Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios/1

Cited Scholars

Introduction to this page

Original Intro

Below I will list what I find out about each scholar on slrubenstein's list, my list and robsteadman's list as I poke around. I'm concentrating first on pinning down references where the scholars listed affirm what is in our paragraph, deny the existence of Jesus or question it. Please feel free to add to it.

Further Musings

Since this page started, we've added some others. This is a good development, IMHO, since it provides a handy reference for us as we develop this page. Please feel free to add to it, but let's try to stay focused on who these folk are and not what we think of them, beyond how we evaluate their credentials. --CTSWyneken 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the Scholarly Opinion of the Non-Existence Hypothesis

Robert E. Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary, in Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000, has written:

"Many books and essays -- by my count, over one hundred -- in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes or ignore them completely." (p. 6)

"The issue of the nonhistoricity of Jesus is indeed a side current in New Testament study." (p. 7)

At the end of the eighteenth century, some disciples of the radical English Deist Lord Bolingbroke began to spread the idea that Jesus had never existed. Voltaire, no friend of traditional Christianity, sharply rejected such conclusions, commenting that those who deny the existence of Jesus show themselves "more ingenious than learned." (Note 12: F. M. Voltaire, "De Jesus," from Dieu et les hommes, in Oeuvres complétes de Voltaire (Paris: Société Littéaire-Typographique, 1785) 33:273. He accepted the historicity of Jesus (p. 279).)" (p. 8)

G. A. Wells, The Jesus Legend Chicago: Open Court, 1996., p. xxii.

The question 'Did Jesus exist?' has often been asked, and is normally answered with an unqualified 'yes' and a sense of outrage that the matter should even have been raised.

Michael Grant. Jesus: an Historian's Review of the Gospels New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1977. pp. 199-200.

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

--CTSWyneken 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Commentary from main talk page

A list of scholars was asserted to say that Jesus never existed. Did they really say this or was it merely asserted? ken 18:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Cross-reference: Talk:Jesus#Who are these Scholars? archola 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, since I've seen them as stating such in the works of others I've been trying to get fully cited. Eventually, I'll catch up to these.

I've seen some I haven't been able to verify: that Voltaire and Bertrand Russell supported the majority position that Jesus existed. It's kind of moot here, however, since they are not historians or Biblical scholars. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For ease of access, I've added a subpage for bios and discussions of authors cited in the Jesus article: Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios I've copied the discussion there, but not deleted it here. So it isn't exactly an archive... --CTSWyneken 03:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Names to be Checked on

Found Buried in Archive 3

Here's some more Jesus Myth people. Arch O. La 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and Historians doubting Jesus

Some Christians seem to object to the fact that there are serious secular Scholars and Historians who doubt the veracity of the Jesus myth. This is a fact; whether they agree with their conclusions or not, there ARE numerous scholars, historians and other researchers in the field who do not believe in a historical christ. This is blatant POV. A short list of these scholars and historians follows, not complete. Name of published articles or books in brackets.

J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs) (See Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios#John Mackinnon Robertson)

Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar

Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University

Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)

Alan Albert Snow

C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (See Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios#Paula Fredriksen) As pointed out below, supports existence of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Earl Doherty, (The Jesus Puzzle)

Robert M. Price (Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin)

Marshall M. Gauvin

If wanted, there are more, I thought 10 should be enough. There is absolutely no reason for Christians use their bias to stop this information being presented. Some people disagree with a historical Jesus. There are historians and scholars amongst them. How can you argue with that and not be biased? The Rev of Bru 17:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think nobody conted or polled so far the number of scholars claiming that Jesus exists (leave alone the difficult classification of who is a scholar or who is secular). Therefore any mention of the words "many", or "few" is a biased POV.

I had many declared secular professors. None of them challenged the existence of Jesus (even if I was told that such people exist). Here it is the first place that I meet the specia of humans claiming this inexistance. The fact that I meet you only now, after so many decades of search means that you are a really rare specia (even if you have a big mouth), but this may be just my experience..... User:I834 Dec 2004

I am pretty much astounded at the rev of Bru's distortions. Elaine Pagels and Paula Fredricksen (one fifth of the list) both believe that there was a historical Jesus. How many other names on the list are suspect? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources of the philosophical views of Jesus

