departments, in the United States at least, tend to consist of only historians of medieval and modern history, so it's not terribly surprising that we would not find many historians of ancient history. For instance, at the school where I got my degree, the history department is for medieval european and modern history, and there aren't really too many joint appointments. Historians specializing on the classical world are in the classical studies department, historians of the ancient and medieval near east are in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, historians of south Asia in South Asian Studies, historians of East Asia in East Asian Languages and civilizations. I know trained historians with PhDs from my department who have jobs in education, communication, African Studies, and other departments. The idea that, in order to be a historian, one must have a position in a history department, is ridiculous and self-serving. john k (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That there are/ are not historians in these departments doesn't much concern us. What does concern us is that we should avoid having statements about a consensus among "All historians" which are sourced from biblical scholars, rather than historians. So far, we have one source to say clearly and specifically that Fredriksen is a historian. But Fredriksen does not appear to have made any statement of this sort. I don't see the point is continuing with this discussion. At least find a scholar who has made a statement of this sort, and then it may be fruitful to have this discussion.-Civilizededucation^talk 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is much deeper than this. Civilizededucation, and a few others are constantly working to make scholars with certain qualifications seem like either they 1) don't have those qualifications or 2) are biased for some other reason. This happens pretty much with any scholar who disagrees with their POV. As much as they can, they find ways to cast aspersians towards any scholar who supports the mainstream perspective that Jesus, bare minimum, was a real "human being". When I was being told that Paula Fredriksen was "not a historian" because she is not employed in a History department I just lost it. It has gone too far at that point. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems of claims of consensus among most biblical scholars. Such a consensus does exist and it exists clearly. But I have problems about accepting a consensus among historians because we do not seem to have proper sources for it. And we have a historian who say historians don't even care about Jesus' existence. Why should I not have problems accepting that there is a consensus among historians. And please don't try to paint me as CMT supporter. I have never showed any support for CMT. In fact, I don't have much interest in it.-Civilizededucation^talk 19:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It has never been the case that those educated in the field of historical studies and who subsequently take up careers in history-related work must become employed within the educational system to be considered a "historian". Nor, even in academia, do all historians work under departments of History. The greater question, after reading through this section: is this a point really worth arguing? What should be the focus is the person's work: does his/her work have enough reputation that it is cited by others in the field? Seems so. To restate policy, it isn't up to editors, even by consensus, to insert our research, criteria or opinions—we are simply to summarize the content of published sources. That said, the use of "most" historians or stating a consensus exists among historians would be a sweeping claim, however valid, and requires a citation or two from reliable sources (though a reliable source need not be as constrained as has been suggested). If there are equally reliable sources which state that there is a consensus among historians that Jesus never existed, a cited statement to that effect should also be inserted to note the disagreement. • Astynax ^talk 19:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the "most historians" claim, or at least the use of that language, but the issue regarding this revolves around the fact that Civilized and company claim that the reliable sources that do assert this consensus are not reliable enough because they are not authored by historians. They go on to claim that it is also not enough that pretty much all tertiary sources that deal with Jesus, included those written specifically by ancient historians, treat his basic existence as fact. Indeed they claim that was is required to assert a consensus are statements made by scholars employed in departments of history. Since none can be found ... clearly there is no such consensus. That's why the "historian" issue is so hotly debated. The entire premise is a red herring however, since those who don't deal with ancient Christianity will clearly have made no claims about the matter in the first place, and those who study ancient Christianity are not to be found in departments of history.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily accept statements from ancient historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research to question the credentials of sources. In the case of religious studies, a discipline with strong institutional and historical ties to theology, which originated as the training for clergymen (who worship Jesus as Lord and Saviour), many of whose practitioners are personally religious, it is more than reasonable to want to make sure one distinguishes between genuine history and everything else. Without a short chain of acknowledged authority from recognised experts on history (professors of history at history departments of major universities) any purported expert on the thinking of historians is suspect. If people didn't insist on quoting historians of religion as historians I would not have to make this point. I think it is likely to mislead the casual reader and I wonder if that isn't the intent of the quoted sources and perhaps the Wikipedians quoting them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. There are problems in this field. Scores of Biblical scholars make sweeping claims about a consensus among all historians. (We also have a scholar like Meier saying that people are doing theology and calling it history.) But it is difficult to find even one such statement from a historian. Should we not try to avoid having misleading info on Wikipedia?