Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Ancient Creeds

Since the subject of this article is Historicity, a statement like "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text" is certainly relevant; however isn't it also relevant what the background of the author is? I did a little research and here is what I found for the backgrounds of the persons cited in this section:

J. K. S. Ried - Theologian
Vernon H. Neufeld - Not clear; has written several books on christianity
Reginald Fuller - Theologian
Wolfhart Pannenberg - Theologian
Oscar Cullmann - Theologian
Hans Conzelmann - Theologian
Raymond E. Brown - Priest and Theologian
Thomas Sheehan - Professor of Religious Studies

isn't it worth mentioning that of these persons - many of whom are quoted making rather unequivical historical claims - not a single one appears to be a professional historian? Aren't historians, rather than theologians, the ones who ought to be cited with respect to what "demands of historical reliability" a text ought to meet?

Furthermore, the passage contains the statement (regarding 1 Corinthians 15:3-4) that no scholor dates it to later than the 40s. This seems to be simply false as I have cited a scholor (Robert Price isn't a historian either but he is as qualified as many other names cited in this section) who believes that 1 Corinthians as a whole is a much later text.

My changes were reverted once; please let me know what is wrong with my position if you revert again.Bdrasin 14:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with the edits is that you cannot just add weasel words to a sourced section, making the unambiguous statements from the citations ambiguous. For example, you changed "no scholar dates it later than the 40s" to "most scholars date it to the 40s or before". However, the text expressly says that no scholar dates the matter later than the 40s. There is no need for weasel words if all the sources we have concur. Now I will think over your points, because I do not think they are entirely without merit, but <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">the proposed solution, of simply adding weasel words, doesn't seem the right path. Also, though there may be a good way to discuss the background of these scholars, it seems the sole purpose of the statement that they are "not historians" is an attempt to discredit them, which seems to be inappropriate unless we have some reason to suppose so (for example, does any historian disagree with the analysis?). Anyway, I think we can work on this, but we have to move in the right direction. Lostcaesar 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; there are a few different points so let me reply one by one:

The problem I have with the edits is that you cannot just add weasel words to a sourced section, making the unambiguous statements from the citations ambiguous. For example, you changed "no scholar dates it later than the 40s" to "most scholars date it to the 40s or before". However, the text expressly says that no scholar dates the matter later than the 40s.

I see, so the source itself makes the (appairently incorrect) statement that not a single scholor disagrees with the dating in question. This may be partly because the source is out of date; its from 1978.

There is no need for weasel words if all the sources we have concur.

Well, I did reference Dr. Price's essey, in which he argues for a 2nd century date. He is in the minority, of course.

Now I will think over your points, because I do not think they are entirely without merit, but the proposed solution, of simply adding weasel words, doesn't seem the right path.

Thank you; I agree.

Also, though there may be a good way to discuss the background of these scholars, it seems the sole purpose of the statement that they are "not historians" is an attempt to discredit them, which seems to be inappropriate unless we have some reason to suppose so (for example, does any historian disagree with the analysis?). Anyway, I think we can work on this, but we have to move in the right direction.

The background of academic theologians varies greatly; a few of them publish in mainstream classics and historical journals, but for example Duke University has no history requirement for the Master of Divinity program. It seems what we ought to do is see if any bonafide historians weigh in on this matter. If so, they either agree with the existing sources in which case we can at least improve the sourcing of the article, or else they disagree in which case we have more work to do! Another issue I have with the sources is that they are quite old - most are from the 60s and 70s.

Unfortunately (well, not really) I'm on vacation now and don't have access to an academic library in English. I'll be back in Berkeley at the end of the month and can look around then.

