Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

STOP BEING BIASED BULLIES!!!!

Collapse unconstructive

Hey Ian.thompson and whoever else it is why do you keep being so biased? We are trying to add factual information with sources and someone keeps immediately taking it down just because they are afraid of people knowing the truth about this information. My information on the Theory from the book Caesar's Messiah is even more mainstream and factual and unbiased then the other references on here so DON'T TAKE IT DOWN.. STOP BEING SO BIAS THAT IS SUPER BAD FOR WIKIPEDIA WE DO NOT ALLOW BIAS ON WIKIPEDIA ESPECIALLY ON BIG ARTICLES LIKE THIS SO CHRISTIANS STOP BEING SO OFFENDED BY FACTS AND STOP TAKING STUFF DOWN OR ADDING IT BASED OFF BIAS. The opinions in the documentary "caesar's messiah" are all totally logical and fact based and many scholars agree with the claims made in "caesar's messiah". It is absurd for you to just immediately take it down when I try to add this you liars!! stop being a liar and stop being so bias on wikipedia christians!! liars!!! bias liars!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E1C0:22F0:1DBA:8B0A:C4DF:5193 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC) This article is significantly changed from the last time I visited this topic. I appears to have been taken over by pro-Christian trolls. Matthew Hall (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Too many articles on the historical Jesus

We currently have five articles on the historicity of Jesus:

• Historicity of Jesus
• Historical Jesus
• Quest for the historical Jesus
• Portraits of the historical Jesus
• Christ myth theory

There's a lot overlap, and a lack of balance in the length of the various subtopics in those articles. It seems to me, that:

• Historicity of Jesus can serve as an overview-article; it has the greatest number of editors and visitors, mentions the various subtopics in the lead, but lacks a short section on methods an criticsm. All sections can link to relevant other articles.
• Historical Jesus, Quest for the historical Jesus, and Portraits of the historical Jesus treat the same topic: the quest for, and portrayal of, the historical Jesus. As fas as I can see, info on the historical elements and historical portrayals, can be moved, c.q. grouped together, in Historical Jesus, including a short description of the three quest, and the recent call for memory theory. An extended description of the three quests, description of the criteria of authenticity, and concerns regarding the methods employed in these quests, can be moved to, c.q. treated more extensively, in Quest for the historical Jesus.
• The Christ myth theory deserves a separate article, as it is now.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved info from Historical Jesus to Quest for the historical Jesus and Scholarly interpretation of Gospel-elements; and also moved info from Quest for the historical Jesus to Scholarly interpretation of Gospel-elements. Historical Jesus may as well be merged into Historical Jesus; they're basically the same now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. There probably *are* too many articles, but if you want to reduce it, you need to make WP:MERGE proposals. PepperBeast (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The existence of "Jesus"

That what is called "Jesus Christ" in the New Testament is referred to throughout the Old Testament, first referred to in the opening lines of Genesis. The "person" of Jesus Christ was first planted into history sometime during the late first century and early second century within the context of the Jewish rebellions against Rome, and where Judaism became personified within the character of Judas. If you went in a time machine back to whenever you thought the crucifixion took place, you would see that no such event ever took place. It's contrived historical fiction. The hub of Christianity is the crucifixion, but Paul's notion of the Crucifixion has nothing to do with history as given in Gospel material. The entire fabric of Western Education about Christianity rests on historical fiction belonging to a Christianity divorced from its origins. Octavius88 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder: this talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article, not a forum for general discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Historicity of the existence of a Jewish man called Yehoshua within a span of time vs. historicity of the personage referred to in the New Testament

There are a great many quotes accumulating here that all sensibly refute the extreme hypothesis that no man was born in Nazareth at the turn of the first millennium bearing a name rendered in Latin as Iēsūs. There's also a good summary of the support for the view that a man bearing a name rendered in Latin as Iēsūs was not only born in Nazareth at the turn of the first millennium, but grew up to be known as 'the anointed' and was executed under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilatus.

What is absent is any discussion of the less extreme position, that there is no reliable historical source whatsoever for the vast majority of the events in the life of the Biblical personage called Jesus, and, consequently, that the Biblical personage called Jesus is a mythological character based on a real man who lived. For instance, neither Josephus nor Tacitus mentions the biologically impossible birth of Iēsūs/Chrīstus by parthenogenesis, or his fathering by the supreme god of Classical Judaism. Neither of them mentions his contravention of universal law by feeding a multitude with implausibly little food, or by rising from the dead. No word spoken by the historical man is quoted by any source that discusses him outside the works of his devoted followers who considered him the son of the supreme being.

The article should perhaps make note of these facts, lest people fall under the impression that the existence of a man with the right name, birthday and manner of death is evidence for the existence of the Son of God, which it patently is not.

2600:1700:3060:8970:4CD4:5C6E:94FB:1959 (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Richard Carrier over fringe label

There's a discussion over at Richard Carrier over the appropriateness of applying the term "fringe theory" to the Jesus myth theory, particularly as relates to WP:BLP and Richard Carrier in particular. Please see Talk:Richard Carrier#WP:BLP violation fixed.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tone of lead paragraph

The lead paragraph opens with the claim that there is no room to question the Historicity of Jesus. In particular, "... Virtually all New Testament scholars ...the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,...", is a denial that Historicity of Jesus is can be questioned. An article on the historicity of Jesus that immediately condemns the inquiry is not encyclopedic. As written, the article begs the Shakespearean response ""methinks thou doest protest too much."--Tedweverka (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)--Tedweverka (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If virtually all academics in a field agree on something, then that is what we say. You'll also find we don't give much room to dicuss whether the earth is round, the moon landings were real, the Holocaust happened, the earth is only 5000 years, etc. Of course the historicity and Jesus can be questioned, and we also report on the questioning done by academics in the field (very few, but they exist). We do not provide much space for amateur musings, nor should we. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

There is evidence for the roundness of the Earth, the Moon landings, the Holocaust, the age of the Earth. There is to date NO evidence of Jesus, and the entire article - particularly the first paragraph - read like it's an unquestionable fact which we must accept. Evidence first, conclusions second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B108:BF51:B985:57A8:7BF:52BB (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We might consider a lead-in more like that for the wikipedia page on Flat Earth. On that page, the lead paragraphs explain what the theory is, and it is not until the third paragraph that the page says that it is a fringe theory. Dismissing the notion in the first paragraph in the Historicity of Jesus page gives this wikipedia page a feel that it is written by people with skin in the game, as opposed to neutral authors.--Tedweverka (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion, and it's just an opinion, is that all fringe theory articles as well as articles related to fringe theories would benefit from making it clear very early on what the academic consensus is (not the "truth", as we don't claim to know that, but the academic consensus). As for this article, I don't really see the problem. It clearly contradicts traditional Christian beliefs on a number of points, and rightly so, when those beliefs don't match academic consensus. It just so happens that the general historic consensus is that the person Jesus consisted. That does not mean the article takes a Christian perspective, quite the opposite. It takes a neutral, academic perspective, conflicting with both Christianity and fringe research. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead paragraph use of "Virtually" as a modifier to "all" carries judgement, where neutral modifiers such as "almost" or "nearly" would convey the meaning without judgement.--73.229.196.41 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see a problem with that. Changing "virtually" to "nearly". Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with it. The problem is that it creates the impression that there are a minority of professional scholars out there who currently teach in a department of religion, NT studies, ancient history, classics, or some cognate field and who are actively publishing research in academic journals, who entertain Christ Myth Theory. If anyone knows of such a scholar, whom we'll refer to as 'scholar x' for now, then by all means cite so we can change the line to read, "All scholars except scholar x find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.." But until then this page should reflect what scholars actually think about Christ Myth Theory, which is that it's a joke, essentially the Big Foot theory of ancient history and right up there with the 'aliens built the pyramids' hypothesis.

Another problem with some of the language on this page is that it may foster another false impression that Christ Myth Theory is a legitimate hypothesis that's gaining traction with a small but growing number of scholars who are in a field that's dominated by Christian zealots. But there is nothing new about CMT. It's actually as old as biblical criticism itself, and by the late 19th Century it was very popular with scholars. It wasn't until the mid 20th Century, when more modern methods of inquiry developed in the field, that a consensus emerged among scholars -- Christians, Jewish, Muslims and secularists alike -- that CMT was positively refuted, not on theological grounds, but on the same rationalist approach to history that developed the discipline in the first place. In the 80s and 90s, CMT emerged once again, only this time in amateur circles, and once again scholars refuted it. It emerged again in the 21st Century and was again refuted. And here we are in 2019, and the only reason we're even discussing this is because Jesus 'mythicism' is being peddled by certain people out of the 'free thought' movement who either have no ancient historical training or no particular interest in any aspect of ancient history that doesn't relate to debunking Christianity.

If it's not obvious already, I support changing the language in the lead. If there was anything wrong with the original wording of the line in question, it was that 'virtually' does actually mean 'nearly' or 'almost', and it isn't the case that 'nearly' or 'almost' all scholars regard the historicity of Jesus to be a settled matter -- it 'is' all scholars.

In addition, the end of the lead states that "While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness," and then Richard Carrier is cited. Seriously? Richard Carrier? Who here thinks that Richard Carrier is an appropriate citation for this article? Remind me again which university Richard Carrier teaches at? How many textbooks has he published? In which academic journals does his research appear? Which academic publishing houses routinely publish his books? Citing Richard Carrier here is the equivalent of citing some 7-day Creationist who got a Phd in biology to 'debunk' evolution, who can't find a job at any accredited college or university because his work is pseudoscience, to write in the Theory of Evolution article that, "While biologists have criticized evolution scholarship for secular bias and lack of methodological soundness.." This is utterly ridiculous nonsense.

