Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Historicity of Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.


Proposal to make this article more objective.

Strong claims and unclear reasoning

The article at current seems flawed to me in that it makes very strong claims, i.e. that the argument over Jesus historicity has been "settled", but then proceeds to motivate the "settling" of the argument by refering solely to the Criterion of Embarrassment. There is however no consensus within the historical community that the Criterion of Embarrassment is a strong enough tool to prove historical facts about events thousands of years ago, by itself. As such, while the claim that historicity has been settled is sourced with claims from a few scholars who seem to think so, or at least claim so, the article fails to persuasively cover why they think so, referring only to one, quite weak, argument. If the strong claims are to be kept they ought to be complemented with high-quality coverage of the strong and persuasive arguments in favor of the "settled" conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryFBonds (talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A big part of the problem is that most of the publications of "historical Jesus" scholars suffer from the very same defects: much overstated certainty and hardly any persuasive arguments. Quest for the historical Jesus#Criticism gives some idea about the field's general bias, (hidden) agendas, unhealthy dependence on consensus, and lack of sound methodolgy. To quote historian Donald Akenson more directly: "from the viewpoint of a professional historian, there is a good deal in the methods and assumptions of most present-day biblical scholars that makes one not just a touch uneasy, but downright queasy."
To once again quote from historian Dykstra's artice in which he criticizes scholars like Ehrman (our article's favourited populariser of biblical scholarship) for overstating their ideas: "To a degree greater than that in many other academic fields, you have to take pronouncements of fact by biblical scholars with a grain of salt."
Or from a more recent (2021) evaluation by James Crossley (editor of "Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus"): “The criteria of authenticity have all but been demolished, (...) and the faux “subversiveness” of unsubversive scholarly reconstructions shown to be duplicitous. (...) Currently, historical Jesus studies is far behind developments in the humanities.” Joortje1 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There is however no consensus within the historical community that the Criterion of Embarrassment is a strong enough tool"
I think it's even safe to claim that since the early 2010s there's a general consensus within the "historical Jesus" community that all of the "criteria of authenticity" are at least problematic, if not entirely bankrupt (while they are virtually unknown outside the field, and heavily criticised by the few historians who have commented on them). Joortje1 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this article is helping spread misinformation. It has informed the answer that AI gives people who ask, rather than AI giving a sceptical fair answer IZane8000 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed Language

This article, along with other related articles on the topic, possesses flaws with respect to the strong language used. Having read some of the sources, I am of the belief that the majority of scholars on the topic believe it more likely that Jesus existed than that he did not, based on the available, but limited, primary sources. But the language used in this article make it seem like this is an overwhelming fact, which it quite clearly isn't. If I say, have a bag of pebbles where 70 percent of the pebbles are brown, and 30 percent are white, the fact that I'm more likely to draw a brown pebble doesn't make it a certainty. More efforts should be made including discussions about the relevant primary evidence.

Also, if he existed historically, the claims of him being baptised and crucified have far less evidence: at this point you're more or less restricted to the bible (maybe a few other sources, but fewer). Even if this were the best hypothesis to make, the level of certainty should be clarified.