You are right to say that the one source, which says "no scholar dates it later than the 40s" is from 1978 and thus cannot be speaking of subsequent scholarship. If we find a scholar who thinks otherwise, we will have to look at this carefully. Also, we should see if there are any historians who have something to say about the matter, in general. The only matter we have before us, however, is the article from Price. First we will have to inquire as to who he is to see if his position merits inclusion. I do not propose that we should judge his argument; rather, I mean that we should only see if he is considered to be someone worth listening to by those in the field. Second, we will have to see if his position does indeed exclude the passage as being pre-Pauline. If I understand the argument, he suggests that a passage (including this creed) was interpolated into Paul's letter later. That in itself, however, does not necessarily imply that the creed contained therein is not pre-Paul. If someone interpolated Homer's Iliad into Paul in 1950 the Iliad would still be a pre-Pauline text. Or is Price specifically saying that this is not an ancient creed? PS, I ammended one statement to make clear that the scholars in question are "Biblical scholars", as per your request. Lostcaesar 14:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I removed the text for now on the grounds that it is from 1978 and thus not properly applicable to the section. This has the benefit of avoiding the issue of Price and whatnot, and I think the section reads fine without it. I will say, however, that G. O'Collins is still publishing, or at least he was until very recently, because I am familiar with a couple of his recent works, and though I do not recall if they mention this creed it would be worth looking in a more recent text of his to see if he still holds this position. Lostcaesar 16:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dating of Thomas

The relevant paragraph (which has been a stable consensus for a while) at Gospel of Thomas reads:

There is currently much debate about when the text was composed, with scholars generally falling into two main camps: an early camp favoring a date in the 50s before the canonical gospels, and a late camp favoring a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 100s. Among critical scholars, the early camp is more popular in North America, while the late camp is more popular in Europe (especially in the UK and Germany). While the majority of Biblical scholars at large favor a later dating, the majority of scholars who primarily study the Gospel of Thomas favor an early dating. The dating of The Gospel of Thomas is hotly contested.

The current article states that "it is generally dated to the second century", which I feel is a significant oversimplification. My initial change in what I hoped to be a more NPOV direction got reverted. Perhaps we could include some of the more nuanced discussion from the Thomas page? Grover cleveland 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am the one who changed it. I am not saying that you are wrong. I don't know. But it would be good to name the scholars that give an early date, and see just how many they are (and who they are). Personally, I know of few, and there are serious criticisms of this view. Honestly, I would say that I find the paragraph in the GoT article to be a bit journalistic. Lostcaesar 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

GC's edits should be incorporated into the article. The statement that Thomas "is generally dated to the second century" is indeed an oversimplification. Dating Thomas early is hardly a fringe position. And the remarks in reference no. 25 should be partly clarified and partly cut. What does it mean to say that the GofT "is not quoted in contemporary writings"? Does this mean writings supposed to be contemporary with the Gospels and the Epistles? Because there aren't very many Christian documents that date that early; an absence of citations would thus not be surprising. And the lack of early manuscripts has absolutely no bearing on the question of the GofT's date. There are also no early manuscripts of Catullus. But are we going to re-date his poetry to the eleventh century? Next, the reference to the article on Answers.org needs to go. This article's purpose is apparently to convince the Christian faithful that the GofT is "unreliable" (whatever that means) and towards that end it deploys a lot of incomplete argument and sloppy thinking, cites no authorities beyond Koester (and completely ignores the implications of his statement, whether out of mendacity or sheer ignorance), and is generally irritating and misleading. The reference in the same note to the table at www.ntcanon.org should also probably be replaced with something better: a mention of which early authors know of the Gospel of Thomas (Origen and Eusebius), and a citation to some monograph on the topic. ECKnibbs 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this website - it is usually a good source [1]. Sophia 20:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Nibbs I don't disagree with your points. I do think, however, that an early date of Thomas is minority and (I suppose we disagree here a little) is closer to fringe than you feel, but this aside I think the solution is to find some sources that talk about it, rather than relying on our own opinions. What does Miller say? He is the ref we're using atm. Also, I agree we can drop the website. Oh, and on Catullus, that warmed my heart - I've used that example numerous times when trying to explain to certain hyperskeptics that we shouldn't expect to find first century autographic texts of the Gospels! Lostcaesar 10:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have time to go about collecting references. However, I do have the ever-so-standard Schneemelcher (ed.) Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tuebingen, 1990--the sixth edition) in front of me. The article by Beate Blatz, at vol. I, pp. 93-7, remarks on the difficulty of dating and placing the GofT, but says that much evidence speaks for a second-century date in eastern Syria, and notes that somes of the sayings may go back to the first century (p. 97). I vote for changing the article to reflect this opinion at the very least. The Schneemelcher volumes are standard and oft-cited reference works. There is an English translation as well, which we might want to cite instead (I don't have access to it). ECKnibbs 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the nuancing -it is fair to say that most would date the Gospel as it is to the 2nd Century at best. That is a different question from whether it draws on earlier 1st centry sources or not.(Be Dave 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Higher Criticism

