From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Category 2 Furter Discussion on paragraph 2 2.1 General 2.2 What do historians say? 2.3 The mythology debate 2.4 Metahistoricity 3 Paragraph 3 (Christian views) 3.1 John 3:16 3.2 Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity? 4 Robsteadman 4.1 Point, Counterpoint, Wikipoint 4.2 In Praise of Progress 5 Paragraph 2 (Historical views) 5.1 Towards a relatively final form of the second paragraph 5.1.1 Accept 5.1.2 Reject 5.2 Consensus? 5.2.1 Jayig's Objection 5.3 Another round on the 2nd Paragraph 5.3.1 Line Item Vote 5.3.2 Robsteadman proposal 5.3.3 Further Discussion 5.3.4 Robsteadman debates continue... 5.3.5 Nonexistence Hypothesis 5.3.6 "What kind of majority?" and "The Jesus Seminar" 5.4 Extant contemporary documents? 5.5 Intent to post consensus paragraph 5.5.1 Neutral 5.5.2 Nay 5.5.3 Yea 5.5.4 Further Discussion 5.5.4.1 Literary Evidence for Ancient Figures 5.5.4.2 Scholarship requiring qualifiers

Category

I propose that this article not be in the category of Dead People Rumored to be Living, as it is contentious, lacking in NPOV, and highly offensive to orthodox Christians. --Aaron Walden 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just Orthodox but also Catholic and Protestant and probably all other Christians. Not to mention the fact that the category does not really apply. regardless of faith. Christians assert that Christ died and came back to life. Everyone else in the catgeory is rumored to have never died. Outside of satirical religions, no one seriously asserts that Elvis Presley (for example) died in 1977 and rose again three days later. Arch O. La 20:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not entirely certain what that category means, does it mean people who supposedly never died, or people who may of died but then came back to life? Homestarmy 20:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Moot point now. I changed the category and someone else removed it. Arch O. La 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Furter Discussion on paragraph 2

Please keep all discussion here and votes (with summaries if desired) below.

General

I can go either way. I like short and to the point, but it does help to state the principle objections of the minority. If we were to reference the historicity article, then I could live with it. --CTSWyneken 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Can you fix the ref at the end, though? Jpers36 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Change to "accept" now? We need a clear consensus here if we ever hope to be able to move on.Gator (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree with the paragraph. However, speaking strictly as a recently minted journalist, I can see how the modifiers "vast" and "small" can be construed as POV. I might point out that the third paragraph simple refers to "most" and "other" Christians. "The majority" and "a minority" of critical Bible scholars and historians is probably sufficient.

I'd also like to point out that essentially the same point has a "citation needed" tag in the Jesus-Myth article. archola 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should keep the current reference to the minority position and spend some time finding precise citations for each author. --CTSWyneken 16:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Rossnixon has a point about "fringe views" (sorry to keep mentioning Socrates, but his page doesn't mention the "Fictional Construct of Plato" theory). On the other hand, I take CTSWyneken's remarks about a cottage industry on the Internet to heart. For that very reason, I think it's important to keep a reference to the Jesus-Myth folks (and others with a similar view) in the paragraph. archola 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Robsteadman, concerning his comments under "Reject":

Prove it. Prove that Crossan's history is dictated by his faith. No BS which is all you have been spewing: provide actual "evidence." Provide a quotation from his book that supports your claim. Moreover, you have not addressed the other scholars who were actually more important than Crossan in writing the sections on the historical Jesus: Shaye Cohen, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and Paula Fredriksen. You are lying and slandering them without offering a shred of evidence. Prove it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would still love to see your version fo this page, Rob. Even thoughy uo hate me. ;)Gator (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::It seems that two users are rejecting because they want less mention of the fringe view. So here is my question, if the last sentence just read: "However, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus." (leaving out the reasons like the sentence originally looked) Would that create more consensus (causing rejects to go to accept or would it cause more accepts to reject? I am fine with it either way. Let me know and I can change the paragraph (nothing written in stoen just yet).Gator (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "However, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus. Or, "However, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus." The details can be kept on the linked pages. archola 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this, Archola, is that one can accept the Jesus myth as a way of explaining the origins of (and critiquing) Christian doctrine - while still believing a human being named Jesus preached in the Galilee in 1st century roman-Occupied Galilee. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. That eliminates the first version, but the second (with a link to Historicity of Jesus) still applies. archola 14:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I wasn't aware that the Jesus Myth theory extended to "influencing Christian doctrine." One could make a similar argument based strictly on the New Testement. After all, Paul said that he became like a Gentile when among the Gentiles (1 corinthians 9:21). He also identified the "unknown god" with YHWH (Acts 7:23-31). archola 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but I think we;re getting a consensus here and O don;t want to disruopt that by changing the paragraph too much unless I am sure that it won;t nmess things up?

How do people feel about the last sentence reading "However, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus?" If I don;t hear too much feedbac, then it will stay the way it is in order to preserve the (developing) consensus.Gator (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, although I'd feel better about saying something that marks that these others include scholars, who are not historians. --CTSWyneken 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CTSWyneken. We can describe these people, some of whom are academics in other fields and others of whom are free-lance writers. And we should make clear that they are not trained classical or Biblical historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and withdraw my proposed change. At this point, I think we either have or about to ave consensus on a paragraph that has lead to alot of fighting and hard feelings. Unless others want to propose another version of the above paragraph, I'm going to withdraw my change.Gator (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We currently have a 14-4 vote in favor, so your attempted accomodation may be unneccesary. As I've said, my quibles are small caveats, so they're not dealbreakers. archola 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I think we're good here. Pretty soon we can declare consensus, edit it in and move on.Gator (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I certainly hope you do exist. I voted for Your adminship. archola 07:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What do historians say?

I wrote in the article:

"No historian has ever said that Jesus never existed."

I think this statement should stay. It is the non historians who proclaim that Jesus never existed. ken 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Addendum: Here is what I recently read:

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven. taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

ken 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I have trouble saying "no historian," even though I've never seen one take the nonexistence theory. It's a form of the argument from silence. We may well find one or two somewhere sometime. So I prefer a sentence that allows for it. Also, one of the fellows, Bauer, is considered a Higher Critical Biblical scholar. (he's resposible for the Markan priority argument and the "Messianic Secret" observation. He also said Pontius Pilate didn't exist. Of course, we now have Pilate's name literally carved in stone!) So, I think "few" or a "small number" or the like is the most modest and prudent. --CTSWyneken 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I feel that Robsteadman is making a similar argument from silence with his repeated assertions that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. The most we can say is that the sources we have are (from a historical standpoint) uncertain.

Various people on this page have compared the historicity of other historical or mythical figures to that of Jesus. I brought up Socrates because I find the parallels compelling. The main sources we have for both comes from texts written by their followers. Early Christians may have mythologized the account of Jesus; Plato may have added his own opinions to his account of Socrates. Early Christians may have created the person of Jesus as a myth or allegory, but Plato may have done the same with Socrates.

Can we know for certain? Not from a historical viewpoint. To say more requires faith, either Christian faith or the atheist's faith in the nonexistance of God. The repeated debate over the various scholars mentioned—and the repeated attempt by both sides to undermine their credentials—is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

I'd like to point both Rod and Ken to the Socrates article. It manages to discuss the uncertainty about the sources without making bald assertions like "No historian has ever said that Socrates never existed" or "There is no evidence for the existence of Socrates." Rather, what it says is "The character of Socrates provides an illustration of a historical conundrum." That's real NPOV. This is in despite of a similar debate on that page.archola 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Rob. I've checked seven encyclopedias (I'll document them, if you'd like). Six assume the existence of Jesus as a historical figure (Encyclopedia Britannica among them), one mentions and rejects the nonexistence hypothesis (Academic American). I think we can safely say the position that Jesus existed is encyclopedic. --CTSWyneken 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No we can say that those tomes have accepted the suggestions of various scholars (almost all people with "faith"). There is till no proof of his existnce - not verifiable. EB is wrong on this to state it as factual. It is nly factual to say some scholars, and almost exclusively those with "faith") suggest he exists. Let's stick with fact, verifiability and NPOV. Robsteadman 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also no proof of his nonexistance. archola 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman still does not get our policies. It is simply not for a wikipedian editor to make any judgement whatsover as to the proof of Jesus's existence, or to say that historians have no proof. No historian in the world has "proof," they have "evidence." Moreover, Steadman continues to lie about these scholars claiming that they are expressing their faith. It is a lie and Steadman has no proof of this. I have asked repeatedly that he provide evidence, and Steadman has provided no evidence. He is a dogmatist driven by his own faith, which relieves him of the need to provide evidence for any of his claims. This attitude can only be destructive of the goals of our encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I must be confused about the definition of encyclopedic, then. I thought it meant something like: "to do things in the manner that encyclopedias do." Could you give me your definition of it? --CTSWyneken 02:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If even encyclopedias are not encyclopedic enough for Rob, then perhaps we should apply Matthew 10:14. archola 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking a semantic stab at it, let me reference [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encyclopedic wictionary}:

encyclopedic 1) having to do with an encyclopedia 2) as with an encyclopedia, having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge (either in general or on a specific topic)

.

CTS's 7 encyclopedias obviously meet the first definition. Rob may dispute whether they meet the second definition. Or, Rob may have his own definition. Rob, explain what you mean or we will not understand you. archola 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to have a the name of a historian that supports the nonexistence hypothesis. I'll then check to see what I can find out about him/her. --CTSWyneken 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI I added the above [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! If you haven't done it already, I'll add it to our new subpage on cited authors. --CTSWyneken 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Archola, what if we applied 1 Peter 3:14-16 instead? It seems to me what this situation needs is a good, healthy dose of Biblical evangelism :D. Homestarmy 13:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as we can do this with gentleness and respect (v. 15 NIV), as well as meekness and fear (NKJV)—agreed. The crucial difference is whether Rob will listen to us. It seems to me that we (Christians and historians both) have been following Peter for a while now. At some point you just want to shake the dust off of your feet. archola 14:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The mythology debate

• Where did "and similarities to various mythological figures" go? --JimWae 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

See paragraph above "Accept." --CTSWyneken 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be some who use the mythological similarities to claim that Jesus never existed. However, I think most historians who refer to similarities between Christian beliefs about Jesus and beliefs about other gods during the Hellenic period believe that those beliefs influenced Christian beliefs and made Christianity appealing to a wider population - i.e. it is very relevant to critical histories of Christianity. But this is apart from the question of whether a human being named Jesus whom people believed to be a healer and who preached love existed in first century Galilee. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the mythology debate is that it can go either way, for instance, Christian's beliefs could of influenced other religions rather than the other way around, and religions before Christianity could of gotten influenced by the OT, which predicted Christ's coming. At the end of the day however, is it really that important to this article? Homestarmy 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's also a school of thought (theological, not historical) that states that the similarities between Christianity and other religions are the result of God preparing the world for Christ's incarnation. I'm not sure if it would fit in this article, but it might merit a mention in Christianity and world religions, for example. archola 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice thoughts, but, could we keep this on the topic of the 2nd paragraph? 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The thread started as a response to JimWae's remark on the 2nd paragraph but quickly went off on a tangent. ;-} Both Homestarmy and I pointed out alternative interprations of the mythology debate. This demonstrates that recognition of the similarities need not lead to a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus, and thus casts doubt on whether "and similarities to various mythological figures" should be included in the second paragraph (at least without a caveat). archola 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly quite a familiar claim in the early 20th century that "Jesus" was an amalgam of mythic archetypes derived from Mithraism, Orisis, Orphism and "death-rebirth" deities. It fitted with ideas about myth-formation that were emerging from Max Mueller's followers, Frazer's Golden Bough, Jung etc. As you say, though, it was rather more common to argue that these religions affected the growth of Christian doctrine rather than that Jesus had been conjured up out of pure mythic imagination. Most of the Jesus myth arguments are based on supposed mythic precusors of the Jesus-persona, not on the lack of contemporary documents, which is, I think, pretty much a red herring. Paul B 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One question: is the minority position we're discussing one and the same as the Jesus Myth school, or are there other skeptics outside the Jesus Myth school? If they are one and the same, I reccomend a link to Jesus-Myth in the second paragraph of the Jesus article. Since the Jesus Myth article currently has a point-counterpoint structure, a discussion of the debate over "lack of contemporary documents and similarities to various mythological figure" would fit well there (without cluttering up the intro to the Jesus article). archola 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there are those in this camp that do not do the mythology theory.--CTSWyneken 19:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Metahistoricity

Why not mention that the idea that Jesus is entirely mythical has been discussed and largely dismissed by academic historians? This is somewhat akin to saying that astronomers once believed in geocentricism, currently believe in heliocentricism and that geocentricism is now considered to be a fringe theory. This acknowledges both the debate among historians and the current concensus among historians. archola 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 (Christian views)

And I've copied previous discussion on the third paragraph to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro. The archive dates back to Jan. 8, when the paragraph was added to the intro.

