Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Identifying religions of sources

We need to identify Christian sources. There is an obvious conflict of of interest for Christians to research the historicity of Jesus and conclude "Nope, he never existed." Not identifying Christian theologians as sources is like stating "Many experts agree that cutting taxes on the wealthy enriches the middle-class" and not mentioning that Newt Gingrich is the (sole) source, or that he has a self-intererest in such an issue. In addition, there's a problem with saying "many scholars argue..." and then having a single (Christian) source for that statement. If we are going to peg a definitive paragraph (such as the one on the verge of an edit-war) to one or two (Christian) sources, fairness requires that we identify them explicitly. This is doubly true when the sources are books that can't be easily checked. Noloop (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

These scholars are discussing models of the historical Jesus and this has nothing to do with an imagined debate about whether Jesus existed or not. You seem to bring everything back to your personal point of view as you attempted on the main Jesus article. Wikipedia is not your personal outlet for what you think scholars should believe. If the reliable source is talking of many scholars arguing X, then we report that many scholars argue X. It is not your place to a personal qualification of what these sources say on the basis that the books cannot be easily checked.

As it stands, your edits to the consensus version have been objected to so please do not attempt to edit war them in. --Ari (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from personal attacks. 2. The topic of the sentences in question is whether Jesus existed; it is hardly an "imagined debate." It's what you were editing. 3. The only question in my edits is whether the source should be identified as a) a single author, and b) Christian. My edits added information that may be useful to the reader in assessing the source, and are fairly minor. Noloop (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am tempted to agree with Noloop, in that his/her edits just made it clear the attribution of information. What was wrong with that? --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it is incorrect. We have citations for what a wide range of scholarship believes, and these are being reworded to "Christian X believes this" which goes on to modify the entire meaning of the sentences. Furthermore, Noloop's attribution is not impartial, and it is part of their personal pov. On a number of Jesus related articles Noloop attempts to bring everything back, without citation, to his own personal hypothesis. For example, above they modified citations regarding the apocalptic model for understanding Jesus which is well attested to in the scholarly debate. However, in these comments Noloop wishes to bring this back to the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist. This has nothing to do with the apocalyptic model to understanding the historical Jesus and at best it is synthesis.

Now, unless all of a sudden the mainstream of academia is going to claim that reliable sources by Christian scholars at leading secular universities cannot be trusted because Noloop sees a "conflict of interest" there is no need to force our own prejudices in. --Ari (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. My edit simply named the source, so I don't know how it can "incorrect." , And, since it was a religious source on a religious topic, it informed the reader of that potential conflict of interest. This is standard operating procedure. Noloop (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Noting that you are advocating a personal prejudice against sources is not a personal attack. Appealing to personal attacks to force consensus isn't very useful. --Ari (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That comment is, itself, a personal attack. I advocated no prejudice. I advocated that we identify the sources, where there is a potential conflict of interest, which is standard procedure. Noloop (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, but it isn't a nice WP:AGF example either. Yes, Noloop is probably biased: so am I, you and everyone else. No reason to be too over-defensive, it doesn't look serious POV pushing to me. @Noloop: I guess it is considered incorrect because the source (I assume) doesn't say "I am a scholar and I think X", but reports that "many scholars think X". Ari, am I correct? Can you provide quotes? @Ari: In any case, if RS can be found stating that the majority of scholars on the subject are Christian, this is indeed an interesting information for the reader (like the opposite would be). What you said on the NPOV/N also that a large number of non-Christians agree on the subject is also relevant and should be mentioned, if already isn't. --Cyclopia^talk 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A pertinent question, Noloop - why are you advocating for the identification of Christian scholars as such, but not similar identification for atheist or agnostic or Muslim scholars? That seems rather uneven to me.Farsight001 (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that authors who hold fringe theories that just happen to coincide with Noloop's own personal views are prefixed with "Nobel Prize winner" and "renowned scholar". Even fiction writers are given the title "scholars". --Ari (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is well poisoning. It puts forth a novel theory (i.e. user created theory) that one's religious background discounts them from applying the historical method. Do we have secondary sources to back this up? We faced a similar proposal over at abortion, where one user wanted to preface every scientific study with whether the authors were "pro-choice" or "pro-life" (which I admit is harder to pin down in reliable sources than one's religious background), but I find the proposal similarly inappropriate as this one. If someone is pro-choice, does it change the fact that their scholarship was published without a COI notice in JAMA? The only purpose of adding the prefaces was to alert partisan readers to alleged, but completely unsupported "bias". Similarly, if Ray Brown and John Meier are Catholic, does that in any way affect their ability to use the historical method? Or the agnostic Bart Ehrman? Or the Jewish Géza Vermes? Is it impossible for scholars to compartmentalize? We do it every day here on Wikipedia, put beside our personal views to follow our inclusion and editorial guidelines. Unless there is clear and sourced evidence that the religious views affect their ability to be scholars in their fields, I think pointing them out is well poisoning, and only there to be "guilt by association", and imply that a Christian cannot be unbiased when it comes to studying history related to Jesus.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it puts forth the theory than non-neutral sources should be identified as such. That's a Wikipedia policy. People who consider Jesus to be their Lord and Savior are not neutral about whether Jesus existed. That doesn't mean they are unreliable. It doesn't mean they should be deleted as sources. It means they should be treated as non-neutral sources. A good compromise might to identify religious sources as such unless they are published in peer-reviewed (and religion-neutral) academic journals. Noloop (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First, there is absolutely NOT a wikipedia policy that states this. Second, if you are going to conclude that Christians are automatically non-neutral sources, then, at least in regards to the historicity of Jesus, there are a rather large number of people who would also say that Muslims and atheists are non-neutral sources too. This was kind of the point of my question above. You don't get to label all the Christians as non-neutral just because your personal opinion is that their personal biases would influence their scholarly study, but then immediately turn around and say something different for other sources. Do you really think we're stupid enough to fall for that? Farsight001 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Minimum historical facts

In light of some POV pushing and attempts to redefine the whole historical Jesus field of scholarship on the basis of personal preferences, here are some reliable sources on the consensus and minimum of what mainstream scholarship accepts about Jesus.

John Dickson writes "Nevertheless, there is very wide agreement amongst contemporary scholars - whether Christian, Jewish or agnostic - that we do in fact know quite a bit about Jesus. Virtually everyone agrees that we know at least the following:

• when and where he lived;
• that he started out within the orbit of John the Baptist;
• that he was famous in his day as a teacher and healer;
• that he proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of a looming catastrophe in Israel;
• that he insisted on a radicalized ethic of love;
• that he selected a group of twelve to symbolize a renewed Israel;
• that he attracted many women into his circle and was notorious for dining with sinners;
• that he caused a major, albeit symbolic, disturbance in the Temple;
• that he shared a final meal with his disciples during Passover;
• that he was handed over to Pontius Pilate by the priestly elite;
• that he was crucified under the mocking charge of 'King of the Jews';
• that numerous men and women insisted they saw him alive shortlty after his death;
• and, finally, that these followers established communities that looked forward to Christ's kingdom and sought to win Jews and Gentiles to that vision.

