text:
closest to the truth didn't he? , - and then i think the bit about 'the awaited messiah of the OLd testament' - is very un-nuanced - was there a set view of what the title meant, and what the various books of the OLd Testament all led readers to await? it needs more nuanced expression somehow imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Date styles
I know there is virtually no chance for common sense to prevail here, but the current mediation at The Beatles reminded me of the absurdity of "BC/BCE/AD/CE" all being used together. Picture that poll being closed as: "In order to keep everyone happy, all references to the band will now be written as "The/the Beatles". Now of course a solution that crazy would never be implemented in a million years. Yet it continues here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should obviously be BC and AD (with AD before the date, naturally) because there's no such thing as BCE and CE. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's posts displaying that much certainty that create many of the problems here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Huh, if CE and BCE don't exist then it's awfully odd that we have an article on the subject at Common Era. It's also quite odd that this nonexistent dating format would be used in academia and scientific publishing.  You should get on the phones right away and start informing universities across the world of your discovery!  Sædon talk  03:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for either style. I'm arguing the absolute absurdity of using both. --Joefromrandb (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 * The current system may be absurd, but I don't think we can agree on a simpler one. There doesn't seem to be consensus for either BC/AD or BCE/CE. Huon (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many times now on this talk page, with no resolution. Personally I could not care either way, so I will not support either format. But using the current style seems to be the one this page is stuck with. And it may not make much difference to the rest of the world either way anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the article is not titled "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE," so the Beatles comparison is a bit off. A more apt comparison would be this article using "Jesus/Yeshua" throughout the article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Misleading right from the first sentence.
The very first sentence reads as such:

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

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

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

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

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

 * It should probably say Son of God which is not in dispute, given that it appears on the first page of the Gospel of Mark. I don't think it even needs debate here because Christian theology should be secondary in this secular article. History2007 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, that would be much better. I don't recall ever hearing the expression "God the Son incarnated" in the mainstream denomination I used to be part of. But "Son of God", all the time HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, Son of God has been part of the earliest creeds and appears in the Nicene Creed - so is really widespread. History2007 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

 * While that's technically true, an even greater number of Christians worship Jesus as the Son of God. I don't think we need to discuss the finer points of Christology in the very first sentence. Huon (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically accurate, but misleading, Huon. Most Christians believe in the trinity, which, in short, will mean that a Christian believes that Jesus is God and that Jesus is the son of God.  The majority of Christians worship Jesus as God, even though he is the Son of the Father.
 * As for the initial claim - we are talking about the lede. Ideally, it contains no sources, being just a summary of the rest of the article.Farsight001 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * There is also the question of "pragmatism". Many people read this page and regardless of the underlying reasoning more talk page discussion will ensue with the God the Son. And as the initial comment showed, many people do not know that the lede does not necessarily need refs, etc. History2007 (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

 * A: Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press page 285

 * B: Robert M. Price agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61

 * C Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> Rigel Publications page 200

 * D Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16

 * E James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

 * F Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> William B. Eerdmans Press page 34

 * G Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> Oxford University Press, page 145 states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"

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

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

 * There are no opposing sources whatsover. No one is saying that there are sources that dispute Ehrman's statement, or Van Voorst's quote, etc. There is no opposition whatsover in terms of other WP:RS sources to what the sources say.

 * These scholars are not expressing their own opinions, bu are providing a survey of the Academic consensus per WP:RS/AC. The only methodology they are using is counting how many people are on each side of the debate

 * All of these scholars (almost all well established professors) are intimately involved in the field. They are not new to the topic.

I think these are totally WP:RS sources.

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

 * one of the books listed in the bibliography at the end - E P Sanders, the Historical figure of Jesus  - Paul Johnson called it 'a non-dogmatic study of the evidence by a leading expert' - so maybe using Sanders as a source would be good to add to the others, he is widely respected - the other sources seem fair enough too as you say- and   i think from what i've heard said elsewhere- by John Romer on the TV series 'Testament'  for eg.-  the sentence in the lead as it stands is fair enough imo. Sayerslle (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, as you said Sanders is widely respected, and a non-believer. Further down, the page currently says: "both E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell of his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story" And Fredriksen is also highly respected and a non-believers, as is Geza Vermes who is also quoted. So there are plenty of respected scholars who are quoted. The reason for using the 8 sources above, however, was that they are not even expressing their own view, just "counting how many scholars there are on each side of the debate" per WP:RS/AC. And as you said the statements they make are consistent, reasonable by modern scholarly standards and have no conflict with any sources we have seen. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd say we're overdoing it if I hadn't watched the discussion about the statement supported by all those sources. They are clearly reliable; the scholars we cite are experts in their field and should know the consensus among their colleagues, and no sources dispute the conclusion they draw. What more could we possibly want? Huon (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they're reliable when it comes to their colleagues, I object to wording that goes beyond that circle. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Two points: First, it must be clarified that biblical scholarship is distinct from theology and as the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies states it includes archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. So these authors are fully immersed in the field and know who writes what.
 * I don't think I said or implied anything about theology, the term I used was biblical scholarship or NT scholarship. I'm well aware of the difference as I pointed out to you earlier. If you think the article needs to spell that out more clearly, then I'm not stopping you. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

 * Professor A (who teaches in Germany) writes that Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Europe.

 * You think he does not necessarily know of the lakes in Spain and should only talk about lakes in Eastern Europe.

 * You do not have any professor B who says there is a larger lake anywhere in Europe. So no source disputes professor A.

You cannot modify the quote by professor A to say "Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Eastern Europe". You can not do that. And that is specially true if there is not even one source that disputes what professor A states. Moreover, we have six other sources that confirm what professor A states.
 * This is not the situation we're in. It's not that professor X makes a factual statement Y, it's that professor A makes a statement about a consensus of scholars in field B holding opinion C. The situation we're dealing with is statements about an academic consensus, for which WP has specific rules, which I mentioned to you before, after having pointed out my line of argument was emphatically not what you just said. And in fact right below you go on to mention the self-same criteria! Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/AC:

 * Any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

You can not use your own assessment of the scholarly consensus. If professor A said Europe, you cannot modify it to say half of Europe based on your own assessment. That is Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to keep pointing out that I was arguing precisely that the sources offered do not meet the standards WP sets for making statements about an academic consensus, rather than offering my own assessment. You accuse me of offering my own assessment, when in fact I was insisting we shouldn't and should instead use WP's specific criteria for this case. In this vein I'm claiming your set of sources do not support the very wide consensus that is being alleged. Your complaints of not getting sources contradicting "opinion C" amounts to asking for personal assessment of a consensus, precisely what you've argued we shouldn't be doing! Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of whether the quoted sources support the statement
New section so as not to disrupt the flow of arguments made by History2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now on to the sources.

 * A: Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press page 285
 * The statement S clearly does match what is said in the article, but while Ehrman is a scholar of antiquity, he cannot be expected to speak for all scholars of antiquity, in particular ancient historians or classicists. He does look like an excellent source for biblical scholars. That still leaves us in need of additional sources for the other subfields.

 * B: Robert M. Price agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61
 * No evidence has been offered that Price has supported statement S. He is merely paraphrased as saying his views runs against the majority of scholars, presumably those who have published on the matter. It says nothing about the vast majority who haven't, while statement S does. Price's claim is far less sweeping than S. In addition, Price is a biblical scholar, so again we only have the subfield of biblical scholarship covered.