These authors are for the "other views" section, and not the second paragraph. These sources need looking into. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Skeptics Bible
• Richard Carrier
• Wills, Garry, What Jesus Meant (2006).
• John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperSanFrancisco (1993), ISBN: 0060616296
• Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper San Francisco (2005), ISBN: 0060738170
• Robert W. Funk, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus, Harper San Francisco (1997), ISBN: 006063040X
• Robert Walter Funk, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?, The Jesus Seminar, Harper San Francisco (1998), ISBN: 0060629789 #The Jesus Seminar, The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar, Robert Walter Funk (Editor), Polebridge Press (1999), ISBN: 0944344747
• Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, Scribner (1968), ISBN: 0020892403
• Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Basic Books (2005), ISBN: 0465085776

Some of these are Ethicists, some of these are Skeptics, and some may even be Jesus-Mythers. Wills was proposed by Jim62sch, and the rest were proposed by Rick Norwood. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems pretty good reference-wise! Homestarmy 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we've already gotten into Wills and Funk/Jesus Seminar, but someone should a look at these (or Rick should tell us what he's found). Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Patience! We've been too busy here for me to finish documenting the first two paragraphs! I have Wills on ILL, so I'll be able to tell you what he says. What we should do here, though, is make sure each author has a capsule bio below. It would be good to know where each comes from. I'd also be game to archive everything that is not bio on this page. Librarians hate disorderly collections! ;-)--CTSWyneken 11:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've nominated this article for AID, so hopefully we will soon have some help citing sources. Here's an idea: make the bios a subpage of the article, not the talk page. In other words, leave comments here, but move the capsule bios to Jesus/Cited Authors Bios. We seem to have worked out the issues with Wills and the Jesus Seminar. I might also say that some of us have compiled another list of sources at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. This started out by sorting the above list, but grew from there.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine by me, as long as we left enough breadcrumbs behind. We might want to rework it, though, keeping just bios there. The rest we could archive here as is. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Capsule Bios of Scholars Referenced

General Jewish Historians

I checked some of the standard one-volume Jewish histories.

• Howard Sachar, a professor of history at George Washington University, wrote a one volume history in which he talks about Jesus as a charaismatic preacher in the Galilee
• Marx and Margolis's A History of the Jewish People also refers to Jesus in this way. This may be the most frequently-cited one volume history.
  • For Rob Steadman's sake, let's be up-front about Margolis's religious background, which Steadman claims inevitably biases the historian. Max Leopold Margolis was born Mordechai Yom Tov Margolis in the village of Merecz in the Russian province of Vilna (now Lithuania) on October 15, 1866. Margolis received his early Jewish education from his father who was a rabbi. Margolis began studying secular subjects such as mathematics with his self-taught father and also received additional training in Russian and other subjects from a local priest in Merecz. In Berlin, Margolis studied at the Leibniz Gymnasium, where he received a thorough grounding in Greek and Latin. Margolis was consistently the top student in Greek and graduated with distinction in 1885. Margolis began his graduate studies at Columbia College in New York in 1889, received his M.A degree in 1890, and only one year later in 1891 successfully completed his Ph.D., the first to be awarded in the Oriental Department. Writing in Latin, which apparently was stronger than his English at the time, Margolis submitted a text-critical study of Rashi's commentary on tractate Eruvin of the Talmud, under the supervision of Richard Gottheil. From 1893 until 1898, Margolis taught Hebrew and Semitic languages at the Hebrew Union College, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Margolis departed HUC in 1899 for the University of California in Berkeley where he assumed the position of assistant professor of Semitics. One year later, Margolis was awarded an associate professorship. Margolis had left Berkeley shortly before his marriage to return to Cincinnati where he had been recruited by HUC's new president, Kaufmann Kohler. From September 1905 to March 1907, Margolis held the position of Professor of Hebrew Exegesis at the Hebrew Union College. Unfortunately, the return to Cincinnati did not prove felicitous. Margolis left HUC within two years due to personality conflicts with the new president. They also differed substantively on a number of important issues such as the nature of the curriculum, Margolis' desire for an unfettered teaching hand, and his political outlook (Margolis was a Zionist). After leaving HUC, Margolis spent one year abroad in Europe from 1907 into 1908, visiting Berlin, Belgium and Holland and several of Europe's famous libraries. Margolis returned to the United States in 1908 to accept the position of secretary of the editorial board for the Jewish Publication Society's proposed new translation of the Hebrew Bible into English. Margolis eventually became editor-in-chief of this complex undertaking, which was finally published in 1917. On March 28, 1909, Margolis was unanimously elected by the Board of Governors of the newly created Dropsie College in Philadelphia to the position of Professor of Biblical Philology. Margolis remained on the faculty of Dropsie College until his death in 1932.
  • I know less about Alexander Marx, but he was a historian, and the head of the department of Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He was the son-in-law of Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman.
• In Louis Finkelstein's 3 volume "The Jews", Judah Goldin has an article on late-Hellenic/early-Rabbinic history in which he too refers to Jesus as a charismatic Jewish preacher.
  • Judah Goldin is Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Oriental Studies. He is a very famous professor of Jewish history.
• Solomon Grayzel wrote a very popular one volume history of the Jews in which he briefly talks about the historical Jesus.
  • biography: Solomon Grayzel was born in Minsk on February 18, 1896. He and his family came to the United States in 1908 and settled in Brooklyn. Grayzel received a BA from the City College of New York in 1917, an MA in sociology from Columbia University in 1920, was ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1921, and earned a PhD in history from Dropsie College in 1926. While working on his doctorate Grayzel took his first and only full-time pulpit position at Congregation Beth El in Camden, New Jersey. After receiving his PhD Grayzel left for Europe to continue his research on the Church and the Jews. His dissertation, The Church and the Jews in the Thirteenth Century (1198-1254) was published in 1933. In 1928 Grayzel returned to the United States and took a teaching position at Gratz College in Philadelphia. In 1939 he became the editor of the Jewish Publication Society, a position which he held until 1966. On leaving JPS he joined the faculty of Dropsie University. Grayzel is the author of A History of the Contemporary Jews From 1900 to the Present (1960), A History of the Jews From the Babylonian Exile to the Present (1968), and numerous articles and essays on Jews and the medieval church, his field of specialization.

