Jump to content

Talk:Jesus/Archive 118

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120→Archive 125

Crucifixion darkness and eclipse

I feel that this article is interesting one and it should be added to [Jesus].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness_and_eclipse

Right? :)

FirstSonOfKrypton (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That article is full of speculation, possiblys, maybes, and probably nots. I'm not sure what you want added, but that doesn't seem a good source for anything certain. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a serious detour. It is mentioned in the Crucifixion of Jesus article, but would be totally peripheral here. History2007 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GA status yet?

This article looks pretty good - an almost comprehensive coverage, flooded with inline references and compared with the German article which is a featured article (though not nearly as good as this one, I think this one surely should be made GA status. Reading through past discussions, there may be a few potential improvements, but I think these can be fixed easily enough. 86.167.230.150 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Partially agreed - the article is fairly good. A couple of drawbacks:
  • The Bahá'í views section currently has an OR tag. History and Arsenal can probably find reliable sources for this section and change it if it's not too accurate.
  • The article is at times very unstable. One of the GA criteria is that there are no edit wars, so yes, you are right in that sense.
Some more experienced editors will probably be able to find more, but yes, I think that it's a great idea and it would be really nice to get this to GA status. JZCL 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not familiar enough with Bahá'í views to do it justice. Please ask user:Jeff3000, as discussed in the archives. He knows that topic better than most other editors around. As for GA status, as I have said before, it means nothing to me, but whoever likes it, can like it. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just looked at why the article was delisted. It can be found here for any editors that it would help. It seems that it was delisted because there were a lot of stubby sections, (sorted) there were uncited sections (I've gone through the article and checked, there are no CN tags or uncited section - except possibly the last point in the lead paragraph). Anyway, the point I'm making is that I think that the main issues have now been fixed and some editiors more knowledgable in this topic than me may be able to get it to that status. I'll ask Jeff3000 for his input. JZCL 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, History, GA status is a way of Wikipedia readers knowing that the article they are reading is relaible and accurate. JZCL 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I know. Over 90% of the article changed since the delisting anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea of getting the article back up to GA, and it does look like a lot of the complaints have been resolved. Unfortunately, the content has been dramatically changed in the interim, making that single fact rather less than telling. Maybe, after the Bahai matter is sorted out, we can ask for peer review again, and I can check the relevant reference sources I can find and check to see if there are any obvious flaws or lacks. If we had comments indicating that this article has what other reference sources have in similar articles, that would I think help the GA reviewer a lot in making his decision. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; it's a good idea John. After peer review, the article should definitely be in line to GA status. JZCL 20:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Except for the three sections on Bahai , Islamic and Jewish views, I have double checked every single reference in this article. As of March 2011 90% of the items were double checked, changed or modified. The previous review was fr a different article. Not that I am going to spend time on it again, but check the references and you will see that apart from those 3 sections they will be almost 99% correct. Johnbod added to the depictions section (and he often uses Schiller) so the IP caught that one. But the rest should be in very good shape. But let them be checked again and again. No worries. But let me make it clear that I am not that active on these things and will not be spending much time on the peer review issues. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Jeff has now agreed to look at the Bahai section on Sunday and Monday, so this should be hopefully OK. JZCL 06:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
That leaves the Jewish and Islamic views, which might get a bit more dicey, particularly Jewish views. I can try to deal with that material myself on Monday or Tuesday, but I'm not sure right now how much information sources will have on them. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Review after looking at Jones Encyclopedia of Religion article in comparison, with comments.

  • 1) Thee articul, it be long. 252K. The article in the Jones Encyclopedia is too, pp. 4843-4854, or about .1% of the entire frikking encyclopedia. I don't think that necessarily matters for GA, but still, it be long. 586 reference citaions might be a record too, I don't know. That makes it a bit harder to judge everything, particularly considering relative weight and emphasis.
  • 2) According to p. 4848, "The most important sources for Jesus are found in the New Testament..." Taking that into account, and AGFing that the NT has been consulted, the section on Jesus's life according to the NT is more or less as good, and based on the best sources available, as one could expect.
  • 3) Section 4 about historical views seems good, although it seems to me based on the only other book I've consulted that maybe it might be easier to break that section up into subsections by century, like in Jones, because that might allow related ideas from single scholars to be included as one unit. Otherwise, no real problems.
  • 4) Section 5. The Bahai actually aren't even mentioned in the EoR Jesus article, although as an Abrahamic faith they certainly deserve some attention. Surprisingly, Hinduism gets a rather longish paragraph, with Gandhi finding the Sermon on the Mount as described by Tolstoy to be profoundly true, and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's "sophisticated, philosophical interpretation of Jesus." Other Jewish ideas are referenced as well, including the Karaites who thought Jesus was a true Jewish martyr whose identity Christianity distorted, Martin Buber calling him a "great brother" who has a "great place ... in Israel's history of faith," (p. 4845, no citation from Buber given). Pinchas Lapide went so far as to say, while Jesus was not the Messiah, he "expressed belief in Jesus' resurrection and acknowledged him as God's prophet to the Gentiles." (p. 4845). In its section on "Jesus outside the church," 6 paragraphs, it has one longish paragraph on Judaism, a shorter one on Islam, another longish on Hinduism, and then three short ones of the "especially characteristic of modern times" views of Dostoevskii, Nietzche, and Marx.

Having said all that, I really can't see anything which might be sufficient to withhold GA based on the text, but some of those might be relevant to FA. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a Hindu section, poorly sourced, and it was discussed on talk and trimmed back. Nietzsche is already in the criticism section (Marx may be given a sentence if you find one).. Your point about Gandhi and Sermon on the Mount may mean that something about "good things said" may need to balance the criticism section. Kristubhagavatam may not exactly apply, but there is plenty out there that say things similar to the last paragraph of that page. Yet if you add any type of "praise for Jesus" you will be asking for never ending talk page debate. Buy a few boxes of Aspirin before doing that. I think you either need to get the Bahai group to fix that section or trim it yourself. Their help has been sought a few times now. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bahai group has, unfortunately, never really been that much of a group, but just a few dedicated editors. But I don't think that their involvement is necessarily required, at least for GA. FA might be a different matter. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, GA means nothing to me (because the person doing the assessment does not necessarily need to know anything about the topic, and any 12 year old may perform a GA review). But the Bahai editors would be the ones who would "get it right" - others would be guessing. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, on the Buddhism note, I just added the overall scholarly view that the stories of Jesus going to India and learning about Buddhism are flatly rejected by modern scholars, given that this type of junk is getting added right and left to other pages. The Historical Jesus page is so bad, I would not even touch it from 10 yards away with a wireless keyboard, but at least those issues need to be clarified here. History2007 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Historians on Jesus

I have two things to point out. One, the "e" at the end of the first "The" in the second paragraph is missing, and second, as a census of historians likely does not exist regarding this topic, I believe the second paragraph should be reworded as "Many historians believe...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.208.182 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the "e". As for your second issue, you may very well have a point, but I'll leave it to others more familiar with the topic to decide. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the typo fix. And and overview of historians does exist and can be stated per WP:RS/AC, given the sources in the article: In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285 as well as all the other sources in the existence section that say the same. I will bring that ref further upfront, however. History2007 (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Historians' opinions are irrelevant when there are no primary sources talking about Jesus. Watch this and upcoming videos in the series. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Your view may be valid on Youtube. And I suggest you pursue it there. As it happens, this is Wikipedia and per WP:V and WP:RS content here is based on what historians say. All else would be WP:Original research and can not affect page content. Wiki-content is determined by WP:RS sources. That is a simple and well established Wikipolicy. History2007 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"The large majority of modern historians agree that Jesus existed[11][12]" -- “Jesus” is not mentioned in any contemporary sources in his day. Josephus Flavius, the historian, was born in 37 CE and wrote “Antiquities” in 93 CE which was after the gospels were written. Yeshu as referenced in the Talmud came out 3 or more centuries after Jesus would have lived. These are not eyewitness accounts and are easily myths/legends. These contemporary writers wrote nothing of Jesus: Philo Judaeus 20 BCE – 50 CE Hellenistic Jewish Biblical philosopher and historian. Seneca 4 BCE – 65 CE. Pliny the Elder 23 CE – 79 CE. Josephus Flavius doesn't count as he was only being born around/after the time "Jesus" is said to have died. EJonesH (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This point has been made before and discussed at length multiple times. I suggest you read the archives for the full discussion on this subject. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And we probably need a footer on this page that explains WP:V to newcomers. EJonesH is "debating the facts" - and we can not do to that given WP:V. Many newcomers may assume that Wiki-content is decided based on facts/debate. It is not. References decide, by and large, per WP:RS/AC. That needs some type of footer, as a general issue. History2007 (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:V is NOT all. The circumstance that a source is verifiable says nothing about the quality of the source. Historians who only offer speculation and conjecture are not sources that can be used to make any encyclopedic statements. Jesus is in fact absent from the archaeological and historical record. And what writers later wrote from hearsay when Christianity already existed as a religious group, is plainly irrelevant. Please provide sources that feature writings that predate the Pauline letters (circa 50 CE) and that show that Jesus actually existed. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You need to re-read the thread below. Books by professors in leading universities are WP:RS. You seem to be having a Wikipedia:I just don't like it view of these professors. And again, and again, and again please read WP:RS/AC. We have said that many times now. And again, and again, and again: Do you have a few respected professors and academic sources on your side that support your view? Have we asked you for sources before? May be 10 times now? I think we have a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here on your part. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Really I'm only debating the phrase "the large majority" in this line: "The large majority of modern historians agree that Jesus existed[11][12]" Can that really be verified? Is there a survey of a number of randomly selected qualified/respected modern historians that can be added to the footnotes to back up the claim? 207.86.109.66 (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC) And even Shortcut: WP:RS/AC says Academic consensus The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.207.86.109.66 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the numbers after the quote you pulled are citations for sources, which, turns out, meet WP:RS. Those sources weren't just put in for kicks. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you had a look at the references for that statement? Ehrman and Van Voorst summarize the academic consensus, and that's their conclusion. I don't think there has been a poll among academics on the subject, but that's not really necessary. Ehrman's "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian" seems explicit enough. Huon (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If by "verified" you mean that we go and count the historians ourselves, that is not how WP:V works. And the way Ehrman puts it "virtually every" which is what the page on Christ myth theory says. So in a way "the large majority" is too weak, if you want to use Ehrman. And the Cambridge companion to Jesus calls the non-existence implausible, etc. if you look at the existence section. The long and short of it is that there are "hardly any" scholars who support non-existence. While the list of scholars who support existence is very long. I guess we could even make that statement stronger, as in the Christ myth theory page. History2007 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon) is a book with an extensive history that includes the ministry of Jesus Christ in the American Continent. Please add in this page, the info about Jesus history available in the Book of Mormon and link it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon. I will not do this because if i do, it will be a waste of time because someone is going to delete it even if is a direct copy of another already approved wikipedia article. Wikipedia administrators keep deleting stuff that is anyways available somewhere else in wikipedia.

I just noticed that in the same wikipedia page in spanish language there is that entry (It does not explain about the Book of Mormon) but at least it is clear and fair. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_de_Nazaret — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.219.91 (talk • contribs)

What you wish to add is not supported by mainstream historians. If you read our article on the Book of Mormon, it does not present it's claims as historical truth as you would like. The reason that your suggested contribution would be deleted is because it is not supported by reliable sources. It is accurate to say that the LDS Church believes the Book of Mormon contains history of Jesus in the Americas, but we would also have to point out that no secular historian can find no evidence that the Book of Mormon or its contents existed before Joseph Smith "found" it, and secular scholars can find no similarity between the BoM's accounts and archaeological evidence.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, because we cite outside the site. Different language versions of Wikipedia still count as Wikipedia. What other language Wikipedia's do is their problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
And looking at the Spanish version, it appears that all they say is that Mormons believe Jesus saves people from physical and spiritual death, and that they also believe that after the resurrection Jesus visited the Americas. They do not say "the Book of Mormon is an extensive history that includes the ministry of Jesus in the Americas" as if it was a fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think if one looks at Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations) it becomes clear how difficult the situation is. Adding material from multiple denominations will turn this into a Christian theology article. As is, Wikipedia does not do well in covering denominational differences, as is well illustrated in the Holy Spirit link above. A new article on "Christian Denominational views of Jesus" would have to handle that. But given the current state of affairs, is unlikely to materialize. And I think even the Ahmadiyya section here is pushing the envelope and should be folded into something not to get into Islamic or Christian denominational discussions. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm actually not completely opposed to including due weight of the LDS church's view, as it is notably different, but I do object to treating the American visit as fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
But if we want to be equal opportunity presenters, if the LDS get space, the JW need to get it, then those against those groups want to get their piece... As you know most Christian denominations seem to read all of the Bible except John 13:34-35. So opening the door to denominational debates here will become Murder, She Wrote very quickly. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
True, and another article probably would be more appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

LDS is fringe and Mormon views need not be included. The Book of Mormon, being the work of a well-known con man, has no status as any kind of reliable source anyways. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Book of Mormon, nor the Bible itself, nor any other religious tract can be considered a reliable source. Whether Mormon views are fringe is a different question. I have no idea how we decide that. Neither Cush's opinion not mine count for anything really. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think, per the guidelines in WP:UNDUE "...fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint...", it would make sense to give some reference to Mormons' views of Jesus, as well as views of other religious groups. Mormons are a major group among non-mainstream Christian groups, and there is a lot published about them in reliable sources, and I think that on a page about Jesus, it is important to represent these sorts of non-mainstream viewpoints. But per the guidelines of "Undue Weight", I think it makes sense to keep less mainstream views smaller, and relegate them to their own articles. Perhaps a sentence or even phrase, linking to other articles, would be the best way to handle this. Right now there is no mention of Mormons or the book of Mormons on this page and I think this problem is not just limited to Mormons but to all non-mainstream views of Christianity. Cazort (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
People's reasons for exclusion may be different here, but the conclusion is shared, regardless of the path used to get there. So we can probably consider this as concluded, with a decision not to include, based on a variety of opinions and reasons. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't share, and I don't agree, per my comment above. But I would not be inclined to mention Mormons in the historical section, for the rationale given above by Ian Thompson. I would be more inclined to mention them under "Religious perspectives" Cazort (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be included either. Iongchamps4 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this talk page running into WP:TE ?

There was yet another comment here by User:Cush with the edit summary that "no reliable historians exist". And his comment states that "Historians' opinions are irrelevant" and suggests the use of less than WP:RS sources such as Youtube. This seems to suggest that he knows what the historians say, but keeps talking against them again. This has been going on and on for a while now. Some time ago User:Reformed Arsenal said that it was beginning to look like disruption and at that point I thought it had not reached the limit yet. I think I have changed my mind now. It seems to me that these constant arguments by User:Cush that historians do not matter, and the continued expression of his own views without WP:RS sources is entering the realm of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I have again reminded him of WP:V, WP:RS, etc. just now. But how long can this continue? I have lost count of how many times I have said WP:V and asked for WP:RS sources from him. And again, what we get is a "no reliable historians exist" comment. This has to stop now, or some type of restriction on his editing here needs to be proposed. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for WP:ANI, not this talk page. Paul B (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Before running over there, it would be good to see if those watching here have the same feeling or not. And hopefully even avoid going there if Cush agrees to respect WP:V. History2007 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh please, I know you try to WP:OWN this article, but that's is not how WP works. Either you come up with substance or you leave the article alone. There are NO sources for Jesus from his lifetime, so why do you want to apply rules here different from those for every other article that deals with a biography? The existence of historical figures is established by providing reliable contemporary sources and NOT by repeating or citing religion-soaked writings by people living decades and centuries later. This applies to everybody from that time, be it some Roman emperor, Jewish king, or Galilean carpenter. The opinions of historians who only repeat religious doctrine but do not provide archaeologically or historically valid evidence are NOT reliable sources. A historian providing evidence is a RS, every other historian is a fraud. This is an encyclopedia and not a proselytization platform. The ubiquitous religious POV-pushing in articles about history or (alleged) historical figures in the scope of religious doctrine at the expense of the presentation of serious research has to stop (cf. Solomon, David, Moses, the Exodus etc).
And something else. Don't present me as stupid for referring to a YouTube video. The video only wraps up the problems with establishing the case for Jesus' existence. It is no evidence or a RS for anything, I am just too lazy to repeat the valid objections raised, which you have blatantly disregarded. WP:V is not on your side. The possibility to verify a historian's opinion does not add credibility that opinion in regard to the subject matter. What a historian thinks is unimportant. Important and usable in an encyclopedia is what the historian provides evidence for. Unfortunately WP lacks a definitive policy on religious and religion-derived sources. ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you still say that "What a historian thinks is unimportant" (as you just said again above), then I do not know what to say. The way Wikipedia works is to look up WP:RS "scholarly sources" and summarize what historians state. That is all. But we have repeated the issues of WP:V, WP:RS etc. so many times now. History2007 (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with History2007. Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, and when the academic consensus supports something, that's what we report. There are sufficiently many non-Christian historians (and Christian historians who put their job before their religion) to provide adequate peer review for historians' claims about Jesus. As an aside, I don't think "reliable contemporary sources" exist on the likes of, say, Hannibal, Minamoto no Yoritomo or even Genghis Khan - would you argue that historians have nothing relevant to say on them, either? Huon (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
That is the case. But without delving into "what the historians say" we should somehow convince Cush that per WP:RS/AC when there is a summary of the academic consensus, then what any editor (Cush, myself or others) think is unimportant. Not the other way around. If we can not convince him of that, then something needs to be done. History2007 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the other users here. I have found Cush to be radically biased and opinionated. Just a few examples are when he called all theologians charlatans, claimed that all historical statements regarding the unified kingdom in Israel are fairy tales, or more recently when he stated that "The Ten Commandments are religious folklore with no basis in actual history whatsoever, least of all in any real Israelite history." (all without any provision of sources, despite contradicting sources by reputable scholars that say otherwise). He has also said that anyone who holds a religious position of any kind is biased and should not be able to edit... so by his own standard a biased person (which he clearly is) should not be allowed to edit. I am proposing that we move to ban him from editing any article within the scope of Wikiproject Christianity. I think primarily the problem point is Here ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. I would ask Cush to consult articles in highly regarded encyclopedias on the subject. If he does, he will, in general, see that they use the same sources we do. Wikipedia is not here to reinvent the wheel, but, rather, to develop an encyclopedia. That means that we can and probably should, for major articles which exist in those encyclopedias as well, fairly closely resemble them, barring major developments since the time they were written of course. I actually have already done that, and found that those are the sources used there. On that basis, should there be any continuation of the pattern from this point forward, that ANI might well be the most reasonable solution. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the last item you mentioned is the trend in Cush's edits here. And it is not that he considers one specific historian as unreliable, but considers masses of historians as such. He has been repeatedly invited to provide just a few established academics who support his views, and has consistently failed to do so. And he still says that "no reliable historians exist". That must just stop. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary sources for anyone who wasn't a major political figure are fairly modern, and truly reliable sources from before a few centuries ago are hard to come by. For something to appear within the same century is about as good as it gets. It seems odd to focus on Jesus and not Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama as well. Also, I believe an RFC/U is more appropriate than ANI if one hasn't been filed in the past, ANI should be used for more immediate problems, while an RFC/U should be used for reform. No need to commit someone if you haven't tried an intervention. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully we can talk Cush into agreeing that WP:RS sources should be respected, that not all historians are unreliable and avoid a brouhaha about it elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Archive after your comment and it seems that Cush has had two previous brushes with that. So if one is filed now, it will be the third one. Then I just looked on WP:ANI archives and there seems to be a rather long history there that I did not know about. I have not even counted how many complaints there were, but the list is long and goes back to User:_Cush_-_Unapologetic_hate_speech in June 2008 it seems, and continues from there. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Taken what you have produced above into account, there isn't a lot of reason to think that RfC/U would have any real effect. Evidently, the first few didn't. As per WP:DR#Resolving user conduct disputes, the last step after RfC/U is ArbCom. Alternately, I suppose, WP:ANI could be used as well. Just making sure everyone knows this comment is strictly for informational purposes. I already expressed my own opinions about this matter above. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say: Let us give the guy a chance here to follow policy. Then if he continues to say that "all historians are unreliable", we can run over to ANI or elsewhere, with a clear record that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TE issues had been discussed here. It seems that he used to mark biblical articles as comic books, but no longer does that. So maybe he will stop disputing historians as well. That might be easier. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should re-check what constitutes a reliable source. Historians who only offer speculation and conjecture are not sources that can be used to make any encyclopedic statements. Jesus is in fact absent from the archaeological and historical record (otherwise you wouldn't make such a fuss and just present the evidence). And what writers later wrote from hearsay when Christianity already existed as a religious group, is plainly irrelevant. Please provide sources that provide evidence for writings that predate the Pauline letters (circa 50 CE) and that show that Jesus actually existed. And wanting to drag me to ANI does not make you right in any way. You have no RS. Period. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually I am doing my best not to spend time on ANI about you. There are, however, a few other people who have suggested that. Now if you think Ehrman, Vermes, and Van Voorst are not WP:RS sources, then I do not know how to explain the concept of WP:RS here. Books written by these types of professors in leading universities are WP:RS. And you are yet to produce books written by professors that support your view. And you have been asked for sources that support your view for ever and a day. Now, I have to agree with John Carter. I think we also have a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here on your part, given that you said the same thing again in the thread above as well. Let us see what other people say as well. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As I have said before, independent reliable encyclopedias that meet reliable source standards disagree with Cush. I cannot see how any single editor can, based on his own personal opinions, say that sources used in other reference works are not acceptable here. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:POV, WP:TE, and possibly any number of other policies and guidelines seem to be in play here, and I think, given the previous history indicated above, that there may well be a significant history of such problematic behavior. That being the case, I believe bringing the matter to ANI or some other administrator's noticeboard, for purposes of clarification and/or disciplinary measures, seems very much called for. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
" Maybe you should re-check what constitutes a reliable source. Historians who only offer speculation and conjecture are not sources that can be used to make any encyclopedic statements." Maybe you should re-check what constitutes a encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a collection of what scholars say about a given topic. Ehrman, Vermes, and Van Vorst (as well as Conservative Christian Scholars, Atheist Scholars, Muslim Scholars, and any other group of Scholars) are... scholars. So we report what they say about a given topic. It is not the job of an editor to make assessments about whether what a scholar says is legitimate or not... only to report what they say. John and History... I don't see any kind of signs that Cush here is going to budge, and I still think that we should begin the process to ban him from Christianity related articles as he is clearly biased and seems incapable of setting his bias aside or even recognizing it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Arsenal that Cush does not want to change his mind. For me the "real problem" here is that we have repeatedly asked Cush to provide "a few references that support his statements". And we have seen zero. On that basis, it seems that Cush has no (or even if one looks hard absolutely minimal scholarly support) for his statements, he is really advocating a WP:Fringe perspective. So we now have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:Fringe issues as well as WP:TE here as well as other issues. I am really too frustrated with all this to go and post to ANI. If John wants to post there (and he has been around long enough to know the policies and diff requirements etc.) I would support it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ANI report (since we can't just point to this thread)