Plenty of other details are considered either probable or plausible, but these are the acknowledged facts about the historical Jesus. Doubting them requires an arbitrary type of scepticism insensitive to historical method and consensus." --Ari (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In any case, the relationship between the way the historical Jesus has been described and the religious affiliation of the scholars -in general- seems to have been subject of debate itself -see [1] or [2] as just the first Gbooks results I've found on the subject. What about adding something on the problem? --Cyclopia^talk 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by what you believe these books are saying with regard to conflicts of interests etc. --Ari (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"John Dickson is ... current senior minister of St Andrew's Anglican Church ... co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to "promote the public understanding of the Christian faith".[1]" Noloop (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the rest of your comment.... You are 1) assuming bad faith, after repeated requests to respect those with whom you disagree,, 2) Not addressing what is being said. I have repeatedly said that I don't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus. What I've said is that, in some cases, the sources should be clarified for the reader. For example, when the source of a neutral factual claim about historicity and scholarship is the head of media agency promoting Chrisitianity.... Noloop (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And? I note you left out his academic expertise - things such as a PhD in ancient history; Senior Research Fellow in the ancient history dept at Macquarie University. But as I said earlier, a good thing reliable sources are reliable no matter what personal prejudices individual editors try and throw at them. On the rest of your comment, I have stopped reading. You can constantly accuse me of personal attacks until the cows come home, but that will not make them materialise out of nothing. Find a new game. --Ari (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, you can't deny that the fact that the head of a media company that seeks to promote Christian faith is not exactly the most unbiased of sources. You can find Ph.D.'s defending every wacky claim and publishing pseudoscience books everywhere. I am absolutely not saying that the one of the guy is a wacky claim or pseudoscience, and I am sure it is OK. But the choice of the source is not bulletproof from criticism -if anything, it lends credence to Noloop arguments. If you can find a plurality of sources from different backgrounds, it could be better. And also, please stop patronizing Noloop. He is wrong in accusing you of personal attacks, but your tone with him does not help collaboration. --Cyclopia^talk 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is immaterial (in addition to being a misrepresentation of the organisations aims). Dickson is not presenting his own opinion, but what the scholarly consensus is. He is doing this in a reliable source as an academic historian in the field of historical Jesus studies. Synth arguments and personal prejudices against certain scholars have no place here. --Ari (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor it has place to blindly refuse obvious concerns about bias. Ari, all I'm saying is that a couple sources from scholars of both Christian and non-Christian backgrounds would help your case much better. --Cyclopia^talk 17:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that reliable sources were determined by editorial value judgements on individual's scholarship on the basis of religious prejudice. This is not my case but Wikipedia policy. If I have strayed in this regard, please direct me towards them as I am yet to come across these innovations. --Ari (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not a RS: it is, without doubt. But sources do not exist in a vacuum. They have a context, and this context has to be kept in mind to decide how to use the sources. For an extreme example, just to make the point that sources are not used independently of a context: there are plenty of reliable sources (e.g. books endorsed by Nobel prizes that deny that AIDS is caused by HIV. However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that AIDS is indeed caused by HIV, so, given this context, we use these sources to document the phenomenon of AIDS denialism but not AIDS itself. Now, your source is absolutely fine, but if we want to document what is the objective consensus on the historicity of Jesus (and on what is currently settled to be historical or not), we cannot deny the fact that the religious (or antireligious!) background of scholars can have weight (and indeed sources declared it had or even has today, see above), and we should be aware and careful of this context and, whenever possible, declaring this context to the reader. It is a very delicate issue, but not one that can be just put under the carpet. --Cyclopia^talk 18:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that facts should be asserted, and only opinions should be attributed. Wouldn't the correct format be, person x says "y", and not according to source z, person x says "y". Flash 06:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, Christian scholars are not second-rate RSs, which is what you are implying. And the "objective consensus on the historicity of Jesus" by virtually every single scholar is that he existed. So unless you are a mind reader, your point about the "background" of scholars is meaningless. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian scholars are not second-rate RSs, which is what you are implying. : I have never, ever implied something like that and I would be happy if you can retract this unwarranted assumption on my opinions.

And the "objective consensus on the historicity of Jesus" by virtually every single scholar is that he existed. : And I have no doubts on that as well, so?

your point about the "background" of scholars is meaningless. : My point is that we are talking of a subject where there is an as deep as possible intertwining between the scholar's cultural/religious background and the subject. Being Christian/Jewish/Muslim/atheist implies starting from a well defined perspective on the subject. There is a full book on the subject of the historical Jesus as seen from Christian versus from Jewish scholars. Therefore the declaration of the religious background of a scholar -any scholar, not only Christian ones!- on the subject is an important contextual information to understand a source. And if there is a compositional bias in the scholarship, this should be indicated as well. I do not single out Christian scholars, or religious scholars, I think it is a significant contextual information in general: vibrantly atheist scholars won't be less biased than vibrantly religious ones, and both contexts should be made explicit, when sourced and possible. --Cyclopia^talk 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is sometimes very difficult to determine the religion of a scholar. But sourcing and verification problems aside, do you feel it is productive to add a qualifier to every source in religious contexts, whenever that is possible?

To have every attribution of opinion be in the form of, "according to Christian scholar" or "according to Jewish scholar" or "according to atheist scholar", is to imply that these sources are biased. Doing so will put labels on reliable sources, divide sources into religious categories, and will make it seem like the views of religions are presented instead of the views of individual scholars.

Also to clarify, what specific changes are you proposing? Flash 12:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be difficult to determine it. And I don't propose to obsessively label each one. But for example, in cases in which the scholar has an official position in some religious context (being say a bishop, or a rabbi, or a spokesman of some renowned atheist organization) this should be made clear. And yes, such people will be biased almost by definition: if you actively belong to organizations that put forward that Jesus was just a clever speaker, or conversely to organizations that think that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour, your approach to the matter will almost certainly be biased towards your beliefs. To make an example: wouldn't you want to know if some scholar X on Communism is an MP of a Communist party? In other contexts, where potentially controversial things come out, to clarify that something is supported/rejected generally by scholars of different backgrounds would be much useful. I am not proposing specific changes, I am proposing that in general we shouldn't be afraid of presenting relevant context. --Cyclopia^talk 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not required that sources be NPOV, because as you say, they pretty much never are. It is required that articles use multiple sources to achieve NPOV by reflecting the majority view, or all mainstream views if there is no majority view. This came up also on Talk:Jesus link to archived discussion). That list was not supported there, and I don't see how it can be supported here. One reliable source says that this is what all mainstream scholars believe? Apart from anything else, I've not yet come across an Islamic scholar who believes that Jesus was crucified (although I'm obviously prepared to be proved lacking in depth of reading on that one). I don't think it's saying X source is less/more reliable because the author is a Y or Z. Its just recognising that one scholar is unlikely to be able to produce a true synthesis of the approaches of all scholars in such a sensitive and contentious area. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"That list was not supported there, and I don't see how it can be supported here." The Dickson list? Only one editor objected to it and they did while unaware that "Dickson is Senior Research Fellow in the Ancient history department at Macquarie University. He has a PhD in ancient history, he teaches early Christianity in an ancient history department, he supervises theses in historical Jesus studies, he presents academic papers, etc." (to quote myself.)

As I have said before, reliable sources are reliable sources. --Ari (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no matter which way I read that link, your long list was not supported to go into the article, I find it surprising that you believe everyone agreed with you. I am sure your source is very RS, he's just not NPOV. I don't believe there are any NPOV sources, so this is not a criticism of this source more than any other sources. But it remains that it is a list of what scholars who take the "christian" position (regardless of their actual religous belief) are prepared to accept. But many RS Islamic scholars prefer alternative explanations to death by crucifixion - this may be driven by their own religious beliefs, or by some other factor. Many RS Jewish scholars do not believe he "proclaimed the Kingdom of God" - whatever that means (see next sentence) - again, possibly because of their religious beliefs. Other scholars do not believe that he "proclaimed the Kingdom of God", because that phrase is a piece of Christian shorthand which would require a lengthy essay to unpack, and the unpacked version requires religious belief to support it.

And so on. What you have here is an undoubted RS saying "the best apple pie in the world is made by my mother." Sure, he believes it is true. But Wikipedia could not accept that statement as uncontentious and NPOV either.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The source was not rejected, despite your unfounded claims. In fact, to this day it is a reference in the article. The fact that you have branded Christians as non-NPOV by virtue of being Christian is absolutely ridiculous. The anti-religious bigotry of some editors has gone beyond a joke here.