I'm afraid to say, with the current language, the article seems unscientific. I'm not denying that Jesus possibly existed, but the burden of proof lies on proving that he did, which requires more critical analysis of the evidence. 2A02:3031:17:25E9:1:1:F038:BD16 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources in Note 1 and Note 2. Experts describe the situation as such in their own words. Even irreligious one like Ehrman, Grant, Casey, etc. Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not random editor POV on the matter. Also see FAQ "Quotes" section for dozens of sources on this and "Q3" on books claiming the opposite in this talk page for your concerns. Actually read the whole FAQ since this has been answered so many times in the talk. Even mythicists like Robert Price, formerly G.A Wells, Michael Martin, etc acknowledge the consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another thing that stands out is the various appeals to authority and character attacks used in the sources. Quotes such as "No serious scholar thinks he didn't exist". It fails to qualify the uncertainty in the evidence and comes across as unscientific. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view is not to reject the consensus, rather use softer, more scientifically accurate language. I think this point has not been refuted. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether that consensus is accurate is another matter. I'm trying to reach a compromise here. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an FAQ created by editors that have a clear, strong opinion on the topic, and are unwilling to compromise, isn't a way to resolve the issue. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits diff are unwarranted and suggestive. You changed "agree" in "believe"; it's not a matter of "belief," but of conclusions based on painstakingly textual analysis. You also expanded 'CMT [...] fringe theory' with "among scholars active in the area." This is misplaced; it suggests that there are scholars, or areas of scholarship, where the CMT is taken serious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The contrary perspective is not the Christ myth theory. It's whether Jesus existed in a manner consistent with the claims written in the article.
Going on evidence from thousands of years ago definitely requires some level of belief. Questions on this matter, given the religious bias, cannot be treated with the same level of certainty, as, say, the existence of climate change.
An often used argument by you two is that "wikipedia goes by the sources". The problem is, the overwhelming body of sources used in this article are secondary sources that cite each other, rather than direct primary sources. The cherrypicking concern is not one to be readily swept away by fallacious appeals to authority. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also such strong langauge to call the CMT a fringe theory. Again, compare with climate science denial. It doesn't matter whether the technical usage of the term may be regarded as correct, more the interpretation by the lay reader. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See the policy WP:SECONDARY. Also there is no CMT scholarship anywhere in academia. A recent extensive scholarly survey of CMT literature by Maurice Casey [in Note 2] "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship...They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications." Indeed, they do not even pop up as an entry in Oxford Reference which covers all the humanities including all historical fields. It is not a view in any fields of scholarship. Here is another scholar who did a survey of the literature [1]. Ehrman says the same thing since he surveyed the literature too in his book on the topic! Van Voorst did too see Note 2. Even mythicists like Price and Martin admit that. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, appeal to authority. The secondary sources used seem unbiased: wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but those that analyse primary sources. It would be better if the quotes reflect actual scholarly efforts rather than "everybody thinks so...". The latter, in my experience, is a giant red flag in an argument. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Fringe for how wikipedia works in representing views according to their actual prominence in scholarship. Fringe views do not get equal time with consensus views in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion its not a matter of whether or not the label is correct, more the interpretation of the lay reader. Compare with climate science denial, which is more or less the canonical fringe theory. I think using this label here is a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm happy with softer language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most facts in Ancient history are based upon scant evidence. There is more reason to doubt that Julius Caesar was killed by Brutus than there is to doubt that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ancient history is a softer science. But with regards to biographical details of Caesar, there are a lot more sources, which are also more objective (coming from historians of the time period). With regards to Jesus, however, the evidence is far less, especially given the obvious bias with regards to biblical literature.
I am not saying he didn't exist, in fact, his existence may be more likely than not. But the strong language used in this article makes very bold claims, which don't match the evidence. Fallacious appeals to authority, and character arguments also make this article look unprofessional and unscientific. Which, for the lay reader, is a cause for concern. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reference, the Historicity of Mohammed article uses much better language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fallacious appeals to authority"—you might want to read WP:VERECUNDIAM, and then a handbook of logic: appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, especially when we never perform "rational argumentation" but we merely WP:CITE the views of experts.
We don't have a problem with atheists. We don't have a problem with Christians. We do have a problem with epistemically irresponsible people. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the fact that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, the problem is the way the argumentation for the historicity in this article has been carried out. The quotes included from the experts are using appeals to authority. Far better would be quotes that reflect a critical analysis of the evidence. My point isn't to make a dramatic change to this article, more use softer, more scientifically appropriate language. I don't think the logic behind my edit has been refuted. Also, please refrain from character attacks (another fallacy I might add). 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Till now, nobody else agrees with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer to numerous similar comments above in the talk history. You haven't engaged with my reasoning either. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP: perhaps Julius Caesar died by falling upon his own sword, and Brutus was scapegoated. It is unlikely, but is far more likely than Jesus not existing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the latter has far more evidence, without religious bias, and thus not an appropriate comparison. There must be a way of using a softer, more scientific tone in this article. The article on the historicity of Mohammed, for example, discusses the primary sources first, and the ones which are flawed, before stating the conclusion.
Again, I'm just trying to make the article reflect the uncertainties associated with the available evidence. Let alone the big claim that he was "baptized". I might add that the fact that the FAQ page exists at all reflects the fact that the main editors of this article do not truly reflect the consensus. I believe some compromises need to be made.
I'm not denying the sources. But let's please try to remove the tone from the article that makes his existence seem like an irrefutable fact. Especially considering the page is "historicity of Jesus" and not the biographical page. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You can doubt every fact of Ancient history through paying lip service to rationality. It does not work like that around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not denying it, more saying we should reach a compromise to use softer language. Compare with related historicity articles. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the Shakespeare authorship question—such question does not really exist among experts in that field.
You can adduce no WP:RS that what you're advocating is even remotely a mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly scolars who subscribe to CMT, e.g. Richard Carrier, and this list of his, iterating 44 different scolars in relevant fields
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420
Not questioning that the majority - or consensus, even - view amounts to that Jesus was a historical person. Just highlighting that declaring the question "settled" and then not bothering to properly account for the totality of arguments offered by the consensus majority - only the very weak argument of Criterion of Embarrassment - makes for a poor quality article that makes very strong, firm claims without bothering to properly summarize the substantiating evidence. GaryFBonds (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For people reading this, I agree with the user who suggests the tone of the article needs to change. Maybe my comment will help with the "needed consensus" Tgeorgescu asked for to make changes. Luckyvonstreetz (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. It's one of the more tonally jarring and tiring to read articles I've come across on here tbh.
Like, why does the article handwave the historicity of his miracles and resurrection twice after bringing them up? As far as I'm aware, that's often people's main point when disputing the historicity of Jesus: not necessarily that there was never any real historical figure that he corresponds to, but rather that the traditionally-believed traits of Jesus as a divine and resurrected miracle-performer are not historically (or, precluding that, scientifically) supported. I mean, one of those handwaves has a note after it with multiple lengthy, jargony, quotes that maybe kinda almost support said handwaving, but... yeah.
Also, the "criterion of embarrassment" especially seems like a funny thing to use to support historical claims, considering how often one can observe celebrities and politicians confidently telling (what should be) humiliating lies in present day lol but I digress.
Overall the article almost comes off as if it's purpose is for the reader to see one of the 100 times the article says "Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus existed," (or something synonymous), stop reading it, and stop thinking about this topic. And it's fine if they come away thinking that if it's true, but my point is that the article spends so much time restating this and also handwaving important/interesting details (or explaining them with aforementioned jargony, unwieldy notes) that it almost seems like it's trying to convince the reader (and it's own author) via sheer repetition. Basically it just needs to be more concise and comprehensible, and it could probably be written in a less overly-factionalizing way. TheWorldWeKnew (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There most certainly is not "more reason" to doubt Brutus' hand in the murder of Julius Caesar; there is an equal amount of reason to disbelieve both, though if anything there is actually less reason to doubt Brutus' involvement than that of Jesus' existence, insofar as primary sources regarding Caesar's assassination come from mere decades after the fact, while the vast, vast majority of records of Jesus as a real person come from centuries after. What's more is that these records come from contemporary historians, officials in the Roman governing and educational body, etc., whereas basically all "evidence" of Jesus' existence come from religious figures that have a clear bias in recounting his existence at all. The closest one can come to the evidence of Julius Caesar's assassination, in terms of actual records from professional and at least somewhat contemporary sources, is the records of Tacitus. Even there, Tacitus was born a quarter century after Jesus' supposed execution, and he writes from a secular standpoint, more as a prelude to expanding upon Nero's persecution of Christians than anything--something this very article fails to mention, despite mentioning Tacitus as a reliable source. Kyuubi no Bakamaru (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name five reasons for Brutus being one of the killers of Cesar to be more doubtful than the existence of Jesus, who only appears in the bible. I can name at least six reasons to claim that Jesus is a fictional character. If you push me, I'll go to ten. Here's one: Jesus is sold to the reader as the "messiah" guy. The "messiah" is the one that will fulfil the "prophecy" when he appears.
Jesus did not fulfil any prophecy when he turned up. He had failed and got crucified for that.And while I am at this, the second reason is his promise that he will "return soon" and then he will fulfil the "prophecy". Pretending that he was real for a moment, he never returned. He ran away and disappeared. 2000 years later, and the "faithful" are still killing each other while waiting for the guy who lied to them twice - in actual fact a few more times - to return. 220.158.190.71 (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And while I am at this, the second reason is his promise that he will "return soon" and then he will fulfil the "prophecy"." Big deal, yet another false prophet making false promises. That is not much of a reason to doubt his historicity. The List of messiah claimants is full of false prophets. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you site a single source that says Jesus absolutely existed, or that the idea he might not have is “verifiably false” that is not made by a devout Christian? There are many religious scholars who are not Christian. Certainly if such a thing is verifiably false then someone without a vested (religious even) interest would say the same. Food for thought. It’s basically like saying that some guy Carl ate a churro at the San Diego zoo the other day, and any other claim is verifiably false because these five guys who believe in Carl are always talking about it and they all say that they found written accounts of Carl eating a churro. How that seems valid to you is wild to me. Like do you know you’re biased here and you just really want Wikipedia to say your religion is right, or have you deluded yourself to believe that it is in fact historical fact that just happen to match mythos 2600:1007:B0AF:CE83:D9F7:706C:7D6F:B276 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems disingenuous to list Richard Carrier in Note 1, when the quote ascribed to him is a description of his former view, before he had investigated the topic himself. Regardless of how Carrier's views should be treated by this article, it seems wrong to quote him in favor of a view which he himself does not hold. 71.117.171.70 (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical that the link for Historicity of Muhammad is incorrect. And if we are to compare articles, take a look at Quest for the historical Jesus - actually, read it. The sole reason that the Historicity of Jesus-article exists is because people keep arguing that there was no historical Jesus, and that that all scholarship on this topic is wrong and biased - augh... Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its feel that you haven't understood my point at all. My point of view is to not enter an edit war, but to try and reach a consensus with regards to the language used in this article, which is a poor reflection of the actual certainty with which claims can be made. Again, I'm not arguing that he did not exist, more the fact that, if the burden of proof lies with establishing that he did, one needs to examine the evidence critically. The quotes from the scholarly consensus should reflect the critical analysis they have done, rather than them using appeals to authority. Another main reason for this is that this is a historiographical article, not a biographical one.
There was a typo in the link I have provided, but I think it's unambiguous enough to find the article I intended. Again, character attacks are a fallacy, I feel that you would do better to use a nicer tone with other editors. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's more typical that Joshua Jonathan points out a mistake that simply concerns choosing the transliteration "Mohammed" that is preferred in several other languages instead of the English one?
Thanks for reminding me to have another look at Quest for the historical Jesus. The large section on Criticism has plenty of useful info like "The historical analysis techniques used by Biblical scholars have been questioned" and "A number of scholars have criticized historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" (all with reliable sources of course). Your remark "Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right?" seems spot on to me, but probably not in the way you meant it. Joortje1 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a better look at that article; what the Criticism-section says is that any "reconstruction" of a historical Jesus is hardly possible. That's why this article says there's 'almost universal consent' about only three facts: he existed, he was baptized, and he was crucified. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. None from that section refer to historicity, so none of it applies here. But also noting that checks and balances are mentioned there too. Just a side note, there are no universal historical methods among historians and their views on objectivity have declined. They recognize this, which is why historical research diversified in the twentieth century across the board (Georg Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge). And why we have various histories on race, gender, politics, and national narratives. But there are basic agreed upon facts in each field, however. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we state "Standard historical criteria are used", don't describe the currently used methodologies beyond "research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible", and thus merely suggest that the criteria are standard fare in some unspecified scholarly discipline(s) that discern(s) historical facts from myth?
Oh wait, we also mention one specific criterion as an argument for 2 'facts' (as far as I could find between all the claims about consensus versus fringe, because why would be bother explaining more about methodologies as long as there is a virtually absolute scholarly consensus?
Certainly it's more important to ignore the immense criticism on these criteria (mainly from within the academic discipline itself) because the general scholarly methodologies simply don't apply to historicity, right? And this contributes to the objectivity of the article, right? Joortje1 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so because no matter what methods they employ or what conclusions they come up with on a particular portrait of Jesus, they at least agree that Jesus existed. That is the point. Each discipline has criteria, but it is usually is very broad like use sources. Obviously using sources is pretty standard stuff. Sometimes they use stuff from memory studies too or methods from archeology too. But that does not alter such basics like existence. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't just claim existence, but also that he was baptised and crucified. I was only proposing modifying the language to make it softer, given the burden of proof is on proving these claims. I'm not denying scholarship or doing research. Also, one should be careful when one cites secondary sources not to cherrypick, which may be a concern with this article. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add a more practical thought: anybody can help make this artcile more objective by editing it, even in very simple ways, and hopefully without as much push-back as we receive when we put a proposal for change or a question on the talk page (unfortunately some active editors seem extremely strict on "we go by what the sources say" and don't appreciate any wp:commonsense editorial judgement, so we'll just have to try what sticks).
There are plenty of small adjustments that can put some of the cited claims into perspective, or just make some statements slightly more factual (for instance the profession of the claimants, whether a book is a popular one or a peer-reviewed academic publication for a reputable mainstream publisher, or the date for some sources that are more than just a few decades old, or even a change from present to past tense for at least the deceased authors).
Some claims leave out a bit of relevant context, which may therefore stick out to critical readers, so we can check the sources for additional thoughts that may put things back into perspective. Joortje1 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR or WP:SYN. It is the policy that we stick to what the sources say. Also multiple editors have already addressed this to you including you imposing your personal views of scholarship on the article in previous sections here in the talk. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary header #2