I don't mean to jump the gun, but when we are ready to move on, we might want to review the previous discussion. archola 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few introductory comments. The paragraph as it stands represents a compromise. We tried to come up with a description broad enough to cover all forms of Christianity. The reference to the Nicene Creed is mine; it acknowledges the historic and ongoing distinction between Nicene Christianity and its descendents on the one hand, and other forms of Christianity on the other. It also acknowledges that the beliefs expressed in the creed are widely, but not universally, accepted. Since "other forms of Christianity" includes the various historical lost Christianities (citation: Bart D. Ehrman, Talk:Jesus#Bart Ehrman), it also provides a link to the previous paragraph's discussion of historicity. "Other forms" also refers to modern Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentacostals, and other bodies outside of the Nicene tradition, as well as some Christians outside of organized religion. archola 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PS:The full title of Ehrman's book mentioned above is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. archola 17:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that anyone who has suggested changes read the Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro discussion. Then, in respect of the comprimise, that a discussion be undertaken here, and, unless it reaches consensus, the main page not be edited. --CTSWyneken 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

John 3:16

I don't want to get into a debate over interpretations of the Nicene Creed, but the reference to John 3:16 seems redundant. Or at least confusing: it's not clear what's being cited to the creed, and what is being cited to the Gospel. (Of course, the creed itself is based on an interpretation of the Gospels, as well as the rest of the New Testament. "Life and Teachings" starts with Some other relevant verses, so John 3:16 might fit in better there.) Arch O. La 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Nicene Creed citation was meant to cover everything between "Most Christians" and "Other Christians." After proposing the compromise, I stayed out of the debate over the finer points of theology re:atonement, salvation, sanctification, justification, et al. I'm a Lutheran, but CTSWyneken is better qualified to explain the Lutheran position than this lay believer. Arch O. La 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll not get into the debate here until the 2nd paragraph is settled. Since I haven't read the discussion, it really isn't fair for me to wade in, much less suggest, much, much less cbange anything. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity?

I have made an emendation to the "Christian view of Jesus": Jesus is a member rather than part of the Holy Trinity. According to orthodox Christianity the Holy Trinity is not divisible into parts. Each divine Person is totus Deus, each having the fulness of deity. It is not the orthodox Christian view that Jesus is a third of God while the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two thirds. There is no denomination of Christendom which publically believes and teaches that the Holy Trinity is divided up into parts. Of course, anything is possible. I would like to assist in editing this article as I am a Christian theologian dedicated, though, to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am glad, by the way, that the red neutrality flag has been removed. We want to try to make this article the best it can be in the greatest online encyclopedia. With all respect to all. drboisclair 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That said, I doubt there will be much quibble over this one word. Arch O. La 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: God is beyond human understanding, and thus beyond words. Any words we use are only true in an approximate way, since, unlike God, language is not absolute. That said, some words are more true than others. Arch O. La 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman

Hey, if Rob can do it for SLurbenstein, than I can do it for Rob. Rob purports to speak from a strong scientific Athiest viewpoint. His remarks seem to go beyond that. Rather than ascribe motives that may be construed as personal attacks, I'll try to assume good faith.

I notice that Rob has remarked that some don't understand him or Wikipedia. Other editors have said the same about Rob. I have had trouble understanding him at times. Perhaps Rob ascribes a different meaning to some of the words both he and we use than many of the rest of us do; connotation if not denotation. It comes down to semantics; it can be very hard to communicate with someone if you don't even share the same language. That's why I feel we should all (Rob as well as the rest of us) be more careful to define what we mean.

Several editors have pointed out that Wikipedia's NPOV/UW policy need not represent tiny minority views. But consider Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial: Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, still your view is just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held." Discernment of what is reasonable comes down to academic credentials and majority consensus. We should be fair, and not give undue weight, but we should also be careful not to engage in the tyranny of the majority. Remember that the minority can feel persecuted even if the majority feels that this is not valid. On the talk pages, at least, we should be tolerant of all relevant points of view.

I've had a few hours to think this over as I reflected on the comments on this page. I'll get off my soapbox now. archola 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The below is an extended rebuttal of Robsteadman's comments re: the first vote.

Point, Counterpoint, Wikipoint

I do not accept that neatral historians (ie ones without "faith") agree he existed and there have still not been any such offered. -Rob

"Neutral" and "without faith" are not the same thing. -Archola

Can you produce the names of any agnostic or atheist who are historians of ancient history? --CTSWyneken 14:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"faith" distorts views- Rob

Theistic faith can distort views. Theistic faith does not neccesarily distort views. An individual can approach a topic from more than one point of view--be it religious, academic, scientific, whatever. -Archola

it is unscientific and un-academic and whose with such views need to have their POV made clear. -Rob

Or, those with such views need not let their religious beliefs influence their professional work. In other words, they should strive, as professionals, to be NPOV--whatever their religious beliefs may or may not be. -Archola

Do you have any sources within the scientific community proper or the academic community in general that claim it is unscientific and unacademic for a person of faith to be a scholar? Often scholars do declare such backgrounds, but it is not, to my knowledge, required in any scholarly field. --CTSWyneken 14:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also there is no reason why the field cannot be extended to acadeics working in linked fields such as philosophy. -Rob

Agree, but beware false authorities. Credentials need to be examined on both sides. -Archola

You are assuming that philosophy and history proceed by the same methods, have the same rules of evidence and are similar enough that a scholar in one is not a layman in the other. I think you'll find philosophers and historians disagree. --CTSWyneken 14:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And I may point out that the second paragraph is specifically about historicans and historicicality. Philosophical views are relevant, but should be discussed in a more appropriate place in the article. archola 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that Bible Scholars (almost exclusively self selecting because tyhey have a "faith") are being given preference of those who opt to work in fields that link but are not so focused. -Rob

This is unencylopedic and unverifiable. Stick to what you can confirm. -Archola

Please review: Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios Jewish scholars and secular scholars are part of this list. They have no vested interest in the existence of Jesus. Yet they do contend he was a historical figure. --CTSWyneken 14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally reject this rewrite as being NPOV - it is still biased. -rob

You have the right to your opinion. -archola

Please review Wp:NPOV#The neutral point of view. Can you show us where the proposed paragraph:

1. Does not represent all significant points of view?
2. Asserts one of the two views over another?
3. Does not describe who believes what and why?
4. Does not indicate which view is more popular?

This is the definition of what is NPOV in Wikipedian terms. --CTSWyneken 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is still no proof taht "jesus" existed- rob

Nor any proof that he did not exist. -archola

only theories and possibilities, -rob

As with Socrates. As with many ancient figures purported to be historical. Theories that have not been falsified. -archola

tied with hope and "faith". -rob

Yes and no. Again, there are theistic viewpoints and academic viewpoints. Not the same thing. -archola

This is an "argument from silence," which is rejected in the discipline of history, since data has a nasty habit of emerging later. The common adage among historians is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." So, for example, because we do not have, say, the handwritten score of a symphony does not mean that the composer to whom it is attributed did not create it. I Biblical studies, it was stated in the 19th Century that Pontius Pilate did not exist, because we have no written record of him outside of the New Testament or Josephus. This was proven wrong when a theatre dedication stone was found in Caesarea, which had Pontius Pilate inscribed as the donor. --CTSWyneken 14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I might mention that most of what we know about Troy comes from Homer's Illiad, which contains much Greek polytheism that does not stand up to scientific or historical analysis. For that reason, historians once thought that Troy was a myth. Then archaelogists dug it up. Similarly, the fact that certain passages from the NT and other Christian sources are scientifically and historically doubtful do not prove that Jesus did not exist. Christianity had to come from somewhere. I am aware of the theory that Paul created Christianity and there is a similar theory that Plato created Socratic philosophy. Historians, however, generally accept the attributed founder of both movements without accepting everything that Christians have to say about Jesus, or accepting everything that Socratic philosophers have to say about Socrates. archola 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If we are to be encyclopedic and verifiable we need to state something along the lines of there is no proof. -rob

"The character of Jesus provides an illustration of a historical conundrum...Due to the problems inherent in such sources, all information regarding the Galilean, Jesus, should be taken as possibly, but not definitely, true." What can be said about Socrates can be said about Jesus. The difference is that emotions run high on both sides, from fundamentalist Christianity to strong atheism. It is emotion, not faith, that truly distorts views. -archola

but Bible scholars and some beliving historians SUGGEST tere is sufficient evidence. SUGGEST is the key word. -rob

The consensus opinion is that the existence of Jesus in the first century is a working hypothesis that has not been falsified. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted. -archola

I would like POSSIBLY inserted before the dates in teh first paragraph as well. -rob

The dates are as uncertain as the sources. I would support the use of the word "circa" to indicate that the dates are approximate. -archola

Until we have verifiable proof -rob

Wikipedia is not the place for that. We are not here to prove our theories nor to disprove other's theories. We are to report on reliable sources. -archola

we cannot say he diod exist- -rob

Nor that he did not exist -archola

only that some SUGGEST he did. -rob

Only that the hypothesis of a historical Jesus has not been falsified. -archola

Encyclopedic and verifiable. Robsteadman.

Thanks for calmly explaining your reasoning, Rob. My comments inserted between yours above. On this last, it is helpful to remember that Wikipedia is intended as a tertiary work. We are not here to translate and present the primary sources, nor are we hear to analyze them and present an account of that analysis (secondary sources) We are here to report what the secondary sources say. In almost all cases, the consensus of the scholarly community are reported in the paragraph. --CTSWyneken 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You were given seven encylopedias that you did not accept. You may also mean "Encyclopedic" to mean "adhering to the guidelines of THIS encyclopedia (Wikipedia)." Fine: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -archola

Wikipedia's policy on verifiability:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

It all comes down to one word: reputable. The credentials of the scholars have been discussed at length. The crux of your disagreement is which scholars are reputable. You see theirs as exhibiting religious bias. They see yours as false authorites.

Who is right: is it you, or them? You've responded to them at length. It's time to examine your own views, your own words, your own behavior. Consider whether this applies to you, and consider also whether this is how others see you.