 * C Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> Rigel Publications page 200
 * Grant is a classicist and historian and therefore covers two bases. Again, he makes a far less sweeping statement than S. He says nothing about a majority of scholars of antiquity, instead he refers to the much, much smaller group of scholars who have published on the subject.

 * D Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16
 * Van Voorst covers biblical scholarship, but not classical historians. Again, he makes a far less sweeping statement than S. No mention of the vast legions of scholars of antiquity who are neither biblical scholars nor classical historians or of the vast majority who have never published on the matter or those who are professionally agnostic on the issue.

 * E James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"
 * Again, a biblical scholar, though this time with an even more sweeping statement. The brief quote doesn't allow further analysis.

 * F Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> William B. Eerdmans Press page 34
 * Yet another biblical scholar. He merely states that he doesn't know any respectable critical scholar who disagrees, which is not the same as saying virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Maybe he doesn't know enough people, or not outside the field of historical critical bible scholarship, or perhaps the vast majority of scholars of antiquity don't hold a professional opinion on the matter.

 * G Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER> Oxford University Press, page 145 states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"
 * Stanton is a biblical scholar, not a historian, so his statement on historians doesn't count. He doesn't make any statement about other scholars of antiquity, so he's no help there either.

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

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

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

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

 * So the long and short of it is this: You think the situation is described by:

 * I: The vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue of the historicity of Jesus have come out in favour of it.

 * II: Only a small group of serious scholars and a somewhat larger group of nonserious scholars dispute it.

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

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

Look:

 * These professors (Ehrman, Grant, Van Voorst, etc.) all read the same journals that Goggle Scholar and Google books search. There are just a few major universities, a few major books and these professors do not have to go to Mars to find out which scholars support the historicity of Jesus and which do not. That is clear to everyone on this planet.

 * Everyone mentioned here (the professors) and the editors who type here, and the other Wikipedia articles all "agree" on the same thing: only a handful of people with PhDs (or perhaps even less) who teach at universities deny the existence of Jesus.

So trying to denigrate these professors based on their specialties, reconstruct what they say by adding long qualifiers, etc. is surreal, artificial and incorrect, specially when there are no opposing sources. I am sorry, that is exactly what I think. History2007 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I came back with a hunch that I had perhaps misunderstood your request for an opposing opinion, and that you were asking for an opinion contradicting consensus rather than one contradicting existence. But I see you are back to your snooty, intransigent and uncooperative attitude. You still haven't addressed my sincere concern or offered any help. Either offer to help or kindly get out of the way.
 * I am not denigrating these professors, I have repeatedly said positive things about them. I am not questioning whether they can do a Google search, but that is not the relevant criterion, since you and I can do a Google search too and that emphatically is not enough ground for a statement on consensus as WP:RS/AC clearly states. The question is not whether Ehrman can do a Google search, it's whether he is a reliable source on historians and I contend it is far from obvious he is. I'm open to persuasion he is if additional evidence is offered, or if you engage with my argument instead of simply repeating your own. That way you might lead me to see the error of my ways, or to clarify my argument and either way increase understanding.
 * Let me add another consideration to the mix: I believe Ehrman himself, and if not him then other prominent HJ researchers, have criticised the historian Richard Carrier as being unqualified to offer an opinion on the historicity of Jesus because he is a historian, not a biblical scholar with knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew and Syriac. So are we to believe that Ehrman is qualified to speak about historians because he is a biblical scholar, but historians aren't qualified to speak about biblical scholars? That's a strange double standard. And by your reasoning, is Ehrman qualified to address the opinion of a majority of the combined set of biblical scholars and nuclear physicists, being a member of that combined set?
 * Why is it that you are so defensive about Ehrman's qualifications to speak about historians and scholars of antiquity in general? Why insist on Ehrman's wording and not choose Grant's formulation instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * * Everyone mentioned here (the professors) and the editors who type here, and the other Wikipedia articles all "agree" on the same thing: only a handful of people with PhDs (or perhaps even less) who teach at universities deny the existence of Jesus.
 * A point I have made several times myself. But that is not what the statement "a majority of scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed" says, the latter is a much more sweeping statement. And yet you appear to insist on the sweeping statement, despite my concern it will mislead people as to the size of the academic consensus. Maybe you don't share my concern, but why not help me alleviate it? What harm could possibly come of it? I don't see any, but if you do, kindly speak up. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Again, as stated before, you have no basis for your view that 7 scholars listed above are not capable of counting how many people there are on each side of the debate. The only way they could not know that is if there are scholars they are unaware of, or journals they are unaware of. And where are these hiding scholars who oppose historicity? And why is it that the likes of Ehrman, Van Voorst or Grant are unaware of them or their views? Are these other scholars on Mars? Do we need to send the Mars rover to look for them? No.
 * Again, you misstate my position. My view was emphatically not that Ehrman et al cannot count, in fact I explicitly stated that that was not the issue. My point is that they do not meet WP technical criteria of WP:RS/AC if the consensus in question is to extend to neighbouring fields. Counting is not enough, not if you or I do it, not if someone from a neighbouring field does it. A consensus in a field needs an expert from exactly that field. And scholarship of "antiquity" isn't even a field, it encompasses a number of fields, and Ehrman is only an expert in one, and Grant in two. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As all sources and lists indicate, there are "a handful of academics" (or less) who deny historicity and you have directly admitted that they are a "tiny minority". Do you have "a few sources" that per WP:RS/AC state that a good number of scholars of antiquity have stated that they are agnostic on the existence of Jesus? Or is that your "personal opinion?" The long and short of it is that you seem to think these 7 professors are not capable of counting the number of people on each side of the debate, and based on your own superior knowledge you know better and need to remedy their errors. That is not so. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no such sources, nor do I need them because the onus is on those alleging consensus to support it by reliable sources, not on those who oppose them (or are merely skeptical, like myself) to find reliable sources. By WP policy mere counting is not enough, and I don't need to remedy their "error", you are the one who needs to find reliable sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

No academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus
Given the length of the discussion above, I think a more solid analysis would be in order, instead of abstract discussions. So here is a list compiled from the Wiki page on Christ myth theory which lists the main proponents of the myth theory as G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty. I have also done other web searches.

The list makes it clear that

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

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

Here is the list:

 * Alvar Ellegård: He was a professor of English and died in 2008.

 * Robert M. Price: He has a PhD is theology and is a biblical scholar. He is said to be teaching at the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary", an organization not notable enough as of this writing to have a Wikipedia which seems to be just a website without an actual campus or actual classes, or any higher education accreditation. He also teaches at CFI Institute which does not seem to be a university of any type, and mostly teaches online courses or summer classes. Price can be considered a scholar, but he does not teach at a major institution. He acknowledges that hardly any one agrees with him.

 * Thomas L. Thompson: Was a professor of theology in Sweden (now retired) and denies existence. Thompson's arguments were never accepted by the academic community at large and he worked as an interior decorator for over a decade until he found a position.
 * Heh, talk about denigrating scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being nice, saying interior decorator. The second paragraph of his Wiki-bio says other things. I was being nice. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Richard Carrier: He has a PhD, but is not an academic and does not teach at any university. Carrier's professional occupation (beyond his blog) remains unclear.