The definition given in this article on January 5, 2006 for "higher criticism" is actually the definition of "lower criticism". I am unsure whether a definition of "higher criticism is even needed. I am in a hurry today and Wikipedia is rejecting my password again. Maybe I will come back in a few days and do an edit. If anyone else wants to please feel free - Kleinecke

It is still January 5, 2006 and a few hours later. Some unseen hand appears to have changed "higher" to "textual". This is OK by me. I don't see why the difference between higher and lower criticism is of any importance any longer. But that unseen hand should have left a comment. Thanks anyway. Now my password has been fixed. DKleinecke 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't comment. Textual Criticism and Lower Criticism are synonymous. lower criticism redirects to textual criticism so I chose to use the name of the actual article. I noted in my edit summary "Good catch" refering to your comments here. Thanks again.--Andrew c 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Gauvin

A link to a paper by Marshall Gauvin (1881 - 1978) was recently removed by TheologyJohn as "not scholarly enough" although TJ did not provide an alternate source, replacing the ref with a {{fact}} template. Gauvin is notable; we need an article on him on Wikipedia, and that we do not yet have one does not make him less notable. His collected writings are part of the collection of the University of Manitoba. [2] [3]. The description of the collection at the Directory of Special Collections of Research Value in Canadian Libraries[4] is given as: "The collection is noted for its comprehensive holdings in free thought and rationalist literature. It contains many obscure rationalist, free thought, religious, and anti-religious books, pamphlets, and papers. In addition, there is substantial material on atheism, biblical studies, science, oratory, early women's studies, and English literature and history. Included in the collection are four signed prints of Thomas Paine, Charles Bradlaugh, Robert Ingersoll, and Abraham Lincoln. The primary scope of the collection is American free thought and rationalist literature with little material on Canada or Europe. The chronological emphasis is from 1890 to 1945. No current acquisitions or ongoing purchases are expected. " The collection consists of 3,636 monographs; 400 serials; 1.5 linear metres of vertical files; 1.5 linear metres of manuscripts; 4 prints. What, precisely, is your objection to this author being used as a source? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I do agree that this particular fact is absolutely true (that is, the fact that some scholars maintain this - not that they are correct), and therefore I don't want it removed. I think there's probably a reference that someone can make to someone like Doherty's work.

It's just that I don't think that Marshall is a relevant scholarly source, and therefore shouldn't be cited as an example . That is especially the case when the article implies (tho granted does not state) that this means current scholars, while Marshall has been dead for decades.

I don't think that the fact that his works are contained in a university collection qualifies him as a 'scholar'. I've seen all sorts of obscure unscholarly religious texts contained in university collections - they're often there for reasons other than their scholarly nature, e.g. as objects of study rather than as materials to assist study.

[5], the university site which you refer to, states that he was a popular freelance lecturer, suggesting no education in the field or connection to any university at all. He used to preach anti-sermons and the like. Quoting him as a 'scholar' is akin to quoting my clergy as a scholar (heck, it's worse - my vicar has relevant degrees in the subject, and at least two clergymenn at my church have PhD's in relevant fields.) His views might be potentially be notable as arguments, in the same way that the arguments of someone like C.S. Lewis are sometimes notable - but they can't be used to back up a point that says that 'scholars' say this.

Just to reiterate, he had no qualifications, no connection to any university, no known impact on the field, and has been dead for decades now. Hardly an ideal reference for this fact. TheologyJohn 12:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is usual to refer to an author by their last name, not their first. He was self-educated, true. So was DaVinci. He was notable enough to correspond with Ingersoll, and be a contributor to Free Thought magazine, which I note we also don't have an article on - which is odd, since it is a magazine with over a century of publication. His published works are currently selling on Amazon. I'm not saying there might not be someone more notable, I am saying he is not non-notable. The collection of his writing and correspondance is listed in the "Directory of Special Collections of Research Value in Canadian Libraries" which indicates that the Canadian Library system disagrees with you as to his value for research. If your clergyman is similarly listed, I would accept him as notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, should have called him Gauvin, not Marshall - just got a bit mixed up between the two, because both are sometimes last names, and Marshall is not someone I've ever heard of in biblical studies (which in itself indicates that he's not been influential in the field - although that could be said of a number of scholars.)