You state, "But it remains that it is a list of what scholars who take the "christian" position (regardless of their actual religous belief) are prepared to accept." Again, what are you talking about? The source specifically states "whether Christian, Jewish or agnostic" and and that they are the scholarly consensus of facts. It is a scholar informing us of what most scholars - irrespective of religious persuasion - believe about the historical Jesus. Not Christian theological claims about Jesus, not what John Dickson personally believes.--Ari (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, Ari, if you are Christian, and you talk of Christ, you have a very strong and definite POV on the subject. It's not "branding", it's a fact (otherwise you wouldn't be a Christian). The same holds for atheists, Jews, Muslims. We all have a POV on the subject. That is why including more sources from different backgrounds would help a lot -this way everyone can be reassured that everyone informs us on scientific consensus the same way. --Cyclopia^talk 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, we are talking about the academic study of Jesus as a historical figure using the historical critical method. But I guess if dismissing the reliability of a third of the world on the basis that they identify as Christian makes you sleep better at night, so be it.

Using the Dickson source from above, let me illustrate history and belief - where one is a secular academic exercise. Dickson writes, "I should also flag that I am self-consciously limiting myself in this book. There are many more things I believe about Jesus Christ than are detailed in this small work. This is not just a matter of word-count; it has to do with my method and my aim. While Christianity is a strikingly historical religion, not everything Christians believe can be verified or even assessed by historians. And, in what follows, I am choosing to explore only what historical method can uncover and what the majority of scholars accept as probable. In other words, I am wearing my historian's hat only, not that of a theologian or even a Christian. So, for instance, I will not discuss the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. No responsible historian can say there is anything like historical evidence for this doctrine - many simply reject it outright." (12) In fact, as an academic ancient historian in the field, he has a little swipe at apologetics: "The historian who happens to be a Christian must learn never to smuggle in religious beliefs under the guise of a historical argument." (14-15) And ultimately: "I will affirm as history only those things that the historical critical method can reliably establish and that the consensus of scholars affirm." (14) --Ari (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not dismissing the reliability, I am dismissing the neutrality. A source can be reliable but not neutral, and that's our case here, as repeated several times above. And the paragraph you cite above in fact says: There are many more things I believe about Jesus Christ than are detailed in this small work. This is not just a matter of word-count; it has to do with my method and my aim. - That said, the way the author seems to strive for objectivity is exceptional and laudable, but we're taking his word for this. Again, why not just provide sources with a different background? This way everyone is happy, we can more strongly and rapidly reject fringe theories, and your position is only strengthened. It doesn't look like an unreasonable request. --Cyclopia^talk 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the same problem as on the Talk:Jesus link which Ari is mildy misrepresenting. The problem is not with the source, the problem is with the LIST. The LIST was rejected. The source was fine, but it was the only source that supported the list. Ergo, the list could not be considered a mainstream scholarly view. Indeed the list is not a mainstream scholarly view. Most scholars do not support all the items in the list, and especially not all the items in the list as phrased by the source (eg 'Kingdom of God' or 'ethic of love'). The source is indeed used. The list is not. If Ari could find more sources that supported his list, he could make the case that it is a mainstream view, but one source does not a fact make.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything. The only objection to it was by FormerIP who stated that Dickson's opinion on Jesus is just as reliable as Richard Dawkins. That is before they had any idea that John Dickson is an academic ancient historian, etc.

A reliable source states what the mainstream view is. Elen of the Roads has a different personal opinion. Good for Elen of the Roads, become an academic and publish a "new consensus" or rewrite wp:verifiability.--Ari (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing the neutrality is dismissing the reliability. We have an academic providing clear consensus statements about where the scholarly mainstream stands. That is sufficient - however, on the basis of your personal prejudice against Christians you contend that the source cannot be trusted. I do not care about getting a thousand other sources behind that, my issue is with the fact that there is no logic other than personal bias at work and it is truly ridiculous. On that note, I heard Christians drink blood and transform into bats. If anyone tells you any different they're one of 'em and you should pierce their heart. --Ari (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One academic. He is only one. One source, however normally reliable, does not make a mainstream view. He could be Linus Pauling - an extremely reliable source except when it came to Vitamin C. To argue that this is the mainstream view, you NEED MORE SOURCES. Simples. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

He is explicitly stating that the following list is presenting the academic mainstream and consensus. If he was presenting only his own view we would attribute it to John Dicskon believes X. You should actually try reading the statement and the WP policy. You clearly haven't read one of them. It states:

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every reliable source states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim (e.g. a reliable source states, "consensus is that" or "the literature shows that" the sky is blue)."

Dickson presents a clear consensus statement in no uncertain terms. If he was presenting his personal beliefs, then we would write "John Dickson believes X, Y, Z events". Instead, we have a consensus statement about the field. Following? Consensus statement =/= personal argument; Personal argument =/= consensus statement. Consensus statement = consensus statement.

--Ari (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing the neutrality is dismissing the reliability. - No, absolutely not. Your repeated inability to distinguish between these two is perplexing. Biased reliable sources exist (I'd say they are the majority of RS, in any field) and they are fine, provided they are put in context and used judiciously.

however, on the basis of your personal prejudice against Christians you contend that the source cannot be trusted. - This is a mix of personal attack and straw man argument. I have no personal prejudice against Christians and I repeated N times that contextualization is required in general, surely not only for Christians. I would appreciate if you stopped offensively misrepresenting my views and reacting in such a defensive way. And no, I don't contend that the source "cannot be trusted". I simply don't think that it alone, firmly establishes the academic consensus, and I feel that having a source from a self-admittedly biased academic (even if he personally strives for being unbiased) is not enough.

He is explicitly stating that the following list is presenting the academic mainstream and consensus. - Yes, but we're taking his word for granted on it. I am an academic myself -even if in a completely different context (and a much less problematic one, that is, biophysics). I guarantee it is chock full of papers and books that "present the academic mainstream" just like the one above but skew it in a way favourable to the authors' personal hypothesis. To establish scientific consensus on a controversial subject prone to opposite bias and agendas, a single source claming what is such consensus is not enough. --Cyclopia^talk 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing a source for not being neutral is dismissing a source because of its inability to be reliable. No matter what label you are sticking to it, the contrived dismissal is there. Work out a biophysics formula if it makes you feel better. Since you brought up the academy, I currently have an academic article going through the peer-review on historical Jesus studies right now (it is a critique of a specific historical Jesus model). I read more books and journal articles on this and related topics in a week than you know exist and I have a damn good idea where scholarship stands on most issues. But that aside. We have WP policy to guide us and the core of this is that Ari or Cyclopia's personal opinions are neither sufficient or supreme.

Per wp policy, the consensus statement presented by Dickson is reliable and sufficient to make a claim about consensus. I have even extracted it above and provided a very simple walkthrough. Your objections are based on your personal opinions.--Ari (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I should probably also point out now that I never even suggested we copy the list into the article. It just seems that using a reliable source by a Christian academic as a reference and anchor for what most mainstream scholars believe was too provocative for some of the editors here. --Ari (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, FFS, would you please stop misrepresenting other editor's opinions? This is getting heavily disruptive. I am not dismissing anything. I am asking for more sources on the same subject from other backgrounds, so that no one can complain anymore of bias. Notice that I am saying that I would like "more", not that I would like to "substitute". The source is absolutely fine. Now, since you are bragging that you have "read more books and journal articles on this and related topics in a week than you know exist and I have a damn good idea where scholarship stands on most issues.", why is it so hard for you to find, for example, a prominent Jewish scholar that agrees with your source? You will have read them, isn't it? Or not? We have policy to guide us, exactly, and one of these policies -one of the pillars in fact- is WP:NPOV. Asking for a couple more sources to be bulletproof from NPOV concerns seems only reasonable. --Cyclopia^talk 18:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"stop misrepresenting other editor's opinions?"

