Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Factuality of baptism and crucifixion

A couple of IP editors have decided that this section is not properly sourced. I am not an expert in the matter, but it appears to be properly sourced to me. I invited the initial reverter to a discussion, but no one seems interested in discussion before removing apparently sourced material, so I'll just start the discussion myself. The removal has since been reverted, but in the interest of WP:CONSENSUS I will ask: As far as I can tell, this isn't blatant falsehood of the type which calls for simple deletion, so are there any other editors out there who would like to weigh in? Does this paragraph appear to be blatantly incorrect? —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor you speak of. The sources used to justify the portions I removed are opinions written in a book, that doesn't make them credible, nor does that make them consensus of scholars.

We'll start with this one:

Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

Unfortunately that just isn't true. Those two facts are disputed. As I stated when I edited them, the Gospels don't even agree that he was executed by the order of Pontius Pilate. Even if they were, there is no extra biblical source of this information. Period. Scholars absolutely do not universally assent to this, and just writing that statement in a book and then using that statement as a source that it is universally assented is ridiculous.

^ Jump up to: a b c d Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "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."

"As sure as anything historical can ever be." I can't even process how ridiculous this statement is. We have video footage of John F Kennedy being assassinated, but apparently this author believes that if two people living decades after someones death who don't live in the same place or even speak the same language state something, it must be a historical fact right up there with JFK's assassination.

Tacitus was born decades after Jesus's death, and was only repeating what Christians of his time were saying. He had no special knowledge of Jesus's death, he was writing down what he heard others say. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that it is disputed whether the passage was even written by Tacitus or later added by someone else.

Josephus has the exact same problems. Born after Jesus's death in a completely different place. Just like Tacitus, he was only repeating what he had heard. Just like Tacitus, it is disputed whether the passages are genuine or were later additions by someone else.

No credible historians believe that those two references somehow confirm the events depicted in the bible actually happened.

This entire article is clearly biased towards the Christian view on this topic, and does not present the actual evidence in a fair manner. The information has been cherry picked and manipulated into looking like it supports the historicity of Jesus.

Credible scholars will tell you that insofar as actual historical evidence goes, the only thing you can say is that there was a man named Jesus who lived in Galilee around that time that preached to some people.

But... I suppose that doesn't matter to you since "As long as it is properly sourced it stays."

And FYI, Wikipedia's own definition of "Consensus" does not match with yours at all.

Let's take a look at what Wikipedia says:

"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted."

Let me draw attention to this sentence: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. "

This is interesting, as you removed my edit and gave the reason that my new edit didn't have consensus and thus had to be removed. You can read the sentence above and see clearly that you can remove something without getting consensus first, and as long as nobody contests it is considered okay. You contested it for the reason that it wasn't consensus, which is a logical absurdity given that consensus can be reached by someone editing per Wikipedias own guidelines.

It seems clear you've got a bias towards what the article says, and are doing everything you can to protect it. You are not letting a normal editing take course, you are claiming that whatever is written first has some kind of protection because it was there first. That isn't the case at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.138.70 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't engage in original research, since verifiability in reliable sources is all that matters inside Wikipedia. If you don't agree with this, you are free to leave Wikipedia forever since you wouldn't be welcome here. The Bible scholars who live by publish or perish have said that the consensus is that Jesus really existed and that anyone thinking the contrary has no chance of getting employed by a religion department. Don't think that there aren't atheist and agnostics employed by religion departments. They are, but they don't hold such extreme views. In fact, the scholar who said that the mythicists have no chance of getting employed by a religion department is an agnostic working as a professor for a religion department. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, bible scholars agree that he existed. They do not agree that he was baptized, nor do they agree it was by the order of Pontius Pilate, which the gospels themselves do not agree on. It should be explicit from what I wrote previously that his existence isn't the problem... the problem is claiming scholarly consensus on something that is absolutey disputed by many, and likely most, credible scholars.

Again, you seem to think that as long as you can properly source something, that is the only thing that determines whether it should be included. It is clear that Wikipedia's own guidelines disagree with you. As it says above, consensus can be reached through edits as well. You seem to think that editing something out that is sourced is wrong. The guidelines don't say that, so stop pretending that is the case. The reason the guidelines don't say that is for specifically these types of cases. Just because you can find a book that says something doesn't make it credible.

It is quite obvious your biases are informing your decisions here. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia allows articles to be hijacked by people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.169.3 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:NPA. That said, the content in question is highly relevant to the article, and it's supported by reliable sources. We don't remove reliably sourced content just because we happen to disagree with the source. Huon (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WPA is irrelevant here. He attacked no one. You seem to have a persecution complex. That said, the content in question is highly dubious. Regardless if some theologian said its true. It's given undue weight here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerbreal (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you believe that Bible scholars do not agree upon his baptism and crucification, you should name a few top scholars who disagree with these and offer some quotes from reliable sources in order to prove that they disagree with these. I know that there are voices who tell that the historical Jesus is lost beyond recovery and all we have is the Christ of faith, but would they affirm that Jesus did not get baptized and crucified? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What I meant above: someone who does not agree with WP:VER, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is not welcome as a Wikipedia editor. This isn't a personal attack, it's just saying that Wikipedians aren't going to like such editor and such editor ain't going to like Wikipedians. I did not say that he/she does not like these policies (I am not a psychic), but in case that he/she does not like them he/she won't make a good editor. The suggestion was the he/she complies with these policies else quits editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're fit to judge for all of us what is or isn't WP:VER, WP:SOURCES, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If you feel that someone has presented something that doesn't fit those, man up and say what it is. Otherwise your little sermon seems quite contrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerbreal (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a list of top scholars who say that the magic Biblical Jesus is a myth, let alone that this magic man was baptised and crucified by Pilate. You might want to look into what Carrier and Price have to say. Of course, the guy you are responding to is right: you and Huon and other Christians have hijacked this article, and deemed Carrier and Price as unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerbreal (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

One emerging view is that Josephus had something to do with the construction of the Gospels and altered the timeline of Jesus to put his crucifixion in the time of Pontius Pilate. There are no contemporaneous sources for this event at that time. There is nothing in the history of that era which suggests a crucifixion of this sort of person. The difficulty is that since Wiki is about "mainstream" then those who adhere to the view that the crucifixion was at that time will not only be cited here but will always win the day, until university professors somewhere start looking at alternative timeframes. The main exponent of the emerging view, that Jesus is of a later time period are Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis who make compelling cases that the NT is a fabrication by the Romans and that any real Jesus figure is to be found in the time of the Jewish Revolts. Ellis says he was Izates Manu Monobasus or Jesus of Gamala who, he argues, are one and the same person and was converted to Nazarene Judaism by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah who preached a doctrine similar to that of Christianity. The Nazarenes are described by some as Min or Jewish Christians. I don't intend to weigh into this debate by making any edits because these are going to have to wait either until this theory is supported by "peer reviewed" papers or Wiki changes its policy of hammering new ideas into the ground because they constitute original research or are self promoting since these types of works are typically written by people outside the mainstream and the public who use Wiki are not to know that their are other ideas out there.Burdenedwithtruth (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DR/N request for Historicity of Jesus

The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to editors here too:

"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words

The use of the phrase "most scholars . . ." is a form of weasel words that shouldn't appear in an encyclopedia. It needs to be updated to reflect the factual content of its sources. 5 out of 6 of these sources are quotes from specific scholars (anecdotal evidence), and the final one is from a book published by yet another scholar. If this claim is to be seriously made on this page, the paragraph needs to be updated or edited to bring the entire paragraph back to topic. That same paragraph also needs to be updated to remove the use of the royal "we."

"Most scholars" can be changed easily to give the paragraph more rigor. "A study/survery by X showed that (X percent of scholars)/(a majority of scholars) do not contest the historicity of Jesus."