I'm not saying he's not at all notable, I'm saying he's non-scholarly. None of those necessarily indicate scholarship, only notability. His articles might be valid in some context, but as a non-scholar, he is no proof that some scholars hold to that view (although some do, and the article now has a superior reference in that place, making this issue essentially academic.) TheologyJohn 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just find another source and more along, preferably hosted elsewhere than infidels.org. Lostcaesar

Nod nod, concur. Thanks for fixing my miss on rv, LC. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wording of First Paragraph

The opening paragraphs of this article (and many of the later paragraphs as well) are really problematic, on the basic level of grammar and sense. I tried to make some changes but they were reverted; someone wanted to "talk through" the changes because they were arrived at "through a good bit of talk." Wonderful, I will talk about the lead section:

"Scholars draw a distinction between reconstructions of Jesus using historical methods, and the Christ of faith understood through religious methods."

This sentence is nonsensical. Perhaps "Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods" is intended. But "reconstructions" (whatever their object) are doubtless distinct from "Christ," though scholars are not the only people who draw the distinction.

"The veracity of the historical existence of Jesus impacts a number of academic disciplines..."

The phrasing is noun-heavy and clumsy; I'm not sure how the "veracity of the historical existence" can impact anything, or even what that means. If we must have this sentence, can't we change it to something like "the historical figure of Jesus is relevant for a number of academic disciplines..." ?

Skip to third paragraph, first sentence: aren't the writings of Paul THE earliest Christian documents? This would be a good place to say that. In any case, it doesn't make a lot of sense to call the Gospel of Thomas a "possibly early source." It IS early and it IS a source, there can be no debate. The Signs Gospel and Q may be both "possible," in the sense that their existence has been hypothesized. Can't we fix this?

Fourth paragraph: Scholarly views on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse, from the view that...."

If we must have this sentence, which does nothing but say the obvious (scholarly views on almost any imaginable topic are diverse), we should at least make it grammatical. Could we change the wording to "Scholarly views...are diverse, and they range from the view that...." ?

"Questions relevant to the matter include..."

Again, do we need this sentence, really and truly? If we do, then we should say that these are questions which ALL historians ask of ALL narrative sources. And we should, again, make the sentence grammatical and reasonably felicitious. ECKnibbs 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All excellent points,. Feel free (be bold) and edit away! ^rossnixon 00:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did edit away; my edits were reverted. Talking seems to be the only thing to do.ECKnibbs 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment, re Thomas as an 'early source'. That it is early, in terms of the history of Christianity, is doubtless correct. However, how early is early is debatable - there are arguments suggesting a date in the 50's, or in the second century. My guess is that "possible early source" is supposed to have an emphasis on the early as compared to other potential sources - i.e. it's possibly early compared to the other relevant sources.. TheologyJohn 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Thomas is not a "possibly early source": the phrasing is bad. If we mean to say that it may be as early as the Gospels and Paul, we should say that, but calling it a "possibly early source" without further explanation in the lead, and without distinguishing it from the two texts marked as "hypothetical" (Signs and Q) is confusing and misleading.ECKnibbs 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The writings of Paul are not necessarily the earliest Christian texts, as they may be antedated by Matthew. Its something best avoided in the lead - it is covered below. Lostcaesar 08:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly opinion is mostly unanimous that Paul predates the Gospels. Footnote opposing views if they're so crucial, but the early dating of Paul's epistles is at the center of much textual and historical reasoning about the historicity of Jesus. So we should say this up-front.ECKnibbs 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as myth

Michael Grant wrote:

• Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.[70]

The quote is not a good rebuttal of the sceptical line imo. It looks like rhetorical sleight of hand, in particular the finessing of the distinction between emergence of a story and the story itself.

