Talk:Jesus/Archive 119

Archive 115

←

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

→

Archive 125

Depiction of the Image of God controversial

As previously discussed here, and presently established on the depiction page alluded to, depiction of the Messiah is controversial and this should be reflected in the first caption. Cpsoper (talk)

Yes it was previously discussed, but that was a while ago. In any case, either a caption properly describing the issue should be used, or it should be left out altogether. Incidentally, depiction of the "image of God" and depiction of Jesus are not the same issue. Since Jesus was by definition a real person with human features, his status as a Person of God in Christian theology does not affect the fact that he had a physical form. There has not been controversy "ab initio". I know of no evidence of very early controversy over images (which are moderately common). Iconoclasm was not an issue until later on. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. And in the previous discussion, I see no agreement that has been alluded to here, given that it was about Cpsoper's own website, etc. I think his general philosophy is a special form of iconoclasm which is overshadowing this. He probably feels that Jesus should not be depicted. As for the depictions page, I looked at that and it was just Cpsoper and Johnbod discussing in one round and no agreement. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with Paul. The current mention of iconoclasm in the "depictions" section seems sufficient; if we need to cover controversy about depictions of Jesus in greater detail, we should do it there and not in an image caption (I don't see that need, though). Huon (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus! Sorry, I mean, I'm not sure any such controversy, since Jesus showed up in graffiti during the Roman era, IIRC. I notice that the "highly controversial" bit in the Depiction of Jesus article was also added by Cpsoper, using what really amounts to original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why John did not edit that out from the depictions page. That article is just loaded with Catacomb images that show otherwise. I no longer watch that page, but it is deteriorating... History2007 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is understatement to describe images of Christ as controversial, however the word 'highly' appears only in talk. They were regarded as offensive and disobedient by Irenaeus, Lactantius, Augustine wrote against them, and the early catacomb images are confined to symbolic representation. Is this position OR ? - read the comment by Philip Schaff in the same article (ref 1), consider again the text of the Synod_of_Elvira or read Calvin's extensive comments in the Institutes on images of Christ, many others in the reformed tradition, or others in preceding phases of history, long before violent iconoclasm, which are much more plain spoken than many 'secondary' sources. These writers and other early church teachers and writers regarded all images and icons with the potential as objects of worship as idols, as much a violation of the second commandment [sic], as the golden calf. Idolatry was treated as an extremely grave offence in the early church as bans on church memebership for silversmiths and other allied professions indicates, Meletius was banned as Bishop in 306 for idolatry first of all. Increasing syncretism with pagan Rome brought the change, as the later Tomb_of_the_Julii illustrates. It therefore seems highly appropriate to acknowledge this adverse sentiment in a brief caption in the first image, and make a link to the article on depiction, where the matter is examined more fully. Cpsoper (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue of "ancient Christian qualms" about depiction of Jesus is a small issue among Christians, and is totally peripheral to this article, as a few people above have indicated. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

'Qualms' is an inappropriate characterisation of the identification of the practice with idolatry by the many early Christians who commented on the subject before Constantine. Eusebius the historian reproved Constantine's sister for requesting such an image. Some like Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, took specific action against such an image, in approximately the late 4th century. Nor is this identification confined to the past. Many reformed churches hold precisely the same convictions today, in accordance with the Westminster Larger Catechism, which reads 'Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature'. John Calvin, Turretin, Spurgeon, Robert Dabney, John Murray and a vast host of other reformed commentators specifically rejected images of Christ on these grounds.

I reiterate, purported images of the Messiah are inauthentic, offensive to many Christians and controversial, and this controversy ought properly to be reflected here also, and a brief reference to the appropriate page in the first caption is apposite. Cpsoper (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. For most of its history most of Christianity was OK with depictions of Jesus - and I'd expect both "most" denote a vast supermajority. And even if the depiction controversy were significant enough to warrant expanded coverage, the caption of the infobox image would still not be a good place to raise such issues. Take for comparison our Muhammad article: It doesn't mention image controversies in the image captions. Huon (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From the point of view of this encyclopaedia, what Christians think about images of Jesus should have no impact on what we do with them here. They are a major aspect of the history of Christianity, and it's perfectly valid, probably actually essential, that we include some here to show how what kinds of images have been created and used as part of that religion over two thousand years. It would be very POV to leave them out. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo and Huon, these are not images of any historical figure - they are a mere fiction - references if you think otherwise please - what do they have to do with Jesus, other than partial Christian profession? If their origin is based on profession, why retain a POV position, whilst withholding a reference to widely held dissent, as described above, both early and late in the churches, because it's POV? These images are controversial and this ought to be noted here. I'd welcome an alternative suggestion for a better place for a link to the depiction page, as previously suggested, if not in the picture caption, but a brief link there still seems proper to me.Cpsoper (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean, a better place for a link to the depiction page than the {{main}} link in the depictions section? I can't think of a better place. As an aside, we routinely have images that don't really show the historical person in articles on historical persons - try Muhammad or Genghis Khan, for example. We also have images of non-historical persons - try Moses or Robin Hood. All that is pretty much standard. Huon (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Let us face the facts: For some religious reasons Cpsoper prefers iconoclasm because said reasons imply to him that the depiction of Christ is somehow "forbidden". The rest is sentence combinations. But his personal preferences of iconoclasm went out with the 17th century and can not affect this article. That is the long and short of it, and the reason he is not on the Robin Hood page objecting to that image. Come to think of it, how do we know Robin was right handed? That image must be removed, for it shows Robin as a right handed using his bow and arrow. So let us do that first for it is infringing on the rights of Robin and robbing him of the opportunity to be portrayed accurately. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have added a bit in the depictions article, with a link to Aniconism in Christianity, the article that covers this, & has some of the Rev. Soper's earlier contributions, somewhat modified. The new stuff should go there too. He is right to say that there is evidence of aniconism in very Early Christianity, though the very few early quotations dealing with images, either pro or anti, are mostly those surviving from the incomplete records of Byzantine councils during their controversy, brought out again in the 16th century. It wasn't a big issue, from the paucity of comments by the Church Fathers. The Westminster stuff can be used there. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A hasty ordination, Johnbod! I have some reservations about this stub page, listed on the talk there, but I appreciate the work put into this, and it's a reasonable compromise, and I accept there's no desire to clog up this page with the matter. I have linked to the depictions section (of this page) under the first image, since the section is found a long way down the page.Cpsoper (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It's much too long to be a stub, so I have promoted it to start. It probably needs to linked to from more places. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarify the existence debate

In order to clarify the scholarly debate over Jesus' existence, I propose that the 2nd para of the Lead be modified as follows:

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Most scholars hold that Jesus was 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.

Wdford (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but the 2nd part needs separate sources, and should also discuss the no divinity issue. The historicty of Jesus article says: "The existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the discussion of the historical validity of the narrative of the Christian gospels and their theological assertions of his divinity." and is sourced for that. So we could work that in here as a separate sentence, given that the divinity issue is even more contentious than did he argue in the Temple issue, etc. That may in fact cut back on future questions/comments. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm still not convinced that we have addressed the issue of who these agreeable scholars are. Saying "Virtually all scholars..." is effectively meaningless if virtually all scholars who study this topic are Christian believers to start with. And I still suspect that to be the case.

2. Why is this so important that it has to be in the 2nd para of the lead? It's irrelevant to Christians, because they will believe no matter what the "scholars" say. And it's not important to non-Christians becasue he wasn't otherwise a major historical figure. The content could be buried in the article somewhere, with a qualifier about who those scholars are, but it doesn't need to be in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: 1. The sourcing issue was discussed above, so it is part of that thread really.

RE: 2. If you say he was a Jewish teacher, then you are already implying existence, but vaguely so. And really, an article about "any person" must address if the person existed at all upfront. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And it's not important to non-Christians becasue he wasn't otherwise a major historical figure.' This is like saying that Mohammed or the Buddha or Lao-Tze are not important historical figures. Apart from the aqueducts, what have the Romans ever done? Jesus is an important historical figue because he founded a major religion. One doesn't have to be a Christian to accept the truth of that statement. If Jesus didn't found Christianity, who did? Some hitherto unknown figure later called Jesus? Christ, we don't need a birth certificate to accept that a person two thousand years ago lived and died. --Pete (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note my use of the word "otherwise". HiLo48 (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, regardless of how one judges them, the Crusades showed that Christianity was not just a mountain top prayer event. So there were major events that ensued from the formation of the Christian church, regardless of how one views the merits of the events. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"is effectively meaningless if virtually all scholars who study this topic are Christian believers to start with. And I still suspect that to be the case." - I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. There are TONS of scholars who study Christian history and biblical texts who are not Christians.ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Reformed. There are actually many more scholars of Christian/Biblical History who are not believers. Its either hyperbole or a strawman to say otherwise. Ckruschke (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Actually not just those, but some of the top scholars such as Paula Fredriksen and Geza Vermes used to be Christians, but have since switched to other religions, Ehrman has dropped belief in God altogether, Price is an atheist, etc. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We have each produced the same amount of evidence to support our views. My view still stands. Because that's all it is, a view. We are not here to debate whether Jesus existed. We are here to discuss what would be best in the lead of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per policy, this can not a debate about the facts. But as stated before there is no Wikipedia policy that allows the religion of a scholar to be used to exclude them as a source on that topic. So Buddhists scholars can be used as sources about Buddhism and Jewish scholars about Judaism, etc. But in any case, as stated before, there is a wide range of sources here and not a single source that says otherwise. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

So, we now have one editor saying "Look, two of them aren't Christian any more", and another saying "Yes, they're all Christian, but it doesn't matter." I think it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not say they are all Christian, but I do say that there a number of sources and the issue they are addressing is "arithmetic" - counting the number of people on each side of the debate. So the fact that some or all may be Christian is a moot point here anyway, given Wikipedia policies, the sources presented and the lack of a single opposing source. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What you call arithmetic, I call synthesis, but my points go together. Why does this less than critical, imperfectly sourced claim need to be the second paragraph of the lead? HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but an item with multiple sources by well established scholars is not WP:OR. I am sorry, but your view is illogical for if an item is WP:OR it should go "nowhere at all". You have not as yet produced a single Wikipedia policy to question the sources and not a single source that says otherwise. Anyway, I will stop now, for I do not see the logic in the statements made here. History2007 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What is illogical is that you're the only editor who has mentioned WP:OR. I certainly didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The link in your "I cal it synthesis" statement above leads to the WP:OR page. There is no synthesis and no OR here given the direct quote from the source accompanied by other sources that all say effectively the same thing: hardly any scholars oppose that view. History2007 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: If a statement that's almost word for word taken from a book by an expert published with a reputable publisher, backed up by multiple similar souces, is "imperfectly sourced", what better sources could we hope for? Also, I agree with History2007 et al. that existence is a critical fact that should be covered in the lead. Huon (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that issue of existence applies to every article about people, and is one of the first things said about people. That is what distinguishes the article on Nicolas Bourbaki from the article on André Weil who helped invent him. The first things article usually say are:

• Who was this and why is this person notable? The article on Weill starts that way, he was a French "mathematician known for algebraic topology, etc." The article on Albert Einstein starts with "he was a German physicist known for general relativity, etc." The article on Bourbaki starts with he "is the collective pseudonym under which a group of (mainly French) 20th-century mathematicians wrote a series of books". So if the person existed or not is the obvious first issue about that person.

• Where and when the person lived is the next issue addressed. Did he live in the 20th century, or 5th century, etc. Europe or Asia, etc.

• Then a general description of what the person was involved in etc. The articles on Einstein and Alexander the Great as well as most others I have seen have that format.

There is, however, a second reason why existence has to be mentioned (and is mentioned in all of 9 words here!) in the lede here, namely that there have been theories that "this person did not exist", as in the article Christ myth theory. So if there had been the debate that Nicolas Bourbaki existed, and then it turned out he was an invention, that issue is even more important for the Bourbaki than the Einstein and Alexander the Great articles. So anyway, as I said this long debate on "these 9 words" seems to be too much. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is his existence important to? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is obviously important to you, because you keep typing about it. History2007 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• It take issue with the 2 words "virtually all", when there are a growing number and probably more scholoars listed on the Christ myth theory page suggesting it a myth than there are suggesting it's not! "Virtually all" pushes remaining scholars into "fringe" territory, which is not always the case lately. I'd advocate use of language such as "many" or "conventional" instead. After all, the only historical sources for Jesus are the Testimonium Josephus, which is not reliable and the "Chrestus" mention, which could equally apply to James if you read the text. Applying it to Jesus is biased conjecture, just like Islamic scholars biased interpretation of Bekka to Mecca. It would be lovely to prove that Simon Magus, John the Essaios or some othe madman (or woman) invented Jesus, but we have no hard evidence of that either. I would suggest most unbiased, non-christian scholars nowadays favour the notion that some element of myth was involved in the story somewhere. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason that language was used is because that is the language that is used by the sources cited... which are academic peer reviewed resources. Do you have a competing source that claims otherwise that we could evaluate and incorporate?ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few, for instance "The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought" suggests elements of the redeemer influenced early Christian writers.Adrian Hastings; Alistair Mason; Hugh Pyper (21 December 2000). The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 268–. ISBN 978-0-19-860024-4. Retrieved 3 November 2012. I don't like the language 'competing', which presents a POV. I do like the terminology of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who refers to a "Jesus (or Jesi) of scholarship" refering to that reconstructed by scholars, and the "Jesus of history", the Jesus that matters in history, whether Iconic or mythical. Dominic J. O'Meara (1 November 1981). Neoplatonism and Christian Thought. SUNY Press. pp. 219–. ISBN 978-0-87395-492-1. Retrieved 3 November 2012. That approach feel more balanced than the "Jesus is God" page written by Christians and and the "Christ is a myth" page that Christians keep trying to imply has been written by fringe nutters. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And who are these "growing number and probably more scholars" who deny existence on the Christ myth theory page? And by the way, that page also says the same thing, namely there are hardly any scholars now who deny existence - there used to be some in the 1920-1950 period, but the tide turned a while ago and G. A. Wells the leader of non-existence movement did a well known U-turn. Probably more means very little and growing number is not a number. So how about some names? And even better, how about reference? What you have listed (e.g. Oxf Companion ref on Gnosticism) does not provide a discussion of existence, but relates to Christian beliefs and narrative elements. It does not address this issue at all. The issue discussed here is existence, not the details of the gospel narratives. These are separate issues. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a list of some of the scholars pointing out there's not a shred of evidence for Jesus (limited the list to the last 12 years for brevity):

Harold Liedner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Anachronisms and geographic errors of the gospels denounced. Christianity one of history's most effective frauds.

Robert Price, 2000, Deconstructing Jesus. 2003 Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? Ex-minister and accredited scholar shows Jesus to be a fictional amalgam of several 1st century prophets, mystery cult redeemers and gnostic 'aions'.

Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness. A psychotherapist take on the godman.

Michael Hoffman, 2000, Philosopher and theorist of "ego death" who jettisoned an historical Jesus.