-Civilizededucation^talk 19:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's try not to be too much Jesus-oriented. Historians don't even bother discuss the idea that Jesus didn't exist (which is anyway interesting in philosphy: history is not about absolute truths), as well as geologists don't bother discussing the Flat Earth theory. Try not to focus on religiuos/antireligious texts. There are many books on the Roman Empire and Mediterranean history in the first centuries. Pick up on of them. You will find brief notes or mentions on Jesus. Check Colin Wells, The Roman Empire (1984). Just an example among many. Thank you for attention. --F.giusto (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Those would be the kinds of sources I'd be looking for. Wells could be an example of a historian who accepts the historicity of Jesus. Torstendahl would be an example of one who doesn't accept it as proven. This disagreement doesn't mean there is no consensus, it could well be that Torstendahl holds a minority view. In fact I suspect that is the case. But in order to state a consensus as a fact, we would need an explicit statement to that effect. Such a statement coming from scholars like Wells or Torstendahl would be good enough. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Questioning credentials and sources is only appropriate if sources question credentials and/or sources. That is not how this discussion has been going, and the personal opinions of editors which have been aired here are indeed OR should they be used in editing article content or excluding sources. To repeat, if you don't have a source to cite, you have no basis for including or excluding information from the article—and that is going to include seeking to bar use of well-cited authors (let alone entire classes of scholars such as historians of religion) should you bring them up on the RS noticeboard. As an addendum, surely everyone here is aware of many other important personages universally regarded as "historical" for which no contemporary evidence survives, so I agree with the proposition to approach the subject as would be done for similar figures, rather than pushing religious or anti-religious points of view. • Astynax ^talk 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Questioning credentials of historians is indeed only appropriate if reliable sources question them. Questioning whether someone is a historian at all is a different matter. Despite the job title it isn't obvious that a historian of religion employed by a department of religious studies or theology is a historian any more than it is obvious that a mathematical physicist (especially if employed by a mathematics department) is a physicist. In fact there is strong reason to be uncertain about it, given that titles like 'professor of divinity' do not imply one is a theologian as opposed to a scholar of religion and departments called a 'school of divinity' would sometimes more appropriately be called a 'department of religious studies'. A layperson cannot tell the difference between a bona fide historian and a theologian employed by a 'school of divinity'. On the other hand a layperson can easily identify a professor of history employed by a history department as a bona fide historian, or accept such a professor's acknowledgement of another person's authority. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think biblical scholars are good RS for statements like "Virtually all historians agree.... Jesus did exist". I have no problems with biblical scholars saying "Almost all biblical scholars agree....Jesus did exist". But I don't see them as an RS for the sentences of the first type. Similarly, I won't consider an historian a good RS for a sentence of the type "All theologians agree....whatever". Do we need an RS to say that biblical scholars are not good sources for a sentence of the type "Virtually all historians agree.... Jesus did exist"? I would not have much problems even if a historian of industrial age would make a statement like this, but I do see a problem when biblical scholars do it. And I see even more of a problem when efforts are on to pass them as historians. We have to have proper RS which would identify them as historians to be able to attribute them as historians? And we should attribute them in the way that a majority of the RS attribute them as?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have you know that my plumber says that virtually all physicists agree that the consensus among gardeners is that green is the new red! Dylan Flaherty 07:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When a biblical scholar says "Virtually all historians agree that Jesus existed" then Wikipedia should report that. The arguments on this page about who is and who isn't a historian are ridiculous, because we aren't historians (well, with the exception of one editor here who has a Ph.D. in history...but whatever, actual experience in academia seems to count for nothing on Wikipedia). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Rudeness aside, such a statement may indeed be reported, but not stated as fact if the person in question is not a historian. For comparison, if a prominent practitioner of homeopathy states that virtually all doctors agree that homeopathy has some value, but that they differ in how much value they think it has, then Wikipedia would report the statement, but only as an opinion. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly is one to determine who is and isn't a historian? You're placing your own opinion of who qualifies as a "bona fide historian" above the expertise of the sources. This is essentially a way for you to decide that biblical scholars are incorrect, with no evidence that they're wrong. In the case of homeopathy, there are many sources that contradict any assertion that "virtually all doctors agree that homeopathy has some value", and many sources that state homeopathy has no scientific basis, is completely bogus, etc. But in the case of Jesus' historicity no one has brought up a source saying that many historians/scholars agree with the thesis of Jesus' non-existence. In fact, there are many statements by people who hold or held the theory of Jesus' non-existence saying that the theory is controversial, regarded as refuted, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly is one to determine who is and isn't a historian? In the same way one determines if someone is a mathematician or a physicist. And contrary to your statement I do not substitute my own judgment, but that of professors of mathematics or physics employed by mathematics or physics departments respectively. Note that using these as the ultimate root of authority is not at all the same as saying only these qualify as mathematicians or physicists. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But in the case of Jesus' historicity no one has brought up a source saying that many historians/scholars agree with the thesis of Jesus' non-existence. Your logic is faulty. A statement for a consensus among historians requires a citation from a RS to that effect. Absence of a statement in favour of the opposite case ("there is no consensus among historians") is not an argument for inclusion, that's a shifting of the burden of proof. And "saying that many historians/scholars agree with the thesis of Jesus' non-existence" is an even stronger statement than the opposite case. Also note that statements for the true opposite case have in fact been made. They appear to be the only statements to come from professors of history employed by departments of history by the way. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Which statements are you referring to? Torstendahl doesn't say this, despite editors' assertions to the contrary.

