Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 24

Too many of the critics have something to gain from false claims here. Perhaps those arguments belong elsewhere? Still seeing no actual contemporary proof of the existance of the myth. -Sparky (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This Claim: "Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians." Strikes me as NPOV. The sources don't seem to prove this. Is there any empirical evidence, polls or surveys done, that show an overwhelming consensus on the historicity of Jesus? Chudogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

Read the Christ Myth Theory article. The Chryst Myth Theory and nonhistoricity has never gained mainstream credibility. Historians throw it into the pile with the "Moon Landing Hoax" theories and the "Newton was hit by an apple" categories. A good line, with a source on that article, states: "The scholarly mainstream routinely notes that while many versions of the Christ myth theory assume that Christianity had obscure beginnings, such views fail to notice that early Christians appealed to historical events already known by the general public." 98.198.83.12 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP editor has twice now attempted to add a statemen to the article to the effect that Paul never actually said he was a Jew. I've reverted him twice and given a reference. If this continues, please, someone else revert and report it to the ANI board. Eugene (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to apply a {{cn}} tag to the recent addition "The reason for composition of the Gospels is given in the scriptural material itself, as being due to the death of a number of eyewitnesses...", but on second thoughts I should first try to understand what it means. Anyone help me out?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, two days later I think I've got it: something like "the Gospels were written to record the memories of eyewitnesses to the events they described, who were beginning to die off". It needs to be more elegant than that, of course. Reflecting my struggle to get the point of the sentence, I've added a {{Clarify}} tag. It needs referencing as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård finds the existence of Jesus, as described by the Church, disproved by the fact that Paul the Apostle, by many regarded as the founder of the Church, knew nothing of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary^[1].

The paragraph above was deleted by Roy Brumback with this comment: A very weak argument from silence, if that, as Paul also says Jesus was killed in "this age" the age Paul lived in. Plus this guy's a quack if he used argument Paul wasn't aware of written gospels.

The evidence suggests that there were no written gospels when Paul was writing! Where did you get that idea John D. Croft (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a common idea, based on that Paul does not use text from the gospels in his letters. Would the other way round be more logical? Why? St.Trond (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time Paul was writing, eyewitness accounts held an oral tradition. It was only when these eyewitnesses started dying and that rival versions of of Jesus teachings started circulating that "authoritative acccounts" started to be documented. Mark's gospel for instance seems to have been written from the point of view of reconciling the Jewish Nazarenes and the Pauline Christians. Matthew. written in Aramaic, was originally a Jewish Nazarene text, with later Greek additions. These additiions are in clear response to Yochanan ben Zakkai's teachings on Christ not being Messiah. John D. Croft (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the same Bible, Paul also claimed that God was god of "this age". According to Martin Luther's Bible "this age" is "dieser Welt", i.e. this world which is the opposite of the afterlife. If no better arguments can be provided, then the paragraph on top here should be returned to the article. St.Trond (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already established that we weren't going to include every non-specialist Jesus mythicist in this article? Anyway, the quote removed from the article doesn't make very much sense. The Church describes Jesus more so on the Gospels (which in many cases are independent witnesses from Paul) as opposed to Paul's references. How then would it follow that Paul's distance from the historical Jesus would render the Gospels "disproved"? Secondly, on what argument did Paul know "nothing of the existence of Jesus as hist contemporary"? Paul shows a continuity with Jesus' contemporary apostles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 or his disputes with Peter in Galatians and Acts, etc) as well as Jesus' family including James the brother of Jesus (see Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19, James 1:1, Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1)). Finally, Ellegard's statement is based on an idiosyncratic thesis regarding Paul and the DSS (probably just as outrageous as that of Barbara Thiering.--Ari89 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also false. Paul clearly considers Jesus to have been a real historical figure, "born of a woman, born under the law." The quoted statement betrays ignorance on the part of the one saying it. Carlo (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård only found it disproved that Jesus and Paul were contemporaries. "Born of a woman" (what do you quote?) indicates that some may have considered Jesus being a myth at that time. There is no continuity, as is claimed by Ari89 with the apostles, with Jesus. Galatians 1:19: In the biblical context the "Lord's brother" is likely to be the "Lord's friar". St.Trond (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the continuity is there - multiply attested to by Christian and non-Christian sources. You are going to have to do better than pleading ignorance to include every obscure and implausible Christ-myth argument.--Ari89 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård also points to the title of the contemporaries of Jesus: "disciples" or pupils. The contemporaries of Paul are "apostles" or missionaries. How do you prove a continuity? St.Trond (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-experts say a lot of stupid things, don't they? --Ari89 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

["Alvar Ellegård only found it disproved that Jesus and Paul were contemporaries. "Born of a woman" (what do you quote?)"] Galatians 4:4. And with all due respect, I'm not sure that someone who doesn't recognize such a well-known and familiar Pauline statement should be holding forth on the subject of Paul's understanding of Jesus. Carlo (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is Paul who said it, and the gospels were written only after Paul, we can agree upon that the "Jesus is a myth" tradition is as old as the tradition of the Church. Thus "Jesus is a myth" deserves the same amount of attention by for example this forum as the Church's tradition. St.Trond (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How in the world do you get "Jesus is a myth" from "Born of a woman" which proves that Paul believed in the existence of a real human being called "Jesus" and contradicts the Jesus-mythists? Carlo (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you get contemporary from "born of a woman"? St.Trond (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the problems of his arguments as far as I can tell the dude is an English professor and not a historian or Bible scholar. We already allow Wells and Doherty just to be fair to the mythicists, but other than them we should not be including the opinions of every non historian myther. Christopher Hitchens is for instance also a myther I believe but citing his opinions or arguments for his case would be equally as silly as citing some random English professor because neither one is a historian and this article is about the historical question of Jesus's existence. Other than the few amateur mythers we already cite the only non historians we cite are usually theologians saying what historians believe about the issue in general.Roy Brumback (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy, I think you are right. The "historicity" of Jesus, needs be needs to be written mainly from a historical perspective. Ret.Prof (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to have one article written purely from Biblical source material, and a separate article written purely from non-Biblical source material (secular stuff, not the old Church Fathers) and then simply cross-reference the two? Wdford (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No because historians use both the "secular" materiel (although calling Josephus a secular historian is a laugh and Tacitus clearly included several religious stories and topics in his works, as did pretty much all ancient historians, so the term secular as it is currently used would probably not really apply to almost all ancient historians) and Biblical documents together in their research on the subject.Roy Brumback (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean there is no reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus, or for the work he is reported to have undertaken, other than the Bible itself? Wdford (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. "historians use both the "secular" material and Biblical documents" What you said is basically the opposite of what Roy said. Additionally the term "bible" is semi-arbitrary, as canons vary from sect to sect, and didn't exist when the authors of the gospels were writing. Just because a text ended up being listed in a Cannon centuries later does not mean we should be suspicious of it any more than we should be of other ancient texts. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The word "secular" can be a relative term. Scholars need to study critically all material both canonical and non canonical. Please note that canon is not spelled cannon (unless you are talking about a very big gun) - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a text ended up being listed in a Cannon centuries later does not mean we should be suspicious of it any more than we should be of other ancient texts"