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

Are there 30 scholars out there who deny existence? No. Do any of them still teach at a major institution? No. Even if Carrier is considered a scholar, that is still less than a handful of deniers, but none of these people is currently holding an academic position at a major institution. G. A. Wells is a professor of German. He was (and is) widely acknowledged as the leader of the Christ myth theorists. Wells no longer denies the existence of Jesus. Wells did a U-turn in his last book after the evidence from the Q source documents had been explained to him.

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

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

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

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

 * There's no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ, a Magical Figure to do with Religion and The Bible. It does not make any difference what scholars think and believe, the evidence shows there is no evidence for a historical Christ. The Bible is a collection of contrived documents founded on religious faith. The established Church was not founded on historical provenance but rather on what people preferred to believe. Mention all these points to University scholars who BELIEVE in a historical Jesus Christ and they all remain silent. This Wikipedia article is a product of religious propaganda. Nittoditto (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Give me five minutes live time on television with Bart Ehrman, he will provide no answers to any of the points because the historical evidence just does not exist about Jesus Christ. I have raised these points about historicity with scholars and they remained silent on the matter. Everything exists solely on the basis of special pleading. Nittoditto (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Given that you are a new user (I presume) I would suggest a reading of WP:V. Wikipedia does not work on debates on TV, or personal opinions, but what sources state. And Ehrman (who is no longer a Christian) is not the only scholar who supports existence, there are many, many of others, e.g. Geza Vermes, etc.. I have a feeling Vermes would be a livelier debate, if you want to take him on... But in any case, all Wkipedi can use are "sources, not facts". WP:V explains that. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * What scholars privately believe and what constitutes independent historical evidence are two different issues. Nittoditto (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

 * Scholars have indeed expressed their personal and private beliefs that Jesus Christ existed in reliable and reputable sources, and that's all they amount to. Nittoditto (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Once they have expressed it in a publication, it is a public statement, no longer private. But I will stop now. This is not a "content issue" any more, a "policy issue" per WP:V. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I will stop as well now, since there never will be any honest and reliable Wikipedia article on this subject matter. Nittoditto (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but History2007 was correct in the argument he just made. One of the techniques we have on WP to deal with issues of bias is that of WP:NPOV. If a source makes a potentially controversial, subjective statement, we can always rephrase it as "source X says Y", which is an objective statement about someone holding an opinion. So instead of saying "the minimum wage leads to youth unemployment", we can say "economist X says that the minimum wage leads to youth unemployment".
 * We don't do that if source X merely states the common position in the field in question. If challenged, we can always look for a source that supports the alleged consensus. We don't do that by counting, or by constructing an argument that some expert should be able to count, instead we rely on the criterion set by WP:RS/AC, which is a statement by an academic in the field, not about the truth of the statement, but as to the consensus in that specific field. It's not necessary that the expert agrees with the statement himself, just that he states there exists a consensus.
 * The source in question may happen to know that the consensus in fact extends to other fields, but unless he happens to be an expert in those fields too, as far as WP is concerned this is insufficient evidence about a consensus in the other fields. For instance we can use an expert in homeopathy claiming a consensus among practitioners of homeopathy as sufficient evidence to state that there is in fact such a consensus.
 * Whether we personally agree with the statement, or believe in homeopathy doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if we can produce a count of proponents and opponents that appears to contradict the expert, since as far as WP is concerned mere counting isn't enough. We rely on experts on specific fields to make that determination for us. It's a different matter if the expert were to claim that physicists also agree. It may be true (at least in theory, you and I might doubt it, but since we aren't experts our opinions don't count), but since an expert on homeopathy isn't automatically an expert on physics, any claim about a consensus by physicists doesn't count. If we can find a physicist who agrees as to the consensus among physicists, then of course we can support the consensus among physicists too.
 * On the other hand, if we were to find an expert in the field who explicitly denies there is a consensus, then we can't simply pick the expert we prefer and either further analysis of the sources is necessary, or we simply cannot make a statement as to consensus on WP because the experts disagree. Note that this is different from finding an expert who merely disagrees about the truth of the underlying statement, rather than an academic consensus about it. This does not disqualify the expert making the claim about consensus, not even if we can produce a hundred sources contradicting the underlying statement. Conversely, the absence of a source contradicting the underlying statement cannot be taken as evidence of a consensus, as that would amount to something even less than counting. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * By the way, any evidence as to what Jesus' favorite salad was? History2007 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Not to defend the approach of Nittoditto (nor his claim), but the argument by History2007 (looking at a small, necessarily incomplete list, applying an arguably arbitrary criterion, and then generalizing from those 5 instances to the universe) is not remotely sound. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I have made no claim that the list is complete. What I ask is: does anyone else have a larger list? Is there a larger list of PhD level academics who deny existence? My comment ended with that question. If there are 30 academics who deny existence, Wikipedia should mention them on the Christ myth theory page. Is there a longer list? History2007 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Let's apply the subject matter from the perspective of objective evidence, not from the personal and private beliefs of scholars with PhDs (that doesn't count for much) Nittoditto (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is nonsense. To be able to evaluate historical evidence, a significant amount of specialized skill and knowledge is required. A PhD in an appropriate field is neither necessary nor sufficient for that, but it is strongly correlated with the required qualifications. If you don't understand that, it's strong evidence that you suffer from a rather severe case of Dunning-Kruger effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * In that case, let's start taking the theories of Professor Eisenmann seriously. Nittoditto (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Eisenman doesn't as far as I know address the existence of a consensus, either among biblical scholars or more generally among scholars of antiquity. Even if Eisenmann is right, that merely means a majority of biblical scholars is wrong about their reconstructions of the HJ (which Eisenmann doesn't deny BTW, he is not a mythicist), not that they are wrong about there being a consensus. There is nothing wrong with stating there is a consensus among biblical scholars if that consensus does exist (and we have sufficient evidence for that), even if you and I were to disagree they are correct. The consensus is a fact, and it is a useful thing to mention in the article. The problem is that the consensus is being alleged for a far wider group of scholars than is warranted by the sources. In the case of Ehrman not because he doesn't make the sweeping claim, he does, but because he is only an expert in one of the subfields in question, which isn't enough. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