"why is it so hard for you to find, for example, a prominent Jewish scholar that agrees with your source?" Because per WP policy consensus' statements must be clear consensus statements. Just because Jewish scholars such as Geza Vermes and David Flusser agree with, say, the "radical ethic of love" that Elen disagreed with above is not a consensus statement that "most" agree with it. It would be synthesis for me to interpret that as a statement of consensus. But thankfully, Dickson reliably provides us with a consensus statement so we do not need to synthesise sources.

You really do make it clear that you haven't comprehended about 90% of what I have said. --Ari (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, stop misrepresenting other editor's opinions. You constantly twist what I say and make unwarranted assumptions on what I think, and it is disruptive. Sentences like "It just seems that using a reliable source by a Christian academic as a reference and anchor for what most mainstream scholars believe was too provocative for some of the editors here." are disruptive and misrepresent other editors' views -there is nothing "provocative" in using a Christian source, we are just asking for a multiplicity of backgrounds.

That said, I fully agree that "per WP policy consensus' statements must be clear consensus statements". What I want is a "Jewish Dickson", or an "atheist Dickson", making the same consensus statements. Are you really telling me that Dickson has been the only one scholar providing such a review of the literature on the historical Jesus, or that only Christian scholars did so? Aren't there reviews of the literature on the historical Jesus by scholars of other backgrounds? --Cyclopia^talk 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounding quite paranoid so I am not even going to bother entertain it.

Consensus statements on what everyone believes are rare as (1) you don't usually come across lists and (2) they are not explicit and therefore would require synthesis. People who work in the field, myself included, know where most people stand by reading the literature and therefore do not need to make statements as they are generally assumed. Furthermore, in most cases reporting on a consensus is redundant - the scholars prove the "fact" instead of assuming it because others widely do. And, per WP policies, Dickson's consensus statement is more than sufficient. --Ari (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very strange to say the least. In all academic fields I am aware of, reviews and books that summarize the current consensus on a given subject are constantly published. I can't believe it isn't the same for this subject: do you mean that none of the books here, for example, dares to present the academic consensus? And no, per WP policy, a lonely source from a self-admitted biased scholar is not sufficient. --Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) The closest there is are review articles, off hand statements in books or a relevant article in Currents in Biblical Research on specific issues (e.g. use of G.Thomas in historical Jesus studies; etc). (2) Dickson is not a "self-admitted bias scholar" but someone who has made the distinction that theology is not history, exactly opposite to the charges we find levelled at him on this talk page. (3) Per RS, it is sufficient. Reliable sources that make clear consensus statements are exactly what the policy outlines. Clearly, you have nothing useful or new to say and you repeating the same nonsense is just tedious. Don't expect me to follow up this circular thread. --Ari (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, a quick Gbooks search finds another book about the academic consensus on the subject. [3]. It also does another partial list, which is less comprehensive than the one by Dickson, for example, and it is more cautious. Unfortunately for the issue here, both authors seem to be Christian theologians, so it isn't resolutive (but it helps understanding academic consensus nonetheless). It is an interesting read, in saying also how little is what is considered consensual. Why didn't you link it to us? --Cyclopia^talk 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, Christian authors on a book I have previously linked to. What a find! --Ari (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty a find, given that you implied a couple of edits ago that Dickson was the only source giving such a list. Now we have two, even if with similar background. And the second also makes it clear that there is very little that is considered consensual. It is already an improvement. I am sure now, since you were bragging above about your knowledge of the field, that you can find other similar assessment of consensus from scholars with non-Christian background. You said above that there are review articles or relevant articles above. So, why don't you provide that? What is blocking you? --Cyclopia^talk 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) I have already shared that source and Elen linked to my sharing of it on this discussion so I don't understand your petty attempt at calling me dishonest; (2) they are Christian and your personal prejudice is against all things Christian so it is redundant to again share. (3) Finally, we don't just have clear consensus statements by Dickson, but also Sanders, Theissen, Merz, Crossan and others that are referenced in the article. There is no need to go searching for consensus statements specifically made by Alien, Animal or Leprechaun. --Ari (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, found something. She seems a Jewish author, confirming a list of basic historical facts which are considered consensual. This is exactly what I meant by a source of different background giving an overview of academic consensus. I'd say these two sources could be added to the article. --Cyclopia^talk 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean by offhand statements in books. --Ari (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And this book explains why I was asking for that: "Given the limited number of the sources, any author's version of the 'consensus' would no doubt reflect his or her own theological views" (p.249). --Cyclopia^talk 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What consensus are they talking about here? Looks like historical models and not events as far as I can tell. Note that this is an example of no consensus as they go on to establish the event as historical (e.g. baptism by John p.265ff) instead of "this is consensus, therefore we assume it..." --Ari (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it isn't a list. What it is saying is that there is no consensus. What the next source up says is that there are only a few things that all sides agree on. This makes it clear that Ari's original source was not the mainstream view. The mainstream view is probably closer to 'there is nothing that everyone agrees with', than to that long list first presented.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd that multiple sources provide consensus statements yet you conclude there is no consensus. --Ari (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari could have a point here. I'd say that this sentence from here is the most accurate: "while consensus in Jesus studies today is elusive, it is not entirely absent" --Cyclopia^talk 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have no concerns with that statement. As I said, I thought it was closer to 'no consensus' than the original list. I would not go as far as to say 'there is no consensus'. Those who argue that there was no historical Jesus (ie the whole thing was made up later) are definitely into fringe territory.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Authors of that text are James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy. Bleiby is described here as a conservative Christian Eddy is also a Christian . the article needs neutral sources, and sources that are not neutral need to be identified as such for our readers. Noloop (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We have also a Jewish source. I feel that there is nothing like a "neutral" source in this context, unfortunately, but for sure we need to identify the background of the sources. --Cyclopia^talk 09:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? It is fairly offensive for some anonymous internet dude to assume a scholar needs "qualification" and thereby implying some type of bias, based solely on religious background. Do other sources do this? Do published sources claim various top scholars that we cite are actually biased due to their religion? What about their ethnicity? Or their gender? Or political views? I strongly feel we need to not add religious disclaimers to individual scholars. If there is a case where a source is accused of religious bias in another source, maybe we should consider qualification then (or perhaps not using that source altogether). But I feel that is is just some anonymous internet dudes' religious prejudices coming out, and not an actual conflict found in published sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue surely is that the sources tend to couch things in certain ways depending sometimes on their background. Noloop has a different issue, which is that the sources in this 'set' start from an axiomatic position that Jesus existed, but certainly my issue is that use of shorthand more than anything else (as in 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God' above), which could accidentally result in one putting words in another source's mouth. That said, I think the sources largely self identify as evangelical, Catholic, or whatever, in the way things are said etc. It's not possible to miss it when a source is speaking from a religious pov.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposal: rename this page to "historical-critical view of Jesus"

The term "historical Jesus" has an everyday English meaning, which is different from the use of the term in higher criticism. While mentioning and accurately describing the use of this term in the latter context, this article must not state, nor imply by its title, that the historical critical method is the right way to reach an understanding of the "historical Jesus" in the everyday sense of that term. Doing so could offend religious sentiments by implying the present article describes the real Jesus, while the Bible does not. It could also offend atheists or agnostics who might disagree with the conclusions here and who might suspect a bias from mostly religious theologians. It is not for Wikipedia to decide who is right, merely to present an accurate picture of the various points of view.

If the proposal is adopted, the subsections Son of God and Other views should probably be removed and perhaps moved to the main article on Jesus if necessary. I suspect they were only introduced for point of view neutrality, but the result looks ineffective and incoherent to me.