Now, granted, none of these historians are arguing one way or another as to whether Jesus existed. They all simply take it for granted that he existed. Mention of him occupies no more than a paragraph or two in their books, so his existence is not in any way central to their books. But surely, their "faith" (or what we may speculate is their faith) can't bias them towards believing Jesus existed. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer

A 19th Century disciple of Hegel and a compatriot of Marx and Engels. He is credited with the Marcan Priority hypothesis and with coining the phrase "Messianic Secret." He is one of the founders of the original "Jesus Myth" school. He is worth citing on the minority position note, when we create it. Since he is 19th century, however, he does not contribute to our knowledge of the current state of Jesus research. (for example, he dates Mark's composition to 125 AD/CE, not 40-75 AD/CE as the field currently does. --CTSWyneken 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shaye Cohen

Shaye J.D. Cohen is the Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University. This is one of the oldest and most distinguished professorships of Jewish studies in the United States. Before arriving at Harvard in July 2001, Prof. Cohen was for ten years the Samuel Ungerleider Professor of Judaic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University. Prof. Cohen began his career at the Jewish Theological Seminary where he was ordained and for many years was the Dean of the Graduate School and Shenkman Professor of Jewish History. He received his Ph.D. in Ancient History, with distinction, from Columbia University in 1975.

The focus of Prof. Cohen's research is the boundary between Jews and gentiles and between Judaism and its surrounding cultures. What makes a Jew a Jew, and what makes a non-Jew a non-Jew? Can a non-Jew become a Jew, and can a Jew become a non-Jew? How does the Jewish boundary between Jew and non-Jew compare with the Jewish boundary between male Jew and female Jew? The Jewish reaction to Hellenism in antiquity and to Christianity from ancient to modern times consisted of both resistance and accommodation, and both stances had far-reaching influence on the history of Judaism. On these and other subjects Prof. Cohen has written or edited nine books and over fifty articles. He is currently working on a study of circumcision and gender in Judaism. He is perhaps best known for From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987), which is widely used as a textbook in colleges and adult education, and his recent The Beginnings of Jewishness (1999). He has also appeared on educational television, including From Jesus to Christ and Nova on PBS and Mysteries of the Bible on A&E.

Prof. Cohen has received several honors for his work, including an honorary doctorate from the Jewish Theological Seminary and various fellowships. He has been honored by appointment as Croghan Distinguished Visiting Professor of Religion (Williams College), the Louis Jacobs Lecturer (Oxford University), the David M. Lewis Lecturer (Oxford University), Lady Davis Visiting Professor of Jewish History (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), the Block Lecturer (Indiana University), the Roland Visiting Lecturer (Stanford University) and the Pritchett Lecturer (University of California, Berkeley). He appeared on a Nova episode[1] as an expert on Jewish history. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