The first line in question needs to be changed to 'all scholars', full stop. And the last part of the lead needs to be removed entirely. I'll give it a few days or so for some discussion to develop here, and then I'm making the edits myself. It is completely inappropriate to try and create a false impression of the magnitude of the scholarly consensus, and it is equally inappropriate to cite pseudo-historians in the article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed change is predicated on removing certain people from the category "scholars". For inclusion, you require they currently teach in an appropriate field and they are actively publishing research in academic journals. This seems too restrictive. The criteria should include scholars who have held such teaching positions and/or have published research in the field.Tedweverka (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We cannot say "all scholars" support the historicity of Jesus, as that is clearly false. We also cannot throw around labels like "pseudo-historians" when referring to living persons. I'm not sure what is meant here by "the last part of the lead", but the entire lead seems fine to me. It was thrashed out painfully over a long period by many editors, and this careful balance should not be disturbed lightly. Wdford (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's what was meant by "the last part of the lead":

"While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[10][note 2]"

This is completely in violation of not just Wikipedia policies Wikipedia: Reliable sources but the standards of any encyclopedia. By citing Richard Carrier on this page, you are opening the flood gates to allow the opinion(s) of any unemployed crank with a Phd to comment on the motivations and methodologies of professional scholars in any given field, as if these views are equal in importance to the judgments of experts. The book 'Proving History' by Carrier not only received scathing reviews from scholars, but also from professional mathematicians who charged him with misapplying and misunderstanding Bayes' Theorem. This is not a scholarly book that's appropriate for citation in a scholarly article.

And then you cite Donald Akenson, whose expertise is in 'Irish migration history'. Why don't we cite the opinions of health economists on articles about labor economics? Or chemists on articles about biology? Just because someone has a history degree does not mean they're qualified to assess the methodologies used by ancient historians. Because the methods used in Jesus research are the same methods used in other areas of ancient history, and those additional methods that are unique to NT research have never been criticized for unsoundness by professional classicists, egyptologists, or any other ancient historians of another focus. But the very fact that you guys are citing an unemployed blogger and an expert in 'Irish migration' to qualify this statement proves only the strength of the very consensus you're questioning.

Here's a useful analogy that directly applies here.

Pretend that there's an unemployed 7-day Creationist who happens to have a Phd in biology. And let's also imagine there's a chemist who also happens to be a Christian fundamentalist. (If you don't think these guys exist, I suggest you take a look at Ken Ham's boys, as he has amassed quite an army of scientists who have something to say about the methodologies and motives of biologists.) Do you think these two citations would be appropriate to qualify a statement in a Theory of Evolution article that says, "Some scientists have questioned the motives and methodologies of evolutionary research" ?? Of course not. In no way would these two neophytes be suitable references that meet the very 'restrictive' definition of authorities in evolutionary biology (that is, professional biologists who are actively published.) And I can assure you that any third party mediation I seek on this issue is going to come to the same determination here. And I will seek some form if there is further noncompliance with Wikipedia standards.

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses"

The citations in question fail this criterion.

And yes, we can say 'all scholars' because it is 'all scholars'. Show me one professional scholar who meets the very 'restrictive' definition of an expert who either thinks Jesus was a myth or that Christ Myth Theory is a legitimate position in this field. Good luck with that.

“The endorsement of amateurs by amateurs is becoming a rampant, annoying and distressing problem for biblical scholarship. The disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense. They are the single greatest threat, next to [Christian] fundamentalism, to the calm and considered academic study of religion, touting the scientific method as their Mod Op while ignoring its application to historical study. While there is some very slight chance that Jesus did not exist, the evidence that he existed is sufficiently and cumulatively strong enough to defeat those doubts.”

--R. Joseph Hoffman, atheist(!) historian with a masters in theology from the Harvard Divinity School and a Phd in Christian Origins from Oxford, not to mention decades of professional research experience.

“This is not an issue for scholars. There is no scholar in any college or university who teaches classics, ancient history, new testament, early Christianity, who doubts that Jesus existed. He is abundantly attested in early sources. Early and independent sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed. Paul is an eyewitness to both Jesus’ disciple Peter and the brother of Jesus. Atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because it makes you look foolish to the outside world.”

--Bart Ehrman, another atheist NT scholar who currently teaches NT studies at UNC, who has a good 4 decades of research experience in this field, who has authored three academic textbooks on this subject, 30 other books, and has been actively publishing professional research in refereed journals for decades. By all means, let's compare his background to Carrier's or Akenson's.

“I shall first offer a list of statements about Jesus that meet two standards: they are almost beyond dispute; and they belong to the framework of his life, and especially of his public career. (A list of everything that we know about Jesus would be appreciably longer.) Jesus was born c 4 BCE near the time of the death of Herod the Great; he spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village; he was baptized by John the Baptist; he called disciples; he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee (apparently not the cities); he preached ‘the kingdom of God’; about the year 30 he went to Jerusalem for Passover; he created a disturbance in the Temple area; he had a final meal with the disciples; he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest; he was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.”

--Ed Parish Sanders, NT historian

“In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus” Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 page 200.

-- Michael Grant, classicist

“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.” – Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145

--John Dominic Crossan, Irish NT historian (another atheist)

It just goes on and on and on.

Again, if no consensus is reached that's consistent with the Wikipedia standards for scholarly subjects, I will take it upon myself to either make the necessary edits or I will apply for some form of mediation to ensure that these standards are enforced on this page.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Lataster is not a scholar? https://sydney.academia.edu/RaphaelLataster Tedweverka (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying you need to stop citing unemployed bloggers (Carrier) and his buddies, like self-described "part-time scholar" Raphael Lataster who is of no academic repute and pushes a theory that's been repeatedly refuted for decades and is considered crackpot-level nonsense by reputable scholars, to qualify the statement that "While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness.." Are you really going to play this game? Because I can play it too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_R._Ross

Marcus Ross has a Phd in Geosciences but thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/creationist-receives-phd/

Again, by citing Carrier and Lataster, you guys are opening up the flood gates on here for anyone to cite any crackpot with letters after his name to mislead the readership about the magnitude of an academic consensus on any topic. That includes anti-vaccination cranks with medical degrees being cited in vaccination articles, or a Marcus Ross citation on any article having to do with human origins or the age of the earth.

I just listed numerous quotes by prominent scholars who claim that Jesus mythicism is universally rejected in the academy. So now I'm going to ask you to cite the number of papers and books that Lataster has published on Christ Myth Theory which have gone through peer review and then list the citations his articles/books have received from prominent scholars who have endorsed his view. And if you fail this, I am moving to edit this article to reflect the reality of scholarly opinion on this subject, and if there is any protest I will seek some form of third party mediation.Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

My question was not meant rhetorically. I posted a link to a fellow named Lataster with a sydney.academia.edu address and what appears to be refereed publications. I don't understand how you got from there to associating him with someone named Carrier.

Perhaps we can agree that it is proper make this Wikipedia page report what is in the literature: specifically, if we have a citation to a work that says "all scholars agree on this" we report that and include the citation for it? Tedweverka (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Secular contemporary scholars who have written a defense for the historicity of Jesus

The following are not secular contemporary scholars who have written a defense for the historicity of Jesus:
 • Michael Grant’s Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels
 • Habermas’ The Historical Jesus
 • Dunn’s The Evidence for Jesus
 • van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament
Per comment by Richard Carrier—18 September 2014—per "Critical Review of Maurice Casey's Defense of the Historicity of Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs. 4 March 2014

None of those books [given above] are actually defenses of historicity (except Habermas, who is just writing specious and frequently dishonest apologetics and not anything actually taken seriously by mainstream scholars…his pages on Thallus alone are a joke).

more...

Van Voorst has two pages on the subject, which are astonishingly feeble (I address them in OHJ). The rest is just an analysis of one set of testimonies, not even close to a complete case. Nor an argument for the existence of Jesus.

Grant ignores the Epistles and just does an idiosyncratic reconstruction of Jesus starting from the premise that he existed. No different than hundreds of “this is my Jesus” books produced every decade. He doesn’t actually address the claim that he doesn’t exist, or the arguments for that conclusion, in any significant degree (much less devote the book to it).

Dunn also virtually ignores the Epistles and just does an idiosyncratic reconstruction of Jesus starting from the premise that he existed. No different than hundreds of “this is my Jesus” books produced every decade. He doesn’t actually address the claim that he doesn’t exist, or the arguments for that conclusion, in any significant degree (much less devote the book to it).

These are not “in defense of the historicity of Jesus.” They just assume the historicity of Jesus. And then attempt to reach conclusions about him. Conclusions that contradict dozens of what other scholars conclude looking at the same data. (Hence chapter 1 of Proving History.)

In other words, these books aren’t even doing the same thing Ehrman’s did. They therefore cannot be compared. They may well be far better (indeed, Van Voorst is still the best recent book to read, despite being incomplete and not even attempting to make any concerted case for historicity). But it’s apples to oranges. They may be fantastically delicious oranges to Ehrman’s sour and worm-ridden apple. But they still aren’t apples.

This article should clearly distinguish all secular contemporary scholars (e.g. Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman) who have written a defense for the historicity of Jesus, from those who have not. Cf. Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill-Rodopi. ISBN 978-9004397934.

• The mainstream point of view of secular contemporary scholars—who have written a defense for the historicity of Jesus—is that "Non-Christian sources" do not provide attestation for the Historicity of Jesus.