 * As it happens, the article currently states: "No documents written by Jesus exist,[366] and no specific archaeological remnants are directly attributed to him." However, it seems that you are aware of the fact that as you said "99.9% of scholars believe in a historical Jesus". So I agree with that part. And the article states that "few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus." So archeology is a current interest among scholars, but not led them to deny existence. So Wikipedia can not hint that that issue results in non-exitence since the same applies to many other historical figures. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * There is no archaeological evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus, so it's a reduntant reference about archeological discoveries that do not offer any proof of existence. Nittoditto (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Per WP:V, the two of us can not debate this. What you need is to find WP:RS sources that state that "the lack of archeological evidence disproves the existence of Jesus". Once you have found those reliable sources, Wikipedia can include it, not before. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is that Nittoditto is trying to force the round peg of historical study through the square hole of the scientific method. The historicity of figures is not determined solely through archaeological evidence.Farsight001 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This case involves a Magical Religious Figure appearing within the context of Apocalyptic Judaic Eschatology. Not within sober historical chronicle. Nittoditto (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I think Nittoditto may well be an old acquaintance... But I can not be bothered to do SPI now... History2007 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * You'd have a point, Nittoditto, if anything you just said was even remotely accurate or applicable, but it isn't. I feel as though you are missing the point at the most fundamental level. Farsight001 (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The Bible is not a contrived Religious Book built on faith and Jesus Christ was not a Magical Religious Figure. Nittoditto (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * That argument was so familiar, I marked Nittoditto's page as a sockpuppet... I am ready bet on that now. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting it, Ditto. True or false, the bible is not "contrived", nor was it built on faith.  Jesus Christ is not "magical".  These are nothing but tag lines anti-theists have used for years to get under the skin of and generally piss off believers.  They have no realistic merit and are just plain inaccurate descriptors.Farsight001 (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Now you are presenting yourself honestly, as you truly are, and what the fabric of this article truly represents. Nittoditto (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I have dealt with Nittoditto before. He is a sock puppet of indef-blocked user Lung salad, and has not even denied the puppet placed on his user page. He will come back with a new account in a few days and say the same things again. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Winning the Argument
By presenting opinions and theories as facts and by cheating. Nittoditto (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are doing those things, but I'd be willing to bet that you and Charlie Sheen are the only ones who actually think that constitutes winning.Farsight001 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This article is built on the platform of religious faith, as are the opinions held by those scholars who thinly design their objectives as "historical arguments", the definitive study of this subject matter has yet to be presented. Nittoditto (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * So the only remaining question is: what is your next user name going to be? History2007 (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yet another dodge. Whenever discussion material evaporates, change the subject matter. Better still, become Matthew Hopkins Witchfinder General. Nittoditto (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Why are you bringing this argument here and not the Historicity of Jesus where it belongs? Marauder40 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * He may well bring it to a that page with a new puppet user name there in a few days... History2007 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I take that back. It seems that he has already been there and was zapped for it. History2007 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This is the only strategy available to this person because their argument has evaporated (if they had any argument to begin with). Their only course available to engage in discussions is by obliterating those they discuss with. A Crusade. Nittoditto (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I replied to the person who introduced the section "No academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus" - I did not begin it (if you were addressing me). Nittoditto (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This article is built on the platform of scholarship and research and reliable sources, not faith. If it were built on faith, it would be devoid of citations, but clearly, it is not.  Furthermore, much of our scholars we cite are irreligious, many of them even atheist, not that their faith is something wikipedia gives a shit about.  No one's faith is a factor in whether or not they are a reliable source for information here.  Nor do they "thinly design" their objectives as historical arguments.  This is their profession, their career - what they do for a living.  It is their job to present historical arguments and they are well respected for their expertise, which is exactly why we use them as sources - they actually have the definitive study of the subject matter.  Many of them helped write it all.  If you don't like this, then you have a problem not with the information presented here, but rather with the way an encyclopedia functions, which, in that case, I can only recommend you leave all your property behind and go live of the land in a forest, otherwise, you will find yourself perpetually pissed off at the way society functions.Farsight001 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * So when these "irreligious" scholars are challenged, why the silence? Nittoditto (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Look Lung salad, you used to say "all scholars are wafflers", "scholars do not matter", "scholars are dismissed", etc. You have said the same things before, never understood WP:V, and not gotten anywhere on Wikipedia. Take a hint, you will get blocked again if someone bothers to do a SPI. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yet another dodge, their argument has certainly evaporated. Nittoditto (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I corresponded with the late F F Bruce during the 1970s in response to one of his books and he failed to respond to any of my points, I still have his letters Nittoditto (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Because the challenge is without merit. Because you have no WP:RS for this challenge, no WP:RS to support your notion.  So even if the challenge had merit, we couldn't do anything about it.  If reliable sources tell us that the sky is red, we report that the sky is red, despite the fact that we can see clearly that it is blue.  Get it now?Farsight001 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Been away from the Internet for the past three days. A quick review of the past several thousand words generated over that period above leads me to two questions....
 * 1. Why do (some?) Christians feel the need to prove the historical existence of Jesus, when the whole thing is a matter of faith?
 * 2. How many non-Christian scholars' opinions have been ascertained? HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To the first question, this is not a discussion forum. We are here to try to improve the article, not muse about why Christians should or should not care about the historicity of Jesus.
 * To the second question, read above. This has been gone over in detail already.  Furthermore, as already explained, the religious affiliation of the scholars we reference is irrelevant.  It matters only that they are WP:RS.  There is no rule, policy, or guideline that in any way restricts use of a source based on their personal beliefs.Farsight001 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, there is no Wikipolicy which prohibits the use of references by Muslim scholars on Islam pages, Buddhist scholars on Buddhism pages, Jewish scholars on Judaism pages, etc. And the other point is that believing the gospel narratives about miracles, etc. may be a matter of faith, but scholars such as Paula Fredriksen and Geza Vermes who have renounced Christianity still defend existence. And atheists such as Wells and Dawkins no longer deny it. So supporting existence is not a matter of faith but historical analysis. History2007 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But what's the point of "proving" it? And "no longer deny" proves nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * To Farsight's first response above, I await your condemnation of every other post above from the past three days that expressed an opinion.
 * To the second, if a claimed reliable source does not consider the thoughts of ALL the world's scholars, Christian or otherwise, it's not too reliable, is it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