Finally, I submit to you that it is not religious faith in and of itself that distorts views, but rather emotion unguided by reason. Consider also that any professional scholar exhibiting such an emotional bias would soon be discredited by her or his peers. If this has not happened, it strengthens that scholar's reliability and credibility. To put it another way, that scholar has not been falsified. archola 08:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we have some discussion about some forum type place between historians who agreed Christ lived, and not all of them were Christian? Where did that discussion go, if Rob want's names, then it seems to me it'd be pretty easy to get them. Homestarmy 13:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

An editor archived them last night due to the length of the discussion page. They are also in the subpage mentioned below. archola 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios. But I think Rob believes that having faith in any religious tradition makes one not able to conduct objective research. So, Jews, deists (possibly Voltaire), people like Vermes (who reportedly renounced his faith) do not count. --CTSWyneken 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So no Atheism, objectivism, moral relativism, or historical revisionism either? I think we just won the game point :D. Homestarmy 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just get to the point. Robsteadman writes, "There is still no proof that "jesus" existed" and this one sentence says it all. The fact is, there are proofs that Jesus existed. This is verifiable; Robsteadman is verifiably wrong. Robsteadman is wrong in three different kinds of ways, and it is useful to keep these different ways of being wrong straight.

1. I am using the word "proof" as it is defined by philosophers. A proof is not based on empirical evidence, it is a logical argument. Moreover, that it is called a "proof" does not mean that all philosophers accept the argument. Robsteadman is using the word "proof" to mean "what Robsteadman believes." But there is more at stake here. Robsteadman is simply ignorant. He has never heard of these proofs because he has never studied philosophy. This is the same kind of problem when we were discussing what historians (rather than philosophers) have claimed. Robsteadman didn't even know who the main historians of late-Hellenic/Biblical history are. Now, we are all ignorant about certain things. But when writing an encyclopedia we must do research and contribute based on what we do know. Robsteadmans persistent remarks, which each time confirm that he has not read any of the sources we are citing, just provides more and more his ignorance. The credibility of Wikipedia is at stake here: editors must respect and take seriously academic research when it is relevant.
2. My claim is categorically different from Robsteadmans, and a lot of pointless conversation begins when this difference is not acknowledged. Robsteadman is making a claim about Jesus. I am making a claim not about Jesus but about proofs. I do not know whether Jesus existed or not, I do not know in any meaningful empirical sense whether God exists or not. But Wikipedians' views are irrelevant. What is important is not my claims about Jesus, but my claim that philosophers have published proofs, just as historians have made certain claims. Robsteadman does not care what other people think - whether they are philosophers or historians. he cares only about what he thinks. What is at stake here is our NPOV policy. Robsteadman thinks that POV means "wrong" and "NPOV" means right. All experienced Wikipedians know this is absurd. NPOV means that we provide multiple points of view and ascribe them properly. So we say "Christians claim, historians claim, philosophers claim, Muslims claim..." and so on. But it most definitely does not mean that we insert our own views. Robsteadman thinks anything he believes is NPOV and any other view is POV. Thus, he claims that inserting other views violates NPOV. He simply has the whole thing backwards.
3. My claim is verifiable according to Wikipedia policy. How do I verify this fact, that there are proofs of God? Go to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any major work on the history of philosophy, or a book I cited, Mortimer Adler's How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan. Adler received his PhD. in Philosophy from Columbia University, and went on to teach philosophy at Chicago University. By providing a citable source, I have verified that philosophers do have proofs (meaning what they mean by proof) of God's existence. Robsteadman does not understand our verifiability policy. He thinks verifiable = true and the policy is clear that this is not what it means. He thinks "verifiable" means that he must be convinced it is true. This is also explicitly not what the policy means. Verifiability means that the claims can be supported by reputable sources. Many people have provided published sources by reputable scholars, and Robsteadman ignores them all. Thus, he consistently fails to provide verifiable sources for his claim (the only source is himself) and he rejects actual verifiable sources.

I have no doubt Robsteadman will say what I wrote is laughable. Nevertheless, every claim I have made about historians and philosophers is verifiable and all one needs to do is read the books to see - I have provided the sources. Robsteadman will continue to BS because he has no intention of reading or even looking at any of these books. So he will say that "There is no proof of God, that is an unverifiable claim." That is what he will say. here is what he means: "I will not even look to see if the sources you cite exist. I will not read them to verify your claims, or to find evidence that your claims are wrong. I do not need to read anything, because I already know the truth." If this is not dogmatic, then the word has no meaning. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

With all the fuss one person out of like 19 has created, (I notice the other 4 votes for against want to go even further away from mentioning the minority, which is probably ok in the end) are we ever going to be able to concentrate on improving this article without stopping for POV disputes? This seems so much like a tyranny by minority, it's really getting me down somewhat, and I get the feeling other people are getting unhappy too :/. Homestarmy 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The big point is that it is completely irrelevant whether or not Rob thinks there's adequate proof for Jesus' existence. It also is irrelevant what I think, or Slrubenstein, or any other editor. We're not here to posit our own views. Academia - by a large majority - believes Jesus to be historical. If Rob takes issue with that position, which is his right as a human being, he can take it up with the scholars. We're just here to reiterate what they say. KHM03 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have enough of Slrubenstein's lies and misrepresentations. I am going to report this behaviour. As for others you are missing the point - the scholars who say he existed all seem to be those who follow the "faith" - off that? Robsteadman 18:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no lies Rob, though of course you have the right to believe you are being misunderstood. At least some scholars who have been cited are Jewish, so they don't follow "the faith" of Christianity. It is preseumably a matter of indifference to them from a religious point of view whether he existed or not. Paul B 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have reported the behaviour, can you please provide a link to the report? I would be interested in commenting on such a matter. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The report is currently being discussed at User_talk:Robsteadman#Regarding_your_reporting_actions. If a report is created a link will be placed here for anyone concerned. Deskana (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Academia maintains that a person of faith can be an objective scholar and hold an opinion. Now, if you disagree with the position of academia, by all means, take it up with them. Wikipedia certainly allows for the fact religious people can still edit objectively. Faith does not mean one cannot be unobjective, whether that faith is Christianity, Hindiusm, Atheism, or anything else. KHM03 18:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we understand what your saying quite clearly Rob, but can you name one person on your side who is not an atheist, humanist, existentialist, agnostic, materialist, whatever? Can you name any person in even the entire world who does not have a belief in something, much less someone who is critical of the existance of Jesus? And if not, what does that mean for a perspective which says that nobody who believes in anything can be a valid source historically? Homestarmy 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You, again, mistake atheism as "faith" - an attempt to lower the reasoned and rational to that of the irrational. Yes, people of "faith" can be scholars - but if they have ":faith" it does throw doubt into any scholarship which is linked to that "faith". I am bored with the aggressive and unreasonable tactics of a few trying to preserve "their" article, hounding SOPHIA and now spreading lies and attacking me rather than genuinely debate the issues of the lack of evidence and the unverifiability of what is being put on here as fact. Appalling bahaviour. PLayground like. Robsteadman 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is a faith...faith, whether based on issues of "hard evidence" or "gut feeling" or any other reason (I suspect there are many reasons atheists are atheists), that there is no God. That's a legitimate faith...and I don't say that to demean anyone or any school of thought. Agnosticism is probably a lack of faith, but atheism has a faith about something. That said, whether you (or I) believe that a person's faith calls into question their objectivity is irrelevant; academia doesn't think so. Once again, take it up with them; this is not the arena for that particular battle. Here, we should only reiterate what academia says. KHM03 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, atheism is NOT a "faith". Sorry but you're simply wrong. Robsteadman 19:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is. You have a right to be incorrect. BUT...that still has no bearing on this discussion. KHM03 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob uses the word "faith" differently than the rest of us. I use it to mean "belief." Rob probably uses it to mean "irrational belief" or probably "religous belief." It's also possible that Rob uses quotation marks to separate the concept from the referent. In this sense, some Theists deny "god" and affirm Providence. Of course, this narrow definition of Theism is widely used, but I've been using "Theism" in the broader sense as the opposite of "Atheism" (ie, accept the god hypothesis). archola 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic - even the etymology of the words means "a lack of faith in god/s" http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/atheism/ - atheism is NOT "faith" - why are you trying to smear the rational with the nonsense of the irrational? Robsteadman 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, our point is that "a lack of faith in god/s" is not the same thing as no faith of any kind. archola 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, "atheism" means "no god(s)". An atheist has to make a decision...just as a theist does...whether or not to believe in the divine. Either way, it takes faith...faith because of one's personal experience or feelings, or perhaps because of evidentiary issues, or any number of things. That's fine. But it's really not the issue at hand here. You seem to think that a theist can't hold an objective opinion (if I'm incorrect, I'm sorry - that's my impression of your argument). Academia disagrees with you. So, feel free to email or discuss the issue with any reputable scholars...whether evangelicals like NT Wright and Alister McGrath or more left leaning folks like JD Crossan or Marcus Borg. Your fight is with them, really, HERE, all we can do is reiterate what academia says. KHM03 19:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Think about it Rob, Atheism isn't just about having no faith in God, it's about having faith that there is no God. Without that, you can't honestly say to have no faith in God, because you don't really mean it that much without faith that your right. Homestarmy 19:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, That's not what it means! Robsteadman 19:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a follow up to that....you're not going to simply say "nuh UH!" are you?Gator (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Semantics, semantics, semantics. Can we seperate semantic differences over the use of words from the valdility of our various assertions?archola 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can agree to disagree there. Perhaps we can take this up in the future over at Atheism or something. But, it still has no bearing on this article. It's just a "side trip". KHM03 19:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please! This is not the page to discuss whether atheism is a "faith" is not. Paul B 19:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

True, thanks for getting s back on track. Any other votes or thoughts on the proposed paragraph or can we declare a consensus, edit it in and enforce this yet?Gator (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Then an atheist actually has no faith that there is no God, and therefore has total commitment to the idea there is God? That can't be what it means either. Without faith that you are right, you can't actually believe in your perspective as being correct, so therefore, by what your saying, an atheist cannot believe that they are correct in saying "there is no God". That makes no sense, just because you say atheists don't believe that their right doesn't mean it's so. Homestarmy 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is talking place on Rob's talk page. I fear we will get nowhere as long as Rob believes that "rational Theism" is an oxymoron. I also believe that Rob confuses cultural spiritualism with religious faith, hence his attack on historians. Now, either I am right or I misunderstand Rob. Besides Rob, SOPHIA has stated that we may not understand Rob, and Storm Rider has at least suggested the possibility; there may be others.