The reasoning goes: this is the most unlikely place for such a thing (our attention is drawn to the story itself, which we are told is implausible in this setting) so we can therefore discount that the fabrication of it took place (our attention is now drawn to the emergence of the story, not the story itself) and therefore (and here our scepticism of the story gets palmed off to the question of its fabrication)..... the event is real.

So that's one problem. In addition it contradicts somewhat the sentence preceding it: there is no known case of a mythical deity in the mystery religions with clear and early evidence that a resurrection was taught prior to the late second century AD. Well if so there is nothing exactly foreign about religious death and rebirth in Judaism. It's meant simply not to have occurred anywhere else. Hakluyt bean 00:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence there is no known case of a mythical deity in the mystery religions with clear and early evidence that a resurrection was taught prior to the late second century AD is problematic: isn't Osiris a resurrection figure from a mystery religion dating from several millenia BC. I would tentatively suggest that this whole article needs a less vigorous Christian to edit it.

PROPOSAL - I think this section should be excised and simply left with a pointer to the Jesus as myth article, otherwise we end up with, effectively two separate articles which actually contradict one another. Any objections? Mercury543210 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Have left a summary of this section and link to main article. Should ensure greater consistency. Mercury543210 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Source problem

^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

How exactly do we know if this is reliable? A little research on Robert E. Van Voorst shows that he's a hardcore Christian and clearly biased (http://www.westernsem.edu/Brix?pageID=15139). When making a claim that it is a small minority of historians who believe Jesus is a myth, a less dubious source would bode better, don't you think? I don't know if I'd call an excerpt of out some fairly unknown theist's book incredibly reliable. 199.126.137.209 17:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. From what I can see, you're stating that no "hardcore" (read "committed") Christian, or even a theist, can possibly be unbiased? So the only unbiased people are atheists and agnostics? That sounds a lot like a biased position to me! (Note: I don't think anyone is unbiased in these or any other question of any kind of significance, whether or not they happen to share my opinions on them.)

The point which this quote supports is itself quite certain. For example, Earl Doherty, probably the most prominent (or second most prominent, if one counts Pagels) scholarly proponent of this kind of view, has himself stated of these arguments:

Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt.

From an essay available from here

If you care so much about these statements coming from people who are "unbiased", you are welcome to replace the reference with that statement.TJ 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the highly biased and erroneous reference and reworded the POV "A small minority" claim to a more neutral "Some scholars". Dionyseus 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "small minority" wording was reached by consensus (last year I think). Reverting to previous. ^rossnixon 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you revert my entire edit? My edit wasn't only the "small minority", it also included a claim about one of the Josephus passages. The false claim that you reverted to says that most scholars have "no doubts" about the authencity of the majority of the passage, whereas my sourced claim says the exact opposite, according to Louis Feldman, who by the way is perhaps the most respected scholar on Josephus's works, the majority of the scholars have doubts about the authencity of the majority of the passage. I'll go ahead and assume good faith on your part and revert the Josephus claim. Dionyseus 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the Josephus change. The following passage was deleted:

However, most scholars have "no doubts" about the authenticity of the majority of the passage.[ref]John Drane Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986) p. 138; also, James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988) p. 96[ref]

It was replaced with:

According to Louis Feldman, four scholars regard it as completely genuine, six as mostly genuine, twenty with some interpolations, nine with several interpolations, and thirteen who regard it as a complete interpolation.[ref]Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. P. 684-91[ref]

