Personally, I tend to disagree with your criterion that "an opinion is mainstream if a top scholar asserts it and no top scholar contradicts it", like you were saying in a previous comment. I think that we can call it "mainstream opinion" only when it is possible to ascertain (finding an authoritative source) that most "top" scholars hold such opinion. To the other extreme if one single top scholar holds an opinion about a matter, while all the others simply didn't express an opinion or think it's undecidable, then it's not "mainstream". Bardoligneo (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section that's missing from this page, a section that gets prominence in other sources, is the social, political and religious environment of Jesus. The article includes references here and there, but the reader deserves a thorough treatment. I know that some editors consider the historical setting as secondary because Christ is not a product of history, so probably this subsection should go in the historical Jesus section, rather than appearing before the Gospels as its own section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article called Historical Jesus, which is a main linked article for the Historical views section. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true! So you're agreeing with me that this material should go in the historical section even though it might be useful to the reader trying to understand the gospel section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you want to add something major like that, it should go in the Historical Jesus article, not here -- especially since consensus is against it here. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica covers Jesus' social background. Why shouldn't we? A great way to work past disagreements is to stick really closely to WP policies and guidelines. Can you please back up your opinion with reference to a policy or guideline? And "consensus" doesn't count (WP:CCC). Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My life has gotten busy. My children's book on evolution is shipping, and I'm prepping for a guest spot on Dogma Debate Wednesday. (I'll try to talk about historical Jesus, and they take callers. Just saying.) So here's a great source for Jesus' social background: Britannica Online. If someone wants to add any of this material to the page, or just see how a top-notch encyclopedia treats the topic of Jesus, take a look. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph on the historical setting. Per Due Weight, we should cover the topics that the best tertiary sources cover. No scholar of historical Jesus is better respected than Sanders, and Britannica may be the best respected encyclopedia. If they think that the topic is worth 14 paragraphs, it's got to be worth at least one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While its true the consensus is that Jesus existed, its also true that every mainstream scholar who examined the relevant methodology has said the methodology is invalid. So we must state both per NPOV. References:

• Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (eds.), Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2012)
• Dale Allison, 'The Historians' Jesus and the Church', in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage (ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard Hays; Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 79-95
• Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst. NY: Prometheus Books, 2007), pp. 185-217
• Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Louisville. KY: John Knox Press, 2002)
• Stanley Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the source for your claim that "every mainstream scholar who examined the relevant methodology has said the methodology is invalid"? We would need a source for THAT specific statement if we want to include such a thing.Farsight001 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Victoria! Welcome to the Jesus page, and thanks for offering some reliable sources. Would you like to make a suggestion for what to change on the page? Like Farsight said, if it's true that the methodology is bad, then can you provide us with a reliable source to cite? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the references above, something like "However scholars state the methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus are defective". Allison uses the word defective, and I think that is a good word to use.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Allison says it, we can credit it to Allison. However, we cannot say what you wanted - that "scholars" say it, implying that there is a consensus in this regard, when in reality, the general consensus among scholars is the opposite.Farsight001 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Anyway you can say "several" scholars.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be with Victoria here. I'd love to see a section on Christian criticisms of the historical Jesus project. Pope Benedict, for example, said that Jesus explodes all historical categories. And maybe atheist opinions, too. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I think that this last addition about invalid methodology should be removed, according to WP:UNDUE. The immediately preceeding sentence states that "virtually all" scholars agree that Jesus existed: these others would be, consequently, a really small minority that shouldn't go in the leading section. Alternatively, they could be moved to the Jesus Myth section, depending on what they actually say (full citations or links would help). In this case, I think it should be fleshed out a little better. BTW: do they speak about a method to ascertain that "Jesus existed at all" *or* about one to ascertain "which one of the events we should deem more or less historical"? (in WP I've read about critics of the latter, but it's not the same thing). Bardoligneo (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. The fact that methodology is invalid doesn't change the historicity of Jesus, such academic discourses better suit the article's body and convey little meaning in the lead. The lead does a good job by summarizing what most scholars agree upon. Brandmeister^talk 17:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You two are conflating different issues. Noone is disputing that the consensus is that Jesus existed. But its also true the methodology is invalid. Both must be mentioned per NPOV, particularly since the lede delves directly into methodological issues by stating "historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should read like that "virtually all scholars" are inchoerently using what they deem an "invalid methodology" because they would be self-refuting (like: "I say so, but my methodology is invalid"!)... Or is this we actually want to convey? More likely, it's a different, really small minority to say so. Or probably, some of these critics refer to methodologies to "rank the historicity" of various events (Jesus seminar, for instance), but this is a separate issue that in fact shouldn't be conflated (I agree) with the issue of Jesus existence. Could someone please provide some excerpts from at least some of the sources? Bardoligneo (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the sources cited don't support the statement "every mainstream scholar who examined the relevant methodology has said the methodology is invalid". To examine just the first source listed "Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity", I haven't read the book yet (which btw seems to be actually titled "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity" [same authors and year so not just a matter of two similar titles]) but one review of it states "As the title suggests, each contributor questions the value of the criteria for the future of historical Jesus research; yet not all of the contributors arrive at the same conclusion. Some believe that the criteria are beyond repair and should be abandoned altogether; others believe that the criteria can be salvaged"[1] There also seems to have been push back from other mainstream scholars. --Erp (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A great way to settle disputes like this is to look at great tertiary sources, which sum up or review the state of scholarship. When we read the Jesus entry in Britannica or read about Jesus in a textbook, how much space is devoted to the idea that the methodology is invalid? In my reading, basically none. Victoria, could you find us a good, secular encyclopedia or textbook that treats the bogus-methodology issue? Then we can see how the topic is treated, and, according to Due Weight, we would treat it likewise. Since early in the 20th century, certain Christian scholars have argued that historians have nothing reliable to say about Jesus, but that doesn't seem like a mainstream view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bardoligneo says, "I think that this last addition about invalid methodology should be removed, according to WP:UNDUE," and that's right, so I removed it. I'll be the first in line to put it back in once we find a great tertiary source that treats the topic this way. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede already brings up methodological issues, so citing WP:UNDUE is nonsensical.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is very clear not to include this piece of original research. I'd encourage VictoriaGrayson to stop her edit warring against a clear consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Victoria and Jonathan are getting off the reservation. Adding this statement to the lead makes the conclusion, not just the methodology, sound invalid. It needs to be stated what that really means, or else it looks like, as Bardoligneo said, it makes the previous sentence, the conclusion, incoherent. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Christians consider Jesus to be God, it's only natural that they should ask for and receive certain concessions as we edit this page. That's fine by me. I'm happy to compromise. Let's be clear about what I'm talking about.

• Gospels. This section has no support in WP policies, WP guidelines or the examples of good sources. Christians want people to hear the Gospel story, and this article summarizes the stories in the Christians' four canonical Gospels and the other parts of their NT. Scholarly and historical analysis are prohibited. This section is the biggest concession to Christian sensibilities on the page. It's unprecedented.
• Compartmentalize John's prologue. John's opening bit about the eternal Logos does not get covered in the main body of the Gospels section. By special request, it has been removed to the introduction. This prologue sounds strange to modern ears and doesn't fit with the prologues of Matthew and Luke. M's and L's prologues get regular treatment. Not John's.
• No history of doctrine. It's common for reference works to discuss how doctrines about Jesus developed over the centuries. This approach, however, makes Christian doctrine look like a human-made construct: a product of history. So the page contains nothing of this material, not even a good treatment of how St. Paul treated Jesus. Wouldn't the reader want to know where the idea of the Trinity came from? But we don't tell the reader that because it's too sensitive a topic.
• No anti-semitism. This came up months ago, that we shouldn't refer to the anti-semitism that scholars see in the Gospels. That is, we should stop following RSs on this topic because what the RSs say is too provocative.
• No bodily resurrection on historicity table.

Practically speaking, I know that we need consensus to work together, and I'm OK with living with these compromises. It's important to be clear about them, so I spelled them out. Now certain editors want a further concession: no table summarizing mainstream historical opinion on events in the Gospels, not even in the historical views section. I'm happy to compromise on the content of the table, but forbidding it altogether seems like a concession too far. That said, if we put this historical opinion in the Gospels section where it arguably belongs, then we wouldn't need the table, and I'd delete it myself. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a competition or two sides of a battle. We are a collaborative effort. So if you could please not treat Christians as the enemy, that would be really helpful.