John Dominic Crossan

Crossan, a Catholic Priest, is Professor of Biblical Studies at DePaul University of Chicago. He is a prolific writer from the higher critical school of New Testament studies, a member of the Jesus Seminar and frequent guest scholar on television specials related to the life of Jesus, along with Paula Fredrikson and Paul L. Maier.--CTSWyneken 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh good a Catholic Priest who is a Professor at a CAtholic UNiversity sitting on things like the Jesus Seminar - not in any way biased... Robsteadman 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All people have a point of view. Crossan is far from a traditional Catholic one. The point here is that he is one of a very wide range of scholars that assert the profile of Jesus in the paragraph. Do you contest that he holds such a viewpoint? --CTSWyneken 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't contest he holds taht view - I suggest, however, that his POV is highly biased - and, to be honest, hardly scholarly. Strange that only pro-"jesus" academics seem to be being allowed to be included. Robsteadman 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By what standards do you judge Crossan "not scholarly?" I disagree with him on much of what he concludes, but have little doubt he is a scholar. Please be careful when you attack the person of a scholar.

Also, I have no objection to the last sentence, which states what is a minority viewpoint, and attaching the names of the scholars, and eventually citations to their works.

It is when we're trying to decide if the WP:NPOV rule on overwhelming consensus is met so, that a person must be from an appropriate discipline to qualify for seeing if there is a significant minority view to require qualification of the dates in the first paragraph. --CTSWyneken 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that academic people are not allowed to have a religion to be academic rob? Homestarmy 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Robsteadman is saying. But more to the point: on the basis of knowing that Crossan is a priest, Robsteadman infers that his views are "hardly scholarly." This shows just how anti-intellectual and anti-science Robsteadman is. In science we know that what determines the quality of scholarship is the methods one uses. A person can believe that Marduk was god or that god does not exist, but they can use the same methods to determine the laws of motion or of thermodynamics. When it comes to more complex phenomena (say, evolution) the methods of research are more complex - harder, or impossible, to express in terms of mathematical models - but once again, someone can believe in God or not believe in God and still demonstrate that speciation is occuring among hawthorn/apple flies. It just doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are, what matters is their methods. The same goes for the study of history. The ONLY way to judge John Crossan's scholarship is by looking at the methods he uses. This would require Robsteadman to do something he appears loathe to do when yammering on about his own beliefs: read books. Read John Crossan's books and show me where any a priori beliefs about God of Jesus determine his conclusions. That is the ONLY scientific basis for faulting Crossan. In fact, there are historians who disagree with Crossan (including another priest-historian, John Meier). But they disagree with him on historical, not theological grounds. To spell it out more clearly for contributors who know nothing of scholarly research, what I mean is this: debates between Crossan and other historians are comparable to debates among historians of the Holocaust (I am not including revisionist/deniers) or of the French Revolution. They are scholarly, not religious, debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate you stop flaming me. It is not anti-science - anti-science is accepting stuff that cannot be proved... "god" for instance. I am not saying taht he cannot be quoted it's just that a believer or chaplain should have that noted - it does add an angle to their research. Now, stop the flaming, stop the aggression and start with the verifiable facts about "jesus" with NPOV. Robsteadman 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of science is mistaken. "Proof" is a term used in mathematics and logic, not in science. Scientific theories are more or less useful, and hypotheses may be falisified, but neither are ever "proven." Philosophers debate whether or not the existence of god can be proven; some argue it can be, others that it cannot be- that is a fact. But no wikipedia contributor can add to an article (you can of course air your own views here, as I have) that "there is no proof that God exists" or "There is proof that God existes" because editors do not (1) add their own views to articles (violates NPOV) and (2) add these kinds of facts to articles (violates NOR). I agree with you that in an article on Crossan or in a paragraph dedicated to his views we should add that he is an ordained priest. But what information we provide about him depends on the context. In the context under discussion, we are not focussing on Crossan. We are making a claim about critical historians. You continue, despite what I wrote above, to insist that Crossan's being a priest adds "an angle" to his research. Maybe, maybe not. I continue to hold that your claiming this solely on the basis of the fact that he is a priest is un-scientific. Science requires evidence. Crossan, in his history books, relies on historical evidence, that iwhat makes him a critical historian. If you think I am wrong, then you have to provide evidence. Please quote to me from one of his history books the evidence that he is not holding himself to the same standards as all critical historians. Unless you can provide evidence, you are pushing dogma, nothing more. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that if they are of a "faith" that needs to be noted though because it makes a differnce. "Faith" without proof is rather non-academic though, isn't it? Robsteadman 17:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, we are not discussing Crossan's faith. We are discussing his historical research. I am saying his research holds up against the same standards as any critical historical research. Byt this I mean that the book of his that I read is comparable in its assumptions, methods, and use of evidence, to histories I have read of Tudor England or the American Revolution. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it. I have no evidence that Crossan's faith has played a role in his historical research. Show me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Show me one professor of history at any accredited university or college who ever denied that Jesus existed. ken 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Bart Ehrman