This is quite aside from any debate over Athiesm vs. Theism. Flamarande, another Atheist, has admonished Rob to "know yourself and chill out," and to treat reasonable Theists fairly. I hope Rob will at least listen to Flamarande. archola 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that atheists have a strong faith. But that's not relevant here. If Rob doesn't think that there is such a thing as a "rational theist", that's his right to believe. But this is not the arena for that discourse; academia disagrees with him. Here, we've got to reiterate what they have said. That's all. And that's pretty clear. KHM03 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I again think you are missing the point (except Archola, who nailed it above) - it is when Robsteadman writes, "why are you trying to smear the rational with the nonsense of the irrational?" We need not and I think should not argue over whether atheism is or is not "faith," since it is a semantic issue (the answer can be yes or no depending on how one defines "atheism" and also how one defines "faith"). The issue is that Robsteadman is convinced, with no room for argument, that his atheism is rational and any belief in God is irrational. This is his dogmatic claim, which makes him more of a fundamentalist and fanatic than any of the historians or philsophers (e.g. Russell) whom I amnd others have cited. It is dogmatic because Robsteadman does not even want to hear that there are others who disagree with him. When I say disagree, I do not mean people who disagree with him over whether God exists or not. I mean, disagree with him over whether atheism is always rational, and belief in good always irrational. For example, I have mentioned the book by Mortimer Adler several times. That is a verifiable source for the claim that there exist philosophers who have proposed rational proofs for the existence of God. A rational person would say "well, let me read it. Let me consider his arguments. Then, let me see if he convinces me, or if I have equally or more compelling arguments against his logic." That is what a rational person would do. But Robsteadman will not even respond to the mention of the book. That is blind dogmatism. Now, someone asked above why so much attention on Robsteadman. The answer is, over some period he consistently reverted edits almost everyone else here agreed on. So the contents of the article is at stake. A blindly dogmatic man who is contemptuous of actual research and those who actually do research should not be making multiple reverts to a paragraph that is the product of a good deal of research. That is what is at stake. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And the campaign continues - got rid of SOPHIA now get rid of me.... truly outrageous behaviour. The above post is misleading, mispresenting and, in many parts, simply aggressive and abusive. Thanks for more evidence though. Robsteadman 10:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether or not God exists, or even whether or not Jesus is God, but whether or not Jesus existed - as an historical individual behind the name used in the NT. I think the use of the term "proofs" to refer to arguments for the exisence of God is misleadingly equivocal, and is in any case inapplicable to the question of Jesus's existence since only historical evidence, not philosophical considerations, apply. However, I confess I don't understand Rob, since he shows no sign of even understanding the fact historians apply the same criteria to Jesus as to any other historical figure and do not dogmatically assert his existence, just conclude that it's highly likely that he did. We have a near-consensus on the intro, so I think we should treat the matter as settled. Paul B 10:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Paul, thank you - "likely" is key there - even those of "faith" only say "likely" not that he DID exist. That is why the intro and this article is POV and should be changed. Robsteadman 10:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Likely" is the best best scholarship can provide in any field. Str1977 10:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not strictly true - for some characters of Nacient History there is REAL proof! So, let's get on with inserting some "likely"s, some "possibily"s and some "probably"s shall we? That might stop it being POV and all that I've been wanting all along. Genuine NPOV writing. Robsteadman 10:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of such real proof of an ancient "character"'s existence? --CTSWyneken 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Real proof that wouldn't stand against your kind of secepticism if you cared to dispute their existence in the way you disputed Jesus'. Str1977 11:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the consensus paragraph reflects the views of both majority and minority positions. The majority do not say it is "likely" Jesus existed, they say he did and more. They say that he was a Galilean Rabbi, at odds with the scribes and the Pharisees, was viewed as a healer by his contemporaries and died on a cross under Pontius Pilate. Our role is to say what they have said.

We also say the minority, expanded beyond scholars in the field by the language "academics and others" object because there are few references in the 1st Century or because they conclude he is similar to ancient myths. They say this, which I hope to document (unless someone else gets there first).

It is not our role as a teritiary source to judge which side is correct. Therefore, the paragraph is accurate, NPOV (what it says is true -- these folks say what we say they said and balanced -- we represent both viewpoints) I, for one, will not rehash the same arguments henceforth. If someone has something new, actually addresses requests made above, I will comment no more. --CTSWyneken 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But we state dates as fact not "possibly 4BCE-" That makes it POV as does, of course, the use of AD. And there are other things. Robsteadman 12:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The dates, however, are not in paragraph two. They are a separate issue taken up in other discusssions. After this discussion is closed, we can open that one again. In the meantime, I'm documenting it as I finish the work on the documentation of the presently discussed paragraph. When I'm done, I hope, I will have a broad range of historical opinion on those dates. --CTSWyneken 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, you should not bother asking Robsteadman for proof that someone existed (or didn't exist. That would be following Robsteadman as he again takes us off-track. As you yourself point out, it is simply not up to us editors to arbitrate what is true or what constitutes historical proof. This is forbidden by our NPOV and NOR policies. It doesn't matter whenter Robsteadman can provide proof or not. What is important is that he can provide verifiable sources for his claims, without violating NPOR. There is a difference between saying "X says Socrates lived, which proves Socrates really lived" and saying "According to X, Socrates really lived, for these reasons ..." The first violates NPOV. The second does not. There is also a difference between saying "I (an editor) know a, b, and c, which proves to me that Socrates existed" and "I (an editor) have read a book that claims Socrates existed." The first violates NOR, the second does not. In every instance, Robsteadman's statements are of the former sort (violating NPOV or NOR). Asking him for proof, or more proof, just compounds the violation. Let's just focus on verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SL. I appreciate being able to work with you here and in other articles. Actually, I'm not asking Rob to prove someone existed. I'm just curious as to what he thinks such proof is.

In general, I am refusing to go to the paragraph one date issue at this stage. Also, I'm treating the subject of this paragraph closed, unless Robsteadman wants to come up with a new argument or wants to engage me on things I've said above. To me, the whole argument is besides the point as you, I and others have pointed out. It's not what we think, but what scholars think. On this score, I'm always open to suggestion. I intend to keep searching for and checking references. I haven't finished with note 2 yet, much less note 1 or note 4. I've not even looked at note 3, although I suspect it is a tangent, uneeded and should go. --CTSWyneken 13:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary documents. Caesar appears on coins from teh time. Statues from teh time exist. There are documents that mention various people and happenings... but none of "jesus" and those taht suddenly appear many decades later are very similar to otehr mythologies and are written as part of dreams or to prove scrupture. There is no contemporary (or even non-gospel) record of the massacre of the innocents, the magi, the star in the east, the feeding of the 5,000.... and NONE of "jesus". Robsteadman 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In Praise of Progress

I normally avoid commenting on this page for the simple fact that I have neither the time nor patience to take up arms and join the battle against Rob (please, poke all you want at that metaphor), but I did want to take a moment to give praise to the writers of the subsection Point, Counterpoint, and Wikipoint above. This was one of the most well constructed, well thought pieces of rhetoric that has been issued since Operation Robsteadman began a short while ago. I appreciate the fact that the subjects of this talk page have now been proven to have a better scope of discussion than the "I'm right, you're wrong!" material that had been flying between Rob and several other Wikipedians over the last few weeks.

I herald the opportunity for Wikipedians to join together to discuss differences in a rationally sound and rhetorically solid manner without resorting to backbiting and bickering. Perhaps other Wikipedians should be so wise as to take the time to process their thoughts before launching an assault or counterassault against one another. Whereas I gladly support any side which attempts to academically affirm my personal theories concerning Jesus Christ, I support even more so a forum for civil discussion, understanding that in any given room of one hundred given people of which I am one, 99% of those in the room will not share my opinion on every matter. --Avery W. Krouse 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 (Historical views)

previous discussion on this paragraph can be found in archives 26, 27, 29-31

Towards a relatively final form of the second paragraph

Note: This first vote is on the historicity paragraph as cited below. Discussion on this version of the paragraph is located above. A second, line-item vote addresses specific objections raised during the first vote.

I'd like us to summarize where we would like this paragraph to go and our reasons for it. For the sake of clarity, let's please not rehash the argument above. Let's not engage each other for the moment and see if we can't come to something we can live with.

I'm for retaining the paragraph more or less as it is and finishing the documentation of the views. Why? It represents the consensus of scholarship in the disciplines of ancient history and Biblical Studies, yet gives voice to the minority view that has a lot of popular support and even some academic support from outside the discipline. --CTSWyneken 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support the follwoing version and hereby ask for a consensus so we cna put this thign to bed once and for all:

The vast majority of critical Bible scholars and historians ^[2] hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.^[3] However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, ^[4] a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus

.

I think this is a fair, NPOV and good compromise paragraph that is capable of gaining consensus and should be the "final" version. I just kept the small minority part referring to "others", because it should refer to the same parties as above (Bible scholars and historians) and there is no need to repeat oursevles (or add different parties) here. Also, given the fact that we are dealing with a small minority (fringe if you will) there is no good cause to go into greater detail regarding their arguments so I just kept it simple. I think we've discussed this more than enough and I think the fact that this POV is geting into the intro pargraph at all is more than enough to satisfy NPOV here. I ask for editors to signal that they accept or reject this version. Once we get consensus, then we can finally move on. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Accept

1. Gator (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Jpers36 Jpers36 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
3. archola 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Accept with two small caveats: 1) "vast" and "small" may be POV 2) Explicit reference to the Jesus-Myth school may be appropriate. (See above). Addenda 17 Feb 2006: I agree with -MPerel (accept vote #18). Also re:Metahistoricity above.
4. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Note: I would not object to changing "a small minority" to "some" or just "a minority," if we have already noted that the majority is vast.
5. Homestarmy 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Good enough for me :/.
6. Str1977 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Paul B 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Good enough for me too.
8. Wesley (talk · contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Storm Rider 18:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
10. KHM03 19:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
11. --CTSWyneken 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) per Archola
12. SOPHIA 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC) As of my latest edit it seems a fair compromise to me - if a vote from this "loony" and alleged sock puppet is worth having.
13. AnnH ^(talk) 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
14. Allen 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC). Comment. Sorry; I voted earlier without being caught up on the discussion; Gator let me know that a simple "accept" vote may now be ambiguous. So until I can catch up on the discussion, you can consider me an abstain. Thanks to everyone for working so hard at this. --Allen 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Okay; so I'm doubly not caught up (thanks Gator; and it's no problem)... I'll just say that I'm voting "accept" insofar as doing so is unambiguous. :-) --Allen 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC) But see concerns regarding the superfluous (and incorrect) "what they consider" verbiage below. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
16. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 23:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Avery W. Krouse 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC) My caveat: Compromise works and if a democratic agreement is reached, we must all adhere to it, like it or not.
18. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC), though I'm not fond of the superlatives "vast" and "small" (makes it sound a bit POVish). I also wouldn't object to a footnote referencing who (e.g. Jesus-Myth school) the minority views come from. Anything further relating to the minority view on Jesus' existence belongs (briefly) in the historicity section, definitely not the intro.
19. --JimWae 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) -- agree that such topic should be in intro - prefer that "vast" be changed to "large", and that 6 words be added: "and similarites to various mythological figures". Do not think this vote is or should be interpreted as being about casting the precise wording of that paragraph in any kind of stone.

