Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed 2 Freke & Gandy 3 Jesus, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, and Socrates 4 Jesus Seminar 5 Move "Jesus and Syncretism" to Jesus-Myth 6 Vandalism? 7 RfC 8 Fallacies should be noted in recapping arguments, for balance 9 "A minority of scholars argue that Jesus never existed" 10 Dennis R. MacDonald, Harvard Ph.D., Yale Press, is not "fringe" 11 The intro needs some work 12 Jesus and Syncretism 13 Counting

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed

Alright, what's the disputation this time? Why the "totally disputed" tag? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been there for ages. Since there's no discussion of what's disputed, it should be removed unless specific objections are forthcoming.Paul B 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Homestarmy 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

AOL. TrumpetPower! 22:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Earthlink, but what do Internet service providers have to do with anything? Oh, and what about the "POV" tag on Historical Jesus? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the linked entry. Let's just say that I've been around for a while.... TrumpetPower! 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

September 1993? Geez, I didn't get involved with Usenet until late 1994 and I had abandoned Usenet by 1998. Back then we used to make fun of all these AOLbies. Then they bought Time-Warner to morgage our souls.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Newbie! I don't remember when I started, but Google's oldest post with my name on it dates to '89. I still remember the Canter & Siegel Green Card spam...had a client a couple years ago who was just a mile or so from their offices, on the same street....

Anyway, I still pop in and out from time to time in a few groups. If you can find a group with a good signal-to-noise ratio--and there aren't many left--it's still worthwhile. For the high-volume groups, you need a super-aggressive killfile, of course.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in 1994 I was @uni.edu. When I really was a newbie, I fell for the Goodtimes virus hoax. Then Microsoft allowed us to e-mail macros, and suddenly it wasn't a hoax anymore. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So are we in dispute on the facts? In the article I mean - not with each other : ) - I have no problems with removing the banner. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me Str has something against it, the neutrality doesn't appear to have any faults at all that are making people care enough to, well, propose changes, but at least make it a factual accuracy tag instead of a POV+factual failure tag :/. Homestarmy 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Freke & Gandy

The first time TrumpetPower reverted, I suggested that TrumpetPower cite the secondary source (Freke) rather than the primary source (2 John) since scriptural interpretations of course vary. Now KHM03 charges that Freke & Gandy are not reliable sources, and of course TrumpetPower disagrees. I am wary of a war on credentials like we had on Talk:Jesus, but this needs to be discussed. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines reputable sources as "peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." Freke & Gandy are best-selling authors published in Great Britain by Harper Collins and in the States by Random House.

I'm too new here to be familiar with the war of credentials on the main Jesus article, but, if it's anything like the wars I've seen elsewhere, it can be summed up pretty easily: the overwhelming majority of people who study the historicity of Jesus are, well, Christians at Christian institutions, most of whom are already devout believers; those who don't toe the party line quickly get castigated for their heresies and lose their jobs and reputations. It's how we can get something as ludicrous as the Jesus Seminar that rejects 99.9% of the Bible yet maintains that there's something there that "proves" that Jesus really said something.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

WP does not define "reputable sources" as peer-reviewed journals, etc.--it says they "include" peer-reviewed journals etc. Freke and Gandy's books are clearly reputable by any sensible definition. Nareek 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Er...we're in agreement. It includes not just peer-reviewed journals, but also authors published by respectable houses. And that fits Freke and Gandy to a t. TrumpetPower! 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that these aren't scholars we're talking about. These are two guys who published a book. Neither one has credentials in the fields of Biblical scholarship or Christian history; one has only a Bachelor's degree (which, for those in the UK, is the first academic degree, two steps away from a doctoral degree -- in the US, it doesn't qualify one as a scholar, just a college graduate -- not that there's anything wrong with that). Legitimate scholars in the field include the Jesus Seminar, NT Wright, EP Sanders, and many others. It takes more than writing a book to make someone a scholar or an expert. Freke and Gandy are not reputable sources. What degrees have they in the field? Where did they get their educations? Where do they teach? What scholars have reviewed their work? These are all real questions that need answered before we can consider these two "reputable". I've added the disputed tag to the article...to consider Freke & Gandy "scholars" is entirely inaccurate and shows that we are favoring a non-academic POV. KHM03 ^(talk) 18:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Careful with the UK academic system - most Ph.D. (doctrate) students go straight on from a batchelors degree. Also be careful with the "reputable" arguments as some of the non-Christians who are lenient with those who fill the cites and references with devout Christians who somehow manage to "bracket" their beliefs may start asking pointed questions. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is a concern I've tried to express to CTSWyneken. I was content to have a reference to "critical Bible scholars" in the second paragraph of Jesus because higher Bible critics use the same historical method that historians do. I'm a little uncomfortable with expanding the reference to "Bible scholars" because it blurs the distinction between those writing as Scholars and those writing as Christians. There are, of course, those who can write from either perspective and truly do bracket their religious beliefs. However, that subtlty may be lost on some people. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the entire article because to cite Freke & Gandy as reputable scholars alters the validity of the entire article. I also was just trying to clarify the Freke/Gandy academic creds to our British friends, whom I know have a different system. Thanks for tha clarity. I'm nots ure what your concerns are regarding "bracketing" of beliefs, you'll have to clarify that for me. My own view is that someone ought not be considered a "scholar" or "expert" without considerable academic training, applicable to their geography (a British scholar might have different degrees than an American) and time (understanding that academic creds change over the centuries). KHM03 ^(talk) 19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein first used the term "bracket" to refer to those who, while religious Christians or Jews, are able to write from a scholarly perspective without religious bias. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK...I'd consider a book by Wright to be fair, but wouldn't accept Pat Robertson or Al Sharpton as legitimate "Jesus scholars" (no offense intended to any person). KHM03 ^(talk) 19:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia's point of view that only members of the academy can participate in intellectual discussions? I don't believe that it is. Nareek 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think anyone can participate in a discussion...Freke & Gandy included. But writing a book, or trying to join a discussion, doesn't make one an expert or a scholar. Where are the credentials? KHM03 ^(talk) 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are the credentials of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? It really is absurd to say that authors outside the academic system cannot be considered reputable sources. Nareek 19:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring the difference between primary and secondary sources. We're not here to judge the reliability of the Gospels, we're here to judge the reliability of those who comment on the Gospels. Or, in this case, what Freke & Gandy say about the second episle of John.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels are ancient texts which are incredibly important historically and theologically. I'm not saying that academic creds are important...scholars feel that way. Take it up with them. Heck, I wouldn't want a surgeon operating on me who just decided he was a doctor, with no formal training. There's a reason for scholarly training. Look...I have a master's degree. If I publish a book saying that Jesus was from Mars and Mary was from Venus, am I a scholar? I've got more training than Freke, and it's possible my book would sell better than his and get more time on CNN. But, it takes more than a book to make one a scholar. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why can't they be used as a source? You can give quotes that say this view is not widely accepted - this is a populist work - they are not establised academics etc. That is all NPOV. To throw them out when many in the UK will know of them or read the book seems too narrow a remit and will make the article seem out of date or biased. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We had this fun at Jesus last month, remember? The best we can say is that scholars with credentials w say x, and scholars with credential y say z. Or, are we debating the definition of "scholar"? We've has that fun at Jesus recently as well. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be fair, accurate, and NPOV to simply say that Freke and Gandy are not scholars, and their work is not academic but populist or popular. We can't represent it as legitimate scholarship. Maybe we should have a section with "non-academic" views or something. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy are among the authors we cite as advocates of the nonexistence hypothesis at Jesus. (See the last footnote on the second paragraph). If I remember right, Freke is a philosopher and Gandy is considered to be an expert in Gnosticism. Thus, they are not historians, but are writing from the viewpoint of the philosophy of religion. Their work has been criticized on that basis, but they are fairly well known authors and some readers will be looking for them. That's why we decided to cite such people at Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Being well known is not criteria for denoting someone a scholar. Look at their training and education and how they've been received in the academy. They're not scholars. List them as "writers" or "non-academic voices", but don't dishonor the academy by calling these two scholars. KHM03 ^(talk) 12:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What would be really honest as an editor is to edit - you don't think they are scholars then edit the text to say "authors". Don't just revert the whole thing calling it "nonsense". We have played these games before and I am getting tired of them. We make a statement and editors rightly call for references. References are provided and they are knocked down as not scholarly enough. This from people who really believe you can get an unbiased doctrate from a bible college and don't bat an eyelid at the use of bede.org to back up their statements. I have been patient and refused to echo the "cabal" calls but it is begining to look like that. As soon as someone makes a serious challenge to the status quo these "circular edit wars" begin. The behavior on the Jesus-Myth page is shameful - attempting to not allow the use of Freke and Gandy there when they are the people responsible for bringing these ideas to the broader public domain and no one has objected to calling them "populist" or "authors" rather than "scholars". We currently have a Christianity page which gives the Catholic view of the history of Christianity even though there is reputable modern scholarship to call this into doubt. A Jesus page that is improving but historicity/historical articles and now the Jesus-Myth pages that the Christian editors want to use as a forum for pointing out how stupid all the people who don't believe them are and how no one in academia likes them anyway.

I think an RfC is called for and would be interested to hear from anyone who would be interested in helping me put it together. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind an RfC. The quote was removed not only because it referred to two people inaccurately and held them up as experts (they're not), but also because the interpretation offered runs counter to nearly all other experts' interpretations, and mainstream scholarship. Frankly, to suggest such a thing, against reality, weakens the Jesus myth argument significantly. I suppose we might be able to add it at some point, as long as it's noted that it's way out there, and scholars don't agree with Freke & Gandy's unique, new interpretation. KHM03 ^(talk) 13:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just not true that in order to be an expert you have to be a member of the academia--in WP or in the world at large. To make that your criterion, you'd be throwing away the majority of non-fiction published every year.

I must say--have the people arguing against Freke and Gandy actually seen their books? They are real works of scholarship, referencing primary sources--we're not talking about Chariots of the Gods here. They address in great detail the issues that this article necessarily deals with, and if you want to make a compelling (secular) case for the historical existence of Jesus, they lay out clearly the arguments that you have to be prepared to refute. Nareek 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So anyone can publish a book on any subject and are immediately a scholar of that subject? What we think of the book is irrelevant; what has been the reaction of Biblical scholars/historians/Jesus researchers? KHM03 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, you'll notice that (once I remembered who these dudes were) I referred to them as authors and not as scholars. From what I've seen, Peter Gandy is an expert on ancient pagan mystery religions, including Gnosticism. Obviously you can debate how relevant that is to Christianity (especially since, as people seem to forget, there were plenty of non-Christian Gnostics). Therefore, you can make the case that Gandy has strayed beyond his area of expertise. Freke and Gandy have also been criticized (for example by CNN) for not considering all the evidence, which is a weak point in their argument. Also, as I have mentioned elsewhere, correlation is not causation.