Cush (talk · contribs) has been tendentiously pushing for fringe views regarding the historicity of Jesus on the basis that otherwise reliable sources are unreliable because they are either by religious people (who, in his eyes, cannot be objective) or agreeing with those scholars (and could not have reached their conclusions on their own). For evidence, see:

When he is called to present any sources for his constant assertion that no real Scot- I mean scholar-- accepts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (or for any of his claims, for that matter), he doesn't put forward any (except for one instance where he linked to a youtube video that is essentially a religiously anti-religious blog). When this hypocrisy is pointed out he pays no attention or repeats himself.

This is only on Talk:Jesus, and doesn't even begin to cover his similar behavior elsewhere.

Two RFC/Us have been filed in the past, as have prior ANI reports, all to no avail. He was previously indefed for anti-Semitic speech, and only unblocked on the condition that he not use such inflammitory language again, which he later violated anyway. In both instances (and others), he revealed a highly problematic bias on any topic relating to Judaism and Christianity.

As History2007 points out, Cush's insistence that "no reliable historians exist" is similar to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=503003877&oldid=503000482

  • Someone going on the page for earth and saying: "the earth is flat"
  • When asked for WP:RS sources by geologists, they refuse and say: "no reliable geologists exist".
  • Given multiple chances to provide sources by scholars, professors, etc., they refuse and continue saying the same thing with no sources.]

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions? I think it would help if we gave a few recent links to present as examples. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That is good. In my view what characterizes the situation is this edit summary: Cush says "no reliable historians exist". Now how can any encyclopedia operate with that mentality? I think people on ANI will realize that this is similar to:
  • Someone going on the page for earth and saying: "the earth is flat"
  • When asked for WP:RS sources by geologists, they refuse and say: "no reliable geologists exist".
  • Given multiple chances to provide sources by scholars, professors, etc., they refuse and continue saying the same thing with no sources.
That type of behavior can not continue. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This looks good to me ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Some pedantry: "Again, puhing" should be " Again, pushing". Also, "our article do not" should be "our article does not". Paul B (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I meant "articles do not," but thanks. And I see JohnCarter has already filed a report. Well, additional evidence, then. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note here that the ANI discussion concluded in a 6 month topic ban. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Atonement/ propitiation

I would just like to note that the article states that Jesus is believed to atone for sins. Christians actually believe that Jesus propitiated sins. Atone is to cover up, whereas propitiate is to remove. Just a minor error. 65.185.108.156 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My friend, there is a long WP:ANI discussion about this page, so this may not be the best time to discuss theology. In any case, that issue is really a Christian theology item, and should probably not even be be discussed in this secular page. Let us discuss again in a day or two. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not seeing "cover up" as the definition of "atone." Atone and propitiate are synonyms, and I've never heard atone be used to mean "cover up." Atonement gained its meaning of "propitiate" because it referred to the at-one-ment (the original meaning) of God and humanity. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not a theology issue, but merely a matter of simple semantics. "Propitiate" means "to make favourably inclined", which is not quite the same thing as "atone" which is "to make amends for an offence". Neither of them come even close to being synonymous with "cover up". Mediatech492 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Mediatech492... the Bible was not written in English, and the Hebrew word that gets translated as "Atone" does mean "to cover." It is a word picture that evokes hiding your sin from God by covering it with something (typically blood). This word then gets translated to Greek in the New Testament, which is the same word that Paul uses when he says "Propitiate." You are correct that the English words that we use to translate these Hebrew and Greek words does not mean "to cover", but the Hebrew and Greek words do. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming you have an RS to confirm this, because I've been looking and haven't found anything. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. The Hebrew word כפר (Used in Psalm 65:3 and other places) means to cover up. According to BDB it is "to cover (figuratively), to pacify, to propitiate). ( http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3722 ) This word gets translated into Greek in the LXX as ἱλάσῃ. When Paul is writing about Propitiation in Romans 3:25 he uses the word ἱλαστήριον, which even someone who can't read Greek can see that the words are related. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Words that are similar do not necessarily mean the same thing; furhtermore ἱλάσῃ and ἱλαστήριον are really not all that similar in appearance or meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is getting into the realm of WP:Original Research, which is not allowed under Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Going further along these lines in this discussion is, in my opinion, not fruitful. If you want to discuss, find secondary sources that meet WP:RS guidelines, to back your viewpoint, and then we can discuss. Cazort (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That's funny... because ἱλάσῃ is just the verb form of the same lexical root that we get noun ἱλαστήριον from. ἱλάσῃ is the second person singular present active deponent of ἱλάσκομαι which is defined by BDAG as "To cause to be favorably inclined or disposed, propitiate, conciliate) while ἱλαστήριον means "Means of expiation" or "place of propitiation." The two words are clearly related. Regardless of the connection between the two words (which is clear as mud). ἱλάσῃ was the translation value chosen by the LXX translators to translate as כפר. The translation value of that into English, according to the resource that I linked to you earlier as well as a hard copy one that I have on my shelf, is related to covering something up. In this context, figuratively to cover up sin. Do you have a resource that challenges this, or a reason to believe the resources I have provided are faulty? ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to prove? The Bible was not written in English, but this article is, and "atonement" in English does not mean "to cover up". This discussion appears to be about the mutation of a Jewish concept into a Christian one. That may well mean that a concept that originally meant "covering" mutated into "propitiating", via various languages and terms. I don't know enough to comment on that. However, the latter's what 'atonement' now means in modern English, so the IP is wrong; there is nothing to change here; and this debate appears to be irrelevant. It might be appropriate for Atonement in Christianity. Paul B (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it wasn't written in English, so rather than being committed to a particular English word, if we are trying to communicate what the theological statement that the Bible makes is then we should be communicating the concept that the original language is communicating. I'm not saying that we SHOULD be trying to communicate the theological statement, but if we are we should respect the original intent over the word that is used in a current language. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
We do not get to decide what the best English word is. We follow established usage. The relevant policies are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS. "Atonement" is the established term. The relevant article is called Atonement. This article is not about Atonement it is about Jesus. If you think that Atonement in Christianity should be called Propitiation in Christianity, then you should raise the matter at the main article, not at an article in which the standard term is simply used, as it is in many other articles. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Paul B. For all I can tell, ReformedArsenal argues that because the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "atone" meant "cover up", "atone" still carries that meaning and Christians therefore don't believe Jesus atones for sins? One might argue whether from a Biblical point of view Christians should believe that Jesus atones for sins or not, but I doubt many Christians' beliefs on that matter are informed by details of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. This article is to summarize beliefs, not discuss whether those beliefs are the result of a mistranslation (unless secondary sources do so, and even then Atonement in Christianity seems a better place for such a discussion). Huon (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact that someone knew enough to comment on this discrepancy in the first place shows that it is not as though this is some kind of fringe perspective in the Church... just look at popular worship music used in Contemporary services. The phrase "cover my sins" or things of that nature are prominent. I don't really care how we treat it, I was simply to the claim that the word Atone has no connotation of covering. This is not the case, atonement in historic Christian doctrine is about covering sins, this is clear from the words used. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Druid Jesus?

A statement was added about the etymology of Jesus being Druid, etc. It says: "Some scholars have suggested the name was already in use in Europe as an aspect of the druidic trinity, described by Procopius as "Hesus, Taranis, Belinus unus tantummodo Deus Unum Deum Dominum universi Druides Solum agnoscunt."

The references that support this are hardly WP:RS. A few of them are from the 1870s, and not usable at all. The 1936 book is also far too old and not mainstream scholarship. Either recent mainstream sources need to get added to support that, or it should be seen as fringe. I tagged it anyway, waiting for recent, mainstream WP:RS sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well a WP:RS reference (The British Chronicles by David Hughes, 2007) David Hughes (1 January 2007). The British Chronicles. Heritage Books. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-0-7884-4490-6. Retrieved 17 August 2012. was added there now, but it disproves the claim. On page 47 Hughes states:
  • "it is more probable that druidic trinity Bellus (Belus Balor, Bile), Taranis, and Hesus/Jesus (Eisu; Esus; lesu) developed after the introduction of Christianity during the later regression of the Picts back into paganism."
So the assertions from the 1870s books that Jesus was derived from the druidic Hesus are not applicable, given that the modern source rejects that. History2007 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The source also says
  • "If the British god Esus pre-dates Christianity which some historians argue then when Christian missionaries preached Jesus as God in Britain, they thus preached to the Britons the name of one of their own deities."

This is in line with the statement on the page. Hughes also gives evidence of Hesus appearing an a relief dated 75 CE, along with accounts of Roman historians discussing him being worshiped in Britain during the war period circa. 41-61 CE. This is a very narrow time period since the introduction of Christianity to Britain. It would seem fairly likely to me that Hesus predated Christianity. Your quote above only shows that the druidic trinity concept was likely a later development as it was in Christianity, which I agree, it probably was. The "striking similarity" still gets a mention in other WP:RS sources such as this Celtic encyclopedia. Patricia Monaghan (1 January 2009). The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore. Infobase Publishing. pp. 161–. ISBN 978-1-4381-1037-0. Retrieved 4 August 2012. and there are plenty of other sources, both old and modern (some a bit fringe, but some not) that I can list if needed, so I would still argue it deserves some coverage. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, let us see what other people say. From all I know, the very suggestion that the name Jesus given to Jesus of Nazareth derives from Druid sources is way out WP:Fringe. The key point is that the name Jesus was not just for "Jesus of Nazareth" but was common in first century Judea, as evidenced by the fact the works of Josephus refer to at least 20 people called Jesus. So you need to show sources that actually say that, not infer it.
In any case, what is clear now is this:
  • The mention of the druid trinity in this article is not justified given the Hughes comment above. For that was certainly not taught to the Jews or Christians by the druids.
  • Even if the name Hesus predates Christianity, you have presented no case that the Jews learned that name from the druids. All you have shown is that when the missionaries got to Britain, they may have encountered that name. So what? That was long after the first century.
  • You have presented no source that says that druid missionaries went to Jerusalem (that would be the day!) and taught the Jews the name Jesus. Have you?
So I see no logic, and no source here that Jesus of Nazareth, or any other Jesus in Judea in the first century got their name from the druids, and that its etymology is druid-based. I see no source for that at all. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with History2007. Whether or not similar names were in use in other parts of the world is irrelevant to the Biblical Jesus, and that factoid might be interestig to early Christianity in Britain, but it's off-topic here. Huon (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I follow your logic. But do spare a second to follow mine, which I admit agrees with the view of a minority of modern scholars (not way out fringe and reflected as such in the article) that Jesus was not a historical figure but a composite myth, expounded thoroughly in the work of John M. Allegro in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979) amongst others. To such a minor school of thought, the derivation of Jesus from Hesus, along with others would make perfect sense as the writers of the Gospels would likely have had knowledge of the British gods as it was a hot news topic at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain. Hence, i still think the factoid should stay, but agree with Huon that it is possibly best not in this article, perhaps the Historicity of Jesus would be a more appropriate place for it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the long and short of it is that there is general agreement that Hesus does not fit in this article. As to where it fits, based on your statement it would be the Christ myth theory page which discusses myths. I have not read Allegro and do not intend to, but to add it there you will need to show that Allegro talked about it, else it is WP:OR. But I do not watch or edit the Christ myth theory page, so please discuss it with the people there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Who makes the claim that a mythical Jesus was named after a Druidic god? Wherever we want to add that claim, we'd need a reliable source stating exactly that - if we argue that A calls Jesus mythological, B discusses the name "Hesus" in Druidic Britain, and C says that the Roman conquest of those barbarians was a hot topic in 1st century Palestine, and it is us who conclude that therefore Jesus was likely named for a Druidic god, we create a synthesis (and we should not). As an aside: Were the other 21 or so Jesuses mentioned by Josephus also named after the Druidic god, or is it a more reasonable assumption that, whether or not Jesus existed, the name was a common one in Judea at that time, with an Aramaic etymology? Huon (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Josephus named over 20, but he did not name everyone because a baker in Jerusalem named Jesus was probably not Josephus:Notable enough to be mentioned. So there were probably hundreds of them. But that is speculation, just as the claims that the Romans taught the Pharisees to name their children Hesus, or Giovanni for that matter History2007 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with NPOV, speaking for Christians

I notice some problems with WP:NPOV.

Religious Perspectives --> Christian views

"Christians predominantly hold that these works are historically true". - This does not fit with my knowledge of Christianity or my fairly broad experience with a variety of different Christian denominations. It's also vague. What is meant by "historically true"? A large portion of modern Christians, as well as quite a few going back quite some time, have not believed the Bible to always represent literal truth, but rather, to have symbolic or spiritual meaning. I think it would be more accurate to say "Most modern Christians hold these works to have a large component of historical truth, and some hold them to be literally true." or something of the like. As it stands, I think it's vague and potentially misrepresenting of Christians who do not view the Bible literally. Cazort (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As you will know, Christians are very good at not agreeing with each other - many denominations, and many beliefs. So I think that could be softened up just as you suggested, given no central teaching office for Christianity as a whole. Not a major issue, however. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If you were talking about parts of the Old Testament, I could certainly see your argument. But I think you are going to need to provide reliable secondary sources that document that more than a small minority of Christians believe that the New Testament is not historically accurate and true. I can assure you that Catholics and Orthodox alike recognize its historical veracity. Now, some parts of it are factually inconsistent, and we can say that we don't know how exactly things happened, but to deny that they happened at all is a whole new kettle of fish. Elizium23 (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are general trends, as you said. But there are many small Christian groups with diverse beliefs. A good survey is the book What Christians Believe with solid WP:RS authors. But this article is not the place to review the diversity of small denominational beliefs, given that is about Jesus and not denominations. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

General problems with statements like "Christians believe"...

Another problem that I see with this article is that it's speaking for Christians, but it's predominately citing church scholars and people writing about official church stances. This represents official church stances, not what people actually believe.

As an example, I once had an informal discussion with two Catholics and two Lutherans about the topic of communion. One of the Lutherans asked the Catholics why Protestants were not able to take Communion in Catholic churches, and one Catholic responded with a lengthy explanation of the belief in transubstantiation, after which the other Catholic said: "Well, I don't believe that." and the one Lutheran then said: "I believe that."

So I think it is very problematic, unless you're citing actual surveys that show a consensus of what Christians actually believe, to say that Christians believe something just because it is official church doctrine or an official position. That's like representing the beliefs of Democrats or Republicans by their official party platform. It has been my overwhelming experience that no Christians agree with all the official stances of their church, not even in situations like Catholicism where the doctrine is presented in an "all or none" sort of way. And many churches (most Mainline protestant churches) do not present their doctrine in this way.