I have no problem with the Feldman quote, but I don't know why you would delete the previous one. You have said that it is wrong, and you seem to think the Feldman quote supports this, but I don't see how the two conflict. Feldman gives a list of scholars, as of 1984. According to the list, 30 consider the passage to have no more than "some interpolation", 9 with "several interpolations" (I don't know if "several" is enough to reject authenticity of most of the passage or not, perhaps), and 13 as wholly false. Even conflating the last two, we have 30 vs. 22, supporting the former statement. Furthermore, we have no indication that Feldman is trying to give an exhaustive list. Have more than 52 scholars spoken on it? At any rate, I see no reason not to give both texts, since they seem to be harmonious. The only way to take them otherwise is to think that those who see "some interpolation" would then not be among those who have no doubts about the majority of the passage, and I don't think that is obvious. Lostcaesar 07:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see a direct contradiction between the John Drane quote that says most scholars have "no doubts" about the authencity, and the Louis Feldman quote that points out a majority of scholars "have doubts" about the authencity. Considering that the Josephus passage is small, I'd consider "some interpolations" and "several interpolations" as being in the "have doubts" side. I'll let the six who thought think it is "mostly genuine" slide, even though "mostly" indicates that even they "have doubts" about the passage. Dionyseus 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the passage again: "most scholars have "no doubts" about the authenticity of the majority of the passage". If one has doubts only about 49% of the passage then, by definition, he has no doubts about the majority (51%) of the passage. Also, what of the other point: is Feldman's list supposed to be exhaustive? Lostcaesar 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be harsh, really, but I believe that you are playing word games. The current wording is misleading to say the least. I think we should revise the wording. -Andrew c 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

John P. Meier states that there are 4 basic positions 1) the whole testimonium is a forgery 2) it is mostly a forgery, but there are some basic elements original to Josephus 3) it is mostly Josephus' hand with a few Christian interpolations and 4) it is entirely authentic. He goes on to describe the scholarly field: With a few exceptions, this last position has been given up today by the scholarly community. The first opinion has its reprepectable defenders but does not seem to be the majority view. Most recent opinions move somewhere within the spectrum of the second and third positions. All of these statements are footnoted, and he goes on to say that notable Jewish, unorthodox Christiaian, mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars all fall within positions 2&3. (he personally falls under 3). I believe the current phrasing is misleading of the scholarship on this subject. It may be a matter of sources conflicting as well. I do not support changing the wording to reflect a survey performed by one source, but perhaps we could adapt a more generalized language, citing Meier if necessary. I would propose something like "While very few scholars believe the whole testimonium is genuine, most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage."-Andrew c 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the comments of Andrew, all except the accusation of "word games" (I don't understand, I was just reading the source - it seems an unnecessary comment). I won't stand in the way of rephrasing the passage. My comments here were to question why a source was deleted, and I found the reasons in error based on the evidence. More evidence has now been provided. Lostcaesar 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, the current wording with the "no doubts about the authencity" sounds very wrong to me. I'd support citing Meir or Louis Feldman. Dionyseus 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please link to the archived talk page in which the small minority wording is established through consensus? It really seems to be highly POV to me. 204.52.215.127 08:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure we have this and this and this or just look through the Talk:Jesus archives for any discussion dealing with "myth". The fact of the matter is NO SCHOLAR of 1st century Palestine history, nor any scholar of NT history holds the mythist view. The closest we have is Richard Carrier, who doesn't even have his PhD yet, and isn't a mythist per se, and Robert M. Price, who is agnostic about the historical Jesus (not a mythist either). People like Wells, Freke, Gandy, Acharya S, Doherty are not historians nor biblical scholars (or for Doherty and Acharya S, not even a scholar). And seriously I've named just about everyone who has dabbled with this position in the last decade. So we have this small handful of people who are not even scholars, we have a quote from Wells himself saying that no scholar considers the mythist position seriously, and we have page after page on Talk:Jesus where we finally reached a particular wording. I think because we have some editors coming along saying "Isn't mentioning the Jesus Myth view in the lead giving that position undue weight" and then we have other editors coming along saying "saying this view is a small minority is biased" I believe we have reached a happy medium. Besides, this wording has come around through consensus (and this needs a consensus to chance) and I personally believe it is representative of reality. You are welcome to start naming actual scholars in relevent fields who are mythists if I missed any.-Andrew c 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an OT scholar [6][7] but it is still very fair to say "a small minority". The only POV part of this is that the majority of scholars have no opinion on this subject but that is unnecessarily splitting hairs. Sophia 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

