Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

Fringe?

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

Peer-reviewed monographs on HoJ:

-The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never Lived by Shirley Jackson Case, 1912/1923; clearly outdated

-On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by historian Richard Carrier (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press)

-Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers)

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

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

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

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

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

WP:FRINGELEVEL:

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

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

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

Quite clear. Selective reading of policies ('systematic bias', to paraphrase), as also demonstrated in the reference to criticism of the Historical Jesus research, which misunderstood the target of the criticisms, and obviously missed Donald Akenson's comment, as noted in the thread above. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly if only in the past 100 years, 2 sources are mythicism (which have been extensively criticized and rejected) vs tens of thousands of sources are historicist (never deny his existence), then there is clearly no competition. Mythicism clearly has an "absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.” Plus fringe authors like Carrier has never held a professional position in academia or institution, most of his works on Jesus is self published or from non-academic presses. Fringe literature is still fringe no matter if published in some scholarly or non-scholarly manner. There are peer reviewed works on acupuncture (some even have their own peer reviewed journals [1], [2], [3]), but that does not mean that these views are accepted in the medical community just because some passed peer review. Peer review means little when the topic is fringe and even worse when it is heavily criticized by peers after publication like with Carrier and Lataster. Both also acknowledge fringe status so there goes the argument. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Mythicism clearly has an "absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject.”"

You were the one who pointed out to me that Lataster and Carrier had peer-reviewed volumes on the subject. Now you contest even that?

"past 100 years"..."no competition"

peer-reviewed monographs defending HoJ: 0, peer-reviewed monographs doubting HoJ: 2

I simply point towards guidelines that seem to support citing these sources. Is there any good reason to desire a "professional position in academia or institution" for any author?

"self published or from non-academic presses"

Let's ignore those. Please consider that the page's favorited Ehrman 2012 is clearly not an academic publication, and I have seen it much more "heavily criticised" by academics than Carrier and Lataster's monographs.

"acupuncture (some even have their own peer reviewed journals"

Exactly, just like Historical Jesus research! (see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP POV and peer review in journals, + my quote of wp:parity)

"Both also acknowledge fringe status"

Lataster 2019 actually explicitly states that this is "untrue" (p. 1)

Carrier 2014 opposes at least a fringe status for an important part of his argumentation: "The letters of Paul corroborate the hypothesis that Christianity began with visions (real or claimed) and novel interpretations of scripture, and this is not a fringe proposal but is actually a view shared by many experts" Joortje1 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Sure, there are some conflicting aspects to almost every guideline, but does your selected bit really cancel out the problem of using the views of a "restricted subset of specialists" and uncritically presenting these as "mainstream"? Are biblical scholars even considered a subset of historians?

"misunderstood the target"

For my edit of the article on this issue, I cited Meggitt (among others), who discusses the problem in the context of HoJ. It's probably even better to look at Lataster for this: he cites many sources discussing the acknowledged problems of HJ research, and he connects it to HoJ views.

I did notice Akenson's statement that "Yeshua the man certainly existed" (p. 540) (which didn't really seem to come from any historical research), but where does he exclude "the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion" from the problems?

In any case, the problems and especially the bankruptcy of the criteria directly relate to HoJ: the heavily contested "criterion of embareassment" is used as the basis for the mere 2 "facts" that "scholars" agree upon (according to our article). Joortje1 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joortje1: Are biblical scholars even considered a subset of historians? It depends on their specialization. As Bart Ehrman explains here, there are many biblical scholars who specialize mainly on exegesis, that is, the interpretation of biblical texts using different kinds of literary criticism and theological analyses. But as Ehrman also notes:

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

[...]

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

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

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

So, yeah, many critical Bible scholars are as much historians of the Bible and its times as many Classicists are historians of Classical antiquity, or as many Egyptologists are historians of Ancient Egypt, or as many Assyrologists are historians of Ancient Mesopotamia. And the strong consensus among these critical Bible scholars is that a historical Jesus most certainly existed in 1st century Palestine. Potatín5 (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

IF they use proper methodologies, otherwise they are amateur historians at best.

As I said: there are exceptions. Ehrman tries to sell himself as such an exception on that blog post, after emphatically stating "most biblical scholars in fact are not historians".

Ehrman also conceded about the result of his trainging: “I was so uneducated, and so, basically, I’m self-taught in almost all the areas that I’m really interested in.” (2024?)

When it came to his own status as an historian, Ehrman basically suggested that having an interest in a subject is enough, which would make any author writing on any subject an expert. That in itself might not even be a problem. There's a good reason why peer review is usually done "blind": we'll judge the work, which involves looking at the proper use of sound methodologies. But how does this look after the fuss he made over the perceived lack of credentials of his opponents in his book about HoJ? And what about the methodologies of Ehrman and co?

For his 2012 book, Ehrman mostly used the heavily contested "criteria of authenticity", and in such a poor way that he for instance pumps up "multiple attestation" with a bunch of entirely hypothetical sources and dares to count these among sources that we "have". He also claims they are all independent, while for instance Q has been thought up as an alternative solution for how the synoptic gosepls are derived from each other. Et cetera, et cetera.

In his 2014 book, Casey explicitly rejects all the standard historical methods that he seems to know of (which turned out to be mostly those that an opponent suggested).