James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Previously taught at Rutgers University (UNC and RU are both secular, state universities). PhD. Princeton Theological Seminary (Magna Cum Laude). He has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press). He has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field. Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehrman's article is a stub. I leave it to others to expand his article since I'm only familiar with one of his works. archola 18:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Finegan

Education: Drake University, B.A., 1928, M.A., 1929, B.D., 1930; Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, B.D., 1931, M.Th., 1932; University of Berlin, Lic. Theol., 1934. Fulbright research scholar in India, 1952-53; LL.D., Drake University, 1953; Litt.D., Chapman College, 1964.

Pastor of First Christian Church, Ames, IA, 1934-39; Professor at Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1939-46; Frederick Billings Professor of New Testament History and Archeology, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, CA, 1946-75; Pastor, University Christian Church, Berkeley, 1949-74; Sierra Nevada College, humanities instructor, 1986- Prolific author. --CTSWyneken 15:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen

A William Goodwin Aurelio Professor at Boston University (a secular university). B.A., Wellesley College (1973); Theol. Diploma, Oxford University (1974); Ph.D., Princeton University (1979). Previously taught at Stanford, UC Berkeley, and the University of Pittsburgh. Lady Davis Visiting Professor, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (1994-95). Professor Fredriksen specializes in the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity, from the Late Second Temple period to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Besides her books on Augustine (Augustine on Romans, 1982) and on Jesus and Christian tradition (From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 1988), she has written extensively on conversion, apocalypticism, Paul and his interpreters, and Jewish/Gentile relations in Late Antiquity. In 1999 she received a national Jewish Book Award for her most recent publication, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (Knopf). Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier

Maier is Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. His Ph.D. is from the University of Basel (1957). A graduate of Harvard University (M.A., 1954) and Concordia Seminary, St. Louis (M. Div., 1955), he pursued post-graduate studies on a Fulbright Scholarship at the Universities of Heidelberg, Germany, and Basel, Switzerland. After studying at the latter under famed scholars Karl Barth and Oscar Cullmann, he received the Doctor of Philosophy degree summa cum laude in 1957.

In 1984, Dr. Maier was named "Professor of the Year," as one of America's 25 finest educators, by the Washington-based Council for Advancement and Support of Education. He currently travels and lectures widely and appears frequently on national radio and television.

Dr. Maier's is a specialist in correlating data from the ancient world with the New Testament. His research includes a variety of methodologies involved in manuscript and text analysis, archaeology, and comparison of sacred and secular sources from the first century A.D. His scholarly monographs include: (ed., trans, with G. Cornfeld) Josephus – The Jewish War (Zondervan, 1982),(ed., trans.) Josephus – The Essential Works (Kregel, 1995),(ed., trans.) Eusebius – The Church History (Kregel, 1999) He appeared as a guest historian on several television specials on the New Testament including: "Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul--The Word and the Witness" (2004)

Michael Martin

"Michael Martin is a professor of philosophy at Boston University. His books include Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1990) and The Case Against Christianity (Temple University Press, 1991). His most recent attack on the Christian faith comes in his article The Transcendental Argument for the Non Existence of God (Autumn 1996, The New Zealand Rationalist)." Michael Martin, "Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin" Reformed Apologetics Center for Reformed Apologetics and Theology, 2002. Accessed 10 February 2006. <http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html>[2] He also is not a historian, therefore, not a scholar in this field. We can quote him in support of the minority position, however, since he qualified as an "academic."

Interesting use of language to describe his book as "His most recent attack on the Christian faith...". SOPHIA 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

True, this is from a very partisan site. When reading it, you need to do so with a grain of salt. It was the only bio I could find online about him. What I'm looking for is credentials -- what qualifies him to write about historical events of the ancient world in general, or Palestine in particular? While a scholar, he is working outside his discipline. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Beware false authority He would, however, fit to document the minority view, as long as we keep language that explains that some of these writers are not historians. --CTSWyneken 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet you (? - or ios it someone else) is happy to include a German scholar because they say the right thing? Robsteadman 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page, we're simply gathering information. I would not include this item in the main article for this very reason.