Dennis MacDonald, 2000, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. Professor of New Testament studies and Christian origins maps extensive borrowings from the Homeric epics the Iliad and the Odyssey by the authors of the gospel of Mark and Acts of the Apostles.

Burton Mack, 2001,The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making.

Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud!

Israel Finkelstein, Neil Silbermann, 2002, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. Courageous archaeologists who skillfully proved the sacred foundational stories of Judaism and Christianity are bogus.

Frank R. Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources. No evidence in Jewish sources for the phantom messiah.

Daniel Unterbrink, 2004, Judas the Galilean. The Flesh and Blood Jesus. Parallels between the tax rebel of 6 AD and the phantom of the Gospels explored in detail. 'Judas is Jesus'. Well, part of Jesus, no doubt.

Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Canadian New Testament scholar and ex-Anglican priest re-states the ideas of Kuhn, Higgins and Massey. Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt.

Francesco Carotta, 2005, Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity. Exhaustive inventory of parallels. Alarmingly, asserts Caesar was Jesus.

Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Another take on the Josephus-Gospel similarities. Atwill argues that the 1st century conquerors of Judaea, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, used Hellenized Jews to manufacture the "Christian" texts in order to establish a peaceful alternative to militant Judaism. Jesus was Titus Flavius? I don't think so.

Michel Onfray, 2005, Traité d'athéologie (2007 In Defence of Atheism) French philosopher argues for a positive atheism, debunking an historical Jesus along the way.

Kenneth Humphreys, 2005, Jesus Never Existed. Book of this website. Draws together the most convincing expositions for the supposed messianic superhero. The author sets this exegesis within the socio-historical context of an evolving, malevolent religion.

Jay Raskin, 2006, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities. Academic and erstwhile filmaker Raskin looks beyond the official smokescreen of Eusebius and finds a fragmented Christ movement and a composite Christ figure, crafted from several literary and historical characters. Speculates that the earliest layer of myth-making was a play written by a woman called Mary. Maybe.

Thomas L. Thompson, 2006, The Messiah Myth. Theologian, university don and historian of the Copenhagen school who concludes Jesus and David are both amalgams of Near Eastern mythological themes originating in the Bronze Age.

Jan Irvin, Andrew Rutajit, 2006, Astrotheology and Shamanism: Unveiling the Law of Duality in Christianity and other Religions. Explores astrotheology and shamanism and vindicates John Allegro's work with psychoactive substances.

Roger Viklund, 2008. Den Jesus som aldrig funnits (The Jesus who never existed). A Swedish scholar reaches the same inescapable conclusion: Jesus never existed. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How many of those are "scholars"? And how many "deny existence"? That is a very confused list because many of those people question the Historical Jesus i.e. the details of the gospel narratives. You need to show "scholars who deny existence", not those who deny the miracles. E.g. Kenneth Humphreys is no scholar by any measure, etc. Andrew Rutajit? Since when is he a scholar? Daniel Unterbrink is a self-published accountant! If the door is opened of these "non scholars" one could list a thousand others who say UFOs exist etc. So you need a list of "scholars" who "deny existence" and you should probably think of the difference between existence and gospel narratives. So that is a totally confused list, many of whose elements do not refer to the existence issue. So please trim the list and try again. History2007 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, it looks like you just copied that list verbatim from a non-WP:RS website. Please do your own research carefully, identify scholars vs others, look for self-publishers, etc. then try again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can pick apart the reliability of all those sources at your leisure. Feed them to the lions like Essenes before Nero; Macdonald, Finkelstein and Viklund look a bit meaty though. I'd also cite Irving and Rutajin as part of the Allegro reconsideration movement that I could talk about. Everyone should read John Marco Allegro (June 1992). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian myth. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-757-1. Retrieved 3 November 2012., for what I consider the definitive authority on the subject. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that, for it is really not that hard to do. It will probably take less than an hour - so I will just do it. I did not even know who Harold Leidner was, but now I do: he was a "patent attorney" and amateur scholar. As we all know too well, lists that one just finds on the internet can be nothing more than sad jokes. The likes of Leidner and Unterbrink who are attorneys and accountants wonder off into various topics and think they have it all together, but in the end get published by unknown publishers or self-publishers. They are not scholars by any measure. To give you context, who knows, who really knows, how many amateur physicists are out there who claim perpetual motion, anti-gravity or free energy in self-published books. But the Wikipedia page on Physics can not accommodate those views, regardless of any Wiki-editor's preference of them. So anyway, I will provide the relevant issues regarding the list you copied from that web site, just so it will be clear. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read Finkelstein, in the work cited he is not dealing with Jesus but rather a few centuries before nor does he throw the Bible out completely but rather that it must be read skeptically [i.e., it tells us a lot more about the writers' times than about the times the writer is supposedly writing about]. It is a bit like David Barton's histories (or Parson Weems) assuming that is all that will be left in a few hundred years, full of inaccuracies and mythmaking and telling us something about 21st century USA, but that does not mean that some factual info is not there, e.g., George Washington and Thomas Jefferson existed. MacDonald is a scholar with a minority viewpoint, but, he is not denying. as far as I can see, that Jesus existed but rather proposing that 'Mark' has cast the story in a Homeric frame. That Jesus never existed is very much a minority view among scholars (that the resurrection and other miracles happened is another matter and one that many scholars doubt) --Erp (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Finkelstein, MacDonald are addressing separate issues really. And as you said many scholars who support existence, deny the resurrection, or other miracles, etc. Some of the scholars who support existence (N. T. Wright among them) do not even assume that the names of the 12 apostles can be historically determined. Others such as Crossan think Jesus never had any apostles as such but had a group of changing followers. But those are separate issues from his existence. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Viklund, the third of the "meaty" sources, is an amateur who has received heavy criticism for his amateurish methods and his reliance on the Secret Gospel of Mark which isn't quite the best of sources on anything. Huon (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

John M. Allegro's book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth is the one to read, and the reason so many accountants and attourneys are running off writing allsorts in support and re-examination of his early works. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross controversy caused a bit of a smokescreen over his seminal work on the subject of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which came from one of the most enlightened minds, full of the most comprehensive (and reliable) knowledge of the period that I have come across. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the list you provided is not just accountants and attorneys, but includes scholars such as Burton L. Mack who specifically support the existence of Jesus. Mack thinks Jesus was a traveling sage who was crucified, but not due to conflict with Jewish authorities, etc. So that list is really way off the mark. I am working on that list anyway, and will have a complete analysis soon. As for Allegro, his Wikipedia page says that "he wrote books that attracted popular attention and scholarly derision". In any case, per policy (say WP:V) we can not read the books and judge their contents for accuracy. The issue is if Allegro is a scholar or not. From what I can see he did not have a PhD, and was at best an "assistant lecturer in philology". An "assistant lecturer" is not really a scholar, but someone who did not make the grade for an academic career. So it would be a real stretch to call Allegro a scholar, unlike Mack who is a full fledged scholar. History2007 (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of the suggested list of books about the existence of Jesus

I now looked at the list which had been copied from one of non-WP:RS websites by Paul Bedson above and here are the results:

• Harold Leidner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Leidner was a patent attorney (NY University Law school 1939) and amateur scholar. He was an attorney, not a scholar and wrote as an amateur outside the field of law.

• Robert M. Price: Deconstructing Jesus. 2003. Price is a biblical scholar, has training in the field and denies the existence of Jesus. However, he acknowledges (The Historical Jesus: Five Views ISBN 028106329X page 61) that hardly any scholars agree with his perspective on this issue.

• Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness Childs is a psychoterapist (not a scholar in the field) but does not deny the existence of Jesus. His perspective is shared by a number of scholars who support the existence of Jesus, e.g. John Dominic Crossan who also said: "those who write biographies of Jesus often do autobiography, but think they are doing biography". Child's perspective is unrelated to the existence question.

• Michael Hoffman 2000: It is not clear which Hoffman this refers to. Please provide a more exact reference, ISBN, etc.

• Dennis MacDonald, 2000, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. MacDonald is a scholar, but does not deny the existence of Jesus as a person, he just argues that the Gospel of Mark was influenced by Homeric elements. He also thinks the Book of Acts includes Homeric trends, but that is unrelated to the existence question.

• Burton L. Mack The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making. Mack is a scholar who specifically supports the theory that Jesus existed as a traveling sage. Mack was a member of the Jesus seminar, believes that Jesus existed, but holds that his death was accidental and not due to his challenge to Jewish authority.

• Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud! Cascioli was a "land surveyor" who worked for the Italian army. His book was self-published. His claim to fame was that in 2002 he sued the Church for inventing Jesus, but in 2005 his case was rejected. He was no scholar.

• Israel Finkelstein, Neil Silberman, 2002, The Bible Unearthed Finkelstein and a Silberman are archaeologists, but they do not deny the existence of Jesus. Their work is centered on archaeological themes and mostly addresses the Old Testament. Hardly anyone lists these two people as Jesus myth theorists.

• Frank Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. Zindler (who seems to have been a biologist at some point) does not seem to have had any scholarly training or taught at any university on this topic. What he writes on the topic is all self-taught, not scholarly.

• Daniel Unterbrink, 2004, Judas the Galilean. Unterbrink is an accountant, and his book is self-published by iUniverse.

• Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Harpur (who is a follower of Gerald Massey) argues that Egyptian myths influenced Judaism and Christianity, but he does not deny the existence of Jesus. Harpur's theory is that Jesus of Nazareth existed but mythical stories from Egypt were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

• Francesco Carotta 2005, Jesus Was Caesar. Carotta does not deny the existence of Jesus, on the other hand he thinks Jesus existed but was Gaius Julius Caesar: an unusual theory, but it does not deny the existence of Jesus.

• Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus I am not sure who Joseph Atwill is. He seems to have written one paper on the Dead Sea Scrolls with Eisenman, but he does not seem to have any scholarly background, apart from having studied Greek and Latin as a youth in Japan, according to a review website. No trace of his having been a scholar of any kind.

• Michel Onfray Traité d'athéologie (2007 In Defence of Atheism): Onfray, has a PhD in philosophy and was a high school teacher. He is critical of all religions including Judaism and Islam and thinks Christian doctrine was invented by Paul. Rather than focusing on the existence of Jesus his work deals with how religious doctrines were created and how they impact western philosophy.

• Kenneth Humphreys, 2005, Jesus Never Existed. I can find no evidence anywhere that Humphreys is a scholar of any type, and where he was educated. He just seems to run his own website, and his book is published by Historical Review Press, which is Anthony Hancock (publisher), whose specialty is Holocaust denial books. A really WP:Fringe item.

• Jay Raskin, 2006, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities Raskin has a PhD in philosophy, and has taught some philosophy and film making courses at various colleges. His book is self-published by Xlibris - "nonselective" in accepting manuscripts according to their Wikipedia page. Raskin is better known as a film-maker than a historian or philosopher and his movies have titles such as I married a Vampire. He is no scholar on the subject.

• Thomas L. Thompson, 2006, The Messiah Myth. Thompson is a scholar and a denier of the existence of Jesus. He is one of the very few scholars who still deny existence.

• Jan Irvin, Andrew Rutajit, 2006, Astrotheology and Shamanism From what I can find neither of these people are scholars and they seem to have a theory that religions are based on the use of narcotics: a pure WP:Fringe idea that seems to have been advocated by John Allegro as well. This is not scholarship, and these are not scholars.

• Roger Viklund, 2008. Den Jesus som aldrig funnits (The Jesus who never existed). Viklund is an amateur who self-published his book in Swedish and just has his own website. Not a scholar at all.

Postscript: I think for the sake of completeness, I should add a few other writers mentioned on various websites and Wikipages, they are:

• Richard Carrier Not the Impossible Faith and Sense and Goodness without God. He has a PhD in history, but has no academic position and his books are self published by LuLu and Authorhouse. He runs his own website and may seen as a scholar or not, depending on perspective. Not clear what he does for a living.

• D. M. Murdock (Acharya S) The Gospel According to Acharya S is a self-published author and her web site says she has a B.A. degree. There is no claim or record of her ever having had an academic position and she is not a scholar.

• Earl Doherty Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus is a self-published author. He has a B.A. but no advanced degrees and is not a scholar.

• Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy The Jesus Mysteries . Freke has a B.A. degree and Gandy an M.A. Neither has a PhD or had an academic position. Freke taches experiential seminars. Neither is a scholar.

• Christopher Hitchens God Is Not Great.. He had a B.A. degree, no advanced degrees and was a general writer not a scholar.

But this does not impact the situation in any significant way. History2007 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So really there is one solid academic scholar here namely Thompson and then Price who can be called a non-academic scholar - given that he only teaches online courses on the subject ($50 per course I read somewhere). But just Thompson and Price do not make a long list. There are probably 1 or 2 more people with PhDs who deny existence (say Carrier, but who has no academic post) yet it is quite clear from this list that most of those mentioned are either amateurs or are scholars such as Mack who actually support existence. Most of these people are attorney/accountant/etc./etc. types and not scholars. The funniest one however was suggesting Raskin as a scholar. I did get a chuckle out of that one. But anyway, the results speak for themselves. History2007 (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am literally laughing out loud... good work H2K7ReformedArsenal (talk)

I had not even heard of many of these people. I have looked at this issue very carefully and tried to understand which scholars support and oppose it. There are really very, very few scholars in opposition. Most of those who support non-existence are amateurs who make a living by accounting, film-making, and whatever, then write self-published books in their spare time. And this list just confirmed that. History2007 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I second ReformedArsenal - good work! Secondly, I'd like to point out that the only scholars on this list who deny existence are among the ones History2007 named above. We didn't gain anything (except some amusement) we didn't already know. Huon (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had not really expected to see any new scholars, but asked anyway to be sure and clarify the issues. And one other point that should be made is that if the door is opened to amateurs who write on the subject the other way around, the flood gates open. E.g. well known amateurs like Kermit Zarley (really!) have written various books in support of existence, resurrection etc. But I would not even dream of using those as a source in Wikipedia or any scholarly discussion anywhere. The same should apply here. History2007 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Geez, I leave you guys alone for a weekend and look what a mess I have to come back to. Nero's alligators couldn't have done a better job. Looks like there's only Robert M. Price left standing and he's had his legs bitten off. I'd throw Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus (book) and Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot at you but I think you've had your fill. In the meantime, I've filled in some valuable holes with articles on the drilled down key books; Christian myth, Sacred Mushroom and even a film called Healers of the Dead Sea that you can at least listen to if you can't get hold of the books. I think the main point one gains from reading all this is a reality of the times, which Allegro's narration does give well on the film page. It gets you into the minds of the people who wrote the gospels and far from making you deny that Jesus existed, acknowledge that lots of Jesus existed and probably lots of them got crucified too. The community and life they were getting crucified for is what's important, and for me interesting to study. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the page you wrote on the mushroom book is good and was needed in general, the Dead Sea Scrolls myth book page is probably too short and needs expansion if you want to do it. But what exactly does the Healers of the Dead Sea movie have to do with this discussion? I think what can be heard "loud and clear" in your posts and your view point is that Allegro needs to be vindicated because he was fired from his university job after he wrote the mushroom book, received a rough treatment (in fact ridiculed) for his work, the publisher gave him a hard time, etc. But per WP:TPG this page is not for the vindication of Allegro. And this thread was about a list you copied from a web site.