So, I'd like to start reworking this article to more better reflect WP:NPOV and WP:V. In most cases, it is not Verifiable to make statements about what people actually believe. Only what is known is official church stances, scholarly consensuses from various subsets of scholars, etc. I think it's important to make sure we are accurately communicating what type of agreement exists and not falsely writing as if it applied to people for whom we do not have enough information to know whether or not it applies. Cazort (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Separate issues:
  • This article is not and should not be a Christian article - it has sections on Jewish, Islamic beliefs, etc. So the beliefs of Christians would be in the Christian section.
Yes, I agree, I just singled out Christians as an example because it's something that I know about, and it also constitutes larger sections in the article.Cazort (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course, Wikieditors can not perform stat-surveys to know what people believe. But WP:RS/AC allows for the inclusion of general trends by scholars anyway.
Overall, I think the Christianity section could be softened up a little, but the article does say "not all Christian denominations agree on all doctrines, and both major and minor differences on teachings and beliefs have persisted throughout Christianity for centuries" and does not present a unified view. It could try and make that even more clear, but I do not see a big deal, given the acknowledgement of no uniform belief system among Christian. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I think there's a key distinction though between implying that Christians (or members of any religion) believe something, which I think can be problematic with NPOV and can be a bit of OR (because of the impossibility of polling), and making statements about official beliefs and scholarly stances. I'm going to think about how to word this, at the present I'm rather sleepy. Cazort (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That is a much broader issue, e.g. the second paragraph of the article Christianity states "The mainstream Christian belief is that ..." etc. So that issue goes beyond this article. In general, if book X by Professor Y is WP:RS and it says "The mainstream Christian belief is ABC..." then that can be used in Wikipedia per WP:V regardless of how Professor Y arrived at that conclusion, or if we agree with him or his methods or not. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This is true of points that are not controversial, but when there are multiple perspectives, it is then important to identify who is advocating for which perspective. I think it is important to be especially sensitive when talking about a group like Christianity, that has so much diversity within it about what people believe. I also think it is important to distinguish between official church stances, and beliefs of members of that church. Catholicism is a good example, I think it is problematic to say "Catholics believe X." when what is really being cited is that the official doctrine of the Catholic church is X, as an example. I also think that, in the case of many things in this article, it is really a smaller subgroup, like theological scholars or historical scholars, who are debating or examining various points. Cazort (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
So what? I can point out various baptized Catholics who have pagan beliefs, Wiccan beliefs, and Buddhist beliefs. One of the largest religious groups in the USA is lapsed Catholics. If we were to exhaustively cover everything that lapsed Catholics believe then we would no longer have much of an encyclopedia. Furthermore I doubt there are enough reliable secondary sources accurately documenting what individual Catholics believe - this would have to be based on some kind of inherently inaccurate polling of the populus - that we would be unable to represent those views based on WP:NPOV. The overwhelming majority of sources are going to document what the Church teachings, what faithful members of that religion believe. It is probably best to just avoid 100% constructs such as "Catholics believe..." in favor of constructs like "The Catholic Church teaches..." Elizium23 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you are applying the point of view of a particular religion or religions to the reasoning in this discussion, rather than adhering to WP:NPOV. In Wikipedia's neutral point of view, a label like "faithful" is meaningless...that's a POV perspective. The closest we can get to a neutral point of view is to say what the official stance is. To label someone as "lapsed" because they don't adhere to the official church stances glosses over a lot of differences. Catholicism is a great example: it is very diverse, and you don't need to go out of the mainstream to find these viewpoints...look at this article: [1] -- This cites a Pew Research Center poll saying that 46% of Catholics favor same-sex marriage, even though the official church stance is otherwise. This article provides more figures from the same source, a pew poll: [2] Not only is it problematic to NPOV to say "Catholics believe" but there are reliable sources to show contradictions to church stances on certain specific issues. I'd rather we separate what the church stances are from what the people identifying as members or adherents of these various religions actually believe. Cazort (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Elizium. And in any case, the Catholic example is the extreme case, given its highly centralized teaching office. New nontrinatarian groups are getting formed in South America as we speak and it is not at all clear what they teach - it changes. All Wikipedia can do is "summarize" a book such as "What Christians believe". And in any case that issue is peripheral to this page and should really be the issue for the Christian theology page. History2007 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Image of Christ

When many traditional Protestants and early church teachers rejected pictorial depictions of the one they considered to be the 'Image of God', it seems inappropriate to depict him here, without some reference to the body of reformed and patristic opinion which strongly opposed this as a breach of the second commandment. A summary of this case is here [3]. Cpsoper (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. That is just the half of it. Please see God the Father in Western art about iconoclasm, its end, etc. and how in the 8th century Jesus was depicted but only God's hand was, etc. And how in the 12th century, long before the Reformation Jesus was shown as a substitute for the Father, etc. But that discussion is really peripheral here. But perhaps a sentence about the later 15th-17th century type iconoclasm can be added to the depictions of Jesus section. But to open that discussion will invite 20 paragraphs, so need to keep it as a few links really. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate this has been a raucous area of controversy, and we must be careful to preserve light without heat. However iconoclasm was not an innovation, more a violent reincarnation of earlier, forgotten doctrine, as is plain from Irenaeus in the 2nd century who described images of Christ as Gnostic and Gentile: 'They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.' Contr.Her.I.XXV.6. Justin, Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine echo these sentiments centuries before iconoclasm. There are no extant images before the 4th century to my knowledge (though clearly Gnostics used them in the second). The article ought to reflect this history near to the image even if briefly. Cpsoper (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, that discussion really belongs on the Depictions of Jesus page, and once added there, a sentence can appear here. But given that that web site is your own, another source needs to be found. Please discuss on Depictions of Jesus and see what they say. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks agreed, I didn't know of the existence of this page before. Yes, you're of course correct the webpage is not RS - it just conveniently lists some secondary sources, which might be used. It also serves as a declaration of transparency, before suggesting any edits. Cpsoper (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Arabic

I'd like to add an alternate term for Jesus in Arabic, Yasū‘, since Isa is not the only term. --Article editor (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would second that, since Yasū‘ pronunciation was used from the beginning there were Arab Christians, and is still being used by Arab Christians (and non-Arab Christians speaking Arabic) today. On the other hand, Isa is used exclusively by Arab Moslems, and other ethnicity who are Moslems. There was and will be no Arab Christians using it. YN Susilo (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quranic name is already mentioned in the lede and in Jesus in Islam section. Christian Arabic or Jewish name is not that significant. I remember we had a long discussion over which names to include in the first sentence and only the original new testament Greek name was unanimously accepted.--Rafy talk 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012

Wiki page on facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesus/104332632936376 -- has Wrong Location!... for Jesus, "Santa Anita, Lima, Peru."

Please Correct this, with Bethlehem, or Bethlehem/Nazareth.

Thank you !

Joseph 24.152.201.81 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We cannot access Facebook pages, need to contact them. But interesting that it got over 4 million likes... Almost 5 million. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If I had to guess, it's because whoever created that FB page was from Peru? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, or FB may assign those from their IP address, etc. History2007 (talk)

Majority of Modern History Scholars?

I have serious problem with the second paragraph beginning, "The large majority of modern historians agree that Jesus existed[11][12][13][14][15] as a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.[8][16][17]".

Looking at all the citations for that, each of the "Modern Historians" ,except for one which was ambiguous, is a Church historian. I'd consider that a one sided reporting. Maybe I will be considered biased myself for expressing this opinion, but I believe that for that line to be true there should be at least a few instances of secular historians agreeing with the statement.

I'd edit it out myself with justification, but I don't have the rights to do it myself.

I'm assuming that surely, if there was DNA evidence or a peer reviewed source of major historical and academic interest in this that with out a doubt proves the existence of Jesus being a historical figure, It would have been included in the citations.

For what it's worth, I'm not attempting to troll or cause a religious flame war. I just prefer information be as accurate and non-biased as possible.

TheFuzzyGiggler (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and by extension, us, don't care if they're all devoutly religious folks or all atheists. They are WP:RS. They are scholars with the respect of other scholars in the field. That's all we care about. Denying their use as sources is like denying the use of Dawkins as a source on evolution just because he believes in evolution.Farsight001 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Farsight001 is right, but these comments will keep coming. If 300k people see this page, X% will agree with that statement, Y% will not. The X% say nothing, some of the Y% will type here, as above. I have a clarification to add to the Q&A to make answering those easier, but have not gotten around to it. Will do so in a day or so. One thing to remind the users who ask these questions is to ask them to find a few WP:RS scholarly sources that say "Many modern historians hold that Jesus never existed". That will help clarify it. In fact there are "less than a handful of scholars" who say that, as the references indicate. I will try to do the Q&A soon. History2007 (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Religion shouldn't be a problem, but insisting on calling these people simply historians rather than church historians, biblical scholars or New Testament scholars is odd. The latter terms are more precise and less likely to mislead. If people feel that church history or Christian origins are just another branch of history (despite considerable evidence of bias, acknowledged by serious scholars in the field itself), then they should have no problem with the more precise terms. If they do have a problem with it, that indicates bias or a desire to engage in apologetics. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The distinction in your statement is not clear. The sources in the article clearly state "historians and scholars" both and say "Christian and non-Christian". The person making the statement may be a biblical scholar but he asserts that "about historians". So historians are included. And in fact, if anything that statement is too weak and instead of the "large majority" should say "virtually all" to conform to the sources. There is even another source not there that should be addded: Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed". The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145. Now Stanton is a Christian, but the statement he makes is about historians. Is Stanton WP:RS? Yes, certainly. And have we seen a long list of historians with academic posts who say Jesus did not exist? No, not at all. Have we seen a source that says: "Many modern historians hold that Jesus never existed". No, not at all. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that you then have a biblical scholar making a statement about historians. Is he a reliable source about history in general? If you believe that church history is just another branch of history, then you might think so, but that's begging the question. I have yet to see a statement by a historian who isn't a biblical scholar who affirms that yes, church history is just another branch of history. Note this is different from the situation with the much wider field of history of religion.
I believe it is true to say that a majority of biblical scholars hold the opinion that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus, that Christian origians is just another branch of history etc., and that deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the article. But the academic respectability of research into Christian origins is not secure and the article should not imply it is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the question: are these scholars WP:RS on this issue? There is even no conflict among sources. And Ehrman is a non-Christian and also says "scholars of antiquity". So multiple sources, no conflict among sources and hence no problem is using them. And even the Christ myth theory page uses these sources in its lede - with no problem. And Robert Price who is one of the few who doubt existence has acknowledged that he is in a minority and almost no one agrees with him. When G. A. Wells did his U-turn and stopped denying existence, the game was by and large over. And by the way, this type of thing has been discussed for ever on this talk page, e.g. here and before it.

But if you want to change that say "Christian history" based on your own analysis that is not confirming to the sources any more and can not be said at all. History2007 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a conflict about whether biblical scholarship should be considered as just another branch of history. This is an important distinction, because if it isn't, the sources quoted are only reliable sources on the field of church history, not on a wider consensus among historians, so their claims cannot be presented as something else than an opinion. There are critics inside and outside of biblical scholarship (Akenson, Meier, Perrin, Philip Davies) who question or qualify the methodological soundness of research into Christian origins. In my opinion the oft-repeated claim by biblical scholars deserves to be presented, but only as an opinion, or a fact about opinions held by scholars in the field. If scholars in the field insist on the more general term "historian" (as they do, possibly wrongly so) then we shouldn't water down their claims, but we also shouldn't allow their opinions to be presented as fact. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
There are no facts in Wikipedia, per WP:V. It is all about references, not facts. And I meant "conflict between statements in sources" not conflict of opinions among Wiki-editors. Now, let us wait and wee what other people say. I think we know what the two of us think. History2007 (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP:V and it has no bearing on what I said. There are enough reliable sources contradicting the presented sources to allow us not to take them at face value. There are also enough presented sources to allow us to decide their opinion too is worth presenting. As for waiting to see what other people say, you don't need my permission to wait. Go ahead and wait all you want. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so please present a few WP:RS sources that say "many modern historians hold that Jesus never existed". Please provide a book name, page number etc. for those, not just say there are many. It would be interesting to see the references that say that. History2007 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Logical fallacy. The logical opposite of "the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus" is not that there are historians who hold he didn't exist, but that there is a sizeable minority who are at least undecided. But I'm not taking a position on the historicity of Jesus, I'm objecting to accepting Stanton et al as reliable sources on the wider field of history in the light of published statements by both general historians (such as Akenson) and notable biblical scholars (Davies, Perrin, Meier) questioning or at least qualifying the methodological soundness of research into Christian origins. I think I'm being very reasonable when I propose using the neutral and more specific wording in combination with presenting the stronger statement as a widely held opinion among scholars in the field and I don't understand why or even if you object to it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
But if you want to change that say "Christian history" based on your own analysis that is not confirming to the sources any more and can not be said at all.

I made no such suggestion, I said "biblical scholar" and "church historian", not "Christian history". Those terms are undeniably correct and undeniably more precise than the wider term "historian". They are also neutral, that is neither presumptious nor derogatory. That said, if we changed the wording, we would not be presenting the widely stated opinion among biblical scholars that most historians in the wider sense believe in the historicity of Jesus etc. We shouldn't do that, but that is easily solved by stating that opinion as a widely held opinion in the field, not as an uncontested fact. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
So which sources contest it? History2007 (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with History2007: We'd need not just a historian doubting the conclusion we present (with sources!) as the historical consensus, but a source explicitly disputing that consensus. I'm also doubtful about the purpose of not using the term "historian" without a qualification. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "church historians" and "biblical scholars" just "historians with the relevant specialization"? Wouldn't any historian working on the history of the early church, despite his methods, be classified as a "church historian"? Do Davies, Perrin and Meier question the methodology of their own research? Huon (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Two separate points:

  • There is no methodology in counting how many peopel oppose it. What Ehrman, Stanton, etc. have done is just count "1, 2, 3, 4" names of those who say Jesus did not exist, then count "1, 2, 3, ... 400, etc." names of people who say he existed. So the only way they could have made a methodological error is if they do not know how to count...
  • Remembering how G. A. Wells did his U-turn may be instructive. He is a professor of German and had read the 1920 works of the likes of Drews, etc. The way they turned him around was to explain how the entire set of ancient documents that surround the Q source documents work. Once Wells understood that he stopped denying the existence of Jesus. He still says that the "gospel are pure fiction" but does not deny existence. He is no convert to Christianity, but he now understands the historical sources.

So the way these conclusions are arrived at in fact requires an understanding of the ancient documents, and people like Ehrman are experts a that. But that helps Ehrman state "I hold that Jesus existed". He does not need methodology to say "1, 2, 3, 4"... " then say virtually all scholars of antiquity". The only methodology there is counting. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Huon:

Why would we need a historian to contest the conclusion? Per WP:V we need a RS who states it, and I would argue Stanton et al do not obviously qualify. What we need is a historian who agrees with it. We wouldn't generally accept a nuclear physicist, no matter how prominent, as a RS on topics in biology, and I have yet to see a historian agree that yes, Christian origins is just another branch of history. Maybe it is, but then let's have some evidence.
If you believe the contrary, then I don't understand why you would object to using the more specific term. Do you think a quantum physicist would object to being called that instead of the more general term physicist? My objection to using the general term is that I suspect it has an apologetic aim.
As for Davies and Meier, I believe they mostly criticise the work of their colleagues :-). Perrin doesn't criticise the field, he acknowledges that there is bias, but argues this should not be considered a problem.
To get back to the issue, my concern is that Stanton et al are being used as RS on history and I feel that is unjustified. Their opinion should be presented, but as a widely stated belief among biblical scholars, not as a fact about historians in general. If someone were to come up with a quote from a prominent historian, then that would be different. To look at it another way, I see no reason to take Stanton et al any more seriously as RS on the thinking of historians than I would Dawkins. Do you think a page on Napoleon could use Stanton as a reliable source on the thinking among historians about the historicity of Napoleon? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The subject is not Napoleon, as far as I can tell. And Price himself agrees that almost no one takes him side. So if there had been a large number of historians or scholars who said that Jesus did not exist, Dawkins, Wells and yourself would have been parading them. But there is no parade, no music no sources on your side. Get some sources that say: "there is no general agreement among historians/scholars about the existence of Jesus" instead of just debating it. Please get some sources. That is how Wikipedia works. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No the subject is whether Stanton is a historian. And I don't need to present evidence that many historians disbelieve the existence of Jesus, since that's not a position I'm defending. The article currently states that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus without presenting a single historian who is of that opinion or at least evidence that Stanton et al should be couted as such. Stanton isn't a reliable source on historians' thinking on Napoleon any more than Dawkins is, because neither of these fine gentlemen is a historian. Similarly he is not a reliable source on what historians think about the historicity of Jesus, any more than Dawkins is. If Stanton is right, why then is it so difficult to produce a single historian supporting him? The onus is on you to produce a real historian, not Stanton.
Note that it's the general principle that matters to me. On balance I think there probably was a historical Jesus, and I wouldn't be surprised if most historians agreed, probably like the majority of Western society, probably without having studied the particular matter. It's not the truth or otherwise I'm arguing, I'm objecting to apologists being allowed to wear the mantle of historians. By the same token I would object to a practitioner of homeopathy being allowed to speak as a RS on general medicine or on the opinion of medical doctors on homeopathy. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Stanton is just one of the sources. And scholars who would comment on the existence of Jesus would not be the likes of Niall Ferguson who study 19th-20th century economic history, but "scholars of antiquity" as Ehrman said. And per WP:RS/AC the "academic consensus" can be stated based on the summary of the uniform statements of these sources, without the need for any Wikipedia editor to count things themselves. Very straightforward. But I will stop now, given the repetitive issue here. You have produced zero sources. Just zero sources. That is enough for me. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to produce reliable sources, not me. Chemistry is not physics, computer science is not mathematics, biblical scholarship or biology is not history. You have produced zero reliable sources on the thinking of historians. Your arguments about WP:AC would hold water if your sources were historians, but they're not. They would also hold water if the claim were that biblical scholars held these opinions, as that is what your sources are, but alas the claim is about historians, and you insist on it being about historians. Therefore they need historians as reliable sources. I find it telling that no one has been able to produce even a single bona fide historian making the claim. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I think they are reliable sources on this because they are "scholars of antiquity" and it is not their view that is being stated. They are only used to "count names" as stated above. And given that they are intimately involved in the study of the topic, they know who is involved. But again, just to be rational for a moment, am I hearing that there are hundreds of scholars who say Jesus did not exist, but they have not gotten around to write about it because they have been on vacation for the past 10 years?
Look, this is simple:
  • Do we have any sources that says: "There is no general agreement among historians scholars about the existence of Jesus?" No we do not.
  • Do we have any sources that says: "There is general agreement among historians scholars about the existence of Jesus?" Yes we do.
But I am really going to stop for a while now. You have produced zero sources, but are disputing what professors involved in the area write. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2012

Via Dolorosa stations [http://www.viadolorosaapp.com/viadolorosa/stations.php Via Dolorosa stations guide] Assaf.vilmovski (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what is the request here? HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop spamming your website. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Bahai views

I think the following sentence should be removed from the lead: "Bahá'í scripture almost never refers to Jesus as the Messiah, but calls him a Manifestation of God, a concept that refers to intermediaries between God and humanity, serving as messengers and reflecting God's qualities and attributes." The Bahai Faith is only one of many religions that might have views about Jesus, and compared to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they are quite a small and marginal sect. Mentioning their views of Jesus in the lead is a bit like mentioning Scientology views of the subject. Ywreuv (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Bahai are small, but do not have the loony bin reputation of Scientology. If there is a section on them, they need to be briefly mentioned per WP:LEDE anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I just don't agree. Bahai is a very small sect. Including them in the lead implies that they are as significant as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which they certainly aren't. And it's not a question of how "loony" their views are or are not, which is a matter of opinion, anyway. To me they aren't any better than Scientology. Ywreuv (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The page on Abrahamic religions lists them. But anyway, let us see if there is consensus for removing it. My guess is that removing it is invitation for debate later. History2007 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

This was copied here from Dougweller's talk page

Its found that you have been reverting my edits in various articles which are related to Ahmadiyya sayin 'Wikipedia can't state that this is a separate religion as they consider themselves Islamic'. I know this topic is on discussion. But let me put some light to it. May be this has been pointed by many already, but I take this opportunity to notify it again. If what you said is taken as the criterion, explain the given situations:

  • Few practicing Jews considers themselves as Christians believes in Jesus as a prophet while denying 'Jesus' as son of God. Who are they according to Wikipedia or you for that matter?
  • A serial killer considers himself as a cop. While killing hundreds of people he even wears a cop uniform. Who is this guy for Wikipedia if he finds a place in?--Truebrother (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Those aren't comparable, and in any case we have enough reliable sources - by our criteria although probably not by yours -- saying Ahmadiyya is Islamic. If you can find the same for your examples I'd be surprised. We don't separate out Latter Day Saints from Christianity, although personally I don't think Mormons are Christians (note I'm not a Christian so I have no stake in that debate). Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned Mormons, in Wikipedia they are considered as followers of another religion called Mormonism even when they self-identify as Christians. Also in Jesus article ( and in many other articles) there is no sections as 'Mainstream Christianity' and 'Jehovah's Witnesses view' but there is Mainstream Islam and Ahmadiyya view. Why this double standard on Islam is allowed and prevailed in Wikipedia? Isn't this a discrimination?--Truebrother (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Mormonism is in the category "Christian new religious movements". Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So whats your take on adding sections as 'Mainstream View' and 'Jehovah's Witnesses view' under 'Christian Views' in Jesus article?.--Truebrother (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't care. I suspect some people might be concerned as to how you defined 'mainstream Christian'. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some people (myself included) would say that the Christadelphians addition by Truebrother was bordering on WP:POINT given the issues above, and that they have all of 50,000 members. So a tiny groups is running against WP:Due. This should really be discussed on the Jesus talk page, but I happened to see this. If that door is opened, there will be 50 subsections there for 50 different Christian groups, and a multi-party nightmare when the various groups debate it. I think True brother should self-revert. History2007 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to your opinion, whether there is 50 different christian groups or not, its a fact that there are different views on Jesus inside Christianity itself. So in an article about Jesus in Wikipedia, trying to give a notion that Christianity has a common view about Jesus is not at all fair. Especially when relatively, a common view possessing religion like Islam on the topic is shown by sections. We cannot try to hide a fact fearing that a multi-party nightmare could arise. What if few more groups like Ahmadiyya comes up in future proclaiming themselves as Muslims but having different views on Jesus, will us be forced to remove Ahmadiyya view from the article fearing the same nightmare? Actually my edit was not against but for WP:Due.--Truebrother (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Due requires proportional real estate based on the weight of the item. The Christadelphians are much smaller than Calvinists, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, etc. and are getting more real estate. That is against Due. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct, but this discussion should be at Talk:Jesus so others can see it. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The Christadelphians section was copied from the main Christadelphains article without any modification or improvement I can see, not even relating Christadelphian views of Jesus to others or explaining how they deviate from the "mainstream" - the "mainstream views" section which was previously the section on all Christian views does, in fact, cover non-mainstream positions such as Nontrinitarianism. Besides, we already have more specialized articles on Jesus in Christianity and Christian denominations which might be an appropriate location for this kind of information, but for obvious reasons the main Jesus article cannot hold every sect's view in full detail. In summary, this is redundant, overly detailed and pointy. For those reasons I've removed it. Huon (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
So how does the sectional division of 'Islamic views' are justified here? There is specialized article like Jesus in Islam as well. Also if the edit wasn't relating Christadelphian views of Jesus to others or explaining how they deviate from the "mainstream", we should have tried to make the requirements by re-editing it instead of reverting it. Knowing there is different views inside Christianity about Jesus, there should be at least a section that talks about non mainstream christian views in general on Jesus if not Christadelphains view.--Truebrother (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems that you just acknowledged the WP:POINT issue. And again, this is a "top level article" like automobile. Not every small car manufacturers will get a section there History2007 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I just don't understand why WP:POINT guideline is raised against me often? I just tried to get a consensus that there shall be no discrimination of any sort in Wikipedia. My questions are actually unanswered here if the mere answers with WP:POINT is not considered. If any edit is not proper, shouldn't we make it clear? or is it responsibility of a single user who previously edited it?