As far as the list of scholars here, the German scholar and the scholar of German express opinions contrary to the consensus. A scholar should be included when he or she is in the field of the subject article or if the text of the article makes clear they are speaking as someone from another field. --CTSWyneken 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - we certainly need to differentiate between hisorians and Bible scholars. How is the list of historians who state that "jesus" existed going btw?Robsteadman 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you;re going to make a difference between scholars and Biblilcal or religious scholars you need to say that in the article - it seems that some only want beliving scholars to be included - in which casdetheir POV is a major factor in their "research" and, to be encyclopedic, their views should either be tempered to show the POV from which they are coming or should simply be ignored. How many "biblical" scholars are non-believers? Is this a self selecting group? Robsteadman 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that Martin is not a historian. Thus, his view does not apply to the scholarly consensus in this field of study. He does qualify as a scholar, so we can use him to document the minority view. --CTSWyneken 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; see here: Beware false authority. KHM03 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are Bible scholars historians? I don;t think so. Robsteadman 22:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So it it that the vast majority of Bible scholars say "jesus" existed but that the opposite is true for historians and philosophers? Robsteadman 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The opposite is not true for historians and philosophers. Please cite names (see below). KHM03 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As stated below historians tell of what is there, not what isn;t. There is no evidence for "jesus" so why would they bother saying that? Robsteadman 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, with all respect, it's you vs. the academy on this one. Historians do believe Jesus existed. Again, take it up with them...not here. KHM03 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

These Biblical scholars are historians by background, training and discipline.

As far as lists go, your request to document these scholars and your list has taken quite a bit of time, thank you. Finding biography on your folk has been quite a task, BTW. Perhaps if you would go to the library yourself and look up information about them, it would move faster.

Given time, I will track all this down. By the way, one scholar on the list, Paul L. Maier, is a historian of ancient Rome, editor and translator of a modern edition of Josephus and Eusebius. He also believes Jesus existed. Oh, I forgot, he's a Christian, so he doesn't count. --CTSWyneken 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier is not just a :"christian" but also a chaplain! This article [3] by him claims that archaelogy supports the NT version of "jesus" but, sadly, it does not - it supports that it included names and places and some events - he misses out the fact that the massacre of the innocents, for example, is only mentioned in Matthew... etc. etc. Robsteadman 22:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a moment to add sub-section Talk:Jesus#Paul L. Maier Let's discuss Maier there. My questions for you are: So, because Maier is a Christian, a Chaplain, (you've missed Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod Vice-President and apologist), you write him off? Do you dispute his credentials as a historian? Have you read anything more than an online radio transcript of his? If not, how do you know what evidence he marshalls to support his conclusions? --CTSWyneken 01:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman is again taking us off track. Inter alia, yes, many Bible scholars are historians; I explain this below. But here we are discussing Michael Martin. He is indeed a qualified philosopher and we could certainly provide an account of his work on proofs of God's existence, in the God article - other philosophers, like Mortimer Adler, claim that they can prove God exists. No matter - these are debates among philosophers about a topic long debated by philosophers. But I see no reason to take Michal Martin very seriously as a scholar of Biblical criticism or history. There is no evidence that he is trained to do any serious university-level research in the history of Roman/Second Temple/Hellenic Palestine. His thoughts about Jesus are not the thoughts of an expert, but a hobbiest. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oooo I'm looking forward to that proof that "god" exists..... marvellous! Bible scholars are not neccesarily historians and those of "faith" approach it with an overwhelming POV that shoudl be noted. Robsteadman 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh - let me satisfy you. Mortimer Adler, a professor of Philosophy at Chicago, provides a proof for god's existence in How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan. You may not agree with the proof. However, that the book exists verifies my claim that there are philosophers who believe they can prove the existence of God. However, I do not understand why you bring this up. We are not debating whether or not God existed. I do not see what God has to do with any of this. The books by the critical historians that are provided in the bibliography to this article do not claim that God exists, that is not even part of their analysis. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

John P. Meier

Meier is Professor of Theology at Notre Dame University. He has served from time to time as an editor for Catholic Biblical Quarterly and New Testament Studies. --CTSWyneken 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Msgr. Meier is a professor of New Testament in the Biblical Studies Department at Catholic University of America, where he has taught since 1984. He holds a doctorate in sacred Scripture (1976) from the Biblical Institute in Rome, where he graduated summa cum laude and received the papal gold medal. He had received the same honors in 1968 when he graduated from the theology program at Gregorian University. He is a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association (1990-91), has authored numerous books and is widely published in a variety of journals and reference works. In a recent Catholic University interview with St. Anthony Messenger, Msgr. Meier explains why he considers studying Jesus of history to be worthwhile and what he sees as the serious shortcomings of some scholars studying the historical Jesus.