I'll try to update the language tonight if nobody else does and point to this talk topic for further discussion on language of the page. Leave sources here if you would like them included and try to avoid anecdotal sources. Until then, i'm going to put the weasel words tag back up. Please do not remove it unless you plan on changing the language and cleaning up the sources.

Thanks

Jpsousa4 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You made a Bold move, it was Reverted, so now we need to Discuss it first. Instead, you reverted twice. See WP:BRD. As for a majority of scholars, per WP:RS/AC we need reliable sources to report a consensus in order to report it ourselves, not a WP:OR survey. Until recently we didn't have RS for a consensus among historians, only claims by biblical scholars presenting themselves as historians, or a single historian (Grant) who makes a less sweeping claim than Ehrman. But with Nobbs and Lane Fox we now have reliable sources for a consensus among historians too, though not a consensus based on a lot of study and publications apparently. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not weasel words to say that most scholars believe something, if that information is supported by a citation from a knowledgeable source. If we write, "some people say" or "it is well known" or "everybody is aware" those are weasel words - they are not related to a source. But if you cite someone who is an expert on the topic, and they assert this position, in a context where it is clear that they are knowingly making a specific claim, that is a different matter. If I say, "some people say the world is flat" I need to support it with examples. If I say "all reasonable scientists know the earth is not flat" all I need to do is to cite an expert who says this. I certainly do not need to list all the scientists who believe this. Not even a representative sample. --Rbreen (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7, in this edit you made the offer to Jpsousa4 “If you want a plethora of sources, let me know”.

Those infamous “most scholars” quotes have been challenged both here and, I believe, at the article on the Historicity of Jesus. They really does stand out as anomalous.

A casual reader coming to this article likely won't be familiar with the details of Wikipedia's editorial policies; more likely they'll know this as an old and contentious topic with centuries of history marred by zealous proponents and opponents alike who very often have not only failed to be neutral, but sometimes failed even to be truthful. We can't fault a reader who arrives at this page and raises a skeptical eyebrow at the idea of “I'm a scholar, trust me”, even if it is a published source.

If you're still willing to provide a plethora of sources, rather than provide them privately to one editor, might we ask that you add them to the article, for the benefit of all the other readers yet to come?

 Unician ∇  23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind if I try to just reformat the criticism section here?

Hi, I have an interest in reformatting the criticism section to logically group the specific criticisms listed and perhaps make it more readable. Would it be okay if I go ahead and attempt this, and if people feel it takes away from the message of the criticisms, someone can revert it? Currently its just not very encyclopaedic and is a little hard to understand the flow of these criticisms, and reads as a collection of random views. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be most welcome, but it's tricky to come up with a neat classification. There are several ways to classify the criticisms. But please go for it! Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Respecting WP:BRD

We can (and should) have a leisurely discussion on whether individual scholars who have criticised HJ research are reliable sources, or whether their opinion is notable, but Jeppiz has to abide by WP:BRD just like everybody else. 'But I'm right!' is not a valid excuse, because everybody thinks they're right, and allowing indefinite reverts would lead to chaos. Also, what would stop me from reverting you again, and then you again etc etc. The proper order is someone makes a Bold move, and if someone objects, they can Revert it and the original editor cannot reinsert his change until through Discussion on the Talk page he has achieved a new consensus. Until that time, the old consensus remains. If there are pressing issues, tags such as dubious, POV etc can be used to alert the reader to the problem. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Respecting WP:RS

I've removed lengthy presentations of the views of two individuals who have no special competence in the field of the historical Jesus. One was a Swedish linguist of English, an academic field completely irrelevant to this article. The other is a historian, but a historian of Irish history. Unless anyone argues that Jesus lived in Ireland, the field of Irish history is also of no relevance here. WP:RS means that the reference should be reliable in the matter at hand. Being an expert and reliable WP:RS on one thing gives no status of WP:RS on everything. Academics are relevant sources in their own field of expertise, not in whatever field imaginable.Jeppiz (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A historian who has written a biography of Jesus is certainly a reliable source and especially when it comes to the question of methodological soundness and bias. Ellegard isn't obviously a reliable source, but that's not a problem, since his is still a notable opinion, which can be used with attribution. You are aware that notability is also a Wikipedia criterion, aren't you? Inclusion isn't solely governed by WP:RS. You keep bringing up this issue, even though you know I'm not suggesting Ellegard is a RS. Also note that Ellegard has interacted with biblical scholars in a respectful academic debate. It is linked in the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, contrary to what you think, notability is not a valid criterion for including a person's amateur opinion on a matter. While Charlie Chaplin, Marilyn Monroe and Jimi Hendrix were all notable, any books they would have written on the life of Julius Caesar, or any criticism they might have ventured about historians researching ancient Rome, would have been utterly irrelevant except perhaps in the pages about themselves where it could be included under personal interests.Jeppiz (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A professional opinion by a professor of history who has written a biography of Jesus on the methodological soundness of HJ research is decidedly not an amateur opinion, especially if nearly all of the people who write on the essentially historical subject of HJ research are not themselves trained historians. The opinion of Ellegard isn't relevant merely because he is a serious academic who has written on the issue, it is relevant because he is a prominent representative of the competing CMT. Maybe other academics have written on the subject, maybe they have even been published. In theory we could cite them, especially in attributed form, but generally we'd have better sources. If he had only been a respectable academic expressing an opinion outside his field, he would not (automatically) be notable. If he had only published on the CMT but wasn't a respected academic (like Earl Doherty) then he would not automatically have been notable. But the fact that he is both makes him notable in this context. Also, why the heck would you want to delete the criticisms from the section, it's not as if they do any harm. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"why the heck would you want to delete the criticisms from the section, it's not as if they do any harm." Please read WP:UNDUE. There is next to no academic support for the view you're trying to impose by cherry-picking non-experts.Jeppiz (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How is Akenson less of an expert on a historical subject and especially historical methodology than biblical scholars? Why should your opinion trump that of half a dozen biblical scholars who engaged in constructive academic debate with Ellegard? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my revert, which is not what you are supposed to do per WP:BRD, you need to obtain consensus for your bold move first. Also, you repeat your false accusation that I don't understand WP:RS after admitting as much on the other page. Kindly self-revert. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course I reverted, as it was in violation of several key Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRY). You cherry-pick non-experts whose views happen to suit you regardless of whether they are suitable sources or not, as in trying to pass off a Swedish linguist as expert on the historical Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesn't trump WP:BRD, you do not get to barge in and overturn a long-established consensus unilaterally. I still expect you to self-revert and encourage others to revert and I am quite willing to escalate this if you don't. You are quite welcome to challenge an established consensus, and I'll be happy to try to accommodate your concerns, but you have to follow the rules just like everybody else. Also, you cannot repeatedly misrepresent my position, especially after earlier admitting you were wrong. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I admitted I was wrong about which section you discussed. I stand by saying that you either do not know or do not care for Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY. I've shortened a section that was (and still is) heavily WP:UNDUE as a considerably large part of the article is devoted to an extremely marginal fringe view. Despite the section being undue, I did leave in every person who is even marginally relevant to the topic, the historical Jesus. All I removed was a the personal opinions of a linguist and of a professor of Irish history. Two subjects with no relevance to the field of the historical Jesus and cherry-picked just because they said the "right" thing. I made this edit once and explained why on the talk page, then reverted once when you restored the undue sections. Now you threaten to "escalate" unless I agree to restore the undue cherry-picking. Go ahead then, escalate.Jeppiz (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:BRD? You do not get to make these decisions unilaterally. I'm not objecting to your Bold move, I'm not objecting to the fact that you are Discussing whether the sources should be included, I'm objecting to the fact that you violate WP:BRD. Any concerns you have about WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY can be addressed through a combination of discussion here and if necessary appropriate tags in the article and do not trump WP:BRD. To repeat, my objection is only to violation of WP:BRD. I do not object to and merely disagree with your arguments against inclusion, and even that could change through discussion if you come up with convincing arguments. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, let's be reasonable. The world is unlike to go under if the sections remains heavily undue and I have self-reverted. You are right concerning the proper process, I got a bit trigger happy. I still stand by my criticism of the section, but let's talk through it first.Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem. And by all means let's have a thorough discussion about this, it can only help the quality of the article. I'm calling it quits for today, but I'm sure will have the opportunity to discuss this soon. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hoffmann and the historicity question