Yes, of course, why do you think we wouldn't keep the guidelines in mind?
I basically gave the advice to check the verifiability and to WP:MINE the cited sources.
WP:RS: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process”. And of course there's WP:5P5, especially WP:COMMONSENSE and also WP:CSIOR.
Could you maybe consider when your ad infinitum standard replies may go over the fine line between [insert your reason for reply here] and WP:LAWYERING or WP:HEAR, or maybe a bit of WP:OWN?
You know I backed up my "personal" views with some RS that may actually deserve some place on the page. But you personally brought up these mainstream peer-reviewed volumes that seem to be even more reputable and much more critical of biblical scholarship:
-On the Historicity of Jesus by historian Richard Carrier (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press)
-Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers, available to active wikipedians via WikipediaLibrary) (note that wikipedia explicitly calls the academic discipline that Lataster worked in "Objective study of religion", although it has nonetheless been criticised for imposing a theological Christian agenda.
Sorry for being slow with reading and processing all that information (between other tasks and distractions), but is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article (despite that Carrier-quote in this thread)? Joortje1 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried doing so. Even a very small edit like "a large consensus of historians believe it is likely that Jesus existed" has been met with stubborn pushback. I can't understand what the issue is, surely there's no certainty in the matter. The common response is often a dubious comparison to some other historical figure. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article - yes, because it is a fringe-view, rejected by 'virtually all acholars of the topic'. Carrier and Lataster are treated at the CMT-page, to which this page links; Bart Ehrman, among a few others, has been so kind to spend his valuable time at explaining why this is a fringe-view; most scholars won't even bother to do so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quantify how many scholars there are working on the topic, and what "virtually all scholars" means? I believe this should also be critically examined. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See:

Carrier was guided by his ideological agenda, not by serious historical work, which is most evident in his readings of Paul’s epistles. In addition, Carrier’s underlying assumption about the development of Jesus’ tradition in the 1st century is completely wrong. His theses are utterly misplaced without any positive evidence in primary sources. Hence, it is no surprise that Carrier hasn’t won any supporters among critical scholars.

Regarding Lataster's book, I can't even find it on Google Scholar. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Multiple editors besides me such as User:Mathglot, User:Jeppiz, User:desmay have already mentioned to Joortje1 that fringe scholars like Carrier and Lataster are WP:UNDUE per the WP:Fringe guidelines multiple times. It is obvious that the publisher DOES NOT make anyone mainstream. Any more than if David Irving were to get a peer reviewed publication for Holocaust denial, somehow would make his denialist fringe views mainstream or even accepted by the mainstream. Creationists get peer reviewed papers all the time, but are not featured in the Evolution article for example. Nor are holocaust deniers featured in the holocaust article. Mythicist Robert Price describes how scholars view CMT - "as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings." Thanks for those sources too. Marko's source clearly says "Although such theories have long been rejected by scholars regardless of their worldview (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics)" too. Carrier of course has been extensively criticized by historians like Daniel Gullotta [2] who document a high level of criticisms from mainstream scholars of every stripe and finds his arguments as unconvincing due to "lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions" and even reaffirms fringe status of mythicism "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." He rightly observes "Scholars, however, may rightly question whether Carrier’s work and those who evangelize it exhibit the necessary level of academic detachment...Whereas mythicists will accuse scholars of the historical Jesus of being apologists for the theology of historic Christianity, mythicists may in turn be accused of being apologists for a kind of dogmatic atheism." Lataster's book was actually originally a self published book co-written with Richard Carrier [3] as Lataster notes in Questioning the Historicity of Jesus in page 24 - further linking him directly with fringe scholars like Carrier. His own views are fringe as he pretty much regurgitates Carrier throughout the book. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seven references for Lataster; a blockbuster... Review link by Christopher M. Hansen:

...one may be sorely disappointed by the lack of interaction with secondary literature in this book. Most of James D. G. Dunn’s work on Paul goes unreferenced [...] why write a book if you are unable to interact with the current scholarship and research? [...] the shortcomings that would be spotted by nearly any academic familiar with the issues that he engages [...] I cannot recommend this book for much other than rebuttal [...] its lack of interaction with leading scholarship on the issues it covers means that all of its evaluations and conclusions are wholly lacking, as they simply do not account for other prominent arguments and positions. If one is interested, I could only recommend borrowing it from a university library because the volume is certainly not worth the expense of $210.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was exactly my main problem with this article, and your wording that its clearly a false comparison to equate the contrary view on the matter with creationism or climate denial. The latter theories go against a large body of evidence, whereas here we are relying on a few sources (even fewer unbiased) and a large body of secondary sources that _interpret_ the same sources. There is a clear lack of data and independent analysis, hence the language used is inaccurate, misleading, and portrays a false certainty on the matter.
Again, this article needs more critical scholarship, and literature that reflects the analysis of the primary sources that allow one to deduce the claims, rather than appeals to a majority or authority. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you to provide those sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ramos1990 is the one who offered the reliable sources you have been criticising above. This was in reply to my quest for some works on the subject by proper historians instead of the publications cited on the page (dominated by popular stuff by biblical scholars and theologians). They indeed seem more reliable when I look at the WP:RS guideline. Joortje1 (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for using academic sources, besides your appreciation of how Ehrman has spent his valuable time (I'm sure he has been sufficiently rewarded; the perpetuation of his views on his blog alone has apparently raised over a million $, he has clearly gained a lot of fans and followers, he clearly did influence the popular opinion on mythicism (which seems to have been his primary motive), and probably the book sales made even more $ than his blog).
Especially Petterson's review is intriguing. She objects to Carrier's methodology, but mainly because she does't understand anything about 'Bayle’s Theorem". Yet in her conclusion, she says that she doesn't disagree with Carrier's views on HoJ per se. She even regards it as pretty basic undergraduate material. If most other theologians and biblical scholars maintain that such stuff is entirely fringe in the academic world, why does she think it's so basic?
I personally doubt whether Carrier's application of Bayesian probability/uncertainty math is very sound, but I haven't looked into it. At least it's an attempt to go beyond assumptions (it seems a more scholarly and definitively a more scientific approach than believing that facts can be based on ancient hearsay documented in late copies of a religious narrative dominated by supernatural aspects, let alone ignoring any counter argument and ridiculing anybody who dares to questions the "clear and certain evidence"). But hey, I'm no expert on Bayesian calculation, why don't we go by what the sources say?
Lataster clearly motivated why he mostly ignored the religious views of theologians like Dunn. I personally don't agree with keeping Christians out of the debate, as long as everybody produces reasonable arguments (not just from faith or from atheistic norms). But I must admit I also have much trouble trying to find convincing arguments in books that mainly discuss divinity, resurrection and the Kingdom of God.
Lataster's survey of some literature on the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" methodologies from outside the field of Biblical studies/theology is a useful secondary source, in addition to all the "demise of authenticity" stuff from within the field. His chapter on Ehrman's popular book is just one of many useful academic secondary sources, pointing out where Ehrman does make sense and where he doesn't. Joortje1 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One comment, I can almost guarantee any attempt of using Bayesian statistics here seems way out of place... it's a giant red flag. Almost like when you see arguments for free will that use the Godel incompleteness theorem... Is this another form of an appeal to authority fallacy? Or, in this case, a misuse of jargon fallacy? It seems like there's a lot of red flags in the source material on both sides... 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the irony wasn't lost on me (hence my "I'm no expert, why don't we go by what the sources say" remark). I'm truly not capable of judging the math involved, although perhaps a bit better than Petterson (see review cited above). I proposed to ignore Carrier's work, but somebody else rightfully pointed out that it is a recent "mainstream" peer-reviewed publication (yet she clearly doesn't intend to use her knowledge of this work for the article).
Unfortunately most sources on this topic indeed contain huge red flags (hence my talk page Topic question for material by more reliable "scholars of antiquity"). A handful of monographs on HoJ/Mythicism have been published in the last decade or so that are supposedly "academic", apparently kicked off by Ehrman's popular book breaking biblical scholarship's strict taboo/ignorance/silence on addressing the question whether J existed or not.
The only more or less objective publication I have found is historian Tom Dykstra’s 2015 survey of the literature in Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship. Part of his conclusion: "To a degree greater than that in many other academic fields, you have to take pronouncements of fact by biblical scholars with a grain of salt. And those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain toward contrary opinions are precisely the ones to be most wary about." Note that this was published in the Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies and that Dykstra is quite explicit about the "waste of time" in "the drive to answer the unanswerable" that is part of the "character of scholarly writing in the field of biblical studies". Joortje1 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really found the article by Dykstra very interesting, and perhaps the sources there indicate that the true state of the scholarly consensus is more complicated. Also, interesting to see similar themes with regards to the scholarship play out on this discussion forum... For example, it seems that one major contributor to the idea that it's ridiculous to think otherwise that Jesus existed (along with comparisons to Holocaust denial) is Bart Ehrmann.
Is there any way we can integrate this review paper (and sources therein) into the article? 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok seeing the discussion above, this seems like an uphill battle... 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dykstra