 * LOL. First you make a silly, one-sided demand for names from just one side of the discussion, then you ask for proof of a negative. Philosophically, that cannot be done. Your unthinking bias here is clearly on display. And the expression "virtually all" is classic WP:WEASEL wording. Can you provide a precise definition of the term? HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I do not think it is silly to state as a confirmation of the statement that there hardly any scholars who support non-existence. Do you have sources that say there are? If so, please provide your sources. And again, access to the private thoughts of people is just impossible, of course. As for definition of "virtually all" please see a dictionary, of course, or various cases. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Stop asking for proof of a negative. And please read WP:WEASEL. (It might also be good if you actually read my posts properly. You're a very hard man to truly discuss things with. Sadly, I typically find that with hard core believers.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I see no reason not to ask for sources. Sources are the bedrock of Wikipedia. I have read the page on weasel, I have done a few edits in the past. That is not a weasel word, as evidenced by the hundreds and hundreds uses on Wikipedia and it does not appear on the weasel page. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * History2007 did not ask for proof of a negative. He asked if you have sources that say there are many scholars who support non-existence.  That is a logical positive, not a negative.  Asking for proof that there are no sources would be the logical negative, but that request was not made by him.Farsight001 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, of course. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * By the way, in the unlikely case that he meant do not ask for "proof that Jesus did not exist" (as proof of the negative) one should comment that those proofs are common, e.g. Galileo's proof that very tall humans never existed because weight goes up by cube and bone strength by square, etc. But that is probably not what he meant. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * History2007 asks for many things, some possible, some impossible. It's common for the argument of someone whose position is based on faith rather than rational analysis to leap around like that. Good points in opposition are simply deflected and the subject changed. I have made my rational points here. Keep thinking up new ones for your own irrational position. (Not an insult. Faith is, by definition, irrational.) I shall part ways for the moment. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL is misapplied here. The sources cited say "the majority of scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth."  It would be weasel words (and OR) to take a few scholar saying they think Jesus existed and use that to say the majority of scholars believe Jesus existed, but that's not the case here.  If this article is guilty of WP:WEASEL, then so is the Evolution article for the line "Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science" (citing only one source, no less).  If RSs say "all/most scholars accept this," we have to say that all/most scholars accept this unless a contrary RS is presented.  History2007 did not ask for proof for a negative, he asked for a contrary source.
 * HiLo48, actually read the article and check out the sources before making honestly rather insulting assertions about other users (you rewrapped Lung Salad's "History2007 is Christian and therefore incapable of reason" attacks in a more polite package, but it's still the same bollocks). You are the one who has deflected and changed the subject here.  A contrary source is asked for, you say that there's no way to prove a negative.  Contrary sources are differentiated from proof for a negative, and you dismiss an editor and the possibility of rational discussion with them for what almost amounts to an ad hominem attack.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop deflecting the fucking argument!! I was commenting on History2007's use of the words "virtually all". (17:38, 28 September 2012 above.) Now you're telling me I should be commenting on something else, precisely the behaviour I described for History2007. My point is made. Go read some books on logic and consistency. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't even read my post, did you? (Seeing how you initially had me confused with History2007, I'm pretty sure of it). WP:Weasel no more applies to "virtually all" here than "Biologists agree" does in the Evolution article, because the sources themselves say "all/most scholars think this." Argument directly confronted and shot down, not deflected. If we are going to change it, we need sources contradicting that wording. Counter-argument presented, which you have ignored. Get over your WP:IDHT and accept that your argument was wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard, and I know you're wrong. "Virtually all" is WP:WEASEL. Plain and simple. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then go over to Evolution, and place weasel word tags next to "Biologists agree..." It's no different.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This is getting bizarre. Firstly, as Ian.thomson said, the statement on "virtually all" scholars of antiquity is based, almost literally, on a reliable source. Thus, "virtually all" is not a weasel word but a statement explicitly in line with the requirements of WP:RS/AC. Secondly, History2007 is not asking for proof of any negative - he's asking for proof of the existence of a significant minority of scholars disputing Jesus' existence - such as a reliable source stating, "There is a significant number of scholars who doubt Jesus ever existed." How is that a negative? Such sources apparently don't exist, and therefore we need not couch our sourced statement about the vast majority accepting Jesus' existence in qualifiers, but that's something else entirely. I could rant on about various other points, but most of them already have been made by History2007, Ian.Thompson and Farsight001. I'll just say that I'm much less sure than History2007 about Nittoditto's status as a sockpuppet (I'd expect Lung salad would by now have flown into a rage about Catholic bias and censorship), but that doesn't mean Nittoditto's arguments hold any more water: He correctly pointed out that we should cover the evidence about Jesus' existence, and we already do. So far, so good. But his claims about the "Magical Religious Figure" ignore what the article currently says on existence and are a straw man (unless he holds that being a "Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate" is the same as being a "Magical Religious Figure"). Huon (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The SPI conclusion was that Lung salad's check is stale, because Lung salad edited too long ago. It does not say if he was or not. But let me note that he did not deny being a puppet. FYI, there were a couple of other clues that he is not aware of upfront that made me recognize him very quickly, but I will not type what they are here, of course.

 * Regarding the discussion with HiLo on the "virtually all" that is a really peripheral issue, for it does not even discuss the substance of the discussion, namely that in effect, scholars who deny existence can be counted on one hand, with a few fingers to spare. That statement seems to be opposed by no source we have ever seen, and supported in multiple sources. History2007 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

From the Year of Death section:

Isaac Newton was one of the firs astronomers to estimate the date of the crucifixion Anaheyla (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thank you for pointing it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that there are "less than a handful" of scholars of antiquity who oppose the existence of Jesus?
To get back to the point, let us clarify the following issue:

 * Are there any sources whatsoever that dispute that there are "less than a handful" of scholars of antiquity who oppose the existence of Jesus?

 * Is any editor aware of a list of more than a handful of modern scholars of antiquity who continue to dispute the existence of Jesus?
 * I for one am not aware of more than a handful, if that many, and of those Davies only argues that mythicism should be taken seriously as a possibility. Price goes further, but only a little because while he believes the case for mythicism is stronger than historicy, historicity remains a serious possibility. He is fond of saying things like "who the heck knows though", treating the matter as unknowable to the degree we might want to know it.
 * Note that I'm not challenging the truth of the statement about "scholars of antiquity" here (although I do doubt it), I'm challenging its verifiability. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * There may be a confusion here about WP:CON being only an internal policy, as stated above. It is not an external policy, and does not apply to academic statements, as above. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll go and find the relevant policy page. Note that at long last you have finally started to reply to my substantive arguments. This is the sort of argument I was asking for. Not conceding the point yet, but I'll go and have a look. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the central issue, and I have seen no sources that dispute that hardly any Myth theory scholars that dispute existence remain nor have I seen a longer list of Myth theory scholars who deny existence anywhere in the literature, or on Wikipedia.
 * Agreed, and I wish that was all the article said. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And your source for that would be...? History2007 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My source for what? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For "I wish that was all the article said." History2007 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh, don't you mean you want me to address how I think the article says more than that? I don't need a source for expressing a wish.Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

 * Wow, could you put your POV more blatantly on display? Let me first assure you, you can remain a good Christian even if you can't prove that Jesus existed. God just wants you to believe it. So don't be so desperate to prove it. And you're doing it again. You seem to want to go down the path of saying "Because nobody among the handful of editors watching here can show me such a list, no such list exists." Sorry, such a double negative approach is not a valid way to use reliable sources. If, however, you found a truly impartial, independent, reliable source saying that 98% (or whatever) of objective scholars say that Jesus existed, all would be fine. But you won't find such a source. Impartial and independent would mean not Christian and already biased, as you are. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Let me provide a suggestion here: focus on content, not the other editors. Now, I did not employ the type of logic you suggest about the list. Trust me, I used to be a logician. We do have sources that say that virtually all scholars of antiquity support it.

 * The reason I mentioned the list and asked for opposing sources is that if those scholars had been "way off the mark", someone in the opposing camp would have written: "Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. are mad, because scholars A, B, C, D ... Q and myself oppose it." No one in the opposing camp has stated that. So any attempt at suggesting that Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. are ignorant or biased will hence be set back because such arguments to paint them as ignorant/biased will be seen as "source free" and based on personal opinion.

 * In any debate among scholars, there are always (I mean always) opposing sides. And the opposing scholars on each side criticize the views of the others. If the assessment of Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. had been off the mark, there would have been screams among the opposition. Now, there is silence among the tiny opposition. Think of this way if someone writes "virtually all scholars agree that there is no global warming", would that not create screams among the opposition? Would you not find opposing sources? But just accusing the author of being biased because he may be against global warming has no basis here, in case all pro-warming people have already conceded. That is the case here.