Any text - modern or ancient - that speak about a man born from a virign and a holly spirit that died and resurected three days after is suspicious to any rational person. Guillermo ,Montevideo,UY (2010-01-19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.40.169.18 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on the historical Jesus, the quest for the historical Jesus, and the belief that there was no historical Jesus (the Christ myth theory). Given all this it seems that this article should have a very narrow focus so as to avoid charges of content-forking. I propose that the article be overhauled so that it focus exclusively on examining the documents (and other evidences) utilized to establish the mere historicity of Jesus. Discussions of historical attempts to establish Jesus' historicity, details of the possible biographical reconstructions these sources might enable, and so on should be largely excised or integrate into more relevant articles. I've no problem taking the lead, but before I start I want to see if there are any major objections. So, are any major objections? Eugene (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to remove? Roy Brumback (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to shorten the lead to eliminate general discussions of the character of Jesus' life and ministry (that's historical Jesus), cut the section on "History of research" (thats quest for the historical Jesus), shorten the discussion of Josephus and Tacitus relative to Jesus (they already have dedicated articles), drastically shorten the "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as myth" to very little more than links to the fuller articles on those topics, and I'd like to throw a couple more picture into the page. Eugene (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Anyone else?Roy Brumback (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the concept. Wdford (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I approve. There is too much overlap here. I was about to start a thread about my reverted edits in "Myth" when I noticed there was a whole separate article dedicated to that. Sersun (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A pair of editors are trying to WP:CENSOR a statement from Mark Allan Powell in his book Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster John Knox, 1998). The book is used as a text book in a variety of colleges and seminaries and Powell is the Historical Jesus section chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature. Please replace the text. I fear that if I do so too often I'll be dinged for edit warring.

Here it is: "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 168 Eugene (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This comparison was thoroughly rejected on the talk page, at FAC, and on AN/I, where Eugene was explicitly asked to stop raising it. See the Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism thread, and click on show. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither FAC not AN/I are part of the DR ladder. As for the talk page, well, this is a different page, isn't it? Eugene (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you have several experienced editors and admins on AN/I asking you explicitly to stop making the comparison, that is very much part of DR and it would make sense to heed it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember when you didn't mind the quote, so long as it was properly attributed.[1] "You've changed, man!" What made you change your mind? And how is you new position not a violation of WP:CENSOR? Eugene (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, can you please quote Wiki rules that say that AN/I is part of the content dispute resolution process? On the very page itself, it says that it's not. Or am I missing something? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running dispute over at Christ myth theory. It got howled out of there, so now Eugene, Bill and (if he hasn't yet he will soon) Ari are thinking "this is a different article, so it's okay here." Anthony (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on cue, Ari just reverted. Anthony (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Four different editors have now reinserted the material in question. Instead of just precipitating an edit war, try to build consensus for it's removal. Eugene (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Contentious new material always needs consensus, not the other way around. WP:BRD You can't force new disputed material into an article. Is there consensus for this new material here currently? Clearly no. Please discuss it further and see if you can reach a compromise, or change minds on the talk page before re-instating. (and this business about possible forum shopping, or moving articles is a little concerning). -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Being bold is nonsense? (You probably didn't mean that, but that is how it came across.) New material that is contentious for emotional reasons does not require consensus - it requires reliable sources which, in this case, has been provided. If anyone disagrees with those RS's, then they MUST provide other RS's that counter them. Eugene and I (as well as others) are willing to discuss the differences we have with other editors, but if those opposing editors want to throw emotional arguments into the mix, then how seriously should they be taken and what do you suggest is the appropriate response? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is right. Avoiding an edit war is more important the The Truth. In a dispute, the longstanding version, before the contentious material was added takes precedent. Being bold is one thing. It is encouraged. However, re-instating a bold edit after it was reverted is NEVER, ever appropriate. WP:BRD (again). -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An RFC would be quicker. Anthony (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you said, "It got howled out of there". Is that what we've come down to, then? Howling away highly trained, and respected reliable sources, because they get some editors emotionally overwrought so as to avoid hurt feelings (and done so in the guise of neutrality)? Anthony, the CMT is not simply a minority position - it is ridiculed and treated with utter contempt by mainstream scholars.

Can you please give us an example of how this contempt can be communicated in a Wiki article without using direct quotes from, as I said above, highly trained and respected scholars? If you have an alternative, I give you my word that I'm willing to seriously consider other options, but right now, I just don't see any. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Can you please give us an example of how this contempt can be communicated in a Wiki article." You don't. This is an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia says "It has little or no support in mainstream scholarship" or words to that effect. Provided, of course, you can get consensus for that view. Anthony (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that if mainstream scholars ridicule and hold the CMT in contempt, then we are not to mention it? Is that correct? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've been saying it from the second day I was at CMT Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what is your reasoning for censoring the position of mainstream scholarship? Are you trying to portray the CMT as a legitimate, minority opinion? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am criticising your argument for it being pseudo (which I take to mean not employing recognised historical method, or employing fraud). Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you calling emotional, Bill? Anthony (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just check out this thread (click on "Show"). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

JBolden1517? Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The debate so far:
[2] Eugene reverts existing para' and inserts contentious one copied from Christ myth theory where he couldn't get consensus.
[3] Anthony restores reverted consensus paragraph, deletes "tendentious" one.
[4] Eugene reverts.
[5] Anthony restores.
[6] Paul Barlow reverts with "the mainstream view is hardly tendentious"
[7] Anthony restores with "You miss the point. It is not the view; it is the language. See Talk:Christ myth theory"
[8] Bill reverts
[9] SlimVirgin restores
[10] Bill reverts
[11] SlimVirgin restores
[12] Eugene reverts
[13] Anthony restores
[14] (As predicted by Anthony half an hour before,) Ari reverts
[15] ^^James^^ restores
[16] Bill reverts
Anthony goes to bed. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, that is not the "debate so far". It's just an indication of a content disagreement. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a comparison generally upsetting to the people who are being compared with holocaust deniers. Therefore we shouldn't mention it unless there's a more important benefit to our readers. What is the overriding benefit from including a quote about it in this article? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The "benefit" is that is portrays the CMT in its true light. Right now, the CMT is simply made out to be just a minority position. It's not. In non-technical language, it's crazy talk. Therefore, I ask you, and others, how can we present this current mainstream position without including direct quotes by highly trained and respected scholars?

Please keep in mind, however, that we are ONLY talking about the mere historical existence of a particular person. This has NOTHING to do with the miraculous claims of the New Testament, which is why I think that such a position is meeting so much resistence. That is, I think that some editors automatically assume that if Jesus existed in an historical sense, then that means that his miraculous deeds (as presented in the NT) are therefore true. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I thought the sentence Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians, with its slew of sources, did the job quite well, with the added feature of not being offensive. I agree that a fringe position should not be presented as a minority position. In order to avoid that problem, comparisons with holocaust deniers don't apper to be necessary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! As non-historicity seems to be one traditional Jewish reaction to Jesus, quoting Christian scholars that compare it to holocaust denial is extremely poor taste, to say the least. Vesal (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian scholar. Also, mainstream Judaism views JoN as an historical person (as represented in the Talmud) so those Jews who don't accept his historicity are in the same basic camp as those who promote the CMT.