Q: Why do we need Jesus scholarship in the first place?

A: The need is in the eye of the beholder. If one is a professional historian, then one is interested of course in the great figures of history that had an impact on history, whether one believes in them or not....I don’t think we need any more apologetics for a quest for the historical Jesus as a historical discipline, say in the department of history, than you would have to apologize for trying to find out something about the historical Socrates or the historical Plato or the historical Mohammed. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology [a faith-based study of Jesus Christ].

Q: Can historians address the Resurrection, then?

A: We can verify as historians that Jesus existed and that certain events reported in the Gospels happened in history, yet historians can never prove the Resurrection in the same way. Why not? Perhaps some fundamentalists would claim you can. Apart from fundamentalists, perhaps even some more conservative Catholic theologians would claim you could. I myself along with most questers for the historical Jesus—and I think a fair number of Catholic theologians as well—would say the Resurrection stands outside of the sort of questing by way of historical, critical research that is done for the life of the historical Jesus, because of the nature of the Resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is certainly supremely real. However, not everything that is real either exists in time and space or is empirically verifiable by historical means.

I interpret this interview to mean that Meier is a devoutly religious Catholic, but that he sees a clear and unbreechable wall between his religious faith and his work as an historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

John Mackinnon Robertson

According to the wikipedia article, a Scottish Journalist and rationalist. He is not a historian, therefore his work does not count as scholarship in this field. As a philospher, we can quote him in support of the minority position since he may qualify as an "academic." --CTSWyneken 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Noted twentieth century philosopher.

I think Homestarmy or CTSWyneken raised this question. Bertrand Russell definitely accepted the historical existence of Jesus. In his book, A History of Western Philosophy he states on p. 739 that Jesus is (was) one of his heroes. That said, I still think we should privilege what historians have argued concerning history, rather than what a philosopher accepts as history (except perhaps the history of philosophy!) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It might also be worth exploring "Jesus as a Philosopher" or "Philosopher's views on Jesus" to see how Philosophers parse the sayings attributed to Jesus re:ethics and whatever else might be appropriate. This is quite aside from religion or theology. Arch O. La 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

E.P. Sanders

Professor, Duke University (secular private university) Department of religion. Received his Th.d. from Union Seminary (NY) 1966. In 1990, he was awarded a D. Litt. by the University of Oxford and D.Theol. by the University of Helsinki. He is a Fellow of the British Academy (a secular scholarly institution in the UK, extraordinarily prestigious). The author, co-author or editor of thirteen books, as well as articles in encyclopedias and journals, he has received several awards and prizes, including the Grawemeyer Prize for the best book on religion published in the 1980s (Jesus and Judaism). His work has been translated into nine different languages. He came to Duke from Oxford, where he was from 1984-1990 the Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis and also fellow of the Queen's College. If you go to his Duke University web-page, there is a link to his "intellectual autobiography." Whatever it suggests about his personal religious convictions, it shows that his scholarship has been driven by non-theological or faith-based concerns, and he has employed the same methods used by other historians and classicists regardless of the object of their study. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you keep picking out secular as if its a crime. Robsteadman 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Slrubenstein meant anymore by secular than that it is a school not owned by a religious organization. That E. P. Sanders is no longer a "believer" and works at a secular institution adds to the consensus that Jesus existed a historian without the bias you are concerned about. --CTSWyneken 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Sanders, but I just wanted to point out that Duke isn't purely secular. Most people seem to consider it a Methodist school, even if it's not actually owned by the Methodist church. --Allen 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Duke is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Still, I can't imagine anyone would question Sanders' academic credentials. KHM03 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So NOT a secular university at all. Oh dear. His credentials might be good, but he does, again, seem to be from a particular bias. Robsteadman 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that he is no longer a "believer" from? Robsteadman 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If he is a believer, that doesn't disqualify him from academia (obviously). If that were true, everyone of the atheistic faith would be discredited...and Hindu...and Buddhist...until there were no scholars left. KHM03 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies here. I thought I read it in slrubenstein's summary. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see where. I confused him with Vermes. --CTSWyneken 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second, im sorry, but I went to Duke on a collage tour last year, and despite their enormous chapel which was built an extremely long time ago, their campus is certainly secular in nature. You cannot discount Sanders because Duke is extremely loosely related to the Methodist church or whatever, and from what I heard from the tour guide, the church may even stop being related with Duke some time in the future. My point is, there's no way anyone should buy your "So NOT a secular university at all." argument Rob, I saw more than enough ACLU posters trying to recruit students to resist the police to be fooled about what Duke is like nowadays. Homestarmy 23:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote here or anywhere else ever suggested that "secular" is a crime. If Robsteadman cannot even read a simple paracraph, how can he comprehend serious academic scholarship? As for secular - one need not be religious to teach or study at Duke and no student is required to take courses in Christian theology or anything like that. If Robsteadman doesn't know that Duke is one of the most prestigious universities in the US, in a league with Chicago and Stanford and Yale, then we just have one more peice of evidence about Robsteadman's ignorance. My problem with Robsteadman doesn't have to do with his own bias. It has to do with this: he has done no serious research into the topic, and does not even seem to understand what rigorous, university-level research is. Now, one does not have to have a PhD. to edit Wikipedia. But we do expect people to do actual research when editing articles, and to take research seriously. The very fact that Steadman does not recognize the names Sanders, Vermes, etc. is proof of his ignorance and incompetence for contributing to this article. This is not the place for bullshit artists. This is the place for people who do research in order to make serious contributions to an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert E. Van Voorst