--2db (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC) && 19:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

As an academic, can I just point out that your conclusion does not follow from the argument preceding it. The quote you use about apples and oranges is very apt for your argument; it makes a long discussion about apples, and finishes by a brief conclusion about oranges. If your point is that the mainstream view is that non-Christian sources do not provide attestation for the historicity of Jesus, please provide a source for it. Preferably something far better than Lataster, whose book I admit to having difficulties taking seriously. Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks like mythicist arguments that have no basis in reality. For one thing scholars are not divided by their personal worldviews when it comes to a particular field of study in either the humanities, the social sciences, or the natural sciences. "Secular scholars" sounds very stupid considering worldview does not lead to any particular view. The fact that scholars who are Hindu, Buddhists, atheist, Jewish, agnostic, etc virtually all agree that Jesus existed shows that their worldviews do not lead to any particular view automatically. Rather, the evidence is clear that some dude named Jesus wandered around in 1st century Palestine - irrespective of any particular tradition.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Per Meggitt, Justin J. (6 September 2019). "'More Ingenious than Learned'? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus". New Testament Studies. 65 (4): 443–460. doi:10.1017/S0028688519000213.:

[U]nlike ‘guilds’ in professions such as law or medicine, it is not apparent what members of the ‘guild’ of biblical scholars have in common, other than a shared object of study and competence in a few requisite languages, and therefore what value an alleged consensus among them really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter. —(pp. 459–460)

• The issue at hand is amongst: "secular contemporary scholars—who have written a defense for the historicity of Jesus"

not those:
 · who just did an analysis of one set of testimonies
 · who ignore the Epistles completely or almost virtually
 · etc..
--2db (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, scholars are not divided by "secular" or "religious" worldviews in academic literature. There is pretty much a universal consensus over Jesus' existence across all worldviews. Virtually no one is a mythicist - except nonscholars and a few failed scholars like Richard Carrier - who has very little peer reviewed material on the subject (most of his publications on Christianity have been off of "Secular web" and self-publications [1]). Also, your source does not divide Christian studies by the same false dichotomy of "secular" or "religious" scholars - precisely because it makes no sense.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Meggitt, Justin J. (6 September 2019). "'More Ingenious than Learned'? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus". New Testament Studies. 65 (4): 443–460. doi:10.1017/S0028688519000213. [NOW BOLDED]:

New Testament scholars should concede that the kind of history that is deemed acceptable in their field is, at best, somewhat eccentric. Most biblical scholars would be a little unsettled if, for example, they read an article about Apollonius of Tyana in a journal of ancient history that began by arguing for the historicity of supernatural events before defending the veracity of the miracles ascribed to him yet would not be unsurprised to see an article making the same arguments in a journal dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus. —(p. 458)

Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill-Rodopi. ISBN 978-9004397934.

[Per the recent defences of Jesus’ historicity by Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey] If the consensus view that a historical Jesus certainly existed is based on such tenuous methodology, it would seem reasonable that the consensus view should be reviewed, while not necessarily immediately rejected as false. Let us end this section with a mainstream scholar’s admission that such methods — like the earlier and often mentioned appeal to imaginary sources — are idiosyncratic; that they are unique to historians who specialise in the New Testament texts... —(149)

--2db (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see Dunnor Hurtado, to name a few, "arguing for the historicity of supernatural events." What they argue is that it is probable that there was an historical Jesus, showing how the events described in the Gospels etc. can be explained in a natural way, without taking recourse to Divine intervention or supernatural explanations. For example, they explain the post-resurrection appearances as visions, not as a supernatural event.

Your quest is simply not the quest of a large number of people who are sincerely interested in the origins of Christianity. Maybe you should just accept that for most scholars, including a number of Christians, taking the existence of Jesus for granted is not a problem, but part of a natural, and convincing, explanation for the origins of Christianity. Nothing outlandish there. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does the article state "seven" Pauline epistles, and not 13?

In the section 'Pauline epistles' under sources for the historicity of Jesus, the article refers to the "seven Pauline epistles." Why seven and not 13, as in my English Bible? CouldBeBluffing (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Because most academics in the field agree that Paul only wrote seven of them, the other six are forgeries written by other people claiming to be him. For that reason, they are not relevant to establish what Paul knew about Jesus. Jeppiz (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment on the labeling of the field of specialty of a modern Biblical scholar

A user above very narrowly and very characteristically characterized the modern or contemporary Biblical scholar and University Professor Thomas L. Thompson as a "theologian." This type of simplistic and very narrow labeling and pigeon-holing the usually wide-ranging scholarship of different Ancient History scholars is very common in the field. The purpose is also very simple. Since the targeted scholar is a "theologian," whatever he may have argued about Ancient History in general is not as "reliable" as what "historians" do argue.

The definition of a "historian" is a problematic and controversial endeavor, in any case, as other users have already hinted above. But the scholar most used by the labelers in the Historicity of Bible field, be it Hebrew Bible or Christian Bible, is Bart Ehrman, whom Wikipedia labels as a "New Testament Scholar." If that labeling is accepted, then the "correct" labeling for Thompson would be "Hebrew Bible Scholar." (Or, really "Old Testament Scholar," as the area used to be called until pretty recently.)

But a better "label" for the field of study of both Ehrman and Thompson would be, in my view, "Bible Text Criticism," or "Bible Text Critical Studies." While Ehrman specialized in the Christian Bible or New Testament, Thompson specialized first in the Hebrew Bible on Old Testament, and he is one of the exponents of the so-called minimalist school in Bible Text critical studies. From this Ancient History perspective Thompson has also ventured forward into the related field of New Testament Critical Studies. He is the only scholar who has tried so far to venture from one field of text critical studies into the other. His background has been criticized by Ehrman as basically disqualifying him for any recognized authority in the new field.

There is a serious linguistic barrier between the two related fields. The main texts of the Hebrew Bible are written in Hebrew and Aramaic, whereas the main texts of the New Testament are written in Greek, Syriac, and Latin. But the New Testament field begins with a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint. Thompson is the only modern scholar so far to try and cross this serious linguistic divide. But that would be the correct way and direction to go, in my view, for the wider field of Bible Text Critical Studies. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources 1-4

The first 4 sources cited (I have purchased them to check this) DO NOT say what the article claims they say. And yet, every time I try to correct that, an admin keeps reverting the article to the incorrect state. Allocutus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither Fox nor Blomberg say anything about anyone using the historical method to conclude Jesus existed. Additionally, neither source says that a majority of NT scholars (let alone historians) have come to that conclusion. Allocutus (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be much more specific in your critique of the sources, explaining in detail why they do not verify the content. The fact that I am an administrator is irrelevant, as I am not using my administrative powers here. Talk page discussion leading to consensus is the method to determine what is or is not the "correct state". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The first two sources are relied on for the following proposition:

"Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicityof Jesus is effectively certain"

The first source is a book by Blomberg. I own a Kindle copy of it. The book does not say anything about historians applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation and finding that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.

In fact, Blomberg in that boom doesn't at all mention a consensus of historians (or of New Testament Scholars for that matter) on historicity. And his only mention of mythicism is in a footnote when briefly mentioning Earl Doherty. Allocutus (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As for the second source, by Fox (an actual historian, as opposed to Blomberg who is a seminary-trained New Testament scholar), he also does not mention anything about a consensus of experts. The closest he comes is in saying that the crucifixion is something that happened for certain. But that is an expression of how own view and does not go as far as to say that nearly all New Testament Scholars (not to mention "nearly all historians"!) believe Jesus was a historical figure. Allocutus (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Finally, it needs to be noted that there is a difference between each of the following claims:

1. Most experts believe Jesus was a historical figure

2. Most experts have concluded Jesus was a hosrifical figure AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE

3. Most experts have concluded that Jesus was a historical figure AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AND APPLYING RELEVANT CRITERIA (in which case we'd expect to see it reported in relevant peer review journals) Allocutus (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for the typos. Using a mobile phone.

Of course I meant book, not boom.

And historical, not hosrifical! Allocutus (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The four sources already apply historical methods into their analysis by default. They need not be ultra explicit since that would be redundant as in: mathematicians saying they will apply mathematical methods in their analysis of a mathematical topic - mathematicians do their math without going into redundancy. From what I have read, New Testament scholars apply all sorts of methods in their analysis most of which deal with history of the events or manuscript history, etc. Now, if you really look at historiography, there really are no universal historical methods or criteria like a litmus test in chemistry - which is why you have variations of historical interpretations of the exact same events by different historians from dealing with things like the Conquest of Mexico, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.

In terms of Jesus being historical, there is already too much evidence for that. There are many historical people that have a really poor records like Pythagoras or Socrates and no historians really treat the question of their historicity any differently. In fact most historians never really make any assessments of their historicity. Historians are not in the business of seeing if a person is mythological or not. That is a fetish of mythicists and they usually have no empirical support for their ideas - which is why they are fringe.

Also the silly division of "secular scholars" is also not really found in mainstream academic literature. Historians and biblical scholars do not talk that way at all because most non-Christians scholars acknowledge that Jesus existed from archaeology, the New Testament, and extra biblical documents.Ramos1990 (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, the four sources do not do anything like that "by default". They don't even consider the question or historicity of Jesus.

But that's beside the point. The point is that the sources do not support the claim that almost all scholars have used historical criteria to establish historicity.

There's zero archaeological evidence of Jesus. But that's also beside the point. At this point I'm simply discussing the incorrect use of sources 1 and 2 as support of a proposition that NEITHER of them even touches. Allocutus (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Historians don't make conclusions by default. Jesus isn't historical "by default". You either rely on a work that addresses the question or you shouldn't pretend that it does. Allocutus (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Now, if you were to say that the majority of historians and Bible Scholars don't question the existence of Jesus and rather assume it by default, I would agree with you. If course, that's the very criticism that mythicists levy at them.

But saying that most scholars have addressed the issue, applied relevant criteria and concluded historicity is just plain dishonest. Allocutus (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, if the only temporally close evidence for Pythagoras was from members of a cult who claimed that he was a supernatural figure, a human incarnation of a god, who could do all kinds of magic, and if there was not a word from anyone else, I would very much question the historicity of Pythagoras.

And that is not to say that I necessarily insist he WAS historical. That depends on the evidence and I haven't looked at it. I'm happy to discuss it. Allocutus (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I added Bart Ehrmans source which was in the body of the article for relavence: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" (B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285) For some interesting evidence of Jesus and his world is "Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence by Craig A. Evans. Also the Biblical Archaeology Review also has excellent articles by various scholars on the evidence for Jesus existence including multiple corroborations with archaeology and the New Testament (Gospels included). For example "Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible" [2] is a pretty good article in general for extrabiblical data.

Nonetheless, those other sources support the claim that Jesus was indeed historical and that no one who is a serious scholar seriously disputes. The only people who are obsessed with historicity (of which there is no method or criteria that successfully establishes it or not like in how definitive tests exist for chemical identification in chemistry) are mythicists who tend to have not have any empirical support for their hypothesis. They have a habit of generating conspiracy theories and using outdated methods like 19th/20th century Rank and Raglan nonsense while also denying that any evidence from the New Testament, non-biblical sources, and archaeology are valid.