JWB, I have no problem with the sentence you quoted above if it was to appear in the lead - it is succinct and to the point. However, just how crazy the CMT is should be detailed in the Against the theory section of the article by direct quotes of highly trained and respected scholars. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Bill. Wikipedia isn't here to show how crazy anything is. We're here to describe and explain, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. And do so without unnecessarily hurting others. You're not showing necessity. You do want to avoid hurting others, right? Do you think this Holocaust comparison is not hurting others? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take that principle to its logical conclusion: Should Wikipedia not call holocaust deniers "holocuast deniers", for fear of hurting the feelings of holocaust deniers? I think that the Institute for Historical Review has objected to having its members feelings thus hurt. Should Wikipedia really take such concerns seriously? Eugene (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're not showing necessity." You're evading my point by focusing on only one aspect of it, Eugene. I've readily conceded that necessity would overrule hurt feelings. Now, Eugene, is it necessary to make the point by bringing up the Holocaust? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

JWB, I agree that it is not the job of Wikipedia to show how crazy something is because of an editor's POV. However, mainstream scholars view the CMT as crazy talk and it is our job to portray that scholarship accurately. So, to censor what mainstream scholars have said over and over again goes against WP:Fringe. Specifically (Bold-italic added for emphasis):

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. (See Wikipedia:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance.)

and,

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. (See Wikipedia:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance.)

Therefore, if we don't include rather strong statements about the "craziness" of the CMT, it ends up being elevated from an almost universally ridiculed, contemptible, rejected theory to one of a minority, but historically legitimate, position.

Necessity. The point is that we do not want to offend people gratuitously. Is there anything that these holocaust comparisons really add of encyclopedic and pedagogic value? Vesal (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course we don't want to offend people gratuitously. But if such "offended people" are simply operating on emotions, then those emotions can be discounted in a Wikipedia article. After all, there are many Muslims who are offended at visual portrayals of Muhammad, but Wikipedia includes such portrayals for historical reasons. Check out FAQ # 2 about Muhammad (bold-italic and underline added for emphasis):

Might the images offend Muslims?

Yes, it might offend Muslims. Wikipedia recognizes that among many groups of Muslims, the depiction of Muhammad and other prophets is forbidden, and that some Muslims are offended when this prohibition is violated....

However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive.

Isn't that approach reasonable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Too cute by half, Bill. (For anyone else following this, I've recently been heavily involved at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and its AfD.) I would oppose gratuitous images of Muhammad on Wikipedia and support those that are necessary to illustrate a point. Bringing up Holocaust denial is not necessary for the point being made. The principle is the same: Hurt no one if you can reasonably avoid doing so. I detest the idea of offending so many Muslims who sincerely believe the images are forbidden. I detest terrorizing and trying to kill cartoonists. Depending on how someone weighs both of those detestable things, and whether or not that person thinks having lots of people draw Muhammad will make it difficult for terrorists to target any particular cartoonists (along with a few other issues), that person will come down on one side or the other on whether "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is a good idea.

But that's a discussion for a user talk page. The subject here is whether or not comparing CMT advocates to Holocaust deniers is necessary to make the point that their view is considered by many to be fringe, and whether the benefit of making the comparison outweighs the harm it does. "You're not showing necessity", Bill. Making comparisons to other topics isn't a substitute for that. Please either show it's necessary or drop it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

JWB, let me ask you a straight forward question. Do you think that the CMT is a legitimate minority position? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "legitimate" is not all that straightforward. I take it by "legitimate" you mean "could a reasonable, well-informed person honestly believe it"? I don't see how. But I don't think I'm required to do the research it would take to determine the exact reasons why someone with that belief is necessarily ignorant or unreasonable. Wikipedia only concerns itself with reporting on what the mainstream opinion is on a fringe theory. I think this is a fringe theory that, where it involves reasoning, involves faulty reasoning, and where it involves information, involves ignorance of some facts. I think it's entirely possible for an honest person to fall into either of those snares. I'm certain that comparing these people to Holocaust deniers isn't the best way to help them climb out -- the best way is to reduce the emotional content. Conveniently enough, Wikipedia policies and practices encourage that.

Now Bill, let me ask you -- yet again -- a more straightforward question: Why is it necessary to use the Holocaust-denial example? How many times have I asked it now? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I take it this is your comment above (no timestamp on it), and it does look like an effort to respond to my question, so I don't want to ignore it: "if we don't include rather strong statements about the "craziness" of the CMT, it ends up being elevated from an almost universally ridiculed, contemptible, rejected theory to one of a minority, but historically legitimate, position." It doesn't follow from that that we need to use the Holocaust-denial sample when there are other ways of making the point you want to make. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bill that such a strongly worded (though particularly attributed) quote is necessary to demonstrate the level of fringiness involved. Despite the fact that essentially 0% of historians and New Testament scholars disbelieve in the historical existence of Jesus, studies indicate that a shockingly high percentage of the general public disagrees with the academic consensus. Members of that general public are likely to examine pages like this, and were they to see Dunn's quote that non-historicity is a "thoroughly dead hypothesis" they may be inclined to wonder, "Well, how dead is dead?" The Powell quote leaves no ambiguity. Eugene (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once we get to the point where a reader is asking "Well, how dead is dead?" there is extremely little additional value in saying "It's so dead that some mainstream scholars make the following analogy that many find offensive [...]". It isn't the encyclopedia's job to add emotional emphasis. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You should also consider how effectively your point gets across. When you make an analogy that sensitive. People tend to focus more on the disanalogies than the actual point. The talk pages are full with people asking how you can compare something happening 2000 years ago with something 60 years ago with photographic evidence. That's missing the point of the analogy, right? But when so many people keep missing the point as in the AN/I, one has to wonder that perhaps the problem is with the analogy. A good analogy should be such that the reader isn't distracted in this way and really understands the message being conveyed. Vesal (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually misunderstands the message being conveyed by this quote. I think certain editors are upset that the scholarly mainstream is this dismissive of the CMT and have feigned confusion to suppress it. (Not you, Vesal, but others.) Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, the best way would be to have a matter of fact statement like: "the scholarly mainstream not only reject the thesis, but identify serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.(cite Herbert, CUP) For this reason, many eminent scholars consider engaging proponents of myth theory a waste of time, comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.(cite Wright, OUP)" Or something like that. I don't think this is any less effective in conveying how marginal the theory is. Vesal (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the Powell quote is punchier, but I could be happy with what you suggest. Eugene (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Now that Eugene is fine with an alternative, I see a consensus to keep the Holocaust comparison out of the article. I support Vesal's alternative idea. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the craziness of the CMT is spelled out (as in CMT = Cheese Moon) than I'm ok with Vesal's idea. Now, are we four the only ones that are ok with that? Vesal, put your suggestion on the CMT talk page and let's see what happens. Also, can someone formalize the exact text that we are to use in this article? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, Bill, why don't you just explain the nature of Wells', Doherty's and the rest's fraud? That is, explain what makes their work fake, not actual history. So far, all you've said is they attribute probability differently to their opponents, which makes this fringe, not pseudo. That would be much more useful. Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:UNDUE in this article. The specific problems with the views of men like Wells and Doherty should be detailed in the Christ myth theory article--which they are, in the "against the theory" section. Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But that section you pointed to does not explain the nature of their fraud, why their work is not history. It is just a litany of people who disagree with them. Work. Don't just quote their opponents "It's pseudohistory! It's pseudohistory!" You're happy to believe them. Obviously. I and most open-minded readers am not. Show me the fraudulent, non-historical method. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the CMT article does a poor job of this then add it to Bill's list. Eugene (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already there: 2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. But let's discuss that on that article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an internet link directory, very high standards should be met by a link to qualify as germane. May I suggest that the following links, all save one promoting the opinion that Jesus never existed (ahistoricity not historicity of Jesus), belong more properly on the Christ myth theory page? Since this article already contains (as no doubt it should) a link to that article, these external links are not necessary. Indeed, the links in question are 'up and running' on the Christ myth page.