This, however, is beside the point. Scholars or not, Freke and Gandy are significant voices among the Jesus-Myth folk. When talking about the Jesus-Myth, they should be mentioned. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being mentioned as significant voices. But to call them scholars in this field demeans those who have actually earned credentials in the field and also demeans those scholars (albeit a small group) who do support the Jesus myth theory. These two are not experts...they wrote a book. Big difference. KHM03 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you equate "scholar" and "expert"? They are quite different things. A scholar earns credentials through academia. An expert gains their status by research and investigation outside academic circles. One can be an expert on a topic without being a scholar. Writing a heavily researched book loaded with citations definitely qualifies a person as being an expert on that topic. --Myk 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, and Socrates

It may beside the point, but those secular historians who accept Jesus as a historical person see him quite differently than Christians do. 99.9% is an exaggeration (the figure asserted elsewhere was 80%); there are naturalistic details in the Gospels that make sense in the historical context. On the one hand, the documentary evidence we have of Jesus is either from Christians or influenced by the emergence of Christianity. On the other hand, the Christians were likely the only people who cared to maintain records. By analogy, what would 40th century historians think of David Koresh if their only documentary evidence came from Branch Davidians? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Now there's an analogy I can relate to! Sophia^TalkTCF 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Koresh or Socrates, take your pick. There are those who doubt the historicity of Socrates, but find this irrelevant since the ideas are more important than the man. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who seriously doubts the historicity of Socrates? We have accounts of him by two people who supposedly knew him (Plato and Xenophon), a mocking caricature in a play by a hostile contemporary comic playwright (Aristophanes), and tons of later references (Diogenes Laertius, and so forth). He seems about as confirmed as actually existing as anyone in the ancient world, whether or not he actually taught what Plato and Xenophon attributed to him. john k 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not historians, obviously. As you say, the real question is whether Socrates actually taught the words attributed to him. Some would say the same about Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear this one a lot. The heart of the problem is that everything that we do have paints the picture of somebody whom everybody would have noticed and cared to maintain records of. Even if you strip all the miracles and the "historical" events we know didn't happen, you're still left with a charismatic popular preacher...and we know about them, as well. If you strip any further, you're left with somebody who could be anybody...and that person is a nobody who couldn't have been the foundation of Christianity. The emperor isn't just naked--there isn't even anything of him left to be there in the first place.

See, we've got lots more documentary evidence about David Koresh than just what his followers wrote. We've got front-page articles splattered across every newspaper in the country, for one. The better comparison would be with Joseph Smith. There, we see the genesis of a respected new religion (or sect of an old one, depending). When it comes right down to it, everything about the Mormon church comes down to his attestation of what those golden plates said--and the attestation of the dozen or so people he briefly showed them to that they even existed in the first place. No other evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon exists, and, on that basis alone, nobody who lacks a vested interest in the matter would even give the thing a second thought. Certainly, you'd never buy a used car sight unseen on such flimsy evidence, so why an entire philosophy?

Christianity as a whole is much the same. Not one eyewitness report, not one contemporary account--nothing at all for at least a generation. Even then, we don't get any details for another generation at least, maybe three or four. Big, gaping holes in the record--like the date of the crucifixion or a physical description of the man (short or tall? blue eyes or brown? tenor or baritone?). Facts as presented are trivially debunked. And on the basis of all this, we're supposed to conclude...what, exactly? Some guy with a popular name may have repeated some platitudes over the dinner table?

Frankly, I personally see the profound inability of the Christians to even present a coherent picture who or what Jesus might have been as just about the most damning evidence against him as one could get. It's a clever tactic, though--it's sometimes hard to argue against something so vaguely undefined, and it gives them lots of wiggle room.

Cheers,

b&

"See, we've got lots more documentary evidence about David Koresh than just what his followers wrote." True, but it's only been about 13 years since Koresh died and much longer since Jesus. How much documentary evidence of either Koresh or John Smith will survive into the 40th century? As for your comparison to Apollonius of Tyana, um, "He is best known through the medium of the writer Philostratus, in whose biography some have seen an attempt to construct a rival to Jesus Christ." If you don't accept Jesus, why accept Apollonius? Jesus only taught for a year or three and, unlike such people as Judas of Galilee, never led an armed rebellion. I find it amazing that those who argue for the Jesus-Myth assume that Jesus would have more of an impact on history than Christians do. Perhaps that is why they find it more likely that Jesus never existed. It smells suspiciously like a conspiracy theory to me, although I suppose the Jesus-Mythers are really arguing that Jesus is an urban legend. But others see Jesus' impact on history as being through the movement he started—exactly what you would expect of an intenerant preacher outside the traditional power structure. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You would expect a physical description of Jesus? Can you point to any ancient source which gives a detailed physical description of a person? From written sources, would we have any idea what, say Tiberius looked like? To look closer to Jesus's place, what did Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas look like? What color was Pilate's hair? And why would we expect a date for the crucifixion? We're told that it happened when Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judea. That's relatively specific, and about as much as one would expect from the Gospels, which are not chronicles. As for the idea that he is presented as someone that "everybody would have noticed and maintained records of," that seems dubious to me. Firstly, we simply don't have many records from the first century AD. And many of those we have are by Romans, focused on Rome, and should not especially be expected to know or say much about Christ - and Tacitus does, of course, mention Christians, if not Christ. Josephus is just about the only contemporary figure who we might expect to have written about Jesus who (probably) didn't. And we can't even know for sure that he didn't mention Jesus, even if we can be fairly certain that the Jesus mention in its present form is forged. But the fact that Jesus fails to be mentioned in one source seems a dubious basis to claim that there is no evidence for his existence. At any rate, let's look at other historical figures of the ancient world. Our earliest sources on the life of Alexander the Great was written in the first century BC (Curtius and Diodorus). Our principal sources on the life of Augustus were written in the second century AD (Suetonius and Dio Cassius). And so forth. This is a bit of an unfair comparison, as Diodorus, Curtius, Arrian, Plutarch, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and so forth, were relying on contemporary lost sources that we can be fairly sure existed, while the source of the Gospels is much less clear. But it is certainly not that unusual that our sources on Jesus come from a generation later - how often do we do better than that in the ancient world? Thucydides (on the Peloponnesian War), Xenophon (for the length of both Anabasis and Hellenica), Polybius (for the, most lost, later parts of his work), Sallust (on the Catiline Conspiracy), Caesar (in the Commentaries), and Josephus (on the Jewish War) wrote about events they lived through; and we have various speeches by people like Demosthenes and Cicero, but other than that, we almost always have to rely on writers writing one to several generations later. It is indeed odd that Josephus makes no mention of Jesus, but it is specious to go beyond that and pretend that sources on Jesus are somehow incredibly worse than sources on other ancient figures. john k 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also flabbergasted by this earlier remark:

Frankly, I personally see the profound inability of the Christians to even present a coherent picture who or what Jesus might have been as just about the most damning evidence against him as one could get. It's a clever tactic, though--it's sometimes hard to argue against something so vaguely undefined, and it gives them lots of wiggle room.

What do you expect after all this time? You write as though you don't realize the impact of 2000 years of history. Much as those who doubt evolution don't realize the impact of billions of years of time times the size of breeding populations. Things change. Ideas evolve just as much as organisms. Christianity has evolved.The historical reconstructionists are looking at the fossil evidence. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect eyewitness, contemporary, and near-contemporary sources. I'd expect any extant sources to confirm established facts, refrain from obvious and ludicrous hyperbole (such as hordes of otherwise-unreported zombies terrorizing Jerusalem), and not record as fact things that simply didn't happen (like the slaughter of all Judean infants). I'd expect early proponents to have a coherent picture of what they're talking about, not one that changes radically with each generation. I'd expect the earliest skeptics to appear less than a century after the supposed fact, and I wouldn't expect those skeptics to discuss the central figure of a new religion as a wacky god they'd never heard of before.

And, finally, I'd expect that reconstructions wouldn't constantly bounce back and forth between the creator of the entire universe, a preacher so influential that he started the most powerful religion in history, and some backwater hick who had some kinda interesting things to say.

Why, what would you expect?

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect people to make the distinction between the Historical and Religious Jesus, just as I expect people to make the distinction between David Koresh (the man killed at Waco) and David Koresh (the Lamb of God whose Second Coming is awaited by Branch Davidians). Just because you don't believe in the latter doesn't mean that the former doesn't exist. There is a difference between history and religion, after all.

I also expect people to make the distinction between a pastor preaching salvation and a historian sifting historical fact from urban legend. We Christians know that some of the data about Jesus is urban legend; we just use the word "apocrypha." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect any reconstruction to do anything and everything it could to get across its message when dealing with people's eternal salvation, it's kind of important, more than worthy enough of departing from historical norms (especially when such norms didn't really exist). Cut the NT some slack, not everything has to be sensible by modern standards in order to be real. Homestarmy 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, first we have to establish that the guy was around in the first century. :} Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TrumpetPower is useless. I suggest he be ignored. "Eyewitness, contemporary, and near-contemporary" sources are quite rare in the ancient world, I point this out to him, and he goes out and just repeats himself. There's no point in arguing with somebody like this. john k 23:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, so far I find him to be more civil than some of the other people I have dealt with. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