Most biblical scholars do not even give any (sustained) arguments for their belief in the historicity of Jesus, other than stating that they virtually all agree on it. Meggitt on that consensus: "unlike 'guilds' in professions such as law or medicine, other than the subject of study – the bible – and some assumptions about competency in a few requisite linguistic skills, it is not apparent what members of this 'guild' necessarily have in common and therefore what value an alleged consensus within it really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter". Joortje1 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't even object to there being a consensus among biblical scholars (and theologians), but the article should identify the specific discipline.

That said, there are good reasons why Meggitt calls it an "alleged" consensus. For one: "whilst it is true that some members do have the academic freedom to arrive at any position they find convincing about the question of Jesus' historicity, this is clearly not the case for many who are also members of the 'guild' and carry out their scholarship in confessional contexts, as the apparent silencing of Brodie indicates". So, I'd love to see an anonymous poll rather than a bunch of outdated quotes from a very small portion of the thousands of biblical scholars saying that they all agree.

I also assume plenty of mythicist publications deserve the label "fringe theory". But that notion has here become an excuse to attack anything that smacks a bit of doubt about HoJ, and even the few peer-reviewed studies on the subject. Joortje1 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"scholars who identify as "historians" without proper credentials and without applying any sound historical methodology, are basically practising pseudoscience" No, they are not making any scientific claims. Those tin foil hat-type of pseudo-scholars are simply pseudohistorians, misrepresenting the historical record to promote their wacky religious views. Dimadick (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, "pseudohistory" is the more precise word for it, but let's not use either term anymore, as long as we haven't found wp:rs using it in this context, just like I prefer to not see the pejorative "fringe theory" used for peer-reviewed publications from reputable publishers.

I think only a minority of the cited authors are really promoting wacky religious views. At least Ehrman's main agenda seems pupularising findings of Textual criticism of the New Testament, which actually helps people understand the dubious nature of the Bible (as long as he'd stick to books like "Forged"). But when he, Casey or similar authors pretend to give a historical account, it seems like biblical studies come with rather naïve ideas about what the discipline of History entails (and their overconfidence and tendency to overstate their ideas becomes clear).

There are great exceptions and peer review is a reasonable way to separate the wheat from the chaff. The same goes for "mythicist" publications, of course.

There's just very few useful studies on this subject, and the dominant editors of this article refuse those. Joortje1 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"their overconfidence and tendency to overstate their ideas becomes clear" Two decades ago, I was fascinated by the topic of the historicity of the Bible and I had a collection of several books on the topic. After noticing that many scholars do not have archaeological evidence to support their ideas, I mostly lost interest in the topic. I find archaeology to be fascinating, and biblical studies to be rather stagnant and unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ramos1990 offered a very useful comparison in a previous discussion: “You can have thousands of doctors who believe in acupuncture, but the medical community still considers it a pseudoscience and is thus fringe.”

HoJ is a fringe research topic within the field of “historical Jesus” scholarship, which is often frowned upon within the wider community of biblical studies, which relatively often operates within the wider context of theology, but also within the field of study of religion. Only the latter can arguably be considered part of the wider community of historians (but not necessarily as “mainstream”).  

Because of the general acknowledgement of extreme problems with bias and lack of sound methodology in historical Jesus scholarship, it seems fair to consider it pseudo-history (at least if authors lack relevant credentials or even training but nonetheless present their work as historical analysis). The topic of HoJ mostly getting ignored in mainstream disciplines makes it fringe.

You can have thousands of scholars who believe in a historical Jesus (or his resurrection for that matter), but… let’s follow the wp guidelines and see what we can do with the academic sources from a NPOV. Joortje1 (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

"You can have thousands of doctors who believe in acupuncture" This is not a useful comparison. The effectiveness of acupuncture and other alternative medicine methods (or its lack) can be established through systematic review and evidence-based practice. We can not use the same methods to determine whether millennia-old legends have a factual basis. The people who narrated and transmitted these legends are long gone, and the archaeological data can not provide definite answers to our questions. Dimadick (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, history is not as hard a science as medicine, but the analogy between acupuncture and HoJ scholarship makes sense to me in similarities of highly dubious practices with generally discredited alternatives for accepted methodologies, practitioners who present themselves as part of a respectable academic discipline, and thousands of believers. Joortje1 (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Millicent C. Feske: “The quest of the historical Jesus fell into disrepute because scholars recognized the impossibility of the objective historical task with respect to Jesus of Nazareth.” (Historicity, Hermeneutics and the Historical Jesus 1999)

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity April DeConick: “the goal to prove Jesus' existence or not is methodologically a black hole from my perspective” (2009, on why she didn’t want to participate in the Jesus Project)

Theologian-historian [[R. Joseph Hoffmann]]: "Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer" (2009, in his conclusion about the failed Jesus Project).