• Dan Barker. Debunking the Historical Jesus
• Doherty, Earl. The Jesus Puzzle, accessed April 16, 2010.
• Holding, James Patrick. Did Jesus Exist?, accessed April 16, 2010.
• www.JesusNeverExisted.com a Christ Myth advocacy website by Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book Jesus Never Existed.
• The God Who Wasn't There official website of the movie, The God Who Wasn't There

-- JALatimer 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything in the External Links article that would justify censoring these links.

These external links are relevant to the ongoing debate over the reliability of the evidence for an historical Jesus.

Ostensibly, this article is supposed to be about the historicity of Jesus. If one came across this article without any knowledge of the current debate over the veracity of the sources that are used to make the claim that the accounts of Jesus are all based upon a single historical figure, one would think there is no debate whatsoever.

Despite the POV of the article itself (which sadly violates the Wikipedia standard of NPOV) it is worthwhile to provide the reader with websites that explore both sides of the debate over the historicity of the Jesus figure.

Dan Barker is a well-regarded expert whose book "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists" does an excellent job of presenting the case against the historicity of Jesus. The link to this article provides a good summary of the arguments against the historicity of Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my comment and the External links policy page. I am not suggesting we "censor" these links, nor am I impugning the "expert" status of Mr. Barker, nor am I expressing an opinion about the truth or falsehood of the Christ myth theory. I am simply proposing that since the above-mentioned links do not "explore both sides of the debate over the historicity of the Jesus figure," but rather push one-sidedly the view that Jesus never existed, they be relegated to the article about that view. Since this article directly links to the Christ myth article, the information is still freely available. This online encyclopedia is not a link repository; it is also not a Fox News-style "we report, you decide" debate platform; it is an encyclopedia. The links I did not mention appear to be actual debates about the historicity of Jesus, thus grounding themselves in the scholarly context this article concerns. The links I did mention (save one) were just Christ-as-myth apologetics sites.

I am suggesting that 'germane' and 'minimal' are better standards than 'anything that is related' for link inclusion. Do you think we should include links to several 'birther' sites on the Barack Obama page? or should we fill the bottom of the Jehovah's Witnesses page with links to Christian sites defending belief in the divinity of Jesus? We just don't need these links. -- JALatimer 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the Wikipedia standard, and you do make a good point that external links should be evaluated by that standard. The criteria are "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."

• Minimal - Four or five links seems pretty minimal to me. The total list stands at nine, a single digit number.
• Meritable - Each of these links is to a site that presents a viewpoint that is based on facts and evidence and meet the Wikipedia standard for notability.
• Directly relevant to the article. The article is very specifically about the historicity of Jesus. Each of the links is very specifically about the historicity of Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the external links section is visibly weighted towards the minority viewpoint, the burden of proof lies squarely on you to show how this article would be harmed in any way by the removal of the links in question, in other words, why these links should be included. There is no pressing reason to include them; rather, there are some good reasons to remove them. Right now, the bottom of the page looks like a attempt to 'guide' the ignorant masses to the 'truth.' You, no doubt, will lament the passing of these links as the passing of an opportunity to subtly proselytize for your POV, but I doubt the majority of readers will share your sorrow and anguish over my heinous 'censorship', especially since as I have already pointed out twice, the links in question are already on the Christ myth page.

On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.

I am going to remove the links now. Remember that the burden of proof is on you: unless consensus develops to include these links, please refrain from re-including them. -- JALatimer 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove them so I agree. This is about the Historicity of Jesus (probably a sub cat of Historical Jesus) and not an argument for the fringe Christ Myth Theory. Yet the external links were majority related to advocacy of the fringe theory????? --Ari (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing these links makes this article less informative, but at the moment the opposition to them has the consensus, so that's fine. (Nice sarcasm BTW JALatimer. ;^))

Labeling those who question the historicity of Jesus due to the total lack of contemporaneous historical documentation and the questionable veracity of non-Christian sources in the 1st century C. E. as proponents of a "fringe theory" is really a misuse of the Wikipedia standard of fringe theory. The Wikipedia article on Fringe Theory is specifically about pseudoscience and theories that contradict the scientific mainstream not theories that offend a particular group of scholars with degrees in religion-related-fields from religious institutions. The standard of what is a "fringe theory" is evidence-based, not faith-based. For further explanation, please see what I wrote here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Christ myth theory redux.

Thanks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with labelling Christ mythicists fringe theorists, pseudo-historians and what not. That there are no academic historians arguing the hypothesis in any peer-reviewed academic sources, and those dealing with the historicity of Jesus dismiss it as pseudoscholarship is my own personal justification. That this opinion is verifiable in multiple mainstream sources is why I have no qualms about labelling the theory how it is labelled in the academy. But I guess when someone like Dan Barker with no historical or academic expertise is what you call a "well-regarded expert" I shouldn't expect your opinion to fall within that of actual well-regarded experts. I have to say, I do love your romanticised view of the CMT. Just objective evidenced based free thinkers going against blind religious bigots. If only that were the case.... --Ari (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These links belong on the CMT page, as sources for the various viewpoints espoused therein. They do not belong here. NJMauthor (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that it is debated whether Jesus historically existed is itself proof that the historicity of Jesus lacks evidence. Think why we don't debate on the historical existence of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar who lived even before the time of the alleged Jesus! --Roland 23:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But there isn't a lack of evidence as historians and NT scholars will tell you. Similarly, just like with Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, there is no academic debate among scholars as to whether Jesus existed. I don't understand what your erroneous comment has to do with the article. --Ari (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you intend to promote Christianity, your best bet is to delete this article from Wikipedia. Because it is like the proverbial thief Jack who stole his neighbor's hammer and left a note there, "Jack did not steal your hammer." --Roland 08:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the focus of the article, I feel that could be better to move this to Historical sources on Jesus or something on these lines. This would clarify better the focus and avoid redundancy between sections with the Historical Jesus article. --Cyclopia^talk 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources that are actively Christian need to be identified as such. It should be obvious that Christians are biased on the question of whether Jesus existed, and that potential conflict of interest is relevant to our readers. Noloop (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Facts are not attributed, only opinions are. Flash 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual claims made by biased sources should be identified as such. The claim in question is this: "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The sole source for the claim that the existence of Jesus is undisputed is a theologian, and that is something the reader should know. Noloop (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, no source can make a statement of fact in terms of religious matters? Per your logic, every source would be biased. Flash 06:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said.