Pretty much no one believes that Jesus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Josephus (by the way there is no independent attestation that Josephus existed if you did not know) and many others do not exist because it is very silly and with no empirical support. Most mythicists do not put any effort to assess the existence of any of these guys and so their conclusions are also suspect because of the lack of comparable rigor.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You're taking a partisan view on the issue. Yes, of course the only people who deny the existence of Jesus are the mythicists. That's because mythicists is the name we use for people who deny the existence of Jesus!

Now, going back to the claim. The article claims the following:

"Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicityof Jesus is effectively certain"

That claim is not supported by ANY of the sources, including Bart Ehrman. At no point, in ANY of his books (and I've read all) does he say that almost all scholars and historians have applied "the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation" and concluded that Jesus was a historical figure.

What Ehrman DOES claim (and neither Blomberg or Fox even mention) is that the majority of experts agree that Jesus existed.

Allocutus (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So at this point, we need to remove references 2 and 3 as they do not support (or even address) the assertion you’re attributing to them. Of course I'm referring to Blomberg and Fox.

We also need to rephrase the clakm. It's quite misleading to say that almost all experts, applying the criteria, have found that Jesus existed. And none of the sources make that assertion at all, not even Ehrman. In fact, how many experts do we even know of who have considered the issue of Jesus' existence and applied historical criteria to reach a conclusion? Allocutus (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased against WP:FRINGE. This is good news for you, in that Wikipedia is biased against creationism, but it is also bad news, since it is biased against CMT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not saying Wikipedia should adopt mythicism as an equal position. No way. What I'm saying is that the article at this moment is WRONG. It's misattributing a false assertion to no less than three sources. Being "biased" against fringe theories doesn't mean we can lie, right?

Allocutus (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I can find lots of peer review work on evidence for evolution in universities all over the world. When is the last time you saw a historian publish a work on Jesus' historicity in a peer review journal anywhere? When HAS the issue been addressed by "applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation"? Allocutus (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, the new footnote regarding Ehrman is incorrect. "Forged" is not a "review of modern scholarship" at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allocutus (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Forged is a trade book. If it were hardcore Bible scholarship would be mostly illegible for the broad public. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Tgeorgescu. As I said though, it's not a review of modern scholarship! Allocutus (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that it precludes Ehrman doing a review of modern scholarship. Actually, that is one of the things he gets paid for (publish or perish entails it). It is just stated for a broad audience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t say it precludes him. OF COURSE he can do a review of modern scholarship. But “Forged” wasn’t one. --Allocutus (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

When is the last time you saw a historian publish a work on Jesus' historicity in a peer review journal anywhere? When HAS the issue been addressed by "applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation"?
— User:Allocutus

The leading historicity scholars are Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman, whose individual works on the question of the "historicity of Jesus"—as a sustained argument that Jesus lived—are not comparable to any other work by a contemporary scholar who also holds the historicity position. Casey and Ehrman are the only contemporary scholars to comprehensively address this issue, as Ehrman writes, "Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived." Ehrman also notes that his book Did Jesus Exist? was written for a popular audience and that in regards to the question of the historicity of Jesus, "I was not arguing the case for scholars, because scholars already know the answer to that question."

References

• Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Brill-Rodopi. ISBN 978-9004397934. [NOW BOLDED]:

Historians cannot lower the standards by which they measure a source’s reliability, simply because they already know, due to the time period in question or for other reasons, that the source is relatively less reliable; even if this is what Biblical scholars actually do. That would be illogical and inconsistent; and its practice all but proves bias. Scholars could then proclaim any source reliable. If that means historians can say nothing of the ancient world with certainty, then so be it. —(p. 137)

• Schröter, Jens (2012). "The Criteria of Authenticity in Jesus Research and Historiographical Method". In Keith, Chris; Le Donne, Anthony (eds.). Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity. A&C Black. pp. 49–70. ISBN 978-0-567-37723-4.

more...

The idea of formulating certain “criteria” for an evaluation of historical sources is a peculiar phenomenon in historical-critical Jesus research. It was established in the course of the twentieth century . . . and it does not, to my knowledge, appear in other strands of historical research. —(pp. 51–52)

• Carrier, Richard (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-560-6.

The growing consensus now is that this entire quest for criteria has failed. The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method. —(p. 11)

--2db (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC) && 04:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the note on Ehrman in the article. I just cross referenced the source that was already there but since he is a scholar he has the ability to make claims of his peers and his field.

I added a quote from Bart Ehrman as it pertains to this claims "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of schol-arship (for example, German and French). And that is just for start-ers. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure." - Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 9780062206442 Pages 4-5.

The sources User2db mentioned above are: Raphael Lataster (religious studies expert, not a historian), Richard Carrier (Historian, but never held an academic position and self publishes most of his stuff on Jesus, has poor peer review history), and Jens Schröter (a theologian, not a historian). These guys may not be historians (Lataster and Schroter) or good ones (Carrier), but they use certain universal principles that both historians and non-historians use. Historians are not really unique in their methods compared to other fields in the humanities.

One thing to keep in mind is that historians do not have universal or established methods which is why you have revisionists as historians all the time. There is no true American History book, there is not true Socrates History book, there is no true President Obama History book either. Instead you have many portraits by numerous historians making their interpretations of these topics.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that to date virtually no historian has really made a case for mythicism except for Richard Carrier who has never held a professional position in academia and tends to self-publish. Even if you found a few more, it would not be enough against the overwhelming vast majority of historians from Christian and non-Christians backgrounds who have found no good reason to even argue that he did not exist. The same goes for active historians arguing for mythicism on Socrates, Pythagoras, Muhammad, Paul, Josephus, or most of people found in ancient or medieval sources. Mythicism is not really a thing in historiography nor is it a topic in history courses. One would have to establish that mythicism on any historical event or person is a prominent independent field of study among historians before pushing anything further here.

Most prominent mythicists do not hold history degrees either so why should anyone care about them when they speak of history? Robert Price - theologian, Earl Doherty - amateur with a BA in Ancient History and Classical Languages, George Wells - professor of German, Thomas L. Thompson - theologian, Thomas L. Brodie - theologian, David Fitzgerald - amateur who apparently has some degree in history but has never peer-review published anything, Raphael Lataster - religious studies degree. Looks like mythicism need more historians in their midst because it is filled with non-historians and people with some history degree with no professional experience as historians.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ramos.... The problem here is that there have been very, very few historians who have peer reviewed a defence for historicity of Jesus.

You need to delete the claim that "Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicityof Jesus is effectively certain".

It's simply incorrect. It's also unsupported by the sources cited.

I suggest you delete references to Blomberg and Fox (they don't say ANYTHING to support consensus at all), keep Ehrman (he does support consensus) and change the claim to "very few New Testament scholars and Near East historians question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth"

It's simply unacceptable that a source like Wikipedia present misleading information. And why would you want that anyway, especially with your name under it? Allocutus (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is doubtful that any claim beyond the following can be made:

• Alanna Nobbs and Edwin Judge ap. Dickson, John. "Best of 2012: The irreligious assault on the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion and Ethics. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

  While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure [sc. Jesus], his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain.

--2db (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think even that claim is pushing it.

The only sources close in time to the alleged Jesus are so fantastic they have no credit.

If the only sources talking about John Frogger were members of a cult who claimed he was a frog who came from Mars, turned into a prince, gave a speech, turned back into a frog and went back to Mars, would you also insist on his historicity?

And yet that's exactly the kind of evidence we have for this Jesus. Allocutus (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

But more to the point, if Casey and Ehrman are the only contemporary scholars to address the issue in detail and conclude historicity then saying that "Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicityof Jesus is effectively certain" is just complete and utter rubbish.

In fact, Carrier and Price are also contemporary scholars who have addressed the issue at length.

That would make 2 vs 2. Allocutus (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The only sources close in time to the alleged Jesus are so fantastic they have no credit.

Yes, but on Wikipedia (WP), that is irrelevant. When creating an article on WP, the algorithm is: 1. If the topic is notable per Wikipedia:Notability policy, determine its status as Wikipedia:Fringe theories or not; 2. Find ~3 Wikipedia:Rs scholarly works if possible with the most Wikipedia:Weight on the topic and write an article with no Wikipedia:Original research while citing said scholarly works without committing Wikipedia:SYNTH while maintaining Wikipedia:NPOV.

• Carrier and Price are also contemporary scholars who have addressed the issue at length.

Again yes, however you should expect significant misrepresentation of WP policy in this regard. You will have to lawyer up and become an expert on WP policy and conflict resolution.

Carrier make two cases in OHJ (2014). Both are WP:RS, but one is WP:Fringe, i.e. ahistoricty. Whereas his case for historicity exceeds any source cited in this article per WP:RS and WP:Weight. --2db (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I fear quite a lot of the discussion above falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is a matter of fact that Ehrman states that most scholars in the field believe the person Jesus existed, as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher. Whether some users like that or not is, frankly, rather irrelevant. Much of the discussion above, I'm afraid, consists of two users trying to work out their own review of the field. We have a word for that, and that is original research. I do believe the initial thread start is relevant. Perhaps the sources used for these claims are not the best ones. That's a relevant argument, and can be solved by adding better sources. Trying to work out our own literature of the field, as the thread has degenerated into, is a non-starter though. Jeppiz (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's not correct, Jeppiz.

Ehrman does say most scholars believe Jesus was a historical person.

What Ehrman does NOT say is that they applied "standard historical criteria of investigation" and made that finding.

There's a difference between holding a belief and making a professional conclusion.

In other words, the Wiki article at the point is WRONG. It claims that almost all NT scholars and NE historians have actually considered the question and arrived at a professional conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that only four modern scholars did:

1. Ehrman and Casey concluded almost certain historicity

2. Price and Carrier concluded almost certain non-historicity.

What I've been saying the whole time is that:

A. Blomberg and Fox need to be deleted as sources. They say NOTHING about consensus. I'm serious. I own those books. Check it for yourself.