sigh

Philo, Seneca, Plutarch, Justus, Josephus, Damis, Pliny the Elder, Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, Persius, Pausanias, Epictetus, Aelius Aristides, Fronto, Dio Chrysostom, Aulus Gellius, Lucius Apuleius, Marcus Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Hierocles of Alexandria, Cassius Maximus Tyrius, Arrian, Appian, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Lucius Annaeus Florus, and Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, and scores more were all in a position to record something. Philo surely must have noticed Jesus if he were real, and the next few probably should have, even if he only matched the Jesus Seminar's view of him. And if he was even half of what the Gospels--our only sources--claim him to be, every author in the Mediterranean should have written about him. Yes, you shouldn't listen to me at all--you might lose your faith, and we wouldn't want that to happen now, would we? Like II John says, I'm clearly an antichrist for saying such things, and I jeopardize your chance at a "full reward." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! TrumpetPower! 23:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening, but for those of us who have been following Talk:Jesus for more than two months, the debate is simply getting old. This is a controversial subject. People disagree. Scholars disagree. We are not going to convince each other. We have a choice: we can either continue to debate until someone on either side gets frustrated enough to violate civility, or we can simply agree to disagree. In the end, all we can really do is cite sources accurately and NPOVly. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry--I wasn't replying to you, but to John Kenney's incorrect assertion that "'Eyewitness, contemporary, and near-contemporary' sources are quite rare in the ancient world." Wikipedia is a great tool for an encyclopedia, but it's a lousy mimic of USENET when it comes to discussions. TrumpetPower! 23:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Trumpet - In the first place, not that it should matter, but I am not a Christian, and I am not a theist, so please don't give me your tired ad hominem. But this is pointless. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but I do know that you are constantly, and purposely, confusing arguments about the existence of a historical Jesus with arguments about the truth of Christianity. I do not believe in the truth of Christianity, but I do believe (as should we all) in the existence of Christianity, and I find it nearly impossible to account for said existence, and in particular for the existence of the New Testament, the early Church fathers, and the various (admittedly meager) early non-Christian references, without postulating the existence of some fellow named Jesus who was crucified in Judaea at the time of Pilate. This position is the one held by pretty much the entirety of modern scholarship, and it is up to the skeptics to provide a coherent alternative explanation of the origins of Christianity which is not an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. john k 04:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory, or at least not any more so than for any other religion. Nobody thinks it's a wacko fringe conspiracy theory to think that any of the other gods and heroes from religions and myths that pre- and postdate Christianity, so what is it that makes Christianity so special that it's got to be treated with kid gloves? For example, we understand perfectly well that it wasn't a conspiracy that compelled Greeks to invent a rather complete history for Hercules or Orpheus or any of the others of their heroes and godmen, and neither do we have any trouble with the conclusion that there weren't any historical figures behind any of them. The same can be said for Mithras, Beowulf, Seigfreid, Arthur, Horus, Krishna, and countless others, and nobody bats an eye. But add Jesus to that list.... TrumpetPower! 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And thus we have the two opposing views. One compares the Gospel accounts to the known history of first-century Roman-occupied Iudea and Galilee. The other compares the Gospel accounts to other forms of religion such as Greek, Egyptian and Gnostic mythology. Same data, different reference points, different conclusions. Either Jesus was a Jew who some saw as God incarnate, or an allegory/urban legend that grew into myth and then religion. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent summary, but I would add that I came to my own position precisely by comparing the Gospels to the known history. I found the Gospels to contradict not only known history but each other at every opportunity. And seeing how they've got more myth and allegory than self-described fact, it was but a short hop to conclude that they're exactly what they appear to be--the Christian equivalent to the Egyptian Book of the Dead or any other religion's sacred "histories." TrumpetPower! 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And thus we have the nonexistence hypothesis. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could point out that the comparisons with mythical figures in other traditions are inherently specious, because from very early on the Christians situated Jesus at a specific point in recent history in a way that those other groups never did ("he suffered under Pontius Pilate," to quote the Apostles' Creed). In fact, I just did point that out. But this argument is pointless, and doesn't have any specific connection to the article, so I'll stop now. I do think that this article bends over backwards towards the "Jesus was a myth" viewpoint, even though almost no serious academic scholars actually hold this view, and that the "Jesus-Myth" article is even worse. But whatever. john k 06:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, we've talked this to death at Jesus. The second paragraph there is about historicity and this remains controversial. There is an outstanding challenge to find a historian expert in that time and place who believes that Jesus never existed. We haven't found one yet. What we have now is "Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history" on the one hand and "a small minority of scholars" on the other. These other scholars tend to be philosophers of religion and the like.

I might as well give you the whole paragraph (and all references):

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,^[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", which was a crime of rebellion against Roman Empire.^[2] Because the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.^[3]

1. ^ Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Will Durant, 557-558, 568, 570, 572; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
2. ^ Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964. "'The King of Israel' is not a political title as is 'the King of the Jews'", p. 976; Will Durant, p. 572; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.
3. ^ Bruno Bauer; Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999, pp. 133, 158; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson; G.A. Wells. The Jesus Legend, Chicago: Open Court, 1996, p xii.

We even have their credentials at Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

This has just come up at Talk:Jesus and will likely come up here soon as well. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This could get ugly..... Homestarmy 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugly is as ugly does. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is Robsteadman's recent proposal:

In 1998, however, the Jesus Seminar, a research group of about one hundred academic New Testament scholars, published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (ISBN 0060629789).[1] By a system of votes they decided which events from the New testament happened, which might have happened, which were doubtful and which were highly unlikely to be true. The Jesus Seminar biography of Jesus is somewhat different to the New Testament version: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. A virgin birth was unlikely. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene and the reality of a physical resurrection is doubtful.

Have fun. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a passage, but I'd also want one that points out that there is no actual evidence to support those conclusions, only "scholarly" opinion. (Jesus healing in the name of the Devil? Whoah!) The degree to which the Seminar's conclusions impeaches the credibility of extant sources should also be mentioned. TrumpetPower! 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman would agree with you. All I care is that we accurately reflect what the JS is saying and adhere to NPOV. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, this is the wrong article, doh, ignore my comment. Homestarmy 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the Jesus Seminar material fits into this article. Doesn't that apply more to Historical Jesus? The notable thing about the Jesus Seminar for this article is probably that they are basically secular, and highly doubtful of the accuracy of the Gospels, but still believe in the historicity of Jesus. john k 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to including them, if only for my own personal POV that they've done a delightful job in demolishing the only actual evidence for Jesus that anybody has. Which probably means either not including them or making sure that others keep it NPOV.... TrumpetPower! 19:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, John...the Seminar represents (by and large) the left wing of mainstream scholarship, affirming Jesus' existence but unsure that much in the Gospel accounts is historically true. They deserve mention here, though, and probably at Jesus, but, yes, they should have a prominent spot at Historical Jesus. KHM03 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, theirconclusions (such as they are) belong at historical Jesus, while their process belongs here. Actually, Haldrik explained it a lot better at Talk:Jesus. I basically agree with him. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: I might as well crosspost:

I agree. I see a big difference between the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus. The goal of the discussions are different. In the historical Jesus, Jesus is the goal. The purpose is to carefully piece together the evidence to reconstruct what this ancient person is like. It's sort of like what detectives do when reconstructing a crime scene. In the historicity of Jesus, the goal is the evidence itself, not Jesus. The purpose of examining the historicity is to determine the nature of the evidence: its biases, its limitations, whether it is literal or figurative, whether the way the moderns interpret it is the same as the way the ancients interpreted it, the source of the evidence, and so on. In this discussion, the ancient person himself is almost irrelevant. Obviously historical and historicity refer to each other, but they are very different areas of investigation. With regard to the Jesus Seminar, their goal is not the "historical" Jesus. Their goal is the "historicity" of the Gospels. The Gospels attribute many sayings to an ancient person. The Seminar investigated the nature of this information. Do the Gospels transmit verbatim quotes? Do they transmit paraphrases of the kinds of things Jesus taught? Do the even transmit information that Jesus didn't say but were said "in the authority of" Jesus? Where does this information come from? Does it originate from a Greek context (thus less plausibly from Jesus), or from a Hebrew/Aramaic context (thus more plausibly)? And so on. Because the Jesus Seminar focuses on the evidence itself, and not on the person, it seems to belong to historicity. --Haldrik 21:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I basically agree. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Move "Jesus and Syncretism" to Jesus-Myth

I'd like to suggest that, once Jesus-Myth is unprotected, we move the "Jesus and Syncretism" subsection to the Jesus-Myth article. Thoughts? TrumpetPower! 15:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Jesus-Myth kind of a POV fork, like Jesus as Mythical Creation is? That is, a page designed to give one half of a controversial issue? If so, WP frowns on that. If not, how does the topic of that page differ from this page? Nareek 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Trumpet Power: Why did you call my vote "vandalism"? I have never vandalized a Wikipedia page in my life. Carlo 16:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you deleted huge swaths of the page, including my own vote, commentary on the vote by Archola and by me, and a response by John Kenney to one of my comments. Check the revision history.

If your deletions were somehow accidental, please accept my apologies for my use of the term...and, next time, please be more careful in your edits.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were accidental, and I have not the slightest idea how that happened. Ok. Carlo 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some "bug" that does the above that I've heard Str1977 and AnnH refer to - I don't know if it's the same one - might be a good idea to check with either of them. Sophia^TalkTCF 17:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that, too. Funny thing is, it's yet to happen to me, and it only seems to result in deletion of things the two of them object to. But who knows? TrumpetPower! 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

In an attempt to get this article out of dispute I have listed an RfC. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fallacies should be noted in recapping arguments, for balance

The following excerpt from the article, in bold, is begging the question (circular reasoning). It assumes Jesus existed in order to conclude Jesus existed. The mistake should be mentioned for balance, since it bothers to cite its "validity" and Wikipedia has an entry on BTQ. Some historians believe that the texts on which the Gospels were based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide valid evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, and a partially reliable account of his life and death.

The following part of the article is also a fallacy, called "misplaced concreteness" or a reification, or hypostatic fallacy. It argues in favor a text that reads minds, when absurdly citing the fact that known history does not read minds. This does not make things more concrete, but less so. It ignores that true history is based on concreteness of evidence; ie, the idea that someone conquered Persia, etc, therefore Alexander existed. No such concrete evidence for Jesus exists, nor can it be argued in this way. It is arguing from the text and not from known achievements. In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that historians often have to contend with documentation of differing quantity and quality. In many cases—Sanders provides the examples of Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill—historians are fortunate to have access to a good deal of documentation, although much of it has to be interpreted critically. In some cases—and Sanders presents Alexander the Great as paradigmatic—the available sources tell us much about his deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. Sanders considers the quest for the "historical Jesus" to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to details on Jefferson or Churchill. For this reason, he concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought" (1993:3). (posted by User:166.70.243.229)

I added a qualifier to the first sentence in question. KHM03 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're proposing for the second section, though; could you clarify? KHM03 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is meaningless as an argument. Not pointing out the problem makes it a biased attempt at arguing for it. 166.70.243.229 23:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If not everyone recognizes these as fallacies--I'm not sure I do, myself--then the notion that they are fallacies is an opinion. This is true even if you are very, very sure of your opinion. Nareek 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose both paragraphs could be removed entirely to avoid any mention of them, but that would be extreme, although fair to avoid favoritism. They are also listed in Wikipedia. See begging the question and follow the links to the fallacy pages. 166.70.243.229 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any falacy in second paragraph. It does not "argue in favour of a text that reads minds", it simply says that we have sources that provide information about Jesus's opinions, but sources tell us little about Alexander's opinions. Furthermore, it states what Sander's opinion is. It does not state that it is true. There may be falacies in Sander's argument, but that's for the rreader to decide. The first para can simply be changed to emphasise that the argument is about the claim that they were written within living memory of period they describe, and that this is a reason to believe that they refer to real people who still lived, or who emembered events. Again, it doesn't matter whether you or anyone thinks this argument is specious, what matters is that historians have proffered it. Paul B 01:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can't spell "fallacy" then nobody would expect you to see it. If it's for the reader to decide, then let the reader decide. What are you afraid of? They will decide against your POV? 166.70.243.229 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to resort to cheap and pathetic shots like that, then, yes, I think we can let the reader decide how seriously to take your contributions.Paul B 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said in my clearly typed comment on my revert, I don't see a fallacy here either, its like saying that since I have an instruction booklet for a computer written when the computer was being produced, that pressing the button marked "on" is a logical fallacy simply because the instruction book was written while the computer was new, how does it have anything at all to do with begging the question? Homestarmy 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"A minority of scholars argue that Jesus never existed"