Professor Emeritus of biblical studies Philp R. Davies: “(...) a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability” (Did Jesus Exist? 2012) Joortje1 (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Just starting at the begining are we sure that there is actually a fringe view here? I see a majority view an a minority one but fringe? Unless we're talking about the idea that he had historical children I'm not seeing that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No, there's not a "minority view"; there's a scholalru consensus, and there a few authors propagating a fringe view. This has been discussed ad inifnitum before; see the history of this talkpage and of the the Christ myth theory. The only reason it is discussed ad infinitum because there are believers who prefer those fringe views over scholarship, and view Wikipedia as a venua to push those views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources are for the most part not calling it fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Bias

Holy cow. This article is incredibly biased. Appeals to authority up the wazoo - I mean, the "fringe" section literally has a separate line saying "this one guy changed his mind," for crying out loud, and, rather than going at all into the arguments against a historical Jesus, it just keeps repeating the claim that it is supposedly discredited (and then even fails to provide anything to support the notion that the arguments have been debunked). How is this acceptable? ReDquinox (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@ReDquinox Lots of wikipedians didn't find it acceptable and have addressed it (hence Joshua's "ad infinitum" remark), without much luck. Some heavily invested editors prefer to keep the bias. At least the bias and lack of logical/factual argumentation is so obvious that attentive readers will soon know what's up. Joortje1 (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah: fringe-adepts convinced that their beliefs reflect reality. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Haha, nice projection. Do you really think it helps when people think you're into promoting a certain bias and you reply that everybody who complains about it must be a fringe-adept with misguided beliefs?

Not sure about @ReDquinox or the many others, but for me it was the poor argumentation and obvious bias on this page that raised some questions. I hadn't heard any "fringe" theories and was just looking for the historical evidence that I had always assumed would exist. I'm still looking. Most statements on this page have very little to do with sound historical research, and are disputed in more reliable academic sources. Joortje1 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree. It is interesting to compare this article to Historicity of Muhammad. The latter has a totally different and much more scientific tone. 2A02:200:2E01:E2A0:78B7:2A8D:AF9C:FC01 (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Fringe IP complaining

Fringe IP complaining [4] they don't like it and POV pushing against sources is no reason to remove what exeperts have said. Plus it is already cited in the body. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

What is a "fringe IP"? Where does it complain? Where is the POV pushing? What is "it" that "they don't like?

Please stop assuming that every editor who does something that you don't agree with is a "fringe" complainer pushing some POV (see also Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Joortje1 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Mu. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I only see the comment "Lack of denial being proof is a logical fallacy" in the given link. The removed line indeed reeks like an Argument from ignorance, but could be a poorly stated Argument from silence. This argument seems very hypocritical when the same theologians are later cited to argue that silence in sources has no impact on historicity when a supposedly historical individual doesn't get mentioned.

A fallacy is still a fallacy it it comes from "exeperts". And where's the logic in considering theologians as experts on the historicity of one of their deities? I personally don't mind their background much if they come up with a useful argument, but this seems especially poor since Christians have destroyed, altered, or simply didn't save a lot of the sources that they didn't like (possibly even evidence for a historical Jesus that didn't suit their particular beliefs at that time).

There's of course 2nd century Justin quoting Trypho: "But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." Some theologians and biblical scholars have of course gone out of their way to reason away this expression of doubt. Joortje1 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTFORUM. We do not debate the topic here. Fringe editor POV, complaints, personal feelings, arguments, specualtions, concerns, etc like yours and the IP's carry no weight on this article. Plus mainstream expert views are more accurate either way. Trypho is not a mythcist and is actually a fictional literary character for the dialogue (common among philosophical dialogues like this), not a real person. Even Carrier and other mythcists agree. Seriously, it is time you stopped editing this talk page and article. You have been fringe POV pushing and treating this talk page as a forum to discuss the topic with personal synthesis for nearly 2 years. It is constantly being WP:DISRUPTIVE by constantly WP:BLUDGEONING. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

You should WP:AGF and casting dispersions because you don’t like the opinion of other editors has no place on Wikipedia. As stated above by the editor above, it is an argument from ignorance and certainly doesn’t belong in the lede. 2600:1700:1111:5940:208E:EC38:682F:9A6A (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Please consider expressing yourself with a bit more wp:goodfaith, less wp:lawyering, and try to focus on improving the page. If people “complain” about for instance a lack of logic, that may be a good reason to check the argumentation and wording of the addressed lines, rather than a reason for insults and accusations like “fringe” and “pov pushing”.

We’re discussing the quality of a statement on the page. I nuanced that it’s not necessarily a fallacy, but also pointed out some well-known info that casts doubt on the veracity of the statement. On the talk page, this shouldn’t immediately require citing experts, especially if the argument is available in the refs for the statement under discussion. Joortje1 (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal disagreement by an anonymous wikieditor, who obsviously has a fringe POV, is not grounds for removing consensus expert views. WP:BRD-NOT "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.". Will restore content. Good faith is established by not enaging in fringe POV pushing and not WP:BLUDGEONING. The odd removal of statments of evidence from expert sources based on saying it is a "logical fallacy" is indicative of a mythicist editor. We go off of what mainstream RS say, not fringe sources or personal views on the matter (e.g. this is not a forum or a blog to discuss how one feels about the topic). Ramos1990 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

My view is not fringe and I am not a mythicist. With your attitude you should not be allowed to edit. Absence of evidence is not proof, being an editor requires WP:Competence. I have no issue with it being discussed in the article, but it should not be in the lede as some sort of proof. 2600:1700:1111:5940:3937:B0FC:7A4E:B8EC (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The Van Voorst ref (also cited in the Mykytiuk ref) acknowledges the Trypho “quote” (fictional or not) as a “possible attempt at this argument” but found it too “faint” and underdeveloped to consider more seriously.

Classicist [[Louis Feldman]] interpreted it as a “charge that Jesus had never lived and was a mere figment of Christian imagination” (this coincidentally directly follows an apology for the use of an argument of silence!). Joortje1 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course the argument is also treated, with much more nuance than Feldman, in the peer-reviewed mainstream volumes on HoJ that you once pointed out when I asked for sources by historians who didn't take bibical study as a starting point for a quest for historical corroboration.