Since this article is not about historicity, I'd support moving the Hoffmann quote in the criticism section to the CMT article, if people think that helps. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Jeppiz

Your latest reinsertion of your contentious edit is a blatant violation of WP:BRD. Please self-revert. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in your opinion every edit I make is edit-warring but it's fine for you to make contentious edits. The difference is that my edits respect Wikipedia's policies while you gladly ignore every policy there is as long as it furthers your POV. No, I will not self-revert to reinsert material that violates WP:UNDUE, WP:CHERRY and WP:RS. None of these people are experts in the field, and some of them put forward such extreme fringe theories that they would not be allowed under WP:UNDUE even if they were experts. Once again, I tried to discuss before making edits, while you repeatedly continued to edit the article to insert even more material violating the policies, and without any consensus. Once again, threatening me for editing while thinking you have the right to edit as you please is the very definition of WP:OWN.Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, 'I am right' is not an excuse for violating WP:BRD or any Wikipedia policy. I didn't ignore any policies, I reverted to the long-standing consensus version, as anyone who objects to a new, bold edit is free to do, provided they explain their objections and engage in sincere efforts to obtain a new consensus. The reverting editor doesn't get a veto, he/she can be overruled by a consensus of editors, and once that happen, we have a new consensus. So far only Wdford has entered the discussion and asked you to clarify your point, to which you haven't responded yet. Clearly, you have not yet obtained a new consensus, and therefore you were wrong to reinsert your edits. You are free, indeed welcome, to discuss this further in order to obtain a new consensus. Like everybody else you are then expected to make a sincere effort to accommodate the concerns of other editors.

You have every right to be critical of the current consensus, and are free, indeed welcome, to challenge it by making bold edits, as you did earlier, without seeking prior agreement from other editors. Often such edits go unchallenged, in which case it's good we didn't have to waste time and energy on unnecessary prior discussion. However, once someone objects, we have to discuss things first and obtain a new consensus. Think about it, discarding WP:BRD would lead to endless edit-warring.

WP:OWN doesn't apply, since I'm not saying you can't make any edits without my approval, I'm merely reminding you - again - of WP:BRD which says you are not supposed to reinsert a reverted controversial edit before discussing it on the Talk page and obtaining a new consensus.

WP:RS doesn't apply, since we're talking about attributed text, not text in Wikipedia voice. An author is a reliable source on his own opinions. He might or might not be notable, the citation can be WP:UNDUE or even WP:CHERRY and we can discuss that. It still doesn't overrule WP:BRD. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll gladly revert if you could explain what you dispute. As you say, I am right is no argument but I respect Wikipedia policies sure is. We're talking about rather extreme violations of WP:UNDUE. Allegard is an amateur who more than 20 years ago put forward an extreme fringe theory with absolutely no support in academia. It had no support then and has received no support since. It's an obvious case of WP:UNDUE. Same thing goes for Hamilton, who apparently took the opposite view from Allegard. Once again, it's not about cherry-picking sources we agree with, it's whether they are relevant. Hamilton was another amateur who had every right to his personal opinion, but if an amateur says one thing and the entire field of experts disagrees, then it's screaming WP:UNDUE. I gladly admit that Akenson is a less clear case. In contrast to the other two who are so obviously irrelevant, Akenson at least is a historian. But the history methods for contemporary Irish history are completely different from the history methods for antiquity. Akenson, again, seems also to have been cherry-picked for having the "right" opinion. I'd like to point out that removing these three persons does not remove anything from the article or the section. The criticism section is still there. Every relevant criticism is still there, voiced by distinguished experts. The only thing we lose by removing these three non-experts, at least two of whom are blatant WP:FRINGE-cases, is noise. For users who want a clear, articulated criticism of the research methods for the historical Jesus, well, it's all still there.Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's separate the meat of the disagreement from procedural issues such as WP:BRD. To the best of my understanding, WP:BRD isn't itself an official policy, but merely a strongly recommended guideline for achieving WP:CON, which is the thing that is part of Wikipedia's official policy. You have a strongly held view that something's wrong, very wrong, with the current consensus. Maybe you're even right about it, in spite of my reservations. I sense you are frustrated about how difficult it has been to make what may to you seem like obvious improvements. If so, I can certainly empathise, since I too have been greatly frustrated about similar wrongs I see in the article and have tried and failed to fix. In addition, in the past days or so it seems my equally spirited defence of my own strongly held views has been the main obstacle to your proposed changes, which may have led you to feel frustrated about your truly as a person. WP:BRD seems to offer the least bad (partial) solution to this problem: when two editors vigourously disagree about policy, the old consensus version wins. Even if you think it stinks. Even if I think it stinks. Even if it does in fact objectively stink. Note that it is in general difficult to determine whether something does in fact objectively stink. This guideline is better than saying that the newest version wins, since that is a recipe for endless ping pong reversions and wild edits that keep the article from ever stabilising. The best we can hope for is that WP:CON will eventually lead to an improvement. Unfortunately the article often stabilises by getting stuck in a stalemate that everybody hates. I'm afraid our current article is in such a stalemate. There are parts about it, especially in the criticism section, that you hate. There are parts in the rest of the article that I hate. So far I have been unable to get a consensus for the changes I'd like to make. This frustrates me, but I don't try to ram my changes down people's throats, and observe WP:BRD, because if I don't, things will likely end up with some sort of administrative action that doesn't help. Thus, the sucky state of this article. I would like to suggest that if we all follow WP:BRD, the whole experience will suck slightly less for all of us. I'm asking you to revert, not to my preferred version, because I am in any way more important than you are or anything, but to the old consensus version. This is what it is likely to be reverted to anyway if this is escalated, so we can spare ourselves the trouble. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to violating WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE

So a new user has seen fit to reinsert fringe theories without bothering to provide an explanation. This whole process is getting rather frustrating and disruptive. Could anyone kindly explain why you feel we should disregard WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE here? Have people even read those policies? We don't need academic consensus (even if we have it in this case), it's enough that an overwhelming majority of academics agree and just a tiny minority disagree. But here we're even past that, as some people insist of inserting conspiracy theories by non-experts akin to Dan Brown. What does the article gain from this? Once again, nobody is suggesting we remove the criticism theory, but could we please adhere to Wikipedia rules when writing the article?Jeppiz (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you in excruciating detail above. Read it all again until you understand it, because you've apparently totally misunderstood it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with CMT, or anything like it. Nor does the section violate any WP policies or guidelines. Nor have you given any example thereof. Vague, hysterical griping without taking the time to listen to or address the concerns of your fellow editors is tendentious and disruptive. If you are so emotional about this topic, perhaps there are other areas of the project where you could constructively contribute. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it has not been explained to me at all why we insert the opinions of amateurs pushing fringe theories. Martin Meijering's objection was to the process, and I can respect that. I am still waiting for an explanation why we should report the opinions of people with no expertise or academic competence in the field. So it surprising that Dominus Vobisdu reverts and launches into a long personal attack without even bothering to explain the reasosning. Should we insert the claims of Dan Brown? They are notable (well-known) and not very different from a conspiracy theorist like Allegard. Neither Brown nor Allegard has any competence in the field, both of them have published conspiracy theories rejected by the entire field. So what is is that Dominus Vobisdu is arguing, while focusing on personal attacks rather than discussing the question. Is is that Allegard's theories aren't fringe? In that case, based on what? Or is it that WP:FRINGE should not apply here. Again, based on what?Jeppiz (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, which new user and which particular insertions are you talking about? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about Dominus Vobisdu. As for the conspiracy theory (not my word, the word of leading historian at the university whose paper published Allegard's fringe ideas), I'm talking about Allegard in particular, as there is complete academic consensus in rejecting his fanciful claims. I know less about Hamilton, but it would appear Hamilton was "only" a theologian. We could fill the article with theologians who claim Jesus was the Jesus of the gospel, but that's hardly beneficial. So while Hamilton in particular?Jeppiz (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, that clears things up. The reverts by DominusVobisdu do conform to WP:BRD and merely restored the article to the old consensus. You are still quite welcome to object to that consensus of course. Do you have a link for the conspiracy theory quote? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Stricly speaking, the reverts by DominusVobisdu does not restore an old consensus version but your version from yesterday where the fringe theory of Allegard became even more prominent. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of anything wrong and I don't doubt your good faith. Just pointing out that it's hardly an old consensus version. As we speak about this "consensus", who are in the consensus. You propose keeping Allegard, Hamilton and other non-experts. I oppose it. We have both presented arguments. DominusVobisdu has reverted and engaged in a personal attack on me, but not presented any argument one way or ther other. So who makes up the consensus apart from you? (The quote is from professor Dick Harrison and I haven't yet found it in English. I'll see if I find it, otherwise translate it).Jeppiz (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, he did indeed restore to the version that contained my edit, but you are free to revert my edit. In fact, I'm inclined to urge you to do just that. I think you'll be able to revert my exact edit from the history page because there shouldn't be any conflicting edits. Should that fail, you can always remove my edit by directly editing the page. If you do so, it would be best to start a new section describing your objections. I'll then feel bound by WP:BRD and won't reinsert my changes before obtaining a consensus for them. I think it would make for good practice. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I won't edit the article for now, not in any direction. Let's first discuss through it before anyone starts editing. My point is quite simple. There is legitimate criticism and we should include it (we could even expand it). There is also the uninformed opinions of amateurs, views that are far beyond WP:FRINGE and rejected by all experts. We should not include those. Allegard sits firmly in the latter group, and Hamilton appears to be there as well. I'm less sure about Alkenson, but he is not a great expert so if he's included, he should be much less prominent. Currently he and Allegard dominate the section, at the expense of actual academics.Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The reverts by DV do not conform with BRD. BRD is for edits that go against a previously established consensus; a unilateral, deeply-flawed edit, regardless of how many years ago it was made, can be reverted unilaterally by any Wikipedian. Devoting a paragraph to the views of a fringe theorist, and claiming in the context that his views are something they're not (a "criticism of Jesus research methods") is a violation of WP:SYNTH among others, and using BRD (an essay) as justification to circumvent WP:BURDEN is deeply problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hoffman and Ellegard's "criticism of Jesus research methods"

Both of these writers, as presented in this article (I haven't read the sources), appear to be speaking about whether Jesus existed or not. Ellegard is on the extreme fringe, and he does not appear to be a specialist in this or any related area. Hoffman's views, and their relevance to this article, are difficult to ascertain, because the source cited was not actually written by him. But it appears not to be about Jesus research methods, but rather about whether Jesus existed or not -- something that is not under investigation in any serious academic context. More seriously though, the quote itself, attributed to Hoffman, does not appear in the source. This blatant misquotation can't remain in the article, regardless of previous "consensus".

I removed both these paragraphs for the reasons above, but was reverted. What gives? I'm removing the Hoffman misquote immediately, pending verification, but I will leave the Ellegard paragraph pending further discussion and a new "consensus".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Noticing that the source for Hoffman(n)'s (his WP page spells it with two n's) quote doesn't actually support it as being the words of Hoffmann himself is a good catch. This could be amended by changing the quote to refer to the Jesus project, but since this project fell through, I see no great need to mention it, unless someone thinks it's notable that it fell through. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Hijiri 88, I'm surprised at the constant reinsertions of Ellegard. The situation is this.

• Ellegard is an amateur with no academic background in the field.
• Ellegard pushes (or pushed, it was more than 20 years ago) an extreme fringe view.
• There is no academic support at all for Ellegard's views. On the contrary, the is complete academic consensus against them.
• No argument for why this fringe-pushing amateur should be kept has yet been given by anyone who wants to keep him. The only reason is vague talk about a consensus? What consensus? Who is in on the consensus to keep Ellegard, and based on what arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless prior consensus can be demonstrated, we have one (maybe two) editors who want it in, and two (maybe three) editors who want it out; in addition, the default state is to leave it out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In WP:BRD prior consensus (among editors, not scholars, as in WP:CON) must be assumed, a new consensus must be demonstrated. But I think you and Jeppiz are missing an important point here: Ellegard and Akenson are not being quoted in the criticism section for their views on the HJ (Akenson insists there was one BTW, so he is not a mythicist), but because they have been critical of the methodology of HJ researchers, which seems entirely appropriate in a criticism section. I don't see how the details of their own conclusions as to the HJ could disqualify their opinions on methodology. Remember, we are only reporting that they have offered criticism, we are not agreeing with them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, BRD is an essay: you are wrong in assuming that we "must" assume prior consensus just because one Wikipedia essay suggests it as a good way to go about doing business. WP:BURDEN is a policy, and it states directly that the burden to prove consensus is not on the party wishing to remove material, but on the party wishing to add it (or keep it in). And again, if you think they are being quoted because "they have been critical of the methodology of HJ researchers", why can you not actually demonstrate where they have stated such criticism? The article quotes one book by Akenson, which is clearly primarily about the Hebrew Bible and the Talmuds, and the quote contains no criticism of research methods. Our Wikipedia article attributes a massive amount of such criticism to him, but without citing a source. The only source cited that might support the material was written by a different author. I never said Akenson was a "mythicist" -- are you trying to put words in my mouth? Or did Jeppiz make this claim somewhere? I said the sourcing for the paragraph on him is a disaster. As for Ellegard -- what on earth are you talking about?? The section Jeppiz and I are arguing to remove is all about the CMT, and has nothing to do with HJ research methods. If you want to remove the "However" in the following sentence to say something like "Albrektson has countered criticisms that Christians are biased by their theological views ..." and leave that part of the paragraph in, then I have no problem. But the Ellegard discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with research methods. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, by 'per WP:BRD' I meant, if we follow WP:BRD', as I'm urging everybody to do for all our sakes. You are right it is only a (strongly recommended) guideline, not an offical policy. The relevant policy in WP:CON. Since the text in question has been part of the page for a very, very long time and we've had countless discussion on the Talk page since then, I think we can safely assume a WP:CON for exists until it is proven there isn't.

I didn't understand your point about Akenson. Are you suggesting what we cite him as saying doesn't constitute criticism of the research methods of HJ researchers? As for the accuracy of the quote, it is paraphrased almost literally from his book. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna go hunt down exactly who and when the Ellegard (and Akenson and Hoffmann? are you still arguing for them as well?) reference was first added, but regardless, I'm going to have to disagree that there's been "countless discussion" since then: this talk page only has like one page worth of archives per year.