Second of all, the section on the gospels is titled "Canonical Gospel Accounts", meaning that it is, infact, SUPPOSED to be a description/summation of the gospel accounts. Furthermore, the section is well sourced, gives a dispassionate description. Other views are mentioned elsewhere in the article. What, exactly, do you think is not in keeping with WP policies? Unless you are laboring under the delusion that the only people that can be scholars and reliable sources on the subject are allowed to be people who think its all completely made up?

So John's prologues sounds strange. What's your point? Are you trying to say it doesn't flow with the article well? I fail entirely to see how you might consider this a "concession to Christians".

It might be common for reference works to discuss how doctrines about Jesus developed in articles about religions and organizations that have doctrines that have evolved. This article is about Jesus the person. Again, I fail to see the problem.

What RSs say that a Jewish man who found and lead 12 Jewish men, taught in temples and synagogues, and followed Jewish laws are anti-semitic? I don't believe that the consensus of RS's believe such a thing.

Basically, I can't figure out how you have come to the conclusion that ANY of these things are concessions at all.Farsight001 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not treating Christian editors as the enemy. I'm trying to collaborate with them. For instance, I wanted John's prologue about the Logos to be in the main Gospel summary like any other part of the Gospels. Christian editors objected. We compromised and put the material in the introduction rather than in the main body of the section. But let's focus on the main issue on this page. The Gospel section has no parallel in good, tertiary sources. There is no WP policy or guideline that says, "Keep scholarly analysis out of a section if the editors agree." There is no WP guideline that says, "You can slant a section toward a certain POV provided you title the section just right." Why do we have this section when Britannica doesn't and textbooks don't? For the years I've been editing this page, I've always understood that Christians want to relate the Gospel story without the indignity of critical scholarship. If that's not the reason that this section is here, why is it here? Secular, tertiary works don't need such a section. Why do we? I'd love to see answers that actually refer to WP policies and guidelines. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the language Jesus and his people actually spoke, wouldn't it be better to have an Aramaic rather than a Greek translation at the beginning of the article? Zacwill16 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several times before. The reason we give a Greek rendition of his name at the beginning of the article rather than one in Aramaic, Hebrew or something else is because the only spelling that can be reliably confirmed by primary sources is the Greek one. There are several possible spellings in Hebrew, for example off the top of my head: ישוע Yeshua (what modern Christians usually use when speaking Hebrew), ישו Yeshu (the name Jewish Israelis generally use, despite its probably being derogatory in origin) or יהשוע Yehoshua (which is actually equivalent to "Joshua"). Anyway, in short, sources. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter what spelling variant is used, since they all more or less render the same name? Whichever one is used, it will at least be an approximation of the name Jesus himself used, rather than a name completely foreign to him. Zacwill16 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has made any further objections, I'm going to replace the Greek name. Feel free to re-open discussion here if you disagree. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Nobody has agreed with your proposed change, and it has been opposed in detail. No consensus whatsoever for that change.Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has offered any counter-argument or further objection or response of any kind. I took silence to mean agreement. Please, next time say something if you disagree. Zacwill16 (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article reports that the gospels say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but it never gives the mainstream historical opinion that these stories are legends. How should we let the reader know that these stories are considered legendary? I'd like to mention it in the Gospel section, where it comes up. Is that OK? Probably not. The Gospel section follows an idiosyncratic rule that no such scholarly opinion is allowed. In that case, I'd like to call it out on a table summarizing the historical opinions that are excluded from the Gospels section. But that table keeps getting deleted by editors who don't refer to WP guidelines, WP policies, or RSs. Britannica just leaves these stories out of their account of Jesus. After all, they're just legends. I'd be happy with that solution, basically following Britannica's lead and doing away with the entire Gospels section. After all, it's Christian POV to look at the four canonical Gospels for Jesus' story. Maybe this information could go in the "Historicity of Events" section, but no other tertiary source has any such section. It could just be "Life and career," and it would tell his story as the historians tell it. I'm sure there are some editors who don't like the fact that historians consider these stories to be legends, so I'm willing to compromise on how we deal with this topic. Any ideas? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not the mainstream historical position that these stories are legends. The stuff about the miracles? Sure. But about where he was born? Not at all. Plus there is already a section for historical opinions. They are not "excluded" from the gospel section anymore than the gospels are "excluded" from the history section.Farsight001 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fasight, "But it is not the mainstream historical position that these stories are legends." That's an interesting statement. Do you have evidence to back it up? My evidence is Sanders, Theissen, Crossan, etc. Luke's census is impossible and Matthew's account looks for all the world like it was invented to fulfill prophecy. If you think that it's in accord with WP policy not to include mainstream historical opinion in the Gospels section, again, I ask for evidence. For example, another tertiary source that treats the material this way, or a WP policy. Opinions without evidence are fine, but evidence is what we need to agree on how to construct this article. Editors with different personal beliefs are going to have a hard time reaching an understanding if we stick with opinions and don't refer to evidence. We may never agree on what we believe, but with evidence we can agree on what the mainstream historical opinion is. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. One, I think the word "legend" is more than a little problematic, because it is rather ambiguous and in this context might fall within WP:VAGUE. Regarding whether the census was "impossible", this statement from the "Census" article in the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible seems relevant: "The NT mentions a census taken during the reign of Augustus.... Beginning with Augustus, the Roman administration regularly conducted [censuses of the provinces]. According to Luke, because of this census Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem." Now, that source is kinda old, but I don't see anything asserting that the census was either impossible or legendary. The best places I can think of to check on this would be the recent Zondervan Bible encyclopedia (which probably has a conservative bias) and the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, which I doubt has as strong a bias. Having said that, I do not myself want to be seen as arguing that they necessarily happened as described, because I don't necessarily believe they did, but I am less than sure that each of the individuals you named in all their works are necessarily "mainstream," and, without knowing the particular works, I would defer myself to what the best current reference works say. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter says, "I would defer myself to what the best current reference works say." Well bless you. I wish all us editors would say that. It sounds like you agree with me that we should set aside our personal viewpoints and stick to what the best sources say. Any editor who disagrees probably shouldn't be editing a page devoted to a touchy topic like Jesus. If I have misidentified the best sources, then I'm wrong and stand to be corrected. Let's agree to present this material the way the best sources do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the material I wish to include. The lede currently mentions methodological issues, but omits the fact that several scholars have stated the methodology is invalid.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As RfC proposer.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This has already been discussed less than a week ago, nothing has changed since the consensus then not to include it. The problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV by the proposer. NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to all views. Quite the opposite, it clearly states "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" Several users have already pointed out that this is exactly what Victoria is doing, cherrypicking minority views and trying to pass it off as the WP:TRUTH. Many users in the discussion last week concluded that this is WP:UNDUE, and I have not seen Victoria even trying to address that concern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on the comment above and wish to note that there seems to be a serious question of disruptive, tendentious editing on the behalf of the opener of this RfC. Given the rather incredible amount of material written about this subject, and the rather small minority of academics who raise the concerns she wishes to include, I cannot believe that it necessarily meets WEIGHT requirements as per the sources available. Should problematic edits continue, including an apparent disregard for recent consensus, I think seeking additional input at a noticeboard or similar would be not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and probably should be in Historicity of Jesus rather than this article. "The methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus have been disputed" might be better wording. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion of contrasting viewpoints offered by scholars in the article's body, with a short mention in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per UNDUE. A few scholars may question the methodology. The vast majority doesn't. The mere mention of the few that do would be considered undue. Plus, the lede, being a summary of the whole article, is no place for statements not really found anywhere in the article body.Farsight001 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose also per Undue, and because consensus was already reached above (even if a few disagreed with said consensus). I have not edited this article recently but I read all edits and Talk page discussions. It is satisfactory in the lede to state "a large majority of scholars" think there is proof for a historical Jesus without giving undue airtime in an intentionally brief statement to minority opinions. The lede is intended as a brief, consensus, summary. Even if it were decided material casting the scholars' methodologies into doubt belongs in the article proper - which I won't comment on right now as I'm typing this on a phone - it is not a significant enough viewpoint to deserve inclusion in the lede. It is also a large logical leap between "a few scholars dispute methodology" and "all" or even "most", as it is a leap to say "every single scholar in the majority opinion used flawed methodology despite disparate methods". Finally, the statement "most scholars believe in Jesus' historicity" remains true even if the methodology used is flawed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I will support including this information as soon as someone can produce a good tertiary source that summarizes the state of scholarship this way. The best sources I've found don't say this, but maybe I'm just missing something. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (un-involved editor here) As I mentioned at NPOVN, and as Cwobeel stated, as long as the reference is from an RS and has some sort of WP:weight and WP:notability on the subject matter, it should be included, at least to an extent. To leave out (exclude) viable (different) points of view is a WP:POV violation. As a start, I suggest going to WP:RSN and asking for opinions regarding these sources [2] from some more impartial editors. In the meantime, I suggest using a Template:POV. Darknipples (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, but almost none of those policies is fulfilled in the suggested change, as most users have pointed out. Jeppiz (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Without it the article is unbalanced. Louieoddie (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jeppiz. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It isn't even clear if the proposed phrase "... the methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus are invalid" correctly represents what the sources say. It's possible the sources actually criticize the criteria used to distinguish more/less probable events in Jesus life (without even doubting his existence), as some reviews of the books suggest: in this case the phrase misrepresents what the sources mean. Alternatively, it is possible that the sources really say that we don't know if Jesus existed, because the methods (which?) to do so are invalid, in this case it would be WP:UNDUE. It may go in Jesus myth section. Bardoligneo (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We can't just dump this into the lede and expect readers to go read the sources by themselves. At the least there should be some material in the body of the article to summarise in the lede, but there isn't. A few people questioning the methods widely accepted is a fringe view, and doesn't belong at all in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as undue. Khestwol (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Jeppiz conflates different issues. Noone is disputing that the consensus is that Jesus existed. But its also true the methodology is invalid. Both must be mentioned per NPOV, particularly since the lede delves directly into methodological issues by stating "historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "true" that the methodology is invalid? Nobody has disputed we might say that it is invalid according to this or that person, given they are notable enough, but where is your source for the claim that this is a general truth held by everyone? Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a scholar of historical Jesus issues, and at this time I don't have access to any of the sources that Victoria cited in another section above. I ask this mainly to satisfy my curiosity, but I suspect shedding a little more light on the sources might help others who are interested. Could anyone (Victoria and any other editors) provide a few brief quotations from each of the sources that support (or attempt to refute) the "invalid methodology" issue? I also would be interested in anything that might refute the claim that "every mainstream scholar" has said the methodology is invalid. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it nothing less than shocking that an editor has decided on her own to declare professional methodologies invalid. Such indications of rather obvious bias on the part of editors is obviously something that should be taken into account. And, FWIW, this is hardly the only individual of historical times who has to be reconstructed based on sources which were written significantly after their lives. Alexander the Great comes to mind. Admittedly, some have complained about them being used in the case of Jesus, but, somewhat surprisingly, not so much for them being used in the case of Alexandre.