No, that is not accurate, Noloop. Here is a nice list, including some atheists, establishing the facts:

That list needs to be collapsed somehow, as it makes the page hard to read. Is it intended to be a list of atheists who think there was a historic Jesus? If so, the first scholar is a mistake. GA Wells concludes that the evidence supporting a real Jesus anything like the Biblical version is weak. I'm afraid I'm not going to peruse the whole list--which you haven't done either, since you misrepresented the facts right off the bat--but you are certainly welcome to work non-religous sources into the article. Noloop (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that list with a link to its source, as it made the page difficult to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ

I hope that settles the issue. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful, Bill. What do you think about adding all your post to Wikiquote? --Cyclopia^talk 09:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint you, but Bill the Cat 7 is not a reliable source of what the majority of scholars think. And, being in a minority is not the same as being fringe, particularly in the context of religion. If you can provide neutral and reliable evidence that the non-existence of a historical jesus is a fringe theory, then do so. By "neutral" and "reliable" I do not mean your interpretation of your research as found on your Talk page. Noloop (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You talk about neutrality and reliable sources. Could you please provide truly neutral, unbiased and reliable sources proving that Jesus never existed? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Those sources don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So, then do you agree that Noloops claim that

The sole source for the claim that the existence of Jesus is undisputed is a theologian, and that is something the reader should know.

is wrong and that we don't need to identify the background of the sources? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think that identifying the background is very helpful, in this specific case exactly because it can stop people to think that there is a bias. If multiple academics with different religious/philosophical backgrounds all agree on the basis of facts, this is something that the reader should know, for the purpose of putting at rest any bias suspicion. --Cyclopia^talk 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it seems logical to provide the view from a broad range of scholars - because if even theologically divided authors agree then it must be a solid consensus :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources from ANY single religious background cannot be trusted to make a statement of fact, and that they cannot be trusted to be non-biased in factual statements solely because of their religion?

Therefore, we must find atheist/non-religious sources which confirms every factual detail about Christian/Jewish scholarship in the last few hundred years?

Should we apply the same to history? Must we find Russian, Chinese and German sources which confirms every detail of American history? Flash 11:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources from ANY single religious background; I'm sorry if you got that idea. If I was silly enough to say that then I retract it, there was no intention to say so.... you call this a fact, I am sure that it is - however it is not something easily verified by an individual without reasonable research, we have to rely on someone within the field to explain that a consensus exist. Someone saying "there is a broad consensus" is mostly opinion. Someone saying "there is a broad consensus because XYZ people all say ABC" is better. Several people saying the latter is best of all. If non-christian writers disagree on the consensus (I am assuming they don't) that needs to be addressed also :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Errant said, it is not something easily verified by an individual without reasonable research. Errant, all that needs to be done to make it easily verified is to cut the vast amount of quotes I listed above and paste them into a FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be dangerous (misquotes, selective quoting etc.). BUT a selection of those sources seem absolutely fine to add as references for the statement.... I'm not sure why that would be/is being resisted? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous? Do you think there are any misquotes above? When you have well-known scholars, such as the atheist Bart Ehrman, saying that they personally know thousands of scholars and yet not one of them subscribes to any part of the CMT, then what do you make of that? We also have academics here on Wikipedia, such as Ari who confirms that CMT proponents can't even get their position peer-reviewed because of the contempt that is held for the CMT. What else is needed to convince you (that can also be applied to other ancient historical figures)? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if you meant that only a few quotes should be placed in the article, then that is certainly reasonable. But for a FAQ, which would be on the Talk page, the more quotes the better. There are lot of uninformed people that believe the CMT is a reasonable possibility. It isn't, and sometimes they need to see a bunch of quotes to convince them. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An FAQ on the talk page is something I would consider overkill. It is dangerous because it is not the direct source and because quotes could be cherry picked (I'm 100% certain that is not the case because I have read many of those authors! but it means WP is acting as a direct source - which is problematic). I see no issue with using one or two of the sources you highlighted above in the article (not as quotes, again seems overkill/undue weight) in the article to support the "contentious" statement. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)   Facepalm I must have the supernatural gift to be unable to be understood.

I have repeated several times that it's not a matter of "trust" or "reliability". I have repeated several times that an atheist source on the subject is no less prone to bias than a Christian or Jewish or Muslim one.

What I propose is that on a delicate issue as the one of the historical facts concerning Jesus, clarifying the background of scholars in cases in which (a)a statement is considered controversial (if not academically, by some section of the public) or (b)the scholar has a strong, explicit religious POV (e.g. is a prominent atheist spokesman; a bishop; a rabbi) , it provides context to the reader to know the background. Example: Bertrand Russell sympathized with the Jesus myth theory. Bertrand Russell was also a prominent atheist. To understand his sympathy in context, his background is a useful information.