He says the evidence is too weak to rule out Jesus didn't exist. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your method for determining who's a historian, mathematician, or physicist is flawed, because examples of each can be found outside of departments of history, mathematics, and physics. Many examples of historians who aren't housed in departments of history have been presented on this page already. Not that this seems to have any effect on this discussion...

More rudeness aside, you seem not to have read what I said. I explicitly said examples could be found outside those departments. Pray tell what is your opinion of what the criterion should be? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's historian article provides one definition: "A historian is an individual who studies and writes about history, and is regarded as an authority on it." As for rudeness, I think it's quite rude to chew up huge amounts of editors' time debating poor reasons to prevent the article from stating what several reliable sources say--that historians treat Jesus as a historical person. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What's more, statements about the academic consensus made by historians have been presented here, and this has no effect either. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims of consensus have indeed been made, but not from undisputed reliable sources. And that is what Wikipedia policy requires. Show me that historians of religion employed by departments of religious studies or theology are widely accepted by historians as historians and I'll be satisfied. And for your information, I happen to believe that Jesus did exist. What I object to is apologetics wearing the Esau mask of criticism as Robert Price called it. I also object to theologians (some of whom may also be bona fide historians) falsely or at least unprovenly enlisting the support of historians, clearly not restricting that term to historians of religion employed by departments of religion, but intending to show that there is widespread support for their positions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting Graeme Clarke. I'm not going to type out what he's said again, I've repeated it enough times on this page already. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link? And is he an ancient historian? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I already said I'm tired of repeating myself on this point. Just use the search feature: [17]. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And at any rate, if, for argument's sake, I agree with your definitions of who's a historian, physicist, and so on, your argument seems to be that statements by a scholar of one field about consensus in any other scholarly field are not reliable. Care to point me to the Wikipedia policy that says this? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't support your viewpoint. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it does. It requires a reliable source. In general practitioners of field A are not reliable sources for field B. Imagine you found a quote by Richard Dawkins or a scientist of his standing stating that that he didn't know any historian who believed the resurrection was historical, would you consider that enough to state that there is a consensus among historians that the resurrection was ahistorical? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"In general practitioners of field A are not reliable sources for field B." There's nothing in the policy you linked to that says this. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on, are you seriously suggesting that a biologist would be a reliable source on chemistry or a hebraist on Latin? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hebraists don't study Latin as part of their required coursework, nor do they publish research on latin or teach classes in Latin. This is the red herring comparison, because Biblical scholars do study biblical history, many publish research in biblical history and many other teach it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Then consider theoretical computer science as an example, which is almost a branch of mathematics, with roots in the fundamental work of Church, Turing, von Neumann and Goedel. Many of its practitioners (especially the older generation) will have studied mathematics. Would you consider them reliable sources on general mathematical questions? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to follow your logic since you still appear clueless about who the relevant scholars are in the field of biblical history and the history of ancient Christianity. The "historians" dealing with these topics are, by and large, biblical scholars, just like the historians dealing with Greek antiquity are, by and large, classicists. You keep on bringing in examples where one group does not have expertise in a certain area, to compare it to this situation in which the group in question has the most expertise in that area. Look Martijn, it's hard to keep on discussing this with you as you fail repeatedly to understand what others have tried explaining to you over and over in plain English. I'm done.Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet more rudeness. And more miscommunication it seems. I have never disputed that scholars of biblical history and the history of ancient Christianity are by and large biblical scholars. In fact if anything I have complained that this risks bias and generally does not make them reliable sources on history in general. Yes, many scholars of religion engage in historical methods in their daily work. I know several of such people, my father being one of them. Similarly, practitioners of theoretical computer science (unlike theoretical physicsts) practice mathematics as part of their daily work. The parallel is very strong I think. But you are free to abandon the field, though it may lead others to conclude you cannot defend your position. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Defending one's position over and over and over gets tiring Martijn. If the "historians" working on this subject matter are usually "biblical scholars" then what on earth are you going on about? This is getting stranger by the minute. If the group of scholars who publish in the area of biblical history are the same scholars making pronouncements about the historical consensus in the area of biblical history then I fail to see what the problem is. There are no other so called "historians" with expertise in this area of history. Then these are the experts, so why do you deny their reliability in pronouncing that this is the historical consensus? Can you not see how this is exasperating Martijn. I apologize for my tone, but it is quite difficult to keep civil when you're taken around the marry go round like this over and over. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSProper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.?-Civilizededucation^talk 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And around in circles we go. Akhilleus, as long as they define what scholars are or are not relevant in this context there is no hope. Biblical scholars may in fact also be historians of biblical antiquity--as part of their biblical studies training, research and teaching. An evolutionary biologist is most certainly not--at least not in any way connected to that other qualification (perhaps the biologist holds dual degrees, one in biblical history). Biblical studies scholars most likely would have to know what the consensus view of this is as part of their training--I can't imagine anyone getting a PhD in NT studies without that knowledge. I'm sure that when NT scholars refer to "historians" in this context they mean historians of biblical antiquity. But what else would they be referring to? Historians of Medieval Scandinavia? The whole discussion is preposterous, and I note that neither Martijn nor Civilized took the expert outside opinion here seriously at all. There is nothing to do here but to abandon the article to the POV warriors. They can duke it out with each other. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You may like to imagine that by painting others as POV warriors, you paint yourself as a saint. But actually you may be the one who is seen as having a POV mentality. Moreover, you seem to forget even the fact that Martijn could not be a POV person under any circumstances (of the sort you suggest) for the reason that he happens to be a Christian. So, quit making unintelligent accusations.-Civilizededucation^talk 19:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a Christian. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have misremembered or misinterpreted some of your previous comments. I have struck out the portion.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen, historian

Please see the correction at the bottom of this page at the New York Times: "A column last Sunday about the debate over the forthcoming film The Passion misspelled the surname of a Boston University professor who wrote an article for The New Republic critical of it and its director, Mel Gibson, and misstated her academic specialty. She is Paula Fredriksen, not Fredrikson, and she is a historian, not a theologian." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus, but apparently reliable sources like the New York times are less important than what various editors here "suspect".Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been saying repeatedly that you can attribute her as a historian if you can show a RS. But this description would not automatically extend to other biblical scholars. The biblical scholars community is not limited to a Fredriksen or a Pagels. We have to see them individually. Fredriksen does not even appear to have made a statement regarding a consensus among historians related to Jesus's historicity. There is no point discussing her. If other scholars who have actually made such statements are seen as biblical scholars by the RS, that's what they should be described as. We should also try to keep in mind that what the majority of the RS appear to say would get priority.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this sentence in the opening paragraph?

According to traditional Christian Church teaching the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses, but a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