So far as I can tell, having looked at this matter before, based on previous discussions regarding this topic, the methodologies used in the case of Jesus are basically to use the sources available and try to determine, based on the contemporary evidence available through those sources and other roughly current sources, what looks like it might be less than reliable. That is a perfectly reasonable approach to take in instances such as these. where the number of sources available could be called, charitably, unimpressive. However, to declare it, as that editor has, "invalid" demonstrates to my eyes a rather weak understanding of historical methodology and seems to my eyes rather less than useful. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is the opinion of well known scholars that the methodologies are invalid. For example, Allison says "the criteria themselves are seriously defective."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TE. Also, I believe that your above comment raises serious questions regarding your ability to accurately represent the sources. "Defective" and "invalid" are in no way necessarily synonymous, despite you apparently as per the above believing that they are, and your apparent wish to use the much stronger term when a weaker term is in fact used in the source you produce could also reasonably raise questions of WP:OR regarding your use of the more sensationalist term "invalid". John Carter (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also request more info from the sources. I'm not opposed to an editor opening an RfC to get more eyes on a discussion, but it will be important to better understand the material at hand. When it is laid out, perhaps a different wording will be more appropriate, such as "some scholars have noted [or asserted] challenges with the methodology". And if it is a small group of scholars, it might then merit a footnote versus space in the main text. But that depends on clarity on the sources' statements which multiple editors are asking for. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are scholars that challenge the methodology used (and there are), then for NPOV we ought to include these viewpoints, in proportion. There is no need to accuse editors of WP:TE for starting an RFC, which is by design one of the ways we have in WP for |dispute resolution. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel, I don't disagree with you, but it is also reasonable to expect support for a claim that "every mainstream scholar" has concluded that the methodology is invalid. I have seen little to nothing to support that claim, and until it is provided I don't see that there is much to discuss. I'm not saying the support does not exist, but it certainly hasn't been presented here. If we were discussing how to interpret comments by a variety of scholars, or which scholars are considered mainstream, we might have something to discuss. But so far all I have seen here is one comment by Allison about defective criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen an argument stating that "every mainstream scholar has concluded that the methodology is invalid." What I see is an argument to include that there are some mainstream scholars that have reached that conclusion. NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose, in the proposal diff I say "several scholars".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to stir things up; I'm still fairly neutral on this issue but also curious. Can someone provide the evidence of "several scholars". Specifics would be very helpful. I've seen the comment by Allison about defective criteria. Anything else? If I could get to the sources I would look for it myself, but considering how controversial this issue is it would be very helpful if someone could provide more detail. Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old issue, which has been hashed over for years now at Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. I am most acquainted with it from the former article, and specifically talk page, particularly where it led to an editor being topic-banned. You can probably look at those articles for most of the evidence.