After these changes the new page would then be similar to the pages Religious perspectives on Jesus, Christian views of Jesus, Islamic view of Jesus, etc, which seems fitting. I would then advocate removing the pov tag, which I restored a couple of days ago.

What do you all think? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What would we do with the "historical Jesus" name, have it as a redirect here? Create a new article? Have a disambiguation page? I'm not entirely opposed to your proposal yet, but I still think Wikipedia:Article titles would suggest the current title. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the present article could remain as a redirect. I feel the current title sounds offensive to orthodox Christians (or Muslims etc) and presumptious to some atheists and agnostics. I imagine an orthodox Christian might say "The historical Jesus was precisely as He is described in the Bible, thank you very much." To try to clarify my point: imagine the article were named "Real Jesus" or "True Jesus". Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposal to rename the page is ill-advised, simply because "historical Jesus" is the most commonly used term for this article's subject. I don't see any evidence for the contention that this term has a meaning in everyday English different than its use in scholarship—it is, anyway, practically a term of art. As for potential offense to religious sentiments, this is not a consideration that determines article titles—they're determined by the usage of reliable sources, and as I've already said "historical Jesus" is the most common term. The article already indicates that this is a common perspective in scholarship, but by no means the only way nor the right way to think about Jesus, so I'm puzzled by your concerns. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree "historical Jesus" is used as a term of art and that is a fact that ought to be mentioned, probably even in the introduction. Nevertheless I would contend that in ordinary usage it is a synonym for "real Jesus" or "true Jesus". The term "historical-critical view of Jesus" seemed in line with the other articles describing various views on Jesus. If the present name is retained, I would like to add wording that indicates that this is a term of art in the opening sentence. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Historical Jesus" is a term of art, and the primary term used for the subject of this article. We should not make up neologisms on the grounds that the standard terms used by specialists might be confusing. We should simply explain in what sense we are using the term. john k (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you guys have convinced me. Wikipedia policy says that non-neutral titles are preferred when it is the usual name for the topic, giving the Boston Massacre as an example. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok to remove the POV tag then?

As far as I'm concerned it is. Noloop, what do you think? I think there are still some issues, but nothing spectacular. I'd like to see some quotes that illustrate criticism. Maybe something from Schweitzer and the quote from Perrin I came across the other day? I had been wondering if historical critical Bible criticism was accepted as legitimate by mainstream historians. When I asked him about this my father (who is a professor emeritus of theology, though not a NT scholar) had no doubts about this, personally knowing at least one prominent historian who attended conferences about the subject. I didn't get any quotable sources though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have a question (not just for Martin) about the use of the term "higher criticism". I feel that this term is probably less comprehensible to a general audience than "historical Jesus". I understand what higher criticism is, but it seems like an archaism to me; in the academic field I'm most familiar with, classical studies, I rarely see anyone talking about higher criticism anymore—people do still talk about textual criticism all the time, but they rarely call it "lower criticism" or contrast it with "higher criticism." I wonder if this reflects a difference between classics and biblical studies, a difference between regional styles (I'm in the U.S. and have only studied there), or if "higher criticism" has gone out of use generally. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The term is antiquated, if one does a search for books and scholarly works on the topic, the term is used heavily into the 1930's. When used now if is most often looking back at work done in the past. It now seems to be mostly used by biblical apologists and others who are discussing and giving summerizations and background. Hardyplants (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Price's journal was The Journal of Higher Criticism, but I think they were playing up their association with the earlier, pioneers in the field. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially wanted to link to historical critical method or historical Bible criticism, but the main article was named Higher criticism and I didn't want to link to a redirect. Should we link to Biblical criticism or Biblical studies instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

why this article is a little weird

As some of the newer editors on this page have noted, the term "historical Jesus" is sometimes used to refer not to the flesh and blood man but to the academic reconstructions of this man. This article is a little odd because it serves double duty, describing both the man and the historical reconstructions. Why? Simply because the Jesus article can't carry the weight of being historical. If Jesus weren't such a hot topic, the Jesus article would describe the flesh and blood historical figure, the way the Napoleon article describes a particular human being. Then this article wouldn't have to carry that weight. In addition, we then wouldn't need the Quest of the Historical Jesus article, which would simply be called "historical Jesus." Those of use who've worked hard on this article to make sure that WP has a place to describe Jesus as a historical person are not the same ones who prevent the Jesus article from being more historical. The reality of the situation on WP is that the pro-Christian editors are going to prevent the Jesus article from being historical the way the Napoleon article is, so this article winds up fulfilling that role. It's not perfect, but then neither are human beings or our projects. Pro-Christian editors occasionally come to this page and want to turn it into an account of the reconstructions but not of the man, with an emphasis on there being no consensus among experts, in an apparent effort to discredit the historical view of Jesus, which represents a challenge to the view they'd like to promote. In light of the political realities on WP (which I've been caught up in since 2006), the best that a history-minded atheist like myself can hope for is that this article reflects historical views, and it's summarized on the main Jesus article, since the main Jesus article itself will not be primarily historical in the foreseeable future. Leadwind (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether "the Jesus of faith" ever existed as a historical flesh and blood person is kind of beside the point. He is doubtless more historically important than "the Jesus of history," and the Jesus article should reflect that. john k (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should, but before it can it needs to first acknowledge a distinction between the two. --FormerIP (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "a little weird" rather it's very very - not weird, i.e. the same old dreary everlasting thing of these ignorant people pushing this dead horse, presumably until they die. From the very first sentence this is evident and it's also clear that you Leadwind, are wrong that this article is a place where substantial surcease from this has been obtained. "Higher criticism" already draws us back into a place where we have to give credence to absurdity, abandon a scientific and rational historic viewpoint as there would be for any other topic, and grant "a middle ground" for the divinity of Jesus Christ. For that reason I'm removing "higher criticism" but don't intend to engage here so imagine it'll get wiped pretty quick. Probably nothing can be done given the state of the English speaking and especially the American populations and the way wiki is run at this time. Somebody would have to probably put far more time and effort into carving out a space for the subject than makes sense and the other side has vastly superior resources in not making sense. This, like say, the Holocaust is one of those showcase examples where the whole split the difference, middle ground, NPOV, go along to get along idiocy produces its finest products. To be clear the relation of this with the Holocaust is inversion. You cannot be neutral about the Holocaust because that is denying its truth which is politically unacceptable. Here you must accept the denial of truth for the same reason. Lycurgus (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to your removal of the term Higher criticism (or some suitable replacement). The term historical Jesus doesn't mean "a scholarly reconstruction of the first-century figure Jesus of Nazareth", it means "an authentically drawn human being who actually walked about 2000 or so years ago", as FormerIP put it on Talk:Jesus.

Whether the two are identical is debatable. Devout Christians might contend that revelation is the most reliable path to secure knowledge of Jesus, while others (you and me included I presume) would deny this and might believe that scholarly construction is our best hope. Even so we may have our doubts as to how far historical reconstruction can get us (not very far imo) and whether or not there is a bias among the biblical scholars (mostly Christian theologians). My own opinion is that we have to acknowledge there is a significant risk of bias, something admitted to by Perrin as I mentioned previously.

The article as it currently stands is simply a falsehood since it gives an unqualified definition of the term historical Jesus that differs from its meaning in general usage. It is true that this is the term used in certain scholarly circles. In Schweitzer's book the term is used in the original sense, but subsequently the meaning of the term has shifted a bit and these scholars have conflated the two meanings. For this reason I initially supported renaming the article to something more neutral, say historical-critical view of Jesus. I think this would make a fine non-biased descriptive title, but, as was pointed out by others, Historical Jesus has become a term of art, in which case Wikipedia policy is to accept a non-neutral title.