And a majority of scholars argue that he did exist? Either way, this is a problematic idea. Many of the so-called majority also believe he was resurrected, which is a conflict of interest. One cannot be resurrected without existing in the flesh. If they accept resurrection on no evidence whatsoever, then they have tacitly accepted his earthly existence on no evidence either. It's a standard bias and must be noted, or else a citation is needed.166.70.243.229 04:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again..... Homestarmy 05:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"If they accept resurrection on no evidence whatsoever, then they have tacitly accepted his earthly existence on no evidence either." Now there's a non sequitor for the text books. Congratulations. Paul B 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly vast majority of scholars affirm Jesus' existence. What their religious beliefs are or what they personally believe re: his resurrection or divinity is irrelevant; a person's religious beliefs don't negate their value or authority or training in academia. KHM03 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul, it's spelled "non sequitur" so do get some help with those textbooks. My argument, above, was beyond your reach. If X is a prerequisite for Y, and Y is taken on faith with no evidence, then it must be questioned whether X is merely assumed by the believer if their opinion is being cited as an authority. Simple as that.166.70.243.229 20:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, your argument above is incredibly foolish - so foolish that it's probably a total waste of time even bothering with it. If X is a prerequisite of Y, then WHY one believes Y is completely irrelevant to whether or not X is true. X is the prequisite, not Y.

If I believe that the Moon is made of green cheese that belief has, as a prerequisite, the existence of the Moon. But WHY I believe that it is made of green cheese has nothing to do with whether or not arguments for the moon's existence are valid.

KHM03 has more patience that I do. He was kind enough to call it a "non-sequit[u]r" (spelling corrections - the last refuge of logically defeated). I would not call it a non-sequitur. I would call it hogwash so transparent that it is difficult to believe that any sentient being lends it creedence for longer than roughly three seconds. Carlo 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Carlo, it seems you forgot that X is unproven here. I will use an easy example. If someone believes that vampires can be killed with wooden stakes, then citing that person's opinion on whether vampires truly exist, or not, is merely indulging them, because they have already assumed it. Their unproven belief in vampires does not even lend itself to the wooden stake theory, because the first is not established, but merely assumed. So we conclude that their own wooden stake theory simply requires their belief in vampires, and that their opinion is biased and not objective. Their response would be predictable.166.70.243.229 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that scholars can both affirm Jesus' existence as a historic/academic position (which most do) as well as affirm his resurrection as a faith decision (which some do). There's no issue here. Is there a large volume of academic literature which deals with this pereceived problem? Otherwise, we're just talking about original research. KHM03 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a form of Circular reasoning (as called in the UK). I'll check my books for exact quotes but I have seen this sort of stuff before and it's not unique or OR to call into question the validity of a source based on other claims made by that source which most do not believe (such as the resurrection). It's a shame Carlo reacted with passion rather than logic as it does nothing to move the debate on. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 12:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no circular reasoning, and Carlo responded with very clearly explained logic. The claim that a source is wholly invalidated because some aspects of it are suspect is a form of the fallacy of the excluded middle. If valid, it would disqualify a vast number of ancient sources, including, for example, Josephus, who also records miracles and portents. Paul B 22:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We're talking cross diciplines here. Historians have to work with what they have and put it into context but it's not unknown to us lay people to have an information source discounted totally due to other unsupportable claims - it happens in courts of law everyday. Defending ad hominem comments is not helpful either. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Carlo's explanation was not ad hominem. He referred to the argument as incredibly foolish. If you want to criticise the use of ad hominems, then look elsewhere. Personal abuse breeds reponses in similar language and does not encourage serious debate. I don't think we can apply modern assumptions to ancient sources, we have to look at the conventions and expectations of the period, in which belief in miracles and portents was commonplace. Porphyry's life of Plotinus describes how Plotinus used magic. We don't therefore conclude that Plotinus didn't exist. Paul B 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "false dilemma," aka, the either/or fallacy (typically: "One is either communist or capitalist" etc). In fact, citing popularity for effect is already invalid. Furthermore, citing a belief in historicity as weight of a fact, but not also citing the percentage of those same people with a religious belief that requires historicity is a form of statistical special pleading. I would add that the historicist argument that those who don't accept the historicity of Jesus as a fact are "therefore" anti-historicist is the fallacy of excluded middle (false dilemma). 166.70.243.229 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is written in such a garbled way, it's difficult to decipher. You seem to be using the word "historicist" in an idiosyncratic way that would be confuse proponents of both of the common usages of the term. I did not, as far as I know, "cite popularity for effect", though it's far from clear what that phrase is supposed to mean. However, if you are referring to the argument from consensus of scholarly opinion, that happens to be WP policy, as you should know. You may have proof that E does not equal MC squared, and that Shakepeare never wrote Hamlet, but we can't publish it here. Paul B 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you are plain wrong. Not only does the entry on Shakespeare refute you, but the title of this entry is "Historicity of Jesus" and the subsection is titled "The idea that Jesus never existed" therefore it can and should be mentioned if the argument is not original research and comes from a reputable and citable source. I can't imagine how you make up these arguments, nor why you would make such a rule. Clearly you are rewriting policy, suggesting the removal of these pages, and saying that Wikipedia policy is being ignored on the Shakespeare entry. 166.70.243.229 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How does the Shakespeare page "refute" me? Try reading what I wrote more carefully. I'll repeat it. "You may have proof that E does not equal MC squared, and that Shakepeare never wrote Hamlet, but we can't publish it here." What we can't publish is your proof. That would be "original research". What we summarise is the consensus of scholarly opinion, including all views and giving these views due weight, which is exactly what the Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship pages do. No one is saying that that the Jesus myth argument ashould "not be mentioned" No one. You are wildly misrepresenting what I and all other contributors have said. No one is rewriting policy. No one has suggested "the removal of these pages". As a matter of fact I wrote most of the early section of Jesus-Myth myself, so why would I want it removed? No-one is saying that "Wikipedia policy is being ignored on the Shakespeare entry". Your absolute misrepreserntation of what I wrote comes close to wilful imposture. Paul B 11:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul, nobody proved Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet, but they mentioned the theory nevertheless. You should have checked first. 166.70.243.229 19:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. I contribute to all Shakespeare authorship pages, as other Shakespeareans will tell you. There are more things in heaven and earth, chummy, than are dreamt of in (y)our philosophy [for an explanation of the brackets see the difference between the Second Quarto and the First Folio]. There's no need for me to check pages I know thoroughly. Paul B 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the argument here that we can discount any Christian scholar's expertise on the subject of Jesus because they are irrevocably tainted by their belief in the resurrection? This seems untenable. john k 19:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel like there's too much effort made by both "sides" here to try to discredit the other "side"'s sources. (Of course, we don't really have "sides" here--we're all here to make an encyclopedia, right?) There are serious thinkers arguing both ways on this issue--the article would benefit if people would just let them have their say, and let the reader decide who's more persuasive. Nareek 19:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are serious people arguing both sides, but it is a disservice to our readers to pretend that the two sides are equivalent. On the one side is the vast majority of the scholarly community, on the other side a very small number of scholars, as well as some genuine crackpots. NPOV policy means that we must give each side's arguments the proper weight, which means that we have to make clear to our readers that Jesus-as-myth is very much a minority position. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that we can't pretend that the two sides have similar weight. john k 19:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really true that the vast majority of non-crackpot writers who address the issue of historicity (the subject of this article) come down squarely on the side of Jesus' historical existence? I'd love to see a cite for that--I hope it's not just something that "everyone knows".

If half of all the WP material on Jesus quoted sources questioning his historical existence, I would agree that that would not be NPOV. As it is, though, this is a fairly small corner of the Jesus-related field. Nareek 20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is sheer religious bigotry to discredit any WP editor or academic source because of the religious beliefs of either. Such bigotry is an express violation of WP policy. Please cease and desist. Thank you. Wesley 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in this argument at the moment, but if there are serious, impartial scholars arguing that he did not exist and serious, impartial scholars arguing that he did, is it not insignificant whether one is a "minority", since both sides have valid reasons? Could we not just let the reader make their own decision without constantly pointing out that "it's a minority"? Could we not just say Some scholars argue ...[that he didn't exist] and leave it at that? elvenscout742 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"A minority of scholars" statement requires proof. Who really counted how many of them argue pro/contra? In all langauges? At all times? Wikipedia:verifiability policy dictates that this phrasing is out of question. I suggest to restate it in terms of an opinion and arguments in favor of this opinion, rather than of the number of supporters. mikka (t) 22:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Wesley's point - it is common practice in business, government and research to declare any special involvement in a subject as it is accepted that this can lead to a conflict of interests. This process is not seen as an attempt to discredit individuals or their work but to ensure an open working environment. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to seriously apply that principle, then I would expect the article to disclose the personal religious and philosophical beliefs of every scholar cited. For instance, if someone personally believes that miracles are impossible, they could hardly be expected to fairly evaluate historical evidence of miracles. But it seems better to me to generally assume that persons with bona fide academic credentials are at least trying not to let their personal beliefs unduly influence their professional work. Wesley 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesley wrote: It is sheer religious bigotry to discredit any WP editor or academic source because of the religious beliefs of either. Could you please show us the policy where religious beliefs are citable as weight or evidence of a historical fact? Yours is an example of having it both ways: Citing a popular belief as evidence of fact, then crying foul when it is challenged as a bias because it is also a religiously held belief. Thus my point. This generalization is a form of argumentum ad populum, a fallacy, eliminating John's demand that it is needed or useful, especially considering the history of academic freedom versus traditional beliefs. It is also an error in reasoning by way of equivocation (the ambiguity of "belief" on a religious subject). In summary, it is essentially this flawed method: "We believe Jesus was resurrected, and technically we cannot be challenged for this belief academically, but you can cite our expertise statistically in order to convince others (that he in fact existed)." I also find the implication that there are no "crackpots" who argue the historicity of Jesus to be especially...absurd. 166.70.243.229 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that religious beliefs be used as evidence of a historical fact. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. All I'm saying is that to discredit someone's academic research because of their religious beliefs is religious bigotry. Imagine questioning the research of a Jewish historian into the Holocaust, suggesting that he was fabricating the evidence just because of his religious background. As I've said before to Sophia, denial of Jesus' resurrection (a question quite separate from his existence) is often based on Jewish or atheist's personal belief in the general impossibility of such miracles, but bringing that up would probably be no less inappropriate than trying to discredit Christian historians this way. Wesley 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, as a matter of fact, those who question the Holocaust are usually labeled anti-Semitic, and rightly so if their other beliefs are a source of bigotry. Everyone who is not historically concrete is questionable, from Adam to Abraham to the Jewish exodus from Egypt (interesting observations here, since most mainline scholars may doubt the existence of all three) and especially the authors of the epistles--which is what we are founding these debates on. The Markan hypothesis was not even standard a generation or two ago. The author of the gospel of John is widely doubted.