Carrier (2014, p. 349–352)

“we almost never have writings gainsaying mythical people when they are historicized”

“Celsus argues from the unproven assumption that they embellish a real story, while Justin’s Trypho takes it one step further and suggests they might have been wholly fabricated”

see also: Lataster (2019, p. 398) Joortje1 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Carrier and Lataster are both fringe sources - WP:BLUDGEON to keep mentioning them. Van Voorst is mainstream and did a more thorough look at it and clears up "Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus" throughout the work in that same foot note and also makes the claim "[N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it." Ramos1990 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

We're discussing a question about the historicity of a religious figure. Should a book by a theologian for a religious publishing house then be accepted (without mention of background) because you say it's “mainstream”? While we shouldn't even mention a peer-reviewed volume by an ancient historian for an independent academic publisher (founded by a public research university) or one by a scholar of religion for [[Brill publishers]] on the talk page, because you say they're fringe? How does that work when editing an encyclopedia with wp:npov as one of its policy pillars? Joortje1 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiple editors have already discussed this multiple times in the past 2 years with you, fringe POV pushing over and over is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Carrier's extraterrestrial Jesus from outer space thesis is not accepted by anyone (pretty silly and ridiculous), his non-historical methods like Rank and Ragaln are not used by anyone, and no one uses Bayes for historical work. Criticisms of his work and agenda are quite extensive (Ehrman, Casey, etc). Joshua Jonathan already mentioned expert Marko Marina's observation in 2022 Historical Jesus and Mythicism: A Critical Evaluation of Richard Carrier’s Theory:

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

Correct policy is WP:FRINGE. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The negative review by Ehrman-employee Marina for a Catholic theological periodical (in Croatian and thus hard to analyse) doesn't seem to add anything to previously discussed negative reviews (and again: if that's your standard, why regard Ehrman's heavily criticised popular trade book as useful?).

See "Fringe?" (and let's try to stay on topic here). Joortje1 (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"Virtually all scholars" according to Ehrman

Ehrman: “The problem with saying that every historian agrees on something is problematic, because, of course there are people who deny that Jesus existed.” (The Big Conversation, 2023 6:39) Joortje1 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

And that's why we do not say "All scholars." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Virtually the same, and neither did Justin Bass, but fair enough. Joortje1 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It does seem to be going beyond the sources though... The closest in a souce is "nearly all" which is still less strident than "virtually all" and Ehrman himself makes the very different statement "virtually every competent scholar" which says nothing about scholars in general. This does appear to be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Article overhaul needed

The original lead stated that the historicity of Jesus was a question, but then goes on to present argument after argument that he did exist. Jesus as a Myth is described as a "fringe" theory, not a valid counterpoint to the "question." Nowhere is Jesus as a real person referred to as theory. This, and many other parts of the article, have a clear bias. Wikipedia articles are required to be presented with a Neutral Point of View; this article does NOT meet that criteria. I urge all editors interested in this article to contribute meaningful, NPoV, edits to strengthen this article. Related is the article "Christ myth theory" which is also heavily biased in discounting any theories that Jesus was not a real person. I favor editing both articles to remove bias and then merge the two into this article, where both theories are presented as arguments "for" and "against." I welcome the comments and edits of other editors that wish to accomplish this, or propose a similar goal. Editors attempting to retain this article as piece of non-NPoV wikipedia content should think before they act. My apologies for taking such a heavy-handed tone in this topic, but these articles are seriously broken.StarHOG (Talk) 16:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This has been addressed multiple times in the talk page. It would be wise to look at the sources in the lead already and also the FAQ. The lead has multiple sources with extensive quotes that verify that theories of Jesus not existing were discredited over a century ago and that the question was settled by then. Also sources verify that such theories have been fringe for 250 years already. There is no debate on the issue among experts and it is not an open question in scholarship. Even mythicists acknowledge this. See note 1 and note 4 for example. So the correct policy is WP:FRINGE. Mythicist content is WP:UNDUE in this mainstream article. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It has not. You have engaged in arguments with other editors and seem to claim some ownership to this article. In fact, I had opened this talk discussion before you reverted my edits and asked to discuss it on the talk page. I don't mind your comments that it is possible source material is out there, but that isn't the point. The point is that this article discusses the debate, the question, of the historocity of jesus, and yet it is dominated my non-neutral point of view edits that support only one side. That has to change. Why not contribute to an article that presents that argument coherently? I'm restoring my rewrite of the article lead, as it removes a tremendous amount of bias. I urge you to work on the "arguments for the existence" side of things since that seems to be your specialty. StarHOG (Talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I remind editors who feel compelled to revert to the original article that consensus is not required when an article does not meet wikipedia standards, as this one does. Please do not revert and ask for a consensus, none is needed.StarHOG (Talk) 22:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@StarHOG: according to which policy can WP:CONSENSUS be ignored? Please provide a link and an exact quote, which supports your stance that merely stating that an article is non-neutral suffices to ignore basic policies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Where's your consensus? If I browse the archives, I see very many commenters object to the the bias and tone of this article and only a few who resist changing that. @StarHOG already referred to the problem of Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Plenty of lines in wp:consensus adress related problems, not in the least the possibility that "one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested" and wp:stonewall. Contrary to wp:consensus advise, I've seen very little willingness to collaborate and much more "combat and capitulation". Joortje1 (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:FRINGESUBJECTS (part of NPOV policy page): "Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical negationism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked."