Robert E. Van Voorst is professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan. --CTSWyneken 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Geza Vermes

Geza Vermes was born in Hungary in 1924. He studied in Budapest and in Louvain where he read Oriental history and languages and in 1953 obtained a doctorate in theology with a dissertation on the historical framework of the Dead Sea Scrolls. From 1957 to 1991 he taught in England at the universities of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1957-65) and Oxford (1965-91). He is now Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, but continues to teach at the Oriental Institute in Oxford. He has edited the Journal of Jewish Studies since 1971, and since 1991 he has been director of the Oxford Forum for Qumran Research at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Professor Vermes is a Fellow of the British Academy (again, incredibly prestigious), the holder of an Oxford D. Litt. and of honorary doctorates from the Universities of Edinburgh, Durham and Sheffield. Vermes was a Priest in the Sion Order but left the Priesthood and the Catholic church after his groundbreaking work on the Dead Sea scrolls, no longer considering himself a Christian. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

G. A. Wells

G. A. Wells is professor emeritus of German Birkbeck College. Interestingly enough, a website claims he believes Jesus existed, but was not crucified under Pontius Pilate.[4] Our copy of the book cited is off the shelf here, so I can't verify that. He could be listed, if true, as supporting at least that Jesus lived. But since, as far as history goes, his opinion does not count as scholarship, we should not use him for that. We can quote him in support of the minority position, however, since he qualified as an "academic." --CTSWyneken 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On another scholar you said his view couldn;t be included (conveniently an atheist) because he was not a scholar in the right subject (philosophy) - so why can a Proifessor of German be included? Robsteadman 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The language in the article changed since I started adding these bios to talk. Initially it was framed to include the consensus of Biblical scholars. By that measure, even this fellow does not fit. Before this bio made it in, the language changed to include "academics." He fits that definition, as does the philosopher. I have not gotten all the way through the list to put notes in all the bios that now fit. I will do so before long. --CTSWyneken 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not take G.A. Wells very seriously as a scholar of Biblical criticism or history. He is a German historian and there is no evidence that he is trained to do any serious university-level research in the history of Roman/Second Temple/Hellenic Palestine. His thoughts about Jesus are not the thoughts of an expert, but a hobbiest. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

N. T. Wright

Professor of New Testament at Downing College, Cambridge (1978-1981), McGill University, Montreal (1981-1986), Lecturer in New Testament at Worcester College, Oxford,(1986-1993), Anglican Bishop of Durham, England since 2003. --CTSWyneken 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson

Dr. Thompson [[5]] is Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen. He holds a Ph. D. in Biblical Studies and the Ancient Near East. He may well be our missing nonexistence hypothesis scholar, but its unclear still. The reviews in Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly think so, the Kirkus Review seems to think he's not. my initial scan through the work did not do any better. For the most part, Thompson reviews everyone else's work. More late. --CTSWyneken 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The author info at Basic Books, Thomspon's publisher, adds: "Thomas L. Thompson is one of the leading biblical archaeologists in the world. He was awarded a National Endowment fellowship, has taught at Lawrence and Marquette Universities in Wisconsin" [[6]]

Aparently Thompson is a member of the minimalist Copenhagen school of Biblical studies: [7]. Other members of this school include:

• Philip R. Davies (University of Sheffield)
• Niels Peter Lemche (University of Copenhagen)
• Frederick Cryer (University of Copenhagen)
• Giovanni Garbini (University of Rome)

These names might be worth looking into. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I found his faculty page, which includes contact info. I suppose we could just ask him.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)