Dykstra: "I question the value of both the “quest for the historical Jesus” and the opposing quest to prove that Jesus never existed." The question of the historicity of Jesus is another question than the attempts to reconstruct this historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. He focuses on reconstructions with his comment when he says "those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain", not historicity. On historicity he says "I do not myself take a stand firmly on either side of the question." and also "The whole debate seems a lost cause for both sides". Ramos1990 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990 It's also the case that one of the central pieces of supporting evidence is the existence of many independent sources feeding into the New Testament. But the existence of such is hypothetical (with no way to prove that these sources actually exist), and also doesn't prove his existence. They would prove the existence of an early Christian community, organised around a legendary figure. My personal opinion is that it was inspired by a real figure; but the real evidence is much more tenuous than Ehrman (and others) makes it out to be. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking specific quotes from that paper out of context, much of it deals rather directly with evidence related to the historicity of Jesus. He deals with issues related to deducing historical facts from the bible, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate, and other flaws (such as, often used, character attacks).
He doesn't take a stand either way with regards to the question, because, due to the uncertainty in the evidence, historical agnosticism with respect to the matter is, to him, a more logical position. I'd definitely suggest that this is a relevant piece to this article. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's ridiculous to make comparisons between the non existence of Jesus and Creationism. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear he is not endorsing either side but acknowledges consensus too and the paper is about tolerance and respect for opposing views in the quest for the historical jesus. He says even in the end that it is a waste of time for such questions and that it proves nothing either way. He clearly is against certainty claims on both sides at the end - shoots at both - and merely says that everything is debatable and seems to suggest abandoning historical attempts on historicity. Not a prominent view on the matter in mainstream scholarship or even fringe scholarship either way. Like he observes, both use "certainty" language. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Tom Dykstra? As far as I can see, he's a historian specializing in Russian church history? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On academia his listed specialties are: "Origins of Christianity, Russian History, and Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" [4]https://independent.academia.edu/TomDykstra/CurriculumVitae
Somehow, to me personally, his 2004 PhD in History (Dissertation: “‘Josephism’ Reconsidered) alone already makes his article a relatively reliable and reputable source for a historical question about the origin of Christianity.
I'd imagine a judge who would have to decide whether Ehrman's cited statements hold true would probably rather call on Dykstra as an objective expert, than on any theologian who concentrates on Kingdom of God (Christianity) as a mission for the "historical Jesus", or a certain long deceased classicist who "read classics" at Trinity College in the 1930s (specialising in numismatics) and defended HoJ in 1977 in a popular book as a "historian", or a certain deceased popular historian/journalist who was educated at a Jesuit college and explicitly wrote his biography of J as a "believer". (note: I'm not saying we should delete the currently cited voices)
If you look at the mission of the publisher of the article, I do think the criterion of embarassment might convince people who prefer the methodologies of biblical scholars over the more mainstream historical method. Joortje1 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that it's hard to find publications on HoJ by historians (who actually studied History), I suspect that Dykstra's voice may resemble that of a silent majority. But of course it seems even harder to find sources for that idea. Joortje1 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picked and misrepresented Meggitt source

Justin Meggitt’s More Ingenious than Learned? (2019) is cited on our page. Its main point quite clearly is that doubting/denying HoJ “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome” but that it is “at the very least, a pressing, prior question for those wishing to say anything about the historical Jesus.”

The way this source is abused on our page seems a pretty good example of the wp:cherrypicking approach that may very well have been applied to most of the cited sources. Please read the following argument from Meggitt's article carefully:

“Indeed, the lack of conventional historical training on the part of biblical scholars may well be evident in the failure of any scholar involved in discussing the Christ-myth debate to mention long-established historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as History from Below, Microhistory or Subaltern Studies, approaches that might help us determine what kind of questions can be asked and what kind of answers can reasonably be expected to be given when we scrutinise someone who is depicted as coming from such a non-elite context.

For example, given that most human beings in antiquity left no sign of their existence, and the poor as individuals are virtually invisible, all we can hope to do is try to establish, in a general sense, the lives that they lived. Why would we expect any non-Christian evidence for the specific existence of someone of the socio-economic status of a figure such as Jesus at all? To deny his existence based on the absence of such evidence, even if that were the case, has problematic implications; you may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world.”

What our page takes away from Meggitt’s article: “Historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, can help assess what type of sources can be reasonably expected in the historical record for individuals like Jesus. For instance, Justin Meggitt argues that since most people in antiquity left no sign of their existence, especially the poor, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus's socio-economic status.”

We are thus misleading our readers with the suggestion that proper methodologies like microhistory have actually been applied by Meggitt and other biblical scholars/theologians. As purported conclusion we offer the rather common “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument. The notion may be valid because some mythicists indeed all too easily use an argument from silence. However, in Meggit's statement it is merely a simplistic example and not a properly researched acadamic argument (it all too easily overlooks how historians really should be sceptical and actually do express serious suspicions when ancient figures lack evidence, as for instance with Homer, or Romulus). Meggitt’s main point of the section was clearly that HoJ defenders have failed to use accepted historical methodologies if they wanted to counter HoJ denial; he was continuing his call for them to really make some effort in “raising the standard of debate”.