Regarding Akenson: I am saying that this article attributes a whole lot of claims to him, but of the three sources cited, one is a short quotation from one of his books that doesn't mention any of the same claims we are attributing to him, one is his university staff bio that is only being cited for his current academic position, and one is a source written by a different author. I'm not like User:Fearofreprisal: if I see (even blatantly obvious) abuse of sources, I don't tag the hell out of the article; I just delete, or in this case I discuss on the talk page when I encounter resistance. So discuss with me: What is the Burton Mack citation doing in a paragraph that doesn't mention him? What is the connection between the Akenson quotation and the text you call a paraphrase? And why should we be citing a book that is in a largely unrelated field, written by a specialist in an even more remote field, if more relevant scholars are saying the same thing and can be cited instead? Or, if no one within the field is saying it, why is Akenson being given so much undue weight?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe I was the one who added both Akenson and Ellegard to the criticism section, several years ago. I believe I was also the one to introduce the section heading, though some of the material was already there, if I recall correctly. I may also have added Ellegard to the non-mainstream views section, though that didn't exist back then or was named differently. The Burton Mack quotation is probably a copy-paste error, and I don't object to its removal. The Akenson source links to a Google books view of his book. You can read several relevant pages, and if you do, you'll find the citation is accurate. It's where I got it from. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So, you used a GBooks preview rather than reading the whole book? Or his other book that's actually about the historical Jesus? I think a pretty good case could be made, assuming the Amazon blurb I cited above is accurate, that Akenson (a professor of modern Irish history) fails WP:RS for this topic. You still don't appear to have answered my question as to whether he knows Greek or not. If he doesn't, then I'm afraid we're in a territory that I have a great deal of experience with... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's move discussion of Akenson to the dedicated Talk page section. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again Martijn Meijering, who is in this claimed consensus? The question is highly relevant. If it's just you (and perhaps DV), then it's not much of a consensus regardless of the past history. That someone once inserted a fringe theory and wasn't reverted is not a consensus as such. Besides, WP:BRD is an essay and does not take precedence over rules. While I do get your point about Ellegard and Akenson, the problem is that there is nothing to suggest that they even have the competence to speak about the research methods. Being an academic in one field does not give competence even to evaluate research in unrelated fields, and Ellegard has no competence whatsoever. He's a conspiracy theorist with no clue about the field. Concerning Akenson, it would be interesting to know, as Hijiri88 pointed out, what his competence is. Knowing Irish history is not sufficient. Does he speak Greek? Is he familiar with the actual research methods used in the field. In the absence of any documented competence on his part, I don't see why we should include him.Jeppiz (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Burton Mack

I have removed the stray quotation from Burton Mack, since it seemed out of place. He looks like a serious NT and Christian origins scholar though, and he has been critical of HJ research, so maybe his inclusion in the criticism section was warranted. He has not, I gather, been critical of the historicity of Jesus, which I mention for the benefit of those who might care about such matters. If we are to add him back, we need some sort of summary of his views, which I didn't find in the text. The hyperlink led to a short Google Books page with no visible pages I could find. There's a short description of the book, perhaps taken from the blurb:

"This book traces Burton Mack's intellectual evolution, from a creative analyst of ancient texts, to a scholar searching for the motives and interests of Jesus's followers who composed those texts, and for the social logic of "the Christian myths" they created. Mack rejects depictions of Jesus that have emerged from the quest for the "historical Jesus"--peasant teacher, revolutionary leader, mystical visionary or miracle-working prophet--on the grounds that they are based on a priori assumptions about Jesus, and are therefore contradictory. In addition, he argues, these portrayals are untrue to the many images of Jesus produced by the early Christians. Using systematic analysis, Mack seeks to describe and understand the cultural and anthropological influences on the conception and adoption of Christian myths and rituals."

Burton L. Mack is a very serious scholar, who even has his own article. He is also mentioned in the portraits section under Cynic Philosopher, with another reference. You can look it up here [1] See especially pg 163 - Mack believed that Jesus existed, "but not at all in the way described in the canonical gospels." Hope this helps. Wdford (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

William Hamilton

I'm removing the preacher William Hamilton as there is no information on what criticism he may or may not offer. All we have is a quote about faith "Jesus is inaccessible by historical means. All we can know (or need to know) is that he has come." I guess there's nothing wrong with a preacher saying that in church or in a book, it's part of his faith that all we need to know is that Jesus has come. That's not a criticism of historical research. Even if it were, there is nothing to suggest Hamilton had any qualification in historical research.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no special attachment to William Hamilton (never heard of the guy), and don't object to his removal but I do think a section on the reception of HJ research in various churches would be useful. As an example, I believe the Catholic church initially forbade its believers to be involved with it, but later changed its mind. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, such a section could be very useful. I'm removing Hamilton though, as he appears to be a marginal person even within his own branch of Christianity. I'll be happy to support a section how different churches have approached HJ at various times, as it's highly relevant to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This could be valuable for the future, as it is a valid criticism of the historical study. The fact that people view Jesus as inaccessible by historical means could be helpful especially in noticing all the huge variation in this historical study of Jesus. I am sure someone says it better or more clearly, though, so it seems for the mean time to be a reasonable thing to remove. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Akenson paragraph

I haven't read his work. I grew up in Ireland and now live in Japan, and don't frankly care what an American historian of Ireland thinks about the New Testament. However, it seems his only publication on the subject was this. The blurb on Amazon implies he believes that the letters of Paul provide a special insight into the man Jesus before he became the second person of the Trinity, and that the canonical gospels fall short on this point. This is an extreme fringe view; the synoptic gospels present some of the lowest Christologies in the New Testament, and Paul's view of Jesus was that of a pre-existent divine being (i.e., higher than any of the synoptics).

I'd be interested to hear what people inside the field think of his attempts to "put historical Jesus studies back on track". However, devoting a paragraph of text to giving an uncritical regurgitation of Akenson's views in this context is problematic. On the earlier version of the Historicity of Jesus article, as well as on Yamanoue no Okura and others, I noticed a recurring problem that some users were referring to "history" and "historians" as though this was a specific, exclusive field, and imputing in the article text that people who apply historical method to historical sources, get paid to teach history in university, write history books, are referred to as "historians" in reliable tertiary sources, etc. should not be called "historians" when the phrases "literary scholars" or "biblical scholars" could be used, but uncritically referring to people who agree with them as "historians". I was naturally suspicious when coming to this article, that it would be the same; however, it seems that of ten uses of the word "historians" in the article body, only three are potentially problematic in this way. All three are in the Akenson paragraph. The paragraph does not quote him, but presents what are no doubt his views in Wikipedia's voice.

My questions are these: Does Akenson know Greek? If he does not know Greek, he is a WP:TERTIARY source, so why should his views be given precedence over the hundreds of more relevant scholars who aren't quoted in the article? Even if he does know Greek, can he be demonstrated to have had any training in any of the relevant fields? As I indicated two paragraphs above, his views are not shared by the overwhelming majority of scholars. The book I mention above, though, is not the one cited in the article; that "honour" belongs to this book, which appears to deal with the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, not with the historical Jesus: is the quotation provided the only time Jesus is mentioned in the book? Is that quotation the only evidence linking Akenson to the paragraph of text attributed to him? Is the rest of this material actually the work of Burton Mack? If so, the paragraph violates WP:SYNTH and falsely attributes the views of one writer to another. The only other source is only valid for the claim that he is "Professor of Irish Studies, in the department of history at Queen's University", something that's obviously not under dispute, but is completely irrelevant to this article.