In any case, I don't see what we gain by hiding such backgrounds. To write a sentence like (say) "Academic consensus from Christian,Jewish and secular sources is firm in establishing the historicity of Jesus" looks much more informative and gives much less space to climb for fringe theorists than "Academic consensus is firm in establishing the historicity of Jesus" citing a single source. --Cyclopia^talk 11:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So the vast amount of quotes I listed above was not enough to convince you that stating backgrounds was unnecessary? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the mere number of quotes has to do with stating their background, and I find also difficult to understand such resistance to merely stating a relevant contextual background. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus cannot be determined by numbers, then please explain how to determine if there is a consensus? There are a whole lot of quotes above that say that there is indeed a vast, vast consensus among scholars. Why is that so hard to accept? And since that is demonstrably the case, then inserting a "contextual background" is superfluous. I mean, why not just state "Scholars affirm such and such"? One's religious or non-religious background is irrelevant when the consensus is so huge (which includes both religious and non-religious scholars) and the object of that consensus is historical (non-religious) in nature. Isn't that reasonable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not only a matter of numbers. There is quality, not only quantity. The other factor is the composition of the sample. Obvious example: about half of Americans refuse the theory of evolution, yet it is overwhelmingly consensual in the scientific community, and that's why we assume that scientific consensus is there. Other example: In theory, one could cherry-pick quotes only from Christ myth theory literature and give the false impression that there is a consensus on their side. But yes, you are right, there is a vast consensus among scholars: and it is a consensus especially because, as you point, it includes both religious (of different backgrounds) and non-religious scholars. This is important: it means that despite the differences in the starting beliefs, all they acknowledge independently something very crucial. This has strong positive implications on the quality of such consensus, given that, yes, the object of the consensus is historical, but with enormous implications for several religions. So it is appropriate to add this, to make it clear to people that no matter what is your starting potential bias, they all arrive at the same conclusion, and as such we reassure the reader that it is not matter of editorial bias, it is not matter of cherrypicking, it is instead a real, solid consensus. With the bonus that any future Noloop can be pointed at that and reassured that everything is OK. --Cyclopia^talk 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem including such an explanation in a FAQ. For example, check out old FAQ #4 from the Christ myth theory page. But to put it in the actual article is problematic, as stated by RF, Griswaldo, et al. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem problematic, because nobody pointed out any problem with it: all this discussion is a defensive "but we don't need that!" more than a "it is a problem because..." --Cyclopia^talk 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reread Griswaldo and RF's comments. They state the problems clearly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the cost of looking dumb, I read their comments and I can't find these dangling problems. --Cyclopia^talk 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I do not like labels such as "atheist", "Christian" or "Jewish". When I read scholarly opinions, I want all notable opinions, and don't want such labels attached to scholars which implies that a person's religion dictates his/her opinion. Likewise, I don't want to see the label "American", "English" or "American-born" in history articles or labels such as "Blue Jays fan", "Former American League Player" attached to sports opinions. Frankly, people or organizations rarely write or make a statement on something they don't care about, so you could argue there is a bias in every source, and labelling every source, which can be done many different ways to imply different things, is counterproductive and POV. Flash 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that dictates his/her opinion, that's your problem. I don't feel that it "dictates" anything, I feel it is a relevant contextual information because it may have a bearing on their opinion, for sure. Find me a Communist who thinks Communism is not a viable economical model. It is obvious that the belief/cultural background of a scholar is relevant when the subject of the studies is inextricably connected to such beliefs/background. To "care about" is different than "having strong beliefs". A gardener cares about roses, but (usually) doesn't think that roses are his Lord and Saviour. A Jesus scholar cares about Jesus, and may also think that Jesus is his Lord and Saviour, and to say that this is irrelevant to his Jesus studies is naive at best. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to say consensus is across a broad span of theological differences. There is a non-academic tendency to see religious history as biased by an authors beliefs - or the circle of authors/academics he/she associates with. I'm not altogether unconvinced that such biases exist when we get to the actual nitty gritty of this subject :) - but I doubt it exists for this broad statement. As the article is written for non-academic readers I'd support the idea of clarifying where the consensus rests (i.e. with everyone). The sources could be from anyone - just so long as there are a two or three from well respected academics it seems fine --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. There are a million different attributes we could identify any given human being by -- nationality, religious belief, gender, age, etc. It is not meaningful to mention any of these unless they are correlated with something else. If all Christ Mythers are atheists that is indeed meaningful information, though meaningful does not necessarily mean we should include it. When not being a Christ myther has no meaningful correlation with a specific religious affiliation then it is misleading to point to any specifically. Even if you identify a large group of affiliations. Why no Hindus? Why no Buddhists? Those are the questions one naturally asks because you've all of a sudden made religious affiliation significant by identifying it along with the mainstream POV. Suggesting we do so is simply bad science, if you believe the social sciences are so aptly named.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. There are a million different attributes, yes, but I am talking of ones which are inextricably linked with the subject study. See above reply to Flash. --Cyclopia^talk 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And that makes it good science how? Are we to assume bias in research that relates to gender conducted by men and/or by women? You claim to be a scientist but you operate in the realm of assumption when these are questions we can actually test empirically. For shame my friend.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we to assume bias in research that relates to gender conducted by men and/or by women? : Well, this is simplifying the matter a lot, but, to also be simple in answering, yes. Have you ever heard of gender bias? --Cyclopia^talk 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I asked if we are to "assume bias", and what you pointed us to in your link are conclusions about bias drawn from empirical studies that have tested gender bias. This is exactly my point, so thanks for making it real by way of example. Where are the conclusions drawn from empirical studies that have tested religious bias? You have none, you simply have your assumptions about it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you want sources about the obvious? Here we go: [17]: "Indeed, these types of study are done best by those scholars who can bracket their own religious commitments or have none to bracket, as the whole sorry history of religious bias in biblical studies amply demonstrates. [...] Practicing Jews and Christians will differ from uncompromising historicists, however..." --Cyclopia^talk 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: "Jewish scholars uncovered Christian bias in supposedly objective scholarship", [18]. --Cyclopia^talk 14:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny enough given your example: "If male bias has been exposed by feminist readings of the Bible, Christian bias has appeared in sharp relief against the background of re-emergent Jewish scholarship" [19]. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets not get too sidetracked over this. From an academic perspective the nitty gritty of historical research into Jesus is often weighted with religious (or anti-religious) bias. That's not a charge for every scholar in the field; but it is a common issue. However what we are discussing here is not the nitty gritty, it is a broad statement about the consensus on the existence of a historical figure in the role of Jesus. I'll say it now that from my experience of the field this consensus does exist. To me it seems a relevant point from the perspective of an article aimed at non-scholars/academics to clarify that this consensus is held by the full spectrum of scholarship as relevant to this field. Any wider discussion than that seems just discussing our perspectives (which is fascinating/interesting and I could do it all day - but seems off topic). As I see it:

• We need to discuss if such a distinction should be made explicitly in the article
• How many and what sort of sourcing is required for non-academics to be happy with the statement in whatever form.

My personal support is to include the spectrum and several sources (max 3) from reputable scholars preferably from across the spectrum. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopedia (edit conflict)What exactly is Levenson referring to as the "whole sorry history of religious bias in biblical studies" because that remains entirely unclear -- is he really referring to the modern era of biblical criticism? Also please note that the matter at hand is not confined to "biblical criticism" ... since it relates to ancient history. The second quote refers to something that happened in the 1960s according to the author, who then goes on to point out that the result has been an increasing number of approaches and less "certitude" in biblical criticism. Less certitude meaning what? If there is less certitude but scholars still agree that one thing is certain ... that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, then what does that mean? The third books speaks of two overarching hegemonies that have been countered in recent years in biblical criticism, one patriarchal and the other Christian. None of these quotes actually address the issue at hand, which is not a matter of the "history of bias in biblical criticism" but whether or not there is a religious bias that influences ones views on the historicity of Jesus. Also, not to be nitpicky, but none of these are actually "empirical studies" of the contemporary field, but reflections by knowledgeable experts on the history of their field. It's not particularly informative to Google search for key words and then to throw in out of context quotes like this from google books. They do not address the lack of evidence that I've pointed to.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia Oh please. There is ample explicit evidence above that religious bias is a problem in the scholarship of Biblical subjects. It is enough to admit that the field is not the shiny ivory tower of disinterested souls you seem to depict. Which is not surprising, since it is pretty obvious that, for example, if you are a Christian, you should be much more likely to suggest as historical things like the Resurrection (and viceversa, if you're not, you're probably less likely to accept it). --Cyclopia^talk 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"There is ample explicit evidence above that religious bias is a problem in the scholarship of Biblical subjects." No, that's your opinion. You basically want this article to reflect YOUR OPINION that the 99% who disagree with are all driven by bias. No - YOU are driven by bias. The article reflects scholarship. Carlo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the above, havent' you? See sources linked above before saying that it is "my opinion". And I don't want the article to reflect "my opinion" (whatever it is -which opinion do you talk about?), I just want 1)source background to be properly identified and 2)a full spectrum of sources is given. --Cyclopia^talk 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit to the lead and then came to the talk page to find this discussion. Have to say I agree with Cyclopia. It provides context to the references, and doesn't detract from them, so I really dont see the fuss on this at all. It's simple and expands the information provided to the reader in a meaningful way, one of the hallmarks of encyclopedic content. -- ۩ Mask 23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since both Christian and non-Christian scholars are in agreement, there is no reason to state "Christian". Also, using "Christian" implies a POV agenda on the part of Christians and therefore implies that they are not to be trusted. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems very much in dispute on this talk page. Regardless of that issue however, I took the liberty of looking up the source for the lead edit at the college library here. It really is simply his assertion that its not, not any real evidence for that. Seeing as how the source doesn't actually show what is being alleged by the statement perhaps the compromise would be to simply delete his religious affiliation from the attribution? Im reverting back to the full version seeing as how there is some controversy about the way to handle this shown on this page, but i would not reflexively revert the mere deletion of his faith, should consensus show us that's the way to go. -- ۩ Mask 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which contradicts the lead source? Flash 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned I took the time at uni today to look up the source in the lead having waded into this from an ANI thread. Im not that engaged on the subject, nor particularly hung up on it, so no I dont but that doesn't change the fact that the source does not show what was being claimed. I see we've let the compromise sit for a minute, and thats fine with me. My main problem with the source is it amounts to the author of the book waving his hand and blindly asserting said thing. The work doesn't dive into what the shape of the consensus is, and indeed a few pages later talking about how secular history is predictably less rigid in its belief but still supported by a majority. Language like that implies a conflict of interest to my ear (as in he's weighting secular history less). -- ۩ Mask 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Contrary to what someone else said on this page, this is not my POV. Please read these quotes, which includes both Christians and non-Christians, and you'll see what scholars have to say. And keep in mind that NPOV is a core Wiki policy—consensus cannot override it. Therefore, if both Christians and non-Christians say the say the same thing, there is no point in adding "Christian" into the text and doing do is POV-pushing. Finally, if anyone is sincerely interested in what a well-known atheist scholar (Bart Ehrman) has to say about it, listen to this. It's worth your time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in edit summary, thats covered by WP:SYNTH. You use what a source says, not combining multiple sources in an offshoot of WP:OR to form new information. -- ۩ Mask 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm walking away from this for the night, but unless the source for the statement gets changed I do think the compromise wording seems fine for the next 24 hours or so... I'll have access to the extensive library again tomorrow morning, there may in fact be a source that makes sense to use and allows the original wording to be kept. Will enjoy helping out :) - ۩ Mask 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please be more specific. I'm not sure what you are talking about, since virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real, historical person. Note that we are talking about only his historicity—we are not talking about any claims of miracles, etc. Just a simple human being like all of us here. At any rate, have a good night (and please make an effort to listen to the Bart Ehrman interview link above. Have a good night. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be Historicity of Jesus Theory?