WP:FALSEBALANCE (from NPOV policy page): Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See "Fringe?" discussion. Joortje1 (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I could go down that path and argue back and forth about policy, but that's not what I'm about. I'm about making articles better, and I respect Joshua Jonathan's clear efforts to do so on a much larger scale than I. And although it is refreshing to see Ramos1990 and Joortje1 add their two cents (which shows me there is no consensus here already), I urge them to work with Joshua Jonathan, myself, and other editors to identify the major problems with this article so we can make it better. When I selected a random article to read and went through this page, it was clear, CLEAR to me that there is no neutral point of view in this article. I was confounded that the article opened by saying the subject was "the question" of whether or not jesus existed, but then went on to give an absolute bias as if the question had already been answered. This was also the point of Ramos1990 when I made my changes, but I don't think there would be any need for an article if it was such an open and shut case, yes? In fact, being curious I ran a google search and came up with a 2015 BBC news report that said 40% of britains didn't think jesus was a real person (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34686993). That was just one of many, many such articles. What should concern us most is that many google searches of "was jesus a real person" generate hits based on quotes from THIS article. That should give us as editors real pause, that google is taking what we write in articles and presenting summaries of it as fact to millions of people every day. To me, that really elevates our burden to get things right, especially in the lead, which I tried desperately to make neutral in my first edit. So, let's make that our #1 consensus right now. 1) Is the purpose of this article to present both sides of a debate as to whether jesus was a real person? And if yes (which I vote it is), do people believe this article presents a neutral point of view, as required by wikipedia, on the subject? Or does it need an overhaul to present itself as unbiased to one side or the other? StarHOG (Talk) 12:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

"50,000,000 million Elvis-fans can't be wrong," right? Wikipedia summarizes scholarly points of view; popular opinions may be relevant, when described in a scholarly context. But to argue that Wikipedia should present popular opinions as statements of fact, instead of summarizing the relevant scholarly views, is a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia aims to do. Maybe it would help if you A. Try to understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and B. Get a basic knowledge of what those scholarly sources actually say, instead of simply insisting that, indeed, 50,000,000 million Elvis-fans can't be wrong. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow you....did you mistakenly think I wanted to use the BBC article as a source? I never alluded to that, simply that a google search shows up many instances of people on the fence about this issue. So, what is your answer to my questions? Or is that your answer, that you believe this article is not about a debate, but it's been decided that jesus existed? StarHOG (Talk) 22:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Check out the fist paragraph and note 4. Multiple experts (Van Voorst, Weaver, Casey, Hurtado, etc) state that question was settled in the early 20th century (for example even former mythicist Wells states "by around 1920 nearly all scholars had come to regard the case against Jesus's historicity as totally discredited") and some even give deeper history in that that nonexistence theories never had traction for over 200 years in the first place either way (Van Voorst, Hurtado, Weaver, etc). Experts in note 1 and elsewhere also clearly state that the consensus is that Jesus existed. I myself did not know this long history and assumed that it was a more current issue. The internet gives a wrong impression on the matter for sure. Its no wonder that Holocaust denialism and moon landing denialism are also prevalent among the public, but not among most experts. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The article's subject is the scholarly question of the historicity of Jesus, not the popular opinions. See it as an appendix to the Christ Myth theory article, which focuses on the other side. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it? This was the first iteration of this article from 2003:

Starting with the Dutch Radical School in the late 19th century, a number of people have proposed that there was no historical Jesus at all. This position however, is a minority view among Biblical scholars. Among historians who are not Biblical scholars, the subtexts of Christian literature which reveal innate points of view and characteristic cultural bias, the documented activities of actual Christians and their influence on societal norms and culture are all of significance, while the 'historicity' of Jesus of Nazareth, undocumented outside Christian sources, is not ordinarily addressed.

The most prolific of those Biblical scholars denying the historical existence of Jesus is a professor of German, George Albert Wells, who argues that Jesus was originally a myth. Another example is Earl Doherty, who suggests that Paul's idea of Jesus was derived from his reading of the Hebrew Bible. In this view, Paul never met or heard of any actual person named Jesus from Nazareth (or Bethlehem), but rather believed in a Jesus who died on some ethereal plane at the beginning of time, or some far-off time in history. The Jesus of Nazareth character was made up after Paul's time by a composite of Old Testament prophecies, with embellishments added by many people. In this view, the interpretation of the meaning of Jesus was also informed by messianic, apocalyptic and resurrectionist myths that were common during the late Hellenistic age.

Others contend that aspects of Jesus' life as related in the New Testament were derived from popular mystery religions in the Roman Empire at that time period. These religions worshipped saviour figures such as Isis, Horus, Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras, and Christian Gnosticism which flourished in the 2nd and 3rd centuries openly combined Christian imagery and stories with the beliefs and practices of Mediterranean mystery religions. Proponents of this view generally date the gospels much later than mainstream scholars and assert textual corruption in the passages supporting the existence of Jesus in Paul and Josephus as interpolated.