Historicity of Jesus is about the EXISTENCE of Jesus, not about the gospels. MoeDew (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was compelled to revert this removal of the paragraph in question. The historical usefulness of the gospels is highly relevant to the historicity of Jesus. Simply put, if the gospels are (largely) accurate, then Jesus existed. Dylan Flaherty 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence does NOT address the usefulness of the gospels, it addresses the AUTHORSHIP of the gospels. MoeDew (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If some of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, then they would offer very strong evidence for the historicity of Jesus and they have been proposed as such. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't need the gospels to discuss a simple statement such as the existence of Jesus. Tacitus would be sufficient, as it happens for scores of other historical figures. And we are also lucky: Paul's letters (and many other sources) cross-check his information. Let's try to manage Jesus as we manage Germanicus or Alexander the Great. Ancient history is not about absolute truth, which is far beyond its scope. Nothing is 100% guaranteed. I hope this is obvious. Let's try together to have an historic (and not religious/antireligious) approach on this article. Thank you. --F.giusto (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate MoeDew proposal. We don't need to zoom on the authorship of the gospels in the opening paragraph: we have a long article to discuss details. --F.giusto (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. Want to try Josephus now so we can refute him, too? Or would you be willing to agree that the gospels play a unique and central role in the historicity of Jesus? Dylan Flaherty 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think I have an anti-religious point of view then I much regret that and I am baffled how people could draw that conclusion from my comments. Someone asked why a particular sentence was part of the article and I explained why it was added. There was a lot of discussion about the wording, because some people took issue with the claim that there were no extant contemporary sources documenting the life of Jesus. Some people consider the gospels as such, which was why the remark on the authorship of the gospels was added. That's all there is to it. Reflecting on this discussion it seems to me that for whatever reason people make incorrect inferences about my beliefs based on statements on other subjects. I'll take my share of responsibility for the miscommunication, but no more than that. For the record, I believe Jesus did exist and that the gospel stories can be traced back to the historical Jesus, but that they probably paint an unreliable picture of his life and teachings. I do not believe the Bible describes the interaction of God with his chosen people of Israel, I do not believe Jesus was divine and I do not believe he rose from the dead. I am not anti-religious, nor do I begrudge anyone any comfort or sense of purpose s/he draws from his/her faith. These are just my personal opinions and no more, I'm simply pointing them out to avoid needless miscommunication. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I fit every one of your self-descriptive points. I should add that I'm not religious (or spiritual) and I guess an agnostic. The problem is that if you are indeed as you say, it is difficult for understand what your perspective on this is. Atheists who are anti-religious, are easy to understand, and so are bible thumping believers. It becomes more difficult when you're somewhere in between. I can sympathize because avowedly secular editors in these arenas assume that I'm religious all the time. I but heads with Conservative Christians at times as well, but I doubt they think I'm anti-religious for it. Either way its not easy being ambiguous.Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not have guessed that and that prompts me to reflect on our interaction. I react to what what I perceive as POV pushing, whether religious or anti-religious. Your statements lead me to wonder if maybe I have been seeing things that weren't there. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that editors here are motivated by religious considerations (pro or anti) can only lead to trouble. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dylan, thank you for your feedback. I've read the article you quote, which I think needs to be improved. Just two things: 1) paper is not bound to eternity. With very few exceptions, all classical works are known from medioeval copies (Tacitus as well as Cesar and almost everyone else). So what? We throw all ancient history into the fire, claiming that is useless to investigate it (it's only a paradox, I know you don't mean to :-). I'd just like to point out the need to consider the limits of historiography, which will never gain a perfect knowledge of the past) ? 2) I've also read that Tacitus is not quoted by others... Well, should they? There's even no problem in addressing Josephus, with its limits and its strengths. But let's stay focussed on collaborating in order to improve Wikipedia and appreciate the dialogue among the contributors. We all share different ideas, and I think this is the real strenght of Wikipedia.

@Martijn. Sorry, my comments were about the framework of this discussion, not about contributors. I'm not English-native (ok, you already knew :-). I beg your pardon if I misscomunicated. I really appreciate your comments. Thank you. --F.giusto (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Decades or centuries

The third paragraph reads: "Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes [...] brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources". To be honest, material which appears to refer to Jesus obviously includes references in histories produced decades, centuries or even milleniums later (including - why not? - Wikipedia). But this way I think we are missing the point and misleading our readers. I think the sentence is meant to identify non christian sources closer to Jesus' life, which were written 60-90 years later (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny etc.). So, IMHO:

• Centuries is a mistake (even 'milleniums' would be too... :-).
• Even "decades" can be misleading, because it is pointed out as significant, while in ancient history the common rule is to work on accounts written (as in this case) after the facts. And "after" - in ancient history - is not counted in a few years (let's not speak about minutes, days or months :-).

Then, a personal thought on the article. I perfectly understand that Jesus is a very sensitive issue, but we should try to manage him as we would do with Alexander the Great or Hannibal. Ancient historians don't pretend to have absolute truths, but they don't even pretend to impose implausible modern-day accuracy standards on the weak traces survived from our past (no difference if we are dealing with Jesus or Alexander). Thank you. --F.giusto (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Before you bring up people like Josephus or Suetonius, you might wish to do a bit of research about the authenticity of their statements about Christianity. If you need links, just ask. Dylan Flaherty 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Their authenticity is generally accepted by scholars. If you need links, just ask. Paul B (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to call your bluff. Josephus, for example, is widely recognized as having an interpolation in his Testimonium Flavianum. Dylan Flaherty 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than authenticity, I think we are concerned with the dating here. And, I think it is true that some of the Jewish and pagan sources being used were produced centuries later. Take the Talmud for example, the material which is used from the Talmud is from the Mishna, which is a part of the Talmud, and this was composed about five centuries after Jesus. The main part of the Talmud was composed about two centuries after Jesus. So, there is nothing wrong in saying "centuries later"?-Civilizededucation^talk 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Were the Testimonium Flavianum authentic, it would still be dated after 93 AD. Not contemporaneous. Dylan Flaherty 06:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow what this last statement actually means ("it would still be dated after 93"). I don't know why this is a magic number. No-one asserts that it was written during the lifetime of Jesus. No-one disputes that there is a short interpollation. But the point is that the central statement is generally considered to be authentic. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It actually means exactly what it says: the earliest date I've seen supported is 93, which puts it not only after the lifetime of Jesus but quite likely after the lifetime of anyone who might have been old enough to remember Jesus in some useful way.

As for the TF, some do dispute the existence of an interpolation, but you're right that mainstream historians acknowledge it. Nobody suggests that Antiquities of the Jews is fake, just that some sections were later modified. How much interpolation will you accept before saying the document is no longer authentic?

My point in all this should be clear: historians just don't have much in the way of reliable sources about Jesus. In particular, there appears to be nothing extant which is contemporaneous. This in no way suggests that Jesus was anything but real; it merely shows the limitations of the historical method in this regard. Dylan Flaherty 19:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I strongly agree with Dylan's last sentence: This in no way suggests that Jesus was anything but real; it merely shows the limitations of the historical method in this regard. The fact is that this article is about ancient history (it is named historicity of Jesus), but honestly the approach of this article about ancient history is quite appalling. Why?

The existence of Jesus is not debated among ancient historians: they have no problem at all in the existence of a preacher called Jesus. Ok, not everyone agrees with historians, as not everyone agrees with geologists on the fact that the Eart is a kind of sphere. I know. So what? I think we all share the idea that Wikipedia is meant to promote knowledge: we can opt to mention odd theories, but we have to be NPOV.