 * And as a side note, interestingly, you did not provide "any sources" to dispute the statement of the overview by Ehrman/VanVoorst/etc. History2007 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This everlasting and boring debate continues to continue because of the deliberate blurring of two completely different issues: Issue 1) Was there a 1st century Jew named Jesus/Jeshua/? who preached a semi-Jewish message around Nazareth/Jerusalem and got himself executed by the Romans, vs Issue 2) Was there a 1st century incarnated divinity working miracles around Nazareth/Jerusalem who deliberately sacrificed himself to ransom mankind from death and bring them/us eternal paradise? "Virtually all" scholars who bother to hold an opinion on the first issue seem to support the existence of the Jewish preacher, but a large number of serious scholars actively deny the validity of the second issue. It however seems to comfort some people to erroneously conflate scholarly support for the first issue with support for the second issue. If the article could be allowed to clearly distinguish between the two issues, we could all move on. Wdford (talk)
 * (ec, and apparent partial mind meld) I think the question is somewhat ill-posed, because "the existence of Jesus" can be interpreted to mean anything from "the existence of a person named Yeoshua (or variants) in palestine around the the beginning of the first millenium" to "the existence of an apocalyptic Jewish preacher baptised by John the Baptist and executed by the Romans" to "the existence of the Son of God, born of a virgin, wandering the Earth (and the waters), turning water into wine (now that's a useful parlour trick!) and the whole shebang". The first is not seriously disputed by anybody, the second is plausible but likely wrong in some aspects, the third is very very implausible. Either Jesus is a complete literary invention, or there is a historical core onto which later Christian stories have been grafted. Most scholars think there is such a core, but they differ quite a bit about the size of this core. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