B. Ehrman should be kept as he supports consensus.

C. The paragraph needs to be changed. It simply can't be saying that almost all experts have applied relevant criteria and concluded that Jesus was historical when in fact ONLY TWO did!

I suggest "Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain" should be changed to "According to Bart Ehrman almost all New Testament scholars and Near East historians believe Jesus was almost certainly a historical figure", followed by an Ehrman citation.

This has nothing to do with what I "like". At this point Wikipedia is telling a lie. Allocutus (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

We would only need to say "According to Bart Ehrman..." if there was some doubt that almost all reputable scholars and historians believe Jesus was a historical figure - as the statement is true except for some fringe theorists, the citation at the end of the sentence is enough for attribution - Epinoia (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Epinoia.

And yes, there certainly should be doubt, at least to any mind honestly interested in finding the truth.

Ehrman is a single source who isn't even a historian. He's a seminary-trained Bible scholar. And he doesn't tell us HOW he came to the above conclusion. Has he actually done a survey of all scholars? According to his own statements elsewhere (I can't recall where) existence of Jesus isn't something NT scholars even mention. They don't discuss it. Sure, maybe that means they do assume he existed. But who is "they"? Zindler has asked Ehrman in the course of an email exchange who he's talking about when referring to "almost all experts" and, according to Zindler, Ehrman gave him a list of NT scholars (and, it seems, NOT of secularly employed historians), almost all EMPLOYED BY CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. (see "BART EHRMAN and the QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH", chapter 4). Furthermore, again according to Zindler in the same book, when Zindler confronted Ehrman with this, Ehrman failed to reply to Zindler's email. If one were to insist on 100% honesty, that should probably be mentioned too. It's not very remarkable that almost all Bible experts employed by Christian churches believe the alleged founder of Christianity existed.

But Ehrman isn't infallable. Just watch some of his debates (including against Christian scholars). His opinion does carry a lot of weight. But at the end of the day, it's just his opinion. It doesn't make it a fact.

I also don't think "according to" is only usable when there is doubt, though I may be wrong. I've seen many references such as "according to X, a leading expert in the area of Y, Z is true."

All that said, I'm not too worried about "according to Ehrman". As you point out, that's at least debatable, depending on whether one accepts Ehrman's claim as Gospel (no pun intended).

At the minimum then, the paragraph should be changed to "Almost all NT scholars and NE historians believe that Jesus was a historical figure", followed by the Ehrman reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allocutus (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that, "Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain", is ridiculous and not true. Especially in light of the current mainstream criticism of "criteria" and the growing consensus that it has failed.

Blomberg, Craig L. (2011). "New Testament Studies in North America". In Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Yarbrough, Robert W. (ed.). Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century. Crossway. pp. 277–299. ISBN 978-1-4335-0719-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) [NOW BOLDED]:

The fruit of a decade of work by the IBR Historical Jesus Study Group, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence [Ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).] takes a dozen core themes or events from Jesus’ life and ministry and details the case for their authenticity via all the standard historical criteria, as well as assessing their significance. The results show significant correlation between what historians can demonstrate and what evangelical theology has classically asserted about the life of Christ. —(p. 282)

• So sure, Blomberg makes his case for historicity with "criteria".
• However Ehrman makes his case for historicity by presenting seven narratives about Jesus as independent attestations for the historicity of Jesus. Ehrman derives these independent narratives from “either entirely or partially independent” extant sources. Said sources being the four canonical gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John; and three non-canonical gospels: Thomas, Peter, P Egerton 2.

--2db (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree, 2db.

Except my reference to Blomberg is a reference to the current Footnote 3, namely "The Reliability of the Gospels". And it's currently used to support consensus, and not merely as one example of a scholar applying criteria. And Blomberg's book referenced in footnote 3 does NOT support consensus. Nor does the Fox book referred to in footnote 4.

Basically, the article as it stands grossly misstates the extent of consensus and the support for the claim of consensus.

Furthermore, it seems the study (in a Blomberg book) you quote does not include a defense for Jesus' historicity. I say that because that's the usual course with NT scholarly studies and the paragraph doesn't mention historicity. Scholars almost invariably spend time and effort working out what Jeus did and said but take his existence as an assumption.

On that basis, without reading the actual source, I don't think that quote can even be taken to refer to an application of standards to the question of HISTORICITY of Jesus.

Allocutus (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC) && 03:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC) && 03:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I also understand how Ehrman makes his case for Jesus. Of course, that's illogical.

He himself posits the narratives are based on previous seouces and are not themselves eyewitness accounts.

And that being the case, ultimately, they must go back to a single source of information.

That source may be an actual single sequence of events involving a historical Jesus who is being observed by people who then pass the information on.

Or that source may be a previous legend about Jesus. A story.

This is where Ehrman makes a childish mistake. He assumes the former and doesn't even mention, let alone exclude, the latter! Allocutus (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I added relevant templates to the Footnotes in question. --2db (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording to reflect the better sources. Thanks for some of the sources 2db. Interesting stuff, but I am afraid that this discussion is becoming a forum and losing its purpose. It is clear that 1) virtually all scholars (which include historians, linguists, archaeologists, theologians, etc - all of which engage in historical analysis on various fronts) agree that there is evidence for Jesus' existence and do not support fringe theories like mythicism, 2) there are incredibly few mythicists in the first place [3] and most are not historians nor have they peer reviewed published on that topic, 3) mythicism is very short in having professional historians in their ranks and they have failed to convince the majority of scholars of their methods, ideas, and conclusions on the historicity of Jesus, 4) almost no peer reviewed sources exist for mythicism, whereas there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of peer reviewed sources that treat the historicity of Jesus as obvious and have supported his historicity by reconstructing his life ranging from him being a savior deity to him being a failed human prophet.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on[e] in a bona fide department of biology": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, I did another search to confirm the situation above, and it seems that the existence debate is really over within academia and only the non-scholarly types are still discussing it. The funniest item I found was this challenge a year ago for Dickson to eat a page of his Bible. I did another search and it seems that based on this ABC news item in Australia as of now no one has found a professor of ancient history or classics at a university who denies existence. And there are plenty of professors out there; many of them non-Christian. The exact challenge seems to be to find "a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived". And no one seems to have found such a professor. So the debate seems to be over within academia. Else we can all call John Dickson and get him to eat a page after all.
— User:byHistory2007 15:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That challenge is a different kettle of fish, Tgeorgescu. I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say Jesus never lived. But the same goes for most legendary figures. Legends are often based on real characters. I don't think you can ever exclude it.

Perhaps a better challenge would be to ask "are you certain Jesus existed?" You can be sure you'll get many "I'm not sure" and "I'm inclined to think he probably did" and other quite equivocal responses. Would someone eat a Bible for that?

I can see the article was amended and I'm grateful to Ramos for changing it. Definitely a step in the right direction.

I'm still not clear about his first point, insofar as it applies to archaeologists and secular historians.

So far, we have discussed 2 New Testament Scholars (not to be confused with historians) concluding historicity, one NT scholar (not to be confused with an historian) being a mythicist (Price) and one secular historian being a mythicist (Carrier).

In other words, the only historian we know of who has considered the question has concluded that there are good reasons to doubt historicity.

I also don't know if it's true that there is no mythicist peer review work. But I also don't know of any historicist peer review work published by secular historians or in secular journals of history. Allocutus (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not replace Christian AD with neutral CE notation?

I made some changes to the notation. I think for accurate historicity the term 'Year of the Lord' is not appropriate. Someone immediately undid these. Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeertKol (talk • contribs)

Yes, MOS:ERA which was cited in my edit summary is the reason. Please review it, this time. El_C 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier is a wp:fringe author who holds no academic position and advocates the fringe Christ myth theory. His books are only cited by real scholars to show his flawed arguments, he should not be cited for factual statements in this article, particularly when a better source is already provided—Ermenrich (talk)

What is the topic at hand? What is the date for the "better source [that] is already provided"? What is the current scholarship surveyed in this "better source [that] is already provided"? --2db (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Currently Carrier is cited for While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for lack of methodological soundness or consistency and quoted in a note saying ...attempts to ascertain the 'real' historical Jesus have ended in confusion and failure. The latest attempt to cobble together a method for teasing out the truth involved developing a set of critera. But it has since been demonstrated that all those criteria, as well as the whole method of their employment, are fatally flawed. Every expert who has seriously examined the issue has already come to this conclusion. This is akin to saying "Climate scientists have sometimes been attacked for their methodology" and citing it to a Climate change denier. It doesn't matter whether it's true, this is an inappropriate source. The same statement is also sourced to: Donald H. Akenson (2001). Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1. This is obviously a superior source and so citing Carrier is not only completely against our sourcing policy, it is completely unnecessary.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Akenson (2001) is outdated on current scholarship, e.g. the Jesus Seminar’s manual on method:

• Carrier, Richard C. (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-560-6.:

Per Carrier (2012) p. 11.