If these questions can be satisfactorily answered, the paragraph can stay. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered the point about the paraphrased quotation from the book in question, it's in Appendix D, which you can read if you follow the link in the reference. Can I assume this objection has now been dealt with? Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree fully with what Hijiri 88 says above. I was quite surprised to see Wdford inserting yet more Akenson material into the article, particularly given the on-going discussions, and I have reverted it. Both Hijiri 88 and I have repeatedly asked what Akenson's competence is, but without any reply. No matter how good an academic Akenson may be on his topic, contemporary Ireland, it does not make him an expert on the historical Jesus. We would not cite Bart Ehrman or Geza Vermes as experts on the troubles in Northern Ireland while Akenson would likely be an excellent source for that. The same applies here, Bart Ehrman or Geza Vermes are two excellent sources here but there is nothing to suggest that Akenson is.Jeppiz (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The assertion was never that Akenson was an expert on the HJ, although he has published two books relating to that, and your judgment does not trump that of a professor of history. The relevant bit is that as a professor of history he is an expert on proper historical methodology, which is what we quote him for. Could you kindly find the time to respond to that instead of your own straw man? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mmeijeri and Wdford here. Again, there is confusion between the topic of this article and the "historicity of Jesus" article. Akenson is exactly the type of scholar whose opinion is relevant here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Martijn Meijering, it's not my judgement versus a professor of history, as you dishonestly make it out to be. It my questioning of his competence in a different field than his own versus your claim that all historical methods are similar so a professor in one field of history is automatically an expert on all fields. That's an unsubstantiated claim, and apparently you resort to personal attacks instead of trying to back it up. You have repeated ten times now that Akenson is a professor of history. Yes, we all know that. You have not provided any substance for why a professor of contemporary Irish history is an expert evaluator of the methods used by historians of antiquity. That is your unproven assumption. Hijiri 88 already asked whether Akenson is able to understand Koine Greek. A highly relevant question and no answer has been given. What is Akenson's training in the methods used by historians of antiquity?Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With respect, it really is your judgment vs that of a professor of history. If a professor of history considers himself qualified to publish on a historical subject, it is not for us to judge if he was right in doing so. I don't know if Akenson knows Greek, and neither do you, nor do we even know that this is a prerequisite for judging whether HJ scholars have followed sound historical methodology. That certainly looks like an unsubstantiated claim to me. As for Koine Greek specifically, it looks as if you're inventing your own hurdles. For your information, anyone who can read classical Attic Greek can easily read Koine Greek, though the reverse isn't true. To be sure, detailed knowledge of Koine Greek can no doubt be useful in HJ studies, as can knowledge in many other fields, such as Semitic studies, ancient pagan religions, archaeology, gnosticism etc etc. For an example of a scholar making use of such knowledge, see [2]. But to suggest knowledge of Koine Greek is necessary in order to be able to offer an opinion on the methodological soundness of HJ research is simply wrong. Besides, we aren't supposed to be looking for reasons to criticise reliable sources. If other scholars criticise him for it, then that can be considered. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to correct parts of what you say. We can easily source that knowing Koine Greek is a prerequisite. That is not my opinion, that's something you can find in books by the leading experts on the field when they discuss the field. I respectfully beg to suggest that you're not placed to tell them that they are wrong (unless you have a PhD and some peer-reviwed publications in the field, in which case I'd withdraw the comment). Contrary to what you say, it's not a "hurdle" I'm inventing. My own, limited, knowledge would be to agree with you. Anyone with a sound knowledge of Attic Greek should be able to read Koine Greek. Personally, I would be satisfied if it could be shown that Akenson knew either Attic Greek or Koine Greek and had training in the methods of the history of antiquity. In the absence of any such evidence, I must state again that he is not a reliable source and I don't quite understand why you insist on making him one. I ask you again, do you think Wikipedia should rely on a historian specialising in researching Jesus to evaluate the research of the entire field devoted to contemporary Irish history? My answer would be no, and I see no reason why the opposite would be true.Jeppiz (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not in fact rely on Akenson to determine whether HJ scholars have followed sound historical methodology. If we did, I'd sympathise with your position. But as it is, we merely cite his opinion, with in-text attribution, and as an opinion. What's more, we do so in a criticism section, which is exactly where you would expect to find minority opinions and outside opinions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Martijn Meijering, we (meaning I and probably Hijiri 88) are still waiting for answers to these questions. It's not an urgent rush, but if no answers are provided in the next few days, I will assume the paragraph can be removed. It has not yet been demonstrated how Akenson is relevant. Or to put it differently, it has not been demonstrated how an academic used to the tools of contemporary Irish history has the competence to evaluate the tools of antique Middle Eastern history.Jeppiz (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't assume there is a consensus for your changes. Many of the editors who have an interest in these matters, as judged from their previous activity on this and related pages haven't weighed in, and several who have object to your proposed changes. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming there's a consensus either way. I respect your opinions even though I don't agree with them and I much prefer talking it through to see any edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to follow this thread. I don't personally understand the importance of Akenson the individual - other scholars have made the same point, and removing Akenson the individual for whatever reason is not really going to change the article. However it seems to me that somebody is suggesting that the methodologies used to study antique Middle Eastern history are different to the methodologies used to study contemporary Irish history - what am I missing here please? Wdford (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing that makes Akenson interesting that he is one of very few historians trained as historians rather than biblical scholars who have weighed in on the matter. Some of the other citations deal with historical research vs historically informed theology, and it is interesting to get the opinion of a professor of history on this. It would be even better if we had an ancient historian, especially a historian of ancient religions, but this is what we have. Also, I believe the Akenson quote adds something on historical methodology, while the others deal with bias, which is not the same thing.

A wider point is that I think the article is biased towards a defence of HJ scholars, and I find attempts to disqualify Akenson and other critics from outside biblical scholarship highly suspicious and worrying. That's not to say that we couldn't find other critics from inside biblical scholarship that say similar things (Morna Hooker for instance on methodological soundness, or Philip Davies on Jesus research not being just an ordinary branch of history), but I'd like to keep a pure historian. Richard Carrier is another interesting case, and he will have to be added eventually, but he comes with his own set of special circumstances. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just like Wdford, I don't understand the attachment to the individual Akenson (and even less to the obvious fringe of the individual Ellegard). Could I once again point out that nobody has proposed removing the criticism section. I think it's relevant. Not only that, I want it to be as good as possible. And the way to make it as good as possible is to have the best arguments, not the longest section. We all agree Akenson is not an expert in this field, even though we disagree about how much he is out of his depth. What Wdford is saying, if I understand them right, is that the individual Akenson does not add anything. That's precisely the point I made a few days ago. Everything that Akenson and Ellegard claims in term of criticism has already been said. What is more, it has already been said by experts, people whose competence nobody disputes. If a fundamentalist Christian wanted to keep Akenson and Ellegard to discredit the whole criticism section, I could understand (though not accept) their motives. I don't want to speculate on users's motives, but my impression is that Martijn Meijering is a serious contributor who is on Wikipedia for all the right reason, I suspect no hidden motive. That's why I continue to be baffled at this insistence to include non-experts when they do not add any criticism not found elsewhere, and only makes it easier to tear apart the criticism section. This section, as well as any other section, deserves to be as good as we can make it. That means including relevant criticism from experts, but leaving out opinions of individuals who are not experts in the field.Jeppiz (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have some other things I want to say, but I'll try another tack first: who would you say are the experts on the question of whether the field of HJ research has followed proper historical methodology? Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that answers the first part of my question about the attractiveness of Akenson. However for the second part of my question - is somebody suggesting that the methodologies used to study antique Middle Eastern history are different to the methodologies used to study contemporary Irish history? Wdford (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge (and I certainly not claiming to be an expert), there are some noteworthy differences although there are of course also many similarities. Most historians of antiquity who focus on persons have to rely exclusively on documents. In all but the extremely rare cases, documents that were written by other persons, perhaps person who never even met the person they wrote about. This is not unique to Jesus or to religious persons, but goes for almost every historical person of antiquity. What is more, it's not always neutral and factual written accounts. I take it we all agree that none of the gospels (whether in the Bible or outside it) are completely accurate? This means that such research by necessity has to rely to a high degree on pinning together facts from sources that are distant from the event, not neutral, and often conflicting. Historians of antiquity has come up with a number of established methods. The most obvious is of course that if several independent sources say the same thing, it's more likely to be true than if only one source says it. There also the commonly accepted method of putting higher trust in things that goes against the authors purpose than the other way around. As most accounts from antiquity are to some degree what we may call "propaganda", or at least written to convey a certain POV, it follows that if something the sources says goes against that POV, then it is more likely to be true. If we can combine these things, we start to have fact that are more probable. As an example from HJ, several independent sources say that Jesus came from Nazareth and that he was crucified. What is more, both of these claims run counter to the aims of the authors. That Jesus came from Nazareth was embarrassing for the early Christians as the Messiah should come from Bethlehem. That he was crucified was even more embarrassing as the Messiah should be a victorious king, not someone executed like a common criminal. Historians have concluded that Jesus most likely came from Nazareth and most likely was crucified, because several independent stories support those facts, and they run counter to the interest of those telling them. The opposite, of course, are stories that cannot be confirmed. Several accounts say that Jesus was resurrected, but that's perfectly in line with the POV of the authors. Likewise, some gospels place his birth in Bethlehem, but that is also likely done just to support the story. Sorry for being so tedious, back to the point. This is very different from how contemporary historians work. They usually have access to far better (and I mean incomparably better) sources and do not have to rely so much on trying to disentangle facts from biased written accounts by persons who did not even witness the events they describe. So yes, the methods are different. What is more, historians have been able to identify some stories in the gospels as almost certainly later inventions because they build on puns that only work in Greek, a language Jesus would not have spoken, and make no sense in Aramaic, indicating why being able to read the sources in the original is quite important.Jeppiz (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu

The repeated blanket reverts by Dominus Vobisdu are starting to become highly disruptive, as the user is either unable or unwilling to provide any explanations for their edits. Their sole purpose seems to be to revert me, regardless of what edit I make. After reverting to insert large sections that blatantly violated WP:FRINGE and WP:RS and providing no other explanation than a personal attack directed at me, the user is now back and inserts more contentious material despite the fact that there is no consensus for doing so and the matter is currently under discussion by several editors. There is never any logic to Dominus Vobisdu's reverts. First they reverted me claiming my edit was against the consensus version, now they are reverting me because I restored the consensus version. This user is clear WP:NOTHERE for any other reason than to either attack me or to push a fringe WP:POV. I won't engage in an edit war with a disruptive POV-pusher but I hope some responsible user can restore the last stable version while the discussion about Akenson is ongoing. Further disruptions by DV will be taken to ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Bias on the part of Christian scholars is inevitable" is a truism, but...

I pointed out in the edit summary of my first removal of Ellegard that he seemed to be saying the same thing as Perrin, quoted directly above, and since Ellegard is both fringe and trained in an entirely unrelated field, he should not be cited when either he is the only author with that POV or other, better sources say the same thing and make him redundant to our article. The above discussion focused primarily on Ellegard's theological beliefs about Jesus and how they are irrelevant to the research methods question, but as far as I can see no one has addressed my original point ghat the Perrin citation makes the Ellegard citation redundant. Any thoughts? If I am in fact misreading it, can we not find another source with which to replace Ellegard? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Even if Ellegard was an expert in the field, his inclusion would still violate WP:FRINGE. And even if his views were accepted, his inclusion would still violate WP:RS. As it happens, he is not an expert and his views are accepted. We have discussed Ellegard's inclusion for days now, and no valid argument has yet been provided for why Ellegard should be in here. As Hijiri 88 points out, it doesn't even add anything to the article that isn't already in it. All we do with Ellegard is to lower the credibility of the criticism section, without adding anything.Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

He is a relatively miserable source.. Definitely right. Could we just find someone saying the same thing in another field? I am sure someone has the same point out there. I think the point is valuable and brings a worthwhile criticism, but its just from some random person. The question, in my mind, is if we include linguists, do we include all the others out there, like Dennett, Dawkins, etc. ? If so it could become quite a problem. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I could certainly support replacing him with a more convincing source, but does it really matter? If criticism comes from a certain type of source, but not others, then we have to work with the sources we have. It's not our job either to make criticism sound more important than it is, or to censor it. If it turns out that criticism of a field mainly comes from unusual scholars, then that itself might be telling.

In addition, Ellegard really does appear to have been quite a prominent and well-regarded scholar and his work on Jesus was published and debated in respectable academic journals (Lychnos and Scandia). Ellegard was a professor of linguistics specialising in the historical grammar of English, which is also a historical subject. He has at least one general scholarly historical publication, on Germanic history, specifically the origin of the tribe of the Eruli. He developed a rigorous quantitative method for doing corpus-based research into grammatical phenomena, and later applied similar techniques to the history of ideas, specifically the reception of Darwin's theory of evolution in the British press. He was a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, and a member of the editorial board of the Swedish national encyclopedia. His publications on Jesus caused quite a stir in Sweden, gaining attention both in national newspapers and scholarly journals. One of his critics says that it is difficult to think of a work in Sweden on a biblical subject that has received as much attention as Ellegards book. The work we cite him from contains several interesting comments by historians on method, on the relevance of historicity of Jesus to historians, the possibility of recovering the historical Jesus from our surviving sources and why historians have generally not been interested in the matter. I found Ellegard because I was looking for reliable sources on what constitutes proper historical methodology in Jesus research, and found Akenson and Ellegard (more precisely, the document containing the debate with his critics, who include two historians), I didn't go looking specifically for criticism. If anyone can find historians praising the soundness of historical methodology in HJ research, we can certainly add that too. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Could we just do ourselves and the article a service and stop wasting our time on Ellegård. As it happens, we're now entering my own field of competence, linguistics. Studying the historical grammar of a language is absolutely nothing like doing research in history. You can take me word for it, my quite detailed knowledge of language history (the correct term is comparative philology) gives me absolutely no competence to evaluate history research. In philology, we study sound changes and grammar changes, which tend to operate in relatively predictable patterns. As a Swede, I can guarantee you that Ellegård's book is hardly known in Sweden, and the Swedish Wikipedia article on him identify his thoughts about Jesus as fringe theories with no support from scholars in the field. I don't think anyone intend to be disruptive (on the contrary, I'm sure nobody has that intention) but the time we devote to debating what is so obviously a violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:RS takes a lot of time that could be dedicated to real issues. Alvar Ellegård was a competent linguist who after a long career in this field decided he wanted to do something after retiring, and became hooked on conspiracy theories about Jesus. He had no competence in that field, his ideas have been soundly rejected and he does not add anything to this article. When his ideas about Jesus are ever mentioned in Sweden, it's as an example of the most extreme fringe.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to stop wasting our time on trying to get a mere sentence or two about Ellegard removed from the criticism section. You are also quite welcome not to lecture me on historical grammar, with which I'm not unfamiliar. Your characterisation of the reception of his work does not match the debate in Scandia. Besides, we are only reporting his criticism, not his rival theory, nor do we say he was right, and we quite rightly indicate his background so the reader can decide for himself whether to take him seriously and to form a judgment of how much serious outside criticism of HJ there really has been. The points made by the historians in the Scandia article are even more relevant however, given the paucity of statements by historians trained as historians on the subject. In that sense the Scandia article is more relevant than Ellegard himself. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree we should stop wasting our time. I'm then removing Ellegård as violating both WP:FRINGE, WP:RSand WP:UNDUE, none of which has been substantiated. And with all due respect, if you think being an expert on historical grammar gives competence to comment on the historical Jesus, then you need lecturing. The two fields have no connection. Despite all the discussion, you have not offered a single valid argument to keep Ellegård in. You say "he has written on the topic". True, and so have many others. Having an opinion is not enough, not if one is not WP:RS. You make much of the fact that he was an academic, which is also utterly irrelevant as he wasn't an academic in any field even remotely connected to the subject. Lastly, you invoke Scandia and "statements by historians trained as historians on the subject" therein. But they go against you. Bertil Albrektson, a biblical scholar and probably WP:RS, makes it quite clear that he disagrees with Ellegård. Then comes another biblical scholar, Per Bilde, who also makes it clear he does not accept Ellegård's theories, he in fact direct very sharp criticism at Ellegård and the "fundamental flaws" Ellegård commits. Then comes Matti Klinge. Unlike the previous two, he is not a WP:RS, as he states himself. Klinge's field is the development of Finnish national identity, miles away from the historical Jesus. It is to Klinge's credit that he explains that this is not his field. Then comes another WP:RS, professor Birger Olsson who also makes it clear he finds Ellegård's hypotheses and arguments substandard. Then comes Rolf Torstendahl, an expert on late 19th century Russia and not a WP:RS on the subject, but he also disqualifies Ellegård's ideas. So that's Scandia, where a number of experts (and two good historians who are not WP:RS) makes it quite clear that they are not convinced by Ellegård's ideas and find him making several "fundamental flaws". As I'm tired discussing such an obvious fringe-pushing, I suggest we either remove Ellegård or take it to arbitration.Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally take out Ellegard, but if there is a consensus for it, then I won't fight it. Several people have objected to the removal, but maybe you've convinced them. I'd like to see the consensus first. I find it annoying that you do not correctly represent my arguments. I never said that expertise in historical grammar qualified someone to offer an opinion on the HJ, or even came close to saying such a thing. I pointed out it was a historical endeavour, just like biblical scholarship. That doesn't make Ellegard a historian any more than it makes biblical scholars historians. It does mean that like biblical scholars they can sometimes usefully engage in historical subjects, which is all I was saying. And I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but we're not quoting Ellegard for his views on the HJ, nor do we even present these views in the one (!) sentence devoted to him. To my knowledge he is the one person who has criticised the relative insularity of HJ research. If there is a consensus against having a single sentence devoted to Ellegard in the criticism section, then I'll accept its removal, but any decline in quality is going to be your fault. I'll reserve the right to include appropriate comments by his historical critics, which others are of course free to revert and object to. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of misrepresenting you, but your argument here is so incoherent I'm losing track. You make perfectly valid arguments in lots of other places, but there's something about Ellegård. All we have is your WP:ILIKEIT. As I pointed out, the scholars you invoke do the opposite, they destroy Ellegård. So we have a fringe person with no expertise in the subject and whose published work on the matter is followed by the opinions of several experts pointing out that he makes "fundamental flaws". That's all we have. Whether Ellegård is the only one who has made a certain criticism or not is irrelevant, he is WP:FRINGE. I don't know what it is about fringe that you fail to understand. It doesn't matter if a person is alone in saying something, that's in fact the very definition of fringe. If it weren't fringe, we would find others saying it. So even if Ellegård would be WP:RS (and he's not) WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE still dictates that we must take him out. If there's anything unclear about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in this regard, please tell me what it is.Jeppiz (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of all our sanity I'm willing to give up as regards Ellegard (but not Akenson). I "cast my vote" (I know it's not a real vote) in favour of keeping the one measly line devoted to his criticism and the other line with Albrektson's reply, but if there is a consensus among other editors that it should go, I won't fight it. That would smack of bias to me, but I feel I can invest my energy more effectively in other efforts to combat bias. I'm not "voting" to continue the discussion, but if others do decide they want to continue it, I may still decide to join in. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Explaining Fringe