 * As an interesting side note, to confirm the theme of the statements above, various scholars reject the names of the disciples from a historical perspective and some think there were 12 of them, but that no one knows their names via historical analysis. Some scholars do not agree that there were 12 disciples, etc. but accept the existence of some disciples, etc. Others hold that there were never any disciples. So historicity is a separate issue from biblical interpretation and scholars distinguish the issue of historicity from the discussion of biblical narrative. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The article says that all scholars agree he was baptised, crucified, and had disciples. So, History2007 is sort of proving my point. History2007 does raise an interesting point. If the person who actually existed is not what most people mean by the term "Jesus", is it really fair to say that Jesus existed? Can somebody who wasn't baptised and had no disciples really be said to be Jesus? An interesting topic.... Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is an interesting point. If he had no disciples, who was he? But as is the article says that almost all scholars agree on existence, baptism and crucifixion, and that the gospels say he had disciples. The only 3 items agreed on are the walked/baptized/crucified items. As a side issue, it is the Crossan camp that says he had no disciples, but had many followers that changed over time and he never selected 12 apostles and 70 disciples among them. Their "portrait" is of some preacher who imposed no organizational hierarchy but wanted a flat organization. But then I always find Crossan's comment funny: "scholars who write biographies of Jesus, think they are doing biography, but are often doing autobigraphy". Although the portraits are different, they do have a lot of overlap in many cases. The crucifixion by Pilate part is however, a more certain identifier, given the reign of Pilate, etc. But the real analysis often takes place not by reading the gospels, but the many intermediate documents. As stated above G. A. Wells changed his mind after the Q source issues had been explained in response to his views. So just reading the gospels is not part of the analysis, and different scholars use different reasoning methods to arrive at the conclusion. But I have a feeling that the "identification issue", although interesting, is beyond the scope of this page and could only be addressed in a long separate article on its own. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * You lot really are having a lovely little love-in right here, aren't you? The only reason I can see for the existence of the last few posts is that some of you feel the need to say to yourselves "Jesus existed, so it supports my Christianity". Guys, you don't need to think that way to be a good Christian, and you don't need to post that love-fest above. Just stick to making this a better article. And forget your beliefs when deciding what's important for Wikipedia. That's probably what irks me the most here, the determination by some here to prove that Jesus existed. It's not actually important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Following the example set by other articles, the current phrasing "virtually all" is just fine
The evolution article outright says "Biologists agree (evolution is a fact)" without saying which biologists, but "(all competent) biologists."
 * 1) If someone came into that article and said "not all biologists agree," we'd ask for a source demonstrating that a notable number of (competent and respected) biologists disagree. - No such source has been provided
 * 2) If someone said that "(all) biologists" is weasel, we'd point out that the source says "all biologists." - We have 6 sources, and they're not being accepted by a the lunatic fringe who refuses to provide sources for their position.
 * 3) If someone said that the article was being controlled by atheists or agnostics, and that the atheists or agnostics were incapable of a discussion about the bigger picture, we'd dismiss them as a bigot. - And yet, NittoDitto and HiLo48 have not been told to quit attacking other editors.
 * 4) If someone ignored/dismissed the Christians in the discussion, or the Christians cited in the evolution article, to continue to push their previous "point," they'd be considered tendentious. - Only 2 of the 6 sources cited are by Christians, only half (at most) of those in this discussion ID as Christian.
 * 5) Anyone joining this someone in this behavior would be rebuked. - And yet HiLo48 continues to miss the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * "Robert E. Van Voorst (born 5 June 1952) is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan, and has published scholarly works in early Christian writings and New Testament Greek. He received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College in Holland, Michigan, his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He has served at Lycoming College (Methodist)" Eerdmans is a Christian publishing house. Are there any academic, peer-reviewed articles? Humanpublic (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Actually WP:RS does not work that way, specially given that Van Voorst is not expressing his own opinion on the existence of Jesus, but doing a headcount of the other scholars. I think you need to read WP:USEBYOTHERS regarding Van Voorst. Try this anyway, then note that on page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence." And Eerdmans is an absolutely solid publisher used across Wikipedia as a WP:RS source. I think this is beginning to run into what Ian Thomson called a separate standard now. And again, Van Voorst is not expressing his own opinion about the existence of Jesus, he is just counting the number of scholars on each side of the debate. Is that clear? His book is acknowledged as the standard reference by atheists and Christians alike. If there is anyone who knows all the sources and all the scholars of antiquity on the issue better than the others, it is Van Voorst. So can Van Voorst count up to 5? You tell me... History2007 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, there's James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press. That's certainly along the lines of academic and peer-reviewed.
 * Many of the citations are pretty big names, and shooting them down (or even providing good evidence against the historical existence of Jesus) would advance someone's career. There is a gap in history that (so far) can only be filled if there was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea about two millenia ago named Yeshua. His exact personality or teachings cannot be known, but the following this individual developed, as Alexander the Great and others developed, leaves the existence of this person as equally unquestioned. Looking for an article in a scholarly journal trying to prove or disprove the historical existence Jesus is like looking for an article proving or disproving the existence of Alexander, Siddhartha Gautama, or Socrates. As with evolution, the existence of those individuals are considered known facts, it's just the exact details that we're trying to perfect.
 * (And if anyone wants to consider that OR, the above is pretty much a summarizing paraphrase of the prologue to John Dominic Crossan's "The Historical Jesus.") Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Do historians even do peer review or have scholarly journals? I feel like this is along the lines of what I said earlier - people trying to jam the round peg of history through the square hole of scientific inquiry.Farsight001 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals. Certain things are accepted a little sooner with history because the level of skepticism required for physical sciences would reduce all historical knowledge before the 20th century to maybe a dozen books.  There's also how cross-disciplinary history is.  It's a field that combines linguistics, geography, textual criticism, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and archaeology; and welcoming enlightenment from architecture, chemistry, weaponry, etc, depending on what you're discussing.
 * I highly doubt that any of them would have articles trying to prove or disprove the existence of Jesus, anymore than a biology journal would be looking for proof or disproof of evolution these days (it's accepted as fact by the mainstream, it's the details that are being settled). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER: Is this section contributing anything towards making this a better article? Or is it more about attacking some editors? If it's the former, you'd better change the section title. If it's the latter, just drop it! HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is addressing some unacceptable behavior in this thread, and has continued discussion for why the current phrasing is acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And you accuse me of having a battleground mentality! LOL. What I have is a different view. So change the fucking title of this little chat! HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What you have are bad-faith accusations of bias made because a couple of editors in the discussion are Christian, a refusal to listen to opposing views, and an inability to accept the consensus that many non-Christians have defended. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to change the title? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I could not have said it better. So I think it is time to stop grasping at straws. That is the scholarly consensus confirmed by a wide range of sources, we should end this extremely long discussion and move on. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As an outsider to this debate, I agree with the above and certainly with DGG's reading. A lot of time has been wasted on a pretty clear-cut issue and it is indeed time to move on. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me note that my sincere concerns have not been addressed, and I'm very disappointed with the rhetoric coming from various sides. Neither have people explained their reasons for objecting to my proposed changes in wording. Had they done so, we could have had a constructive discussion. Instead I have been falsely accused of doubting the academic credentials of the various sources, when I have repeatedly explained that is not what I'm doing. It's sad that people can't let go of their personal biases and insist on pushing a point of view instead of neutrally reporting on views held by notable sources. For now I'll simply give up on this page, as I cared more about the general principle anyway. I do not concede the sources are not flawed for the statement they are intended support as opposed to a more limited statement, and reserve the right to take a stand on other pages where the discussion may generate more light and less heat. Some of you, you know who you are, ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I object to your proposed changes in wording because their only effect to me seems to be to cast doubt on a statement that's universally accepted and backed up with multiple reliable sources. We have repeatedly explained that Van Voorst and Ehrman are reliable sources not just for a "more limited" statement about biblical scholars only but for the wider scholarly community. Your position seems rather inconsistent to me. If you claim that Ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about when he speaks of the consensus among the scholars of antiquity (a claim that was rejected by multiple other editors including DGG at RSN), you cannot use that statement you just declared unreliable as a source for what Ehrman in your opinion should have said but didn't. Huon (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How would the wording I proposed cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus? I don't think it would and agree it shouldn't. As for you "explaining" something, I'd say you merely asserted it forcefully. As for conformance, all the quoted sources use their own radically different wording and I see no reason to prefer Ehrman's formulation to that of the other sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All of this has been said back and forth "man many times" just above, and is really repetitive now. In Wikipedia discussions not all parties reach 100% agreement, so you may yet object, but that is the nature of debate, even after it has reached a natural end. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect unanimity, nor should we require it. I would like to see people make a sincere effort to answer my questions however. If that happened above I certainly couldn't find it. I'd really like an answer since I'm making a sincere effort and have stated my concerns and asked about other people's concerns. It seems to me you are ducking the questions. I'd be happy to be mistaken about that. Specifically, I'd like to know how my proposed wording could cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus, having agreed it shouldn't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I am sorry Martijn Meijering, but myself and other editors have answered that so many times in so many ways that we are running over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here, with you still objecting after all of this. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Humour me. How could anyone take "Virtually all biblical scholars agree that Jesus existed" as casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus? Add historical-critical if you prefer. Or else, how about "Very few scholars disagree Jesus existed"? Or how about choosing Grant's formulation instead of Ehrman's? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please read the discussion we had about the largest lake in Europe vs the largest lake in Eastern Europe. This is really repetitive now. We discussed that above. So I will not respond to this point again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Erhman, Price, Grant, and Burridge just say "scholars," Van Voorst says both "biblical scholars" and "classical historians." It isn't simply Biblical scholars, it's a variety of scholars who handle things relating to antiquity, hence "scholars of antiquity." Focusing purely on biblical scholars would be undue weight and would be downplaying how widespread the acceptance is in the academia. That is not a dodge, that is presenting a reason to leave it as scholars of antiquity (sources just saying "scholars", WP:DUE) and a reason not to go with "biblical scholars" (WP:UNDUE). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian Thomson, as discussed above largest lake in Europe is not the same as largest lake in Eastern Europe. But we have all said this to Martijn Meijering a few times now. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, fair enough about what the sources say, so what about using just "scholars", or Grant's formulation or just "Very few scholars disagree Jesus existed"? As for downplaying, that is indeed the crux of the matter. If a wide variety of scholars have indeed studied the issue, then we must not suggest it has mostly been historical-critical biblical scholars or even just fail to mention the others. Similarly, we must not state or suggest that there have been many scholars outside historical-critical bible scholarship who have asserted historicity if that isn't in fact the case. And I believe that in fact there haven't been many. Grant, Akenson and Wells come to mind, but very few others. I'd love to hear if there are more, do you think there are many? Can we at least agree that we must not overstate the consensus either, even if we disagree that it does? And can we agree that my concern about overstating is just as valid as your concern about downplaying? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I think Huon explained the problems to you just above here. History2007 (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Martijn Meijering, reducing "scholars of antiquity" to "biblical scholars" in the sentence you cite above in deviation from the sources, not one of which draws the circle of supportes of historicity as narrowly as you want to, doesn't directly cast doubt on the historicity itself, but on the scholarly consensus about historicity. That's in the same vein as your other suggestion, attributing that statement about the consensus to Ehrman although roughly a half-dozen others agree with him and no one disagrees that the consensus among all scholars is that Jesus existed. There's simply no need to couch our coverage on the consensus in such qualifiers unless we want to give the impression that the consensus is less widespread than our reliable (yes, reliable even for that statement!) sources say it is. We might arguably just use "scholars" instead, but I've yet to see any rationale for why we should do so except (rejected) claims that Ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about. In my opinion, "scholars of antiquity" is unambiguous, sounds good and is supported by a source using that exact phrase, so we should use it too.
 * Now you might be right that comparatively few scholars other than the biblical ones have published on Jesus' existence; I don't know (and you haven't provided a source). But so what? Van Voorst explicitly includes classical historians in the consensus and Ehrman speaks of all "scholars of antiquity". Even if the community of historians who care about Jesus' existence may be small, the consensus among them is still that he existed. We simply cannot overstate the consensus as long as what we say is based on reliable sources, with no opposition in other reliable sources. And once again I cannot see any point in discussing the relative sizes of the different groups that all agree Jesus existed unless the purpose is to imply that most of them are "just" biblical scholars and don't really count, which leaves only a comparatively small remainder - thus turning "virtually all scholars of antiquity agree" into "it's just a few individuals" - a case of non-neutral synthesis or even unsourced personal opinion if ever I saw one. If all biblical scholars tomorrow spontaneously combusted, the consensus among the remaining scholars would still be that Jesus existed - it would just become a consensus among a smaller group.
 * This rant is about as thorough an explanation as I think I can manage. Huon (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I think Martijn Meijering is obviously running over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here, repeatedly saying the same things, repeatedly getting explanations from multiple users and then saying similar same things again and again. This needs to end per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before we all die of old age. If this is not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then what is. History2007 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