[A]ttempts to ascertain the “real” historical Jesus have ended in confusion and failure. The latest attempt to cobble together a method for teasing out the truth involved developing a set of criteria. But it has since been demonstrated that all those criteria, as well as the whole method of their employment, are fatally flawed. Every expert who has seriously examined the issue has already come to this conclusion. In the words of Gerd Theissen, “There are no reliable criteria for separating authentic from inauthentic Jesus tradition.”2 Stanley Porter agrees.3 Dale Allison likewise concludes, “these criteria have not led to any uniformity of result, or any more uniformity than would have been the case had we never heard of them,” hence “the criteria themselves are seriously defective” and “cannot do what is claimed for them.”4 Even Porter's attempt to develop new criteria has been shot down by unveiling all the same problems.5 And Porter had to agree.6 The growing consensus now is that this entire quest for criteria has failed.7 The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method. [Page 11 notes n. 2-7. (p. 293f)] 2. Quoted in Stanley Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 115. 3. Ibid., pp. 116-17. See also Stanley Porter′s summary critique in James Charlesworth and Petr Pokorný, eds., Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 16-35. 4. Dale Allison, “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church,” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, eds. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 79-95 (quoting p. 79). His conclusion has only become stronger after a decade of critical research: compare Dale Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 1-77. 5. Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007), pp. 203-209; Michael Bird, “The Criterion of Greek Language and Context: A Response to Stanley E. Porter,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4, no. 1 (2006): pp. 55-67. 6. Stanley Porter, “The Criterion of Greek Language and Its Context: A Further Response,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4, no. 1 (2006): 69-74 (in response to Bird, cited in the previous note). Porter concludes his new criteria only establish the possibility of historicity, but that's of no use if you want to know what actually is historical. And there's more wrong with his new criteria than even Porter concedes (as I‘ll show in chapter 5). 7. See Dale Allison, “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church” and The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2009); Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2002); Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, eds., Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (T & T Clark, 2002); and Porter, Criteria for Authenticity. Similar doubts can be found almost anywhere the criteria have ever been critically discussed, e.g., M. D. Hooker, “Christology and Methodology,” New Testament Studies 17 (1970): pp. 480-87; John Gager, “The Gospels and Jesus: Some Doubts about Method,” Journal of Religion 54, no. 3 (July 1974): 244-72; Eugene Boring, “The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case,” Semeia 44 (1988): 9-44; John Meier, “Criteria: How Do We Decide What Comes from Jesus?” A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 167-95; Christopher Tuckett, “Sources and Methods,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, ed. Markus Bockmuehl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 121-37; H. W. Shin, Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem in Historical Jesus Research: The Search for Valid Criteria (Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2004), pp. 135-220, pp. 320-34; Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle, and Multiple Attestation,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 1 (2005): 23-45; William John Lyons, “The Hermeneutics of Fictional Black and Factual Red: The Markan Simon of Cyrene and the Quest for the Historical Jesus,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 4. no. 2 (June 2006): 139-54 (cf. 150-51. n. 51) and “A Prophet Is Rejected in His Home Town (Mark 6.4 and Parallels): A Study in the Methodological (In) Consistency of the Jesus Seminar.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6. no. 1 (March 2008): 59-84; and Rafael Rodriguez. “Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7, no. 2 (2009): 152-67. The discussion of the same criteria in the Jesus Seminar’s manual on method, edited by Bernard Brandon Scott, Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence (Santa Rosa. CA: Polebridge. 2008), is almost wholly uncritical and entirely unresponsive to any of the literature above.

--2db (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't use a fringe figure to establish that something else is outdated. Show us real sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't use a fringe figure to establish that something else is outdated.

Please cite the WP policy that defines a "fringe figure" and then cite the WP policy that supports your claim that a "fringe figure" can not be a WP:RS on any topic. --2db (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please cite the policy that says that someone who fails wp:fringe can be used as a wp:RS. I'd suggest reading both guidelines. The first part of WP:RS specific says we should use reliable authors. Carrier is not.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, You—not me—are trying to change this article and you are refusing to cite the specific WP policy that defines a "fringe figure", which you claim in support of your change to this article. --2db (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see wp:CHEESE. Richard Carrier is not a reliable source, per WP:RS: he holds no academic position, his arguments are not taken seriously by other scholars in the field, and he ascribes to the wp:fringe Christ myth theory. You appear to have no argument for why someone described as "on the fringes of the academic guild" should be cited in this article.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I will agree, a bit, with Ermenrich and Alephb. I do see a small role for Carrier in this article when we refer to critical research, but not in the lead. And most certainly not his mockery of Bayesian modelling; all it shows is that Carrier doesn't Bayesian methods. Jeppiz (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have no argument for why someone described as "on the fringes of the academic guild"
— User:Ermenrich

Ermenrich, you appear to not understand that I am challenging your change to this article in the context of WP policy per the definition of "fringe figure" which you claim in support of your change. The opinion of Litwa, M. David is irrelevant, what is relevant is that per WP:RS the term "fringe figure" is never used. --2db (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

2db, your behavior on this talk page consists entirely of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and wp:CHEESE. If you continue this and wp:edit warring to keep Carrier against the consensus now expressed by three editors, you are being disruptive.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich your gross misrepresentation of WP policy is obvious, your refusal to cite specific WP policy in support of your claim has been noted. No other editor has cited WP policy in support of your claim, no other editor is claiming—as you did—that Carrier is defined as a "fringe figure" on ALL TOPICS per WP policy. --2db (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be pretty clear, to all who have ears to hear, that Carrier is a fringe author on the historicity of Jesus, which is exactly what the lede is citing him as an authority on. Alephb (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Alephb, User:Jeppiz, and User:Ermenrich that Carrier is a fringe figure when it comes to historicity of Jesus. I also agree that Carrier probably does not belong in the lead since he is not really a useful scholar, most of his works on Jesus studies are effectively self-published [4], and he is NOT an authoritative figure in Jesus studies to make claims about consensus views. There are mythicists that have superior credentials and certainly have the academic background and experience, however, to make such assertions in the lead. For example Robert M. Price. He is a respectable mythicist compared to hasty generalization Carrier. Thomas L. Thompson is also worth mentioning. I have followed Carrier's writings for years and he tends to act like an authority on numerous topics only to be shot down by actual experts in those fields. Carrier is ok to be cited in the body of the article however, but not the lead. What makes the difference here, policy wise, is that Carrier's opinions are WP:UNDUE due to his extensive self-published material on Jesus studies.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

So the logical implication of some the comments being made here are that scholars who have published in support of the historicity of the "Resurrection of Jesus" are not WP:RS, because the historicity of the "Resurrection of Jesus" is a fringe position. Thus under some un-cited WP policy, these scholars are now "fringe figures" on all topics relating to "Biblical Studies". --2db (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The majority of scholars make no claim about the historicity of the resurrection, that is a matter of religious belief, not history.

Anyway, that is a straw man argument and is irrelevant to the fact that Carrier is not an authority on this matter and should not be cited.—Ermenrich (talk)

The majority of scholars make no claim about the historicity of the resurrection

But some do, and the case being made about Carrier applies equally to them as well.

Per Meggitt, Justin J. (6 September 2019). "'More Ingenious than Learned'? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus". New Testament Studies. 65 (4): 443–460. doi:10.1017/S0028688519000213. [NOW BOLDED]:

New Testament scholars should concede that the kind of history that is deemed acceptable in their field is, at best, somewhat eccentric. Most biblical scholars would be a little unsettled if, for example, they read an article about Apollonius of Tyana in a journal of ancient history that began by arguing for the historicity of supernatural events before defending the veracity of the miracles ascribed to him yet would not be unsurprised to see an article making the same arguments in a journal dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus. —(p. 458)

Carrier is not an authority on this matter

Carrier's book material (page 11) cited in this article is not on a fringe topic and Carrier is a WP:RS on this topic. --2db (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The bit you're referring to from Carrier's Proving History, which is where Carrier lays out his unusual belief that a math equation should be the basis of historical investigation. You understand that this is a fringe position, right? Alephb (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The bit I am referring to from Carrier's Proving History is p. 11 [previously given—Old revision of Talk:Historicity of Jesus] which is not a fringe position, right? --2db (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

as has been pointed out before, Carrier is not a figure any scholar takes seriously in the field. Maybe he’s correct, even a broken clock is right twice a day, after all. But we cannot cite him at face value, he is not reliable, Per wp:rs.—Ermenrich (talk)

- I agree with Ermenrich on this one - Epinoia (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also opposed to using Carrier as a source for this article. Smeat75 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

3 New Sources, 2 New Additions: majority of scholarly views on the Gospel genre, the definition of historically reliable, and whether or not the Gospels are

Same thread as Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels#3 New Sources, 2 New Additions: majority of scholarly views on the Gospel genre, the definition of historically reliable, and whether or not the Gospels are; please keep the discussion at one place

I have three new sources, with accompanying material I would like to insert into the beginning of this article. People have been very upset about the publishers being Christian in my previous contribution so I found some mainstream, non-Christian publishers with great recent sources on the topic. Many argue these views are not mainstream-- however, my source indicates the majority of scholars actually view the Gospels as ancient biographies, which they go on to say typically contain substantial historical information. This would lend credence to the notion that some scholars considering the gospels to be historically reliable is not a fringe perspective, but rather at the very least a significant minority view WP:RS, which would in turn provide a rationale for including them in the article in some capacity. Then, an open source (CC BY license, see WP:Copy-paste) provides a provisional definition of historically reliable, establishes four criteria (author chose sources judiciously, the author used his sources reliably, ability to verify numerous items reported, no more than a very small percentage of items reported by the author have a chance of being errors), and does a targeted comparison of the Gospel of Mark with Suetonius's Life of Augustus. The result is that with the given criteria, the Gospel of Mark is considered perhaps even more historically reliable than Suetonius's Life of Augustus. Arguments about this research being invalid because the authors are Christian OR apologetic are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The publishers are mainstream "unapologetic" and reputable. They don't publish apologetic nonsense. These are evidence based historical claims, not theology. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." "...biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone" WP:BIASED There is no requirement for a source to be atheist / agnostic. Reliable sources on the Gospels can be Christians. Here is what I would like to add in some capacity with accompanying sources: Among scholars, a majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of ancient biographies. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history. Historically reliable means that, at the very minimum, that the account provides an accurate gist or an essentially faithful representation of what occurred, it is “true enough” (more true than false). Based on four criteria (author chose sources judiciously, author used sources reliably, ability to verify numerous items reported, no more than a very small percentage of items reported by the author have a chance of being errors), the Gospel of Mark in the Bible is historically reliable in this sense, perhaps even more so than contemporary ancient sources such as Suetonius’s Life of Augustus. If you are going to argue these views are somehow not mainstream, I would like to see quotations from sources saying that. The line in the article currently says "little is considered historically reliable", yet those sources don't exactly say that. Scrutinizing them further, and the validity of the claim associated with the sources, I will do next. I'm happy to be proved wrong. A quick glance through google scholar actually indicates the contrary, that these are mainstream views. Most sources found through them on the subject of the historical reliability of the gospels are incredibly supportive of the notion that they are. Let me know what you guys think. I am open to working with everybody, just make the proposal and we can get this material into the article, where it belongs. Cheers. Nbbowen0738 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC) References

Criticism of methodology mentioned in lead but not body

The lead currently states While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for lack of methodological soundness or consistency,. This is not covered anywhere in the body. Furthermore, the scholar cited, Donald Akenson, does not appear to be an expert on ancient Christianity. Google books [5] shows 3 books on Irish and Irish immigrant history, which is confirmed by his Wikipedia article. He does not appear to be the best person to cite this opinion to (and I'll note that I earlier removed Christ-mythicist Richard Carrier as an inappropriate citation for this same sentence).