    I prefer that latter clause stay in also, except qualify it as Jayjg did, "and suggesting similarities with various mythological figures." --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject

1. I think it needs to be added that only non historians working outside their field who say Jesus never existed. The Jesus mythers have yet to cite a history professor in the world who has stated that Jesus never existed. Furthermore, it should be stated the extreme minority of scholars say Jesus never existed. ken 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
2. Robsteadman 20:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I do not accept that neatral historians (ie ones without "faith") agree he existed and there have still not been any such offered. "faith" distorts views - it is unscientific and un-academic and whose with such views need to have their POV made clear. Also there is no reason why the field cannot be extended to acadeics working in linked fields such as philosophy. It does seem that Bible Scholars (almost exclusively self selecting because tyhey have a "faith") are being given preference of those who opt to work in fields that link but are not so focused. I totally reject this rewrite as being NPOV - it is still biased. There is still no proof taht "jesus" existed - only theories and possibilities, tied with hope and "faith". If we are to be encyclopedic and verifiable we need to state something along the lines of there is no proof but Bible scholars and some beliving historians SUGGEST tere is sufficient evidence. SUGGEST is the key word. I would like POSSIBLY inserted before the dates in teh first paragraph as well. Until we have verifiable proof we cannot say he diod exist - only that some SUGGEST he did. Encyclopedic and verifiable.
3. In other WP articles, major and minor views are allowed, but fringe views are usually frowned on and are often deleted. I suggest keeping the intro for major views; and move small minority or fringe views into the Historicity section. ^rossnixon 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
4. —Aiden 04:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC) per rossnixon. The majority view should be expressed, but since no prominent historians claim Jesus never existed, mentioning that POV should be limited to the historicity section.
5. Sam Spade 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Its very odd to mention such a fantastic POV. If you don't believe Jesus eisted, what makes you think I exist? Sam Spade 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Allright, I think we have more than enough for consensus for the 2d paragraph an I will edit it in shortly unless people think we should wait for more accept votes. We will all (even those who voted oppose) need to respect the consensus and enforce it if reverted. This issue is not closed forever, if someone wants to talk about it, but I hope that we have thoroughly hashed it out and that if do need to do this all over again that it will not be for some time. Thought?Gator (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just hate to see reverts showing a lack of respect for the consensus-building process. I hope we can all respect this. KHM03 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please retain the footnotes. I have quite a bit invested in it and it should keep cleanup down at least somewhat. We also need to structure the archive of this discussion in such a way that the whole line of reasoning and the record of the vote are in one, easily referenced page. That way a revert can appear as rv see: wikireference.

As far as reopening discussion: I think we should put a moritorium on it at least for a month. After that, we should reopen only if a new argument is brought forth --CTSWyneken 13:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

At least a month if not more. I'll do my best with the footbntes, but please forgive me if I screw that up. I'm still trying to figure those out. :)Gator (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Just cut and paste the ^[5] tags in the paragraph now. If the link breaks, I'll fix it. --CTSWyneken 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't groan, everyone! I thought of one other issue. Does anyone know what note 3 is for? My references in note 2 cover all the items we list as a part of the historical community's consensus. Note three seems redundant. If no one objects, why not delete note 3 and move note 2 down to where it is? --CTSWyneken 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

CT, why don't you just go ahead and edit it back in when you think it's the right moment. I just know I'm going to screw this up. lol. Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Just don't touch my prech-is-ses in the notes section and I'll take care of the reference links. --CTSWyneken 14:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jayig's Objection

I noticed your edits on the 2d paragraph. I hope you're aware that we've reached a strong consesn for that paragraph that will render your edits pretty much moot in a short while. I encourage you (if you haven't already) to offer your opinion here. I'd just hate to see you get upset when your edits will be replaced and enforced by a consensus that you may not have known was forming around that paragraph. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the "what they consider" phrase. It's excess wording, and incorrect; there simply are no extant contemporaneous documents. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, at this point in the game I don't think making those kind of changes would be productive and would start our process all over again. We have consensus with the pargraph ads it stands and that's a great accomplishment. If its that important to you, feel free to change your vote. I don't know what else to say at this late point...Gator (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Noting" and "citing" both work for me. The minority assert that this casts doubt. The majority assert that this is an argument from silence. Anyone disagree? Arch O. La 17:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any change which is factually more accurate, and shortens the intro text while imparting equal information, is obviously better. Keep in mind this is still a wiki. Is there anything in my statement that you disagree with on factual grounds? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the word "suggesting" being deleted, but it is confusing to do it with the live version and there is some debate over the meaning of the word "contemporary." I do not wish to reopen the can of worms, which I'm afraid going into it will do. So I'll not contest it. (in short, contempoary could mean "people who lived at the same time as," in which case the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark, etc. might count...) BUT I'M NOT DEBATING IT. --CTSWyneken 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Contemporaries" and "contemporaneous documents" are different things. Also, Paul never claimed to have met Jesus during his life, so his letters would not be relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have a thesaurus? I think we agree on the basic concept but disagree on the wording. Or perhaps the semantics (again). Arch O. La 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not copy the consensus version here and discuss it together before we post it? After all, we want a version that will stick. I do not object to the word going. Anyone want to drop the word "vast" before majority, since we're talking about what those in favor of the piece had concerns with? --CTSWyneken 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"lack of known contemporaneous documents" is factual (by one definition of "contemporaneous"). Known can mean either "known to exist" or "known to be contemporaneous," addressing both the argument from silence objection and the debate over the dating of the documents. I don't want to get involved in another semantic quibble: is there a word or phrase we can use that has a more exact meaning than "contemporaneous"? PS: this also addresses Robsteadman's objection that we don't have absolute knowledge. Arch O. La 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It should say "extant contemporaneous documents" to remove all doubt and double meaning. Factual. Verifiable. Unlike so much else in this article. Robsteadman 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, known extant contemporaneous documents. Look at Troy--a whole city for which there were no extant contemporaneous artifacts, until there suddenly was. Ditto Pontius Pilate, as CTSWyneken pointed out. Arch O. La 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: "Extant" allows for the possibility that such documents once existed, but no longer do. "Known" allows for the broader possibility that such documents continue to exist, but we haven't found them yet. There is no proof (in the sense that we don't have them) for either extinct or unfound documents, but it seems odd to allow for one, but not the other. It may be splitting hairs, but I want to be sure that we say what we mean and mean what we say, to avoid confusion. Arch O. La 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can stay with the wording of that phrase as Jayg has framed it. It isn't worth the debate. --CTSWyneken 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I'm not sure "extant" necessarily precludes documents surfacing in the future. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Extant does mean lost as well as still existing. It is the correct word to use. It does not preclude future findings (I do look forward to all those documents that prove "jesus" did exist). Any other word would be nonsense. Robsteadman 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

With this definition of "extant," I agree. Arch O. La 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Extant means very roughly "what we have at this time." It does allow for discovery of other items. All of which is beside the point, since it reflects what the nonexistence school philosophers do indeed argue. As long as it is what they say, we are doing our job. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a debate over definition 1 & 2 in Wictionary. Both are denotation; connotation is accepting one definition over another. I vote that we define "extant" broadly (ie, accepting both definitions as applying). Arch O. La 19:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I inserted "what they consider" and later "suggestint" because the lack of sources is not fact but the POV of the adherents of this fringe view. Lack means "too few" or even "none" and this is inaccurate, at least POV. Str1977 11:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is there are no extent conmteporaneous documents - your edits were, at best, POV posturing and at worst minor vandalism. Robsteadman 17:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another round on the 2nd Paragraph

Here's what I have in light of the above "moving toward the exit" comments:

The vast large majority of critical Bible scholars and current historians [2] hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[3] [2] However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, [4] a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.[4]

Line Item Vote

Note: the final vote is below.
Deletions proposed by CTSWyneken
Accept:

1. Accept Arch O. La 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   
2. Accept. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject:

1. Reject^rossnixon 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Reject (not merely majority, and vast is better than large) Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Neutral eh, vast, large, at the end of the day, I think we've done good either way. Homestarmy 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
   

Insertions proposed by CTSWyneken
Accept:

1. Accept footnotes, reject "large" Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   Addendum I do accept "large" as better than "vast." Arch O. La 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Accept footnotes, reject "large" --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Accept Homestarmy 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Accept footnotes, but large only as second best to vast Str1977 12:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject:
Neutral:
Deletions proposed by Jayg
Accept:

1. Accept --CTSWyneken 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   
2. Accept. Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   
3. Accept. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Accept Homestarmy 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject:

1. Reject (without this the text implies that there is a lack of sources which is POV) Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral:
Additions proposed by Arch O. La
Accept:
Reject:

1. Reject --CTSWyneken 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   
2. Reject. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Reject Homestarmy 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Reject (don't see a point in this) Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Reject. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. Neutral. It's a proposed compromise, but I could go either way. Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   

Deletions proposed by Archola (strikeout)
Accept:

1. Accept. Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   
2. Accept. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject:

1. Reject --CTSWyneken 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Reject (We vote too much on this article :/.) Homestarmy 04:16, 18
3. Reject (it's note a mere majority) Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

February 2006 (UTC)
Neutral:
More deletions by Robsteadman.
Accept:
Reject:

1. Reject--CTSWyneken 20:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
   
2. Reject. Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Reject. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Reject Homestarmy 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Reject Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Reject. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral:

Any objections? --CTSWyneken 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Homestarmy 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman proposal

I suggest this as less POV.

The majority of critical Bible scholars hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, a minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.

Otherwise it is POV

Robsteadman 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Best I can tell is you wish to delete "historians" and all the citation information, correct? --CTSWyneken 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No keep the citations - though they need to be updated as they are still dody in content and heavily biased, historians should be removed, many historians of the period (those without "faith") just don;t mention "jesus" as there is no proof of existence. Also the vast and small should be removed - this is an attempt to attach a POV to the descriptors - and is not totally accurate when neutral scholars are used and when a slightly wider field of scholars is permitted. Robsteadman 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So everyone who says Christ existed "must" have faith and be a biased source? That's.....an interesting perspective.....Homestarmy 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Add "current historians" to Rob's paragraph. This reflects that historians have discussed the "Jesus did not exist" hypothesis (re:Paul B's comment on early 20th century scholars under Talk:Jesus#The mythology debate) and the majority consensus does not accept this hypothesis. See Talk:Jesus#Metahistoricity for a scientific analogy. I've also gone on record as saying that superlatives may be POV—in this I agree with Rob.Arch O. La 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to deleting "historians" or adding "current," which is not necessary. There are scholars listed thant are recognized either historians, one of them, Paul L. Maier, is fully credentialled as a historian of ancient history, another, Cohen, is a historian of Ancient Judaism. When I'm finished tracking down passages from the writings of the other cited authors, I will add Michael Grant, preeminent historian of the ancient world, and others.--CTSWyneken 20:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to "current" too, as those few historians who in the past have entertained the "Jesus did not exist" hypothesis are already sufficently covered by sayin that a "vast/large/- majority" affirms Jesus' existence - that leaves room for some opposition even in the past. Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's such a small point that I really don't care either way ;) Arch O. La 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to not saying at least a "large" majority, "small" minority, which I've demostrated (see footnotes and the Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios --CTSWyneken 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from POV, it's redundant. A majority is always larger than a minority. Arch O. La 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: "Large" is better than "vast" as it is less extreme; but see my note below re:ordinal measurement. Arch O. La 06:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I favour including "vast" as it is not actually a mere majority that affirms Jesus' existence, it is practically all of them. Putting in merely "majority" implies that there might be substantial opposition (up to 49%) when there isn't. Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as we can agree on what "vast" means ;) I have no doubt the majority is vast, but I doubt whether this can be said in a meaningful way. I do accept "large majority" as a compromise between "majority" and "vast" majority. However the vote goes, the concensus will help to demonstrate how well our perception of words like "vast" correlate with each other's perceptions (hence demonstrating NPOV). Arch O. La 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Further Discussion

I should perhaps explain my reasoning in more detail.

Rob: It's not about Athiests vs. Theists, it's about historians vs. nonhistorians. Excluding "historians" is POV because the paragraph is about historicity. "Critical Bible Scholars" are included because Higher Critics apply historical criticism by definition.

Superlatives: My objection to superlatives is less about the texts than about the meaning of the words. "Large," "vast" and "small" are ordinal measurements. You can say that vast > large > small, but you cannot (for example) say that 90% is vast and 89% is large. The meaning is somewhat subjective and hence POV. However, meaning (language) is also socially constructed, and hence I will respect the consensus definition. (Consensus is akin to finding the central tendency.)