When it's a top level article, it should be taken cared more than any other articles. How does Ahamdiyaa view becomes prominent while Nontrinitarian views become small and irrelevant?--Truebrother (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:POINT is raised because, if I understand you correctly, you added a section which you probably agree isn't appropriate to raise awareness of another section which you also consider inappropriate - that's precisely "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Secondly, as I said, non-Trinitraian views are already covered in the article, in a level of detail that seems appropriate for this article.
More to the point, I actually agree that the Ahmadiyya section is also much too detailed for this article. I excpect there's a separate section for Ahmadiyya because the rest of Islam shows less diverse opinions on Jesus than, say, Christianity, and having a separate section allows us to avoid couching the main Islam section in caveats such as "most Muslims". I'm not sure WP:WEIGHT supports mention the Ahmadiyya position at all in this article (that section's sources seem to be a mixed bunch of primary and/or unreliable sources, reliable sources not about Ahmadiyya views, and some few reliable sources which actually discuss that section's topic), but I'd say a short paragraph in the "Islamic views" section should suffice to point out the differences. Huon (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
For over two years, I had been trying very hard not to open the Ahmadiyya Pandora's box... Now it is open... It is way overweight... Not that bothers me that much, but it is way over WP:Due. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If you already had an idea about Ahmadiyya section being inappropriate, why didn't you clean it? This is like 'I wont eat and wont let you eat' kind of attitude. With due respect, this WP:POINT is very tricky one, we can use it to keep false information in Wikipedia as it demands compulsory acceptance on consensus made by majority (even if its wrong). And I guess the root problem here lies on whether Ahmadiyya is part of Islam or not. Until and unless a consensus on that is reached, issue here cannot be solved. And knowing Ahmadiyya talk page is the right place to discuss it, i hereby retain myself from further edits in 'Jesus' article. Also would like to note that the initial article before my first edit was better than what it looks now. My mistake--Truebrother (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The trick is to tolerate a certain "distance from perfection", else you will spend all your life on Wikipedia and will end up checking your watchlist on your iPad during your own funeral. That was why I tolerated the Ahmadiyya item. As for its being part of Islam, this is probably not the place to decide it - but let us note that they believe in Muhammad and their article starts with the line "Ahmadiyya (Arabic: أحمدية‎; Urdu: احمدِیہ) is an Islamic reformist movement". My guess is that they are not Confucian.

But what has become clear here is a reiteration of past discussions that:

  • the views of specific Christian denominations or Islamic splinter groups should not get separate sub-sections.

This was discussed on talk before about Christian groups, and my suggestion is that the Ahmadiyya section should fold into the Islamic section as a single paragraph. If the Protestants or Anglicans do not get a sub-section, neither should the Ahmadiyya. History2007 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have gutted the Ahmadiyya section and cut it down to a single short paragraph. The sources were even worse than I expected; the only one I had hoped would prove a reliable secondary source on Ahmadiyya views, Eastern definitions: a short encyclopedia of religions of the Orient by Rice, doesn't seem to mention the movement at all (as far as I can tell using Google's snippet preview; unfortunately my local library doesn't carry the book). Removing the irrelevant sources, the broken link and the clearly fringe sources left us only with the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself. Huon (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead bold names

Reading the faq above in regards to the name there seems good reason to keep it as such, however, perhaps we can mention in the lead the alternatives names (which are notable even if less common) Isa/Yehoshua?Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wife from new papyrus

According to this this, Jesus may have had a wife. I know there have been allegation before, but this seems firmer. Now I'm not saying to mention as gospel (no pun intended) fact that he had a wife, but to work in somewhere about scholarly suggestions that he could have. Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a new idea. As of over 100 years ago, Orson Hyde had been saying Jesus had 3 wives, at least... As for the papyrus it is just announced, and in a year or two at least 50 papers will get written on it. So time will tell if the academic community will buy it. Remember the James Ossuary? Until it has been looked at by a few scholars, too early to do a new Orson Hyde on it, I think. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What that papyrus is proof of is that someone in the 2nd century thought it worth saying that Jesus had a wife, not he did. PiCo (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Breaking news: a new scrap of papyrus has been found: the line after 'Jesus said: "My wife..." continues as "...hath gone to the West Indies!" (And apparently Peter then says: "Jamai..." something). PiCo (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Length tag

There is a length tag now, and it may be partially right, in that some material has accumulated, although articles like Russia are also comprehensive like this one. I think some sections such as Depictions of Jesus may be trimmed given the Main link, etc. There used to a script that measured text length for use with WP:LENGTH. Does anyone remember where that was? That needs to be measured before we can see what needs to be done. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that wesplit off pages without removing content, and that then leaving a "main" link with a summary here would improve readability" to get all the content to the reaer.(Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).
But do you remember where that javascript is to measure it, so we know if/how much it is stepping over the guidelines? History2007 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I ever encountered that script, but according to the page history the article is currently at about 250KB. Of course that's total size, including wiki markup, not just content size, but halving the article's size probably would still have it larger than WP:Article size suggests. Huon (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, it is here now, Wikipedia:DYK#Eligibility_criteria and the markup, references etc. must be excluded. There was one that did not require installation, this one seems to require installation. History2007 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actual size is less than half of the 250k you found Huon, it is at 104k without markups, Russia being 94k. So somewhat larger than Russia and just over the limit of WP:Length. So if we compress about 15% to 20% or so by moving to Main (easy to do) it will be ok. The depictions and title attributions sections are the easiest to manage - in fact the title attributions was here first, then got expanded and replaced what used to be in that article, etc. So not hard to do at all. History2007 (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I moved some items such as depictions, archeology, etc. to the outside Main articles and did some minor trims and it is now less than 77k, below the WP:Length limit. So can remove tag. History2007 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

Scrap it and start over. PiCo (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia, or just this article? History2007 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Christ redirect here?

There was a move and redirect which attempted to point Christ here. Does that make sense? The related discussion is taking place now and suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Misleading, promotion of Christianity

"Jesus, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ or simply Christ (i.e. Messiah), is the central figure of the Christian religion, whom a majority of Christian denominations worship as God the Son incarnated.

"The large majority of modern historians agree that Jesus existed as a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate

This opening is misleading. It equates "Jesus" with "the Messiah" and with a person baptised by John the Baptist etc. The sources do not state that a large majority of modern historians agree that the Messiah existed and was baptised etc. If there is agreement, it is that there was a historic figure on which the Christian relgious figure is based (to an unkown degree). Also, none of the sources are an actual poll of "modern historians", but rather Christians publishing in Christian publishing houses expressing their opinion about what is "universally accepted." Humanpublic (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion 3 or sections above, and WP:RS/AC as well. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that Jesus is not commonly referred to as Christ? Do we really need to trot out a source for such an obvious statement? A Google search shows everything from the Catholic Encyclopedia to Jesus Christ Superstar calling him "Jesus Christ". We also don't claim that the Messiah existed; the article explicitly says Jesus existed as a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea. Furthermore, we don't need a poll of modern historians; History2007 already pointed to WP:RS/AC. The scholars we cite on the academic consensus about Jesus' existence include Bart D. Ehrman who is, according to our article, an agnostic; his publisher HarperCollins isn't what I'd call a "Christian publishing house". Huon (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
He's also not a historian and therefore unqualified to make pronouncements on an alleged consensus among historians. In addition we have real historians (Akenson) who make scathing comments about the lack of impartiality of "historical" research by biblical scholars, as well as prominent NT scholars (John P. Meier for instance) who say that NT scholars are doing theology and calling it history. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So is Robert M. Price not qualified to say that almost no one agrees with him? Do give us a break here. And again, based on an injection of sanity here have all the historians who think Jesus did not exist been on vacation the last 10 years? Is that why you do not have a single reference to say many of them say so? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course he is, but he is not a historian, but a biblical scholar. He is qualified to say that very few biblical scholars agree with him, and I'm not aware of anyone disputing that. As for historians being on vacation, it does look as if there are no real historians who have made pronouncements on a consensus among historians. And that is what we require for a matter-of-fact statement in Wikipedia. Otherwise we can only present it as an opinion, in this case a widely held opinion among the members of a certain profession (NT scholars). We certainly have enough sources for that. We have zero sources so far that historians agree. Your mistake is that you are treating NT scholars as if they were historians, but they're not. In the words of John P. Meier: I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology [a faith-based study of Jesus Christ]. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Existence is distinct from "historical Jesus" and his portraits, as explained to you again, and again and again Martijn. G. A. Wells and Richard Dawkins think the same that all of these people are inventing tales in the Bible but they do not deny existence. You are beginning to sound like user:Cush on this. Not supplying any references about lack of existence just saying I do not believe this. History2007 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, I went to see what Donald Akenson actually says. Akenson does not deny existence of Jesus. He is just critical of the details of the narrative of the gospels. So referring to Akenson in the context of non-existence is incorrect. And of course John Meier is a strong supporter of the existence of Jesus. I did not even have to look that one up. Meier's reconstruction of the Testimonium Flav. which supports the existence of Jesus is widely used by other scholars. Again, Meier disagrees with others on the details of gospel narratives, but he supports existence. So quoting Meier in the context of non-existence is totally inaccurate because Meier is widely known to supports existence. History2007 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems we are talking past each other. I'm not arguing against existence now, nor have I ever. I'm agnostic on the issue, sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other, but never feeling very sure of myself. And note that even Price doesn't deny that existence is a serious possibility, it's just that on balance he leans towards mythicism and sees (or imagines if you prefer) massive bias and self-deception among biblical scholars. I have no problem with the article saying that Mythicism is a view held by only a tiny minority. That's true, well-sourced and all sides agree on it.
My problem is that we are allowing factual statements about an academic consensus among historians to stand without a proper reference. Stanton is a fine reference for a consensus among theologians or scholars of religion (and I'm well aware of the difference, my father is a professor emeritus of classics and theology, I have many church ministers among my extended family, and a couple of theologians, we've had all sorts of scholars at birthday parties for as long as I can remember), but not about a consensus among historians. For that we would need a professor of (ancient) history. Otherwise the article misrepresents academic opinion, falsely suggesting the issue has been studied much more widely than in theology departments.
Note that I'd also be opposed to quoting as fact a hypothetical statement by Price that the majority of historians are agnostic on the issue. Even if they are, Price is not qualified to speak authoritatively (from a WP point of view) on the matter. At best it could be quoted as an opinion by Price, but only if it was considered notable, which for this article it probably shouldn't be.
As for Akenson and Meier (and Davies earlier), I didn't quote them in support of non-existence, but as additional evidence that NT scholars are not generally to be considered historians. To that I could add Morna Hooker (Stanton's predecessor as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity), R. Joseph Hoffmann and others.
My complaint would be solved by replacing the term "historians" with "biblical scholars", which is undeniably correct and more precise than "historians", or by turning the text into a quoted opinion, not by saying anything about mythicism. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The current term is "scholars of antiquity", which seems appropriate. The consensus among all scholars with relevant specialties, be they historians, Biblical scholars, or whatever else may be relevant is that he did exist; Ehrman uses that exact phrase (and he's certainly in a position to know that consensus), Grant speaks of "serious scholars" without limiting himself to a certain specialty, and the other sources we cite for the consensus seem to be along similar lines. We shouldn't be more precise than our sources. Huon (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you supply any evidence that Ehrman should be considered a historian rather than a biblical scholar? I agree on Grant. I also agree with not being more specific than our sources, but also with not implying something to the reader that isn't true. Don't you find the scathing criticism from Akenson and the criticism from NT scholars the least bit worrying? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, scholars of antiquity is what the first source says. And the same notion is confirmed by people across the board from a classicist like Grant to a biblical scholar like Stanton. I really can not figure out what Martijn is saying here, he is saying "I'm not arguing against existence now, nor have I ever" and then seems to be arguing against a statement of it. Then he says: "Akenson and Meier (and Davies earlier), I didn't quote them in support of non-existence, but as additional evidence that NT scholars are not generally to be considered historians." None of those sources said that - none. Meier himself is a biblical scholar but just like some economists criticize some other economists he is criticizing some of his colleagues. There are physicists who accuse others of ignoring cold fusion data etc. And the term historian is not even used in the article, the term is "scholars of the antiquity" which includes classicists and biblical scholars. And being against a statement by Price that he thinks people oppose him is just mind boggling given that Martijn has consistently failed to produce any sources that support his position. Zero sources, just personal opinions. Zero sources, just Martijn's personal opinions.
Zero sources? I mentioned Perrin, Davies, Meier, Akenson, Hoffmann, and Hooker in support of NT scholars not generally being historians. You mentioned Stanton, who is not a historian and therefore does not qualify, in support. You are the one with zero sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
And Martijn, for Heaven's sake look at how inconsistent your own statements are. In one breath you say:
  • I have no problem with the article saying that Mythicism is a view held by only a tiny minority. That's true, well-sourced and all sides agree on it.
In the next breath you want to imply that generally the only people who support existence are biblical scholars, leaving open the window that there are hundreds of non-biblical scholars who deny existence. Is that not inconsistent? You have already admitted that there are only a handful of people who deny existence, yet want a statement that goes against the sources, and which suggests there are plenty of historians out there who oppose existence. And of course you have zero sources to support your position. Is this not enough? Is this not enough? History2007 (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not inconsistent and I have supplied several sources, whereas you have supplied none. Huon on the other hand mentioned Grant, who certainly qualifies. I knew he believed in the existence of Jesus, not that he had made remarks about an academic consensus to that effect. If we can dig up a quote, then that would be great.
I'm amazed it's even necessary, but let me explain the logic to you, it's really quite simple. I object to a statement that paraphrases "the majority of historians believe in the existence of Jesus", not necessarily because it is false, but because it is unverified (at least until we find a source, and Grant would qualify). As you know, Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability.
And even if it were to be false, its logical opposite would be "a minority of historians believe in the existence of Jesus", not "a majority of historians disbelieve the existence of Jesus". The opposite of belief is not just belief to the contrary, it also includes the possibility of agnosticism. And that's what I believe to be the case: the vast majority of historians have not studied the issue at all, and do not have a professional opinion on it.
It would be misleading to suggest the issue has been studied much more widely than in departments of religion or divinity, which in itself should make us wonder about bias, quite apart from the evidence to that effect from the major players in the field that I mentioned. Akenson and Grant are exceptions, there simply aren't many historians who have published about the matter at all, the output seems to come almost exclusively from biblical scholars. If you say that a majority of historians agree that Jesus existed, then the ordinary reader will come away with an impression that it's not just professors of divinity and NT scholars who hold that opinion, but that many professors of history have studied the issue and come to the same conclusion. That has not been demonstrated and in fact I believe it to be false, and therefore I strongly object to a formulation that implies it. Maybe I'm all wrong about it, but I'm not the one saying my opinion should be stated as fact in the article, and the onus is on the person proposing the claim. Note that merely reporting the claim as a claim would not be problematic at all, yet you appear to object to that, for reasons I cannot fathom.
As for wanting a statement which suggests there are plenty of historians out there who oppose existence that is simply not true. I want something like "the majority of biblical scholars believe in the existence of Jesus" which would suggest precisely zero about what historians or wider scholarship might think. What on Earth makes you think that a statement about biblical scholars could allow one to make inferences about historians? It does no such thing, any more than it implies anything about the views of astronomers, housewives or aircraft mechanics. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says exactly what Ehrman says: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed". So that statement has a clear source and Ehrman is a solid WP:RS source. That is simple. Making the statement that "virtually all biblical scholars believe that Jesus existed" is an incorrect representation of the academic consensus because it deviates from the source. And Van Voorst says: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted". So modifying what he say at will based on your desires is also deviation from the source. So the statements are fully sourced. And Van Voorst is a totally WP:RS source and the standard work on the subject now - really. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the "best recent discussion on the topic". And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence". So Van Voorst is a great WP:RS source for this article. Richard Carrier matters not, but even Carrier endorses Van Voorst.

Now you say you want to

  • suggest precisely zero about what historians or wider scholarship might think

Why? Why suppress what they think when we have WP:RS sources that say what they think. Why can the opinions of wider group of scholars not be stated when we have multiple WP:RS sources for it, and none against?