Nevertheless it remains a fact that biblical scholars have usurped the meaning of a common expression and unqualified use of this term will lead to misunderstanding by readers of the article. I can imagine a reader wondering "Are they really saying that is is what the real Jesus was like?" or "Is this what critical theologians think Jesus was like?", or "Do historians agree that this is what we know about Jesus?". The article must make clear what message it is trying to convey.

Since Higher criticism is an antiquated term I'm inclined to substitute Biblical criticism. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As some of the newer editors on this page have noted, the term "historical Jesus" is sometimes used to refer not to the flesh and blood man but to the academic reconstructions of this man. This article is a little odd because it serves double duty, describing both the man and the historical reconstructions. Why? Simply because the Jesus article can't carry the weight of being historical.

Agreeing with your general point, I would say there is another reason besides the religious one: we probably have too little information to give a reliable reconstruction of either the life of Jesus or his teachings. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, that's precisely the point. Yeshua ben Yusef, or whatever an appropriate name would be, isn't actually a historical figure except for the cult that has arisen pursuant to his assumption of the Messianic role and death. So dealing with the content of this article means dealing with that. Although the planetary population was a several hundred million at the time and human history several thousands of years advanced, the individual in question simply wasn't a historical figure in his time and the cult that would make him one didn't really get going strong until several generations after the fact so essentially nothing factual except for various dubious mentions in Tacitus, Josephus, etc. ever existed. Thus "historical jesus" is fundamentally the negation of the scriptural one. This is really distasteful stuff but struggling against it is the right thing to do. Probably a much reduced article with all the religious apology culled is actually TRTTD. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the point of the article is to give an accurate description of what biblical scholars think (or say) they can reconstruct about the historical Jesus, not to give a reliable picture of the real historical Jesus. It would be on a par with articles like Islamic view of Jesus. It's a pity the title is misleading, but it is a term of art, whether we like it or not. Would it be a good idea to change the title to something like "Historical Jesus (historical-critical Bible study)"? Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing to be addressed is that an article about a matter of fact has been bloated out with a lot of stuff by adherents of the religion it impacts. That's the thing that needs to be addressed. The article doesn't have to become a platform for anti-christian and atheistic positions, but for it to have become the opposite is a gross travesty. The views of other parts of the Abrahamic tradition aren't the appropriate comparison to make. History is supposed to be objective, scientific and secular. For this reason I think the job to do here is primarily deletion of that material which has obviously been placed by Christians and which is redundant with the stuff in other articles. Just stick to the known facts here and you can't go wrong. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The present article is not about a matter of fact (despite the misleading title), it is about a point of view. It is a significant point of view which ought to be described somewhere on Wikipedia, without implying any claims of historical correctness. Obviously this is going to be difficult with the misleading title, and I'm arguing the present article needs substantial work before it satisfies that condition.

If you feel there should be an article about the historical Jesus in the everyday sense of the word (i.e. the real Jesus), then you could try to create one. Personally I don't think such a page is viable, because there aren't enough reliable sources for it. If you think otherwise, you are free to create a new page. In that case we would need to disambiguate the pages. As I said, I don't think this is a fruitful path. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

72.228.177.92, would you mind briefly quoting or listing off the material you think "has obviously been placed by Christians"? Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of it, for example the current last paragraph of the lede. Instead of standing in opposition to myth from a position of historicity, it largely does the opposite generally genuflecting every few sentences (the lede ¶ mentioned with its mini-gospel being an exception) to the article topic. I'm sorry I really despise this stuff so I can't be of any more use here, there appear to be enough people who do want to be involved in it so carry on. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue revealed

I now see what the issue is, illustrated by the new notice at the top of the article. This is essentially redundant with Historicity of Jesus except that by its constriuction in name/main-space this one concentrates on the core fact and therefore draws the Christians to defend "their truth". Any content worth preserving should be merged into the other article and this should become a redirect to it. This article serves no distinct purpose except to generate the controversy which these talk pages show. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism of historical research of Jesus

The present article presents a picture of mainstream scholarship generally accepting many aspects of the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. My feeling is that this overstates the case. I can't find the quote right now but as I mentioned above Nick Perrin has said that since most biblical scholars are religious, religious bias is inevitable, but not an insurmountable obstacle, as long as one is aware of the possibility of such bias.

Schweitzer criticised Historical Jesus research as projecting a picture of Jesus that fit with the liberal German Protestantism of the 19th century. I believe he also accused early researchers of not really looking for the Historical Jesus, but trying to find a still religious picture of Jesus that would be easier to defend in the modern age.

Strauss argued that myth and fact are so intertwined in the Gospels that very little can be reconstructed, too little to be of use to a historian.

Bultmann also felt that too little certain knowledge of the life of Jesus can be derived from study of the gospels, even though he did believe form criticism could reconstruct aspects of Jesus' original teaching. He was also a religious person who maintained that while historical methods could not reconstruct the life of Jesus with any reliability, faith did not require it. This might also be viewed by skeptics as a way to deny the possibility of historical criticism of articles of faith (no matter how liberal), simply by denying the validity of such criticism.

Dawkins has said that Jesus probably did exist, but that so little can be known about him with certainty that a good case can still be made that he did not exist.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/lifej/HistoryQuest.htm

I think we should try to find reliable sources for the above opinions and find a way to weave them into the criticism section. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please find RSs for those opinions. Strauss, Schweitzer, and Bultmann all wrote before 1970. That's when the current phase of historical research into the topic began, and a lot of good historical work has been done since then. Dawkins isn't a historian or an expert on historical Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also lots of more recent material (not that the objection that the 1970s is too long ago to be worth considering is valid, IMO). Burton Mack in The Christian Myth (2003) gives too much criticism to quote it all but here is one quote:

• "…the New Testament texts are not only inadequate for a Jesus quest, they are data for an entirely different phenomenon. They are not the mistaken and embellished memories of the historical person, but the myths of origin imagined by early Christians…".
• "…the historical Jesus is neither the real Jesus not the easy way to him. The real Jesus is not available and never will be…because the sources that have survived do not and never intended to record all or even most of the words and deeds of his public ministry, to say nothing of the rest of his life." - Meier, Marginal Jew vol 1 (1991).
• "Jesus is inaccessible by historical means. All we can know (or need to know) is that he has come." – William Hamilton – a quest for the post-historical Jesus (1994)
• “The historical Jesus does not matter…the Jesus who is important to our day is not the Jesus of history but the symbolic Jesus of contemporary discourse” – William Arnal, The Symbolic Jesus (2005)
• "The 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a 19th and 20th century reconstruction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history" - Dunn, Jesus Remembered (2003)