We definitely cannot move on, as you haven't answered the basic objection. The majority of "neutral" experts cited in this article are not neutral. The majority are Christians. There is no peer-reviewed source at all, that I can see. Can we get this article to the point where 50% of the sources didn't get their degrees from seminaries and Bible colleges? Humanpublic (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that a degree from somewhere other than a seminary or Bible college is more valid? This would be like saying "Can we get it to the where this article isn't 50% sourced by people from MIT or Berkeley" for an article about engineering.ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no policy in Wikipedia that members of a religious group can not be used as sources for articles on that religion. So Buddhists can be used as sources about Buddhism, Jews about Judaism, etc. That issue has been separately mentioned on WP:RSN on a number of occasions, even unrelated to this. So books published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem are fine for Judaism articles, because that is a good, highly respected university. Books by iUniverse are not OK anywhere, however. So the demand by Humanpublic is not based on any Wikipedia policy. And again, the scholars in question are not (repeat not) expressing opinions on the subject beyond counting. All they are doing is an exercise in arithmetic, and as discussed above there are no sources that oppose the statements anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I don't think books are usually peer-reviewed like journal articles, but that doesn't make them unreliable. The publishers for those sources, including Eerdmans, HarperCollins, Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press, tend to be among the most reputable we could hope for. InterVarsity Press is probably among those most prone to pro-Christian bias, but ironically they published mythicist Price's book which does acknowledge the consensus on existence while arguing against it. Regarding the Christian majority: Do we even know that many non-Christians who have voiced opinions on the scholarly consensus? Feldman may have said something about the subject, but I don't know where he did (if he did). And Ehrman, Grant, Dunn, Burridge and Stanton all held professorships at universities that can hardly be called "seminaries and Bible colleges" - at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Belfast, Durham, King's College London and Cambridge, respectively. Of those five, only Ehrman has his degrees from a theological seminary, and he changed his religious position afterwards. That's quite a number right there. Huon (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I didn't say Christians can't be used as sources. I said they aren't neutral. Obviously, Christians aren't neutral about Jesus. People from MIT and Berkley don't believe in any engineering solution like Christians believe in Jeses, so that analogy is moot. Humanpublic (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

 * It is not moot. Please take a look at Saltwater and freshwater economics. As you can see there there are scholars (some with Nobel prizes in hand) from Stanford and MIT who argue against scholars from Chicago and Carnegie Mellon (also with Nobel prizes in hand). In that case you have scholars from major universities opposing each other. Here there are hardly any well known scholars in opposition. History2007 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. 1) Being from Stanford or Chicago is not (jokes aside) having a religious belief. Christians are inherently biased about Jesus Christ's existence. Economists are not so biased about economic models (jokes aside). 2) As for the rest of you analogy, I accept it. This is like economists from one school advanced one theory, few other economists said anything about the theory one way or the other, and a Wikipedia article asserted "virtually all scholars agree." Then, in response to objections, editors such as yourself would point out no scholars disagree. Please stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 * We do not agree. You just do not know people from Chicago school of economics. For them macroeconomics is a religion. Macroeconomic debates can be hotter than religious debates, and accusations of bias can be pretty strong there. But I will say no more this issue, per your stop request. We are not going to agree. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I meant stop misconstruing and dodging the point. An economist believing a certain economic model is not like Christians worhsipping Jesus (jokes about economists aside). A consensus that is mostly Christian should not be represented as "all scholars agree", regardless of whether you can find large numbers of scholars who disagree. Humanpublic (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Christians are biased as to beliefs about whether Jesus was God -- the existence of a Galilean preacher named Jesus are not so controversial, and historically wasn't accepted by all Christians. To correct your twist on the economist analogy, it isn't one school of economics pushing an idea, other schools not commenting on it, and opposing schools being ignored, it is one school taking an extreme view on an idea most other schools accept less extreme views of as fact, with only a few real economists questioning the validity of the idea (and some preachers with degrees in cow-fucking arguing the idea is irredeemably Objectivist, many going on to argue that it's all an Illuminati plot).  For the Wikipedia article on the idea, we would cite the majority of the schools' agreeance on the validity of idea (clarifying that only that one extreme school thinks the idea cures cancer), give some small mention to any notable nay-sayers, and treat the preachers as fringe theorists.
 * The absence of evidence is usually accepted as the evidence of absence. Without evidence to the contrary, "virtually all scholars" stands.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, Ehrman, our source for "virtually all scholars", is not himself a believer in Jesus (as opposed to believeing Jesus existed). And we have sources explicitly saying the cosensus holds among non-Christian scholars, too. Huon (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 * If all other schools of thought agreed, it would simple to find academic, peer-reviewed, non-Christian factual references to the existence of Jesus. One would expect them to be plentiful. One would expect them to be used as sources here in proportion to their prevalence in the world. In fact, none have been given at all. The point that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence is accepted: there is an absence of evidence that professors of history in non-religious universities, with non-religious training, believe it is a fact that Jesus existed. The evidence of that absence is that nobody can find any. Ya'll keep claiming "virtually all scholars" regardless of background, but you exclusively cite either popular books, professors with a religious background, or non-historians. Please find academic work by historians not in Christian publishing houses, to substantiate the "an idea most other schools accept" claim. Humanpublic (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * No, you are not reading the discussion above, just repeating the same thing. There are non-Christian sources here, and they are WP:RS, and follow policy. And multiple editors have told you this again and again and again - but you do not seem to be listening anyway. If there had been a major opposing camp among scholars, they would have written something objecting to that statement - none has done so as far as anyone can tell. As stated before and also on WP:RSN, if someone wrote "virtually all scholars agree that there is no global warming", it would have resulted in screams among the opposition. The opposing scholars (not that many anyway) are silent here, for they have already conceded that issue, and there are so very few of them anyway, as discussed repeatedly on this talk page. I am sorry, but this discussion is beginning to sound like a broken record player. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * You're being tendentious. There are no peer-reviewed, non-religious sources here at all. I didn't say there is a "major opposing camp." The refutation of "all scholars agree" is not merely "many scholars oppose." It is that not all scholars agree. It is what I said a week ago: This is like economists from one school advanced one theory, few other economists said anything about the theory one way or the other, and a Wikipedia article asserted "virtually all scholars agree. Then, in response to objections, editors such as yourself would point out no scholars disagree." How many times does this have to be said? The concern is not based on historians objecting. It is that most historians seem to say nothing about it.
 * Allow me to anticipate how you will distort this. You will say something like "Wikipedia doesn't require peer-reviewed, non-religious sources." I'm not saying that is policy. If you claim "virtually all scholars agree" you should be able to cite an abundance of peer-reviewed, non-religious sources. You've offered none.
 * Yes, it sound like a broken record, because you continually distort what is said. The refutation of "all scholars agree" is not merely "many scholars oppose." If I express no opinion, you are not entitled to say I agree. Humanpublic (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 * You are going to have to talk to yourself, I will not even respond to this. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Apparently it is civil for you to say I "sound like a broken record player" but not for me to say the same of you. Can anyone cite 5 peer-reviewed, non-Christian factual references to the historical existence of Jesus? Humanpublic (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Jesus/Archive 118