"Current historians": This acknowledges that historical perspectives change over time, ie, metahistoricity. Arch O. La 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll just be glad when this is over, we vote too much :/. Homestarmy 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few books about how historians view Jesus...and, by the way, they do believe he existed (though they obviously can say very little re: any divine status, virgin birth, or miracles)...

Jesus As a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell, ISBN 0664257038

Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense by Leander E. Keck, ISBN 1570033382

Jesus in History and Myth edited by R. Joseph Hoffmann & Gerald A. Larue, ISBN 0879753323

KHM03 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Granted. Re:Powell, "Modern Historians"="Current Historians?" BTW, my proposal may be better stated "historians currently hold." But either way, I'm neutral. Arch O. La 05:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept it's not atheists v. theists (though it often is) it's balanced neutral scholarship against scholarship temptered by "faith". It is significant that an historian is a "believer" because they will tend to side in a particular way - I ask again, how many non-believer historians say that "jesus" existed? How can ANY NPOV historian say he existed and be taken seriously when tehre is NO evidence. Robsteadman 07:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, this is sounding like a broken record. I recall statements regarding jewish historians supporting the existance of Jesus; they certainly can not be counted in the group of believers. Conversely, using your own logic the rest of us should look with a jaundiced eye on everyone who is not a believer because of their inherent lack of objectivity. In addition, there is absolutely no evidence that he did not exist and therefore anyone who says anything to the contrary obviously is an idiot. I hope you see that your logic creates a two edged sword that cuts both ways. The reality is that there is a minority of scholars who question the existance of Jesus. Your point has been heard and it has been included in the article. Now is time to move on and get off of your soapbox. Storm Rider 08:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Afraid this is another example you, and others, muddling "believers" with non-believers - there is a huge difference. "believers" are known and can be proven to accept things without proof or rationalality - that's the whole point of n"faith", non-believers tend to be the opposite. Now, which of those stand points is more encyclopedic? Hmmm.... Robsteadman 14:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Rob, what you are demanding is to have an encyclopedia based on a certain POV, your POV. Go and read your "rationalist encyclopedia" and be fine with it. But WP is based on the principle of NPOV. Also, there is no difference between believers and non-believers - there are only believers but some believe in this and some in that. Some are narrower and some are more open-minded. I am saddened to see that you don't belong to the latter. Str1977 14:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is false and makes clear YOUR POV. Non-belief is the neutral and encyclopedically reasonable position. To claim anything "beleieved" through "faith" as fact is simplyu not encyclopedic and it prevents genuine and reasonable scholarship. Robsteadman 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen, Storm Rider. I don't want to get into a debate over what "neutral" means in Rob's metanarrative. The rest has been discussed ad nauseum en extremis. Arch O. La 08:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish we didn't have to vote so much, but there was too much in the air not to have clarity before moving this paragaph into the article. Now we will have record of a full discussion, the opinion of editors who care about the issue and a text almost all of us can support, even if with lack of enthusiasm. Once we're done (I, for one, plan to wait to Monday), we can archive these discussions and votes, informally revert changes and politely point new editors to this discusssion before we engage them on talk and insist a new consensus be found before new changes are made. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen again. Arch O. La 18:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Point: WP:VIE. Counterpoint: WP:STRAW. Besides, our voting certainly hasn't stopped discussion here ;) Arch O. La 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A technical question: How can I read the proposed footnotes? Str1977 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

These are on the main page. Note 2 = Note 2 above. Note 4 = Note 4 above. I will be adding more precise citations to both and a few more general historians, including atheists if someone can find one for me, to note 2. --CTSWyneken 11:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman debates continue...

Folks, please stop taking Rob's bait. He is free to question the credentials of scholars - whether Biblical scholars or historians - but he needs to take up his problem with the people who grant those credentials...not Wikipedia editors. Make no mistake; his problem is with the methodology of the academy, and he needs to take his concerns there. Please stop taking his bait. KHM03 17:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is if we don't respond to him he'll just keep editing everything again, and that's a bit more than just questioning credentials. And on another note, Rob, how do you propose to prove that ALL faith "must" be illogical and irrational? Not just some faith, all faith. That means not just faith in religions, that means faith in your doctor to not kill you, faith in your calculator to not lie to you when you put in 245*56, faith in your heart to not suddenly explode, anything and everything that has faith in it. How exactly do you propose to prove, NPOV and verifiable or whatever it is you said, that faith "must" deserve, (And I do mean "must"), in all scientific or historical circumstances, to cause all reaserch to be immedietly labelled biased, no matter who the person is, no matter where the person studied, and no matter how good and unbiased the reaserch actually is? Homestarmy 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is, Rob, like many people who enjoy rhetorical discourse without actual rhetorical training, desires to prove (regardless of what method he uses) that he is right and that anyone who does not accept his views is wrong. At the end of the day, we'll probably always have to be reverting and 3RRing and so on and so forth people who just won't quit until one of the parties involved is dead. As long as there is any form of debate about Jesus, there will be this type of war going on. The only thing I can recommend is simply to ignore him. If the group comes to a concensus about something and he still decides to deny it, we ignore his pleas and move on. And we continue to revert any changes that he or others make that go against the concensus. Short of the programmers adding a method of permanently blocking individuals or IPs from individual pages, we'll never hear the end of the war. --Avery W. Krouse 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To put it another way, proof by assertion is a fallacy. Arch O. La 05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, by your definition no one is neutral. Consider that faith accepts God as an axiom, and that rationalism rests on its own axioms. Even Descartes stopped with "I think, therefore I am+—indicating that he still accepted self, thought, existence and the relation "therefore" as axioms. There are some things one just has to accept as true. We can disagree on which axioms to accept, but without axioms knowledge is impossible. That said, NPOV is meant to balance the approaches based on different axioms. We have the sources and we have their credentials; we can let readers decide for themselves who is biased, who is neutral and for that matter whether or not the majority is "vast," "large" or something else. Arch O. La 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV should present teh verifiable - there is little (actually none) of "jesus" life that is verifiable. the article shoudl reflect that. Whtat is verifiable is that various POV scholars have made claims based on biased and non-contemporary documents written decades later - presented as that it would be verifiable and balanced - instead the "god" squad continue to defend |their" article, smear and bully those who insist on balance and verifiability and heap praise on scholars who agree with them despite them not being NPOV scaolras. Shameful disregard fdor the principle of being encyclopedic. Truly disturbing. I had hoped, from its basic tenets, that WP would be genuinely verifiable and NPOV - instead it is clearly in the hands of the usual nonsensical bodies. Utterly contemptible behaviour by a few editors makes it clear that they have no respect for fact, verifiability or honesty. And where has the POV banner gone from this article? Infact, if this is a similar pattern throughout WP maybe the url shoulod just be changed to progodpov.com. Robsteadman 18:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User Robsteadman, please cease personal attacks on other editors. --CTSWyneken 21:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha -very amusing. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Formal Warning -- User Robsteadman, please cease making personal attacks on other editors. --CTSWyneken 12:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be Theopedia.com—which is actually quite up front about its Biblical Christianity POV. Wikipedia is much more NPOV by comparison. I'm not sure thatabsolute NPOV is even possible, but that's beside the pointArch O. La 19:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say absolute NPOV is impossible, for sure. And Robsteadman, I quote WP:NPOV here, which seems an important policy to you...

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.

If an opinion is significant, it should be included. Opinions that God exists are significant, since a LOT of people have that opinion, and it can be verified that they do. Just a side point- have you actually read WP:NPOV? Sometimes you say "it needs to be NPOV" where Wikipedia's definition of NPOV would actually not fit the way you used it. Deskana (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with stating all views as long as the background and basis for those views is made clear - a catholic priest who finds that "jesus" was historical is rather a weak and POV scholar. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen a third time. Arch O. La 19:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But Rob, what about the sources you are bashing must force them, and I do mean force them, to be bullies, disturbing historical revisionists, and horrible POV scholars? How does every last slightly religious scholar in the past, present, or future absolutly HAVE to be a POV, nonsensical force no matter what, and how does history absolutly FORCE anybody with "any" faith at all in anyone or anything to try and re-write history? As far as I can tell, your stringent opinion is that all historians with any faith at all must apparently be horrible historians. to loosely use your perspective on this (And to add in a humerous accent for effect) Ve must have ze PROOF, ze NPOV, Verifiable PROOF of zis claim Rob. -___- Homestarmy 19:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, he's right. Such a historical scholar does have a point of view. Every human being has a point of view. But Wikipedia's NPOV policy says that in order for an article to be considered to have a neutral point of view, all significant POVs must be included. Including the opinion that many people believe God exists. Including the opinion that many scholars don't believe he exists. It's just the wording of the sentences (or paragraphs) that state this that isn't made clear by the NPOV policy. Provided they can be verified as true beliefs per the WP:V policy, they can be included. Deskana (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Verified and categorised if need be. "faith" schoalrs have such a huge POV that their "scholarship" has to be doubted. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he's not right. Everyone has a view, that's right, but all kinds of historians agree on the historicity of Jesus as this is the result of historiography and of research. But our article here nonetheless includes a reference to the fringe view.

Untrue - "All sorts" of historians don't have a view - not a scholarly view - the vast majority who support the "concept" of an historical "jesus" come from a particular camp - those with "faith" - they're very unlikely to find any other solution. Their camp should be clearly noted - for instance those who are also prists should have that "titler" included - it pus things in a balanced perspective. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is the historicity of Jesus and not the existence of God - the latter is a philosophical or theological question and a question of faith, while the former is just plain historical. Str1977 19:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The latter IS a question of "faith" but the former is not just plain historical as there is no historical evdience from teh period. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true. The nonexistence hypothesis is a fringe view among the informed, but is a significant social and/or internet phenomenon among the uninformed, noninformed and misinformed. I say, teach the controversy. The best way to refute the nonexistence hypothesis in an NPOV way is to cite who holds this opinion and what their credentials are. Which we have done. Also Deskana's quote re:the changing nature of knowledge is similar to my remark about metahistoricity (not that it matters)Arch O. La 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you first point - but the second point has a place - yes show the facts, show who is stating what and what their camp of "faith" is and then the myth that "jesus" was historical will be exposed. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Being a non-expert, I can't really comment. I've not got a clue what the difference between the historicity of Jesus is compared to whether or not he existed. (By the way, when I said "God exists" I meant "Jesus lives"... I mean if some people don't believe he exists and that majority is fairly substantial, it should be included. Deskana (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we are parsing the divine Jesus and the historical Jesus as seperate issues. Atheists maintain there is no God. There is a guy in Africa who says that he is God. Does that mean he does not exist? Similarly you can admit Jesus of Nazareth without admitting Jesus the Son of God. This, of course, leads to C. S. Lewis's trilemma—but that may be another issue. Arch O. La 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking the myth of "goid" and the myth of "jesus" is a nonsense. There is no neutral contemporary evidence of "jesus" and there is no evidence of "god" - however they are separate issues. Robsteadman 08:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Archola, and though I disagree with Rob on whether there is evidence for God, I agree that this is a separate issue completely irrelavant here.

But the thing is, Rob, you can repeat it like a mantra but it still isn't true that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.

The situation here is that there a staunch believer in his faith (trying to avoid the F word) who will not bear any contradiction of his views, therefore has to deny anything that might challenge it and has to paint scholars as ideologues, thus voicing his lack of understanding of how scholarship and research work. Maybe we should have an article about Nonexistentialism, akin to Creationism.

Still, the article mentions the fringe view, as some hold it.