And in any case, as those pages indicate Allegro was "singing a very lonely tune". So although you may feel the need to promote Allegro due to your personal respect for him, his views are far, far from mainstream and at the moment squarely within WP:Fringe territory. It is not often that a publisher apologizes for publishing a book after the fact - as his publisher did for his mushroom book.

So given the highly controversial nature of Allegro's work, per WP:Fringe I am not sure of its relevance here at all. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a particularly catchy analysis of Allegro [1]. Paul B (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as Eisenman's Wikipedia page indicates his views are also highly controversial, and relate to the origins of Christianity, not the denial of the existence of Jesus, which is the subject of this thread. The page that relates to Eisenman is Origins of Christianity - and in fact he is not even mentioned on that page, but that would be the place for him. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am a fan of Allegro and consider him a polyhistor. Anyone who did what he did in 1970 should at least raise an eyebrow. People like Benny Shannon suggest similar things about Moses can maintain their reputation and gain star status nowadays. I'll take your point on board and expand Christian myth as soon as I get a new copy of the book. I seem to have given mine away to someone or lost it somewhere. It does need better coverage, apologies for the current stub. In the meantime, in case the animals are getting hungry again, I thought I'd get medieval on y'all with this guy Hugh Montgomery (historian), who was another polyhistor that I was quite respectful of. I know I've digressed from the black and white existence debate a bit, but this scholar's Jesus shows that the variance between what scholars think there are about as many Jesuses as there are shades of grey, this one expounding on a version you could call the Dan Brown Jesus. I met and had dinner with Hugh in 2007, who suggested that if his Jesus did exist, he could have around three to four million Ulvungar descendants alive today. I thought that quite a fascinating calculation. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As you said this discussion has digressed from the topic of this thread, so I will respond in a new thread below. History2007 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversial theories

Yes, I am a fan of Allegro and consider him a polyhistor. Anyone who did what he did in 1970 should at least raise an eyebrow. People like Benny Shannon suggest similar things about Moses can maintain their reputation and gain star status nowadays. I'll take your point on board and expand Christian myth as soon as I get a new copy of the book. I seem to have given mine away to someone or lost it somewhere. It does need better coverage, apologies for the current stub. In the meantime, in case the animals are getting hungry again, I thought I'd get medieval on y'all with this guy Hugh Montgomery (historian), who was another polyhistor that I was quite respectful of. I know I've digressed from the black and white existence debate a bit, but this scholar's Jesus shows that the variance between what scholars think there are about as many Jesuses as there are shades of grey, this one expounding on a version you could call the Dan Brown Jesus. I met and had dinner with Hugh in 2007, who suggested that if his Jesus did exist, he could have around three to four million Ulvungar descendants alive today. I thought that quite a fascinating calculation. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As you said this discussion has digressed from the topic of the previous thread, so I copied your comment to this new thread, given that it is a separate issue really, so I can respond to it here.

Of course any Wikipedia editor can be a fan of any author, and read any books that are WP:Fringe per Wikipedia policy, or write articles about those books. But almost all the pages you have mentioned already include the term "controversial", Allegro is controversial, as is Montgomery, as is Dan Brown.

So, the question is: Should anything to be done in this article about what might be WP:Fringe items about Jesus,? My reading of WP:Fringe is that they can have their own pages, but not be used in other pages. History2007 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a tricky question when discussing the curious subject of a god that can seperate himself from the rest of existence, form into a man who can alter molecules at will, walk on water and heal himself from death. I just think we should be careful labelling scholars as fringe when they suggest he was a) a normal person, b) part of a group of other normal people, c) had a radically different history/genealogy/consciousness state than traditionally claimed or d) may never have existed, or not existed in any form similar to the record claimed. Saying such ideas are controversial is fine, but claiming that almost all scholars think this or that is like creating a herd of blindfolded elephants, liable to trample academic careers of people like Allegro at will, and I like to think the world's growing out of that. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how you form your impressions. The mainstream "historical view" is that Jesus was a mortal human being who was crucified and died. There is no historical agreement on the details of the gospel narratives. Those who argue for the historicity of the resurrection are very few and considered to be confusing history with religion. For instance Bart Ehrman thinks that Jesus made a mistake and thought the apocalypse was during the first century, and John Dominic Crossan thinks Jesus could not even read or write - let alone perform any miracles. Paula Fredriksen and E. P. Sanders think Jesus was even surprised when his death was ordered. And these are the most respected scholars. But all of these support existence. The only things scholars agree on are existence, baptism and crucifixion. That is all. The 2nd paragraph of the article says that existence is distinct from gospel narratives and their theological assertions of divinity. Fringe are those ideas which very few scholars agree with, e.g. Allegro, etc. A good comparison would be Geza Vermes vs Allegro. Vermes is no longer a Christian, does not support divinity of Jesus, and has written books on Jesus. The books of Vermes get very positive reviews from other scholars, as reflected by his esteemed position at Oxford. The books of Allegro are the opposite in that sense. So the difference is clear. History2007 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, regarding your statement that claiming most scholars think this or that "is like creating a herd of blindfolded elephants", I should point that Wikipedia policy requires us to do that e.g. the determination of the majority view in WP:Due and the use of WP:RS/AC for "academic consensus". And views held by a very small minority should not be mentioned except their own pages per these policies. Please see the quote by Jimmy Wales on that WP:Due page:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

That is a clear issue in terms of the policies of Wikipedia that apply across 4 million articles. History2007 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Then where is the historical source saying Jesus was baptized. No contemporary outside the Gospels has said that. If you are going to make statements like that without even a primary source then you are creating blindfolded elephants. You need double referenced sources to deem something vaguely trustworthy in history, Hugh Montgomery (historian) taught me that! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you really need to read WP:V again. Wikipedia editors do not make statements based on their own reasoning. We only summarize and quote what professors write. We do not debate the facts, per policy. All we do is quote professors from major universities.

As for what Montgomery said he was supporting the use of multiple attestation, "one of the techniques" used by historians. There are others, I suggest reading Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research by Stanley E. Porter 2004 ISBN 0567043606 if you want to gain further familiarity with the issues. But in any case, you and I can not debate the facts, per the WP:V policy. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

True, but in the context of the Historicity of Jesus article, it looks a bit out of kilter to claim that with only a Tacitus source for crucifixion and nothing for baptism. I'd suggest that implies a biased POV and would have thought professors must have pointed this out, but will do more research. Thanks for the book recommendation too, looks interesting, I'll try to get a copy. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look into this in detail, you will see that the professors have discussed this issue to death and the only 2 things they agree on are baptism and crucifixion. Then as that article says there are 8 other facts that are discussed (e.g. did he have specific apostles) but not agreed upon. The scholars generally disagree on everything on this issue except these 2 items, and the other 8 items are the subject only luke-warm agreement. History2007 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, one other item I should mention is that many people assume that scholars just read the sources as we have them and make decisions that way. That is not the case. In many situations, decisions are arrived at by looking at a large number of intermediate documents. An example was G. A. Wells who used to deny existence (his own field is German literature) but when the Q source issues were explained to him in detail, he did his well known U-turn. So the layman's reasoning on these topics only goes that far. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I wrote Q source [2], so I like to think my reasoning goes beyond the layman. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless your reading is published in a peer reviewed journal or book... it doesn't matter what you've written. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Names

I've noted recently that users are trying to erase the Hebrew, Latin and Arabic name of "prophets". The name Jesus is a hellenization of Yēšûă, the Hebrew native name. Jesus is based on the Latin Iesus, and the Qur'an is using the Arabic name Isa to refer to Jesus/Yēšûă/Iesus. And in response to ReformedArsena, the Hebrew Bible was written in, let me think, yes:Hebrew (with some Aramaic). The Vulgate was written in Latin, and used to spread Christianity in Europe. Therefore it is logical to add those names. Runehelmet (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You guys have played this ping pong game for a while. I am not participating in the game, but to end the ping pong perhaps you two can agree to add the Arabic script in the lede paragraph where Islam is discussed and the Hebrew in the Judaism sentence next to it. The Latin can just go in the Etymology section. Note that Christ is only used in the lede paragraph that discusses Christianity, so will be uniform that way anyway. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Or put them all in a note. Jesus is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and the Vulgate was NOT "written in Latin" but translated into it, just like hundreds of other Bible translations. The Latin form is used in nearly all medieval & many modern Catholic contexts & there is some sense in including it. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

But this has been such a hot-button issue for some users so long that I am not sure if the note in the lede will achieve anything. They are all in the Etymology anyway. And if the Greek is going to show then others will ask for proportional air time. I don't care really, except avoiding unnecessary ping pong and debate for ever. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This debate was settled a long time ago, we reached concensus then and I see no need to upturn that. Runehelmet, if you can provide a WP:RS that specifically says that the Aramaic or Hebrew versions of the name were Jesus' then I have no problem adding it. Since Arabic and Latin were not spoken in that part of the world by residents of Judaea... there is no reason to even consider those languages. Until you have a source that supports your claim adding them is WP:OR ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The only documents we have that are anywhere near contemporaneous that list Jesus' name are in Greek. Latin and Arabic documents post-date the era of Jesus by centuries, and Hebrew/Aramaic names are purely reconstructions - and why ישוע, as opposed to ישו, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, יהשע or several other variations? The name "Jesus" has been translated into at least 300 different languages; we only include the Greek name, because that's the only one for which we have actual historical evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Jayjg. Greek is the langauge of the original documents, all else amounts to translation or speculation. There's no need to mention anything but the English name and the Greek original in the lede. Huon (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is just Runehelmet who supports it, then it will probably not go in. However, this discussion suggests that the Etymology section should include a couple of facts with RS sources to clarify the underlying issues:

• There is no universally agreed upon Hebrew spelling, but ישוע , ישו, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ are common renditions.

• The first use in Latin was... ? Was it Vetus Latina?

• The Arabic version came centuries later, and عيسى‎ is the only form. Or is it the only form?

I think just one sentence with RS sources on each of these will avoid future questions. I am not going to look for those, but it would be good to have. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine

My addiction of {{WikiProject Palestine}} was reverted, and I couldn't find a discussion about not having that in the archives. The template says:

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian territories, and the Palestinian people on Wikipedia"

I think this article is very related to the geographic Palestine region. Jesus wasn't born in Mesopotamia, and the Temptation of Christ wasn't in Anatolia. Come to think of it this article should also be in {{WikiProject Ancient Near East}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Palestine is concerned with the Arabic speaking peoples of British mandate Palestine and later. It does not and should not include other historical figures who ones lived places now inhabited by them. Let's not forget that Jesus according to the Bible was a Jew from the House of David.--Rafy talk 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject says its scope includes "A record of Palestine's history from before the Canaanites to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict encompassing [...] historical figures [...]." Jesus would thus arguably be included in the WikiProject's scope. The more relevant question: Is someone at that WikiProject knowledgeable and willing to help improve this article? If yes, why not include it? If no, inclusion won't help no matter whether it's formally in the project's scope. Huon (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As a bystander, let me comment that some users such as myself do not even pay attention to which projects get marked on pages. So beyond the obvious ProjeReligion item, I am not sure if too many people even care how these get marked or do not. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think adding WP:Palestine and not WP:Israel can be seen as an overt statement in the very complex Israeli-Palestenian conflict. This will also imply applying the 1RR used in other articles connected to Israeli-Arab relations. Better keep it free from politics imo. Anyway I don't think that Jesus is more relevant to the average Palestinian than say an average Mideast American.--Rafy talk 18:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about the scope of wp:Palestine contradicts both WP:WikiProject Palestine#Scope and Template:WikiProject Palestine. The wikiproject covers "articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian territories, and the Palestinian people". Those last two are irreverent here, but this article is clearly related to the geographic Palestine region. That Jesus is a Jew does not in any way diminish his, or this articles relation to the geographic Palestine region.

I think you might be confusing the words Palestinian and Palestine. The Palestinians are a modern day Arab people. Palestine, aka Canaan aka Land of Israel etc., is a geographic region that is, among other things, the historic Jewish homeland.

About 1RR, if an article being related to Palestine if enough for it to apply, it applies regardless of how we tag this talk page. As for WP:Israel, I'm not sure if being related to Palestine is enough for project to cover it, but I get the impression that it isn't. Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) isn't tagged as being a part of it, despite being tagged as part of WikiProjects Judaism and Jewish history. I'll ask on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So, should we also apply 1RR to Muhammad because there are Muslim inhabitants in Palestine? Or Timur because his empire covered the area? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be taking it too far. The article of someone who lived so much of his life in the Palestine region, and had so many notably events occur there (e.g. Temptation of Christ, Crucifixion of Jesus) on the the hand: The question there is "is an historical article under 1RR merely for being very related to the geographic Palestine religion": My guess it that that in and of itself that wouldn't be sufficient for 1RR. the 1RR is for "articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed". This article is related to Palestine, but isn't related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask someone from WP:Palestine about weather this article would be covered. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said before WP:Palestine is mainly concerned with the history of Arab Palestinians, a quick look at their top rated articles will confirm this suspicion. You still didn't give any reasons why do you think this article is covered by WP:Palestine and not WP:Israel?--Rafy talk 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason he offered was that the geographic region of biblical episodes. But then given that Matthew says Jesus went to Egypt as a child, should Egypt also be added? That way a complete, heated and pointless current events debate can ensue... There is no need for that at all. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason I gave for not adding wp:Isreal is that I got the impression that being related to historic Palestine isn't enough for for wp:Isreal to cover it, but it turned out that I was mistaken. This article should be in both WikiProjects. Visiting Egypt in and of itself is not enough of a reason to add someone to WP:Ancient Egypt), if somebody was born grew up and died in Ancient Egypt that would be. The examples I gave were of events in his life, notable events in his life just have a strong tendency to also be biblical episodes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, let me formally object to getting this article involved in the never-ending middle east conflict, the ensuing 1RR issues, etc. A quick look at Google news shows that the Palestinian issue is a hot-button loaded with emotion and bringing those 1RR issues and the battles to an article which is at best very, very marginally related if at all. The next thing here would be to debate if Jesus would have theoretically supported statehood for Palestine, if he would vote one way or another, etc. Per WP:Battleground those issues should not spill over to almost entirely unrelated articles such as this. History2007 (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the topic - any reason why WP biography is classing it as A-class when all others are B? As far as I'm aware it was downgraded from A-class some time ago. JZCL 16:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus is "very, very marginally related if at all" to Palestine? He was born grew up and died in Ancient Palestine, how much more related can he get? Should ancient Syrians not be in WP:Syria because Syria in in a civil war? Should we remove all ancient Mesopotamians from WP:Iraq because of the war there. It seams to me that your saying that Ancient Palestine and people from Ancient Palestine should not be within the scope of wp:Palestine and wp:Israel. History, including Ancient history is well within the scope of both projects.