Trust me: "suggesting precisely zero what a wider group of scholars might think" is not the way to develop an encyclopedia. That can not be done in Wikipedia. The goal here is to inform the reader, not suggest zero. Trust me on that one. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't patronise me young man. And don't twist my words. You falsely accused me of wanting to imply something false about the views of historians, and I demonstrated I didn't simply by showing my proposed wording didn't imply anything about historians. My proposed wording would make a true, relevant and well-sourced statement about the views of biblical scholars. If you want to add anything about the views of historians, then go quote some historians. Good luck with that because apart from Akenson and Grant very few historians appear to have published on the issue. Ehrman most certainly does not qualify. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Young man? I wish, I wish... As I said, I am ok with "scholars of antiquity" which is exactly what the source states and the page states. Ehrman is widely used in Wikipedia, even on the Christ myth theory page. He is totally WP:RS, and is widely used in Wikipedia on the topic. And I absolutely maintain that your approach of "saying precisely zero" about the larger audience will deviate from the sources. I absolutely maintain that. You can not just pick a "half sentence" out of Van Voorst. The sources are not silent on the wider group of scholars. Again, "suggesting precisely zero what a wider group of scholars might think" is not the way to develop an encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Very well, I take back the "young man" and limit myself to "don't patronise me", because that's exactly what you did. And if you want to address me by my first name (you're welcome), kindly do me the courtesy of telling me your own first name. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Martijn Meijering asked for a citation from Grant; that's already in the article. I begin to find this discussion a little strange. Why the insistence on Ehrman's status as "not a historian"? We don't claim he is one himself, do we? (In fact, we no longer mention "historians" in that entire paragraph, and I do think that's an improvement.) But whatever specialization Ehrman personally may have, he's certainly in a position to speak with authority on the academic consensus among all scholars of antiquity. We can go to the reliable sources noticeboard for another opinion on Ehrman's status as a source on the academic consensus in these closely related fields, but I don't think that's necessary. And Ehrman is just one of almost a half dozen reliable sources on this single point - not on the existence itself, but on the consensus about the existence. Regarding the historians Martijn Meijering mentioned above: As long as none of them commented on the scholarly consensus, they're irrelevant to this discussion. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; we need more than a list of individual opinions to question multiple sources explicitly commenting on the majority opinion among scholars. Martijn Meijering also asked me whether I find the scathing criticism from Akenson and the criticism from NT scholars the least bit worrying. I haven't read Akenson or those NT scholars, so I'm in no position to be worried by them. But unless and until their criticism is accepted as valid by the academic mainstream we should not give them undue weight just because we personally agree with that criticism. If they manage to re-open the debate about the existence of some historical Jesus and we have a source to that effect, great, let's add it. Do we have such a source? Huon (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
(Neutral observer opinion) I think this whole debate is horse puckey and the sooner we get to WP:ARBCOM for a decision about the "Existence of Jesus" controversy [sic] the better. History2007: I hope you will forgive me for unwatching this one page, because this particular article is too unwieldy and controversial to be saved by any one editor. (The sooner you admit that for yourself, the more time you will save for other worthy endeavors.) Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Does Arbcom rule over minor issues content like this? In any case, Martijn is the only one arguing about the sources not being qualified. Arbcom is an amazingly loooong endeavor and takes for ever. I hope this can be resolved here if other editors comment and consensus can be reached. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
From my subjective observation point it looks very much as if I'm talking to a wall here. We shouldn't need to think about Arbcom before we've even begun to have a factual discussion. I'm trying to make a precise point, and you appear to be responding to a point I didn't even make. I'll take my share of responsibility for the lack of effective communication, but no more than that. From where I'm standing it doesn't look as if you're making much of an effort.
To repeat, I'm not criticising the sources offered as being qualified to speak to a majority of biblical scholars holding a certain opinion. They're absolutely fine for that. I'm not arguing existence itself either way. I'm merely addressing whether the sources offered meet the criteria of [[WP::AC]] among scholars of antiquity and to me it seems that very clearly they do not, because 1) they appear to be almost exclusively limited to the much smaller subgroup of departments of theology or religion and therefore not representative of the larger group and 2) the statements they make (with the exception of Ehrman) are not logically equivalent to the statement in the article. Grant for instance speaks of "scholars" without being specific and only addresses scholars who have actually taken a position.
I agree with Huon's point that scholars of antiquity is an improvement over historians, but I contend it is still too broad and unsupported by the quotes that have been offered. I'll be happy to be better informed if I'm mistaken, but I see no real engagement with my arguments. It's hard to have a discussion if your arguments are being ignored instead of responded to. My concern is emphatically not to promote mythicism, as I said I'm agnostic on the issue, and I don't even care too strongly either way, though I'd be curious which of the two is true.
My goal is to make sure that what the article says does not mislead the reader into believing the issue has been more widely studied than it really has been, and I contend the article stil does that. In my opinion the change to "scholars of antiquity" was an improvement, but more is needed. Perhaps you disagree and that is fine, but why on Earth wouldn't you want to help me to address these concerns? Surely it would be for the better of the article to improve neutrality and accuracy?
Maybe I'm not hearing some of your own concerns accurately either, in which case I'd be happy to learn about them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Ehrman is out of his depth when he asserts that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus exists? And that Van Voorst, who speaks not just of biblical scholars but explicitly of classical historians, likewise doesn't know what he's talking about? And that when Grant in a book written in his role as a historian and so named talks about "scholars", that's not meant as a more general term than "biblical scholars", or that there might be a significant number of people who think Jesus didn't exist but somehow don't publish on the topic? And that Price, who is an expert on historicity, somehow is unaware of a widespread sentiment that agrees with his own position? I have ... problems with that, in particular since one would expect that if all the biblical scholars misrepresented the consensus among other relevant scholarly branches someone would speak up and set the record straight - the record on the consensus, that is, and despite History2007's repeated questions we have seen no source to that effect.
Maybe we disagree on a more basic level about what "academic consensus" means. Of course Grant only speaks of those scholars who have published on the subject - because firstly, there's no way to know what the others think unless you happen to ask them in person, and secondly, if they haven't published, their opinion is utterly irrelevant for the academic consensus. Similarly, I'd have thought it self-evident that Ehrman's claim about "virtually every scholar" technically also holds only for those who have actually published on that question. After all, an archaeologist specializing in the Peloponnesian War who has never published on Jesus is also a "competent scholar of antiquity", but his opinion on Jesus' existence is just as irrelevant for the academic consensus as that of a nuclear physicist.
I've asked the RSN for input on whether or not Ehrman, Van Voorst and the others are reliable sources on the academic consensus among more than just the biblical scholars. Should I have failed to clearly express your concerns, please correct me over there. Huon (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll do that if necessary, but I resent the fact that you jump to bringing in others before constructively replying to my arguments first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually Huon, 2 sections above that I had posted on WP:RSN asking for opinions also. And I suggest that there should be just one post there. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that there should be just one section at the RSN; I've removed mine and instead commented on History2007's. Secondly, since I believe we all agree that the article gives a faithful rendition of what Ehrman says, the question of whether Ehrman is qualified to speak about the scholarly consensus among all scholars of antiquity or not seems central to the dispute. I say he is because scholars usually do know what happens in closely related fields, and Ehrman, Van Voorst and the others wouldn't make claims about the wider community if they didn't mean it or didn't know what they're talking about. (Besides, he got it published with a reputable publisher.) Martijn Meijering apparently says he isn't because he and the rest of the biblical scholars only talk among themselves and ignore (or are ignorant about?) other related fields where publications on the issue might be comparativley scarce (except Van Voorst who explicitly mentions the classical historians). I don't think either of us is likely to convince the other any more than we've been able to do so over the past few weeks. Getting more input thus seemed the natural course of action and not something to be resented - I tried to be as neutral as possible so the people at RSN could take an unbiased look. Besides, I explained yesterday that the RSN seemed the next step to me but for my belief that we didn't need to bother them with what I considered a trivial question. Since Martijn Meijering seemed to disagree with my answer to that question, I took the next step. Why is that a problem? Finally, I believe I did address Martijn Meijering's arguments, but maybe we're talking so much at cross-purposes that we don't even understand each other's arguments any more - and my solution would once again be to bring in someone new who may understand both arguments. Huon (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if you accept that scholars from a neighbouring field qualify in general (which seems like an enormous and undesirable widening of the criteria), or in this particular case (but then why?), there remains the matter of John P. Meier (a major biblical scholar in Historical Jesus research) who says his field has been "doing theology and calling it history", the historian Akenson who has published on the Historical Jesus, and who has been scathing about the lack of impartiality and sound historical methodological soundness amount HJ scholars. They too ought then to be considered as scholars on the subject and they impeach the argument that biblical scholars should be considered historians. I've named several other respectable sources and I'd be happy to provide details of their statements. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Does any of them dispute the statement that the vast majority of scholars agrees Jesus existed? They seem to argue that the vast majority is wrong, but they also seem to agree that the field is almost unanimous in its opinion. Also, I do accept that scholars who write about the general consensus on a question that squarely falls within their area of expertise should be treated as reliable sources. Otherwise we'd be second-guessing published scholarly sources, and once we start that, where do we stop? Huon (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
None of them do. But my line of argument was not to offer a list of scholars holding a dissenting view. I don't understand why you and History2007 seem to think that was my line of argument, because it would be totally illogical. You don't disprove a majority of scholars hold a certain opinion by offering examples of scholars who dissent. At best that would prove the agreement isn't universal, which isn't good enough to disprove the statement. Besides, by WP policy we aren't supposed to count sources ourselves, but to rely on an assessment by scholars in the field. My line of argument is that the range of scholars considered in the statement has been drawn too widely, and that the sources that have been offered are not RS for that whole range. In other words, I disagree with your assertion that the issue falls squarely within the area of expertise of the scholars that were mentioned. Either additional sources should be supplied (my personal belief is no such scholars exist, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong), or the statement about a consensus should be limited to the people who have actualy published on the matter, who are almost exclusively biblical scholars and only a handful of scholars from other fields. My attempts at a better formulation have not met with approval though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no problem at all with posting on RSN. And from what I have seen Martijn Meijering wants to "modify Ehrman's quote", as I explained below, and that can not be done, based on Wikipedia policy. If professor A writes Europe, his quote can not be changed to say half of Europe. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The alleged quote is not in fact a quote, but an attempted summary of what various writers say. As I said, I have no problem with presenting it as a quote by Ehrman, in other words a report, an opinion by a named source. This is standard WP policy. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Attribution is usually only required when the statement is controversial, but there are lots of sources corroborating Ehrman's statement (though not in exactly the same words) and none contradicting it. WP:RS/AC requires that statements about the academic consensus be sourced, but it doesn't require us to only use quotes about the scholarly consensus. Huon (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
My preference is not attribution, I only mentioned that as a possibility because History2007 objected to changing the wording on the grounds that it didn't precisely match the source (but how on Earth how could it, with multiple sources each using their own wording?). The exact wording is only relevant in an attributed opinion, so I think his objection is flawed. If History2007 insists on sticking to Ehrman's reading rather than a fair summary of the various sources he should present the exact reading as an attributed quote. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, there are multiple scholars who say the same thing. The problem started with your attempt at saying "exactly zero about the wider audience". This is a straightforward situation: Hardly anyone with an academic position disputes the existence of Jesus. That is what Ehrman/Van Voorst etc all say. Why is all this long dance necessary? History2007 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

lead paragraph

i was just going to make a couple of slight changes to the lead and read a message that said that it was necessary to explain here first - all it is is i dont think 'self-described' Messiah is quite right, - that was more a label put on him surely by others, than he went round saying 'im the messiah' - in the gospel of Thomas he says the one who said 'no one can say who you are' is the closest to the truth didn't he? , - and then i think the bit about 'the awaited messiah of the OLd testament' - is very un-nuanced - was there a set view of what the title meant, and what the various books of the OLd Testament all led readers to await? it needs more nuanced expression somehow imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the "self described" item is probably left over from long ago, and the whole issue of whether he called himself Messiah is totally non-historical. In fact, there are only 8 things that scholars "roughly" agree on 4+4: "He was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans". Then that: "He was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted". Even then some argue that he never called disciples. So exactly as you stated that part is somewhat of an over generalization and needs a fix. The issue is that it probably came from the Historical Jesus article, which is mostly incorrect and was not the place to get things from. So I think you are right. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Date styles

I know there is virtually no chance for common sense to prevail here, but the current mediation at The Beatles reminded me of the absurdity of "BC/BCE/AD/CE" all being used together. Picture that poll being closed as: "In order to keep everyone happy, all references to the band will now be written as "The/the Beatles". Now of course a solution that crazy would never be implemented in a million years. Yet it continues here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It should obviously be BC and AD (with AD before the date, naturally) because there's no such thing as BCE and CE. 46.11.108.165 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It's posts displaying that much certainty that create many of the problems here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Huh, if CE and BCE don't exist then it's awfully odd that we have an article on the subject at Common Era. It's also quite odd that this nonexistent dating format would be used in academia and scientific publishing. You should get on the phones right away and start informing universities across the world of your discovery! Sædontalk 03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for either style. I'm arguing the absolute absurdity of using both. --Joefromrandb (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The current system may be absurd, but I don't think we can agree on a simpler one. There doesn't seem to be consensus for either BC/AD or BCE/CE. Huon (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many times now on this talk page, with no resolution. Personally I could not care either way, so I will not support either format. But using the current style seems to be the one this page is stuck with. And it may not make much difference to the rest of the world either way anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article is not titled "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE," so the Beatles comparison is a bit off. A more apt comparison would be this article using "Jesus/Yeshua" throughout the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There was an article somewhere (maybe NY Times) that basically chuckled at Wikipedia over the Beatles discussion and how people spend so much time on it. It mentioned JC Clemens as the mediator in the article I remember.... History2007 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, this date style is ridiculous and the problem comes up way too often. (see this and this for examples.) I am pretty certain that there is broad consensus to change it, so unless anyone has a strong objection, I suggest that we change all the dates to BC/AD. JZCL 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Isn't September over? Anyways, if its only about changing it, I'm fine with going to the culturally and religiously neutral CE/BCE, in line with most modern academic texts. But AD/BC is unacceptable via God's commandment and respect for different beliefs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
And in the two posts above me, you can see why the article uses CE/AD. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the situation is far graver. As we all know, storing information needs energy, and energy is mass. If you go through the archives, you will see that this discussion has already generated enough bits that we are very close to a gravitational collapse that will draw this talk page, the main page, and possibly half of Wikipedia, into an informational singularity that will consume all useful contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Given the imminent space-time collapse would it be at all possible to devise some sort of wormhole through which we can rescue some fragments of the project? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading right from the first sentence.

The very first sentence reads as such:

"Jesus ( /ˈdʒiːzəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iēsous; 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of Christianity, whom a majority of Christian denominations worship as God the Son incarnated."

It starts off fine, but the last part of the sentence that makes the claim that a majority of Christian denominations worship as God the son incarnated does not site a source for that particular little factoid somebody just decided to throw in. "God the Son" is primarily a Catholic thing since its origin can be traced to the Doctrine of the Trinity. Also, since it states that a majority of Christian denominations believe this, shouldn't a reference be added regarding the other side of this? Nothing is said about the Christian denominations that believe that Jesus was the "Son of God" but not "God the Son."

Mathematically, even if a source is provided that proves this claim is not just "new research" -- we still run into the problem of why it is significant. Let's say there are 50 Christian denominations with varying amounts of members. Now let's also say that 45 of the 50 denominations believe a certain thing that the remaining 5 of the 50 do not. Let's now say that the 5 denominations contain more members than all of the 45 other denominations combined. So, if these numbers were actually real, then claims could be made such as "The majority of Christian denominations believe this." --- Which is misleading because while the majority of denominations believe it, the majority of Christians in fact, do not. The hypothetical situation that I have just provided should be enough reason to justify why a source needs to be included. If no source is provided I recommend that the sentence have the questionable material removed so that it reads as such:

"Jesus ( /ˈdʒiːzəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iēsous; 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth is the central figure of Christianity."

Xuninc (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It should probably say Son of God which is not in dispute, given that it appears on the first page of the Gospel of Mark. I don't think it even needs debate here because Christian theology should be secondary in this secular article. History2007 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better. I don't recall ever hearing the expression "God the Son incarnated" in the mainstream denomination I used to be part of. But "Son of God", all the time HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Son of God has been part of the earliest creeds and appears in the Nicene Creed - so is really widespread. History2007 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article's assertion is valid and apposite. If the majority of Christians espouse a belief in the Trinity - as indeed they do - then ipso facto the majority of Christians worship the second member of the Trinity as God. Orthotox (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While that's technically true, an even greater number of Christians worship Jesus as the Son of God. I don't think we need to discuss the finer points of Christology in the very first sentence. Huon (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Technically accurate, but misleading, Huon. Most Christians believe in the trinity, which, in short, will mean that a Christian believes that Jesus is God and that Jesus is the son of God. The majority of Christians worship Jesus as God, even though he is the Son of the Father.
As for the initial claim - we are talking about the lede. Ideally, it contains no sources, being just a summary of the rest of the article.Farsight001 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
There is also the question of "pragmatism". Many people read this page and regardless of the underlying reasoning more talk page discussion will ensue with the God the Son. And as the initial comment showed, many people do not know that the lede does not necessarily need refs, etc. History2007 (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

St Catherine's monastery image

The Christ image from St Catherine's monastery was added at the top, and I will just note here that it had been discussed at length on talk, it is somewhere in the archives. That image is considered a great artistic item, but is suitable for the Christ page, not the Jesus page in that it has the Hypostatic union theological concept built into it, as discussed before. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeking opinions on sources

Based on past and present discussions, it may be a good idea to seek opinions on the use of sources within this page, specially with respect to existence. The sources and statements in question are:

  • A: Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press page 285
  • B: Robert M. Price agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61
  • C Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications page 200
  • D Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
  • F Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Press page 34

My view is that Ehrman is a really well established professor in the field and Harper Collins is certainly WP:RS. Price (an atheist) is making a statement that assesses the field as relates to his view (directly related). Grant is a highly respected scholar - and no one here is disputing him anyway. Van Voorst's book has been called the "best recent discussion on the topic" and "The fullest compilation of all this data". Dunn, Burridge and Stanton are highly decorated professors with books by reliable publishers.

Moreover, I think it is essential to observe three points:

  • There are no opposing sources whatsover. No one is saying that there are sources that dispute Ehrman's statement, or Van Voorst's quote, etc. There is no opposition whatsover in terms of other WP:RS sources to what the sources say.
  • These scholars are not expressing their own opinions, bu are providing a survey of the Academic consensus per WP:RS/AC. The only methodology they are using is counting how many people are on each side of the debate
  • All of these scholars (almost all well established professors) are intimately involved in the field. They are not new to the topic.

I think these are totally WP:RS sources.

Comments from other editors will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

one of the books listed in the bibliography at the end - E P Sanders, the Historical figure of Jesus - Paul Johnson called it 'a non-dogmatic study of the evidence by a leading expert' - so maybe using Sanders as a source would be good to add to the others , he is widely respected - the other sources seem fair enough too as you say- and i think from what i've heard said elsewhere- by John Romer on the TV series 'Testament' for eg.- the sentence in the lead as it stands is fair enough imo. Sayerslle (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as you said Sanders is widely respected, and a non-believer. Further down, the page currently says: "both E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell of his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story" And Fredriksen is also highly respected and a non-believers, as is Geza Vermes who is also quoted. So there are plenty of respected scholars who are quoted. The reason for using the 8 sources above, however, was that they are not even expressing their own view, just "counting how many scholars there are on each side of the debate" per WP:RS/AC. And as you said the statements they make are consistent, reasonable by modern scholarly standards and have no conflict with any sources we have seen. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say we're overdoing it if I hadn't watched the discussion about the statement supported by all those sources. They are clearly reliable; the scholars we cite are experts in their field and should know the consensus among their colleagues, and no sources dispute the conclusion they draw. What more could we possibly want? Huon (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course they're reliable when it comes to their colleagues, I object to wording that goes beyond that circle. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Two points: First, it must be clarified that biblical scholarship is distinct from theology and as the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies states it includes archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. So these authors are fully immersed in the field and know who writes what.

I don't think I said or implied anything about theology, the term I used was biblical scholarship or NT scholarship. I'm well aware of the difference as I pointed out to you earlier. If you think the article needs to spell that out more clearly, then I'm not stopping you. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondly you can not (really not) modify what a source says and take half of what it says. Let me clarify this with an example:

  • Professor A (who teaches in Germany) writes that Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Europe.
  • You think he does not necessarily know of the lakes in Spain and should only talk about lakes in Eastern Europe.
  • You do not have any professor B who says there is a larger lake anywhere in Europe. So no source disputes professor A.

You cannot modify the quote by professor A to say "Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Eastern Europe". You can not do that. And that is specially true if there is not even one source that disputes what professor A states. Moreover, we have six other sources that confirm what professor A states.

This is not the situation we're in. It's not that professor X makes a factual statement Y, it's that professor A makes a statement about a consensus of scholars in field B holding opinion C. The situation we're dealing with is statements about an academic consensus, for which WP has specific rules, which I mentioned to you before, after having pointed out my line of argument was emphatically not what you just said. And in fact right below you go on to mention the self-same criteria! Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/AC:

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.

You can not use your own assessment of the scholarly consensus. If professor A said Europe, you cannot modify it to say half of Europe based on your own assessment. That is Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do I have to keep pointing out that I was arguing precisely that the sources offered do not meet the standards WP sets for making statements about an academic consensus, rather than offering my own assessment. You accuse me of offering my own assessment, when in fact I was insisting we shouldn't and should instead use WP's specific criteria for this case. In this vein I'm claiming your set of sources do not support the very wide consensus that is being alleged. Your complaints of not getting sources contradicting "opinion C" amounts to asking for personal assessment of a consensus, precisely what you've argued we shouldn't be doing! Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of whether the quoted sources support the statement

New section so as not to disrupt the flow of arguments made by History2007.

It is my understanding that in order to make a statement S "a majority of scholars in field X hold opinion Y" WP verifiability criteria require a quote from a source RS who is a) a reliable source on field X who b) actually states S, as opposed to some vaguely similar statement or as opposed to merely stating Y. It is not generally sufficient that RS is a reliable source on a related field. As an example, we would not generally accept a physicist as a RS on mathematics. Nevertheless additional evidence might be produced to demonstrate that specific individuals from neighbouring fields do qualify. It is my understanding that Grant is an example of this.

If I'm wrong about these things, then I'll be happy to be better informed, especially if people go about it in a friendly way, instead of shouting down legitimate and sincere concerns.

Now, let me go through the quoted sources one by one and explain where I think they do not meet the standards. If my understanding above about the required criteria is defective, then all this may be moot, but let's get to that when people have had the opportunity to respond.

But before I start, let me stress that I consider all these scholars fine sources that have valuable things to say that ought to be quoted in the article. My concern is to find a wording that doesn't misrepresent the strength of academic opinion on the matter. Even if you don't share the concern yourself, I hope you'll agree that the concern is at least legitimate, in that if the wording were to mislead ordinary readers as to the strength of academic consensus, then that would be a bad thing.

The statement S that we are considering is "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." The trouble here is that scholarship of antiquity is not a single field, it includes classics, ancient history, biblical scholarship and who knows what, and scholars are not generally competent in all subfields. For example, the average ancient historian is not generally expected to be up to speed with the details of thinking among biblical scholars. I think that generally speaking classicists ought to be allowed as reliable sources on opinions among classicists etc, and that additional evidence would be needed to quote them on the thinking among biblical scholars.

Again, maybe I'm wrong about this, but hopefully you'll at least see where I'm coming from before you run to Arbcom or wherever before having engaged my arguments.