Dawkins is a noted commentator on religious, so what is the reason why his view is nor relevant here?--FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The opinion of Dawkins (no doubt there are others) illustrates that there is no consensus among scholars that the conclusions described in the present article are true. It may or may not be true that these conclusions are generally accepted by biblical scholars and if so reliable sources to that effect should be added. The article should not imply there is consensus among general scholarship when there is not. In addition, I recall reading there are those who doubt the disciples were apostles, either before or after the crucifixion, whether Jesus was handed over to the Roman authorities by "the Jews" as well as considerable doubts as to whether the Twelve and the resurrection appearances are not relatively late elaborations. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Schweitzer's criticism should be mentioned in this article, simply because his work is a classic, and his criticism of the quest is often cited. However, I don't see any reason why Dawkins' opinion means that "there is no consensus among scholars", since Dawkins isn't an expert on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Dawkins needs to be mentioned specifically, I just gave his opinion as an example of why the article must not state or imply there is a consensus in general scholarship when there isn't. There may be a consensus among biblical scholars, but I'm not even sure about that. Among theologians perhaps. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea of consensus among "general scholarship" seems a bit wonky to me. It seems comparable to creationists pointing out that they have MDs and engineers and mathematicians who question evolution (why should their opinions matter more than the findings of biologists). We should not try to give undue weight to individuals who have no background in biblical criticism or ancient near east studies. As to consensus, there are some matters that most scholars agree upon, and other matters where there isn't a consensus. I think we do an OK (maybe not excellent) but OK job at that. We mention some scholars think Jesus was illiterate, and others think he could read the Torah. We mention some scholars think his body was thrown into a mass grave, while others don't accept an empty tomb, while others do, etc. I'd be interested in hearing the specific areas where you think we are giving consensus statements where none exist, and I think it would be great to work in the views of more prominent biblical scholars (without getting bogged down with what evolutionary biologists happen to say about the matter in a popular book about atheism, you know?) -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, that's an impressive list of sources. Thanks for providing them. I ask the following question honestly, not rhetorically: have you read those works, and are these the lines the seem best to sum up the authors' views; or do these lines come from a source where someone has collected the statements that most undermine historical Jesus research? I've read Sanders, Vermes, Theissen, Crossan, Borg, and the the Jesus Seminar, and while they differ on details they present a consensus on the basics (including the finding that the Christian tradition is deeply mistaken about him). Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure Dunn and Meier are just pointing out that historical methodology can only get you so far. It's an incomplete picture that they personally believe can be filled out with faith. Meier is pointing out the limitations of the tools, and then goes on in 4 vol. about what the tools can tell us, and what various scholars think about various issues. Meier clearly supports historical research, even if it can never bring someone to the "real" Jesus (as opposed to someone like perhaps Tom Wright who thinks otherwise)-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind: I pulled together the above quotes myself, rather than taking them from some sort of pre-existing compendium. I actually don't think it would matter if I had done the latter (the sources say what they say in any event), but there's the answer to your question. I do think I have represented them accurately (ie nothing is wrongly taken out of context or omits important information). I don't think these quotes "undermine" Historical Jesus research (with the exception of Mack, whose critique is nonetheless well worth reading) so much as clarify what its purpose is. It is a mistake to see it as alike to other forms of historical biography. What I am trying to demonstrate is that the sources (at least some of them) agree on this point. I actually don't think it is very contentious. There may be consensus between some authors on some points, but it is wrong to give our reader the impression that this constitutes an established, factual, historical account because, at the very least, some of the sources themselves dispute this idea. --FormerIP (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is Burton Mack's book on Google: [4]. Chapter 1 gives a good critique of work done by others in this field. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew: If you think that Dunn, Meier and others are just making a general point about historical studies, then I think you are mistaken. They clearly relate their comments to Jesus questing. There is no reason to suppose, for example, that Dunn would also think that the Churchill of historians is "not Churchill back then and not a figure in history". It seems clear, rather, that we are dealing with an area of study that give rise to more-or-less unique confusions and misunderstandings. I also think you may be seeing a false opposition between use of the historical method on the one hand and, on the other, the idea that the picture thus produced may not be "historical", strictly speaking. One source draws a distinction between the "historical Jesus" (unattainable) and the "historian's Jesus" (attainable, but not the same thing). I think this is a useful way to look at things. --FormerIP (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The points of view of fr:Charles Guignebert and Alfred Loisy may also deserve mention. We may also take some material from Historicity of Jesus#Jesus as a historical person. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the Perrin quote I mentioned earlier:

Historical Jesus studies today are at a bit of a crossroads, where certain scholars cling to certain methodological procedures which other scholars are finding more and more questionable. (The criterion of dissimilarity is a great example of this.) My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that.

Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin

Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage everybody to have a look at the articles Historicity of Muhammad and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (Ibn Warraq) to see if this influences their opinions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We should not try to give undue weight to individuals who have no background in biblical criticism or ancient near east studies.

I still see no evidence that the conclusions of this article are accepted by mainstream historians. If an article about the historical Jesus can only quote theologians and not historians, then it cannot claim to represent general scholarship, just as a theory of "biblical geology" cannot claim consensus of general scholarship if it can only supply quotes by a specialised discipline that is not supported by mainstream geologists. The onus is on those who claim general consensus. There are two obvious solutions: tone down the claim to a specific group of theologians, or supply evidence of mainstream support. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have list of these so called mainstream historians so that we can check what they say? Hardyplants (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, and my point is that unless we have such sources we cannot claim that the conclusions of this article are accepted by mainstream historians. My personal belief is that not all of them are, even though for reasons I mentioned above I do believe that mainstream historians accept that the NT can be used by critical historical research, provided due care is taken. That too deserves a reference which is currently missing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by the term "theologian" here? Many of the scholars cited in this article are not best described as theologians, unless you're using that as a catchall term for anyone who studies the history of Christianity.

Someone who read theology, not ancient history. Note that I don't dismiss scholars because they read theology, it's what my father did (although he also read Classics). It just gets a bit fishy when the majority of scholars are theologians (or even clergymen), with hardly an agnostic historian in sight. It's like letting Keynesians decide whether Keynes was right. Note that I mean no disrespect to theologians, I have quite a few in my own family. I know that Rowan Williams is widely respected as a scholar by academics and so is Ratzinger, though slightly less so. In light of the fact that both now hold very high Church office it would be impossible to use them as unbiased reliable sources, their academic credentials notwithstanding. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see no evidence that the authorities cited in this article aren't mainstream historians, and quite a bit of evidence that the authorities cited in this article are regarded as eminent scholars—e.g. Géza Vermes is a fellow of the British Academy, a distinction which isn't handed out casually. In other words, Vermes is a mainstream historian. On the other hand, if the claims in this article aren't mainstream, this should be easy to demonstrate with evidence from other historians. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust you are correct Vermes is indeed a fellow of the BA. If there is evidence he was elected as a historian not as a theologian then I'd say that is a noteworthy fact that deserves to be mentioned in the article. I know of several theologians who are members of a royal society as theologians, and one who is a member as an ancient historian. In any case the onus is on those claiming consensus. I'm not trying to be difficult, it is just that I see something that I doubt to be true presented as fact. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC says this on the required sources for establishing academic consensus:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that demonstrates the consensus. Individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material, and any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

This puts the bar very high and I think it means that the article currently does not meet this high standard. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

MM, perhaps you can find a list of reliable sources that demonstrates the consensus you are looking for here, and perhaps an answer to a potential follow-up question can be found here. Note that this list includes atheists as well as those who think Jesus is un-historical (which pretty mush proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is indeed a consensus). Let me know if that is what you were looking for. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like things are going in circles. Noloop brought up this very idea here, and the opinion of an uninvolved editor associated with the policy page was that RS/AC is not a very high bar. If an expert in a field makes a claim regarding academic consensus in his or her field, then it is entirely fine for us to present it as such, unless there is a clear contradictory statement in another source from an expert in the same field. We are not requiring a "peer reviewed statistical analysis" as one editor put it. If it is your job to teach a subject matter at a prominent university, you have published a textbook on the subject, you are published in multiple peer reviewed journals on the subject, and you present papers at related conferences, then we at Wikipedia think it is totally fine to use such a source as an expert on what is the "academic consensus" in a field. If there is evidence of disagreement, then we can discuss that further. So with that said, what specific parts of this article do you take issue with? What sources contradict the sources we are using now? Can we get down to specifics! Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill: Christ Myth Theory isn't the same article as this one. I would suggest that the issue is not quite the same here. --FormerIP (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, I realize that that is the case. However, I provided the links in order to show that the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that there was an historical Jesus and much is known about him. Note that exactly what can be known differs from scholar to scholar, but the consensus is that Jesus is one of only a relatively few ancient figures on which a substantial amount of information is available (c.f., Bart Ehrman, among others). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of reconstructions of the life of Jesus

I've moved the summary to a separate section and added a synthesis tag. From the text as it stands it isn't clear that this summary is generally accepted even by biblical scholars. It looks suspiciously like a summary of the gospel stories with references added for each claim to a publication by an author who happens to agree with this particular claim. If there really is consensus it should be possible to source the summary as a whole to reliable sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical methods

"The Historical Jesus is a scholarly reconstruction of the first-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] This reconstruction is based upon historical methods[2]" Please provide the specifics of the claim that it is "based on historical methods." Noloop (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this question a basis for placing a POV tag on the article? Did you read the source that is cited as footnote #2? For that matter, did you read the rest of the sentence that you're quoting, which continues "including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, and non-biblical sources for the historical and cultural context in which he lived"? Because that's part of the answer to your question, and it's right there in the article.