Also, 1RR is for "articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", not "articles related to ancient Palestine" or "articles within the scope of WP:Israel and WP:Palestine". Jesus died long before the Arab-Israeli conflict, this article is not related to that conflict. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I said: "Jesus is very, very marginally related if at all to Palestine". Would you like me to type it again? He walked the hills there, so what? He also walked the land in Egypt and grew up in Egypt, according to Matthew. So what? Is he related to Egypt because his formative years were there? There is no evidence of an impact there. So he is as related to Palestine as he is to Egypt, i.e. very, very marginally related if at all. And as stated above, there is no indication at all that any significant religious or historical item of relevance related to Palestine can impact the study of Jesus or this article. Is there? He walked the hills there. So what? History2007 (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding Jesus to WikiProject Palestine is a fatuous political move. It says nothing about Jesus or Palestine. It is as absurd as applying WikiProject Egypt to the Moses article. --GHcool (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said much further above, at first I said I did not care which projects get added. Then I realized the current events implications. This will just add no scholarship, just produce an unnecessary current events, politics laden angle to it. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I noticed that the beginning of the article has a fairly bulky infobox with lots of hidden comments and references. I propose that this slightly messy jumble of code be moved somewhere like Template:Jesus infobox that can then be transcluded at the top of the page with a simple {{Jesus infobox}}. This might help make the article slightly more welcoming to editors who are afraid of code, and would also make it easier to edit for the rest of us. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it a mess? Yes. Are the comments needed? I would say for sure, for sure. It may be good to clean it up of course, but if you have been watching the info box saga you will remember that everyone and his uncle was changing nationality to be something new - I don't recall Jesus being claimed as being from Luxembourg, but I may be mistaken. Then there was the parents saga, then the ethnicity, etc. As you can see it does not even say Jewish any more. And there have been no edit wars on it for a while.

And remember that this page gets 400k views a month and there have been very few (if any at all) objections to the simplified info box. When it was longer and more controversial, there were brouhahas far more frequently. In fact at one point someone suggested no info box, etc. and the final compromise was a simple info box, and the comments have helped keep it free of edit wars.

So I would say clean up, sure, but get rid of the comments will be an invitation for unending debate. In fact, there has been so much talk on so many issues that I was planning to build an index of the talk archives to help direct people to past discussions. So the infobox could in fact be one of those items, with the silence on ethnicity, nationality, parents hot-buttons explained there. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Christology

Appropriate for the article? It's very much related to Jesus and theology related to him. I understand that per WP:Avoid template creep will think that it should not be here, but I believe it is quite relevant. I am asking here for consensus. JZCL 17:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It happens that I built that template, but I did not place it here. I used it in many other places, but not here because as you said it is a theological item. My guess is that it fits in the Christ article while the Jesus template (which is here) is more appropriate here. Anyone can add that anywhere of course, but my guess is that if you add that type of thing to a secular article, you will get talk page comments that will object to it over time. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't realise that it was on the Christ article. You're probably right. JZCL 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lohfink book

PurpleMundi keeps adding the book Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was by Gerhard Lohfink to the bibliography. We don't actually cite the book, and while Lohfink apparently was a Professor of New Testament, he voluntarily resigned his professorship to focus on his vocation as a Catholic priest, and Lohfink's work seems to be mainly as a theologian, not as a bible scholar. The book seems written more from a faith-based than from a scholarly perspective. Thus I don't think it adds much of value to this article, and I've removed it once again. If PurpleMundi disagrees I'd ask him to explain his reasoning instead of just reverting once again. Huon (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear HuonThoughts for consideration: 1)Lohfink was a professor of New Testament exegesis at the University of Tubingen (see his biography on Wikipedia), 2) A "Bible Scholar" can also be a "Theologian," I submit, this simply means the scholar is writing from a faith perspective (which doesn't have to be at odds with "objective scholarship"), 3)The author attempts a balanced perspective between "raw historical criticism" as a tool, and how this can be applied for people with a faith perspective, at least this is what I have gleaned from his work, 4)In your comment you state: "the book seems written more from a faith-based than from a scholarly perspective," Question- Are you saying a person can not come from a "faith" perspective and not be an "objective" scholar? No one, not even a non-faith person (who in reality has a faith in "something")is free from a set of values/ideas that are not tied to a disposition of value perspectives whether they are shaped by cultural, anthropological, or sociological bearings, 5) With all due respect, how can you make the judgment of "thus I don't think it adds much of value to this article," if you haven't even read the work, to decide if it "doesn't have value,"? 6) I think the work does add a "significant" contribution to the conversation regarding "the historical Jesus" debate, and finally, 7) All I'm asking for is a sound hearing of the work, as Daniel J. Harrington, professor of New Testament at Boston College, stated of the work: "Lohfink's 'Jesus of Nazareth' is the best Jesus book I know. It is solidly based on sound biblical scholarship, full of fresh theological insights, respectful of the Gospels and their portraits of Jesus, and beautifully expressed. It is especially effective in highlighting the centrality of God's reign and Israel as God's people in Jesus' life and work." Thus, it also makes a contribution for the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, and that is significant!

Thanks for hearing me out PurpleMundi (PurpleMundi)(talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. First of all, Lohfink resigned his professorship about a quarter century ago to work for an Apostolic Community. Harrington is a Jesuit working at a Jesuit-run School of Theology and Ministry. Here's one Catholic priest endorsing the theological insights of another Catholic priest. That alone doesn't mean he's wrong, but when author, publisher and endorser all are directly related to the Catholic Church, that doesn't carry quite as much weight as we could hope for. Besides, where exactly did Harrington say that? I couldn't find a source beyond the publisher's website; it sounds like a sales blurb to me. Was it published as part of a book review in a scholarly journal?

Secondly, the book itself takes a clearly Catholic approach. Take for example p. 8-10 where the Bible is interpreted exclusively through the lens of Catholic liturgy. Or take this quote from p. 15: "[Jesus] can therefore be adequately understood only in faith and out of the believing memory of the people of God. An understanding of Jesus demands the foundation that is Israel, that is the church. If we do not hold to the church's interpretive tradition [...] then sooner or later the image of Jesus will disintegrate before us." This may be correct according to Catholic theology, but I don't think many others recognizes the necessity of the church's interpretive tradition - Protestant churches don't, Judaism doesn't, and I doubt mainstream Biblical scholarship does. For Wikipedia we'd do better to rely on sources without such a partisan agenda, except possibly on Catholic interpretations of Jesus, for which this probably isn't the appropriate article.

Thirdly, I'm even more skeptical about the book's use on the historical Jesus. It doesn't seem to have much to say on that subject, even putting "historical" in scare quotes.

Finally, whether or not the book itself is valuable, just adding it to the article's bibliography is useless. If the book covers significant content that's currently missing in the article, we should expand the article and use this book as a source (though I doubt it's a good source, see above).

And while religious persons of course can be good scholars (I'd point to Van Voorst as an example), that's because their scholarship is not based on their faith. Lohfink's seems to be. Huon (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQ link

I added a link to FAQ at the end of this page, with archive links in the FAQ. But it looks like hardly anyone reads the FAQ and no one may even watch it. So it would be good if we can refer people to read that first, and have people read and watch it as well anyway.

The FAQ link at the end shows below the categories. Is there a way to condense or minimize the automatic talk page categories. They buy nothing here anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ page is transcluded at the top of this talk page, and I don't think someone looking at it there will be counted as reading the sub-page. So the FAQ may not be as forgotten as the stats indicate. I'll add them to my watchlist, though. Huon (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The counter may treat it as a page. Let us look in 3 days and see if the count goes up. History2007 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one suggestion - could you put it at the top of the page so that it stands out more? The only reason that I'm suggesting this is that people may just click on New section asking another question we have answered countless times, and should hopefully prevent this. JZCL 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can do both. It is easy to put one more at the top. It was actually tricky to get it to show at the end of the page. Will do. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Virtually all scholars"

Off topic, cyclic discussion

The sentence "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." is pretty unusual wording. I was going to change it but I saw the note on the article asking to leave comments here. Usually we would want to be a lot more precise than 'virtually all' which seems rather weasel word like (the virtually), and hard to back up even with the listed sources. Might I propose changing it to "There is little contention among scholars of antiquity that Jesus existed."? I think this gets across the point that most scholars agree Jesus is a historical figure, without using this 'virtually all' construction. Comments? Prodego talk 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC) If we had a penny every time this is discussed... Please look at the archives for a loooong discussion on that. The source says that, and it has been discussed on talk, WP:RSN, etc. So please see that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC) That response doesn't actually address my question. Prodego talk 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Well, put it another way, my thinking is that virtually all is accurate, given that it corresponds to the source, and past talk page discussions also indicate that, so it is not just my thinking alone. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC) That phrasing is used because that is what scholarship says (published scholars of repute say that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed). We've been over it ad nauseum... just trust us on this one this time. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC) In fairness we need a link to the archives in the FAQ so people do not have to search for them. I will try to get those FAQ links added. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Ok, well I don't think I've ever seen "virtually all" used in a Wikipedia article before, and I've edited for quite a long time. The fact that it is contentious is probably a sign that this wording is problematic, which is consistent with my impression. I'm curious if either of you have problems with my wording? Previous discussion doesn't prevent change, though I'll definitely want to look through that. Prodego talk 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Actually that was also discussed: Wikipedia uses that term all over. And this definition clarified the term, etc. And given that this page gets 400,000 views a month, a discussion here or there is not really contentious in the larger scheme. And I am sorry, but I think your wording deviates from the source. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Indeed, and any wording that deviates ever so slightly from the source is likely to be attacked as inaccurate or hyperbolic. Not that using the same wording as the source precludes such attacks entirely, but it makes it much easier to reply. Huon (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC) It is false that all scholars agree that Jesus existed. "Virtually all" is a weasel-word tactic. There is no poll from a reputable pollster. In fact, there is no poll at all, that I know of. There is no statement in a peer-reviewed, non-Christian journal saying "virtually all." In fact, nobody has produced an example of a peer-reviewed, non-theological article saying it is fact that Jesus existed at all. I'm not sure there is no such source, but none has been provided. All such sources are written for a popular audience, and usually the authors have a religious background. Many of the books are published by the Christian press, whose editors obviously aren't going to question whether Jesus was real. The wording should really be changed to "According to so-and-so, virtually all....". Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "Virtually all" is the wording used by our reliable source, an academic published with a reputable publisher. We have Michael Grant, a classicist, saying the same thing. He does so in a book, not a journal article, but that's also a reliable source, and Orion Publishing is not a "Christian press". Neither is Cambridge University Press which published Dunn's essay that says the same thing. Of course there's Van Voorst, a scholar whose competence virtually everybody respects even if they disagree with him, who also says so. And there's Price who himself disagrees with existence but accepts he's in the minority. This insistence on peer-reviewed articles strikes me as odd. Of course such articles make excellent sources - but so do textbooks. I cannot think of any reason to insist on articles over textbooks except to exclude the various textbooks whose content we may not like. In summary this strikes me as beating a dead horse. We've been here repeatedly, the sources have been discussed at WP:RSN and accepted, we use wording that precisely corresponds to the source, and we're backed up by WP:RS#AC. There isn't even a hint of disagreement in reliable sources with the contested statement. In short, there's nothing to discuss here any more, and repeating the old refuted claims is useless. Huon (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Agreed. This won't fly. We have a whole article, Historicity of Jesus, dedicated to this, with the same phrasing and references, but lots more detail. Huon doesn't mention the Ehrmann ref, very current & from an agnostic. I note Humanpublic has produced no sources of his own.... Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, Humanpublic is expressing a personal opinion, given that the number of sources he has produced is zero. Note that a list of 20 possible opposing "authors" was proposed on talk - archived now, and the results were laughable: some were accountants, some attorneys, etc. This repeated statement sans source is sounding like a broken record now, and from an account that does not seem to be doing anything else. I now wonder if.... You know what I mean.... Humanpublic has said this for a few months now, but given that he has zero sources, whatever he says does not matter, and for one I think he can just be ignored, for in Wikipedia sources talk and ... nothing else matters. So for all I care Humanpublic can say the same again and again, be just ignored and will make no difference to anything. History2007 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) In order for this discussion to get off the ground, you have to make an effort. Little of what I said is "a personal opinion." It is a fact that there are no peer-reviewed sources. It is a fact that Grant wrote popular books. It is a fact that Ehrman's training and background is evangelical and theological, regardless of his current belief. It is a fact that being a classicist does not make you an expert on what "all scholars" believe. Neither does being a professor of religion. A pollster is an expert on what all scholars believe, and this article cites no pollsters. Huon's comment about textbooks is out to lunch. No textbooks have been cited. None of what I just said is a personal opinion. Humanpublic (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, what?! How exactly is Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament not a textbook by a respected scholar published with a reputable publisher? What, precisely, makes Sacrifice and Redemption, published by Cambridge University Press, not an academic source? By now we've arrived at scholars being rejected because they were evangelical sometime in the past. What's next, scholars being rejected because undeniably a grand-aunt was a Christian? And I'm particularly amused by the comment how being a classicist is insufficient - I remember hearing the same argument about biblical scholars, too. Who would be in a position to know the academic consensus? If you want to make an effort to get this discussion off the ground, I'd suggest one of two routes: Either present a reliable source that actually supports your point of view, or go to WP:RSN and make the case that Ehrman, Van Voorst et al. are not reliable sources. I'd prefer the former because firstly it would be a genuinely new approach and secondly the people at RSN have better stuff to do than to tell incredulous editors yet again that Ehrman is an acceptable source for this statement. Huon (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources is a tactic in tendentious editing. Making original and unsourced claims about the sources falls under WP:No original research as well. The current wording is fine until reliable sources are produced claiming that more than a small minority reject the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth; then things will be divided into "these scholars say virtually all scholars agree, these scholars say that many scholars disagree." Since even Robert M. Price, who denies the existence of Jesus, admits that virtually all scholars agree on Jesus's historical existence, I doubt that's going to happen. Continuing to ignore a glaringly obvious consensus, refusing to acknowledge what everyone has to say, is also a tactic in tendentious editing (and rude at that), especially since we could probably let it be known to Helen Keller without even using a Ouija board. All claims intended to change articles require sources, or a demonstration that current sources are unreliable. When the consensus is that the sources are reliable, and one cannot actually point to any part of WP:RS or to any RS to show how the source is unreliable, disputing the reliability of that source is nothing short of disruptive. I seriously doubt that Talk:Evolution would entertain a Young Earth Creationist's similar behavior for long, and for good reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC) As pointed out above, this discussion has already taken place both on this very talk page and on WP:RSN. HumanPublic is in effect acting as the new user:CUSH now, not hearing WP:HEAR. Are they the same users? Who knows? For this discussion to get off the ground again, as HumanPublic wishes, it needs this. That is not my department. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Fact: No peer-reviewed non-theological sources. Fact: Virtually sources are popular books. Fact: Being a classicist (who writes popular books) or a prof of religion does not make you an expert on what "virtually all scholars" believe. Fact: No reliable polls of what "virtually all scholars" believe have been given. Fact: The vast majority of sources saying Jesus existed have a Christian, theological connection. Humanpublic (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC) And sources with Christian theological connections are automatically not WP:RS... I think not. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I would not even bother type too long a response to Humanpublic. By and large he needs to be just ignored. He has said the same again and again. It is not even worth running to WP:AN for WP:HEAR. He is best ignored I think. History2007 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC) I didn't say anything is "automatically" not reliable. Compare to global warming and evolution. Are both easily documented in peer-reviewed academic journals? Yep. Are there reputable polls supporting the consensus among experts? Yes. Why no such level of support here, and why the aggressive attempt to stifle discussion of it? Humanpublic (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Your answers are here. Good luck. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Humanpublic... the books we are referencing are most certainly peer reviewed and are not published without extensive editorial scrutiny. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Books for a general audience aren't peer-reviewed. Editors aren't peers. That's why there are thousands of books advancing Intelligent Design, yet no peer-reviewed molecular biology articles. Please take the time to understand the ideas you're rejecting. Humanpublic (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I don't know about you, but every journal subscription I have includes a long list of reviewed books at the end (Including both academic and popular sources) that are reviewed by members of the academic society who publishes the journal. While it may be true that not every book for the general populace is peer reviewed, it is far from accurate to say that none of them are. As far as taking time to understand the ideas you are rejecting, I think between the two of us you seem to be the most guilty of that. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you should take the time to read WP:RS a few times more to understand that references in Wikipedia do not have to be exclusively from peer reviewed journals in any case. There is no requirement like that at all. The use of these sources as WP:RS has been discussed again and again on this talk page and the RS board, where it was stated that any attempt to say this is not the scholarly consensus is "grasping at straws" - as you well know. And you have been told that almost as many times as there are water molecules in an ocean. Have you not figured it out yet? And you are well aware of the discussion of the list of books that suggest otherwise - so it is time to stop grasping at straws. Else, you should read WP:RS and the talk page discussions a few times more to grasp the issues. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Move to close thread: Given the cyclic nature of this thread based on Humanpublic's repetition of the same issues again and again, despite their having been addressed in past discussions, I move to "close and archive this thread" in the spirit of the WP:SNOW essay given that it is just going to cycle again and again as a perpetual comment machine with no new issues that have not been addressed in the recent past. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC) ReformedArsenal: Book reviews aren't peer-review, obviously, since at that point the book has already been published. Please take the time to learn what peer-review is. I'm not saying peer-review is required, nor did I say that anyone with "Christian theological connections" is not reliable. Maybe this discussion seems circular because you're not actually responding to the concerns. Humanpublic (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