Does anyone know of actual scholars of early Christianity who are critical of scholarly methods on historical Jesus? These are the people who should be cited here. Furthermore, this definitely needs to be in the body, otherwise this should be removed from the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you can remove that sentence because it looks odd either way since scholars tend to be critical of each others methods by default. Kind of looks redundant or something a fringe scholar would claim as if to diminish other scholars.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.Smeat75 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. I also rewrote the second half of the sentence since it referred back to this part originally.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your removal/rewrite seems factually fine. Stylistically, the reduplicated term “historicity of Jesus” grates a bit, but this is minor and is acceptable as is. Mathglot (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Some scholars believe the Gospels are historically reliable

On the page, "Historicity of Jesus", under the subject of "Historical Reliability of the Gospels", the previous version states "Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.".

This is by no means a universal, unequivocal academic perspective, and as such this statement is misleading. It's import to include that "some scholars support the historical reliability of the Gospels". I have provided two recent sources that support this statement in a strong fashion.

Eddy, Paul Rhodes, and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus legend: A case for the historical reliability of the synoptic Jesus tradition. Baker Books, 2007. P.14-15

“The thesis we will be defending is this: If, with its reports of the supernatural, one is able to remain sincerely open to the possibility (not merely the “logical” possibility, but the genuine historical possibility; see chap. 1 below) that the portrait(s) of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is historically reliable, then, given an appropriate historical method and the evidence at hand, one is justified (on purely historical grounds) in concluding that the Synoptic portrait(s) of Jesus is quite historically plausible--- in fact, that is is the most historically probable representation of the actual Jesus of history. At the very least, we contend, the cumulative case for the general reliability of the Synoptic presentation is such that the a posteriori burden of proof (on which see chap. 9) rests on those who contend that the portrait is generally unreliable.”

P.14

“For example, while it might be theologically problematic to countenance certain inaccuracies or fabricated elements in the Gospels, this does not trouble our more minimal historiographical thesis: namely that the Synoptic Gospels are---generally and substantially speaking----rooted in history.”

Blomberg, Craig L. The historical reliability of the Gospels. InterVarsity Press, 2014. P.297

“A wide variety of charges have been examined that would call into question the Gospels’ reliability... in every case, it has been concluded that an even handed treatment of the data does not lead to a distrust of the accuracy of the Gospels in what they choose to report, even though many might wish they had reported more or related what they did in more precise or systematic fashion.”

I would be really curious to know how the statement - "some scholars support the historical reliability of the Gospels" - is somehow false. Those who are unhappy with this addition should explain why, otherwise I think it's appropriate to clarify this misleading, pretentiously "unequivocal" statement that "little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable." It is simply not a universal academic perspective.

Nbbowen0738 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not a universal academic perspective because conservative evangelical scholars will never adopt unorthodox theological perspectives, like NT gospels being prone to error as in WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. ::Nbbowen0738 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s not ad hominem, it’s true. Fundamentalists do not represent mainstream scholarship, particularly if they’re defending supernatural events as historically accurate. Blomberg in particular has written a book titled The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelic Christian Beliefs [6]: we rely on scholarship that is not apologetic. The first book includes cover-blurbs by Richard Bauckham, who argues that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, Craig A. Evans, "an evangelical scholar", C. Stephen Evans, a philosopher, and Robert M. Price, a fringe Christ myth theorist. This does not bring confidence that it represents mainstream biblical scholarship.—Ermenrich (talk)

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

These articles were found by searching "historical reliability of the Gospels" on google scholar. These were the first and third articles returned. I'm unsure how that is not as mainstream an academic publication as it gets. Just because you don't agree with their conclusions, doesn't mean the articles are outside of the mainstream.

Also, not one of these scholars has claimed in scholarly literature that "supernatural events are historically accurate". These sources make a minimal claim: that the gospels are "rooted" in history (which is not the same thing as saying that all of it is 100% fact). They are supportive of the perspective that the Gospels are historically reliable. They aren't trying to prove that Jesus walked on water. Those are two different claims.

You've never addressed my initial question: how the statement - "some scholars support the historical reliability of the Gospels" - is false. You've simply jumped to ad hominem arguments.

See WP:Reliability "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Nbbowen0738 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Historically reliable" should be qualified; it suggests that the Gospels are exact historical documents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's use the wording of the sources then. "...the Synoptic portrait(s) of Jesus is quite historically plausible--- in fact, that is is the most historically probable representation of the actual Jesus of history." "the Synoptic Gospels are---generally and substantially speaking----rooted in history.” I'm not quite sure why you only have a problem with the semantics of "historically reliable" with my addition but not the current version that uses the same wording --- "Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable." Could you please explain why my addition using this terminology is problematic but the current version using it is not? Seems like you applying inconsistent standards. Also, none of these sources make the claim that "the Gospels are exact historical documents", you are straw-manning their arguments... Nbbowen0738 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to find sources that aren't published by Evangelic Christian publishing presses and essentially meant to "defend the faith" against mainstream scholarship. The majority of scholars acknowledge that some things in the gospels did or are likely to have happened (see crucifixion and baptism immediately below the area in dispute), but they don't put much stock in the actual depictions of the gospels, which were certainly not written by eye-witnesses and were often written outside of Palestine. They even disagree among each other as to what happened.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy since we have to evaluate who, teaching where, says what and published where. For them:

• it's a foregone conclusion;
• it's not amenable to evidence;
• they share the conviction that their own holy book is perfect with fundamentalists of every religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Some scholars support the historical reliability of the Gospels..." in the lead would be a misleading generalization violating WP:GEVAL since as Ermenrich noted, it's not a "some believe it's 100%" true vs "some deny everything" debate, more that modern mainstream scholarship considers some aspects to likely be historical, with grandiose claims unlikely to be... —PaleoNeonate – 20:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nbbowen0738:, I think you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Fringe theories. --Equivamp - talk 00:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand people are upset with the publishers being Christian. Although I think this is about as valid of a criticism as pointing out that a publisher is non-Christian, I nevertheless have done some digging and found some fresh sources from Penn State University Press and MDPI. I will concede the publisher ground, but the argument that just because someone is Christian they cannot produce valid biblical scholarship is about as valid in my view as saying someone who is atheist cannot produce valid biblical scholarship WP:BIASED. Both are unsound, ad hominem arguments that refuse to address arguments that the actual scholarship espouses. No one here owns this page WP:OWNERSHIP, and a majority vote is not a consensus WP:CON Nbbowen0738 (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What matters is the mainstream scholarly view, not the number of editors or if authors are Christian or not (some certainly are both Christians and in mainstream academia). —PaleoNeonate – 07:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, MDPI's peer review has a poor reputation, there are better sources available on the topic. Moreover, your text seemed to claim that if scholars consider Jesus to have lived, they must consider most of the Gospels as true history. —PaleoNeonate – 01:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The quality of MDPI's peer review has been disputed, a complaint disputed by MDPI itself. MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014 but was removed in 2015 after successful appeal. Nbbowen0738 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:MANDY. I saw editors topic-banned for MDPI-advocacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

How is it possible that a newbie, with only 23 edits, knows about WP:BIASED, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:CON? And why do we have again this discussion about the hustorical reliability of the gospels? Maybe WP:DENY applies here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sup dudes, can you please explain to me what is wrong with this paragraph? I eagerly await your non emotional responses!

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the same genre as Plutarch’s Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history. Some biblical scholars view Luke’s Gospel as ancient history rather than ancient biography.

Nbbowen0738 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well since you ask... It's ok, but incomplete and therefore misleading. You need to tell readers that ancient biography was not like the modern version, but contains substantial information that the author may well have considered true but which seems to us completely weird - Suetonius's life of Julius Caesar tells how the emperor ascended into heaven, for example. So "ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history" - well, yes, but they also include substantial non-history. You also need to consider the question of the motives of the gospel-authors and the sources they used. So, to repeat, your para is incomplete and therefore misleading.Achar Sva (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Re this sentence (or part-sentence) from the Eddy and Rhodes work someone has quoted above, mentioning: the genuine historical possibility ... that the portrait(s) of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is historically reliable, then, given an appropriate historical method and the evidence at hand, one is justified (on purely historical grounds) in concluding that the Synoptic portrait(s) of Jesus is quite historically plausible: the problem is that it isn't specific enough. What part of the synoptic tradition is plausible? The narrative, or the teachings? What part of the narrative and teachings, and why are those parts plausible? What sources lie behind the synoptics, where do they come from, and are they relibale in themselves? These are the real questions that biblical scholars deal with, not anything so simplistic as "the gospels are/are not plausible."Achar Sva (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Cannot find where sources substantiate claim

Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.

References

Can someone please point out to me where these four sources substantiate this claim? I cannot find it. Thank you. Nbbowen0738 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The topic of the article is the historicity of Jesus, i.e., whether or not a historical Jesus existed. Whether the gospels are an accurate historical record of his life is a separate question - you could remove the gospels from the NT and still have half of it left. Note also the two adjectives before the word "record" - "accurate" and "historical"; the general opinion of scholarship is that no, they're not accurate in detail, but yes, they are accurate in essence, and no, they're not historical, they're theological, but they contain some historical facts. In other words, the quote is besides the point. Achar Sva (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Arnal, William E. (2015). The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism and the Construction of Contemporary Identity. Routledge. pp. 75f. ISBN 978-1-317-32440-9.