The sentence we are discussing here provides a good example. We can write:

"Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes [...] brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources" (today version)

or

"Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes [...] references in all the contemporary histories produced by pagan and Jewish sources" (my version)

(Yes. We have not other histories of the first century in the Roman Empire: only Tacitus, Suetonious and Josephus. This can be a surprise for us, living in our real-time age with daily and hourly updates, but it's not a surprise for ancient historians :-). (I'm not, anyway)

Both the sentences are correct. They state the same thing. What's the difference? Honestly, the POV. The first sentence "supports" the myth theory argumenta, the second not. I think we need to improve this article. We can decide together how. But here the reputation of Wikipedia is at stake. Any feedback is welcome. Thank you.--F.giusto (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The CMT is thoroughly rubbished in the article, because the scholarly community does it. But there is no reason to give the "Jesus did exist" theory more value than it actually has. The reputation of Wikipedia would suffer (for being seen as a christian POV source) if we do that. That is why, we have to avoid giving these material more value than they actually have. And have to mention "decades or centuries later". In any case, more info is better than less. It would let the reader make up his mind in a more informed way.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the two versions is that one is more informative and the other is less, in a way which would be christian POV.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to call the mainstream view that Jesus existed a "Christian POV." Editors are unnecessarily adopting a battlefield mentality rather than trying to represent what the balance of sources say. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that it is christian POV to say that "Jesus did exist"? I said that it is christian POV to give more value to the pagan and jewish sources than they should have. What's wrong with that?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing's wrong with that, because it's virtually a tautology. How are we to decide how much value the pagan and jewish sources should have? john k (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether we should point out their dates of composition or not? We give more value to them if we do not point out that they were composed decades or centuries after Jesus. And we give them proper value by pointing out that they were composed decades or centuries later. This helps the reader to make a more informed opinion. Why avoid giving clear info? Do we need an instrument with textual evidence value meter readings to ascertain this point?-Civilizededucation^talk 18:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok Civ, thank you for your feedbacks. But I think we are missing the points. Let's try to improve together the voice and to be NPOV. Neither of the two sentences I discussed

(1)"Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes [...] brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources"

or

(2)"Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes [...] references in all the contemporary histories produced by pagan and Jewish sources"

is more informative of the other. They are simply informative from two different Point-Of-Views. They simplify an issue (ancient history) which is... well, not simple at all. I strongly appreciate you in stating that readers have to be informed in order to make up their minds. So why informing on (1) should be more relevant than informing on (2) - that is, Jesus is cited everywere we can reasonably expect to find him?

Ancient history has many limits. It's not about absolute truths. It's about little fragments and pieces historians try to put together. Historians dont't pretend to have what they know they reasonably could not have (real-time reporting, personal objects or son on). Sometimes, in this article the obvious (at least, I hope so :-) limits of ancient storiography are managed in a very misleading way. Let's be clear: this is no more storiography. It may be theology, or philosphy. We have to manage the historicity of Jesus the same way we manage the historicity of the other figures from the past (Herod, Germanicus, Ovid, not to speak of Aledander the Great or Hannibal).

We all work to create a better article. How can we improve the sentence? Thanks in advance. --F.giusto (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that the two sentences you propose are equally informative? Are you trying to say that both the sentences are equally wrong?-Civilizededucation^talk 06:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Informing on (1) would be more important than informing on (2) for the simple reason that (2) is factually wrong. None of the contemporary histories produced by pagan and jewish sources have any reference to jesus. Clear?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No Civ, no clear at all. Thank you for your feedback, anyway. Could you please specify the contemporary histories which - upon your judgment - fail to mention Jesus? There are none, AFAIK. But I will be happy to learn (seriously). We're trying to improve Wikipedia, let's try to collaborate and to be NPOV, thank you. This article is about ancient history, but it seems as if religious-antireligious zeal is unstoppable. Hope to hear from you. --F.giusto (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• ....religious-antireligious zeal is unstoppable. This zeal can be seen in you as much as you can see it in others. But it is never safe to make such assumptions.
• I am not here to teach (nor am I qualified to do so). And if you are going to make wrong statememts, and then insist that others should prove you wrong, even before you have produced a ref to show that your own statement is correct, you are not likely to be taken seriously. I have said that (2) is factually wrong. If you think it is correct, it is up to you to find a mainstream RS to show that it is correct. If you manage to specify the ref which would support (2), I may show you some pagan and Jewish sources from that time.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time we should note some of the contemporary pagan and jewish sources in the article.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and for your passion, which I think is a great resource for Wikipedia. You can find an accurate listing of sources we have on the history of the Roman Empire (from Augustus to Maximinus Thrax) in Colin Wells, "The Roman Empire", chapter II, "Sources". I've just read it for pleasure again (I'm very passionate about ancient history). It's very interesting; and - honestly - useful: e.g. among the contemporary histories I probably missed Plutarch's Parallel Lives (which, anyway, is about comparing Greek and Roman celebrities). I'd love to discuss the contemporary sources (not only histories) on the first century: they are quite few (or a lot, it depends on perspectives) and I think it could be stimulating and useful in order to share a methodological framework for this article. I'm not an expert on Jesus, but I am quite decently acquainted with ancient history. I hope I can help. --F.giusto (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A knowledge of ancient history can certainly help. I do not have the source which you mention. Since you now seem to agree that there are some contemporary pagan and jewish sources, would you mind mentioning the few which are noted in your source, so that we could decide which ones would be best for an inclusion in the article? You have certainly helped to find a point which could improve in the article. It should now be clear that there is not even a random scrap of paper from that time with jesus' name written on it. Nor is there a copy / or a copy of copy / or a copy of copy of copy.... of such a scrap of paper. Even such a copy would have been worth a mention in this article. This is not to say that such a copy is necessary to establish jesus' existence. But it is relevant to say that we don't have such a copy. And it is not as if we don't have any written material from that time. Actually we do have quite a lot of written material from that time. Now, hoping that you list the contemporary sources noted in the book you mentioned.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"contemporary" is a problematic word. There are no sources from within Jesus' lifetime. There are many sources from very soon after his lifetime. This is not uncommon in ancient history. I have quoted Graeme Clarke (an ancient historian) several times: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming" (italics mine, [18]). It would be nice if the article made this clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is not exactly credible. For example, it mentions Josephus as a source, but is conspicuously silent about the interpolation problem. This sort of one-sidedness is intellectually dishonest. Dylan Flaherty 06:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I figured it out:

"Dr John Dickson is the director of the Centre for Public Christianity (www.publicchristianity.org) and an honorary associate of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University. His documentary The Christ Files airs on Channel Seven at midday."