Str1977 09:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The only "evidence" are documents, written by people with a purpose, decades after the events -there are no contemporary documents! How can you, or anyone else, claim the contrary? Robsteadman 09:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you do have evidence, evidence that is contemporary (you are constantly overstating these "decades after"). That the writers of course wrote from one perspective (but who doesn't?) doesn't disqualify these documents as sources but rather calls for Quellenkritik. In these documents we have information that doesn't conflict with what we know about the time and the place from other sources. Pilate's existence was once doubted and then an inscription was found.

No the decades after is hugely significant - it would be today and was even more so then. And to state that those documents are supported elsewhere - there is no evidence of teh star in the eat, teh magi, the massacre of teh innocents... etc. Sorry but your point doesn;t hold water. Robsteadman 10:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We do have non-Christian sources about early Christianity and Jesus in Josephus (current scholars thing the Testimonium Flavianum interpolated but not wholly fabricated), Sueton, Tacitus.

A non-documentary evidence is the existence of Christianity (no matter how misguided you think it is) and the willingness of Christians to die for it, especially of the first generation of Christians. I will not bring the Turin Shroud into play but only say that research is still open on this.

All in all, there is much evidence for the existence of Jesus and none for his non-existence and even no reason to doubt his existence. The only reason for some to still doubt it is that their atheistic faith is appearently too weak to disbelief a historically existing Jesus, so they have to claim a non-existance of Jesus. You may continue in this obsurantist faith, but, please, this is no basis for our article here.

Str1977 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jospehus wrote decades later and it is accepted that the refs to "jesus" were inserted by others out to prove "jesus" existed some time later. I have not queired that Christianity exists - just that "jesus" is a fiction and that we should be presenting the facts - which, at the very least, throw doubt on to an historical "jesus". Turin Shroud!!! Amusing. So, go on, some contemporary proof of "jesus" existence, not theories and pontification... I won't hold my breath. Again we are witnessing christian protectionism. Let's see the FACTS. Robsteadman 10:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On your comment far above Rob, what's this about "verified and categorized if need be"? Your telling me you have proof very last scholar in the entire world who ever existed and will ever exist and was or will be religious in any form purposefully and deliberatly attempted or will attempt to re-write history? Care to share this information? Homestarmy 17:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonexistence Hypothesis

We should link "question the historicity of Jesus" in the paragraph to Historicity_of_Jesus#The_idea_that_Jesus_never_existed, which is specifically about the nonexistence hypothesis. Our sources can also be used to clear up the "citation needed" tags there, in Historical Jesus and perhaps Jesus-Myth. Arch O. La 01:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"What kind of majority?" and "The Jesus Seminar"

There seems to be a fair amount of support for "large majority" as a second-vote compromise between the proponents of "majority" and the proponents of "vast majority." Any comments (either here or in the voting comments above? Arch O. La 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Large nmajoty of bible scholars - yes - because of their POV bias. Large majority of historians/otehrs - no. Unproven. Robsteadman 14:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob - see the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. --JPotter 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And what relevanbce has the "jesus: seminar to neutral scholarship? Absolutely none. "faith" apologists supporting their irrational posiiton. Robsteadman 17:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it at the bottom the article notes evangelical people sometimes take issue with the conclusions of this seminar? You'd think people promoting an "irrational" position would take everything they had on the issue. Homestarmy 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Rob, I hope you realize that, now that we've brought up the Jesus Seminar and the "demythologize Jesus" branch of Higher Criticism, what you categorize as faith overlaps with what many Christians categorize as unfaith. Now, that's nothing if not ironic. I assert that the truth lies along the middle path. Arch O. La 20:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that, a very wide range of scholars from the Biblical Studies and Historical disciplines assert the existence of Jesus and some other basic facts about his life. This is just about all that everyone agrees on, but it is significant and goes to the point, that very few scholars have ever supported the nonexistence hypothesis and I have yet to see one historian cited as supporting it. By the rules of wikipedia, we need not even mention the hypothesis. Indeed, six out of the seven encyclopedias I consulted on the matter, including Encyclopedia Britannica do not mention it at all. But in the spirit of NPOV I think we should include it and refer to the larger discussion. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Their findings, as summarized in the Jesus Seminar article:

In summary: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene.

Whither faith, Rob? This sounds like an entirely secular explanation to me. Arch O. La 21:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is based on nothing - it is guesswork. Totally unencyclopedic and unverifiable. Robsteadman 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can affirm this is an un-biblical finding, so much for Biblical scholars. Homestarmy 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The seminar contains scholars of Christian (liberal), agnostic, and atheist beliefs. Conservatives generally hate it. I like their work, though I don't always think they apply it responsibly. KHM03 21:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Extant contemporary documents?

As it has been claimed they DO exist, here's a space to name the docuemtns, from "jesus" lifetime, that refer to him taht we have today: Robsteadman 10:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, no one said from Jesus' lifetime - it said "contemporary" which is quite a different thing. We have already mentioned them, but there you go:

• some of Paul's letter
• the Gospels
• Josephus
• Tacitus
• Sueton (he is doubtful as we don't know for certain what he meant by Chrestus)

Supporting these are quite a lot of sources (both tradition and relicts) that confirm the setting of the mentioned accounts, the mentioned persons (Pilate, Herod, Kajaphas, Pharisees and Saducees etc.)

Rob, please stop your personal vendetta against the methods and findings of scholarly, critical historiography. Or, if you can't, go to the university next to your place and discuss this with the members of the historical or the ancient department. Thanks. Str1977 11:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As a counter challenge: May Rob please provide a least of contemporary extant documents that refer to Socrates, to "proof" that he did exist? Str1977 11:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about "jesus" not Socrates.

The documents you list are far from being contemporary documents - they are not adequate HISTORICAL bproof, even if they do hold for those you choose to have "faith" and "believe" without verifiable proof.

Josephus document was written in the late 90s.... and the references to "jesus" are accepted as additions made (vandalism) by "christians" from later centuries trying to prove that "jesus" existed - contrary to the evdience.

The "gospels" weren't written until between 68 CE and 110/120 CE (despite the claims of fundamnetalist fanatics who claim they were written earlier).

Tacitus wasn't even born until 56 CE!

Paul's letters were written afetr teh event and he only saw "jesus" in dreams!

Come on - genuine contemporary documents - written during his lifetime.

How about a reference, outside of the "gospels" for the massacre of the innocents? - hbig event.. surely there should be some reference to a mass murder?

How about the star of bethlehem? EVeryone would have witnessed it..... surely someone would have written about it?

The feeding of teh 5,000 - quite a lot of witnesses.... didn;t one of them, or a Roman soldier policing crowds, put anything down on papyrus?

To claim "faith" documents an vandalised documents written decades later is not good enough for verifiable historical fact.

Robsteadman 12:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977...don't take the bait. Let Rob take this up with the academy, who have already voiced their opinion that Jesus existed. There is ample evidence that the community has endeavored to work with Rob on these pages; don't take the bait. KHM03 12:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No - we should be reporting the verifiable and the factual - we can say what certain biased scholars have said but we must also report the FACTS even if they contradict the priests and others who have written scholarship. This clearly shows an attempt to restrict debate and is not in the spirit of WP. It also shows a refusal to accept the verifiable.Shameful. Robsteadman 12:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll just say that Rob's points are irrelevant. The paragraph states nothing about the massacre, star or feeding. All it says is "Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer, who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate." Arch O. La 12:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, only certain "approved" views are relevant. The whole article is problematic as it is still POV. Good, good - thanks for the increasing quantities of evidence of protectionism. Robsteadman 12:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Aww, I promised myself I wouldn't do this. Rob, the world's best known and most revered historians and Biblical scholars - some of whom are people of faith, some of whom are not - affirm that Jesus existed. We needn't argue about that; you know this to be true. Our role here, despite your misunderstanding, is not to do their job. Our role is to explain what they have said. You want us to do something else. But now it seems your singular, fringe POV has become something of a crusade, potentially in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy. Please review WP:POINT. To everyone else - - please leave Rob alone, here and on his talk page. If he comes up with some new bit of information, I'm sure he'll share it here. Also, since the consensus of the community is clear, I'm sure he'll respect the process if we stop "feeding him". Please, let's leave himn alone. Thanks...KHM03 12:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some scholars say he existed - I do not agree that they are revered (particularly those who come from a higely POV background such as being a priest). Our role is not only to say what such people have said (and, if needed, put that in context) but to present all verifiable fact about a subject. It is verifiable that there are no extant contemporary/contemporaneous documents and it is significant that, depsite this, the POV scholars still maintain "jesus" existed. It is not a fringe view that "jesus" didn't and, even if it was, we should be presenting the facts that we can verify. There is not one jot of contemporary evidence for his existence - we must report that... and PROMINENTLY. I am not trying to do something else - I am trying to make this an encyclopedic article based on the verifiable. A shame others are using it as a way of mirepresenting fact to support their POV. Totally shameful.

To tell people to ignore me is bullying at best. But thanks for even more prooof of the protectionism that is going on. Robsteadman 12:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is there are no contemporary, extant documents for any ancient figure. If we do not trust Tacitus and Suetonius, when know no more about Julius Caesar, Augustus and Tiberius than their names on coins. For many emperors, we have no hard evidence that they existed either. Much less that Tacitus himself existed. Therefore, historians count these documents as trustworthy. The only documents of this time that seem to consistently not be respected are the gospels, which date much closer to the events they chronicle in time and space than all but a handful of other documents from that time. This is why almost all scholars of all disciplines accept the historicity of Jesus. It is also what we are charged with putting into the article. --CTSWyneken 12:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your post rather over states the situation - there are many ancient figures for whom there is some evidence (extant, contemporary) but for "jesus" (and that is what THIS article is about, there is none. Scripture proving, evangelising documents written decaes later are not proof to anyone (except those of "faith") and the fact they refer to events which are not documente elsewhere throws their reliability into further doubt. The balance of this article is wrong - yes say x scholars accept he existed (an give their background if this is significant) but we must present the verifiable facts - and that is that there are no extent documents and we know nothing about him, not even whether he existed - I contest the use of dates as POV. Robsteadman 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Name one and the document that confirms it please. --CTSWyneken 12:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well...obviously the dates are hypothetical (based on an analysis of the text re:Herod, the governor of Syria, &c). and I support the use of the word "circa" to show that they are approximate educated guesses. But, the dates are cited in footnote 1, so we show who is making this informed guess. Arch O. La 15:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes they need circa as a minimum, or better still possibly (as there is NO proof that he ever really existed beyon the guesses of "faith" scholars. Robsteadman 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me qualify. I'm asking Robsteadman to produce the name of one ancient figure for which there is a mention of that figure in an extant document written during that figure's lifetime. Is there such for, say, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, etc. or lesser people like, Tacitus and Suetonius?

Let me qualify - I'm editing an article about "jesus" and requesting it is not protecte against the verifiable facts and is made NPOV. Robsteadman 17:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that the discipline of history accepts documents such as the works of Tacitus as accurate and as proof of the actual existence, not only of historic figures from before their time, but of events before they existed. The role of wikipedia is to report such scholarship. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No. SOME accept that the totally not contemporary Tacitus is proof (mostly those with "faith") others contest his extensive use of secondary sources and some have questioned whether the Annals were forged or corrupted (as is accepted happened with Josephus). Again you over state your case. Verifiable please. Robsteadman 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note, Rob, that my statement is not about the Jesus question directly. It is a simple observation that Tacitus is treated by historians as a reliable source for events before they lived. Do you contest this? By the way, do you have proof that Tacitus existed? --CTSWyneken 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also waiting for Rob to produce the name of a historian known to be an atheist that asserts something about Jesus' existence or lack thereof. --CTSWyneken 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

On what goes into the article, all of this is irrelevant. We are required to prove scholars believe Jesus existed, that his dates fit within x and y and that all we say in this article are in published sources. I've done that so far and others are invited to join me in such. --CTSWyneken 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Intent to post consensus paragraph

I intend to post the paragraph in the form below on Monday and revert to it up to two times a day, in respect for the consensus. Please examine it for honoring our votes above. I will hear only objections that it does not reflect that vote.