At the risk of repeating myself, I am unaware of any real scholars who are actively enthused about accepting the historicity of Jesus. They aren't. They all, on both sides so far as I can tell, wish there was more good evidence than there is, probably one way or another. Having said that, this isn't the only situation historians face where individuals are documented only from sources which are less than optimal, but, at least in most all the similar cases I have seen, and several which bear more or less the same characteristics of this one, they at least accept the evidence which is available as sufficient to indicate that there was some such person. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For sources, I guess the ones that come to mind are Bart Ehrman's recent Did Jesus Exist? which discusses the more prominent of the more recent discussion supporting the nonexistence of Jesus. Another useful source is either the first or second edition of the Encyclopedia of Unbelief, sorry I forget which, in which the author of the article, whose theory is basically that Jesus was a guy who died in the Maccabbean era with a really persistent habit of haunting the disciples of the alleged historical Jesus for some as yet unexplained reason, because the article there, in what might be reasonably thought the place in which one would see one of the strongest assertions of Jesus' non-existence, says something like (paraphrasing because I haven't looked at for a few years) that it is possible to make a rational argument that Jesus never existed. Of course, some people on the fringe of society say all sorts of more recent things are outright lies too, like the Moon landings (which happened), and disco (which never happened and is only a sick dream of someone who hadn't taken their pills for some time - no one could ever actually listen to that noise). John Carter (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, cannot take seriously anyone who wishes to posit that disco is dead.  :) But seriously, while some coverage of the minority scholars' doubts on Jesus' exist probably does merit coverage in this article or the Historicity one, I will continue to contend it is not a significant enough viewpoint to deserve coverage in the lede, which by definition is brief and attempts to cover majority consensus, while by necessity omitting some detail regarding contention of that consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carrier characterizes the sources in the proposal as showing that the methodology is "proven to be logically invalid across the board". See page 21 of "On the Historicity of Jesus".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carrier's opinion on what the sources prove is only good for his opinion on what the sources prove. To say that all/most/many scholars consider the methodology invalid would be a statement not supported by the source.Farsight001 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation, Victoria. Do you have any evidence that Carrier is a great source for information about historical methodology? You know, like is he cited in encyclopedias and textbooks? Listed as a major, important voice in current scholarship? Anything like that? Crossan, Vermes, and Sanders are all cited at top, contemporary scholars in the field. Is Carrier? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references given to support the derivation of "Jesus" from "Yeshua" are Christian or Catholic-Christian, and therefore biased.

This derivation is a Christian affectation, unsupported by any direct historical references. There is no historical source for this derivation, or, if someone thinks they know of one, then it needs to be provided as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not care about the religious persuasion of the source. Only about their qualifications as an expert. One could just as easily say that atheist sources are biased. Or Islamic or Hindu sources are biased and dismiss them as well. But if we did that, we wouldn't have ANY sources.Farsight001 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is generally biased and unreliable.--168.1.93.40 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. This is a talk page, where you suggest actual changes to an article ("Please change X to Y because Z") that in line with the site's policies and guidelines, such as WP:GEVAL and WP:RS. This is not a discussion forum to complain that mainstream academia doesn't love your pet belief as much as you do. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream academia is NOT a wiki that amateurs like you can speak on behalf.--31.218.140.124 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- that's why this article cites professionally published mainstream academic sources. The sources summarize mainstream academia's views.

Oh, and I've actually done very little editing to this article.

And "Wiki" is just the software that the site is built on. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).