That explains it all. Dylan Flaherty 06:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be sure that Clarke is not being misinterpreted, it is necessary to see the context in which he said this. I might agree to using this quote if the context is available. And the bias of the person reporting this will need to be attributed too.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One may also note; Clarke is not talking about a consensus here. Anyway, context will help us see what he is saying.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the context of this quote is unavailable. If that is the case, I might venture to say that this quote should not be used.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you're saying "the context of this quote is unavailable"—it is found in the newspaper article linked above. It's been mentioned many times on this talk page, in discussions that you've participated in—see, e.g. Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_29#What_historians_say. Clarke's quote is straightforward, so it's hard to see why you think it's being misinterpreted. And why exactly would the fact that Dickson is the director of the Centre for Public Christianity mean that Clarke's quote isn't credible? Please note that Dickson has a Ph.D. in ancient history, and is a research associate at Macquarie University—therefore he is quite accurately described as a historian. Clarke is also an ancient historian—an eminent one, who wrote the chapter on "The origins and spread of Christianity" in volume 10 of the Cambridge Ancient History (2d ed., 1996). So, Dickson himself is a historian, who says that there is a consensus that Jesus was historical ("Take the question of Jesus' existence...no one who is actually doing ancient history does. I contacted three eminent ancient history professors this week and asked if they knew of any professional historian who argued that Jesus never lived. They did not."), and he is backed up on this point by a quote from another historian, Graeme Clarke.

This article is in fact the kind of source that editors here have been asking for—a reliable source written by a historian that says that there is a consensus among historians. By historians, Dickson means both ancient historians (who study Greece, Rome, and the rest of the ancient world) and biblical historians. Dickson is not hesitant to refer to biblical historians simply as historians: "I am talking about professional biblical historians: not professors of theology in religious institutions but university historians specialising in the language, literature and culture of the biblical period. Be they Christian, Jewish or agnostic, such scholars shun both overreaching scepticism and theological dogma. They approach the Gospels not as zealous fabrications or divine scripture but as texts comparable with any other from the period." It's basically tautologous that biblical historians are historians, but here's someone saying it anyway.

The objections to Dickson's article, and the Clarke quote within it, seem to be based on allegations of bias because Dickson is the head of a Christian organization and a minister. But so what? Becoming a minister doesn't stop one from being a historian, and assertions of bias are not illustrations of bias. If Dickson is not correct that there's a consensus about Jesus' existence among historians, it should be easy to find a source that disagrees. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dickson is also a promoter of christianity. He has a strong COI. In order to have confidence that Clarke is not being cherry picked / misrepresented, it is good to have in hand the full text of what Clarke has said. Dickson is a poor source on christianity related matters.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. In this godtube video link, [19] you can see Dickson relate the same "contacted three historians" episode. Here the quote becomes "People in the know wouldn't have a twinge of doubt about the existence of Jesus." and goes on to say "They were his words". What do you think this does to Dickson's credibility?-Civilizededucation^talk 10:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Dickson is a historian; you don't seem to be disputing that. You're alleging that he has what you term a "COI", but you offer no evidence that what he says in the article is biased or incorrect.

As for the quote "People in the know wouldn't have a twinge of doubt about the existence of Jesus", Dickson doesn't attribute this quote to Clarke--he only attributes it to one of the three historians he contacted. Please be more careful before implying that sources are dishonest. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that, after watching that video, there's no way to take this guy seriously. He's an apologist. Dylan Flaherty 03:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

He also has a Ph.D. in ancient history, is a research associate in the department of ancient history at Macquarie University, and has published academic work. You have apparently not bothered to read the article in question; it is not about apologetics, but about what academic historians say about Jesus--a subject which the author can speak about with some authority. Simply dismissing him as an apologist is not a serious argument, it's handwaving. How do you think Dickson's supposed bias affects the points he makes in his article? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter what scholarship he is capable of when he is too busy being an apologist to be a scholar. A scholar would speak of the historicity of Jesus in terms of what we do and don't know, providing a nuanced, accurate description. An apologist makes overly broad and largely unsupported statements in an effort to bowl over his opponents with mock confidence. Now go listen for yourself and tell me you see a scholar. Dylan Flaherty 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your evaluation of the video's rhetoric and style doesn't have much to do with whether Dickson is qualified to say whether ancient historians treat Jesus as historical. Can you show how the claims he makes in the newspaper article misrepresent the consensus among ancient historians? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point, so I'm going to just politely let it sit there. Dylan Flaherty 04:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed your point—your evaluation of the video is irrelevant. Dickson is is a scholar because of his qualifications and accomplishments; your opinion of the video doesn't change that.

You haven't addressed my point. How does your opinion that Dickson isn't a scholar lead to the conclusion that the statements he makes in his newspaper article about ancient historians are untrustworthy? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you clearly missed my point, I'll repeat it. The issue is not mere capacity for scholarship, it is actual scholarship as opposed to apologetics. That video revealed him to be operating in pure apologetics mode, complete with bombast and overstatement. If that's all you have, you have nothing that is a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty 05:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't missed your point. I simply don't think that you have the authority to decide whether someone's a scholar or not based on your opinion of their arguments. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I've been talking about a newspaper article—frankly, I don't care about the video, since I think print sources should be used whenever possible. Nor have you given any answer to my question: how does Dickson's alleged bias affect the points he makes in his article? Are the statements he makes about the consensus of ancient historians wrong? Do you have sources that say that? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You still seem to be sure that this clarke quote is authentic. You have been talking about this for several weeks now. Why is it that I didn't see you edit it into the article even once?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's strange that you say it's inauthentic. Are you now asserting that Clarke has been misquoted?