A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[2] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.[3]

Fellow editors, does this reflect our majority votes? --CTSWyneken 12:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Nay

• Conditionial Support. The text implies that there is a lack of sources. It should say that these people suggest that that there was a lack of sources. Otherwise, okay. Str1977 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Conditionial Support. The superfluous 2nd sentence could be removed. The 1st sentence implies there are skeptics. ^rossnixon 10:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea

1. I vote yea. . Arch O. La 13:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Ditto. KHM03 13:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Supprt (again) let's move forward with a strong consensus here.Gator (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Yea. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support --JPotter 16:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Go for it Homestarmy 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
8. it's fine Slrubenstein | Talk 11:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Further Discussion

Although, given Rob's arguments, we might consider (at some point): "However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to many ancient figures, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus and other ancient figures." KHM03 13:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about "jesus" not other figures. How very silly. But, I guess, more evidence. Robsteadman 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with it - however I still maintain that, however correct, the term "critical Bible scholars" will be misleading to the majority of average users. Is there no other way of wording that. I am also not convinced that it is only a small minority of others - it might be a small minoriyt of Bible scholars but it doesn't follow that it is a small mionority of everyone. Robsteadman 14:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm still waiting for the name of a historian of any faith or non-faith who asserts the nonexistence hypothesis. Also, G. A. Wells asserts that the majority dismisses the nonexistence hypothesis. (see my quote of him at the beginning of the Cited Author Bios subpage. --CTSWyneken 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to Biblical criticism explains what "criticism" means in this context. Arch O. La 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But I suspect the AVERAGE user won;t click on the link. Robsteadman 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things: How do you know the average user will not click, especially if it sounds funny to them? Second, are you suggesting we shouldn't make wiki links? --CTSWyneken 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

At this time, I think it is wise to get the text up as we have agreed to it in multiple votes, give the matter a rest and address side issues at least a month or so from now. We need a break. I also hope that, when posted, you all will assist in reverting this paragraph to this form, with reference, politely, to this discussion. Later, if we wish to debate dropping "critical," I'm up to it, or to debate adding the part about other ancient figures not being verifiable, we can. --CTSWyneken 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Protectionism against new editors and new edits - total disregard from the principles of WP. Hang your head in shame. Robsteadman 17:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang his head in shame for wanting to put in a consensus-maintained paragraph that took days to get agreement over into the article on possibly the most influential person who was ever born? Homestarmy 18:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your last para SHOUL read: "The most influential person who was possibly born" ;-) Robsteadman 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet, it does not ;-) Homestarmy 18:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Literary Evidence for Ancient Figures

Let's start with Juliius Caesar - inscriptions, documents, coins..... (unlike the myth put about by "christians" who claim there is more of "jc" than of JC. Robsteadman 14:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Julius was Ceasar. Jesus did not hold public office. Arch O. La 15:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, my point above was that few, if any, "extant, contemporaneous documents" exist to testify to the existence of even famous figures. We have no more than coins and inscriptions for almost all of them, if that. In the case of the first emperor, then, my challenge is: name a document, written during the lifetime of Julius Caesar, that refers to him.

Re: coins -- can you reference one we know, by your standards, to have been without a doubt, struck during Julius' lifetime? Or such an inscription? --CTSWyneken 16:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship requiring qualifiers

WHen scientific research is funded by a particular body that research funding has to be stated for credibility. The POV has to be noted. The same needs to be with biblical scholarship - the POV behind the scholoarship shouod be made clear. Currently merely stating they are "scholars" is misleading if their research/scholarship has been written from a biased POV. Robsteadman 14:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the wikipedia policies that require this. --CTSWyneken 16:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Higher Criticism has included both those of faith, and those who have attempted to "demythologize" the New Testament account. (Which is why it has been controversial among Christians). Although most of the latter accept some NT statements and not others. In fact, I believe the Historical-Critical Method on which Higher Criticism is based originated with early 19th century/late 18th century secular German rationalists. Not sure re:Athiest/Agnostic/Theist.Arch O. La 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I really don't know why you keep harping on the "contemporary documents" issue. It's a red herring. As has been pointed out many times, we have no contemporary documents concerning the lives of most people from the ancient world. In some cases there is real doubt about their existence - as for example with Romulus. In others there is little doubt. But we judge on degrees of probability. There can be no absolute certainty. The case of Jesus is unusual because he is a lower-class figure whose life is recorded in some detail in texts written within living memory of his life - but they were written in a period of immense turmoil and Millenarian expectation and they are full of stories of amazing miraculous acts. What most seculer historians have a problem with are the miracle stories, on the grounds that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Where the claims are not extraordinary, the evidence requirement is less exacting. Secular historians typically interpret the miracles as stories designed to place Jesus in a Messianic narrative; perhaps exaggerations of real incidents; or evidence of attitudes of the time about the nature of healing, visions etc. Few people dispute the existence of Buddha, even though we have no documents that come anywhere near as close as the Gospels do to Jesus. But stories of Buddha performing miracles are treated sceptically in the same way as stories ascribed to the life of Jesus, or, for that matter, Julius Caesar. Paul B 16:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I keep refering to it because it is NOT a red herring but highly relevant - there is no ebdience of his life, there is no evience of his divinity, there is no evidence of "god" and yet biased so-called scholars are being used to verify his existence contrary to all rational thought, fact and arguement. Robsteadman 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is evidence, as has been said over and over and over, but you seem to have absolutely no grasp of historical methodology at all, let alone logic so there is no point in continuing discussion with you. Paul B 21:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Folks...re: Robsteadman...see WP:POINT, and move on. KHM03 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, that doesn;t apply to the "faith" editors proecting their POV article against logic, rationality, evidence and the need for NPOV.... shameful - yet agaion. But thanks for more evidence. Robsteadman 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The only evidence for your side is even more "POV" then ours, assuming that the links you wanted in the article are representative of the opinion you want represented.Homestarmy 18:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You've clearly ont been looking at my edits - what a shame you want to retain the POV slant this article currently has. Robsteadman 18:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not been looking, I was like the only person who commented on them when you brought them to this talk page! And if what myself and almost everyone in this discussion is proposing this article read like is shameful, then let shamefulness ring! Pride is so over-rated anyway. Homestarmy 18:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

People, Rob baits everyone in his useless bantering. He does not answer specific questions asked of him, rather he goes off on repeated tangents that are meaningless. He scolds as if he is capable of scolding anyone without demonstrating an iota sense. Please ignore his consistent harping on the few drums he bangs. He does not address the article, but rather engages individuals in personal debates. Just let him have the last word; ignore what he says unless he speaks directly about a specific issue in the article; i.e. an edit. This page is turning into mush and needs to be brought back to the article. Storm Rider 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen. KHM03 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen seconded. (Motion carried?) Everyone, here's some advice that I've been collecting. Feel free to add to it. Arch O. La 21:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is Rob isn't just saying his mind, he's acting on it, and people are sometimes having a hard time editing the article as a result. It even looks to me like he just reverted 4 times in his last spree, but I dunno :/. Homestarmy 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Paul and Rob: I notice that Romulus and Remus both lists them as "Roman mythology" and provides dates. Rob, you can look at the dates in the Jesus article in the same light. Arch O. La 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Also the quote at the bottom of that page: "Jesus and Romulus are simply two examples among many." Arch O. La 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The dates are extrapolations from the traditional date of Rome's foundation and the supposed age of Romulus's death. As you say, they don't imply that the Great Man necessarily existed. The quote is in inverted commas but is unattributed, which is rather problematic. At one point the Romulus artcle was heavily edited to suggest parallels with Jesus by bolding passages from the sources. Paul B 21:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And the link goes to a Jesus-Myth article website. Heh. I prefer Socrates to Romulus myself. But when I hear "Romulus," I think "emotional Vulcan." ;-} Arch O. La 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Str1977

Perhaps "assert" rather than "citing" or "noting" or "suggesting"? Asserting seems to me to be a neutral word that neither suggests that they are right or wrong. Arch O. La 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Archola, "assert" is fine with me. Str1977 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But "cite" is the correct word for what these scholars do - assert is not. Note suggests some element of doubt. Suggest was nonsense. Robsteadman 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rob, "cite" is not what these scholars do (well they do it but that's not their main occupation) but it's what we do - we cite scholars saying this or that. We need a verb that denotes that this "lack of sources" is not a mere fact but already interpretation, hence I suggested "suggest", but I am also fine with any word that does the job, such as "assert". Str1977 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of extant contemporaneous documents is not interpretation but is fact. There are none. It's that simple - it's only the "god squad" that say that things written decades later and doctored by "christians" in later centuries are contemporaneous. Robsteadman 10:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikitionary [6] lack is defined as: "Deficiency; want; need; destitution; failure; as, a lack of sufficient food."

Hence it means basically "too little" - this inherently POV as we first need to define "how much is needed or sufficent". "Your" scholars assert that there are too few sources while the vast majority disagrees and says that there are not many sources but that these are enough, under the methodology of critical historiography.

Ah, and "a" is part and parcel with the NPOV wording "assert", while "the" just as "cite" denotes factuality, which is POV. Str1977 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I would like to know why we should be surprised about the lack of contemporaneous documents? A small group of fisherman follow an untrained teacher around for either 1 or 3 years, in an outpost of the Roman empire. Why should people have been writing screeds of documents about this? The people that knew of his deeds and could write were probably too embarrassed to do so. They weren't even sure what his claims were. ^rossnixon 10:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe we could have some reference somewhere to the feeding of the 5,000 (big crowd, authorities would have noticed), the star in the east (in sky all would have noticed bright new star), the magi (intelligent men maybe kept own records), the massacre of the innocents (killing all kis under a certain age - interesting policy but no mention outside of the gospels).... he was causing fuss, stirring things, there were incidents... and yet no-one wrote anything down - not pro-"jesus" or from the authorities side of things. That is odd. And without contemporaneous proof we should NOT be stating, as fact, that he existed. We can say that some "believe" and some "imply" but we cannot say he DID exist. Unencylclopedic and highly POV. Robsteadman 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob,

• You are (again) confusing reliability of sources with evidence for a person's existence. Would you declare Caesar to be non-existing because of his apostheosis?
• Maybe those 5,000 did tell someone and weren't believed. And you forget that we have reports about the feeding - only you discount it categorically and then wonder about not having reports. That's circular reasoning.
• Maybe the feeding is a legend, a historian may/will treat it as such, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
• As for the star: it is a bit difficult because Matthew doesn't give as a astronomically desription but just says "star" - however there have been astronomical explanations for the phenomenon, a famous one by Keppler. You might not know that his observations have been confirmed by Babylonion records.
• You are forgettting that not all sources survived the test of time. We don't know whether someone wrote something down during his lifetime, sources that might have been used by our surviving sources. And you disregard oral transfer of information. "Non in acta, non in mundo" is not true.
• Apart from that, consult your historical department and pick your bone with the people there.

Str1977 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)