Most historians do not dispute the existence of a person named Jesus; evidence for Jesus' existence 2000 years ago are by historical standards actually rather strong. Jesus is obviously mentioned extensively within the Bible, but is also considered a historical figure within the traditions of Judaism, Islam, Mandeanism and alternative Christian traditions like Gnosticism. Apologists often contend that he gets a passing mention within historical accounts of the period, but are never able to cite a source. John the Baptist, by contrast, is documented in Josephus. Moreover, historians generally agree that at least some of the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic narrative of his life and death.

So, although it concluded, without any sources, that jesus was probably real, the article itself provided ample arguments for and against. If you are willing to derive from this that the article is not actually an overall question of the historocity of jesus, but an analysis of ONLY biblical scholars as to why he was real, then I think that doesn't meet the spirit of the original article, and it certainly doesn't meet the intent of an encyclopedia.StarHOG (Talk) 23:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

We've already got an article on Cmt. It clearly doesn't get through to you, but the idea that Jesus did not exist is not entertained in contemporary scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan in 2021: “we wouldn't have an article on the historicity of Jesus if the question whether Jesus existed were just a historical curiousity like the historicity of Robin Hood. Yet, the historicity of Jesus is questioned not because popular opinion beliefs, but because theologians and historians have doubted his historicity, and in recent decade popular opinion has adapted this view.”

Here’s the opinion of a biblical scholar (for as far as I know the only one who approached the topic neutrally, and in a proper academic voice):

Justin Meggitt: “(...) the denial of the historicity of Jesus has become culturally prominent in recent years, and especially so since the turn of the century, with, for example, a recent poll in England finding that 40 per cent of respondents do not believe that Jesus ‘actually lived’, a development that owes itself, at least in part, to the popularisation of a new wave of scholarship promoting this idea.” Joortje1 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with @StarHOG. Cherrypicked sources by Abrahmic fanatics should not be presented as universal consensus on wikipedia. It should be balanced.This is an encyclopedia not a missionary platform. 2409:40C1:2B:227A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

We follow WP:RS/AC. What experts have said on the matter, not anonymous wikiedotors. Also, see FAQ - this article is more related to "Historical Jesus" article than anything else. Also we do not push fringe views that have been discredited for centuries (see policies in green text and also WP:FRINGE). Its like arguing for holocaust denialsm to be inlcuded in Holocaust articles, just because holocaust deniers still question its historicity today. Moon landing and round earth fall victim to negationism too. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

See "Fringe?".

Professor Emeritus of biblical studies Philp R. Davies: “(...) a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability” (Did Jesus Exist? Joortje1 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Meggitt: “it is not apparent what members of the ‘guild’ of biblical scholars have in common, other than a shared object of study and competence in a few requisite languages, and therefore what value an alleged consensus among them really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter.” Joortje1 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Meggitt: "while it is true that some members do have the academic freedom to arrive at any position they find convincing about the question of Jesus’ historicity, this is clearly not the case for many who are also members of the ‘guild’ and carry out their scholarship in confessional contexts, as the apparent silencing of Brodie indicates." Joortje1 (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Expert historian Tom Dykstra: “To a degree greater than that in many other academic fields, you have to take pronouncements of fact by biblical scholars with a grain of salt. And those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain toward contrary opinions are precisely the ones to be most wary about.” (in Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship) Joortje1 (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Already adressed multiple times. All 3 acknowlodge consensus and express doubts about mythicism having any success. The litmus test is academic accpetability.

Hurtado: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn't have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."

Part of the issue is that mythicits theories are wild from Jesus as part of Buddhism, created by a family of Caesars, extraterrestrial from outer space, from a mushroom cult of drugees, from astrology and zodiac signs, part of a play in Rome, from mysticism, etc. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

So, we have to ignore academic nuance from commenters like Crossley, Davies, Dykstra and Meggitt, and even ignore the mainstream peer-reviewed volumes on this fringe subject, because you believe some "mythicits theories are wild"? And to illustrate your idea of "academic accpetability" you cite an unresearched overstatement from a blog by some old theologian (now deceased), here and even on the page?

wp:biased warns about religious bias as a common one and advises: “editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.”

Casey: when some 90 per cent or more of applicants are Protestant Christians, a vast majority of Christian academics is a natural result.(...) the overall result of such bias is to make the description of New Testament Studies as an academic field a dubious one. (...) Joortje1 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Glad you acknowledge fringe status on mythicism. The other scholars you cited (again) acknowledge this consensus too. Dozens of sources verify consensus actually. Casey who you quoted wrote an extensive book criticizing mythicism and how it is driven by ideological agenda and fringe so clearly he does not agree with your interpretation. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's reverts

Ehrman and Hurtado

@Joshua Jonathan: can you explain yourself a bit more? Is there one issue here or multiple? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

See below. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

But you didn't just restore the word fringe, you also restored a number of blog posts of questionable weight. You need to justify every single revert you made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Ehrmann and Hutardo are reputable scholars; you would know this, if you were familiair with the topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes both are well known experts on historical Jesus. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

But why are we using their blog posts in addition to their published work? That doesn't appear due, we generally only use blog posts like that when we can't find their opinion on a given topic in their published work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DUE:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

What does that have to do with we generally only use blog posts like that when we can't find their opinion on a given topic in their published work? They are reputable scholars, who write (wrote; Hurtado passed away a few years ago) meaningfull things on their blogs. But if you can find the same info in one of their printed publications, be my guest and find it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If its only on their blog and not in their published work why would you say its a major part of their viewpoint? That seems like cherry picking... If the prominance is that they chose to write it on their blog but not in their formally published work then its almost certainly undue... To do otherwise would be to violate the proportionality clause you just cited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Their pov is the majority point of view - the 'virtually all scholars'. It's not undue. Undue is to present a fringe view as a reputable minority view. It isn't. It's so irrelevant to the field that 'virtually all scholars' don't even bother to publish on the topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Can you explain what BRD has to do with this edit[5]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"Fringe," again, ad infinitum