I'm not against countering unacademic use of the argument of silence, but I suggest that we use another source for that (I believe Ehrman 2012 says more about it, possibly even with citations of proper academic research, at least it would be in line with the main gist of the book). Let's use Meggitt's relatively nuanced and objectively voiced Cambridge University Press article to incorporate its main points at a due place on our page. Joortje1 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, if proper historical methodologies like microhistory have actually been applied to the origins of Christianity, conclusions haven’t exactly been favouring the traditional assumptions of “critical” scholarship that the Gospels would reflect oral gospel traditions from poor Galilean Jews (and/or later apostles). Instead, relatively recent reputable peer-reviewed research indicates an origin with a cultural elite firmly rooted within literary Greco-Roman traditions (see Robyn Walsh ‘’The Origins of Early Christian Literature” 2021). This actually contests many of the arguments that have been expressed by defenders of HoJ like Ehrman and Casey (in rather unacademic pop-market publications). It seems like Walsh's work has been received pretty well and that her conclusions are getting a lot of traction. Joortje1 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no; Walsh' work has received attention, but not much support; but that's been discussed before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan And where can we find that previous discussion about Walsh's study? I found nothing in the archives (no relevant search results for author nor book title). Joortje1 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Gospel#Robyn_Faith_Walsh. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of Meggit "To deny his existence based on the absence of such evidence, even if that were the case, has problematic implications; you may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world." And criticizes mythicists after that by continuing "Indeed, the attempt by mythicists to dismiss the Christian sources could be construed, however unintentionally, as exemplifying what E. P. Thompson called ‘the enormous condescension of posterity’ in action, functionally seeking to erase a collection of data, extremely rare in the Roman Empire, that depicts the lives and interactions of non-elite actors and seems to have originated from them too." Clearly he is not a mythicicst and starts off the paper with "Virtually no scholar working in the field of New Testament studies or early Christian history doubts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth". He is just saying that the question has a place, not that there is a shift in scholarship. Walsh is not a mythicist either. Mythicists do not use historical methods in general they use literary methods or philosophy for their arguments. Often anit-historical methods too like Meggit says "functionally seeking to erase a collection of data, extremely rare in the Roman Empire, that depicts the lives and interactions of non-elite actors and seems to have originated from them too." Ramos1990 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Clearly he is not a mythicicst” (sic) “Walsh is not a mythicist either.” Did anybody suggest they were? What’s the use of trying to label them in that black-or-white manner? Joortje1 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990 Yep, JM is nuanced and objective enough to include criticism for both sides of the debate, so you can of course cherrypick what fits your POV; for instance the familiar "Virtually no scholar" dogma that he used in the intro. As is rather standard practice in mainstream academic essays, Meggitt here seems to identify the problematic stance for which would like to see a “shift in scholarship”.
Usually we can find the most important points in a section called “Conclusion”, in this case for instance: “[The question of the historicity of Jesus] should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” See how that contrasts the common view that he described in the intro.
I also quoted a part of the definitive/final point of the essay: “taking this question seriously may, at the very least, prove beneficial in raising the standard of debate and the wider understanding – in fact, even self-understanding – of what New Testament scholars do and how they do it.”
What you identify as “main point” and your other quotes are in a segment that starts with the words “For example”. What do you think that means? Can you please explain how you arrive at the conclusions in your answer? Or are you just wp:gaming? Joortje1 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meggitt in the conclusion and in the intro affirms that the debate does not really exist among researchers. Most just ignore it because of the long history of failure of mythicism. He reflects in the conclusion that a limited number of specialists have even engaged in it in recent years and that it is not taken seriously. He thinks it should be taken seriously, but clearly he admits it is not. He does note on mythicists that the "consensus of experts is a very serious matter and weighs heavily against the plausibility of their position" either way. Indeed. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's play that game and go into the "Authority" segment where you got that last quote from:
JM first describes the common stance of his colleagues that he finds "perfectly understandable", but doesn't seem to like: biblical scholars' argument from authority and invocation of consensus. Then indeed: "Although some mythicists are adamant that ‘truth is not a democracy’ or complain about the ‘fallacy of consensus’, others, such as Carrier, are aware that this consensus of experts is a very serious matter and weighs heavily against the plausibility of their position."
However, Meggitt's concluding thought on that consensus: "it is not apparent what members of the ‘guild’ of biblical scholars have in common, other than a shared object of study and competence in a few requisite languages, and therefore what value an alleged consensus among them really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter." (emphasis mine)
In the end he also points out that many "carry out their scholarship in confessional contexts" and therefore don't even have the freedom to express their personal ideas.
This all sounds like much of the criticism we regularly see here on the talk pages, doesn't it? Joortje1 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most scholars do not argue from authority, they merely describe the status in their fields of research. And since mythicists have been debunked for more then 2 centuries, I don't blame them. Most researchers do not dispute or debate basics that are established. Meggitt is very different than what you are saying because for one he acknowledges a universal consensus exists by experts and specialists from all sorts of backgrounds and that mythicism has no real chance to succeed vs so many experts. He even makes an argument from microhistory for historicity, is clearly not a mythicist, and does heavily criticize mythicists (attempting to erase history, outlandish/conspiracy nature of much of their writings, how they rarely establish a cause for their theories, etc). He favors open dialogue on a dead question for sure, but most scholars are beyond that at this point. And when you read the mythicist literature it is easy to see why they are continually dismissed. They always fail to explain the origin of Christianity. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ramos1990, thank you for your well-informed and balanced rrsponses. Reading through this thread again, I notice a few points:
  • The rhetorical and aggressive choice of words by Joortje01: cherrypicking, misleading, wp:gaming;
  • The outrage over a perceived misrepresentation of Meggitt, where the summary is actually quite accurate;
  • The cherrypicking and misunderstanding of bits and pieces of one source.
All in all, it's a meritless continuation of the personal crusade against the conclusions of textual critical research with regard to the historicity of Jesus. And WP:GAMING is a gross suggestion without merit, close to warranting a warning. Interestingly, WP:GAMING says:

Gaming the system may include: [...] Filibustering the consensus-building process by [...] sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.

WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TENDENTIOUS seems to be more relevant here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I somehow thought wp:gaming also covered what I perceive as Ramos1990 raising new issues rather than addressing the main point (and thus getting us in long strings of discussions that hardly ever get resolved), but that label indeed seems misplaced.
Additional apologies if I do get a bit one-sided in my sceptical approach towards the cited sources, but I think there’s good editorial reasons for the criticism that I and plenty others have expressed here. The page just seems a bit too uncritical of the arguments of biblical scholars and theologians found in trade books, features too little peer-reviewed material, and is too dismissive of any doubt about HoJ (including the few considerations of the question by qualified historians and the few peer-reviewed volumes on the subject). I think I offered plenty of wp:rs to justify such skepticism, with a relatively high standard of wp:scholarship.
You may disagree with me, Meggitt and the dozens of PhD scholars who express doubts about HoJ (usually with serious consideration of available sources and without denying the possibility), but I think it is rather hard to deny that Meggit’s essay is mainly a call for Historical Jesus scholars to regard the question of HoJ as vital to their studies and to come up with better arguments, preferably from “conventional historical” research. Like Meggitt and many others, I’d love to see more and better academic argumentation for HoJ (the reason for me to visit our page the first time was an expectation to find good evidence). I haven’t checked all our page’s citations yet, but many of them disappoint me. This one seemed very promising and actually is rather helpful, but it doesn’t provide the historical research that I expected from what you apparently think of as a rather accurate summary. Am I being too sensitive, too harsh, too tendentious even, if I then see this as a misleading and cherrypicked representation of Meggitt's essay? Joortje1 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I’d love to see more and better academic argumentation for HoJ" But is there actual academic research on the topic? Whether one itinerant preacher and charlatan was active in Judea, among the many charlatans of his kind, does not seem to be a vital topic for Roman history. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: I think you're right (except I'd avoid needlessly offending people by calling him a "charlatan", also from a historian's viewpoint it's probably better to consider him one of many Judaic messiah figures, imagined or not)
In general, few historians seem to have interest in religion and many consider religion as problematic, as antithetical to rational thought (see: Kathryn Lofton Why Religion Is Hard For Historians (and How It Can Be Easier)) (I'm not defending a prejudice here, just read the essay)
Historian Miles Pattenden: “professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.” He confuses the matter a bit by writing that few scholars would deny “some kernel of historicity in Jesus’s figure” (and by going into the ontological question). Without researching the question it certainly remains undenied or just an assumption, and “kernel” + “figure” may not mean much more than: there were 1st century messiah-figure preachers/rabbi/sect leaders, plenty were named Yeshua.
Historian Tom Dykstra: “any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing.” He cites biblical scholar Philip R. Davies also stating that the question is unanswerable. There are plenty others from that field saying the same (for instance R. Joseph Hoffmann, after his attempt to find answers with many scholars in the failed Jesus Project, see end of that last page) Joortje1 (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What we do have that probably should be considered academic research since it's peer-reviewed:
-The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never Lived Shirley Jackson Case, (University of Chicago Press 1912; 2nd ed. 1923) (WP:AGE MATTERS, but who knows)
-On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press) by historian Richard Carrier
-Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers)
You can hardly mention Carrier without some Christians or (devotee of) biblical scholars screaming "fringe!". Lataster seems to mostly get ignored, deemed insignificant, or just labelled "fringe" or "religiophobic". Yet when I check the wp:fringe guidelines and wp:scholarship, these seem to say that peer-reviewed monographs with reputable academic publishers are the ones we should be looking at, rather than trade/pop-market publications.
As far as I've read it, Lataster hardly looks into the historical aspects, but focuses on the problems with Historical Jesus scholarship (and ends up favouring Carrier’s thesis).
Of course Carrier and Lataster are not without bias, but both seem to account for it in their work (I believe that's the solution that Kathryn Lofton suggested in the essay linked in my previous comment, but I may have to read it again). Joortje1 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A purely mythical figure