To take an unbiased approach shouldn't both this and the Christ Myth Theory have the same allocation of a theory?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I read it this page documents Christ Myth Theory, Historical Jesus and everything in between - including the relative acceptance of the various theories. It doesn't present any one actual theory. Or in other words, Christ Myth Theory is a sub-topic of this. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Such religiously biased entries should go to Wikifaith.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Longbow (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Why don't you use atheist scholars who say that it's obvious that J exists?" "There's no need, becuase these 30 scholars all agree that he did exist." Repeat, rinse, and wash. I'm getting the feeling that although no one wants to admit it, religious scholars are needed to source the main statement. If I'm wrong, add it to the actual article (not here). If I'm right, then the sources probably still meet our sourcing requirements, but at least we can get it out in the open. Again, add sources to article, then comment. Else, you cannot add sources, or don't want to, which is about the same to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

hear hear! athiest sources almost universally take the agnostic view that so little evidence exists we cant say one way or another. evangelicals cheer things like the ossuary of james then quietly stop talking about it after it was shown as a forgery. the look for evidence to support a conclusion, not look what the evidence leads them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.204.47 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all that, but again, let's put whatever info there is in the actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand the consensus process of WP. The bold edit to the previous consensus edit was objected to by immediately being reverted by three editors. Evidently, it does not have consensus - so we follow consensus building as per the diagram. You do not repeatedly revert to the non-consensus version hoping to edit war it in. Regarding the rant, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about so I will withhold my comments.--Ari (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean let's use atheist scholars as sources for the overwhelming scholarly consensus that J existed in some form. If that's not possible, lets acknowledge that and move the discussion forward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why use atheist scholars? Are you saying that Christians, Jews, Hindus and agnostics are no longer reliable sources because you personally don't share their worldview? There is no WP policy to the effect that prejudices reliable scholars in reliable sources because of their religious/non-religious background. Editors are meant to adhere to wp:NPOV. --Ari (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying any of that, and I know that WP's rules say a Christian scholar is just as reliable on the existence of J as an atheist scholar. But, this is a frequent talk page issue, so if atheist scholars don't think J existed, we can move on according to the letter of WP's rules, and not pretend that everyone agrees. Anyways, still waiting for something that can be added to the actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But Atheist scholars do agree Jesus did exist - that is why atheists such as Michael Grant, James Crossley and Maurice Casey can write books and journal articles about what Jesus said and did. That is why reliable scholars in reliable sources can make consensus statements about the state of play in Jesus research. Do you have a reliable source that makes statements contrary to the consensus statements? Do you (or these other editors) have a reliable source on historicity of Jesus stating "essentially all scholars - but atheists - in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."? If not, the debate is nothing but an editorial creation. --Ari (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we add citation to the article showing that atheist scholars agree that Jesus existed? If we can (and do), then my problem will be resolved. As far as WPs policies forbidding that, it's well within editorial discression, and attribution is a good thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is editorial discretion in creating debates that have no basis in any reliable sources? Atheist scholars are part of the academy so consensus statements apply just as much to them as they do to their Christian, Jewish or agnostic colleagues. So we do have a source that states atheist scholars agree. Check out Bill the Cat 7's FAQ which is packed full of many reliable sources that make statements that include atheists. --Ari (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason it's a frequent talk page issue is that there is a great degree of ignorance regarding historical methodology as well as what it means to say that Jesus was an historical figure. Most people think that if they concede the historicity of Jesus, then that means that they must also concede his miracles and claims of divinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of atheists that can be quoted in order to convince the typical village atheist that scholars are extremely sure of Jesus' historicity. However, that sets up a dangerous precedent (as well as being un-Wiki regarding reliable sources) that says only non-Christians can be trusted to be unbiased.

So, providing a source and labeling it Christian/atheist/Hindu/etc is not the way to go. It would be far better IMHO (as well as following Wiki procedures) to simply create a fax explaining that ALL groups of scholars and virtually every single scholar in each group believes in the simple existence of Jesus. Then, when someone makes bogus claims, we won't have to start yet another long thread—we just point them to the FAQ. Thus, PF, I think this would satisfy your concerns. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I kinda mention it becuase of your FAQ. That things a wall of text (TLDR), hence it doesn't show what atheist scholars believe, or at least not in a useful way. Nice work on the DnD articles, by the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #3 on my page actually addresses that. It says:

Question: Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV?

Response: While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy.

And just for the record, I'm not the one who compiled the list. I mean, I'm pretty familiar with the topic because I studied it informally about 20 years ago, but those FAQS required someone who was formally trained. At any rate, I'm not really inclined to create the FAQ for this page because 1) The next few weeks I will be very busy, and 2) I'd much rather edit D&D articles at this point. Gamers are much nicer people to deal with.   And thanks for the complement. By the way, have you seen the movie The Gamers: Dorkness Rising. If not, watch it. It's hilarious. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bill's Response. So cite those and only those to support the academic consensus. They are reliable sources, and it will shut down this perennial "Christians would say that" chorus. Please. Anthony (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. Lets look at this from the point of view of policy. There is no reason for us to undermine the opinion/consensus of scholars solely due to their religion. I have argued in the past that citing a cross section of sources would be preferable because it shows how broad the consensus is. But it is not necessary. To make the statement all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence we need more than one source passing WP:RS to support it - we have those, take your pick. It is impossible to claim that we cannot state it because currently all that is cited in support is a Christian source - if it passes WP:RS it is verified and we judge on that, not truth. To claim we need Atheist or Agnostic sources is dangerously close to a POV - it is most definitely preferable, but not mandatory. The only thing that would change that is if a large number (or even just a few particularly respected) non-Christian scholars in the relevant fields heavily disagreed in WP:RS's. If we can cite that disagreement then the sentence would require changing --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We use attribution all the time, as policy recommends it when a source is reliable but possibly biased. I think we could do that here if they exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if you're citing Hindu, atheist or agnostic scholars there is no need to attribute, because their religious orientation does not mandate the historical existence of Jesus. I know that Christian scholars can be rigorous, that of course they may be cited. But why, when you have equally solid non-Christian sources for the consensus view, insist on citing only Christian sources for consensus in the article, knowing it stokes this constant dispute? Nothing at all gained, much time wasted. Anthony (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing peer reviewed sources (as opposed to published books etc.) should remove the problem of source bias. Citing a broad range of sources will also remove this problem. So such sources should be preferred. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please see WP:ASF regarding this kind of attribution. Mainstream scholarly point of views should not be attributed in this manner. This is exactly an example of how attribution is abused to suggest that something is not a mainstream POV, or to suggest that it is not a netural POV. Attributing statements that fall withing the scholarly consensus to a certain type of scholar should be avoided at all costs.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are again, at the same place we always end up. I just want it to be clear that regardless of numerous and constant concerns by tons of editors, editors prefer hiding behind the letter of WP's rules than to resolve this issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good way to do it. Global_warming#cnote_B - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that help things enormously. Has one scholarly body published a consensus statement regarding the historicity of Jesus? Anthony (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's the Jesus Seminar, which isn't perfect at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