Whether Jesus himself existed as a historical figure or not, the gospels that tell of him are unquestionably mythic texts.

--2db (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

William Arnal and Equinox (his publisher) are both of questionable reliability (I mean in Wikipedia terms of course): Arnal is an Associate Professor at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan, which is not a leading academic institution, and Equinox is "an independent academic publisher founded in 2003 by Janet Joyce," a description which doesn't inspire confidence. But I gather that Arnal is using "mythic" in the sense of a symbolic story - i.e., the gospels are not attempts to record accurate history as it happened (an impossible aim), but to create explanatory stories. Quite true, but relevant to the life of a historic Jesus, not to his existence.

As for Nbbowen0738's post at the top of this thread, he's absconding with Michael - all the sources he lists think the gospels are at least partly reliable. Achar Sva (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Stating that a university is not quite Ivy League is poisoning the well. It's not a diploma mill, so the work itself must be judged on its own merits, not from where the professor is based from. Not everything has to be from UOP.

As for Equinox, it's not a vanity press, and its UK distribution, according to Wikipedia, is via the publishing giant Macmillan. Independent is not a black mark, but a fetish for institutions is.

Coatrack material in this article

Per Wikipedia:Coatrack articles:

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.

Some examples of this occurring in this article are:

• Critical-historical research
  • Historical reliability of the Gospels
  • Quest for the historical Jesus
• Historical Jesus
  • Baptism and crucifixion
  • Other episodes
  • Portraits of the historical Jesus

Most of this material is a separate topic as David Litwa asserts, "Just because Jesus once lived does not mean that the Christian representations of his life describe what happened."

And as previously noted this article is not about how or if the representations of his life describe what happened.

The topic of the article is the historicity of Jesus, i.e., whether or not a historical Jesus existed.
— User:Achar Sva

Coatrack refs

--2db (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack is an essay, not a wikipedia policy or guideline. If the topics above deal with the historical reality of Jesus then it certainly belongs in the article - relevance. For instance, the baptism and crucifixion are mundane events that deal with Jesus existence. For instance, outside sources do mention his crucifixion and this serves as a place for corroboration of evidence that others were aware of a guy named Jesus. In terms of the quest for the historical Jesus, it certainly is about the nature of the sources and evidences for events in the life of Jesus. All of these are relevant to the historicity of Jesus. I could see how the historical reliability of the gospels section may be unnecessary for the article though...Ramos1990 (talk)

Firejuggler86 rv

• Firejuggler86 rv

I concur with the above linked rv by User talk:Firejuggler86

• This topic was previously addressed per Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_40#Sources_1-4.

--2db (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually this source was never opposed in that discussion as it is a scholarly source. Certainly within the consensus view on the historicity of Jesus and proper historical methods. Only mythicist wiki editors argue based on an author's worldview as opposed to scholarly merit. I restored it since the rationale was very poor.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Those sources Gullotta references [per the "Demise of Authenticity"] are not questioning the bare fact of Jesus' existence but matters such as "what did he say, what did he teach, what did he do?" Yes, all of that is very unclear.
— User:Smeat75

But not so unclear as to be obvious that the "Criteria of Authenticity" has no bearing on the topic at at hand, i.e. the question of the "Historicity of Jesus", and further—per the mainstream consensus of contemporary secular scholars—the "Criteria of Authenticity" are invalid per the historiography of Jesus. Chris Keith (2016) writes [doi:10.1177/0142064X16637777. NOW Bolded]

[Per] two competing ‘models’ for how to use the gospel tradition in order to approach the historical Jesus. These models differ over their treatments of the narrative frameworks of the gospels and, concomitantly, their views of the development of the Jesus tradition. A first model, inspired by form criticism and still advocated today, attempts to attain a historical Jesus ‘behind’ the interpretations of early Christians. A second model, inspired by advances in historiography and memory theory, posits a historical Jesus who is ultimately unattainable...

--2db (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe you were the one who brought this quote in the other discussion and since it discussed historical standards, it seemed relevant to the historicity of Jesus. His historicity is certain enough that his life can be reconstructed using standard historical methods. The sources on Jesus not only provide details of his life but background that can also be verified. Verifiable details of his life are evidences of Jesus actually existing. Not sure what your Chris Keith quote is supposed to show aside from his own opinion that history is ultimately unattainable. He probably would say that a historical Pythagoras or Socrates are also unattainable, though that would not mean that they are not historical or that people have not progressed in reconstructing their lives. Of course most scholars on Jesus are not as pessimistic as that when it comes to reconstructing Jesus' life. With mythological beings, their life is completely recontructible without historical methods since their existence is limited to the sources, not history. But that is not the case with Jesus.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

With mythological beings, their life is completely reconstructible without historical methods...
— User:Ramos1990

LOL, Ramos1990, now in agreement with Arnal, validates one of the central features of the Jesus ahistoricity viewpoint. Yes, truly the life of Herakles is completely reconstructible without historical methods. I no longer need continue and rest my case.

• Arnal, William E. (2014 [2005]). The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism and the Construction of Contemporary Identity. Routledge. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-317-32440-9.:

The Gospel of Mark . . . is a narrative that includes a cast of characters comprising, inter alia, God, a son of God, angels, the devil, demons, holy spirits, evil spirits, and what seem to be the ghosts of Moses and Elijah. It is a story that features miraculous healings and exorcisms, as well as walking on water, feeding thousands of people with a handful of loaves and fishes (twice!), face-to-face conversations between people who lived centuries apart, spooky prognostications, trees withering at Jesus’ simple command, a sun darkening in the middle of the day, and a temple curtain miraculously tearing itself in half.

[...]

Just as the myths and legends about Herakles are simply not about a historical person, so also the gospels are not about the historical Jesus.

--2db (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Not much of a case to be rested, I am afraid. The main problem is that the New Testament and sources outside of the New Testament provide historical convergence and attestation on Jesus. Oh yeah and archaeology also provides convergence with those narratives too. This complicates the ahistorical hypothesis quite a bit to the point that it is unlikely for mythicism to be the case. Even stark deists like Thomas Jefferson were able to extract historical details from the Gospels minus the supernatural (he published abridged ones).Ramos1990 (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

[S]tark deists like Thomas Jefferson were able to extract historical details from the Gospels minus the supernatural (he published abridged ones).
— User:Ramos1990

Per the contamination principle of Stephen Law [Faith and Philosophy 28 (2):129-151 (2011)], it is not sufficient to remove the supernatural from the Gospels and then suspect the mundane remnant of having some probable historicity. As Law notes, very often it is the supernatural that is the very point of the story; remove the supernatural and one has removed anything of interest. The supernatural is not the embellishment; it is the core of and the reason for the story.

What part do you not understand that... per the mainstream consensus of contemporary secular scholars the "Criteria of Authenticity", is invalid per the historiography of Jesus and has no bearing on the question of the "Historicity of Jesus". --2db (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Contamination principle by Stephan Law (not even an authority or researcher on the ancient world)? Well, when it comes to mythicism, no evidence is ever enough for them to believe Jesus existed. They certainly love metaphysoical gymnastics over empirical evidences like those from archaeology or ancient sources for sure. The fact that the concept of "religion" (Barton, Carlin; Boyarin, Daniel (2016). Imagine No Religion : How Modern Abstractions Hide Ancient Realities. Fordham University Press.) and the "supernatural" were invented about a thousand or more years after Christ (Nongbri, Brent (2013). Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. Yale University Press. and Bartlett, Robert. The Natural and the Supernatural in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press.) means that they are arguing from a modern imagination on ancient sources that do not have such ideas in the first place - which leads to sloppy commentary. You still taking about "secular scholars" even though that is not even a thing in research? If there are, there certainly are not many of these "secular" scholars who are mythicists in the first place either. We can tell because mythcists struggle to find and cite actual mythicists in the first place (Richard Carrier quantified this and failed) and instead borrow and quote mine historicists to try to make their arguments. Along with sloppy Rank Raglan 19th-20th century pseudoscholarship and sloppy misuses of probability theory. Mythicists certainly do not have better or even more reliable methods in their writings.

Looking at the sources you mentioned above like Keith, Gullotta, and Arnal, they are not mythicists and they certainly do not think that a history of Jesus is not attainable. They certainly see alternatives and observe that these matters have been addressed and continue to have solutions in literature. Also the fact that Bloomberg source uses the authenticity (still widely used in research apparently, but with more caution) does not mean it is about authenticity. Rather he uses a source that investigated the historicity of events in Jesus life and one of the tools used, but not the only or main one, was the criteria. You certainly don't need that to see the evidences for the existence of Jesus. The thing about the authenticity is that it tries to over prove rather than just prove something. It is an attempt to be very certain about history, which is not a bad thing if you really want to be a good historian. Most historiography does not even have much of standard on determining history. But at least some try.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that none of the following scholars:

• Chris Keith
• William E. Arnal
• Daniel Gullotta

have produced a peer reviewed defense of the historicity of Jesus that was published by a respected academic press.

You certainly don't need that [i.e. Bloomberg's use of authenticity ] to see the evidences for the existence of Jesus.
— User:Ramos1990

So then why do you insist on citing Bloomberg's use of authenticity to establish the historicity of Jesus, when it has no bearing, other than apologetical?

You still taking about "secular scholars" even though that is not even a thing in research?
— User:Ramos1990

LOL, Ramos1990 still denying the sky is blue. --2db (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There aren't that many mythicists at all among scholars, let alone many who provide a credible challenge at all on the existence of Jesus. Scholars use their time on things that matter, not conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. But despite that a grip of scholars have addressed mythicism in their academic writings. Bloomberg uses historical standards to test the historicity of events in Jesus life so that falls within scope. Authenticity was only one of the tools used, certainly not the only one and there was corroboration when using all the other methods. You keep on reducing him to authenticity when the study was not reducible to that. The book he cites focuses on historicity of events, not evaluating authenticity criteria.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)