Users Joefromrandb and Joshua Jonathan: I'm not even entirely getting what this disagreement in the WP:LEADSENTENCE is about. Is it about whether to link [[myth]] (or just part of it, as in [[myth]]ical) or is it about what the terms myth (or mythical) mean, or some combination, or something else? Can you please lay it out here, so others can weigh in? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb seems to think that myth(ical) here refers to fictional, not-true, false, which is obviously not the case here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Joe I'm sure will weigh in and say what he thinks it means; but what do you believe it means? Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line does need work. When so many editors continually misunderstand its meaning, I can only imagine the confusion our readers experience. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This "disagreement" is part of a decades-long effort to word this article so as to make it look like scholars generally agree that a supernatural divine Jesus indeed walked the earth, raising the dead etc. If the many affected Jesus articles would clearly state that scholars believe a human non-divine Jesus lived around that time, there would be no issue anymore. Despite years of efforts, the line "A distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'" is still buried as best they can manage. Certain editors have spent years scratching up sources which allow them to include sentences such as "outside the reach of the historical methods" so as to allow the impression that Jesus was indeed a god on earth. This confusion would be easy to fix, if only we could get past the POV-pushing. Wdford (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who contributed most to these articles are not trying "to make it look like scholars generally agree that a supernatural divine Jesus indeed walked the earth, raising the dead etc." I don't know what this perception is based on, but it's a completely incorrect assessment.
Regarding mythical: I've changed the phrase to "mythological." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article's line "the historicity of supernatural elements like his purported miracles and the resurrection are deemed to be outside the reach of the historical methods" and much in note 3 can all too easily be interpreted as supporting a belief in miracles (some of it explicitly supports it or acknowledges that this is not uncommon in the field). This is not entirely wp:npov nor encyclopedically voiced (no matter if it can be found in some scholars' writings; many of our article's citations lead to unresearched/unacademic opinions and assumptions, mostly in trade/pop-market publications).
Several of our article's arguments are sourced from the works of theologians and Christian scholars, including evangelicals, who tend to firmly believe in divinity and miracles (without any indication that they have been able to leave their religious bias out of their work).
Despite the wp:scholarship guidelines, the rigorously researched academic arguments from the few peer-reviewed monographs on the subject are willingly ignored, as are the widely acknowledged problems with bias and lack of methodology in Historical Jesus research.
It really shouldn't be hard to figure out why people suspect the dominant editors of POV-pushing, which is a recurrent point of criticism that many wikipedians have expressed on this talk page. Joortje1 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I don't see that much wording in the article attempting to promote the historicity of divinity and miracles, I do also suspect that one or more editors have indeed been working from that perspective and made it show a bit (probably all in good faith - pun unintended). I suppose Wdford just sees it bubbling up from under the surface (or lurking just below it) a bit more than I do (see my reply to Joshua Jonathan for where I did recognised it). Joortje1 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside the reach of the historical methods" - I read that as a not so covert comment that miracles belong to the realm of belief, and have no existence in the empirical, rational world; ergo, that while people may have believed (or still believe) that he performed miracles, that that belief is precisely that: belief. The Jesus left after stripping-off the mythological layers is a person of flesh and blood, of whom we know close to nothing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"to make it look like scholars generally agree that a supernatural divine Jesus indeed walked the earth, raising the dead etc" That type of "scholars" is not worth much, their opinions do not matter. Apologists are only good for preaching nonsense to their choir. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what to do about the defence of supernatural beliefs in our article?
Our note 3, providing citations for a statement in the lead section (!), quotes "Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture" Markus Bockmuehl claiming that neglecting and downplaying the question of the resurrection "ranks alongside dogmatic denial and naive credulity in guaranteeing the avoidance of historical truth".
Ehrman's "historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles" could be forgiven if only it were true that he and other defenders of HoJ were indeed capable of "taking the position of the historian" rather than "taking the position of the believer". He may identify as atheistic or agnostic, but it shows in his 2012 popular book why his training as a biblical scholar left him so "uneducated" and why he thinks he is "self-taught in almost all the areas that I’m really interested in". Whatever he taught himself, he was happy to draw his conclusions from the "criteria of authenticity" that have basically been declared bankrupt, even within the dubious field that spawned them and is heavily dominated by protestant Christians.
The quote of Beilby & Eddy also demonstrates that it is not uncommon in the field to defend the "historicity of miracles".
Can Wdford point out more problematic lines?
I do think it's relevant to make clear within our article that this is really what plenty of scholars in the field believe, but it is voiced here as if our encyclopedia takes this position serious. Joortje1 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how you can read in Ehrman's blog that he's declared the criteria "bankrupt"? Wishfull thinking? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly didn't claim that Ehrman himself declared the criteria bankrupt, just after I stated that he was happy to apply them. Nonetheless, he was fully aware that "the criteria are problematic and coming under attack". The demise of authenticity crisis was undeniable at this point.
This biblical studies populariser obviously didn't call his own field "dubious" either (so I should just have ended the bluelink earlier), but I'll back that idea up with a quote from Maurice Casey:
“the overall result of such bias is to make the description of New Testament Studies as an academic field a dubious one” The quote follows quite soon after "This field of study, however, is largely inhabited and controlled by Protestant Christians” (so that covers the other part of my statement) and he even gives a figure of 90%. Note that the remaining 10% would have to include Catholics and probably a bunch of other people who tend to believe in the divinity of Christ. Joortje1 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I re-ordered the existing paragraphs of the lede slightly, to make is less POV. Let's see how long that lasts? Wdford (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your and JJ’s changes I think the lead looks rather good now; at least, I’m no longer confused. And the lead narrative does seem to flow better and provide a good summary of the body. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit - already discussed in these talk pages extensively

Fringe

The recent edits by Joortje1 [5] have been discussed extensively in this talk page. They are irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, or misquoted, or rebutted by other scholars and articles. Carrier is fringe, no debate on historicity in modern scholarship exists, general discussion of how any field of scholarship functions is not related to historicity (WP:COATRACK) - no source makes the claim that bias or worldview or whatever is the reason why scholars from many academic fields or worldviews (atheist, agnostic, Jewish, etc) see Jesus as existing. There are many scientists that write articles about flaws in science, but that does not mean they find science to be questionable to the extent of denial of basic information. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For "fringe": see new topic below
and also: Carrier merely compiled the cited list. There are good sources for most of those 44 scholars' opinions, basically demonstrating that not "Virtually all scholars dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence" (it might be hard to find more scholars who have made a consensus claim like this since 2014) and that CMT is not fringe.
"no source makes the claim that bias or worldview or whatever is the reason"
I believe Lataster does actually make a point of it (which previously prompted you to state that he is "anti-religious") and there must be other explicit wp:rs on this, but it's merely one aspect of the problems that make HJ scholarship basically a pseudo-scientific discipline. More important is the ignorance if not explicit rejection of sound historical methodologies (read for instance Casey 2014 on the subject), but it should be considered within this wider context.
"general discussion of how any field of scholarship functions is not related to historicity"
see the prefiously discussed Justin Meggitt and Lataster sources for discussions of the functioning of scholarship in relation to HoJ (and some other of the citations you deleted along with my recent contributions to the page). I think Carrier's "Proving History" is another detailed study of the problem.
"already discussed"
yep, but no consensus, and the same criticism about the overstated language and selective choice of sources have been expressed for years on end, apparently merely resulting in you and a few others continuing to delete anything unfavourable of the unacademic opinions that have mostly been found in the trade-market books of some biblical scholars and theologians. Joortje1 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you quit your pov-pushing? You've been dragging this on for months; your latest attempts are the addition of a cite-bomb with the implicit suggestion that the widely accepted historicity of Jesus is based on faulty methodology, and the addition of the neutrality-tag. Take note of Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove point 7:

If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. For example, neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.

It's absolutely clear that there is no support for your pov fringe-pushing; see also WP:DONTGETIT. I am considering to propose a topic-ban for you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a topic ban. Also user Jeppiz already mentions topic ban but have listed access right now. Will link ping him later. All of the points have been addressed in the talk. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot:, you warned Joortje1 before on his fringe POV pushing before and mentioned a topic ban [6]. Considering that Joortje1 keeps on filibustering using fringe sources and fringe authors and apparently still does not understand fringe policy on Wikipedia (see section below where he still thinks mythicism is not fringe - after so many discussions here on Talk and mainstream and mythicist sources both confirming fringe status), what do you think of this discussion, considering his persistent behavior to push fringe POV and waste so much time on talk as a forum (disruptive editing)? Ramos1990 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To address the 'arguments' in Joortje1's revert diff, knowing that it will be useless:

[1] "clearly not fringe: plenty of sources,
[2] many similar statements on main article Quest for the historical Jesus#Criticism,
[3] no consensus on tak pages (for years on end)"

ad 1: only a few authors argue for the ahistoricity of Jesus, and most of them are not taken serious;
ad 2: the criticism of the Historical Jesus regards the reconstruction of his person and life , not the historicity; see Donald Akenson's comment, as given at Quest for the historical Jesus#Lack of methodological soundness (emphasis mine):

"Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man Jesus of Nazareth apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices."

ad 3: there's a clear consensus, throughout the years, that CmT is fringe.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

I can't help myself (compulsive behavior?), but noticing Joortje1 added three segments, here's a further analysis:

  • Segment 1:

It has been widely acknowledged within its own academic community that “Historical Jesus” scholarship has suffered from (unrecognised) biases, (hidden) ideological agendas, and lack of sound methodologies.[14][15][16] [17][18][19] Especially since the 2010s, the often applied “criteria of authenticity” have been widely discredited and declared bankrupt.[20][21] [22] Some biblical scholars, including Bart Ehrman, have nonetheless defended the criteria as the best methodologies available to the discipline, without anything to replace them.[23]

As already noted, this segments omits the topic of criticism: reconstructions of the historical Jesus are questionable - but his existence and crucifixion are beyond doubt;
  • Segment 2:

Historian Richard Carrier maintains a growing list now (august 2024) containing 44 "scholars with actual and relevant PhDs" (alive as of 2014) who take the "Christ Myth Theory" seriously, with 17 of them doubting the historicity of Jesus or having expressed an agnostic view (as of 2024).