As for why I haven't put it in the article, it's because editors have objected on the talk page. Do you mean to say that despite your objections you think I should put it in? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to say that I called it inauthentic. Have I? I think it is more accurate to say that the Clarke quote becomes highly suspect in light of the godtube video. This is somewhat different from saying that it is inauthentic. As for putting it into the article, I find it somewhat strange that you should talk about this for so long, without putting it into the article even once. Anyway, if you insist that the Clarke quote is surely authentic, then you should edit it into the article. If the Clarke quote is authentic, then the godtube quote would also be authentic, and I might add it into the article so that we could have (possibly) two quotes from historians. And I might explain that this quote was also reported by Dickson as being from one of the three historians. That could solve this issue?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilized, implying that Dickson's credibility is doubtful or that Clarke's quote is suspect is saying that it's inauthentic, or at least that you suspect it's authentic--you suspect that Dickson is not accurately reporting Clarke's words. However, as I've already said, the godtube quote doesn't need to be from Clarke at all--it could be from one of the other historians Dickson spoke to. I suppose it's also possible that Dickson is indirectly quoting something else Clarke said--when you do a interview, you usually gather more quotes than you use in the finished product. But the point is that there is no reason to suspect that the quotes in the newspaper article and the video are supposed to be the same, since Dickson doesn't attribute the quote in the video to Clarke. Nor is there any reason to use the godtube video. Print sources are better to use than video sources; the video could easily disappear at any time while newspapers will be archived in libraries even if the article is somehow inaccessible on the web. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please just look at the wording of the two quotes. There is a striking similarity between them, and this is a good reason to suspect that the Clarke quote in the newspaper is an embellished form of the quote in the godtube video. However, it is also possible that both the quotes could be true in the ways you suggest. But it is stretching credulity to assume that this is the case without having the full text of what Clarke might have stated. Secondly, it is necessary to have both quotes, i.e. if one is included, in order to inform the reader about the peculiar circumstances surrounding the Clarke quote. And that a video might disappear, is no reason to not cite it. There is no such policy. And a ref should continue to be in an article even if the supporting video does disappear. That users have seen it is enough.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since your view is that both quotes are authentic, despite knowing the circumstances surrounding these quotes, you should expect the reader to take the same view too? I don't see why you should object to my proposal.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't "look" at the wording of a video. However, there is no reason to deal with the video here, since nothing is said about Clarke there. The only person alleging that there are "peculiar circumstances" about the Clarke quote is you; this is a problem that you've invented, based on original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had clearly requested you to "look" at the wording of the quotes. And I had also typed out the quote in the video previously. And I don't see why you should have a problem comparing the quote in the video with the quote in the newspaper even without my typing it out, particularly when you have also typed it out previously!!! One can clearly hear the quote in the video? And we don't need a source to see that the circumstances surrounding the Clarke quote are "peculiar". We can exercise editorial judgement here. It is not good to keep relevant information from the reader when it is apparant that there are issues which could have an adverse impact on the info presented. We need not say that it is inauthentic or suspect. We only need to inform the reader about the circumstances so that they can form an informed opinion. And the bias of the person reporting this quote is also part of the relevant information. As is the godtube video. It is dishonesty to hold this info from the reader.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Just three things:

1. "A knowledge of ancient history can certainly help". Only can help?. I thought this article was about ancient history. In the past days I probably misunderstood. Now I'm better understanding some difficulties of mine. My problem, anyway.

2. "Histories" and "sources" are not the same thing.

3. As a method, we have not to judge historians because we like or don't like what they say or didn't say.

--F.giusto (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"A knowledge of ancient history can certainly help". Could you explain more as to what may be the problem with saying that? It is not clear to me what issue you may have with this statement.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that ancient history (Colin Wells, Chester Starr to name a few authors) could provide a good added value to the article. Ancient historians don't get into many details biblichal scholars deal with, but they have a good methodology and a balanced historical perspective. By now I'm thinking ancient history in this article is underrepresented. Just my opinion, anyway. --F.giusto (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What can we do if historians don't say much that could be meaningful to this article? I would agree that, for this article, the importance of material sourced from historians cannot be overemphasized. But we have to be practical and keep things in perspective. We cannot become "historian" fundamentalists for this article. Material sourced from biblical scholars is valid material for most points in this article.-Civilizededucation^talk 23:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is named "Historicity of Jesus", so I think we'd better deal with historians specialised in the period Jesus lived. For exapmle, Chester Starr in "A History of the Ancient World" provides an interesting and well balanced insight on this issue (and about what a historian can or cannot claim about the life of Jesus). --F.giusto (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that we need to stick to historians, not apologists. Dylan Flaherty 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? Chester Starr discusses Jesus, in that work, as a historical figure as far as I can tell. Is he an apologist then? When makes someone an apologist vs. a "historian"?Griswaldo (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A historian may well have their own personal beliefs, but their job is to objectively analyze the data and come up with a scholarly understanding of it. An apologist may well use some of the tools of a historian, but their job is solely to make a case for their side. In other words, an apologist is a partisan, akin to a trial lawyer who's been paid to either work for the prosecution or the defense, but not to support the truth regardless of who it favors.

All too often, apologetic works fall so visibly short of the scholarly standards for historians that they may only be published by non-scholarly, often religious, houses.

Give this, I believe you have enough information to decide what Starr is. Dylan Flaherty 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well Starr is clearly a historian and his book was published by OUP. Can you give an example of an "apologist" that someone has suggested using here under your definition?Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chester Starr is a historian. I really don't understand Dylan's comment. My opinion is that - despite the "historicity" in the naming of the article - there are strong difficulties in accepting contributes from historians in this article. We'd better reflect on this. --F.giusto (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a strong resistance to acknowledging that historians are historians. But this offhand rejection of sources as "apologists" doesn't sit well with me—it seems to be a tactic for editors to simply discard sources they don't find palatable.