Now on to the sources.

  • A: Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press page 285
The statement S clearly does match what is said in the article, but while Ehrman is a scholar of antiquity, he cannot be expected to speak for all scholars of antiquity, in particular ancient historians or classicists. He does look like an excellent source for biblical scholars. That still leaves us in need of additional sources for the other subfields.
  • B: Robert M. Price agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61
No evidence has been offered that Price has supported statement S. He is merely paraphrased as saying his views runs against the majority of scholars, presumably those who have published on the matter. It says nothing about the vast majority who haven't, while statement S does. Price's claim is far less sweeping than S. In addition, Price is a biblical scholar, so again we only have the subfield of biblical scholarship covered.
  • C Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications page 200
Grant is a classicist and historian and therefore covers two bases. Again, he makes a far less sweeping statement than S. He says nothing about a majority of scholars of antiquity, instead he refers to the much, much smaller group of scholars who have published on the subject.
  • D Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
Van Voorst covers biblical scholarship, but not classical historians. Again, he makes a far less sweeping statement than S. No mention of the vast legions of scholars of antiquity who are neither biblical scholars nor classical historians or of the vast majority who have never published on the matter or those who are professionally agnostic on the issue.
Again, a biblical scholar, though this time with an even more sweeping statement. The brief quote doesn't allow further analysis.
  • F Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Press page 34
Yet another biblical scholar. He merely states that he doesn't know any respectable critical scholar who disagrees, which is not the same as saying virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Maybe he doesn't know enough people, or not outside the field of historical critical bible scholarship, or perhaps the vast majority of scholars of antiquity don't hold a professional opinion on the matter.
Stanton is a biblical scholar, not a historian, so his statement on historians doesn't count. He doesn't make any statement about other scholars of antiquity, so he's no help there either.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's not as if these fine gentlemen have nothing important to say. I think that together they amply demonstrate something that to the best of my knowledge no one has disputed:

The vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue of the historicity of Jesus have come out in favour of it. Only a small group of serious scholars and a somewhat larger group of nonserious scholars dispute it.

I'd be happy with that statement, but that's not what S says. In my opinion S enlists vast legions of scholars in support of historicity who have never published on it or even studied it. That's what I want to change, and I believe I should be able to count on your help to find a form of words that alleviates my concerns, or at the very least that you don't sabotage this or go running off to Arbcom or whatever to quash discussion. My initial proposal to change the wording to "biblical scholars" didn't meet your approval, and I'd love to hear other constructive suggestions.

Another thing that deserves to be mentioned, or at the very least not denied by implication, is that while the vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue have been professional "scholars of antiquity" and that by definition every serious scholar from another field who has studied the matter is at least a nonprofessional "scholar of antiquity", the scholars tend to come from one very specific subfield, namely biblical scholarship. It is true that there have been scholars from other fields (modern history, ancient history, classics, English literature and no doubt others), but they are a tiny minority among a vast majority of biblical scholars, just like mythicists are a tiny minority among scholars in general. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So the long and short of it is this: You think the situation is described by:
  • I: The vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue of the historicity of Jesus have come out in favour of it.
  • II: Only a small group of serious scholars and a somewhat larger group of nonserious scholars dispute it.
The first problem is that you do not have a source for "I". But you have effectively conceded that all the sources above are totally valid. Again, in terms of the above, you can not (really not) construct your own quote that ""Lake Ladoga is the largest lake among all lakes in Europe which have been measured by a team of geologists". If professor A has a quote Q that says "Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Europe", you cannot perform interior decoration on his quote to construct quote Q2 to fit your personal assessment. Secondly, there are no "nonserious scholars". I think you mean to refer to "popular writers" who do not hold academic positions. They are generally called popular writers, and in terms of scholarship, they matter not. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Statement S was not presented as a quoted opinion, and does not represent a common quote, but a summary of various views. The wording is certainly very different from what the other sources than Ehrman have said, which is not surprising since they all use different wording.
As for "conceding" a point, I have never disagreed that these are fine sources to use in the article, and I have repeatedly said they are fine. What I did and do say is that they do not meet what I believe to be the technical criteria (reliable source from the field in question, clear statement about a majority of opinion among the whole group for which it is being claimed) for the claim about academic consensus among a certain group of scholars as it is currently worded. It's fine to disagree on the specifics, and even better to see if we might reach agreement. I'd be fine with changing the wording of the claim, or with turning the claim into a quote by a named source rather than a sourced statement per standard WP:NPOV procedure. It doesn't help if you react to strawman arguments I didn't make and have repeatedly and emphatically denied making or even agreeing with. You didn't like my suggestions, perhaps you have suggestions of your own. I'd like to think we all have the same goal here, to serve neutrality and verifiability.
You didn't address my point about the individual scholars not being qualified to act as a RS about the whole group (scholars of antiquity) for the which the claim of censensus is made, nor the fact that except for Ehrman and Dunn they don't even make the sweeping statement. More importantly, you show no sign of constructively helping me address a sincere concern. Instead you seem to be responding combatively. You didn't like my initial suggestion of saying "biblical scholars", nor my second attempt at a rephrasing that addresses my concerns. Perhaps you have constructive suggestions of your own?
I didn't understand your point about nonserious scholars. Grant says very few serious scholars have disagreed with historicity. I don't know of a better term for the group of scholars whom he does not take seriously than nonserious scholars. Maybe it's not an important point, but I'd like to make sure I understand your point. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your point N times now, with N rapidly approaching infinity. I think Ehrman is totally qualified to address the issue and his statement is exactly right. And I think the distinction you are making about their specialties is absolute nitpicking, artificial and surreal. I am sorry that is exactly what I think.

Look:

  • These professors (Ehrman, Grant, Van Voorst, etc.) all read the same journals that Goggle Scholar and Google books search. There are just a few major universities, a few major books and these professors do not have to go to Mars to find out which scholars support the historicity of Jesus and which do not. That is clear to everyone on this planet.
  • Everyone mentioned here (the professors) and the editors who type here, and the other Wikipedia articles all "agree" on the same thing: only a handful of people with PhDs (or perhaps even less) who teach at universities deny the existence of Jesus.

So trying to denigrate these professors based on their specialties, reconstruct what they say by adding long qualifiers, etc. is surreal, artificial and incorrect, specially when there are no opposing sources. I am sorry, that is exactly what I think. History2007 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I came back with a hunch that I had perhaps misunderstood your request for an opposing opinion, and that you were asking for an opinion contradicting consensus rather than one contradicting existence. But I see you are back to your snooty, intransigent and uncooperative attitude. You still haven't addressed my sincere concern or offered any help. Either offer to help or kindly get out of the way.
I am not denigrating these professors, I have repeatedly said positive things about them. I am not questioning whether they can do a Google search, but that is not the relevant criterion, since you and I can do a Google search too and that emphatically is not enough ground for a statement on consensus as WP:RS/AC clearly states. The question is not whether Ehrman can do a Google search, it's whether he is a reliable source on historians and I contend it is far from obvious he is. I'm open to persuasion he is if additional evidence is offered, or if you engage with my argument instead of simply repeating your own. That way you might lead me to see the error of my ways, or to clarify my argument and either way increase understanding.
Let me add another consideration to the mix: I believe Ehrman himself, and if not him then other prominent HJ researchers, have criticised the historian Richard Carrier as being unqualified to offer an opinion on the historicity of Jesus because he is a historian, not a biblical scholar with knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew and Syriac. So are we to believe that Ehrman is qualified to speak about historians because he is a biblical scholar, but historians aren't qualified to speak about biblical scholars? That's a strange double standard. And by your reasoning, is Ehrman qualified to address the opinion of a majority of the combined set of biblical scholars and nuclear physicists, being a member of that combined set?
Why is it that you are so defensive about Ehrman's qualifications to speak about historians and scholars of antiquity in general? Why insist on Ehrman's wording and not choose Grant's formulation instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
* Everyone mentioned here (the professors) and the editors who type here, and the other Wikipedia articles all "agree" on the same thing: only a handful of people with PhDs (or perhaps even less) who teach at universities deny the existence of Jesus.
A point I have made several times myself. But that is not what the statement "a majority of scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed" says, the latter is a much more sweeping statement. And yet you appear to insist on the sweeping statement, despite my concern it will mislead people as to the size of the academic consensus. Maybe you don't share my concern, but why not help me alleviate it? What harm could possibly come of it? I don't see any, but if you do, kindly speak up. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, as stated before, you have no basis for your view that 7 scholars listed above are not capable of counting how many people there are on each side of the debate. The only way they could not know that is if there are scholars they are unaware of, or journals they are unaware of. And where are these hiding scholars who oppose historicity? And why is it that the likes of Ehrman, Van Voorst or Grant are unaware of them or their views? Are these other scholars on Mars? Do we need to send the Mars rover to look for them? No.
Again, you misstate my position. My view was emphatically not that Ehrman et al cannot count, in fact I explicitly stated that that was not the issue. My point is that they do not meet WP technical criteria of WP:RS/AC if the consensus in question is to extend to neighbouring fields. Counting is not enough, not if you or I do it, not if someone from a neighbouring field does it. A consensus in a field needs an expert from exactly that field. And scholarship of "antiquity" isn't even a field, it encompasses a number of fields, and Ehrman is only an expert in one, and Grant in two. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
As all sources and lists indicate, there are "a handful of academics" (or less) who deny historicity and you have directly admitted that they are a "tiny minority". Do you have "a few sources" that per WP:RS/AC state that a good number of scholars of antiquity have stated that they are agnostic on the existence of Jesus? Or is that your "personal opinion?" The long and short of it is that you seem to think these 7 professors are not capable of counting the number of people on each side of the debate, and based on your own superior knowledge you know better and need to remedy their errors. That is not so. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no such sources, nor do I need them because the onus is on those alleging consensus to support it by reliable sources, not on those who oppose them (or are merely skeptical, like myself) to find reliable sources. By WP policy mere counting is not enough, and I don't need to remedy their "error", you are the one who needs to find reliable sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is good. You have now clearly stated that you have no sources that oppose the sources presented such as Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. or that provide any different assessment. However, regarding your statement that "by WP policy mere counting is not enough" you seem to be confusing the number of scholars surveyed per WP:RS/AC with the "internal Wikipedia policy" WP:CON where counting is not enough. WP:CON applies to Wiki-editors, not expressions of academic consensus among scholars, most of whom have been fortunate enough never to have read Wikipedia policies. History2007 (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus

Given the length of the discussion above, I think a more solid analysis would be in order, instead of abstract discussions. So here is a list compiled from the Wiki page on Christ myth theory which lists the main proponents of the myth theory as G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty. I have also done other web searches.

The list makes it clear that

  • "not a single academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus."

If any editor here knows of any other academics, please enlighten me. I would like to know.

Here is the list:

  • Robert M. Price: He has a PhD is theology and is a biblical scholar. He is said to be teaching at the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary", an organization not notable enough as of this writing to have a Wikipedia which seems to be just a website without an actual campus or actual classes, or any higher education accreditation. He also teaches at CFI Institute which does not seem to be a university of any type, and mostly teaches online courses or summer classes. Price can be considered a scholar, but he does not teach at a major institution. He acknowledges that hardly any one agrees with him.
  • Thomas L. Thompson: Was a professor of theology in Sweden (now retired) and denies existence. Thompson's arguments were never accepted by the academic community at large and he worked as an interior decorator for over a decade until he found a position.
Heh, talk about denigrating scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I was being nice, saying interior decorator. The second paragraph of his Wiki-bio says other things. I was being nice. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Richard Carrier: He has a PhD, but is not an academic and does not teach at any university. Carrier's professional occupation (beyond his blog) remains unclear.

In this list there are only two clear ex-academics who deny existence: Ellegård and Thompson plus Price who is a biblical scholar and may be considered a scholar, but not an academic really. That makes 3 at best. R. Joseph Hoffmann supports Gnosticism, but is not a direct denier of existence and listed as a supporter of existence by the Wikipedia page on Christ myth theory.

Are there 30 scholars out there who deny existence? No. Do any of them still teach at a major institution? No. Even if Carrier is considered a scholar, that is still less than a handful of deniers, but none of these people is currently holding an academic position at a major institution.

G. A. Wells is a professor of German. He was (and is) widely acknowledged as the leader of the Christ myth theorists. Wells no longer denies the existence of Jesus. Wells did a U-turn in his last book after the evidence from the Q source documents had been explained to him.

There are also academics such as John P. Meier, Donald Akenson and Hector Avalos who have criticized the methods used in biblical studies but none of these on their own denies the existence of Jesus, and Meier is a strong supporter of existence. Paula Fredriksen considers the Christian gospels to be mostly fiction but she firmly supports the existence of Jesus. There are hardly any academics (depending on if one counts Price in or out, etc.) that deny existence and still teach in a major institution.

Then there are the popular writers generally listed as Earl Doherty, John Allegro, Acharya S, Christopher Hitchens, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. None of these writers has a PhD, none has been an academic and Doherty and Acharya own the small publishing companies that self-publish their books. There are also a number of non-academics who write popular or self-published books to support existence, but none of these matter in terms of "academic support", either way.

So really, there is no "academic support" for the non-existence of Jesus among professors who are still teaching at major institutions. If there are a significant number of professors who deny the existence of Jesus, they must be teaching on Mars, and perhaps the Mars rover will find them soon. But there are certainly no professors teaching at Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford or Berkeley who deny the existence of Jesus. That seems certain.

If there are professors currently teaching at major institutions who deny the existence of Jesus, please do inform me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ, a Magical Figure to do with Religion and The Bible. It does not make any difference what scholars think and believe, the evidence shows there is no evidence for a historical Christ. The Bible is a collection of contrived documents founded on religious faith. The established Church was not founded on historical provenance but rather on what people preferred to believe. Mention all these points to University scholars who BELIEVE in a historical Jesus Christ and they all remain silent. This Wikipedia article is a product of religious propaganda. Nittoditto (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Give me five minutes live time on television with Bart Ehrman, he will provide no answers to any of the points because the historical evidence just does not exist about Jesus Christ. I have raised these points about historicity with scholars and they remained silent on the matter. Everything exists solely on the basis of special pleading. Nittoditto (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that you are a new user (I presume) I would suggest a reading of WP:V. Wikipedia does not work on debates on TV, or personal opinions, but what sources state. And Ehrman (who is no longer a Christian) is not the only scholar who supports existence, there are many, many of others, e.g. Geza Vermes, etc.. I have a feeling Vermes would be a livelier debate, if you want to take him on... But in any case, all Wkipedi can use are "sources, not facts". WP:V explains that. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
What scholars privately believe and what constitutes independent historical evidence are two different issues. Nittoditto (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a worthwhile point to explain. What scholars "privately believe" can not be used in Wikipedia. A scholar may privately believe that the earth is triangular, but unless he publishes that in a reputable source it can not be used in Wikipedia per WP:V. Please read that policy page. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Scholars have indeed expressed their personal and private beliefs that Jesus Christ existed in reliable and reputable sources, and that's all they amount to. Nittoditto (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Once they have expressed it in a publication, it is a public statement, no longer private. But I will stop now. This is not a "content issue" any more, a "policy issue" per WP:V. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I will stop as well now, since there never will be any honest and reliable Wikipedia article on this subject matter. Nittoditto (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That may be true, but History2007 was correct in the argument he just made. One of the techniques we have on WP to deal with issues of bias is that of WP:NPOV. If a source makes a potentially controversial, subjective statement, we can always rephrase it as "source X says Y", which is an objective statement about someone holding an opinion. So instead of saying "the minimum wage leads to youth unemployment", we can say "economist X says that the minimum wage leads to youth unemployment".
We don't do that if source X merely states the common position in the field in question. If challenged, we can always look for a source that supports the alleged consensus. We don't do that by counting, or by constructing an argument that some expert should be able to count, instead we rely on the criterion set by WP:RS/AC, which is a statement by an academic in the field, not about the truth of the statement, but as to the consensus in that specific field. It's not necessary that the expert agrees with the statement himself, just that he states there exists a consensus.
The source in question may happen to know that the consensus in fact extends to other fields, but unless he happens to be an expert in those fields too, as far as WP is concerned this is insufficient evidence about a consensus in the other fields. For instance we can use an expert in homeopathy claiming a consensus among practitioners of homeopathy as sufficient evidence to state that there is in fact such a consensus.
Whether we personally agree with the statement, or believe in homeopathy doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if we can produce a count of proponents and opponents that appears to contradict the expert, since as far as WP is concerned mere counting isn't enough. We rely on experts on specific fields to make that determination for us. It's a different matter if the expert were to claim that physicists also agree. It may be true (at least in theory, you and I might doubt it, but since we aren't experts our opinions don't count), but since an expert on homeopathy isn't automatically an expert on physics, any claim about a consensus by physicists doesn't count. If we can find a physicist who agrees as to the consensus among physicists, then of course we can support the consensus among physicists too.
On the other hand, if we were to find an expert in the field who explicitly denies there is a consensus, then we can't simply pick the expert we prefer and either further analysis of the sources is necessary, or we simply cannot make a statement as to consensus on WP because the experts disagree. Note that this is different from finding an expert who merely disagrees about the truth of the underlying statement, rather than an academic consensus about it. This does not disqualify the expert making the claim about consensus, not even if we can produce a hundred sources contradicting the underlying statement. Conversely, the absence of a source contradicting the underlying statement cannot be taken as evidence of a consensus, as that would amount to something even less than counting. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, any evidence as to what Jesus' favorite salad was? History2007 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not to defend the approach of Nittoditto (nor his claim), but the argument by History2007 (looking at a small, necessarily incomplete list, applying an arguably arbitrary criterion, and then generalizing from those 5 instances to the universe) is not remotely sound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have made no claim that the list is complete. What I ask is: does anyone else have a larger list? Is there a larger list of PhD level academics who deny existence? My comment ended with that question. If there are 30 academics who deny existence, Wikipedia should mention them on the Christ myth theory page. Is there a longer list? History2007 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's apply the subject matter from the perspective of objective evidence, not from the personal and private beliefs of scholars with PhDs (that doesn't count for much) Nittoditto (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is nonsense. To be able to evaluate historical evidence, a significant amount of specialized skill and knowledge is required. A PhD in an appropriate field is neither necessary nor sufficient for that, but it is strongly correlated with the required qualifications. If you don't understand that, it's strong evidence that you suffer from a rather severe case of Dunning-Kruger effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, let's start taking the theories of Professor Eisenmann seriously. Nittoditto (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Eisenman doesn't as far as I know address the existence of a consensus, either among biblical scholars or more generally among scholars of antiquity. Even if Eisenmann is right, that merely means a majority of biblical scholars is wrong about their reconstructions of the HJ (which Eisenmann doesn't deny BTW, he is not a mythicist), not that they are wrong about there being a consensus. There is nothing wrong with stating there is a consensus among biblical scholars if that consensus does exist (and we have sufficient evidence for that), even if you and I were to disagree they are correct. The consensus is a fact, and it is a useful thing to mention in the article. The problem is that the consensus is being alleged for a far wider group of scholars than is warranted by the sources. In the case of Ehrman not because he doesn't make the sweeping claim, he does, but because he is only an expert in one of the subfields in question, which isn't enough. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I marked Nittoditto's user page as a sock puppet of indef-blocked User:Lung salad, and he did not even bother to deny it. Just too familiar. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Two-Fold Presentation Perspective