See:

• the FAQ at top of this talkpage
• the archives of this talkpage
• the talkpage of CMT

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The FAQ doesn't appear accurate, it says "The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus." but none of the sources in the article directly use the term "virtually all scholars" unless I'm missing something. As for the archives you will actually need to link to specific discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You're smart enough to go through the history of those pages; the links above suffice. It's endless. Familiarise yourself with the topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

ONUS is on you, not me. If consensus it exists you are the one who needs to demonstrate that and if it does not you are the one who needs to seek to achieve it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

For starters, see FAQ Q7 quotes. Also can see in article Notes 1 and 4, for example, as well. Hope that helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I looked at those... Not a single one of them uses the term "virtually all scholars" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You asked for sources on consensus views in scholarship, not specific wording. You can say it different ways. Ehrman, Van Voorst, Casey, Johnson, Grant, Gullotta, etc. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not ask for that, I asked for what source uses the term "virtually all scholars" I am asking for specific wording because that is the claim the FAQ... It says "The term is directly used by the source in the article" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

See the talkpage-history, and the simple fact that the present page is the status-quo, after endless discussions, as recorded in tjose threads. Just read them, familiarise yourself with the topic, instead of Wiki-lawyering. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You can't expect me to read through years of comments, if you believe that such a explicit consensus can be found in the history link it. The onus is on you to do the work, not on me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the last five archives it looks like "Virtually all scholars" lacks consensus, it is repeatedly discussed and those who want to use that language repeatedly fail to get consensus to do so. So where is this consenus if I can't find it in anything post-2017? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS (emphasis mine): "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." There already is a consensus, longstanding, to include this; in addition to the talkpage-history, you can go through the history of the page itself. And yes, I do expect you to read through those pages when you drive-by and restart a discussion we've had so many times beore. Educate yourself. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Smeat75, at 15 may 2017, changed "overwhelming majority" into "Virtually all scholars" diff, edit-summary changed "overwhelming" to "virtually all" per consensus on the talk page, referring to Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 38#The use of the term "overwhelming.". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

And to quote User:Jeppiz from 14 july 2015, at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 38##Many quoted sources are priests/ministers/clergy, or teachers at seminaries: This discussion seems to come up about once a month, and (with no offence intended), is almost always started by users who seem to know very little about the academic field at hand. First of all, virtually all academics in the fields believes the person existed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That consensus appears to be largely conditional "If the citations support, I agree." etc, and the source analysis that occures in the following years does not support that. There is not currently consensus for that language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, when so many sources say there is a clear consensus on the matter, then we follow that. It has nothing to do with personal agreement. We can say "The consensus is" or something like that if you prefer. But I only see "virtually all" in one spot. I think note 4 was meant for that statement, not note 1. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a consensus that the sources all say that... Thats the whole point. Its just not in the talk page history. It also doesn't answer how the FAQ came to say something that is objectively not true, who wrote the FAQ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Quotes on the historicity of Jesus