Martijn Meijering, you say you don't want to use "fringe" about Ellegård and Akenson ("I hate the word fringe applied to an eminent scholar like Ellegard" and "it certainly doesn't apply to Akenson, who appears to be a very eminent historian indeed"). I'm afraid you may have misunderstood fringe, then. You can be the greatest and most serious scholar and still be fringe. Fringe is about how widely accepted an argument is, not about the person making the argument. This is how Jimbo Wales himself explains it
:*If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
:*If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
That, then, is what we have to follow, like it or not. You say yourself you want to keep Ellegård because "To my knowledge he is the one person who has criticised the relative insularity of HJ research." Well, that's exactly the problem, that's Wikipedia's definition of fringe, being alone in making a view.Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism, what about Craig A. Evans and others

The criticism section was recently divided into sections, which I think is helpful. One section that is missing is the one lead by Craig A. Evans and others like him. I want to be upfront and say that I personally do not consider what they do to be proper research. Craig A. Evans and others are firm Christians who believe in Jesus more or less as the gospels describe him. In my view, they do not start from evidence to arrive at their conclusions, but rather start from their preferred conclusion (the Bible is true) and then make sure they find evidence for that view. Unfortunately, it's not our job to discard researchers if they fit the criteria. There's no denying that Craig A. Evans holds a PhD in biblical studies and works as Professor of New Testament. As such, he fits Wikipedia's WP:RS as the historical Jesus is exactly his area of academic competence. He is critical of the research on HJ as he believes modern biblical scholars to be out to undermine Christianity. One of his books has the not-so-subtle subtitle How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Even though I personally think his research is dubious (for the reasons already stated), I don't see any support in Wikipedia policies not to include his criticism. It's a minority position, but not minority enough to be fringe. I won't do anything at all about until others have had the time to comment.Jeppiz (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I would personally beg for some good criticism citations, Jeppiz. What I think we want to do is provide a range of the criticism regarding this research, regardless if we agree or like the work. We want to use scholars who fit the desired qualifications and it does seem like Evans has those qualifications. Perhaps you and some others can discover them? I am happy to vet once they are found. The criticism is going to be picked apart over time, especially by those who might have a very, very strong personal point of view when it comes to this topic. To save everyone some time it would be nice to just get some good, solid criticisms. This would also prevent against people who are overly critical of all things to do with Christianity from including fringey-criticism or just vitriolic, hateful sort-of stuff that comes out in regards to this topic.Prasangika37 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Article split required?

Despite al the cleaning up of the last week or two, this article is nudging 100k in size. There is no logical way to split it in half. What seems most logical is to remove the Portraits section, which is more speculative than actually historical. However that section is only about 13k, and is perhaps a bit small to be an article on its own. I propose therefore that we merge the Portraits section into the Quest for the historical Jesus article - where the opening sentence already reads "The quest for the historical Jesus refers to academic efforts to provide a historical portrait of Jesus." Comments please? Wdford (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this sounds great to me. I was thinking two things: 1) Find portraits a new home. We can easily make that section into a paragraph. It would especially be nice to remove these 10 or so alternate/non-mainstream portraits, which could live in that page or could be turned into a paragraph explaining each individual portrait. It seems a bit odd to present each one in such detail, honestly.

2) My question is: Do we want this page to be primarily 1) a reconstruction of his life based on historical accounts (which would include 2 widely accepted facts, the 8 others, and even the language,profession, etc, section.) 2) a page about the methodology and sources used for reconstructing? If we choose one to be the thrust, I think we would find a home for other aspect. I could see a split along those lines, as both sides pervade the article, even though its a bit messy and would take quite a bit of parsing to separate the whey from the curd so to speak. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that we keep the discussions of the “actual historical” stuff, and remove the more peripheral stuff to a separate article. That would include removing all the portraits stuff as well as the highly-speculative “other six” aspects, and the very peripheral discussions about race and the languages in Galilee etc. This article would then be the “Known Historical Stuff about Jesus”, with a discussion about the actual evidence, the methods of distilling facts out of the gospels and the criticisms of those processes. It will also include a summary of the other six items and the portraits, for completeness, and a reference to their new main article. We could perhaps call the new article Portraits of the historical Jesus, and add a lot more stuff if needed, but it overlaps a lot with the Quest article already. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we spin out a daughter article as per my User:Wdford/sandbox3 This is obviously rough and needs polishing, but that is the general content I envisage. What remains behind will need to include a summary of this material, but in brief only. Shall I go ahead? Wdford (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea, Go for it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Splitting off a daughter article

I have split this article, and created a daughter article called Portraits of the historical Jesus, largely due to size constraints, but also because this material is referred to by other articles. I am now removing the duplicated material, and replacing it with summaries. Wdford (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have summarized the all material that was spun off into the daughter article. Please help to clean up both articles. Wdford (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the work Wdford. This is a step in the right direction, and hopefully in the long run can help the Historicity page a bit as well.Prasangika37 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)