Wikipedia articles should be written from the following two-fold perspective: 1) providing current scholarly opinion and scholarly position and, 2) the nature of the evidence pertinent to the relevant subject matter. Thus for this article it can be presented that 99.9% of scholars believe in a historical Jesus Christ, while at the same time presenting there is no evidence for a historical Jesus Christ, providing relevant details (many of which are not found in Wikipedia articles as of today, 28 September 2012. Nittoditto (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, the article currently states: "No documents written by Jesus exist,[366] and no specific archaeological remnants are directly attributed to him." However, it seems that you are aware of the fact that as you said "99.9% of scholars believe in a historical Jesus". So I agree with that part. And the article states that "few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus." So archeology is a current interest among scholars, but not led them to deny existence. So Wikipedia can not hint that that issue results in non-exitence since the same applies to many other historical figures. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus, so it's a reduntant reference about archeological discoveries that do not offer any proof of existence. Nittoditto (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:V, the two of us can not debate this. What you need is to find WP:RS sources that state that "the lack of archeological evidence disproves the existence of Jesus". Once you have found those reliable sources, Wikipedia can include it, not before. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that Nittoditto is trying to force the round peg of historical study through the square hole of the scientific method. The historicity of figures is not determined solely through archaeological evidence.Farsight001 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This case involves a Magical Religious Figure appearing within the context of Apocalyptic Judaic Eschatology. Not within sober historical chronicle. Nittoditto (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Nittoditto may well be an old acquaintance... But I can not be bothered to do SPI now... History2007 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You'd have a point, Nittoditto, if anything you just said was even remotely accurate or applicable, but it isn't. I feel as though you are missing the point at the most fundamental level. Farsight001 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The Bible is not a contrived Religious Book built on faith and Jesus Christ was not a Magical Religious Figure. Nittoditto (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That argument was so familiar, I marked Nittoditto's page as a sockpuppet... I am ready bet on that now. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Now you're getting it, Ditto. True or false, the bible is not "contrived", nor was it built on faith. Jesus Christ is not "magical". These are nothing but tag lines anti-theists have used for years to get under the skin of and generally piss off believers. They have no realistic merit and are just plain inaccurate descriptors.Farsight001 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Now you are presenting yourself honestly, as you truly are, and what the fabric of this article truly represents. Nittoditto (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have dealt with Nittoditto before. He is a sock puppet of indef-blocked user Lung salad, and has not even denied the puppet placed on his user page. He will come back with a new account in a few days and say the same things again. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Winning the Argument

By presenting opinions and theories as facts and by cheating. Nittoditto (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are doing those things, but I'd be willing to bet that you and Charlie Sheen are the only ones who actually think that constitutes winning.Farsight001 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is built on the platform of religious faith, as are the opinions held by those scholars who thinly design their objectives as "historical arguments", the definitive study of this subject matter has yet to be presented. Nittoditto (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So the only remaining question is: what is your next user name going to be? History2007 (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yet another dodge. Whenever discussion material evaporates, change the subject matter. Better still, become Matthew Hopkins Witchfinder General. Nittoditto (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Why are you bringing this argument here and not the Historicity of Jesus where it belongs? Marauder40 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
He may well bring it to a that page with a new puppet user name there in a few days... History2007 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I take that back. It seems that he has already been there and was zapped for it. History2007 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the only strategy available to this person because their argument has evaporated (if they had any argument to begin with). Their only course available to engage in discussions is by obliterating those they discuss with. A Crusade. Nittoditto (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I replied to the person who introduced the section "No academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus" - I did not begin it (if you were addressing me). Nittoditto (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is built on the platform of scholarship and research and reliable sources, not faith. If it were built on faith, it would be devoid of citations, but clearly, it is not. Furthermore, much of our scholars we cite are irreligious, many of them even atheist, not that their faith is something wikipedia gives a shit about. No one's faith is a factor in whether or not they are a reliable source for information here. Nor do they "thinly design" their objectives as historical arguments. This is their profession, their career - what they do for a living. It is their job to present historical arguments and they are well respected for their expertise, which is exactly why we use them as sources - they actually have the definitive study of the subject matter. Many of them helped write it all. If you don't like this, then you have a problem not with the information presented here, but rather with the way an encyclopedia functions, which, in that case, I can only recommend you leave all your property behind and go live of the land in a forest, otherwise, you will find yourself perpetually pissed off at the way society functions.Farsight001 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So when these "irreligious" scholars are challenged, why the silence? Nittoditto (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Look Lung salad, you used to say "all scholars are wafflers", "scholars do not matter", "scholars are dismissed", etc. You have said the same things before, never understood WP:V, and not gotten anywhere on Wikipedia. Take a hint, you will get blocked again if someone bothers to do a SPI. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yet another dodge, their argument has certainly evaporated. Nittoditto (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I corresponded with the late F F Bruce during the 1970s in response to one of his books and he failed to respond to any of my points, I still have his letters Nittoditto (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Because the challenge is without merit. Because you have no WP:RS for this challenge, no WP:RS to support your notion. So even if the challenge had merit, we couldn't do anything about it. If reliable sources tell us that the sky is red, we report that the sky is red, despite the fact that we can see clearly that it is blue. Get it now?Farsight001 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Been away from the Internet for the past three days. A quick review of the past several thousand words generated over that period above leads me to two questions....
1. Why do (some?) Christians feel the need to prove the historical existence of Jesus, when the whole thing is a matter of faith?
2. How many non-Christian scholars' opinions have been ascertained? HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
To the first question, this is not a discussion forum. We are here to try to improve the article, not muse about why Christians should or should not care about the historicity of Jesus.
To the second question, read above. This has been gone over in detail already. Furthermore, as already explained, the religious affiliation of the scholars we reference is irrelevant. It matters only that they are WP:RS. There is no rule, policy, or guideline that in any way restricts use of a source based on their personal beliefs.Farsight001 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is no Wikipolicy which prohibits the use of references by Muslim scholars on Islam pages, Buddhist scholars on Buddhism pages, Jewish scholars on Judaism pages, etc. And the other point is that believing the gospel narratives about miracles, etc. may be a matter of faith, but scholars such as Paula Fredriksen and Geza Vermes who have renounced Christianity still defend existence. And atheists such as Wells and Dawkins no longer deny it. So supporting existence is not a matter of faith but historical analysis. History2007 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
But what's the point of "proving" it? And "no longer deny" proves nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
To Farsight's first response above, I await your condemnation of every other post above from the past three days that expressed an opinion.
To the second, if a claimed reliable source does not consider the thoughts of ALL the world's scholars, Christian or otherwise, it's not too reliable, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said it does not consider the "publications/statements of all scholars". They say "virtually all scholars", not "virtually all left handed scholars". As for the "thoughts of ALL the world's scholars" that is of course impossible to do without access to their private thoughts. They may think the earth is flat in their thoughts but if they do not say that in print, how can anyone know what they think sans hypnotism? But seriously, one can not use the unpublished thoughts of scholars, and the only way is in terms of what they say or write in public, etc. As I said above, if there are 20 academics who deny existence, I would like to know who they are, and the page on Christ myth theory should include their names. But that is just an informational issue, the main issue is that there are no sources that state "a good number of scholars support non-existence". We have never seen a source that even comes close to saying that. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL. First you make a silly, one-sided demand for names from just one side of the discussion, then you ask for proof of a negative. Philosophically, that cannot be done. Your unthinking bias here is clearly on display. And the expression "virtually all" is classic WP:WEASEL wording. Can you provide a precise definition of the term? HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not think it is silly to state as a confirmation of the statement that there hardly any scholars who support non-existence. Do you have sources that say there are? If so, please provide your sources. And again, access to the private thoughts of people is just impossible, of course. As for definition of "virtually all" please see a dictionary, of course, or various cases. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop asking for proof of a negative. And please read WP:WEASEL. (It might also be good if you actually read my posts properly. You're a very hard man to truly discuss things with. Sadly, I typically find that with hard core believers.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason not to ask for sources. Sources are the bedrock of Wikipedia. I have read the page on weasel, I have done a few edits in the past. That is not a weasel word, as evidenced by the hundreds and hundreds uses on Wikipedia and it does not appear on the weasel page. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
History2007 did not ask for proof of a negative. He asked if you have sources that say there are many scholars who support non-existence. That is a logical positive, not a negative. Asking for proof that there are no sources would be the logical negative, but that request was not made by him.Farsight001 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, of course. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, in the unlikely case that he meant do not ask for "proof that Jesus did not exist" (as proof of the negative) one should comment that those proofs are common, e.g. Galileo's proof that very tall humans never existed because weight goes up by cube and bone strength by square, etc. But that is probably not what he meant. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
History2007 asks for many things, some possible, some impossible. It's common for the argument of someone whose position is based on faith rather than rational analysis to leap around like that. Good points in opposition are simply deflected and the subject changed. I have made my rational points here. Keep thinking up new ones for your own irrational position. (Not an insult. Faith is, by definition, irrational.) I shall part ways for the moment. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL is misapplied here. The sources cited say "the majority of scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth." It would be weasel words (and OR) to take a few scholar saying they think Jesus existed and use that to say the majority of scholars believe Jesus existed, but that's not the case here. If this article is guilty of WP:WEASEL, then so is the Evolution article for the line "Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science" (citing only one source, no less). If RSs say "all/most scholars accept this," we have to say that all/most scholars accept this unless a contrary RS is presented. History2007 did not ask for proof for a negative, he asked for a contrary source.
HiLo48, actually read the article and check out the sources before making honestly rather insulting assertions about other users (you rewrapped Lung Salad's "History2007 is Christian and therefore incapable of reason" attacks in a more polite package, but it's still the same bollocks). You are the one who has deflected and changed the subject here. A contrary source is asked for, you say that there's no way to prove a negative. Contrary sources are differentiated from proof for a negative, and you dismiss an editor and the possibility of rational discussion with them for what almost amounts to an ad hominem attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Stop deflecting the fucking argument!! I was commenting on History2007's use of the words "virtually all". (17:38, 28 September 2012 above.) Now you're telling me I should be commenting on something else, precisely the behaviour I described for History2007. My point is made. Go read some books on logic and consistency. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't even read my post, did you? (Seeing how you initially had me confused with History2007, I'm pretty sure of it). WP:Weasel no more applies to "virtually all" here than "Biologists agree" does in the Evolution article, because the sources themselves say "all/most scholars think this." Argument directly confronted and shot down, not deflected. If we are going to change it, we need sources contradicting that wording. Counter-argument presented, which you have ignored. Get over your WP:IDHT and accept that your argument was wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I heard, and I know you're wrong. "Virtually all" is WP:WEASEL. Plain and simple. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Then go over to Evolution, and place weasel word tags next to "Biologists agree..." It's no different. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This is getting bizarre. Firstly, as Ian.thomson said, the statement on "virtually all" scholars of antiquity is based, almost literally, on a reliable source. Thus, "virtually all" is not a weasel word but a statement explicitly in line with the requirements of WP:RS/AC. Secondly, History2007 is not asking for proof of any negative - he's asking for proof of the existence of a significant minority of scholars disputing Jesus' existence - such as a reliable source stating, "There is a significant number of scholars who doubt Jesus ever existed." How is that a negative? Such sources apparently don't exist, and therefore we need not couch our sourced statement about the vast majority accepting Jesus' existence in qualifiers, but that's something else entirely. I could rant on about various other points, but most of them already have been made by History2007, Ian.Thompson and Farsight001. I'll just say that I'm much less sure than History2007 about Nittoditto's status as a sockpuppet (I'd expect Lung salad would by now have flown into a rage about Catholic bias and censorship), but that doesn't mean Nittoditto's arguments hold any more water: He correctly pointed out that we should cover the evidence about Jesus' existence, and we already do. So far, so good. But his claims about the "Magical Religious Figure" ignore what the article currently says on existence and are a straw man (unless he holds that being a "Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate" is the same as being a "Magical Religious Figure"). Huon (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The SPI conclusion was that Lung salad's check is stale, because Lung salad edited too long ago. It does not say if he was or not. But let me note that he did not deny being a puppet. FYI, there were a couple of other clues that he is not aware of upfront that made me recognize him very quickly, but I will not type what they are here, of course.
Regarding the discussion with HiLo on the "virtually all" that is a really peripheral issue, for it does not even discuss the substance of the discussion, namely that in effect, scholars who deny existence can be counted on one hand, with a few fingers to spare. That statement seems to be opposed by no source we have ever seen, and supported in multiple sources. History2007 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Short typo discussion, resolved

From the Year of Death section:

Isaac Newton was one of the firs astronomers to estimate the date of the crucifixion Anaheyla (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it, thank you for pointing it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that there are "less than a handful" of scholars of antiquity who oppose the existence of Jesus?

To get back to the point, let us clarify the following issue:

  • Are there any sources whatsoever that dispute that there are "less than a handful" of scholars of antiquity who oppose the existence of Jesus?
  • Is any editor aware of a list of more than a handful of modern scholars of antiquity who continue to dispute the existence of Jesus?
I for one am not aware of more than a handful, if that many, and of those Davies only argues that mythicism should be taken seriously as a possibility. Price goes further, but only a little because while he believes the case for mythicism is stronger than historicy, historicity remains a serious possibility. He is fond of saying things like "who the heck knows though", treating the matter as unknowable to the degree we might want to know it.
Note that I'm not challenging the truth of the statement about "scholars of antiquity" here (although I do doubt it), I'm challenging its verifiability. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There may be a confusion here about WP:CON being only an internal policy, as stated above. It is not an external policy, and does not apply to academic statements, as above. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine, I'll go and find the relevant policy page. Note that at long last you have finally started to reply to my substantive arguments. This is the sort of argument I was asking for. Not conceding the point yet, but I'll go and have a look. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the central issue, and I have seen no sources that dispute that hardly any Myth theory scholars that dispute existence remain nor have I seen a longer list of Myth theory scholars who deny existence anywhere in the literature, or on Wikipedia.

Agreed, and I wish that was all the article said. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
And your source for that would be...? History2007 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
My source for what? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
For "I wish that was all the article said." History2007 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Huh, don't you mean you want me to address how I think the article says more than that? I don't need a source for expressing a wish.Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So please let me ask again: Is there a "source"? Is there a long list? Not that I can see here, or anywhere. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, could you put your POV more blatantly on display? Let me first assure you, you can remain a good Christian even if you can't prove that Jesus existed. God just wants you to believe it. So don't be so desperate to prove it. And you're doing it again. You seem to want to go down the path of saying "Because nobody among the handful of editors watching here can show me such a list, no such list exists." Sorry, such a double negative approach is not a valid way to use reliable sources. If, however, you found a truly impartial, independent, reliable source saying that 98% (or whatever) of objective scholars say that Jesus existed, all would be fine. But you won't find such a source. Impartial and independent would mean not Christian and already biased, as you are. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me provide a suggestion here: focus on content, not the other editors. Now, I did not employ the type of logic you suggest about the list. Trust me, I used to be a logician. We do have sources that say that virtually all scholars of antiquity support it.
The reason I mentioned the list and asked for opposing sources is that if those scholars had been "way off the mark", someone in the opposing camp would have written: "Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. are mad, because scholars A, B, C, D ... Q and myself oppose it." No one in the opposing camp has stated that. So any attempt at suggesting that Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. are ignorant or biased will hence be set back because such arguments to paint them as ignorant/biased will be seen as "source free" and based on personal opinion.
In any debate among scholars, there are always (I mean always) opposing sides. And the opposing scholars on each side criticize the views of the others. If the assessment of Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. had been off the mark, there would have been screams among the opposition. Now, there is silence among the tiny opposition. Think of this way if someone writes "virtually all scholars agree that there is no global warming", would that not create screams among the opposition? Would you not find opposing sources? But just accusing the author of being biased because he may be against global warming has no basis here, in case all pro-warming people have already conceded. That is the case here.
And as a side note, interestingly, you did not provide "any sources" to dispute the statement of the overview by Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. History2007 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This everlasting and boring debate continues to continue because of the deliberate blurring of two completely different issues: Issue 1) Was there a 1st century Jew named Jesus/Jeshua/? who preached a semi-Jewish message around Nazareth/Jerusalem and got himself executed by the Romans, vs Issue 2) Was there a 1st century incarnated divinity working miracles around Nazareth/Jerusalem who deliberately sacrificed himself to ransom mankind from death and bring them/us eternal paradise? "Virtually all" scholars who bother to hold an opinion on the first issue seem to support the existence of the Jewish preacher, but a large number of serious scholars actively deny the validity of the second issue. It however seems to comfort some people to erroneously conflate scholarly support for the first issue with support for the second issue. If the article could be allowed to clearly distinguish between the two issues, we could all move on. Wdford (talk)
(ec, and apparent partial mind meld) I think the question is somewhat ill-posed, because "the existence of Jesus" can be interpreted to mean anything from "the existence of a person named Yeoshua (or variants) in palestine around the the beginning of the first millenium" to "the existence of an apocalyptic Jewish preacher baptised by John the Baptist and executed by the Romans" to "the existence of the Son of God, born of a virgin, wandering the Earth (and the waters), turning water into wine (now that's a useful parlour trick!) and the whole shebang". The first is not seriously disputed by anybody, the second is plausible but likely wrong in some aspects, the third is very very implausible. Either Jesus is a complete literary invention, or there is a historical core onto which later Christian stories have been grafted. Most scholars think there is such a core, but they differ quite a bit about the size of this core. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Wdford and Stephan Schulz on this. The issue is at times confused by readers who assume "existence of Jesus" means "divinity of Jesus" or the "accuracy of Biblical narratives". Virtually all scholars agree that a certain person called Jesus/Yeoshua walked the streets of Jerusalem. Do they agree that he was divine? Not at all. Do they even agree that he called any disciples? Not at all: some think he existed but never had disciples. Do they agree that he performed even one miracle (or magic act of illusion)? Not at all. Do they agree that he even said "one of the parables claimed in the Bible"? Not at all. So forget divinity, beyond walking, baptism and crucifixion scholars agree on nothing else. But they do agree on the existence part as a separate issue from divinity as both Wdford and Stephan Schulz explained. History2007 (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As an interesting side note, to confirm the theme of the statements above, various scholars reject the names of the disciples from a historical perspective and some think there were 12 of them, but that no one knows their names via historical analysis. Some scholars do not agree that there were 12 disciples, etc. but accept the existence of some disciples, etc. Others hold that there were never any disciples. So historicity is a separate issue from biblical interpretation and scholars distinguish the issue of historicity from the discussion of biblical narrative. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The article says that all scholars agree he was baptised, crucified, and had disciples. So, History2007 is sort of proving my point. History2007 does raise an interesting point. If the person who actually existed is not what most people mean by the term "Jesus", is it really fair to say that Jesus existed? Can somebody who wasn't baptised and had no disciples really be said to be Jesus? An interesting topic.... Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is an interesting point. If he had no disciples, who was he? But as is the article says that almost all scholars agree on existence, baptism and crucifixion, and that the gospels say he had disciples. The only 3 items agreed on are the walked/baptized/crucified items. As a side issue, it is the Crossan camp that says he had no disciples, but had many followers that changed over time and he never selected 12 apostles and 70 disciples among them. Their "portrait" is of some preacher who imposed no organizational hierarchy but wanted a flat organization. But then I always find Crossan's comment funny: "scholars who write biographies of Jesus, think they are doing biography, but are often doing autobigraphy". Although the portraits are different, they do have a lot of overlap in many cases. The crucifixion by Pilate part is however, a more certain identifier, given the reign of Pilate, etc. But the real analysis often takes place not by reading the gospels, but the many intermediate documents. As stated above G. A. Wells changed his mind after the Q source issues had been explained in response to his views. So just reading the gospels is not part of the analysis, and different scholars use different reasoning methods to arrive at the conclusion. But I have a feeling that the "identification issue", although interesting, is beyond the scope of this page and could only be addressed in a long separate article on its own. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You lot really are having a lovely little love-in right here, aren't you? The only reason I can see for the existence of the last few posts is that some of you feel the need to say to yourselves "Jesus existed, so it supports my Christianity". Guys, you don't need to think that way to be a good Christian, and you don't need to post that love-fest above. Just stick to making this a better article. And forget your beliefs when deciding what's important for Wikipedia. That's probably what irks me the most here, the determination by some here to prove that Jesus existed. It's not actually important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Take your WP:BATTELGROUND attitude and bigoted and unfounded accusations of bias elsewhere, you blind fool. Many of the people involved in this discussion are not Christian, and those who actually look at the sources are not siding with you in your crusade. That you assume that everyone not siding with you is a Christian only shows you're too much of a crusading bigot to contribute anything worthwhile. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Following the example set by other articles, the current phrasing "virtually all" is just fine

The evolution article outright says "Biologists agree (evolution is a fact)" without saying which biologists, but "(all competent) biologists."

  1. If someone came into that article and said "not all biologists agree," we'd ask for a source demonstrating that a notable number of (competent and respected) biologists disagree. - No such source has been provided
  2. If someone said that "(all) biologists" is weasel, we'd point out that the source says "all biologists." - We have 6 sources, and they're not being accepted by a the lunatic fringe who refuses to provide sources for their position.
  3. If someone said that the article was being controlled by atheists or agnostics, and that the atheists or agnostics were incapable of a discussion about the bigger picture, we'd dismiss them as a bigot. - And yet, NittoDitto and HiLo48 have not been told to quit attacking other editors.
  4. If someone ignored/dismissed the Christians in the discussion, or the Christians cited in the evolution article, to continue to push their previous "point," they'd be considered tendentious. - Only 2 of the 6 sources cited are by Christians, only half (at most) of those in this discussion ID as Christian.
  5. Anyone joining this someone in this behavior would be rebuked. - And yet HiLo48 continues to miss the point.