James the Just is the Brother of Jesus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the truth, it is said throughout the bible and most notably by Paul in Galatians 1:19. It must remain and I pity those who exist to remove the truth. If a person cannot provide evidence that says otherwise, let it be shown. If a person believes it is not exact, let it be said. Twillisjr (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How many damn times does it have to be explained to you? We do not interpret primary sources! Seriously, what is your problem with that?

It's pretty much basic knowledge that the Catholic Church teaches the Perpetual virginity of Mary. See John Saward's Cradle of Redeeming Love: the Theology of the Christmas Mystery, page 18, and the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry "The Brethren of the Lord".

If the Catholic Church is one of the largest denominations in the world, and they do not think Jesus had brothers, then obviously it cannot be claimed that most Christians believe Jesus had a brother! It doesn't matter if you or I agree that Jesus had plenty of younger siblings fathered by Joseph, Catholics do not, ergo the brother belief is not an apt description of MOST Christians. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hypocrisy does not justify anything. The fact that Christians do not follow their doctrine does not mean it does not exist. As previously stated, this excerpt comes from the words of Paul, who is a little bit more informed than all of the sources you have provided. Perhaps I should publish a book on Lulu claiming that you do not exist, and then we can debate whether or not your mother or I is the appropriate source. Twillisjr (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Who died and made you Pope? You pushing your personal interpretation of a primary source does not determine who is a true Christian (since your not Jesus), or does it even determine who is only a nominal Christian. Wikipedia takes a neutral anthropological view on the issue (generally "if they identify as Christian, they are described as some sort of Christian"), and the majority of Churches have generally held to more open standards focused on main core beliefs for determining who is or is not a Christian. Even Jerome claimed that James was not a child of Mary's. Also, actually read WP:RS, self-published sources (which includes Lulu) are not accepted as sources here. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus in Japan

if you find any interesting facts on this link you should put it on the Jesus article. 109.79.144.39 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems like the epitome of WP:Fringe ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Since it's sourced to Smithsonian mag It might be worthwhile to include as a sentence in the "Other views" section as a claim. We include Jesus in India, which historians regard as Theosophist bunk. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If the door is opened to that Shingō, Aomori and its gift shop comes in, etc. The whole issue of travels of Jesus outside the area is handled in Lost years of Jesus so should go there, if at all. I wonder which airline he used... Anyway, as i said here a year ago the only thing left out now is to say that he danced with Bianca Jagger at Studio 54... History2007 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, He's currently sharing an apartment with Buddha in Japan (actually a fun and respectful series that manages to include a modern Yakuza retelling of the Samaritan woman at the well). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

All we need now is Bianca cast as the Samaritan woman and Jesus telling her about the lost ways of Mick... History2007 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why a link to an Islam portal?

Hello everyone, I have a small question: why in the article about Jesus Christ, who is the foundations of Christianity, there is a link placed to an Islam portal? What Islam has to do with Jesus? If it is the result of political correctness and/or neutrality, which are obviously very important subjects, then please answer why there is no link to a Christian portal in the article about Muhammad? Best regards, Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.119.41 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a link to the Islam portal in the Jesus article because in Islam, Jesus is a prophet. There is not a link to a Christianity portal in the Mohammad article because Mohammad means nothing to Christianity.Farsight001 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See Jesus in Islam. Muslims believe that Christianity arose from a distortion of Jesus's message. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Existed" The article tries very hard to prove that

Yet it fails to mention most of those "scholars" are Christians or Christian influenced. --62.1.89.106 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

IP: FAQ question 3c discusses the issue of who writes books that say otherwise. Please read that. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't ask about books that say otherwise. The perception is correct, as far as the sources of this article go: the majority of sources saying Jesus existed have a Christian background and training. Humanpublic (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why that is relevant if they meet WP:RS ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia Buddhist scholars can write about Buddah, Jewish scholars about Moses and Islamic scholars about Islam. There is no policy that prohibits the use of WP:RS sources based on the beliefs of the author. That is how Wikipedia works. And in any case, for the N-th time, no opposing WP:RS sources have been offered. And this has been said so many times now, as you well know. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said otherwise. You just keep not listening. Nobody has said Christian scholars can't be used. Nobody has said there are opposing views. For the N-th time, the refutation of "all scholars agree" includes "many scholars take no position." It is not "many scholars oppose." For the millionth time, nobody has said Christian scholars are prohibited. Every single time, I say I am not arguing that Christian scholars are prohibited, and every single time you reply with the strawman that Christian scholars are allowed. Yes, Christian scholars are allowed. But if you say "all scholars" then you should be able to cite broad cross-section of scholars--in fact, the cross section cited here is very narrow. And, for the millionth time, being a professor of religion does not make anyone an expert on what ALL scholars believe. In evolution, there are polls and statements from national organizations of scientists. Ditto for global warming. There are peer-reviewed articles. There is none of that here, and yet you want the same level of authority. Humanpublic (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not agree at all. Your self-assumed concept of poll is your personal view. In Wikipedia WP:RS/AC states that what a WP:RS source states may be used, and the source used states: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". The source is just getting quoted, as it states it. So attempting to change what the source states based on your self-reasoned concept of how polling is done runs against WP:OR and WP:RS/AC, of course, as stated before. And your discussion is getting somewhat confused now, switching from "Christian background and training" to other angles, etc. The thread was about Christian background and you have now accepted that not to be an issue. So that was the topic of this thread. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Christian background is an issue. No, it is not an issue because it means anyone is automatically disqualified. Humanpublic (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you seem to think it is an issue but not an issue.... That does not sound like logical reasoning to me, so I think I should stop on this now. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to a previous statement by Humanpublic, do you have any evidence that many scholars in the field take no position on the historicity of Jesus? From what I've seen the vast majority of academic scholars of that era think Jesus existed (though also agreeing that the NT contains a lot of accretion). --Erp (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I continue to believe that many editors are confusing two separate concepts - A) most scholars believe that some sort of historical Jesus-person did exist in that time period, vs B) many scholars believe that the bulk of the gospel-stories about that Jesus-person are fiction. I am slowly wading through the plethora of Jesus-articles, adding that distinction into each of them. However some editors in some of the articles like to word this statement in a way which seems to mean something different, which I think is perhaps why other editors get confused. If every Jesus-article clearly stated in simple words that "A real Jesus-person almost certainly did exist but a lot of the gospel stories about him are not true", then I think a lot of this contention would evaporate. Wdford (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a correct reading of the scholarly opinion: they agree that he walked the streets of Jerusalem and was crucified but there is no agreement on the details of what happened on the streets as he walked them. But we must accept that whatever Wikipedia says on this subject someone will be unhappy when reading it. Wikipedia makes no assumption about the ability of the reader to process logic - or that the reader is rational and sober when reading or writing. Over a decade ago, the same readers would read Encyclopædia Britannica and disagree with it, but had no way of responding. But here they do.

So comments will arrive, and all that can be done is having FAQ answers so the effort in clarification goes down. And wording must be selected carefully, e.g. your paraphrase that "A real Jesus-person almost certainly did exist but a lot of the gospel stories about him are not true" will be objected to due to the last part, in that there is no agreement on being true or not, so the way to say that "A real Jesus-person almost certainly did exist but there is no agreement on the historicity of the gospel accounts", side-stepping the word "true" which opens another Pandoras box. And in any case, the article states that in definite terms, as do the historicity article, and the historical article. And again, given the 400k views a month, the situation is quite stable. If you take a look at some of the other articles around, you will see huge multi-year debates.

But that is the nature of Wikipedia - anyone can type anything any time, and that brings in good content, as well as less than rational statements. There was a user (banned now) who used to argue on this talk page that the scholarly consensus exists, but "there are no reliable historians" anyway so what the scholars say matters not. There was another user (also banned) who argued here that "facts must be stated" not the "opinions of scholars" with PhDs. An observant user classified that as the Dunning-Kruger effect - which I had not heard of before. So whatever is stated in this article, some comments should be expected due to the nature of the subject, but we have answers to most of them now - although new ones may yet arrive. But I have seen worse. On the page for Son of man some user was arguing that cyborgs are the Son of man! Welcome to Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that not all scholars agree is that 1) only a very narrow cross-section of "all scholars" can be found saying so, 2) the sources saying so are barely reliable. The vast majority of sources have a Christian background and training. The majority of "all scholars" do not. Why the discrepancy. The vast majority of sources are not historians, yet it is a historical question. Why the discrepancy? In evolution and global warming, there are polls and statements from major associations of scientists. THose are reliable sources for what "all scholars" believe in those fields. This subject has no such sources. There is not a single peer-reviewed work saying "all scholars agree" here, nor is there a single statement from reputable association of historians. The sources are opinions expressed in popular books. Humanpublic (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a half-dozen different scholars with vastly varying backgrounds commenting on the consensus, and they all agree that there is very widespread consensus. I somehow doubt we could find as many scholars commenting on the consensus that Elvis is dead. In fact, given this widespread consensus we're lucky to have found so many who felt it worthwhile to comment on it at all. There is still not a single source contradicting those, and while an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the fact that we have "only" six sources commenting on the issue is hardly evidence that they're all six wrong, either.

You claim that the majority of scholars aren't from a Christian "background and training". Let me guess: You either cannot present evidence for that claim, or you'll have to include scholars whose area of expertise clearly does not include whether or not Jesus existed. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You repeat that the sources are "opinions expressed in popular books", but you failed to reply to my question how Jesus Outside the New Testament or Sacrifice and Redemption fail to be academic publications (and while we're at it, The Historical Jesus: Five Views isn't quite a "popular book" either).

Finally, your claim about what sources are acceptable for the academic consensus is in direct contradiction to WP:RS/AC.

In summary, you've brought nothing new, repeated the same oft-rejected claims, and are in opposition to WP:RS/AC, WP:RSN and the consensus here at the talk page. Unless you bring some new evidence, you're not going to change minds, and beating a thoroughly dead horse gets disruptive. My advice to you would be to let this issue be unless and until you have some new evidence. Huon (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the problem stared when Humanpublic began his post by saying "The evidence". Someone should somehow explain to him that Wikipedia is not about "evidence", but about sources, as stated in WP:V. Whoever uses evidential reasoning in Wikipedia has totally missed the boat on WP:V. But we have said that N times, with N getting very large. I do not know how to say it any more. This is a clear case of WP:HEAR. This user has already been admin-warned, and is headed for an indef-block, and may not even care, given that it is a WP:SPA anyway. In fact he already said it in WP:AN: If that's my choice, I'll be blocked. I can live without this site. As they say: what wish for may just come true. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked by Erp: "Humanpublic, do you have any evidence that many scholars in the field take no position on the historicity of Jesus?" I responded to the question directed to me. The problem is your insistence on participating in threads you don't think anyone should participate in, directing comments at me as you do above, and then demanding I be punished for responding to what is said to me. I'm quite certain that if I respond to your citation of wp:v above, you will promptly pronounce me disruptive for violating wp:hear. Humanpublic (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"A number of authors and scholars say Jesus never existed." [3] Humanpublic (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Scholars to debate if Jesus existed" [4] Humanpublic (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That was some research Humanpublic... I am chuckling now.... Your first blog link confirms that the past discussions on this page have not missed any scholarly names, as it quotes the same cast of characters we have discussed, Ehrman, Crossan, Price, Carrier and Evans. There is absolutely, I mean absolutely nothing new there. Do you actually have "names" of these scholars beyond the list discussed here on this talk page? Your second link has a Wikipedia page... the Jesus Project and again just read that the project included people like James Tabor who not only think Jesus existed, but think he had a few children who formed a dynasty! And the Jesus Seminar which preceded it, did not deny the existence of Jesus, but discussed the details of the gospel accounts.... And note that the Jesus Project was suspended partly because its head was "concerned that the media was sensationalizing the project, with the only newsworthy conclusion being that Jesus had not existed, a conclusion he said most participants would not have reached." And note that the Jesus Seminar was mostly headed by Crossan who says that the existence of Jesus is "as certain as any historical fact can be".... Maybe if you actually researched this topic, you would get to understand it one day... One day... History2007 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Existence

Why are you hitting people over the head with the non-issue of existence? It's a) not an issue and b) does not need to be explained in the lead. It can be assumed, as there is no scholarly issue. To put a statement in the lead is undue WEIGHT to the issue which few ever though about. It doesn't belong there. B^e——C_ritical 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So do I understand that you think the historical existence of Jesus is so widely accepted that "it can be assumed" and does not need to be mentioned? Is that what I am to understand from your comment? History2007 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. B^e——C_ritical 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Becritical, your edit conflated two separate points; whether or not Jesus existed, and exactly what happened to him during his lifetime. I would also recommend reviewing our Christ myth theory article, and in particular that it is a separate topic from Historical Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Becritical's point is refreshing indeed. On the scholarly front I totally agree with him. Scholars at large now see existence as a given. But please see this. There are a number of self-published books by accountants and land surveyors, etc. out there and members of the non-scholarly crowd do need to have that clarified, as a look through the archives of this talk page indicates. And as Jayjg said, while scholars agree that he existed, there is hardly any agreement on the details, e.g. even names of his apostles. In fact the 3rd quest for the historical Jesus has confirmed existence, but increased discord on the details. See historical Jesus on that. So those issues do need to be there and clarified for the average, non scholarly reader. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't actually conflate them so far as I can see, rather it didn't address a non-issue. It just assumed the existence, which given that there is no general scholarly controversy, is appropriate. That's not conflation, it's just taking the scholarly perspective, which is NPOV, correct for WP. "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate." Perhaps if there is need for clarification in the lead itself it could be less prominent. But you know it's the lead, can't we assume the scholarly consensus there and give the footnote now-settled dispute later? B^e——C_ritical 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This page gets over 400,000 views a month, and given the diverse views of those who read it, "assuming things" will be asking for debate and talk page clarification. By the way "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea who was was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate." is incorrect, because the agreement on existence is much stronger than the other elements such as being from Galilee. If we change to that, we will get objections within a day or two. And rightly so. But that point deserves to be in the FAQ. By the way, I will be off line for a while, so please do not assume I am ignoring your next comment. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same, but History2007 does it better. Mentioning the existence issue in the lead seems appropriate because there's quite a bit of dissent in non-scholarly sources. Huon (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, looks like the current text is necessary as a ward against drama, basically a way for the regulars on this article to get some rest. I know how it is :P B^e——C_ritical 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2012

I would recommend the following addition to be located after section 4.8:

4.9 Medical perspective Psychiatric conditions associated with psychotic spectrum symptoms have been proposed as possible explanations for Jesus's experiences and activities.[1]

Reference: ^ Murray, ED.; Cunningham MG, Price BH. (1). "The role of psychotic disorders in religious history considered". J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neuroscience 24 (4): 410–26. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214. PMID 23224447.