The other point to be made here is that if a generalized appeal to popular mass authority is made in an attempt to sway the reader, then this must be cited as rhetorically flawed (statistical special pleading) because theologians are very interested parties in these debates and are also listed as scholars. Nowhere did I say that that a true statement of fact should be removed, but merely qualified if an unproven fact is being weighted with a religious belief. For example, intelligent design may oppose the theory of evolution, so any proponent has a duty to full disclosure, and any defender of evolution has the responsiblity to raise the question of religious bias if full disclosure is not honorably offered by a creationists. This is a basic ethical requirement and can't be censored without legitimizing a cognitive bias. 166.70.243.229 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If religious belief of a scholar is brought out in an attempt to discredit him or to "disclose" some sort of bias, the same must be done for Jewish and atheist scholars, whose religious beliefs would tend towards a bias in the other direction. Can we at least agree on this much, 166.70.243.229? Wesley 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, now you are stumbling into the part where beliefs matter, not your original position. Let me help you here. If I don't believe Jesus was divine, this does not dictate a believe that he never existed. That would be projecting the obverse, where believing he was resurrected actually dictates his historicity. You are trying to fix an error by applying it to everyone else. By the way, this does not even get into the sticky issue of whether or not some Christians may feel that questioning the historicity of Jesus is a same mortal sin of "denying" him. 166.70.243.229 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nareek - nobody supporting the idea that Jesus was not historical has really mentioned any mainstream academic scholars who genuinely support the idea that Jesus did not exist. The closest we've got is Richard Carrier, who is only a graduate student, and who, as far as I can tell, remains on the fence as to Jesus's existence. Searching through recent archives of the Journal of Religion for book reviews, I've yet to find any of books asserting Jesus as non-historical. There is a book which attempts to redate Mark to around 40 CE, though...the reviewer was not fully convinced, but didn't dismiss it in the same way that Mitchell dismissed MacDonald's arguments on the same text. john k 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That is to say "a minority of scholars" is being generous. As far as I can tell, no actual academics have been willing to argue that Jesus did not exist. It is up to those arguing otherwise to provide some examples. john k 23:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Further: There is a consensus view, held by most scholars in the field, and then there is a small group, largely to wholly consisting of non-scholars, that argues against this consensus. It would be ridiculous to present these views as equivalent. And I would certainly agree with Sophia that it would be perfectly acceptable to label Christian scholars as such when discussing their views on this issue. It is not acceptable to exclude their views entirely. john k 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell may never have said that Jesus had or had not existed, but he did refer to the New Testament accounts as myths on a number of occasions, and said that myths should never be interpreted as historical fact. I could name a few others who interpret the "biography" of Jesus as myth, with parallels (indeed, forebears) in other mythologies, such as Brian Branston. Not to turn to OR without citing specific scholars or anything, but the very fact that there is next to no non-scriptural evidence that he existed (with most of those scriptural accounts contradicting each other and failing to fit into the known history of the world at that time), and that so many "relics" of Jesus (the Shroud of Turin, the Spear of Jesus) have been proven to be fake, should be evidence enough that we should not take his existence as fact (as Gospel, you might say), and should not try to word sentences so as to hurt the credibility of those who do not. And, yes, as Anon has said, we should not have to cite sources if others (often self-described Christians) refuse to point to where they got that only a minority of scholars doubt he existed. elvenscout742 13:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the Gospels are mythologized accounts can coexist perfectly well with the idea that, in some form, Jesus was a real historical figure who actually existed. Obviously, the ideas are related, and having a view of the Gospels as mythical certainly provides support for the idea that Jesus never existed. But the issue is not whether or not scholars have argued that the Gospels are unreliable or mythologized - numerous scholars have, of course, argued this. The question is whether scholars have argued that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. There may be some scholars who have argued this, but nobody has yet to cite any. One would add that Campbell was an anthropologist, not a New Testament scholar or ancient historian, so his expertise on the subject is questionable, anyway. This article is not about the idea that the Gospels have mythological elements. I don't know that anyone but apologists denies this. This article is about the idea that there was never a real historical figure Jesus, and rebuttals to that idea. As I said before, given that no actual scholars have yet been found who clearly contend that Jesus was not a historical personage, it is being quite generous to say that this position is a minority one. The actual debate among scholars is a debate about how far the Gospels can be judged to give us reliable knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus. Those "on the left" generally find the Gospels to be unreliable, written well after Jesus's life, full of later interpolations, attempts to fit Jesus's life into the schema of Old Testament prophecies, perhaps mythologized. Those "on the right" feel that this has been overestimated, and that the Gospels are relatively reliable historical sources. I think it would be fair to say that those "on the right" in this debate are going to be strong supporters of the historical existence of Jesus. Those "on the left" are more questionable. Certainly, some arguments they've made may open the way to claims that Jesus never existed, and probably many who make arguments of this sort are not terribly concerned to affirm the historical existence of Jesus. But it remains that out of this large group of left-wing Jesus scholars who are, largely, non-believers, who argue the Gospels are not very reliable and that we can't learn very much from them about the "historical Jesus," we can still find no real examples of actual arguments that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure. The best one can do is someone like Richard Carrier, who says that the evidence is essentially inconclusive to determine whether or not Jesus actually existed. And he's at the very far left spectrum. john k 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We have been through all this recently but here are 3 that I know of: Earl Doherty, George Albert Wells and Robert Price [2] of the Jesus Seminar as well as Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries (a populist work). Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Doherty and Wells are arguably not proper scholars - Doherty, so far as I can tell, has no academic credentials, and Wells does not have academic credentials in the relevant field. Freke and Gandy are also not proper scholars. I'll give you Price, who has a PhD in New Testament studies, but he seems to be pretty close to alone. But even if we grant all of these, it's still a tiny minority compared to the vast quantity of New Testament scholarship (much of it very critical of the reliability of the New Testament) which does not question the existence of Jesus. To an extent, I'd guess that the issue is one that a lot of New Testament scholars, who look at the New Testament in terms of either theology or literature, rather than history, simply don't address. But it is nevertheless doubtless the case that only a small minority have openly declared that they feel that the evidence supports the conclusion that Jesus did not exist. john k 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this debate should really be about the number of scholars that believe fervently enough in this issue to put forth such a controversial opinion that would make at least around a third of the world hate them. The debate is about the neutrality of consistently claiming (without any headcount citation or some such) that only a minority of people argue it. While it may technically be true that few have argued it, there is no citation, and the statement creates an impression in the reader's mind that the theory is in some way incredible. The fact remains that the scholar that you mentioned yourself, John Kenney, says that it is inconclusive, and so the scholars who simply don't form an original opinion when they cannot prove it will simply go with the flow and believe what the Bible and 1.2 billion Christians say, which in the end of the day is just blind faith. I think we should re-word the statement so that it does not tend to favour either side: something like "Some scholars have believed..." rather than "A minority of scholars have argued...". It would not damage the basic structure of the article, but it would remove the inherent bias. Again: this is not about whether he existed; this is about whether we should change the article so that an impression is not created that their argument is more flawed than the rebuttals of their opponents. (There arguments are not more flawed than the rebuttals of their opponents - it's an inconclusive issue.) "A minority of scholars argue that he did exist." would also be technically accurate, in that few scholars even bother arguing about it at all. elvenscout742 20:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It should get interesting here when The Beast is released in June. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting film. It even sounds like it might bring a load of Anons - fans of the film - on here to "support" my argument by starting revert wars and making us look bad. It is, after all, just a movie. elvenscout742 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Elvenscout, if "the scholar that I mentioned myself" is Richard Carrier, I'm a bit confused. I mentioned Carrier as being on the very far end of academic scholarship. At any rate, there are numerous scholars who have written on Jesus. Based on reading that I've been doing as I've gone along while discussing this article, I would define the spectrum of opinion as follows: 1) Evangelical and similar writers, who except the Gospels as essentially historical truth, and are hostile to the endeavor of looking for a historical Jesus, because they feel that it is already given to them by the Gospels. Obviously, such people believe in the real historical existence of Jesus. 2) A kind of broad scholarly middle, encompassing most Catholic and liberal Protestant scholars, as well as many (most?) secular scholars, who view the New Testament as a somewhat problematic source, but who also accept a fair amount of their picture of Jesus. Recent investigations of this group (which is probably far too broad to be considered a single group) have generally focused on trying to situate Jesus within the context of 1st century AD Judaea. This school has generally depicted the "historical Jesus" as an apocalyptic prophet concerned with the imminence of the Kingdom of God. 3) Radical scholars of the Jesus Seminar type, who accept the existence of Jesus, but view the vast majority of the Gospels as fictional, and only find tiny kernels of truth, mostly in the wisdom sayings. This group rejects Jesus as concerned with eschatology and the end-times, and apparently sees him as a kind of Jewish Cynic philosopher. As we can see, all of these groups, while holding wildly different views about Jesus, accept him as having actually existed. To them we may add 4) New Testament scholars not particularly concerned with the historicity of Jesus. Most such scholars would probably except the conclusions of the scholars in 2 or 3 with respect to what an actual historical Jesus was like, but will have not done particular research into the subject on their own. Finally, we have 5) people who actually reject the historicity of Jesus. Almost to a man, these are not academics at major scholarly institutions, but figures on the fringes of New Testament scholarship (I think this is indisputable).