Why is all of this being allowed here? It shouldn't be, it's the same situation.

HiLo48, you've previously been reasonable in other articles, but you're letting your righteous defense against American conservative fundamentalist POVs turn into a bigoted anti-Christian POV. Bring in a source demonstrating that a notable number of respectable scholars believe Jesus did not exist, or shut up and leave. Otherwise, your insistence that History2007 is acting out of POV, especially when a number of non-Christian editors are agreeing with him, is nothing but a bigoted attack.

This discussion did not need to go on this long. NittoDitto should have been dismissed as a WP:FRINGE POV-pusher WP:SPA, and pot-- I mean HiLo48, should not have let his personal beliefs blind him to the possibility that editors of other beliefs might be capable of properly editing within policies and guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, but this is not "another article" - some standards may be different here. And what HiLo has said is nowhere as bad as our old friend Lung salad has said in the past and Nittoditto has repeated now. But I would note that both Wdford (who opposes the bible) and Stephan Schulz (who is perhaps the middle ground) have been totally logical on the issues. And the discussion with Martijn Meijering may just be converging now. So all is not lost, and logic may yet prevail. I would shrug off HiLo's comments so we will not have to waste 3 days on WP:ANI - but you are right that he should ease off. What I did learn here that was fascinating was the Dunning-Kruger diagnosis of Nittodito - I had never heard of that, but it does explain a lot about expert dismissal. So I guess Wikipedia is educational in the end. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that everyone else has been reasonable, and I thank them for it. I've mentioned whose behavior I found unacceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Evolution is treated as fact in more peer-reviewed science journals than you can shake a stick at. As far as I can tell, the existence of Jesus is not treated as fact by any peer-reviewed journal of history at all. It certainly isn't common. The sources here are popular books, and most of them are Christian publishing houses. Bart Ehrman's training is in divinity and Bible colleges, and he is not a professor of history. Humanpublic (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It goes back to the question of: "Is Ehrman using his expertise in the subject?" or is "Ehrman using his knowledge of what has been published/stated". One can debate if Ehrman/ProfessorX, etc. have views which are biased. But the expertise here is knowing the scholars of antiquity and counting. So these are really different issues. And again biblical scholarship is not theology, as the Oxford Handbook states on that page, and New Testament scholars do study history etc. So the "fact" discussed here is not the existence of Jesus but a "count of scholars of antiquity". So the real question is "does Ehrman know how to count up to 5?" History2007 (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I should probably make another point here, namely that Ehrman is not the only source stating that and Van Voorst effectively says the same, as do the other sources. Van Voorst's book has received endorsements as the "best on the topic" from all sides. A number of other professors recommend Van Voorst, but I was surprised of the endorsement by Richard Carrier who is in the opposite camp. On his blog on July 11, 2012 Carrier reviewed the book "Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" and criticized the treatment of non-Christian sources by Lester Grabbe in that book. Carrier then said to his readers: "I would recommend you simply buy and use Van Voorst on this subject". I was impressed that Carrier recommended van Voorst. So his book is really solid, and well accepted within the field. History2007 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Robert E. Van Voorst (born 5 June 1952) is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan, and has published scholarly works in early Christian writings and New Testament Greek. He received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College in Holland, Michigan, his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He has served at Lycoming College (Methodist)" Eerdmans is a Christian publishing house. Are there any academic, peer-reviewed articles? Humanpublic (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually WP:RS does not work that way, specially given that Van Voorst is not expressing his own opinion on the existence of Jesus, but doing a headcount of the other scholars. I think you need to read WP:USEBYOTHERS regarding Van Voorst. Try this anyway, then note that on page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence." And Eerdmans is an absolutely solid publisher used across Wikipedia as a WP:RS source. I think this is beginning to run into what Ian Thomson called a separate standard now. And again, Van Voorst is not expressing his own opinion about the existence of Jesus, he is just counting the number of scholars on each side of the debate. Is that clear? His book is acknowledged as the standard reference by atheists and Christians alike. If there is anyone who knows all the sources and all the scholars of antiquity on the issue better than the others, it is Van Voorst. So can Van Voorst count up to 5? You tell me... History2007 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Plus, there's James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press. That's certainly along the lines of academic and peer-reviewed.
Many of the citations are pretty big names, and shooting them down (or even providing good evidence against the historical existence of Jesus) would advance someone's career. There is a gap in history that (so far) can only be filled if there was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea about two millenia ago named Yeshua. His exact personality or teachings cannot be known, but the following this individual developed, as Alexander the Great and others developed, leaves the existence of this person as equally unquestioned. Looking for an article in a scholarly journal trying to prove or disprove the historical existence Jesus is like looking for an article proving or disproving the existence of Alexander, Siddhartha Gautama, or Socrates. As with evolution, the existence of those individuals are considered known facts, it's just the exact details that we're trying to perfect.
(And if anyone wants to consider that OR, the above is pretty much a summarizing paraphrase of the prologue to John Dominic Crossan's "The Historical Jesus.") Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Do historians even do peer review or have scholarly journals? I feel like this is along the lines of what I said earlier - people trying to jam the round peg of history through the square hole of scientific inquiry.Farsight001 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals. Certain things are accepted a little sooner with history because the level of skepticism required for physical sciences would reduce all historical knowledge before the 20th century to maybe a dozen books. There's also how cross-disciplinary history is. It's a field that combines linguistics, geography, textual criticism, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and archaeology; and welcoming enlightenment from architecture, chemistry, weaponry, etc, depending on what you're discussing.
I highly doubt that any of them would have articles trying to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus, anymore than a biology journal would be looking for proof or disproof of evolution these days (it's accepted as fact by the mainstream, it's the details that are being settled). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER: Is this section contributing anything towards making this a better article? Or is it more about attacking some editors? If it's the former, you'd better change the section title. If it's the latter, just drop it! HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It is addressing some unacceptable behavior in this thread, and has continued discussion for why the current phrasing is acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
And you accuse me of having a battleground mentality! LOL. What I have is a different view. So change the fucking title of this little chat! HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
What you have are bad-faith accusations of bias made because a couple of editors in the discussion are Christian, a refusal to listen to opposing views, and an inability to accept the consensus that many non-Christians have defended. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you like me to change the title? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN assessment of the sources

In order to obtain an independent assessment of the sources and the statement in question, I made a request for an independent analysis on WP:RSN. I listed the 7 sources and pointed to the discussion on this page.

An assessment was provided by user:DGG - who is an extremely experienced Wikipedian with about 100k edits, an admin and a librarian by profession. His assessment was that these are a wide range of sources that confirm the consensus and therefore "the accumulation of them is reasonable evidence to that effect". He also said that "The attempts to say that this is not the scholarly consensus are grasping at straws."

I could not have said it better. So I think it is time to stop grasping at straws. That is the scholarly consensus confirmed by a wide range of sources, we should end this extremely long discussion and move on. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As an outsider to this debate, I agree with the above and certainly with DGG's reading. A lot of time has been wasted on a pretty clear-cut issue and it is indeed time to move on. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me note that my sincere concerns have not been addressed, and I'm very disappointed with the rhetoric coming from various sides. Neither have people explained their reasons for objecting to my proposed changes in wording. Had they done so, we could have had a constructive discussion. Instead I have been falsely accused of doubting the academic credentials of the various sources, when I have repeatedly explained that is not what I'm doing. It's sad that people can't let go of their personal biases and insist on pushing a point of view instead of neutrally reporting on views held by notable sources. For now I'll simply give up on this page, as I cared more about the general principle anyway. I do not concede the sources are not flawed for the statement they are intended support as opposed to a more limited statement, and reserve the right to take a stand on other pages where the discussion may generate more light and less heat. Some of you, you know who you are, ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I object to your proposed changes in wording because their only effect to me seems to be to cast doubt on a statement that's universally accepted and backed up with multiple reliable sources. We have repeatedly explained that Van Voorst and Ehrman are reliable sources not just for a "more limited" statement about biblical scholars only but for the wider scholarly community. Your position seems rather inconsistent to me. If you claim that Ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about when he speaks of the consensus among the scholars of antiquity (a claim that was rejected by multiple other editors including DGG at RSN), you cannot use that statement you just declared unreliable as a source for what Ehrman in your opinion should have said but didn't. Huon (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
How would the wording I proposed cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus? I don't think it would and agree it shouldn't. As for you "explaining" something, I'd say you merely asserted it forcefully. As for conformance, all the quoted sources use their own radically different wording and I see no reason to prefer Ehrman's formulation to that of the other sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
All of this has been said back and forth "man many times" just above, and is really repetitive now. In Wikipedia discussions not all parties reach 100% agreement, so you may yet object, but that is the nature of debate, even after it has reached a natural end. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect unanimity, nor should we require it. I would like to see people make a sincere effort to answer my questions however. If that happened above I certainly couldn't find it. I'd really like an answer since I'm making a sincere effort and have stated my concerns and asked about other people's concerns. It seems to me you are ducking the questions. I'd be happy to be mistaken about that. Specifically, I'd like to know how my proposed wording could cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus, having agreed it shouldn't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Martijn Meijering, but myself and other editors have answered that so many times in so many ways that we are running over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here, with you still objecting after all of this. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Humour me. How could anyone take "Virtually all biblical scholars agree that Jesus existed" as casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus? Add historical-critical if you prefer. Or else, how about "Very few scholars disagree Jesus existed"? Or how about choosing Grant's formulation instead of Ehrman's? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, please read the discussion we had about the largest lake in Europe vs the largest lake in Eastern Europe. This is really repetitive now. We discussed that above. So I will not respond to this point again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Erhman, Price, Grant, and Burridge just say "scholars," Van Voorst says both "biblical scholars" and "classical historians." It isn't simply Biblical scholars, it's a variety of scholars who handle things relating to antiquity, hence "scholars of antiquity." Focusing purely on biblical scholars would be undue weight and would be downplaying how widespread the acceptance is in the academia. That is not a dodge, that is presenting a reason to leave it as scholars of antiquity (sources just saying "scholars", WP:DUE) and a reason not to go with "biblical scholars" (WP:UNDUE). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Thomson, as discussed above largest lake in Europe is not the same as largest lake in Eastern Europe. But we have all said this to Martijn Meijering a few times now. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, fair enough about what the sources say, so what about using just "scholars", or Grant's formulation or just "Very few scholars disagree Jesus existed"? As for downplaying, that is indeed the crux of the matter. If a wide variety of scholars have indeed studied the issue, then we must not suggest it has mostly been historical-critical biblical scholars or even just fail to mention the others. Similarly, we must not state or suggest that there have been many scholars outside historical-critical bible scholarship who have asserted historicity if that isn't in fact the case. And I believe that in fact there haven't been many. Grant, Akenson and Wells come to mind, but very few others. I'd love to hear if there are more, do you think there are many? Can we at least agree that we must not overstate the consensus either, even if we disagree that it does? And can we agree that my concern about overstating is just as valid as your concern about downplaying? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Huon explained the problems to you just above here. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Martijn Meijering, reducing "scholars of antiquity" to "biblical scholars" in the sentence you cite above in deviation from the sources, not one of which draws the circle of supportes of historicity as narrowly as you want to, doesn't directly cast doubt on the historicity itself, but on the scholarly consensus about historicity. That's in the same vein as your other suggestion, attributing that statement about the consensus to Ehrman although roughly a half-dozen others agree with him and no one disagrees that the consensus among all scholars is that Jesus existed. There's simply no need to couch our coverage on the consensus in such qualifiers unless we want to give the impression that the consensus is less widespread than our reliable (yes, reliable even for that statement!) sources say it is. We might arguably just use "scholars" instead, but I've yet to see any rationale for why we should do so except (rejected) claims that Ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about. In my opinion, "scholars of antiquity" is unambiguous, sounds good and is supported by a source using that exact phrase, so we should use it too.
Now you might be right that comparatively few scholars other than the biblical ones have published on Jesus' existence; I don't know (and you haven't provided a source). But so what? Van Voorst explicitly includes classical historians in the consensus and Ehrman speaks of all "scholars of antiquity". Even if the community of historians who care about Jesus' existence may be small, the consensus among them is still that he existed. We simply cannot overstate the consensus as long as what we say is based on reliable sources, with no opposition in other reliable sources. And once again I cannot see any point in discussing the relative sizes of the different groups that all agree Jesus existed unless the purpose is to imply that most of them are "just" biblical scholars and don't really count, which leaves only a comparatively small remainder - thus turning "virtually all scholars of antiquity agree" into "it's just a few individuals" - a case of non-neutral synthesis or even unsourced personal opinion if ever I saw one. If all biblical scholars tomorrow spontaneously combusted, the consensus among the remaining scholars would still be that Jesus existed - it would just become a consensus among a smaller group.
This rant is about as thorough an explanation as I think I can manage. Huon (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Martijn Meijering is obviously running over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here, repeatedly saying the same things, repeatedly getting explanations from multiple users and then saying similar same things again and again. This needs to end per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before we all die of old age. If this is not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then what is. History2007 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As a separate side note user:Nittoditto turned out to be Lung salad after all, and was also indef-blocked. so we should really move on now. I guess as an outsider with no previous involvement, you can even close this, so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We definitely cannot move on, as you haven't answered the basic objection. The majority of "neutral" experts cited in this article are not neutral. The majority are Christians. There is no peer-reviewed source at all, that I can see. Can we get this article to the point where 50% of the sources didn't get their degrees from seminaries and Bible colleges? Humanpublic (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you assume that a degree from somewhere other than a seminary or Bible college is more valid? This would be like saying "Can we get it to the where this article isn't 50% sourced by people from MIT or Berkeley" for an article about engineering.ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually there is no policy in Wikipedia that members of a religious group can not be used as sources for articles on that religion. So Buddhists can be used as sources about Buddhism, Jews about Judaism, etc. That issue has been separately mentioned on WP:RSN on a number of occasions, even unrelated to this. So books published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem are fine for Judaism articles, because that is a good, highly respected university. Books by iUniverse are not OK anywhere, however. So the demand by Humanpublic is not based on any Wikipedia policy. And again, the scholars in question are not (repeat not) expressing opinions on the subject beyond counting. All they are doing is an exercise in arithmetic, and as discussed above there are no sources that oppose the statements anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think books are usually peer-reviewed like journal articles, but that doesn't make them unreliable. The publishers for those sources, including Eerdmans, HarperCollins, Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, tend to be among the most reputable we could hope for. InterVarsity Press is probably among those most prone to pro-Christian bias, but ironically they published mythicist Price's book which does acknowledge the consensus on existence while arguing against it. Regarding the Christian majority: Do we even know that many non-Christians who have voiced opinions on the scholarly consensus? Feldman may have said something about the subject, but I don't know where he did (if he did). And Ehrman, Grant, Dunn, Burridge and Stanton all held professorships at universities that can hardly be called "seminaries and Bible colleges" - at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Belfast, Durham, King's College London and Cambridge, respectively. Of those five, only Ehrman has his degrees from a theological seminary, and he changed his religious position afterwards. That's quite a number right there. Huon (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say Christians can't be used as sources. I said they aren't neutral. Obviously, Christians aren't neutral about Jesus. People from MIT and Berkley don't believe in any engineering solution like Christians believe in Jeses, so that analogy is moot. Humanpublic (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not moot. Please take a look at Saltwater and freshwater economics. As you can see there there are scholars (some with Nobel prizes in hand) from Stanford and MIT who argue against scholars from Chicago and Carnegie Mellon (also with Nobel prizes in hand). In that case you have scholars from major universities opposing each other. Here there are hardly any well known scholars in opposition. History2007 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. 1) Being from Stanford or Chicago is not (jokes aside) having a religious belief. Christians are inherently biased about Jesus Christ's existence. Economists are not so biased about economic models (jokes aside). 2) As for the rest of you analogy, I accept it. This is like economists from one school advanced one theory, few other economists said anything about the theory one way or the other, and a Wikipedia article asserted "virtually all scholars agree." Then, in response to objections, editors such as yourself would point out no scholars disagree. Please stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
We do not agree. You just do not know people from Chicago school of economics. For them macroeconomics is a religion. Macroeconomic debates can be hotter than religious debates, and accusations of bias can be pretty strong there. But I will say no more this issue, per your stop request. We are not going to agree. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I meant stop misconstruing and dodging the point. An economist believing a certain economic model is not like Christians worhsipping Jesus (jokes about economists aside). A consensus that is mostly Christian should not be represented as "all scholars agree", regardless of whether you can find large numbers of scholars who disagree. Humanpublic (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Christians are biased as to beliefs about whether Jesus was God -- the existence of a Galilean preacher named Jesus are not so controversial, and historically wasn't accepted by all Christians. To correct your twist on the economist analogy, it isn't one school of economics pushing an idea, other schools not commenting on it, and opposing schools being ignored, it is one school taking an extreme view on an idea most other schools accept less extreme views of as fact, with only a few real economists questioning the validity of the idea (and some preachers with degrees in cow-fucking arguing the idea is irredeemably Objectivist, many going on to argue that it's all an Illuminati plot). For the Wikipedia article on the idea, we would cite the majority of the schools' agreeance on the validity of idea (clarifying that only that one extreme school thinks the idea cures cancer), give some small mention to any notable nay-sayers, and treat the preachers as fringe theorists.
The absence of evidence is usually accepted as the evidence of absence. Without evidence to the contrary, "virtually all scholars" stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, Ehrman, our source for "virtually all scholars", is not himself a believer in Jesus (as opposed to believeing Jesus existed). And we have sources explicitly saying the cosensus holds among non-Christian scholars, too. Huon (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
If all other schools of thought agreed, it would simple to find academic, peer-reviewed, non-Christian factual references to the existence of Jesus. One would expect them to be plentiful. One would expect them to be used as sources here in proportion to their prevalence in the world. In fact, none have been given at all. The point that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence is accepted: there is an absence of evidence that professors of history in non-religious universities, with non-religious training, believe it is a fact that Jesus existed. The evidence of that absence is that nobody can find any. Ya'll keep claiming "virtually all scholars" regardless of background, but you exclusively cite either popular books, professors with a religious background, or non-historians. Please find academic work by historians not in Christian publishing houses, to substantiate the "an idea most other schools accept" claim. Humanpublic (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No, you are not reading the discussion above, just repeating the same thing. There are non-Christian sources here, and they are WP:RS, and follow policy. And multiple editors have told you this again and again and again - but you do not seem to be listening anyway. If there had been a major opposing camp among scholars, they would have written something objecting to that statement - none has done so as far as anyone can tell. As stated before and also on WP:RSN, if someone wrote "virtually all scholars agree that there is no global warming", it would have resulted in screams among the opposition. The opposing scholars (not that many anyway) are silent here, for they have already conceded that issue, and there are so very few of them anyway, as discussed repeatedly on this talk page. I am sorry, but this discussion is beginning to sound like a broken record player. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You're being tendentious. There are no peer-reviewed, non-religious sources here at all. I didn't say there is a "major opposing camp." The refutation of "all scholars agree" is not merely "many scholars oppose." It is that not all scholars agree. It is what I said a week ago: This is like economists from one school advanced one theory, few other economists said anything about the theory one way or the other, and a Wikipedia article asserted "virtually all scholars agree. Then, in response to objections, editors such as yourself would point out no scholars disagree." How many times does this have to be said? The concern is not based on historians objecting. It is that most historians seem to say nothing about it.
Allow me to anticipate how you will distort this. You will say something like "Wikipedia doesn't require peer-reviewed, non-religious sources." I'm not saying that is policy. If you claim "virtually all scholars agree" you should be able to cite an abundance of peer-reviewed, non-religious sources. You've offered none.
Yes, it sound like a broken record, because you continually distort what is said. The refutation of "all scholars agree" is not merely "many scholars oppose." If I express no opinion, you are not entitled to say I agree. Humanpublic (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
You are going to have to talk to yourself, I will not even respond to this. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Apparently it is civil for you to say I "sound like a broken record player" but not for me to say the same of you. Can anyone cite 5 peer-reviewed, non-Christian factual references to the historical existence of Jesus? Humanpublic (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_118&oldid=1145840669"