George Albert Wells is a NT scholar, and Earl Doherty is a Biblical scholar, so I don't understand Andrew's claim that no scholars support the mythist view. R. Joseph Hoffmann is a historian who supports the mythist view, Hermann Samuel Reimarus and Voltaire are philosophers who support the mythist view. Constantin-François Chassebœuf was a philosopher and historian who supported the mythist view. Edward Evanson and Thomas Whittaker were theologians who supported the mythist view. Charles François Dupuis was a scientist and a professor who supported the mythist view. Robert Taylor (Radical) was a friend of Charles Darwin, and published 'The Diegesis' which claimed that Jesus was a myth. David Strauss was a theologian and Bible scholar that supported the mythist view. Kersey Graves was a philosopher that supported the mythist view. J. M. Robertson was a Bible scholar that supported the mythist view. Arthur Drews was a philosopher that supported they mythist view. Baron d'Holbach is the famous philosopher who wrote the Atheist Bible, and of course supports the mythist view. Paul-Louis Couchoud was a philosopher who supported the mythist view. I'm sure I can find more. I think it is dishonest to say "a small minority". Dionyseus 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Earl Doherty is NOT a scholar. He has no post graduate degree in ANY field. G.A. Wells IS a scholar, of German and philosophy. He retired from that and picked up biblical studies as a hobby. Again, he has NO post graduate degree in a field that would be relevant to NT studies, and is a self professed "amateur". Next, where has R. J. Hoffmann published anything that argues for a purely mythological Jesus? Reimarus and Voltaire have been dead for well over 200 years. I'm going to stop here. As I said The fact of the matter is NO SCHOLAR of 1st century Palestine history, nor any scholar of NT history holds the mythist view. I'm using the term scholar to refer to someone who a) has a post graduate degree, such as a PhD or DD b) who publishes in peer reviewed journals or has books out by prominent university presses and c) teaches at an accredited university. And I also mentioned that I named everyone from the past decade who has published anything in this regard. So you went off and named people who either weren't scholars in these fields and have been dead for decades, if not centuries. Sure, the position exists, and during the time of Bruno Bauer and those who came after him, it was more prevalent than it is today, but still, the position is and has always been a minority position. Are you seriously still arguing that the Jesus Myth view is more than a small minority view when not a single scholar in a relevant field has published on it in the past decade (maybe even past 30 years).-Andrew c 19:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

R. Joseph Hoffmann is co-author with Wells of The Jesus Legend. Yes I'm seriously still arguing that the Jesus myth view is more than a small minority. Even if it were true that no one has supported that view in the past decade, that would not necessarily mean that only a small minority of scholars have supported that view, it could logically mean that no one in the past decade has bothered to waste their time on something that requires no further work. Dionyseus 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And maybe the flat earth theory needs no further work either. Lostcaesar 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would think that scholars wouldn't bother with the flat earth theory anymore considering that we're now quite certain that the Earth isn't flat, and if you read the beginning of this talk topic, there's a quote from Doherty that says “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant”. Also, according to Robert E. Van Voorst there has been over 100 books and essays over the past two centuries that have denied the existance of Jesus. Dionyseus 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. There have been, lets be generous, and say 150 publishings on the JM in the past 200 years. How many publishings do you think there are on the HJ from the past 200 years. Think hard. More than 150? More than 1,000? Now do you see why its a "small minority"? We have Wells saying its a "side current" and we have Doherty saying mainstream scholars all but ignore him. What more do you want? Quantifying the amount of scholarship to a measly 100 articles is the nail in the coffin. We now can get statistical information to verify that this is a minority view. -Andrew c 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This page and Critism of the Bible

This page states that quote "A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure." Critism of the Bible however says that "Another critical view supported by the majority of scholars, however, is that Jesus existed, as a Galilean Jew..." Obviously both can not be true.Max18well 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something. It is true that a few scholars do not believe that Jesus was a historical figure, and the rest (or majority) believe Jesus was a historical figure. Wikipedia isn't about "The Truth", but instead reporting various POV in a neutral manner, giving due weight in accordance to each positions dominance. -Andrew c 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that the "small minority" and "a few scholars" claim is wrong, as I have just now exposed in my response in the Source Problem topic. Dionyseus 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Josephus

The paragraph on TF is a bit unclear in one place and seemingly misleading in another. First, when quoting Origen it should, in my opinion, also mention that Origen said his words in reference to another passage and exhibited no knowledge of TF's existence. Similarly, a bit down from there, the current copy says that some early writers are silent about TF when in fact it is all not some. I think these two points should be fixed. Sorry for not reading the discussion above. idiotoff 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)