John, the existence of Jesus has not been established, and so you are shifting the burden of proof here. KA Olsen, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (April 1999) is a "proper" scholar, and has cast doubt on the Josephus entries completely, as probable forgeries by Eusebius, pointing out a lot of problems with Meier. It would be misleading to cite the silence of proper scholars, because their assumed support is also uncited, only hinted at. I should note that without accepting parts of Josephus, there is no hint that anyone named Jesus once existed. Then there are those that argue for ahistoricity (of Jesus) based on their own theory of what happened. This is very different. I would direct you to Richard Carrier's review of Earl Dougherty, essentially concluding that it is the theory to beat. If proper scholars are up to the task, they should act. Personally, I would be very interested in seeing a list of "proper" scholar who use the circular reasoning about the gospels being written so close to the "lifetime" of Jesus, therefore Jesus probably existed. This would indicate to me a level of incompetence unseen in other disciplines, proper scholar or not.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml

Additionally, I wonder how you are generalizing your information. There are many schools of thought that denied the historicity of Jesus, and regardless, a case can be made. I should note that Ellesgard is unmentioned in all of this. His book is easy to find and bases his theory on the Essenic Teacher of Righteousness. Regardless of what anyone says, nobody has been able to prove that the widespread belief in Jesus' historicity is not an obverse euhemerism: The idea that a religion is generally founded on legendary humans, therefore Jesus existed. 166.70.243.229 02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

166, a few points. 1) I would not deny that the Josephus material about Jesus is highly disputed. I wouldn't say there's any consensus on whether it is genuine or not. Your claim, though, that without Josephus, there is "no hint that anyone named Jesus once existed," is completely ridiculous. The New Testament gives many hints that someone named Jesus once existed. Just because you don't like the New Testament as a source doesn't mean you get the right to dismiss it out of hand. As to Carrier's review of Doherty, which I've read, Carrier is on the far fringes of academic opinion. That Carrier finds Doherty convincing does not speak very much to the academic consensus. I don't understand your "circular reasoning" claims, either. Would it be clearer if the argument is that Jesus probably existed because the Gospels were written relatively close to the time of Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas, which is the time which they situate Jesus in? The basic argument is that at the time the Gospels were written, there were still people around who would have remembered the time of Pilate and Antipas, and who would have found the Gospel narrative ridiculous if it imputed all these actions to a man who they themselves would have known did not exist at that time. This is not a circular argument at all. Ellegard is, like most people who write on this subject, not an expert on early Christianity - he would appear to be a linguist. The Library Journal review of his book on Amazon (by David Bourquin of Cal State Fresno) is scathing. (That review also drew me to Paula Fredriksen of Boston University's Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, another example of the consensus view of Jesus.) Ellegard should certainly be mentioned in this article, but, again, he is a fringe figure, whose work has not (yet) been accepted by mainstream scholarship). john k 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Carrier is not fringe in his methods or approach, it just might be too non-biased for your tastes. You seem to overuse the word fringe to denote a minority position when you need to dismiss someone without saying why. It is an ad hominem. Furthermore, Ellegard's scathing review on Amazon is also doing the same as you do, which is to dismiss the author and say that the issue is settled, therefore Ellegard can be said to be wrong without even bothering to argue against it. You all have the same talking points it seems, but I have long sensed a coverup for a great religious disappointment by these methods alone.

You wrote: The basic argument is that at the time the Gospels were written, there were still people around who would have remembered the time of Pilate and Antipas, and who would have found the Gospel narrative ridiculous if it imputed all these actions to a man who they themselves would have known did not exist at that time.

This is a basic argument? Really? Someone would have known that Jesus did not exist during Pontius Pilate? That would be strange considering that most scholars would argue that Jesus was obscure, with few followers, even around the time of this minor bit of religious material that you are assuming is broadcast. Are you also saying they would have exposed the little movement on what they could not prove? And we would have this expose today? To be clear, this is an argument from ignorance. I should point out by counter-example that if someone was forging a document to supply the world with a messiah figure, because the long expected one never showed up to dinner, they would likely have this shadowy messiah in Pilate's living room a few decades earlier, as a matter of pride, because there would be no way to prove otherwise, and because Pilate would be verifiable in the Roman world and date their claim. 166.70.243.229 23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this situation, I'd suggest that everyone do a re-reading of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The standard view on the historical Jesus is that of people like John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew [3], E.P. Sanders [4], and Dale Allison [5]. This view may be contrasted to the contrasting views of Evangelical Christians (which I don't think needs any particular citation), and to the Jesus Seminar and its participants (Crossan's The Historical Jesus [6], Mack's The Lost Gospel [7], the proceedings of the Jesus Seminar itself [8]. The main thing to be noted about all of these people is that none of them (except occasionally the Evangelicals) really takes much time to argue with people like Doherty, Wells, and so on. All of them accept a historical Jesus, but their arguments are with each other. In particular, we can note the arguments between the consensus "apocaylptic Jesus" and the Jesus Seminar's "wise sayings Jesus" as probably being the most prominent actual scholarly dispute. It creates an utterly false picture of the state of scholarship to pretend as though the major debate is between advocates and opponents of Jesus's actual historical existence. john k 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In the UK The Jesus Mysteries is availible in most high street book shops and the non existence hypothesis is about to get an even more public airing in The Beast so it's important that this theory is covered in an NPOV balanced way. No one is arguing that this article should be all about the minority views but these are in the public domain now and the article will look out of date or irrelevant if they are not covered or are trivialised. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for having a section which talks about other views. Certainly, the dominant view should take precedence, but we should mention the Jesus myth theory (or whatever we're calling it nowadays) as well as any other minority views. KHM03 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

John, I understand that there are not a lot of people in academia arguing the nonexistence hypothesis. But how many are making the opposite argument? You can't count everyone who doesn't say that Jesus was not a historical figure as arguing that he was a historical figure. How many people say explicitly present the argument for Jesus' existence?

I wish we could let go of the canard that you have to be an academic to be cited in Wikipedia. That's as silly as saying you can't be cited if you're a Christian. Nareek 23:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If we cited everyone who has an opinion, the articles might get a bit lengthy! KHM03 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just gave a whole list of links to books that talk about the "historical figure." The stream of "Historical Jesus" books is massive, but the most important thing about them is that most don't even find the "Jesus didn't exist" position to be worth debating. They argue against people who have a different conception of the historical Jesus than them, not against the people that claim that Jesus didn't exist. This suggests, to me at least, that these people simply don't view the "Jesus didn't exist" position as one with enough scholarly support to be worth debating. And of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't have discussions of the work of people like Doherty and Wells (and even, grudgingly, Freke and Gandy). But we have to present their work in the context of its position in the larger scholarship, and that position is "extremely marginal." If one disagrees with this assessment, one has to provide some evidence that this stuff is taken seriously by mainstream scholars. I've tried to look and find reviews, but been unsuccessful - there are no reviews of Well's books on JSTOR, for instance. I can't find a review of Doherty in the more recent archives of the Journal of Religion. A theory whose major books aren't even reviewed in the major journals of the field is by definition a fringe view. Again, this is not to say that we shouldn't discuss their views, just that it would be a disservice to readers not to provide the actual context for them. john k 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you heard about a polemical trick to pretend that some issue does not even exist or so lowly as to be undeserving any consideration? Or about the logical fallacy called presupposition? mikka (t) 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The fact that mainstream scholarly journals don't discuss the theory that Jesus didn't exist obviously doesn't mean the theory is wrong. It means that the theory is not mainstream. I don't see how fallacies or polemical tricks come into it. And this supposed fallacy can be argued to support any absurd conspiracy theory. john k 01:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

May I also humbly point out that the this talk section actually belongs to Talk:Jesus-Myth. mikka (t) 01:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because we are discussing how to assess, in the article, the relative strength of positions on Jesus's existence. That clearly belongs in this article. john k 01:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

John, you're absolutely correct, and this has been my point on this and several related talk pages. Wikipedia polciy here and here supports your claim that we need to put the idea in its proper and accurate context...it's barely a blip in academia. Mention it, link it, and move on. KHM03 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Another source: John M. Allegro who wrote "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" and "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth". As for what this article should be about - the best description I have seen is that it should be about the documents that describe Jesus - it's not supposed to be a "did he/didn't he" article. It should be describing all the sources availible to historians - their authors, dates, contents and any contoversies over authorship/dating/content etc - referencing all the main works that have been written about them. It's also fair to mention any scholars/books that talk about historians/sources that could be expected to have written about Jesus and didn't. From this emerges the consensus view of the historicity of Jesus. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 13:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that in part...the "mainstream"/dominant POV of academia should be dominant. Yes, we can mention other views, whether on the left (Jesus never existed) or on the right (the fundamentalist/literalist stuff), but those should not get "equal time", since they are relatively tiny minorities in scholarship. KHM03 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The links cited about Allegro don't make it clear whether or not Allegro believed in the historical existence of Jesus, just that he thought Christianity was actually a hallucinogenic mushroom cult. While Allegro's earlier work on the Dead Sea Scrolls is well-respected, the mushroom stuff seems to have been extremely poorly received. His views can be mentioned, though. In terms of what this article should be, I think a discussion of the documents should be a major part of it, but I think other topics - especially the historiography of debates about Jesus' historicity - needs to be included as well, at least to an extent. I also think that some of the historiography of the search for a "historical Jesus" would be good to include here, as well, since it bears fairly directly on the issue. In general, wikipedia ought to include more historiography in issues like this. For one thing, it makes it easier to avoid original research. john k 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 13 of The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth" is titled "Will the real Jesus please stand up?" (emphasis his not mine).

What is new, thanks largely to the Dead Sea Scrolls, is our ability now to recognise in the so-called intertestamental period (that is, in the crucial centuries between the most recent books of the Old Testament canon, say Daniel in the second century BC, and the earliest writings of the New Testament, the letters of St Paul) that the Essene movement provided just the right mix of early Canaanite folk-religion, prophetic Yahwism, Babylonian magic, Iranian dualism to have produced gnostic Christianity. What it could not produce, and never did, was an historical Joshua/Jesus Messiah living in Palestine during the first century AD and bearing any real resemblance to the benign, probablt naive, not to say downright igorant, conjurer-prophet that popular imagination has largely created out of the Gospels.

Behind the Jesus of western religious tradition there did exist in history an Essene Teacher of Righteousness of a century before. .... and so on.

Allegro will never be fully accepted for his radical ideas in a lot of areas (the eucharist springs to mind). It is a falllacy to claim that as an idea is new and does not have scholarly backing that it is somehow marginal/wrong - even Relativity was new once and there is a time lag whilst others do their own research. It is just as wrong to assume that because an idea is new it must be an improvement on the old. If we reference all the major works the clear consensus should emerge. It will be naturally balanced by the number of scholars and supporting theories of each view. We cannot class this by whether scholars believe Jesus existed or not as there are many who would not give an definitive opinion either way due to the distances of time and the likelyhood of finding a "smoking gun" in a turbulent period of history for that region. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, as you know, the policy is clear. We summarise the views of scholarship and give weight according to the degree to which opinions are widely held in thew field. That's why saying what you did is, surely, mistaken ("It is a fallacy to claim that as an idea is new and does not have scholarly backing that it is somehow marginal/wrong - even Relativity was new once and there is a time lag whilst others do their own research"). Firstly, by conjoining "marginal/wrong" with a slash like that you mix up two separate issues. If relativity theory were rejected by almost all scientists then we would have it is marginal - even if in fact it were right. It isn't, so we don't. If we were writing at a time when it was still a minority opinion, then would have had to have said so then. We can't judge what is "right", or decide that some radical view will become accepted in future. Furthermore, the Jesus-Myth theory is far from new. It's a century old. Many of the arguments used now simply repeat with variations what earlier writers said. Paul B 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

String theory would have been a better analogy - widely rejected in the 70's and early 80's and now, whilst not taken as the whole answer, considered as "serious" science by the majority. A lot of the new stuff has only just begun since the release of the Dead sea scrolls to the wider academic community in the late 90's - not long in academic circles.