Newthoughts34 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want us to add a single sentence as a whole section? ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that those authors are equal opportunity claimants, they think all four of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul were psycho. Are there any other mainstream scholars who support that paper? It seems to have just been published, and has not gathered any support or criticism. In any case, it is no just a Jesus issue but also a Moses issue. So if it gets an article, then can be discussed. My guess is that it will not make it as an article per WP:Fringe unless there are other mainstream publications that support it. Note that these one-off items appear once in a while, e.g. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross that suggested narcotic effects and John Allegro lost his job after he wrote it etc. I saw that you asked there to do it just for Jesus and were sent here, but the responder there did not realize it was a multi-religion issue. The basic idea in that paper is that: "persons with primary and mood disorder-associated psychotic symptoms have had a monumental influence on the shaping of Western civilization." It is a much more general claim than just Jesus. In any case, the way I see it, first it is a more general issue than Jesus, and secondly seems to be newly minted WP:Fringe, unless you have other mainstream sources that support it. In any case, the Litmus test whether this item is going to make it to Wikipedia will be for you to go back to ask for an article to be created on the general premise of the paper, namely that "The prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus had psychotic disorders", and see if that gets created in a more general setting. If that article is created and survives a potential Afd, then it will not be WP:Fringe and a reference to it can be made here. History2007 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think seeing visions would ipso facto qualify as psychotic or some other medicalized and pathologized term, but that's a bias of modern psychology which seeks to normalize. In fact such symptoms may not necessarily be disorders, especially if the society surrounding does not portray them as such. In this light such a paper could not be history, could not be objective, but a modern interpretation, seeing history through a modern lens. Just my 2 cents. B^e——C_ritical 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that would be our own reasoning, and per WP:OR we can not discuss it among ourselves here. The question is really whether the item makes it as a Wiki-article, and the only way to know that is to request it and see what happens. My guess is that it will quickly fail WP:NOTE as well as WP:Fringe. But only time will tell. History2007 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean we can only discuss it among ourselves. And possibly we could, if we wished, pull up some literature on how interpreting historical societies by current ideas has its dangers. So that's a good reason for discussing it. B^e——C_ritical 23:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I could talk to you about that for hours over a few drinks and it would be fun - but per WP:Forum the talking should be done in a bar somewhere not here, since our discussion can not affect the article per WP:OR, unless we find supporting references for building a page for it. So if you do have supporting references to build a page that passes WP:NOTE, by all means, please do. But I will leave that to you. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The process here is that we do use our own knowledge, we just have to find sources for it. So if we're discussing something which can lead to sourced text, it's perfectly valid to discuss whatever we want. We aren't barred from discussing the article subject by saying "here is what I heard and think and if there are sources we need a section on that." B^e——C_ritical 00:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the purpose of the discussion is sourcing, you are right of course. History2007 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to support accuracy about the proposed addition there is no mention in the referenced, peer reviewed journal of the term "psycho". Since the journal has taken on the responsibility of peer reviewing and publishing the substance of the article and the originality of its content then Wikipedia is not being used as a forum for new data or research. As I understand (perhaps incorrectly) Wikipedia presents information that others have researched, had peer reviewed and published.

The authors state:

"We suggest that some of civilization’s most significant religious figures may have had psychotic symptoms that contributed inspiration for their revelations. It is hoped that this analysis will engender scholarly dialogue about the rational limits of human experience and serve to educate the general public, persons living with mental illness, and healthcare providers about the possibility that persons with primary and mood disorder-associated psychotic-spectrum disorders have had a monumental influence on civilization."

As above, the authors don't make definitive diagnoses. Discussion about the article would best be accomplished after reading it. I agree that the article covers material beyond Jesus. The authors work at medical facilities that are widely regarded as top notch. They each can be looked up and each author currently holds or has held leadership roles in local or national organizations that pertain to the fields in which they are writing. Their previous publications are also available and are in very well referenced, peer reviewed text books and journals. Nothing in the medical facilities at which they work(McLean Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School), local and national leadership positions or nature of prior publications would mark them as fringe. Newthoughts34 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that this theory is not just about Jesus but also about Moses, why is it getting applied only to this article? It is a general theory about mental problems for a number of religious people, and its absorption into society. This theory is "not about Jesus" but about a more general proposed phenomenon. So it should be discussed as a more general theory and is not just a Jesus issue. As for psycho, that was of course a joke I could not resist.... The theory is really far fetched of course, given that it is based on details of biblical narratives whose historicity is far from certain as the discussions on this page indicate. Given the 3rd quest for the historical Jesus has resulted in discord on the gospel details, the underlying data they work with is not the subject of general scholarly agreement. As for being fringe, the author's qualifications do not just determine that, it is a question of that general theory having support from other scholars beyond a single article. There is peer-reviewed literature that states that the Resurrection was an actual historical event, but Wikipedia does not present that as such. In any case, you really need to see if the page for the "prophets with mental problems" theory flies or not. Why don't you ask for its creation again and see if it flies. That is the way to go about it. History2007 (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And it ought to fly really, given that I've been hearing for decades that Paul's road to Damascus vision might have been epilepsy. This isn't really so very fringe I think. It's already in this article . B^e——C_ritical 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, if it flies it will fly. So let us see what happens when he asks for a page on its own with Moses and Paul bundled in. History2007 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that AFC has been denied because you phrased it as a desired addition to existing articles, not as a new article. Since that didn't work, I'd like to point out here that, if added to this article, the heading should certainly not be Medical Perspective as that implies that general medical opinion has proposed such claims, which is certainly not true. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree - there is no general medical opinion on that issue. And if he resubmits that at AFC as a request for the creation of a new article (already suggested), it will be assessed by those people based on its merits, given that it goes well beyond the scope of this article. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This might be a starting place to find more sources [5] B^e——C_ritical 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good link actually. But she is talking about Abraham and Job, etc. and the context is again far more general than the subject of this article. For that matter I wonder why these authors excluded Mohammed, etc. But again that is beyond the scope here. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yaya, I thought it was all agreed that this is a subject for a separate article. B^e——C_ritical 22:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, come to think of it, Revelation and (perhaps Private revelation) would be the place to discuss these issues. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch (: B^e——C_ritical 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So I just added it there, given that it fits there, so we can call it a day on this. History2007 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Logic and English idiom

The text reads "whom a majority of Christian denominations believe to be the Son of God". A denomination cannot believe anything, any more than a stone can. To believe requires a brain. People believe, not their denomination. I suggest this paragraph ought to read "who is held by the members of most Christian denominations to be the Son of God". Captainbeefart (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A minor issue, but touched up anyway. But I remembered that at some point it had member and someone said something about how many members does each have or something like that, so should probably say teachings. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Reverting of template.

The template placed here has been reverted can you be specific with this one is filled with factual errors and in what context. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To start with Jesus is not revered in Judaism.--Rafy talk 19:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Jesus isn't revered in Judaism that can be corrected to a more appropriate head Jewish perception of Jesus or something like that. What else? -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That template has very nice coloring and arrangement, but unfortunately it has both errors, and controversial statements built into it. I suggest that the discussion should take place on the template page at length. These templates should provide links, not telegram partially correct facts. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The objection that Jesus isn't revered in Judaism seems valid, but what else? If that's the only issue, it should be easy to correct. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone commented on Ebi's talk page and I started a thread on the template talk page. I think it can be fixed, if it becomes an Islamic vesion of the Jesus template, with links instead of telegramming facts like an info box, e.g. Bethlehem - please see FAQ item 4. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I will answer to you in detail on Template talk:Isa.It is Islamic vesion of the Jesus template. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Let me just note that Template:Jesus includes zero assertions, and is just links, no facts are present there. But will discuss on the template page. History2007 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that your edits not only inserted a template, but also remove an image; the same image, in fact, in multiple articles: [6][7]. No mention was made of this image removal in your edit summaries. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Bible

In the list on this talk page the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Top-importance) is listed twice. Once on it's own and once within the enumeration of wikiprojects (2nd row of wikiprojects). Why not deleting one? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed one from the list. Also WP Religion was twice listed. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ‎ redirect

Jesus Christ‎ used to redirect here as of yestersay, but was just populated. Given that Jesus in Christianity exists, I think that should still redirect here. Suggestions? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good-faith fork based on really dubious references to me. I believe we already cover all of the content in more relevant articles, so there's nothing to be merged. I'll revert back to a redirect. Huon (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Correction

Some one with the authority needs to fix something. In 'Islamic views' under 'Historical views' of this article the "Ahmadiyya Movement" and corresponding statements should be separated and in its own category. The movement's views are not Islamic and take much liberty with its additional "information".70.127.227.92 (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ahmadis call themselves Islamic, and Wikipedia usually accepts a group's self-identification. Just as the Mormons would be subsumed in the "Christian" section, the Ahmadis should find their place in the the "Islamic" section. However, I'm not sure Ahmadi views are significant enough to be mentioned at all in this article - we don't mention the Mormon views either. We could omit them entirely and would still mention the "Jesus in India" theory in the "other views" section. We don't have a secondary source for the Ahmadi views anyway. Huon (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ahmadi issues and lack of sources and notability have been an ongoing nightmare all over Wikipedia, e.g. see talk on Roza Bal. There are a whole pile of less than referenced articles, and have been on WP:FTN e.g. this thread. I think the Ahmadi section here needs to just be a sentence or two in the other section if at all, and not within the Islamic section. The Ahmadi articles and claims, e.g. that Jesus influenced Buddahism, (although the Pali Canon had been there centuries before) are all over. I generally agree with the IP, and also with Huon that it is getting far too much attention. And there are self-published and less tha reliable sources on Ahmadi views getting added with serious persistence all over. History2007 (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked a the Ahmadi quote again, and certainly needs a better source. What we can probably try is to say that Muslims at large differ on that and add a better source. Should probably also mention that Ahmad thought he was the second coming of Jesus himself. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation bundling

I think it would be a good idea to WP:CITEBUNDLE to make this more readable. See Barack Obama for an example. Use of Template:Cite quick may be in order as well. --JFH (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

But in the Obama article when one clicks on a link, it may say "Jacobs (2011), pp. 161–177" and one has no idea who that is, unless searches for Jacobs in the refs. A better way would be to use sfn for them, bundled or not - although it still takes two clicks. Someone changed some of the refs to sfn some time ago, then stopped. It will be plenty of work, in any case, but sfn would be better if someone has free time on their hands. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you use {{citation}} instead of {{cite X}} it automatically creates a reference for {{harvnb}}. See William Perkins (Puritan) for example. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking for now we could just bundle the existing citations, using bullet points. Many of the Obama cites are this way. For example, look at ref #3. Cite quick would help the page load faster because there are so many citations. I don't think that's as big a priority as bundling. Adding sfns would also be a big plus, but would be a lot more work. --JFH (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do it, it may work. History2007 (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality in page name?