Now, why exactly are you claiming that the "artilce contains pov-fork; promotes Xian POV"? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please answer the question? I've skimmed the Arnal, and I don't see support for how the source is used. Noloop (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, is your criticism that the views presented in this article do not in fact accurately describe the historical Jesus? Or perhaps that not everybody who is involved in the Quest is truly looking for the historical Jesus, just a more easily defended Jesus of faith? Maybe we could find a more neutral formulation in the lead that does not imply current theories come close to the real historical Jesus or that the methodology employed would be acceptable to atheist or agnostic historians. There is already a section on criticism of the Quest, which should perhaps be expanded. I recently came across a quote by Nick Perrin, who I believe is a prominent scholar in this field, who said that personal religious bias is inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing as long as one is aware of it. In particular he says he hopes that research will show that Jesus is indeed Lord and Saviour. That may make a nice quotable comment from a reliable source on criticism of the Quest. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, this is disruptive. The exact same very similar phrasing and sources are used in the Jesus article. You objected to it there less than a week ago. We discussed it further Talk:Jesus#Religiously_Biased_Sourcing_.28again.29. If you have something new to contribute, please continue the discussion there. It is disruptive to repeat the same argument from another page here. I'd urge an uninvolved user to close this thread, and refer anyone who wants to continue discussion to discuss it where it was initially brought up: Talk:Jesus#Religiously_Biased_Sourcing_.28again.29. Everyone else, please don't encourage this form of forum shopping, and don't reply to Noloop here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't object to anything here. I didn't say anything was biased. I have not repeated any argument from elsewhere. I have not made any argument at all. I can't find where the reference says what the article says he says. So, I asked. Noloop (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're asking if footnote #2, which cites "William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press, 1997" supports the claim that "This reconstruction is based on historical methods"? That was not clear from your initial post. Since there's no page number in the Arnal cite it's hard to tell whether it supports the text or not. The sentence in which the footnote occurs, however, is "This reconstruction is based upon historical methods[2] including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, and non-biblical sources for the historical and cultural context in which he lived." This is basically boilerplate stuff that you'll find in the intro to many books on the historical Jesus; so I'd take out the Arnal citation, stick a {{fact}} tag on the end of the sentence, and wait a reasonable length of time for someone to supply a citation. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. In Ehrman's The New Testmanet Chapter 15, "Jesus in Context" described the "historical and cultural context" clause, and Chapter 13 "the historical Jesus: sources, problems and methods" covers the rest (I've modified the sentence a bit). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Noloop has a point. When this article speaks of the "Historical Jesus", it means something like "the results of the so-called quest for the historical Jesus". Whether the results of this quest are actually close to the "historical Jesus" in the plain everyday English sense of that term is not for Wikipedia to decide. The Catholic Church presumably holds that the canonical gospels give an accurate picture of the historical Jesus and there is probably a whole spectrum of opinions in between.

Maybe the present article should be merged with the quest for the historical Jesus, or renamed to something more pov neutral like Results of the quest for the historical Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I think we should not have an article called Historical Jesus. If there were consensus on the historical Jesus, then that consensus could be reported in the main article Jesus, but there is no such consensus. The teachings of the main denominations, both those that exist today and important ones from history, should also be reported in Wikipedia. So should any consensus among mainstream historians, if it exists. So far the present article has offered no evidence that the conclusions or even the methods of critical biblical scholarship are generally accepted by mainstream historians. Maybe such evidence exists, in which case we should try to find reliable sources to that effect. Until such sources are presented the present article cannot claim to represent even the results of historical research into Jesus, let alone a reconstruction of the historical Jesus and should therefore be renamed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Both this article and the Quest article are much longer than they need to be. This article really needs to do a better job describing criticism of the concept and definition of historical Jesus. There is a fair amount of criticism out there, both secular and Christian, saying that the hisotorical Jesus tends to be a screen to project interpretations of Christianity. Noloop (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) I found a couple issues in the most recent changes I'd like to discuss further. Hopefully my edit summary did a good job explaining my one edit, so I'll leave that alone. You inserted a self reference by asking the reader to view another article. This is normally done in section or article hatnotes, or more subtle wikilinks alone. Would there be a way to rephrase it without the self reference? And while we are talking about the lead, I'm not fond of the second half of this sentence The Historical Jesus is thus based on historical evidence; newly discovered material or new Gospel fragment is used to modify the construction. It seems too simplistic, or may inadvertently give the impression that the Gospel fragments and newly discovered material is more important than it is, or that it is the only "historical evidence" used. I can't think of a good way to rephrase it, without deleting everything after the semi-colon. Any other thoughts? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a page, and ideally some generous quotes (to include context) from Ehrman's The New Testmanet? I'm skeptical about the historical method part. Noloop (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

some back ground info: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Hardyplants (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the self-reference by wikilinking Christ of Faith to the page on religious views of Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In Ehrman 2004, on page 210, in the "What to expect" top box for chapter 13 "The historical Jesus:Sources, Problems, and Methods", "The bulk of this chapter will be devoted to explaining what methods are available and illustrating how they can work [in regards to explaining how can the sources "give us reliable historical information"]. On the next page, 211, he says "historians have to devise criteria for determine which sources can be trusted and which ones cannot", and on page 217, still in chapter 13, Before elaborating on some specific criteria that scholars have devised, let me say something about a few very basic methodological principles that most historians would agree should be applied to our sources", Finally, on page 231, in the intro to chapter 15, "when we approach our sources critically, using the kinds of criteria we have discussed, they can indeed supply us with reliable historical information". And of course, details regarding these concepts are discussed further in the text of these chapters. We aren't quoting Ehrman in the lead, but using him as a source. He doesn't flat out say The Historical Method, so if that is really bothering you, I'd be fine with changing it to "historical methods" or even "historical criteria" or something like that. But I don't see a reason to change it. We have Sanders, in his intro to The Historical Figure of Jesus saying "'The aim of this book is to lay out, as clearly as possible, what we can know, using the standard methods of historical research..." p.5 Meier defining the historical Jesus as "the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research". plus all those links above. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding this "historical method" business, Noloop? Given these plethora of sources (or if you want, presenting new sources) how would you propose we formulate the sentence, if you indeed still have concerns. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Meier and Sanders quotes seem to best support the text. There is obvious religious bias when a secular topic must depend primarily on religious sources. The fact is, this article couldn't exist in its current state if it had to be supported by secular academic sources. Noloop (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage this line of argument further, but just so we are clear, are you calling Meier and Sanders "religious sources" in this specific context?-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Noloop hasn't answered, but I'll offer my own opinion: I wouldn't necessarily consider Meier and Sanders as religious sources, but I wouldn't consider them as reliable sources on historical methods either. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hardyplants: you recently added a reference for my cn tag that asked for verification of the claim that "historians" analyse the bible using the techniques described. You offered a link to "The Gospel of Judas" by Kasser et al. Can you give a precise quote? At first sight none of the authors seem to qualify as reliable sources on historical methodology. I observe a tendency to claim support from mainstream historians when no evidence of this has been offered. I haven't been able to find any myself. I'm starting to wonder if maybe historians aren't too interested in the subject because they believe historical research cannot shed much light on the historical Jesus, thus agreeing in effect with Guignebert and Bultmann, though perhaps for different reasons. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)