All this is by the by anyway. All I was trying to do was make a suggestion as to how to present the material we have in a way that will naturally fall out with the majority position without all the current POV "a tiny weeny percentage of dumb people"/"loads of people cleverer than them think this" qualifiers that look so unencyclopedic.

I have never argued that the minority views should be dominant. By including all the major sources who have views on this issue it will be clear what the majority view is and why they think the minority is wrong. I do not confuse marginal with wrong but unless we write in an NPOV way the reader will. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I agree with Paul that we shouldn't conflate "marginal" with "wrong." It is not wikipedia's place to state whether a theory is right or wrong. It is wikipedia's place, and it is clearly distinguished in the NPOV policy, that we can state whether a theory is mainstream or not. The key point here is due weight - we need to give all theories their due weight, and the theory that Jesus was not a historical figure at all is one which has only been expressed on the fringes of scholarship. This doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that its status as a marginal view needs to be made clear. I'm not sure what you mean by We cannot class this by whether scholars believe Jesus existed or not as there are many who would not give an definitive opinion either way due to the distances of time and the likelyhood of finding a "smoking gun" in a turbulent period of history for that region. What scholars are you referring to? There are many scholars whose work does not specifically concern finding out stuff about the life of Jesus. As such, many would not feel that they have the expertise to themselves opine on the subject of Jesus' historicity. But of scholars who have worked on "historical Jesus" issues, the vast majority accept that Jesus was a historical figure. A comparable example: if you took a poll of Shakespeare specialists, 99% (at least) would say that Shakespeare wrote the plays of Shakespeare. However, the work of many of these Shakespeare specialists would not really have anything to do with the authorship issue, or with learning about the details of the life of Shakespeare. They rely on the subset of Shakespeare scholars who do focus on this issue. But the subset of Shakespeare scholar who do concern themselves with authorship and the life of Shakespeare are pretty clear on Shakespeare having written the plays. The situation is roughly analogous with New Testament scholars - most don't write about "the historical Jesus," but they'd defer to the leading experts who do. Those scholars who do work on this seem to be strongly in favor of the notion that he actually lived. There can be a scholarly consensus of something without every single scholar working in the general field having the personal expertise to know if that consensus is correct or not. john k 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Due weight is not given to the "fringe theories". I am not arguing that they should be given prominence: I am arguing that we should not be constantly forcing down the reader's throat the idea that, because they are a "minority" (still no sources to be seen) their views are in some way less valid. elvenscout742 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dennis R. MacDonald, Harvard Ph.D., Yale Press, is not "fringe"

The "fringe of the fringe" sentiment towards MacDonald shows a bias and is anti-intellectual. He has written two books on the idea that the original gospel of Mark derives from Homer. If this isn't relevant to the idea that Jesus never existed, then nothing is. Deleting him is just plain censorship. What more credentials can someone possibly have?166.70.243.229 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1065.asp

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have written books about Jesus; are we to accept them as scholars as well? KHM03 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I define "scholar" as someone with at least a Master's in a related discipline who publishes in peer-review journals. Not a perfect definition, but at least it's objective. Writing a book doesn't mean much. Does McDonald publish in peer-reviewed journals?

You deleted him for being "fringe of the fringe" but you are admitting here that you don't know anything about him, despite the link I gave. If you continue to offer more excuses to keep relevant research from qualified experts from being weighed and considered where appropriate, your motives and integrity can be questioned.166.70.243.229 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. At least keep your names straight. Nor did you answer my question. Carlo 18:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep whose name straight? I was responding to both, including KHMO3 who is comparing anyone who writes a book with anyone else who happens to write a book, which also pretends MacDonald doesn't have any credentials. You are unsigned apparently, lecturing me on keeping names straight. By the way, books are reviewed in scholarly journals. I'm a little amused here because I've never encountered this lowered form of criticism aimed at preeminence, ie, Yale Press, and professor of Christian Origins and New Testament at Claremont, in the role to award higher degrees. I would assume he publishes in peer-reviewed journals whenever he wants to.166.70.243.229 18:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will let KMH03 speak for himself, but I don't see how he said anything that could possibly be construed as "admitting" that he doesn't know anything abou thim, and he was the one you were quoting. MY statement can be construed as not knowing anything about him, but I didn't SAY anything about him. I asked a question about him.

And I didn't ask if he COULD publish in peer-reviewed journals - I asked if he DID. There is a world of difference. Carlo 19:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Carlo, as far as you are concerned MacDonald is the "peer" in peer reviewed. And you are addressing this subject AS IF your opinion or consent is germane.166.70.243.229 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

MacDonald is certainly a scholar - he is a professor of religion and his book was published by Yale University Press. That doesn't mean he's right. I find a useful review of the book in JSTOR. It's the review in the Journal of Religion, and is written by Margaret Mitchell of the University of Chicago. Mitchell begins by discussing the influence of Homer on the early Church, and notes that there was a fair amount of influence, beginning with Justin Martyr, and that this has probably not been discussed enough. She also notes that the consensus position is that the New Testament and the earliest Church writings do not betray any awareness of Homer, and that references to Homer, beginning in the mid 2nd century, show the maturation of Christian theology as it begins to come to terms with the mainstream of classical culture. Turning to MacDonald's work, Mitchell is generally not supportive. She finds his interpretations to be clever and ingenious, but ultimately unconvincing, essentially calling the way MacDonald switches between identifying Jesus with Odysseus, Telemachus, and Hector to be ad hoc and unconvincing, and notes the unlikelihood that the various early Christian exegetes like Origen, Gregory Nazianzus, and so forth, who were fully familiar with Homer, would have missed these parallels had Mark actually intended to make them. She also calls his theory essentially unfalsifiable - similarities between Homer and Mark prove the influence, but so do differences, because they show that he is "emulating and transforming" Homer. She also finds many of the individual parallels to be forced, and feels that MacDonald underestimates the influence of the Hebrew scriptures (in their Septuagint form) on Mark in favor of his homeric interpretation. Mitchell concludes that what is needed is not a programmatic attempt to declare that the structure of Mark is based on Homer, but rather a more small-scale attempt to find Homeric reference points in the New Testament - she cites an instance from Acts, when Barnabas and Paul are mistaken for Zeus and Hermes, as a possible allusion. A final point to be made is that Mitchell's review makes it clear that MacDonald is not denying the historicity of Jesus. He is making a novel, and apparently not terribly well-received, argument about the composition of the Gospel of Mark. At any rate, calling MacDonald the "fringe of the fringe" seems clearly wrong - he is an academic, his book was published by an academic press, and has been reviewed in scholarly journals. But I don't think saying that his views are "fringe" would be inaccurate - Mitchell's review pretty conclusively rejects MacDonald. john k 19:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

John, rather than argue the non-merits of using another scholar's disagreement with someone as an excuse to censor, I would take issue with the idea that someone finds it "unconvincing" and then "conclusively rejects" the thesis, your words. Moreover, I find the "fringe" statement to be a bias, because as a "radical new idea" (see links) from established methods of scholarship it cannot be ignored by calling it fringe at birth. Obviously, if you are reading about him in the Journal of Religion, he isn't fringe, and his groundbreaking findings deserve mention if they being discussed academically. Of course, with both "sides" offered. Thanks for your analysis, by the way.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300080123/104-8885822-5907160?v=glance&n=283155

Amazon's Editorial Reviews/Book Description

In this book, MacDonald argues that the author of Mark consciously emulated Homeric epic. He begins by describing the common Greco-Roman custom of teaching prose composition through mimesis (Greek) or imitatio (Latin) and by pointing out several examples of their practice in pagan, Jewish and later Christian texts. He then proceeds to make the controversial case that large portions of Mark draw either directly on the texts or indirectly on the topoi of Homer. The argument is compelling and meticulously constructed. Both of our readers agree that this is important, groundbreaking work that will revolutionize the study of the gospels.

MacDonald's other book dealing with Homer:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300097700/104-8885822-5907160?v=glance&n=283155

Amazon's Book Description

In this provocative challenge to prevailing views of New Testament sources, Dennis R. MacDonald argues that the origins of passages in the book of Acts are to be found not in early Christian legends but in the epics of Homer. MacDonald focuses on four passages in the book of Acts, examines their potential parallels in the Iliad, and concludes that the author of Acts composed them using famous scenes in Homer's work as a model. Tracing the influence of passages from the Iliad on subsequent ancient literature, MacDonald shows how the story generated a vibrant, mimetic literary tradition long before Luke composed the Acts. Luke could have expected educated readers to recognize his transformation of these tales and to see that the Christian God and heroes were superior to Homeric gods and heroes. Building upon and extending the analytic methods of his earlier book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, MacDonald opens an original and promising appreciation not only of Acts but also of the composition of early Christian narrative in general.

166.70.243.229 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Any bookseller, editor or book publisher is going to make their books sound as impressive and influential as possible; hence the bias built into these reviews posted at Amazon. Calling it a "fringe" view just means that it isn't at present generally accepted; whether it will become more generally accepted is speculation on the future. It's the reader's decision whether to agree with something or to guess that any given minority theory will gain ground as time goes on; not our decision as WP editors. Wesley 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But I think the case has been made that this is an academic work that should be mentioned in a balanced way reflecting it's current acceptance. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I ever said that I didn't think it should be mentioned. In fact, I agree with Sophia - the book should be mentioned, in a balanced way that reflects the fact that it is not yet a widely accepted theory (it also ought to be clarified that MacDonald does not support the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and I'm not sure his work does much to further the cause of a non-historical Jesus, anyway - why is using Homer as a model more likely to mean Jesus is ahistorical than, as previous scholars have generally agreed, using the Old Testament as a model? Either way, Mark is manipulating his narrative to make it fit better with earlier works). I had thought that I was providing a service to the discussion by summarizing a scholarly review of the book under discussion, but apparently anything less than fawning appreciation of the "groundbreaking" nature of Dr. MacDonald's study will be interpreted as an attempt to "censor" the article. john k 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading all of the different opinions expressed above, I dare say if I was the "Grand Inquisitor", or Stalin, I would strongly considered the death penalty being equally applied to all participants. Dr. Dan 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What a helpful contribution. Thanks, Doc! john k 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Was that a threat? WP:NPA.... Homestarmy 03:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a joke, ensconced in the historical reality of to what lengths these opinions have been acted upon, in the continuum of human history. Dr. Dan 04:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, we can't describe Macdonald's work as "groundbreaking", because that would be POV. His view is new and has no academic standing as yet...isn't he the only supporter? It's less than prominent, even less so than the Jesus myth stuff. We should move on. KHM03 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro needs some work

I think the intro needs to be changed up a bit, but I figure any changes I'd make would be controversial, and I'm not really sure how to go about it, so I thought I'd bring it up on talk first.