To maintain neutrality I think that "Jesus" should redirect to "Jesus (disambig.)" with a link there to "Jesus (biblical figure)" which this current page should be renamed to. 130.15.162.222 (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Biblical Jesus isn't the primary topic? What other topic even comes close in relevance? Jesus (name)? Hardly. Huon (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are far too few other Jesus uses - as Jesus (name) shows. This is by far the most widely used. Not even a remotely possible suggestion. Not an issue of neutrality (for it is not called Jesus Christ), but of WP:COMMONNAME of course. History2007 (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For real, if you're going to make a ridiculous suggestin, at least sign in and put a real name to it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, needless to say Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, etc. are all done the same way as the primary target; so this issue is best forgotten. History2007 (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Myth theory view and UNDUE

I respect the desire of longtime editors of this page to prevent future drama, but having a hugely long section on the history of the myth theory view (it may well be the longest section of the article) seems unjustified, especially since this article is overlong in the first place. Neutrality concerns (which clearly direct us to downplay minority or even fringe beliefs) should always trump convenience of editors who don't want to argue with lazy/ignorant people. --JFH (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that section is somewhat long - but that is exactly why it is not getting debated. If you look through the archives you will see that there are IPs that show out of nowhere and argue about it. If everyone else agrees to trim it a little, ok, but I felt your initial trim was way too short and would just invite debate from IPs. This can be a contentious page, and the only way to keep it stable may be to give that topic a good chunk of text. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with JFH. The myth "theory" is little more than a conspiracy theory; support for it in academic circles is virtually zero. Just as the theory about the earth being flat would be undue on Earth, so the myth theory is undue here, if we speak from a strictly academical point of view. Then again, History2007 is also right. What the believers in the myth theory lack in academic credentials, they certainly make up for in persistence and vocalness. However, I'm not really prepared to buying the argument that we should placate them just because they are boisterous. At Muhammad, there is a neverending stream of editors who insist on deleting the pictures, so much so that a special talk page exists just for that purpose [8]. But the consensus was not to be intimidated by the persistence of certain editors, and I think that is particularly true when dealing with a fringe theory that certainly qualifies for WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, one sentence would be enough, stating that although some non-experts have suggested Jesus never existed, the academic expertise is unanimous that he did. I don't really see a reason to waste more space than that, but I am of course very open to all factual arguments for a longer section - but the mere fact that this page is contentious is not an argument in itself. Jeppiz (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So will you two guys hereby sign an affidavit (preferably signed in blood) that you will forever argue against all IPs who have a large amount of persistence and a small amount of logic? If you look on the talk pages such as Historicity of Jesus, Christ myth theory, etc. and the archives you will see them and see me arguing against them. I agree that myth theory has "close to zero" support in academic circles, and I have stated that again and again against many IPs, but to achieve balance this page does need to give the topic some space. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't commit to that but I trust the community, or at least I have no alternative and I think the evil of having this amount of UNDUE on such a highly visible page outweighs the concerns you have. Anyway, UNDUE is policy, and if it has close to zero support, it should probably get zero space, since it's an encyclopedic article, not a compendium of what everyone in the world thinks. Anyway, it doesn't get the article's longest section. --JFH (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with all the reasons that Jeppiz proposes with the addition that there is ALREADY three redirects to other very extensive and well-developed pages that explore a Christ Mythology. In my mind, we keep the redirects and then have a short summation (2-3 sentences) of the high points of this Mythology. Throw in a note to the effect of "This section is not meant to be all inclusive" and/or "any further Christ Myth information should be taken to one of these other forums" and call it good. Then we revert ANY additions to the section. Maybe that's too simplistic, but it sounded good to me. Although I agree with History that there will always be crackpots coming along, that doesn't mean we have to cater to them. "You'll never reach your destination if you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks." - Winston Chruchill Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

What has "close to zero" support is the non-existence theory (in fact if you look on the historicity talk page will see link to a tweet of an offer to eat a page if a professor is found). The other mythical parts, e.g. that a preacher existed, but that X% of the gospel stories are fake does have support with X ranging from 20% to 80% depending which academics one asks. In fact David Straus himself did not deny existence anyway; and neither does G. A. Wells. So that part needs to be there, for it is not fringe and many mainstream scholars are in the 30% of the stories are untrue camp. And the fact that the topic is fringe needs to be mentioned anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not competent here enough to comment on the relevance of those people's views to the article subject. Suffice it to say the section is too long, and could probably be rolled into Existence. --JFH (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If the section has not made the distinction clear at first reading, then it should be touched up to do so. But that is a key issue, in that existence is a very different discussion from a mythical life story - and that is why there are separate articles on historicity of Jesus and historical Jesus. So it could not possibly be merged into existence, because some of the myth theorists (starting with Straus himself) accept existence upfront. I will try to touch it up to clarify that issue, and in the process reduce some of the myth history etc. Probably half way between what you trimmed to and what there was/is. Then we see. But existence is just one part of the myth theory discussions, as reflected in the later books by Wells after he softened up his position and accepted existence - while still claiming a mythical life story. I think if you read the myth theory page in detail and look through a couple of the books on the subject you will see what I mean. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I may be repeating myself, but I still want to state that we should not be intimated by the possible disagreement of IPs or by POV-pushing. If a "theory" is undue, it is just as undue no matter if nobody defends it or if its defenders are very vocal. And when I say undue, I'm talking about the "theory" that the person Jesus never existed. As History2007 quite rightly points out, there are then of course a wide range of theories about who this person was, and many of those theories are notable and proposed by experts in the field. We should of course not censor out any relevant theory, but the conspiracy theory that Jesus never existed at all is undue and should, in my opinion, be removed. If that causes IPs to complain, then so be it. We should not provide room for something that is clearly undue just to please disruptive editors.Jeppiz (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a logical analysis. But the fact that "non-existence has been widely rejected" should be noted, in any case just because it is somewhat in recent memory - flat earth died long, long ago. And as stated above, G.A. Wells, the generally acknowledged standard bearer for the non-existence movement gave up on that several years ago; and no longer denies existence. So let us wait a day or two for possible comments from other users and see what transpires. However, the very record of this discussion can go into the FAQ and IPs can be pointed to it, reducing future debate. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Something to spur discussion to the group: Looking at the section as a whole, it appears (to me) that there is a clear cut point following the sentence "Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory...believe that his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence." After this point, the rest of the section delves into fleshing out the narrative of the competing theories and general timelines and roots for these discussions. As I and others have said previously, these topics are all clearly (and much more completely) covered in the Christ myth theory page and the two other "see also" pages. So my suggestion would be to delete everything after this point including the attached file photo. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

That may in fact work, but I would add perspective there that it was all a flash in the pan idea that never existed in antiquity, appeared somewhat recently, gathered attention in the early/mid parts of the 20th century and died out as the 21st century arrived. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny, that's exactly where I cut. I do think a brief statement to get across what History 2007 mentions above could be be appended. --JFH (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but now it has been discussed, consensus is likely, and it can go in the FAQ once it has been archived and IPs can be pointed to the reasoning for the brevity of that section. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sort of ironic, I think, that just a few hours after this discussion including that the myth theory "died out as the the 21st century arrived" the "no evidence for Jesus' existence" starts up again immediately below. It is a very popular "conspiracy" type theory on many websites, and the article cannot make it too clear that it has minimal standing among serious historians.Smeat75 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that we simply delete section "4.7 Myth theory view", and incorporate the relevant parts in other sections. For what it's worth, I'd be highly surprised if some of the scholars currently cited under the "myth" would agree with that classification. Scholars like Geza Vermes have done much to shed light on how the historical Jesus likely was very different from the "Christian Jesus" and we should of course not delete any of that - but I'd say it belongs under sections 4.1-4.6 which already deal precisely with this issue. Concerning Jesus's existence, that's already dealt with in 4.1, but a sentence could of course be added to the first paragraph, underlining that there is wide academic consensus that Jesus existed. In other words, I don't see an argument for keeping 4.7 at all, but certainly a strong argument for keeping part of the text there, moved to the relevant sections.Jeppiz (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That may work in 5-7 years when myth theory has been all forgotten. But now, it is kind of alive in people's memory, somewhat like Larry King and G. A. Wells. It is anyone's guess which of the three will take the last breath first, but for now, they are still kind of there... So I think the section is needed for now, just because it is in recent memory - but not for long. History2007 (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree. By giving a whole section to a "theory" (and "theory" is not the word) that has absolutely zero credibility among experts in the field, we are certainly giving it WP:UNDUE attention. Once again, I am not suggesting we should not mention it at all, but I find it almost preposterous to give it a section of its own. If we compare with another common and contemporary conspiracy theory, there is certainly not a whole section devoted to the 9/11 conspiracy theories at September 11 attacks. I hardly need to point out that there are many theories concerning the historical Jesus with lots of academic support that still do not have a heading of their own at this page. Given that, I see no reason whatsoever to devote a section to a "theory" with no academic support at all. It seems to be a prime case of WP:UNDUE, in fact.Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing for a separate section, but note that Thomas L. Brodie, a bona fide biblical scholar, has recently published a book in which he describes how he came to believe Jesus was a mythical, or literary character. As I understand it from second-hand descriptions he still believes this literary character was the product of divine inspiration, but nevertheless he counts as a serious supporter of mythicism, albeit a particular kind of mythicism. Also note that Richard Dawkins takes the point of view seriously (though he doesn't share it), and Richard Dawkins and the field of evolutionary biology have a lot more scientific credibility than biblical scholarship. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But look, I do not support the myth theory myself. And non-existence is just one part of it. But we have said all that before. Let us wait and see what the consensus may be and we will do that. My guess is that if there is no section for that, it will surprise some readers. So if we know it is going to rain, we dig something where the rain can flow. But let us wait and see what consensus may emerge, given that our positions are clear now. History2007 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I will just add that Martijn Meijering's point (made after mine) echoes the situation that myth theory is not 100% dead yet - it is kind of 2% alive, as Brodie's book suggests. In fact Brodie had been building on the Book of Kings analogy for a while but has now gone somewhat further than before. But as Martijn Meijering stated Brodie has very different reasoning from the other scholar out there, namely Price. So there are 2-3 scholars out there yet, and again the theory is alive, somewhat like Mr King and Mr Wells. And who knows, Larry may marry yet again... History2007 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is another serious scholar who supports mythicism, though like Dawkins he is also an atheist activist, something that should not be withheld from the reader. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we have been through that before. People view Carrier as a PhD type historian who does not have an academic position so we could debate his being a scholar as such, but makes no difference. But unlike Price, Dawkins can not read the ancient documents for he is no historian (no at all clear that he reads Greek, Latin, Hebrew, etc. and knows the historical method), so he echoes mostly what G. A. Wells wrote second hand if you read Dawkins. Most of what Dawkins says, comes right from what Wells says. And in any case Dawkins does not flat out deny existence anyway, he just thinks the gospels are 90% invention, but that a preacher probably existed and walked the streets of Jerusalem. In any case, the number of scholars supporters can be counted on one hand, with two or three fingers left over which ever way you count them. The theory has very, very few supporters in academia, and most of the supporters are self-published accountant/attorney/land surveyor types as has been discussed on this page many times before. All I can say is: Déjà vu. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Parts of that section are not very well written in my opinion, for instance "The communist state not only supported the Christ myth theory but embellished it with scientific colloquialisms, and school textbooks began to teach that Jesus never existed, making Russia a bastion of Jesus denial. These ideas were rebuffed in Russia by Sergei Bulgakov and Alexander Men, copies of whose book began to circulate underground via typewriters in the 1970s to reintroduce Christianity to Russia." What's a "scientific colloquialism"? How does anything circulate via typewriters? I guess it means via type written copies. Christianity did not need to be "reintroduced" to Russia as there were still functioning churches under the Soviets.[[9]]Smeat75 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that part of the section is going to go away anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to move on

Right, time to move on. The argument made by JFH is still perfectly valid. The whole "myth section" should be trimmed down considerably, or deleted as a section but with the relevant parts going into other sections. Right now, a fringe theory that the whole academic field rejects is the longest section in the whole article. In the discussions since JFH made his intial comment, no source has been brought forward that would contest it. This imbalance and gives the whole article a decidedly POV-slant. Even though this article is about a religious person, it should be based on academic sources, not give WP:UNDUE weight to what some individuals chose to believe. We can respect their belief, but the article should not give a personal belief that isn't backed up by a single source the same weight as the whole body of academic research in the field. I'm placing a POV-tag at the article until this problem has been solved, for it's a serious problem that makes the whole article seem rather POV.Jeppiz (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have come to agree with JFH and you now. And now that the discussion seems to be converging that there are no opposing sources, and given that the Christ myth theory page itself positions it as a theory with minimal academic support, I would move to just add some of that material to other sections tomorrow, be done with it and move on. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for existence

There is no physical evidence that Jesus existed. Nothing physical from the time of his alleged existence. No reference to this Messiah from the age in which he lived. There is no academic consensus that Jesus existed. The so-called "consnsus" exists because the "scholars" who bother to address the question are overwhelmiongly Christian theologians. The "experts" have degrees in theology from Bible colleges. They are rarely historians, rarely secular. There is not a single peer-reviewed reference for the existence of Jesus in this article, which is rather odd for something that is supposedly a fact. There is more support for the existence of Solomon. Humanpublic (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any physical evidence that anyone from that time period existed? What constitutes physical evidence? What would constitute references to this Messiah from the age in which he lived? ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was what I meant by persistence. Humanpublic has been repeating that mantra for a long time, but never provided any supporting sources despite multiple requests... Still has no sources in this post. But I will leave it to you guys to answer now, in view of the above. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic, a quick review of earlier discussions makes it appear that you may not be LISTENing, which is disruptive. If you have sources from historians contradicting what is in the article, or if you'd like to present reasoning for why one of the article's sources in particular is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE that might be helpful. --JFH (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic is completely correct. The protectors of this article shut THEIR eyes and ears very often too. Very open to evidence that supports their religion. Not accepting of those who point out problems with that evidence, such as the fact that most of the scholars who support their views are fellow Christians. It's a biased sample. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If the evidence for your position is so radically abundant, it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the evidence for my position is radically abundant. Quite the contrary, in fact. Do read what people post a little more carefully please. It's very difficult to have a sensible conversation when people ignore what I actually say. And it definitely lowers my regard for your ability to think clearly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused then at what position you're trying to forward. You are saying that the evidence is not abundant... so why would we include it in the article? ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made my point. That question is so far off beam I don't know how to respond. Your inability to comprehend my point is your problem. I'll say little more. I'll just stick around to make sure everyone's aware that there is no consensus for the establishment view here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"I did not say that the evidence for my position is radically abundant. Quite the contrary, in fact." The contrary of the evidence being abundant would be that it is lacking. Why would we put information into an article when the evidence is lacking? Start making sense. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. Just read my FIRST post again (at 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC), very carefully, and try a little harder. You're way off beam here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic and HiLo48, you do not seem to understand (although I imagine it has been pointed out to you before) that editors on wikipedia are not supposed to state their own conclusions or opinions such as "There is no physical evidence that Jesus existed" or "most of the scholars who support their views are fellow Christians" but neutrally to summarise what reliable sources say. Classical historian Michael Grant, a secular scholar, wrote ""if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Now if you can find equally reliable sources that say the opposite, they can be included, but not your own assertions.Smeat75 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48... your first post implies that there is evidence that we are closing our eyes to. Could you please point us at some of this evidence? ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made my point. It's a simple one. No amount of words, denial, and obfuscation negates it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to get your simple point, so you must not have made it that clearly. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here wants to get my point. It would challenge their beliefs, and that's not why they're here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't presented any evidence with which to make that challenge... ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And you have again proven that you don't understand it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Understand what? That you're trying to make an argument with no evidence? ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's summarise the issue here. It's simple logic that the vast majority of scholars who study the "history" of Jesus will be Christians. To say that almost all of them agree that Jesus existed is pretty much a stating of the bleeding obvious. Agreed, sources saying he didn't exist are very hard to find, because those who don't believe in his existence tend not to care enough to write academic papers on the matter. That leaves Wikipedia with a little problem. Yes, the sources support the views of those who want to say he existed, but that sample of sources is a very biased one, by self selection. A strict interpretation of Wikipedia's rules says you can say that "most scholars believe...", but a more ethical position demands that some qualification is written about who those scholars logically are. The biggest problem with what I've just written is that it's all been said before. Some want to ignore it. Some want to say I have no evidence. Of course I bloody well don't! That's the point. Some just don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you HiLo48 for being upfront that you do not have any evidence. Hopefully that may conclude this round of the festivities. History2007 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're clearly in the "want to ignore it" group. thanks for making that clear. Although I suspect from the tone of your post that you're a little bit in the "just don't understand" group as well. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I am more in the "I am getting tired of this" group more than any other group. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "Don't want to think about it" group. You must agree with my logic about the sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot agree, given that some of the most respected scholars of early Christianity and Hellenistic civilization are non-Chrstian. These include the likes of Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Louis Feldman, Paula Fredriksen, Zvi Baras, Shlomo Pines, etc., etc. etc. To explain the point intuitively, please think of it this way: the Hebrew University of Jerusalem usually comes among the top ranked universities in the world, in many fields. And not one historian from that university denies existence; and they are right in Jerusalem and have access to whatever they need. And there are scholars such as Wataru Mizugaki in Kyoto University etc. who are highly respected in the field and none of them denies existence. History2007 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, can you provide a single academic resource who is an expert in the field of Historical Studies in the 1st century or Classical Studies, or any related field... that claims that Jesus did not exist? ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually just one or two "semi-academic scholars" (i.e. without a professor position) in the related fields may be found (and funnily enough both are semi-Christians say Price and Brodie), but none will be a professor, so no full fledged academic in that sense. In fact according to ABC news if "a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived" can be found then based on this tweet challenge John Dickson will eat a page of his Bible (he say he will eat Matthew 1:1). And so far no professor has been found. But in any case, there are hardly, hardly any mainstream academics that deny existence any more. That seems clear now. And I think HiLo may agree with that headcount. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a Forum