F.guisto, can you provide more detail about what Starr says? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No one has tried to paint Starr as an apologist, nor is there any resistance to him so far. Nor is there any doubt that he is a historian. Do not misrepresent others.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, I was talking about Dickson, not Starr. Dylan Flaherty 05:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a strong resistance towards accepting biblical historians—who obviously are historians—as historians. It's nice that at least everyone recognizes that ancient historians are historians—oh wait, John Dickson is an ancient historian, who currently is a research associate at Macquarie University, and yet he's getting rejected as an apologist, not a scholar. As I said, this seems to be a tactic for editors to rule out sources they find unpalatable. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

biblical historians—who obviously are historians— Based on what evidence? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously based on ONE newspaper column describing ONE biblical scholar as a historian. Incidentally, a scholar who hasn't made a statement of this sort. Why should we even discuss this point if they can't show a newspaper column (describing him/her as a historian) for a biblical scholar who has actually made a statement of this sort? In any case, what the majority of the RS describe them as would get priority. They are mostly described as "Professor of x$".-Civilizededucation^talk 01:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What else can be done if you only turn up with apologists. Why is it that you can't find non apologists making this claim of consensus among historians? This Dickson episode has given me an even stronger inclination to think that no such consensus exists among historians. Don't blame me if I treat this claim as an extraordinary claim.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And if some other quote about consensus is found, please try to make sure that it is not based on this Dickson/ Clarke quote. I wouldn't like something which might be based on this Dickson/ Clarke quote.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So basically, any time someone finds a source saying that there is a consensus of historians that Jesus was historical, objections to using the source are manufactured. Labeling Dickson as an apologist is only the latest tactic. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the historicity of Jesus, and if only we had some historians who were on record supporting this as the mainstream view, I would be glad to include it. But it's not my fault that the reliable sources don't seem to exist. I'm going to caution you to assume good faith on our part. Dylan Flaherty 17:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So, more misrepresentation. Anyway, I had major problems with this quote only when I saw that the context was unavailable, and then found that Dickson had managed to tie himself up in knots through that godtube video. But now, I think it was naive on my part to AGF on an apologist, and would be wary of such sources. And why not, you are trying to make out that I had tried to stop the inclusion of this quote merely by citing COI. That is not the case. I was asking for context, which means, the full text, or at least some more text of what Clarke may have said. But you forget this point. If you are going to accuse me anyway, why not do it as well? And now I have more of a separate reason (Dickson video vs the Dickson/clarke quote) to do so. One should learn from experience.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dylan. Akhellius is trying to make out as if there is absolute opposition to the inclusion of such quotes. Actually the Stanton quote is already in the article for all to see . But Akhellius is still unsatisfied and wants more. And keeps making all sorts of odd accusations. It is not our fault that he can't find a good ref for the quote. The consensus does not exist among historians. That is the reason.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an accurate summary, but I don't understand where the misunderstanding is coming from. I said outright that I'm fine with it if there are reliable sources. An apologist is not a reliable source about historians. As for the issue itself, I'm also on record as personally having no doubt about the existence of Jesus, but being unsure of the extent that historians can be expected to be able to confirm my faith. It's not really their job, you know. Dylan Flaherty 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a sweeping claim, and an extraordinary claim, considering that we already have a historian saying that historians do not care about this issue. We also have indication to suggest that apologists, biblical scholars are trying to manufacture quotes to claim support from "all historians". So, there is good reason to have an extraordinary source for such a quote. Otherwise, it is hard to see any value in quotes from christian ministers/ folks with extreme views/ people with COI / folks who might base their views on Dickson, and similar others. I still have no objection to the inclusion of the Clarke quote if the full text of what Clarke said can be available.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The "misrepresentation" comes in when you say that biblical scholars "manufacture quotes to claim support from 'all historians'". The quotes are not manufactured; the sources are fine. The objections on this talk page are what's being "manufactured"; when quotes by fellows of the British and Australian academies to the effect that there's a consensus among ancient historians that Jesus is historical are dismissed, while the opinion of a historian who specializes in the development of professions and professional education in the 19th and 20th centuries is taken as indicative of historical opinion about a topic within ancient history. There is a serious problem with the way sources are being evaluated on this article.

As for the "full context" of the Clarke quote, it's in the Dickson article. That's its context.

Civilized's statement that there is no consensus among historians, when we have several sources that say there is, is a problem. The business of a Wikipedia article is to report what reliable sources say, and in this case reliable sources say there is a consensus among historians. Unless a source can be produced that says explicitly there is not a consensus among historians on this issue, the article should state that there is a consensus. Torstendahl is not a source that says there is no consensus; it simply states the opinion of one historian whose expertise doesn't relate to the ancient world. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblical scholars are not reliable sources for what historians think. We have to have a hardcore historian for that. And since this is a sweeping claim, and an implausible claim, there is a good reason to have an extraordinarily strong source for this. That Torstendahl has no expertise in ancient history is an OR and an unproven and implausible one. One doesn't usually become a professor of history without studying ancient history. He is also the principal editor of a book which covers the different types of historiographic methods being used in different countries. So, it is natural to think that he has expertise in a wide variety of historiographic methods? Secondly, he says that historians don't care about the existence of founders of religions. (And also shows reasons for this apathetic attitude). So, how can historians have a consensus about a topic they don't even care about? And, I can see the newspaper article. Why should I ask for context if I did not want to see something more? I have clarified more than once that context means more of what Clarke might have said. Preferably, the full text. To be sure that the quote is authentic and Clarke is not being cherry picked or anything, it is good to examine the full text of what Clarke might have said ?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, you could have all my objections melting away if the full text of what Clarke said were to be available.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come to understanding that historians are not so welcome in this discusssion. My opinion is that they would be useful and that we should have not to judge them because we like or don't like what they say or don't say. Anyway, let's focus on our theme (decades or centuries):

"Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes [...] brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources"

I really don't understand centuries (=200 years and more). I think the sentence is meant to identify non christian sources closer to Jesus' life, which were written 60-90 years later (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny etc.). Talmud-Mishna, cited by Civ, is dated 70-200 (and so, in the worst scenario, 170 years after the events. Not centuries). About this dating, check also Colin Wells, cit.

My opinion is that centuries is an error. --F.giusto (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the references to Jesus in the Talmuds are contained in the commentaries on the mishna. This is my bad. Earlier I had said that they were contained in the mishna. However, these commenteries come from five centuries later. So, "centuries" is correct. You can click this audio link [20] to hear Prof. Ehrman, an RS, explain this. It is near the last part of the lecture.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What these commentaries say seems to be of a peculiar (censorable) variety to me. But perhaps not so censorable, considering that some leading scholars have begun to assert similar things. And the Talmudic picture of Jesus is contradictory of what the Gospels say. But some other biblical scholars insist that this too is useful. So we have it in the article.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)