For me, acceptable as a note, without "historican"; CmT-author is a better predicate;
  • Segment 3:

In general, few historians are interested in religion and many consider it a space where reason is suspended.[1] Professional historians of Christianity “tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting”, even if they assume some kernel of historicity in the figure of Jesus.[2]

References

  1. ^ Lofton, Kathryn (March 2020). "Why Religion Is Hard For Historians (and How It Can Be Easier)". Modern American History. 3 (1): 69–86. doi:10.1017/mah.2019.26. ISSN 2515-0456.
  2. ^ "Historians and the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion & Ethics. 2022-01-19. Retrieved 2024-08-17.

History is a word for a certain kind of reasoning: reasoning about time, about human agency, and about material records that can provide information about humans as marked by time. For many scholars—not to mention many of those outside the academy—such reasoning is antithetical to the word religion. No matter how many books prove incontrovertibly that the authors of the Talmud engaged rigorously with Greek philosophy, or that Islamic philosophers contributed to the formation of modern scientific practice, or that evangelical readers engaged significantly with Biblical criticism, scholars of religion have not (and perhaps finally cannot) upend the common perception that religion is not a site of reasoned thought, but rather a space where reason is suspended.

Augh... Lofton does not argue that "few historians are interested in religion," on the contary; she notes that historians are interested in religion, but criticises the anti-religious attitude of many. And she does not state that "many [historians] consider it a space where reason is suspended," she states that "the common perception that religion is not a site of reasoned thought, but rather a space where reason is suspended." Such a lack of skill in comprehending texts is breathtaking... No wonder that this 'discussion' is endless.
  • "Professional historians of Christianity “tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting”, even if they assume some kernel of historicity in the figure of Jesus," "Historians and the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion & Ethics. 2022-01-19. Retrieved 2024-08-17.
  • ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
  • Author Miles Pattenden, historian, solid author.
Here's the full quote from Pattenden:

"few scholars would deny that there must be some kernel of historicity in Jesus’s figure. It is just that they might well also say that it is a stretch to claim this historical person as unequivocally equivalent to the biblical Jesus.

Ultimately, the question here is ontological: what makes “Jesus” Jesus? Is it enough that a man called Jesus (or Joshua), who became a charismatic teacher, was born around the turn of the millennium in Palestine? What additional characteristics do we need to ascribe to the historical figure to make him on balance identifiable with the scriptural one? A baptism in the river Jordan? A sermon on the Mount? Death at the hands of Pontius Pilate? What else?

Partly because there is no way to satisfy these queries, professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting.Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.

In this sense Jesus is not an outlier among similar historical figures. Other groups of historians engage in inquiries similar to those that New Testament scholars pursue, but concerning other key figures in the development of ancient religion and philosophy in Antiquity: Moses, Socrates, Zoroaster, and so on.

To repeat myself: reconstructions of the historical Jesus are questionable, but that there was a Jesus is, for most scholars, including historians, beyond doubt. Wikipedia does not argue anything else beyond that. The question how the belief in a mythologized Jesus arose is indeed much more interesting, but some people prefer to stick to issues which are not of interest to mainstream scholarship, Biblical nor historical scholars. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-inserted part of Joortje1's info, but now in a correct form diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some adjustments since one is more of a ongoing debate among scholars - no one reconstruction is agreed upon. And the other is the removal of the blog since we do need stronger sources for such claims, and not from fringe scholars. Plus Carrier mixes variables since only 17 are mythicists while the others are not and only make obvious claims of taking CMT seriously (while themselves not agreeing with it). The fact that CMT has been receiving attention and detailed responses from scholars for a long time is a bit obvious and redundant. Since at least the 1970s since G.A Wells revival, there have been numerous published serious responses, including people not on the list like Bart Ehrman and Maurce Casey. Partly because of the internet and the spread of pseudoscholarship. Ramos1990 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I still think the issue of the bankruptcy of the criteria needs more attetion, since that of "embarassment" now seems to be the main support for the 2 "facts" that biblical scholars have managed to agree upon. But my sincere thanks for more seriously considering my contributions and for re-insterting Carrier's list and a mild statement about the problem of dysfunctional methodologies. Joortje1 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990 Many of the 17 "mythicists" even take an "agnostic" stance, as my description explained. The others "have gone on record admitting that at least some theories of the origin of Christianity without a real Jesus can be plausible enough that the debate is worth taking seriously". Ehrman and Casey made it quite clear in their books that their aim was to oppose mythicist ideas from the start, that's nothing like seriously considering such theories as plausible.
"The fact that CMT has been receiving attention and detailed responses from scholars for a long time is a bit obvious and redundant"
Few seem to have given it much thought, the (mostly outdated) quotes in the FAQ illustrate that most dismissed it out of hand (often merely stating the assumed consensus as some axiom for their own ideas).
Ehrman claimed about DJE?: "Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise."
How many scholars have actually published any defense of HoJ since Ehrman's book (besides Casey)? How many are detailed?
Referring to Carrier's list makes more sense than stating the 44 names and repeating the links to their publications that are on his site. Thus you can easily find the stronger sources that you believe are necessary. Joortje1 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a theory seriously includes responding to it. No scholar has to accept a theory to be deemed taking something seriously. Casey, Ehrman, Van Voorst, Gullotta, Evans, and well... numerous others in the article already (some more than 20 years ago) provide some type of updated response to CMT. They do not just dismiss it, they address it. Probably because of the pseudohistory on the internet. Also Carrier says "All the other scholars listed are convinced Jesus existed—they still don’t think “Mythicism” is probable (the idea that Jesus is entirely, and not just partially, mythical)—but they have gone on record admitting that at least some theories of the origin of Christianity without a real Jesus can be plausible enough that the debate is worth taking seriously, and not just dismissed out of hand as crackpot." So Carrier is only looking for scholars who would address CMT in the non-bold entries, not about those who would believe it. Also this part of the list is not about those who would write a treatise on historicity of Jesus. Two different things. It is not hard to find a scholar who will take a historical fringe theory to task (e.g. holocaust denial, history of racism, history of science and religion). Clearly most even on his complete list (61%) are not mythicists. There are thousands of scholars available by the way. But only 17 is obviously way less than 1% who have argued for or believe in it. If you include all 44 for the sake of argument you still have less than 1% of scholars. Some of his 17 just told him they doubted his existence personally, not that they ever publicly argued for it, so that is just personal/confessional, not published research (Avalos, Davies, Ruck, Madison, Ellens, Touati). So yeah the number is incredibly small even by his count. Also fringe status is determined by the scholarly community, not by number of adherents of the fringe view that are available. You can have thousands of doctors who believe in acupuncture, but the medical community still considers it a pseudoscience and is thus fringe. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe?

WP:FRINGELEVEL: “One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.”

Peer-reviewed monographs on HoJ:

-The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never Lived by Shirley Jackson Case, 1912/1923; clearly outdated
-On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by historian Richard Carrier (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press)
-Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers)

If we check wp:rs and the wp:fringe guidelines, it seems like much more prominence should be given to the last two. If we'd like to consider scholarly criticism of these volumes (or the tendency to ignore them), we should of course do the same with the other sources (Ehrman's book for instance is heavily criticised in academic circles).

If some biblical scholars and theologians call the "christ myth theory" a "fringe theory" in some trade market publication or in some journal that specialises in Historical Jesus research, that says very little, given the very dubious status of the discipline. Quest for the historical Jesus#Criticism gives some idea of the poor state of affairs, but is just the tip of the iceberg. The many HJ scholars who identify as "historians" without proper credentials and without applying any sound historical methodology, are basically practising pseudoscience (WP:FRINGESUBJECTS). That's a big problem for most of the sources cited in our article.

wp:parity: “The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.”

The assumption of HoJ is paradigmatic to NT studies (as Lataster points out), but is basically a fringe subject in the wider academic field of History. The few expert historians who have adressed it see good reason for doubt (Carrier) or emphasise that there is too little evidence to draw any reasonable conclusion (Dykstra). The latter seems to be the more common opinion among professional historians, but of course has not lead to many publications. Joortje1 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the Wikipedic consensus at the article abortion. But this does not mean I'm entitled to bother its editors with useless whines about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGELEVEL:

ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or carry negative labels such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs.