1. The intro gives too mcuh attention to the rather obvious fact that Christians (and Muslims and Baha'i) accept "as a theological axiom," the existence of Christ. Two separate sentences essentially indicate this. While this needs to be mentioned, I think we also need to emphasize scholarly views on the subject - that most scholars, both religious and secular, accept Jesus's existence as a historical figure, but that for at least the last 150 years or so (and perhaps longer) there has been a vocal, but fairly marginal in terms of the broader scholarly community, minority which has argued that Jesus did not exist. The fact that religious people accept the basic tenets of their religion is neither surprising nor interesting. The more important issue is the consensus within the scholarly community.
2. Nevertheless, there are no extant contemporaneous documents that make mention of Jesus. The earliest known sources are Christian writings - the New Testament - which, according to modern historians, were written several decades after he is said to have died. This seems to be presenting the "Jesus as myth" POV as fact. There's nothing here which is wrong, but there are strong implications which are, I think, misleading. We so rarely haave "extant contemporaneous documents" in the ancient world that it seems hard to see why one should expect such things about Jesus. I think this material should be present, but needs to be phrased in a way which does not imply that something is missing.
3. secular historians and followers of most other world religions (including Judaism) tend to regard him as an ordinary human, and some dispute whether he ever existed.

   "Some dispute whether he ever existed" is ambiguous. Some of what? secular historians or followers of other world religions? And what about secular non-historians? We should try to be clearer about who is making what arguments. I'm also not really sure why the opinions of "followers of other world religions" is notable in the article at all. What expertise do they have on the subject? The first part also has some problems. The introduction seems to be focused as much on how some people view Jesus as God, and other people view him as "an ordinary human" (an awkward construction in itself.) But that's not what this article is about at all.

4. Many scholars see the Biblical narratives of Jesus' life as theological or mythologized accounts of an historical figure's life, aimed at winning new converts rather than at being a neutral historical record. The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life may be historical and which may be unhistorical is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians. Even accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life may have changed in subtle ways during re-tellings. Others may have been exaggerated on purpose, and some may even have been totally invented, possibly reinterpreted from older stories.

   This is completely unreferenced. I think it would behoove us to explain who believes what. It's important to note that there are many scholars who find the Gospel accounts to varying degrees unreliable, but who use them to come to various, often contradictory, portraits of the "historical Jesus" (an article which, while not terribly great, should probably be linked early in the article text, and not just in an italicized notice at the top).

5. The "mythological school" sees Jesus as an interpolation into one of the older mystery religions with dying/reborn gods such as Osiris-Dionysus. This theory is commonly known as the Jesus Myth. Others see the apparent relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity as being based on an historical figure acting as the focal point for the linking of Jewish religious traditions and political history with a mystery religion, a syncretism—ultimately more popular among Gentiles than Jews—which would become Christianity.

   This is even more unreferenced, and I think, rather misleading. Once again, citations! We should also try to contextualize these arguments. It also managed to not state very clearly that the "mythological school" (to the extent to which such a thing can be said to exist) does not accept the real existence of a historical Jesus who "suffered under Pontius Pilate," which is the key issue here, right? One can believe that connections exist between Christianity and "older mystery religions" without believing that there wasn't a historical figure Jesus of Nazareth.

Anyway, that's a start on it - I think the big problem is that the introduction doesn't really summarize very clearly what the article will be about.

Jesus and Syncretism

This paragraph is highly problematic:

Some of the most well-known early adherents of the mythological school include Voltaire, Friedrich Engels, Karl Kautsky (Whose 1908 work 'Foundations of Christianity' [6] remains one of the important works in this respect) and David Strauss (1808-1874), who was the most intellectually influential early mythologist. Many of these authors did not absolutely deny Jesus's existence, but they believed the miraculous aspects of the Gospel accounts to be mythical and that Jesus' life story had been heavily manipulated to fit Messianic prophesy. Both Strauss and Kautsky argue that very little can be deduced from the surviving documents concerning the historical Jesus.

If they "do not absolutely deny Jesus' existence," then they are not "adherents of the mythological school," which is supposedly the school which denies Jesus' existence. The views of someone like Strauss cannot and should not be seen as in any way the direct ancestors of the "mythological school." Strauss is just as much the father of the mainstream of critical scholarship which accepts a historical Jesus. BTW, do any of these writers "absolutely deny Jesus' existence?" If so, which? john k 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that whoever rewrites the paragraph should include names from this list, dating to 1935:

http://www.egodeath.com/drewshistorymythiconlyjesus.htm

The mythological aspect is one theory, but there are others, including the idea he was someone else, his followers awaiting his return at a certain time, which failed. I also think that the majority of interested "scholars" remain uncommitted and unconvinced of either side, but there seems to be a bizarre mindset here that only cites pro-historicist versus contra accordingly. I would like to see a statistic, or least a claim from a neutral position speaking to the fact that a discernable majority is claimable for one side versus the other. John, this would also apply to your "weight of evidence" since nobody has put this claim to the test. If a significant number of scholars are non-committed, added to those who are contra the historicist position, this could make the pro-historicist position a de facto minority. Without a cite, we can't charge ahead claiming to favor an already bloated pro-historicist postion. As an aside, I would also like to see a citation where it claims a "growing consensus" that Josephus' main quote is only partially interpolated. This also seems to be coming from the pro-historicist camp.166.70.243.229 19:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think it unlikely that most historians even bother to reaserch the question of Jesus's existance, they kind of have careers that aren't always about Jesus, just because most historians might be neutral isn't necessarily because they've looked at the evidence and decided to be non-commital, I would think it is more likely they just never really cared before. That doesn't make the pro-existance position less consensual, it would just mean many historians aren't participating in the consensus process. Homestarmy 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I might a similar point above by comparison to the Shakespeare authorship question. Most New Testament scholars don't work on subjects that would lead to them forming an expert opinion on whether Jesus was a real historical individual or not, they simply take it for granted that he is. But the consensus of historians who do study this question is also that he did actually exist. In terms of statistics, or whatever, I'm not sure how to find this. But given that, so far, only a single actual tenured academic (Price) seems to have been found who argues for Jesus not existing, and given that the major works on the ahistorical side (Wells, Doherty, et al) aren't even reviewed in major journals of the field, I don't see how we can escape the conclusion that the position of Jesus as actual historical personage (supported by such disparate figures as Meier, Sanders, Crossan, and so forth) is the consensus one. john k 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Counting

Since counting seems to be being demanded, let's start counting.

View Jesus as a historical figure.

1. Dale Allison (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet, 1999)
2. Raymond E. Brown (Death of the Messiah, 1999)
3. John Dominic Crossan (The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1992)
4. James D.G. Dunn (Jesus Remembered, 2003)
5. Craig A. Evans (Jesus and His Contemporaries, 2001)
6. R. T. France (The Evidence for Jesus, 2001)
7. Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews : A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity, 1999)
8. Gary R. Habermas (The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ)
9. The Jesus Seminar/Robert W. Funk (The Five Gospels, etc.)
10. Luke Timothy Johnson (The Real Jesus)
11. Scot McKnight (Jesus and His Death)
12. I. Howard Marshall (I Believe in the Historical Jesus, 1977)
13. John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 1991)
14. E.P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1994)
15. Gerd Theissen (The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide,
16. Robert Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, 2000)
17. Geza Vermes (Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 1981)
18. Ian Wilson (Jesus: The Evidence, 2000)
19. Ben Witherington (The Jesus Quest)
20. N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God, 1997)

While a few of these authors are devoted to actually refuting the Jesus Myth idea, most are not. That's 20, to start off with. I'm sure more can be found if necessary. Almost all, I think, are or were prominent professors at major universities (although a few of them may not be - I haven't checked all of them). Some, but not all, are Christians.

On the other side we have (feel free to add additional writers I may have missed and to remove my POV marginal comments, if you'd like):

1. Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy)
2. John M. Allegro (crazy book about hallucinogenic mushrooms from 1970)
3. Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle)
4. Alvar Ellegard (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ; sort of - his book actually says Jesus lived in 100 BC, but we'll count it for these purposes)
5. Freke and Gandy (Jesus Mysteries)
6. G.A. Wells

Other than Allegro, who produced normal work before going over the deep end, none of these people is a prominent scholar, and none of them has been reviewed in major journals of the field. Severall of them (Acharya S, Allegro) are quite clearly nutty above and beyond their belief in Jesus's non-existence. To them we can add

• Robert M. Price, who is, apparently, a "Jesus Agnostic," who is unconvinced as to whether or not there was a historical Jesus. (Richard Carrier, who we've discussed above, seems to fall into the same camp).

And that seems to be the state of it. Thoughts? john k 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml

I guess I should point out that the article as written on Wikipedia is unconvincing all the same, hence the need to delete opposing views or valid criticisms of flawed arguments. I would also note that Richard Carrier, in the above link of his review of Doherty, confesses to having been a historicist as a matter of course, but now sees too much evidence against this position to state one way or the other. If anyone has read the review, they would know that Carrier sums up the arguments nicely in favor of ahistoricity. He basically says that historicists haven't yet done their job. This should be mentioned in the main article. 166.70.243.229 00:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from Carrier's conclusion: When we compare the standard historicist theory (SHT) with Doherty's ahistoricist or "mythicist" theory (DMT) by the criteria of the Argument to the Best Explanation, I must admit that, at present, Doherty wins on at least four out of the six criteria (scope, power, plausibility, and ad hocness ; I think DMT is equal to SHT on the fifth criterion of disconfirmation ; neither SHT nor DMT wins on the sixth and decisive criterion). In other words, Doherty's theory is simply superior in almost every way in dealing with all the facts as we have them. However, it is not overwhelmingly superior, and that leaves a lot of uncertainty. For all his efforts, Jesus might have existed after all. But until a better historicist theory is advanced, I have to conclude it is at least somewhat more probable that Jesus didn't exist than that he did. I say this even despite myself, as I have long been an opponent of ahistoricity. 166.70.243.229 00:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't very good surely, because it doesn't really go into an understanding of the way scholars try to find a historical Jesus out of early Christian writings, except superficially. As to Carrier, sure, Carrier says this (and calls himself a former "opponent of ahistoricity"), but that doesn't mean it's right, or widely accepted. Carrier is a graduate student. That's what I am, and what my friends are, and I can tell you that we're pretty close to the bottom of the pole of the academic community. The fact that one graduate student (even if he is one who has done prolific writing on the internet) has been convinced by the work of Earl Doherty is not terribly significant as a statement of what scholarly consensus is. john k 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Carrier has an M.Phil. and knows the problem academically, which trumps any of the theologians on your list. I don't think you see the problem because you are too busy apologizing for the mistakes. 166.70.243.229 04:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)