When even those in the Jesus Seminar reject the non-historicity of Jesus, that's saying a lot.   Regarding Anthony's question about scholarly body, Ari would likely know. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It will sound silly, but maybe we can say "Jesus existed got 95% red beads at the Jesus Seminar". I saw a lot of votes on specific sayings, but none on the big question. Also, Ari, are you following this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only people who think the Jesus Seminar as a group represent consensus are the Jesus Seminar. The fact that they can attribute a single saying to Jesus is evidence that through their stringent use of the historical critical method they have determined that Jesus didn't just exist, but he most likely said X, Y and Z. --Ari (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(redent) What about "Regarding Anthony's question about scholarly body, Ari would likely know."? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The role of a scholarly body is to facilitate scholarship not tell scholars what to believe. Reliable sources have made consensus statements to the basic fact that mainstream scholarship believes Jesus existed. We have no reliable source that states the consensus is any different . Ergo, we follow WP policy and the sources, not string together wp:OR arguments such as here.

Short version: no reliable source says anything contrary, editors do not invent qualifications of these consensus statements. --Ari (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove the NPOV tag again - it simply states that we are debating the POV (something that seems to be, indeed, still unsolved). --Cyclopia^talk 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag unless there is a specific reason stated for its inclusion. Can you please concisely state the reason? I mean, I don't see any POV discussion going on above that is not based on the claim that Christian scholars are unreliable sources. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the claim and how well grounded it is, is not important -the claim could even be that Jesus comes really from Mars, or whatever silliness. But this claim is indeed being debated between editors continuously in the last week, in this talk page and elsewhere, by several editors. And your wording is misleading -I think nobody in this quarrel thinks that Christian scholars are unreliable, only that they are biased sources (a not-so-subtle distinction). Given that there is an unresolved NPOV dispute ongoing, regardless of what I, you, or anyone thinks of it, the NPOV tag is only appropriate. --Cyclopia^talk 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite some articles in peer-reviewed, secular journals that say it's a fact that Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any part of WP:RS requiring the sources be "peer-reviewed." Can you point to where that might be? I vaguely recall that some wikiprojects (like WP:MEDICINE) set higher standards, but I don't believe this article falls under any such criteria (and, I'll add Wikiproject criteria aren't actually binding in any event). As for secular...I'm not even 100% certain we could define what that means...Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It just depends on the context. Peer-reviewed, secular sources are high-quality, which is what high controversy requires. In this case, the claim is being made that it is a fact that Jesus existed. That every expert says so, and to say otherwise is comparable to saying there was no moon landing or Holocaust. It is trivial to back up those facts with hundreds of peer-reviewed sources. If the existence of Jesus is as factual as the the existence of a moon landing, it should be equally trivial to back it up with a peer-reviewed secular source. Yet, nobody can. Instead, we get a lot of sources that essentially are theologians saying their religion is right. Not reliable. Noloop (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, like the moon landing or the Holocaust, sources PRESUPPOSE it's existence, and it isn't argued in peer-reviewed journals because there is no argument. You won't find peer-reviewed journals actually arguing that the holocaust occurred - it's a given. The alternative point of view is for nuts. Same for the existence of Jesus. The scholarly sources presuppose Jesus' existence, and don't even bother to address the other point of view, because it's fringe conspiracy stuff, and not even on the radar screen of real scholarship. Carlo (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about "arguing." If you search google/scholar, you will find thousands of scholarly articles referring to the fact of the Holocaust, e.g. [20]. You will find thousands of academic articles referring to various NASA projects, such as the moon landing. If you can find millions of people who saw Jesus existing on TV, I would accept that. Noloop (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review, check. Secular, check. This took like 3 seconds worth of searching on JSTOR: John P. Meier "The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians" Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 740-746 -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Secular, check" huh? From Wikipedia: "John Paul Meier is a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. " [21] A Catholic priest...very secular. "The Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) is one of three theological journals published by the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).". [22] Noloop (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. For future reference: 1) just citing an article with term "Historical Jesus" in the title won't cut it, 2) what you really need to produce is a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it.

You are just moving the goal posts around. You first asked for a citation for "it's a fact that Jesus existed", but now that has changed to "a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it". You first asked for a secular journal, but now you are asking the contributor can't be Christian or something ridiculous like that. I found another source from a scholar from an Israeli/Jewish university published in the past 6 months, but I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices, that scholars are incapable of compartmentalizing, or that someone with a religious background can't publish in a secular journal (which is obviously not true because my example proves that the journal's editorial standards are different from your personal bias). I also have no idea what you think "theological" means. I really see this going no where fast. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

'The Journal of Biblical Literature', published by the Society of Biblical Literature, sounds like a perfectly good source of information to me. (Or at least it is for the period of Meier's article--it seems there are some recent changes to the society's mission). What does Meier say in his article? I can't access it. --RSLxii 16:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just an article discussing the historical Jesus' interaction with a mysterious group called the Herodians (associated with the Pharisees), and he concludes that the stories in Mk 3:6 and 12:13 most likely lack historicity. It is an article which clearly discusses the historical Jesus as a fact, presupposes it I guess, but it doesn't have the sought after "consensus statement". I wouldn't have wasted my time if I knew the question was going to change after the fact. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the "relevant fields" would be ancient history. A "secular source" would be, for example, one who does not fit one of the following criteria:(a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. There is not adequate sourcing at this time to make the claim "all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence." We must either provide the sources, or drop this statement from the article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In terms of this, I guess others have done a lot of work, since this apparently isn't a new issue, and on a quick glance, I'd say User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232 provides tons of good information. There is no requirement that citation on Wikipedia come from "peer reviewed, secular journals". In fact, many journal articles are primary sources, or represent something of a specialist's knowledge, and we are cautioned against citing such academic articles directly, instead favoring good secondary sources, review articles, and overviews that summarize. I haven't been through every source on Bill the Cat's list to figure out the religious background of each contributor, and the publishing forum, and I think that would be a waste of time, because these requirements aren't in Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, and I'm at this point convinced that Noloop has reached a conclusion, and no amount of arguing will change that, and a search for a mythical perfect source is going to be made impossible in order to support Noloop's forgone conclusions. Therefore, I'll settle with basic Wikipedia sourcing criteria. That said, looking through the list, Graham Stanton's The Gospels and Jesus, Christopher M. Tuckett in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, Michael Grant Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, James H. Charlesworth Jesus and Archaeology would all, IMO, fit the criteria of having a WP:RS to back up the claim that most scholars accept the historicity of a 1st century Palestinian religious figure named "Jesus" (just to name a few).-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)