Quite clear. Selective reading of policies ('systematic bias', to paraphrase), as also demonstrated in the reference to criticism of the Historical Jesus research, which misunderstood the target of the criticisms, and obviously missed Donald Akenson's comment, as noted in the thread above. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly if only in the past 100 years, 2 sources are mythicism (which have been extensively criticized and rejected) vs tens of thousands of sources are historicist (never deny his existence), then there is clearly no competition. Mythicism clearly has an "absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.” Plus fringe authors like Carrier has never held a professional position in academia or institution, most of his works on Jesus is self published or from non-academic presses. Fringe literature is still fringe no matter if published in some scholarly or non-scholarly manner. There are peer reviewed works on acupuncture (some even have their own peer reviewed journals [7], [8], [9]), but that does not mean that these views are accepted in the medical community just because some passed peer review. Peer review means little when the topic is fringe and even worse when it is heavily criticized by peers after publication like with Carrier and Lataster. Both also acknowledge fringe status so there goes the argument. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mythicism clearly has an "absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.”"
You were the one who pointed out to me that Lataster and Carrier had peer-reviewed volumes on the subject. Now you contest even that?
"past 100 years"..."no competition"
peer-reviewed monographs defending HoJ: 0, peer-reviewed monographs doubting HoJ: 2
I simply point towards guidelines that seem to support citing these sources. Is there any good reason to desire a "professional position in academia or institution" for any author?
"self published or from non-academic presses"
Let's ignore those. Please consider that the page's favorited Ehrman 2012 is clearly not an academic publication, and I have seen it much more "heavily criticised" by academics than Carrier and Lataster's monographs.
"acupuncture (some even have their own peer reviewed journals"
Exactly, just like Historical Jesus research! (see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP POV and peer review in journals, + my quote of wp:parity)
"Both also acknowledge fringe status"
Lataster 2019 actually explicitly states that this is "untrue" (p. 1)
Carrier 2014 opposes at least a fringe status for an important part of his argumentation: "The letters of Paul corroborate the hypothesis that Christianity began with visions (real or claimed) and novel interpretations of scripture, and this is not a fringe proposal but is actually a view shared by many experts" Joortje1 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Sure, there are some conflicting aspects to almost every guideline, but does your selected bit really cancel out the problem of using the views of a "restricted subset of specialists" and uncritically presenting these as "mainstream"? Are biblical scholars even considered a subset of historians?
"misunderstood the target"
For my edit of the article on this issue, I cited Meggitt (among others), who discusses the problem in the context of HoJ. It's probably even better to look at Lataster for this: he cites many sources discussing the acknowledged problems of HJ research, and he connects it to HoJ views.
I did notice Akenson's statement that "Yeshua the man certainly existed" (p. 540) (which didn't really seem to come from any historical research), but where does he exclude "the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion" from the problems?
In any case, the problems and especially the bankruptcy of the criteria directly relate to HoJ: the heavily contested "criterion of embareassment" is used as the basis for the mere 2 "facts" that "scholars" agree upon (according to our article). Joortje1 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joortje1: Are biblical scholars even considered a subset of historians? It depends on their specialization. As Bart Ehrman explains here, there are many biblical scholars who specialize mainly on exegesis, that is, the interpretation of biblical texts using different kinds of literary criticism and theological analyses. But as Ehrman also notes:

But there are yet other approaches to biblical studies that are more historically oriented, and there are indeed Biblical scholars who are historians. These scholars are not interested only in the interpretation and theological significance of the Bible, but also (or rather) in what the biblical texts can tell us about the history of the communities lying behind them.

[...]

There are a number of Hebrew Biblical scholars, for example, who are particularly trained in and expert on the history of ancient Israel. In order to determine what happened, historically (say in the eighth century BCE, or the sixth century BCE, etc.). These scholars utilize the biblical texts and all other relevant information – including archaeology, texts from surrounding civilizations (Egypt, Babylon, and so forth). They are more interested in the social history lying behind the biblical texts (and their authors) than in the meaning of the texts per se.

So too with the New Testament, there are social historians who utilize the Gospels and other sources to write about what happened in the life of the historical Jesus or who focus on the letters of Paul and other sources to reconstruct the social history of the Pauline communities.

I would count myself in this latter camp, of biblical scholars who are particularly interested in social history. But there are also some (very few) biblical scholars who are interested in broader historical topics of Christianity starting with Jesus and Paul and others at that time, and moving up well beyond that into the early centuries of Christianity. That is where I have focused the vast bulk of my research for, well I guess for twenty-five years.

So, yeah, many critical Bible scholars are as much historians of the Bible and its times as many Classicists are historians of Classical antiquity, or as many Egyptologists are historians of Ancient Egypt, or as many Assyrologists are historians of Ancient Mesopotamia. And the strong consensus among these critical Bible scholars is that a historical Jesus most certainly existed in 1st century Palestine. Potatín5 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IF they use proper methodologies, otherwise they are amateur historians at best.
As I said: there are exceptions. Ehrman tries to sell himself as such an exception on that blog post, after emphatically stating "most biblical scholars in fact are not historians".
Ehrman also conceded about the result of his trainging: “I was so uneducated, and so, basically, I’m self-taught in almost all the areas that I’m really interested in.” (2024?)
When it came to his own status as an historian, Ehrman basically suggested that having an interest in a subject is enough, which would make any author writing on any subject an expert. That in itself might not even be a problem. There's a good reason why peer review is usually done "blind": we'll judge the work, which involves looking at the proper use of sound methodologies. But how does this look after the fuss he made over the perceived lack of credentials of his opponents in his book about HoJ? And what about the methodologies of Ehrman and co?
For his 2012 book, Ehrman mostly used the heavily contested "criteria of authenticity", and in such a poor way that he for instance pumps up "multiple attestation" with a bunch of entirely hypothetical sources and dares to count these among sources that we "have". He also claims they are all independent, while for instance Q has been thought up as an alternative solution for how the synoptic gosepls are derived from each other. Et cetera, et cetera.
In his 2014 book, Casey explicitly rejects all the standard historical methods that he seems to know of (which turned out to be mostly those that an opponent suggested).
Most biblical scholars do not even give any (sustained) arguments for their belief in the historicity of Jesus, other than stating that they virtually all agree on it. Meggitt on that consensus: "unlike 'guilds' in professions such as law or medicine, other than the subject of study – the bible – and some assumptions about competency in a few requisite linguistic skills, it is not apparent what members of this 'guild' necessarily have in common and therefore what value an alleged consensus within it really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter". Joortje1 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even object to there being a consensus among biblical scholars (and theologians), but the article should identify the specific discipline.
That said, there are good reasons why Meggitt calls it an "alleged" consensus. For one: "whilst it is true that some members do have the academic freedom to arrive at any position they find convincing about the question of Jesus' historicity, this is clearly not the case for many who are also members of the 'guild' and carry out their scholarship in confessional contexts, as the apparent silencing of Brodie indicates". So, I'd love to see an anonymous poll rather than a bunch of outdated quotes from a very small portion of the thousands of biblical scholars saying that they all agree.
I also assume plenty of mythicist publications deserve the label "fringe theory". But that notion has here become an excuse to attack anything that smacks a bit of doubt about HoJ, and even the few peer-reviewed studies on the subject. Joortje1 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"scholars who identify as "historians" without proper credentials and without applying any sound historical methodology, are basically practising pseudoscience" No, they are not making any scientific claims. Those tin foil hat-type of pseudo-scholars are simply pseudohistorians, misrepresenting the historical record to promote their wacky religious views. Dimadick (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, "pseudohistory" is the more precise word for it, but let's not use either term anymore, as long as we haven't found wp:rs using it in this context, just like I prefer to not see the pejorative "fringe theory" used for peer-reviewed publications from reputable publishers.
I think only a minority of the cited authors are really promoting wacky religious views. At least Ehrman's main agenda seems pupularising findings of Textual criticism of the New Testament, which actually helps people understand the dubious nature of the Bible (as long as he'd stick to books like "Forged"). But when he, Casey or similar authors pretend to give a historical account, it seems like biblical studies come with rather naïve ideas about what the discipline of History entails (and their overconfidence and tendency to overstate their ideas becomes clear).
There are great exceptions and peer review is a reasonable way to separate the wheat from the chaff. The same goes for "mythicist" publications, of course.
There's just very few useful studies on this subject, and the dominant editors of this article refuse those. Joortje1 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"their overconfidence and tendency to overstate their ideas becomes clear" Two decades ago, I was fascinated by the topic of the historicity of the Bible and I had a collection of several books on the topic. After noticing that many scholars do not have archaeological evidence to support their ideas, I mostly lost interest in the topic. I find archaeology to be fascinating, and biblical studies to be rather stagnant and unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHistoricity_of_Jesus