Can I remind all users, but particularly HiLo48 who appears highly disruptive, that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. HiLo48 is perfectly free to believe whatever s/he wants, but it is not relevant and not even something that should be posted here. We concern ourselves with sources, not with individual opinions.Jeppiz (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would remind you, and the others, that repeatedly responding with "But you don't have any sources" when I have actually said precisely that, and the bias in the sources is the point, is a particularly unintelligent form of discussion. My posts are not forum style posts, and for you, Jeppiz, to say that they are simply highlights the problem. I feel that my point is going way over the heads of most here, shall leave my words for people who can think at a more complex level, and move on. Thank you for your (attempt at?) understanding. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you think all academics in the field are biased. That's a personal opinion to which you're entirely entitled, but as for Wikipedia, we don't consider our opinions WP:RS but we do consider academic publications by professors in the relevant field WP:RS; particularly when those professors all agree with each other. As for your suggestion that all those professors are Christians and unreliable, it fails both since being Christian does not automatically disqualify anyone and since it is plainly wrong; there are non-Christian professors who say exactly the same thing. There is not a single professor in any relevant field who says that Jesus never existed.Jeppiz (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I quoted Michael Grant in this discussion, the lead of the article references Michael Grant, who was a secular classical historian and a very eminent academic who however met with such success as a freelance author that he resigned his academic posts and devoted himself full time to writing books on classical history for general audiences. He did not have any post at a theological school or suchlike to lose when he wrote his book "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels". I do not know if he had personal religious beliefs but that is irrelevant, the whole point of that book was to bring the same sort of scrutiny to the gospels as to other texts from the Graeco-Roman world. That book came out in 1977 but no other classicist has attempted to rebut his dismissal of the idea that Jesus never existed. Your insistence that all the sources for this article are contaminated by Christian bias is incorrect.Smeat75 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Michael Grant wrote popular books, and his area of expertise was coins. Humanpublic (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think HiLo's last messages indicated that he was fully aware of the scarcity of sources but was simply trying to express his views regarding that situation. I think the views on both sides have been expressed now, and unless there are new publications to refer to, we may end up going in circles soon. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• There is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus that dates from the time of Jesus. No reference to him in contemporaneous writing, no artifact he is said to have made or used. The source for that is the sources used in this and other articles.
• THe refutation of "All scholars agree..." is not merely "Many scholars disagree...." It is also that many scholars have no opinion. In fact, the most reliable scholars have no opinion, as we can see because the majority of reliable scholars are secular historians, yet the majority of scholars expressing an opinion are Christian theologians. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment of which scholars are most reliable, it is a fact the many, many scholars simply express no opinion. The subject is of interest primarily to Christian theologians. You probably can't find many historians arguing about whether the Queen of Sheba really existed--that doesn't mean it's a fact she existed. The phrase "Virtually all scholars agree...." misleads the reader. Most historians express no opinion. Humanpublic (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We have been through this N times now Humanpublic (N being very large), and all that remains constant is: "Humanpublic has zero sources". You were once asked to provide sources and came up with a blog of some type. And I can not recall how many times you have been directed to read WP:V. So let me play that tape again: Please read WP:V, and realize that Wikipedia is about sources, not about evidence. You are again reasoning from first principles here, a no-no in Wikipedia. That type of reasoning is for forums. and per WP:Forum is not to be between Wikipedia editors. And your reasoning again reflects a lack of research into the published literature, where the key example of your line of reasoning would have been a discussion of arguments from silence with special reference to specific 1st century sources. But all of that has been discussed in the scholarly literature, and once you have studied those you will see the larger picture and the reasoning that during his life Jesus had very few followers and was no celebrity, etc. and that many of the mid first century sources do not even refer to Christians at all; showing the perils of arguments from silence. But that is again a WP:Forum issue, and I will hence not pursue it here. But if your case is not WP:HEAR, then I do not know what is. History2007 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for what? The non-existence of contemporaneous evidence? The source is Ehrman. Sources that many scholars express no opinion? I'm not saying we put that in the article, so no source is required. I am saying it appears to be true of our sources, and as editors, we are obligated not to mislead the reader. The fact is, most sources used in these articles are Christian theologians. Name some other figures who are not referred to by anybody of their time, and who left no surviving artifacts associated them, whose existence is regarded as a fact. Non-religious, preferrably. Humanpublic (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You got it: sources that discuss the lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus. But again, that is not (repeat not) a discussion for this talk page for you are clearly, clearly running over WP:Forum by repeating arguments of the early proponents of Christ myth theory, as directly stated in the section Christ_myth_theory#Arguments_from_silence. The argument from siilence you are presenting here (and this talk page is not for arguments based on facts) was presented by John Remsburg over a century ago, and has been widely discussed in the literature, as discussed in that section. Frankly, it appears that you have not only not researched teh topic, but not even read the Wikipedia articles on the subject, for that issue is already addressed in that article - where it belongs. What is happening here is that this talk page is degenerating into "an internet forum for debate on a fringe side issue". If there is an issue it belongs to that page, not here, for the sources are there. And yes, I did say "sources" for that drives Wikipedia. In view of this, would it be even better that there is no myth theory discussion here, as several users suggested, given that it is a fringe topic and there is already a page on myth theory that handles the subject? I am now in agreement with all the other users who recommended that the section be removed and some content merged elsewhere so there is less confusion on it. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"You got it: sources that discuss the lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus." The source is Ehrman:

the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.[[10]]

Now deal with it. Humanpublic (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I see nothing new in that link. I am fully aware of the link and what Ehrman says is a summary of the myth theory arguments from silence that you were referred to at Christ_myth_theory#Arguments_from_silence. And note that Ehrman rejects the lack of contemporary references as a reason for non-existence if you care to read his book. So the link you have provided does not support your position. You need a source that states:

• "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived".

If you have such a source I would love to see it. I think once you research the issues it will become clear that you will need "a list" of such 1st century silent sources and the most relevant surviving text would have been Embassy to Gaius. However, Embassy to Gaius never discusses Christians at all, so the argument from silence would have implied that Christians did not exist. And again, if you research it, you will see sources state that only towards the end of the 1st century did Christians become large enough as a group to be noted and recorded. But again, this is really a discussion for the Christ myth theory page which discusses the topic. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a source that discusses the lack of evidence for Jesus. I gave it to you. Your new request for a source is not something I've ever claimed, so I don't need a source for it. As I have pointed out to you repeatedly and for months, the claim "All scholars agree" is refuted by "Many scholars express no opinion." It doesn't require "Many scholars disagree". When your sources are predominantly one-sided, and it seems impossible to produce many secular historians who share that side, it is misleading to say "All scholars agree." Particularly when that one-sidedness involves the biases of faith. Humanpublic (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So let us get this straight now:

• The title you started this thread with was "Evidence for existence" and your starting statement for the thread was "There is no physical evidence that Jesus existed. Nothing physical from the time of his alleged existence" and that is now being abandoned by you as of not having relevance on the general scholarly opinion about existence. Right? That was the title of this section. And you still have zero sources (yes, zero sources) that state: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Is that right? Are you dropping that line of reasoning or do you want to spend another year discussing it?

• Having abandoned the starting statement of the thread about contemporary sources, you are now desiring to discuss the issue that: "In the opinion of user:Humanpublic there must be silent scholars in the field who disagree with the mainstream views but say nothing on the subject and hence the sources used are no good". Is that your desired subject of discussion now? Do you have a source for the assertion that you are basing your comment on, or is that view just your personal assessment. And of course, in Wikipedia the keyword is: source. So do you have sources? Or are these personal conjectures? And please do count the number of times you have been asked "do you have a source?". I feel it is getting to be a mantra here.

Let us get this stated in clear terms. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts.

• I didn't start this thread. I put my comment in the previous thread, and someone else moved it to a new section.
• I have told you repeatedly and for months that "All scholars agree" is refuted by "Many scholars express no opinion" I have never said Jesus didn't exist, nor have I said many scholars say Jesus didn't exist. You seem unable to comprehend the logical distinction between being "agnostic" on the existence of Jesus and "atheistic" on it.
• I have not abandoned the statement that begins the thread. That would be silly, since it supported by reliable sources. Humanpublic (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The only point you may have is that looking at the thread it is not clear how it stared, but in any case, your opening statement was what maters. But let us do things one at a time. One at a time. Do you have sources that state: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Do you have sources? Keep the issues separate so they can be discussed with sources. Just provide sources, nothing else. Again: sources that say: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Mantra: do you have sources that say that? History2007 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually anything related to the article under discussion here? NE Ent 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You got me, given that no sources are being offered. I am under the impression that WP:Forum is just being thrown to the wind here despite multiple requests to honor it and provide WP:RS sources. The basic rule in Wikipedia is: "no source, no go". Hence the mantra: do you have sources? All we have seen has been a link to an interview about a book. It is a good book, but it is by the very same author that rejects the propositions offered by Humanpublic, and the book specifically rejects all that he is presenting - I guess he has not seen the book at all. Go figure. So the mantra is: do you have sources? History2007 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The article currently says that all scholars agree Jesus really existed. The validity of that is under discussion. History2007 has continually presented the strawman argument that it is hard to find sources who say Jesus did not exist. I point out that "All scholars agree" is refuted by "Many scholars express no opinion," and also by the bias of faith found in the majority of scholars who "agree" (they are dominated by theologians, whose degrees are from seminaries and Bible colleges). He then repeates the strawman arguemnt that I am not producing sources for his quote. I point out that his quote is not anything I am wanting to put in the article, and he ignores that and repeats demands that I support his quote. Yes, something related to the article is under discussion: Does it mislead the reader to say "All scholars agree" that Jesus existed? Humanpublic (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are switching subjects now. One at a time. Let us get over your initial statement about first century items. Then we will discuss multi-valued logic. I have my arguments ready there too. But one at a time. One at a time. Again: do you have sources that say: "the lack of references to Jesus in contemporary sources is used by most scholars to conclude that he never lived". Once that has been settled we move to the next item. Mantra: do you have sources that say that? History2007 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic, what change do you propose to the article, and how do you support that change. Anything beyond those two questions is completely irrelevant. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To cut to the chase, assuming that he will give up on the 1st century sources soon, he seems to hope to dispute the statement in the article "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" by a two pronged approach:

• The use of simple many-valued logic based quantification based on his personal survey of silent scholars in the field.

• Dismissing the lack of opposing sources as unimportant (a dismissal a will on his part, of course) and questioning existing sources.

And the way he has supported it so far has been by having zero sources. He just says things, and when asked for sources, just says more things. Hence the mantra: do you have sources. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ReformedArsenal, and I would kindly recommend History2007 to stop feeding Humanpublic. I know History2007 has good intentions, but even participating in this discussion is a waste of time. If Humanpublic has changes he wants to make, it's up to him to outline those changes and present the sources for them. Anything else is utterly irrelevant and need not even be answered.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will stop feeding him. He has zero sources anyway, so what he says amounts to zero. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Article length

There was a suggestion to consider article length and it had been discussed some time ago, so I took a quick look again and compared to the general WP:LENGTH numbers which suggest a definite split at over 100k and a consideration of it between 60 and 100 based on the topic. The size now has grown to 79k, which is just below 19th/20th well known figures such as Abraham Lincoln and JFK which are over 80k each; or larger articles like Russia at 95k. Other articles such as Britney Spears run about 55k. My feeling is that there is more to say on this topic than about Britney, but still some trimming can be done. There is basic consensus now two sections above to trim some of the history of myth items and add some of it to other sections. I think some general trimming on background items can also take place, to bring the size down to somewhere in the 60 range. We can just do the two steps together to get a good idea of the size anyway. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I trimmed some and moved some material to Main etc. and now at 67k is within the WP:LENGTH guidelines for a topic like this, below the 80k type pages mentioned above and well below the 100k upper limit. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Great!

A big thanks to History2007 for his constructive edit, in line with both the Wikipedia guideline and the discussions here at the talkpage. The article is much better now, and you were fully justified to remove the POV-tag I placed here based on the earlier version. Great job! Jeppiz (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do send a generous wire transfer on Monday as soon as the banks open. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Fringe myth theory items in this article

Given the discussion above about first century items, I thought that the length and the nature of that discussion is just a classic case of arguments to include WP:Fringe items in Wikipedia. I think the new user advocating them is probably not even aware of the WP:Fringe policies in Wikipedia, the general patterns involved and that policy is clearly against these items. So please do realize that:

• Your desired outcome is a WP:Fringe view rejected in this consensus discussion. Note that almost all users in that discussion wanted less/no fringe in this article.

• WP:Fringe debates are nothing new in Wikipedia. Do read the 3 threads here on Plasma, rejuvenation, etc. (just because I happen to recall them) and click through the debates about WP:SPA fringe promotion, etc. This happens all the time, and the end result is the same.

There are specific policies and guidelines that prohibit the use of WP:Fringe within mainstream articles such as this one. Fringe theories may, on occasion, appear within specific ancillary articles about them (if they meet WP:NOTE), but not (really not) within mainstream articles such as this one. Please read WP:Due and what Jimmy Wales said about it:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So the WP:Fringe "non-existence debate" items that you are championing have no place in this article, except for a small mention somewhere in a section, with a link to the Christ myth theory page; per policy. This is not a question of your deciding that "it is interesting". It is not (really not) based on your determination of it being interesting or relevant. If a viewpoint has very few academic supporters (and yours is directly in that category based on this discussion) it has no place in this article, let alone the lede, regardless of your personal feelings about its interestingness or relevance. That is Wikipedia policy.

Users show up on Wikipedia and argue for the inclusion of Fringe theories on topics ranging from Plasma dust to rejuvenation to Christ myth theory as the link above shows. In the end, they get nowhere, because there are policies against fringe. All it does is reverse rejuvenation for all who participate in the discussions. Nothing else.

The line of reasoning that advocates the inclusion of Christ myth theory items in this mainstream article runs directly against "very clear policies" against their inclusion, as stated by Jimmy Wales long ago: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". I think he said it very well. History2007 (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)