Christ myth theorists [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected. G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218 It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed. G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27 "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain" Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179 "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt." Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? Jesus existed Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus... Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 (2nd ed.) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) pp. 80 & 166 Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121 [T]here is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) p. 33 There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993) p. 10 Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming. Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008 In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian. Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23 Rejection of CMT - early 20th century (first wave of CMT) The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question. Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269 I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character... We must [, according to Christ myth advocates,] perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites and beliefs of early Christians were distilled from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely disparate, so devoid of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind, you rake together a thousand irrelevant thrums of mythology, picked up at random from every age, race, and clime; you get a "Christist" to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakespeareans we have seen nothing like it. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the Views of J. M. Robertson, A. Drews and W. B. Smith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009/1914) pp. 42 & 95 The historical reality both of Buddha and of Christ has sometimes been doubted or denied. It would be just as reasonable to question the historical existence of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne on account of the legends which have gathered round them... The attempt to explain history without the influence of great men may flatter the vanity of the vulgar, but it will find no favour with the philosophic historian. James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 7 (3rd ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 311 There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavor to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen. George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) p. x In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence. Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) pp. xxxiii & 54 I.e. if we leave out of account the Christ-myth theories, which are hardly to be reckoned as within the range of serious criticism. Alexander Roper Vidler, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 253 Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction Such Christ-myth theories are not now advanced by serious opponents of Christianity—they have long been exploded ... Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church (London: SCM, 1959) p. 14 By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived. Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, Rudolf Bultmann & Karl Kundsin; translated by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962) p. 62 In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today. Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196 In the early years of this century, various theses were propounded which all assert that Jesus never lived, and that the story of Jesus is a myth or legend. These claims have long since been exposed as historical nonsense. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the first three decades of our era, probably from 6-7 BC to 30 AD. That is a fact. Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976) p. 65 Rejection of CMT - late 20th and early 21st century (revival of CMT) If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible. W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", George Mason University's History News Network, 2004 [The non-Christian references to Jesus from the first two centuries] render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score. Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 124 [A]n attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible. I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.) (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004) pp. 15–16 A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the authors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese. N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48 A school of thought popular with cranks on the Internet holds that Jesus didn’t actually exist. Tom Breen, The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus: Dispatches from the Intersection of Christianity and Pop Culture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) p. 138 Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed. Leander Keck, Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) p. 13 While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history. Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233 We do not need to take seriously those writers who occasionally claim that Jesus never existed at all, for we have clear evidence to the contrary from a number of Jewish, Latin, and Islamic sources. John Drane, "Introduction", in John Drane, The Great Sayings of Jesus: Proverbs, Parables and Prayers (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999) p. 23 It is the nature of historical work that we are always involved in probability judgments. Granted, some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed and really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. Marcus Borg, "A Vision of the Christian Life", The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Marcus Borg & N. T. Wright (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 236 To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200 I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188 We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE. Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999) p. 38 Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. Will Durant, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972) p. 557 There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more. Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 34 Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16 No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings. James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. xxi–xxv [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25 The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church. Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8 There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century. Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009 I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008 What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007 Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship. William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009 The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) p. 29 This is always the fatal flaw of the 'Jesus myth' thesis: the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. [Robert] Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really. James D. G. Dunn, "Response to Robert M. Price", in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) p. 98 Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes the stories of the New Testament any more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?' The critics can be answered satisfactorily...For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion [of embarrassment] demonstrates that Jesus existed. Alan F. Segal, "Believe Only the Embarrassing", Slate, 2005 Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123 Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine [of Alexandria]'s fate as an unhistorical myth... Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p. 37 An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) pp. 435–436 In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007 If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying. John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000 When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, 'Do you really believe that?' Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. William Lane Craig, "Question 90: Jesus and Pagan Mythology", Reasonable Faith, 2009 An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth. Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002) p. 164 An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare. Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256 When all the evidence brought against Jesus' historicity is surveyed it is not found to contain any elements of strength. Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1) It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial resemblances, of debatable interpretation into the systems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls... The historical reality of the personality of Jesus alone enables us to understand the birth and development of Christianity, which otherwise would remain an enigma, and in the proper sense of the word, a miracle. Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926) pp. 30 & 244 Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed. John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎ (London: Skeffington & Son, 1933) p. 31 That both in the case of the Christians, and in the case of those who worshipped Zagreus or Osiris or Attis, the Divine Being was believed to have died and returned to life, would be a depreciation of Christianity only if it could be shown that the Christian belief was derived from the pagan one. But that can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing. Edwyn R. Bevan, in Thomas Samuel Kepler, Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950) p. 44 The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position. Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9 Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity… UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited. Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166 One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism. James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010 To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23. When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories [i.e. the Christ myth theory] he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels. Morton Smith, in R. Joseph Hoffman, Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 48 Of course, there can be no toleration whatever of the idea that Jesus never existed and is only a concoction from these pagan stories about a god who was slain and rose again. Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Menorah, 1943) p. 107 Virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that there is enough information from ancient non-Christian sources to give the lie to the myth (still, however, widely believed in popular circles and by some scholars in other fields--see esp. G. A. Wells) which claims that Jesus never existed. Craig L. Blomberg, "Gospels (Historical Reliability)", in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992) p. 292 Dr. Wells was there [I.e. a symposium at the University of Michigan] and he presened his radical thesis that maybe Jesus never existed. Virtually nobody holds this position today. It was reported that Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University, even though he is a skeptic himself, responded that Dr. Wells's view was "absurd". Gary Habermas, in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989) p. 45 The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case Charles E. Carlston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3 Although it is held by Marxist propaganda writers that Jesus never lived and that the Gospels are pure creations of the imagination, this is not the view of even the most radical Gospel critics. Bernard L. Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999) p. 159 Comparison with Holocaust-deniers The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given. Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p. 32 While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 8 & 23–24 You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can't eliminate them. That's why you have to put certain checks and balances in place… Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You're never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe. Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) p. 112 A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat. Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) p. 168 Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008 The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. For some it's simply too horrific to affirm. For others it's an elaborate conspiracy to coerce religious sympathy. But the deniers live in a historical dreamworld. John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006) pp. 14-15 I just finished reading, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The first view was given by Robert Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… The title of Price’s chapter is 'Jesus at the Vanishing Point.' I am convinced that if Price's total skepticism were applied fairly and consistently to other figures in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Nero, etc.), they would all be reduced to 'the vanishing point.' Price's chapter is a perfect example of how someone can always, always find excuses to not believe something they don't want to believe, whether that be the existence of Jesus or the existence of the holocaust. Dennis Ingolfsland, "Five views of the historical Jesus", The Recliner Commentaries, 2009 The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, 'Jesus Never Existed!' 'They won’t listen to me!' and label those inside the arena as 'Anti-Intellectuals,' 'Fundamentalists,' 'Misguided Liberals,' and 'Flat-Earthers.' Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says 'The Holocaust Never Happened!' Michael R. Licona, "Licona Replies to Doherty's Rebuttal", Answering Infidels, 2005

We do. Suggesting otherwise is deviant ignorance. But maybe you can find a reputable source which says that the CMT is a relevant minority position in the academics, worthy of sustained debate? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I see a whole lot of discussions in the archives about it, but no clear consensus of any kind. None of those quotes include the term "virtually all scholars" and I don't appreciate the insults. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The section "Comparison with Holocaust-deniers" appears to be a collection of people saying something offensive... And they all appear to be from a specific camp. Its a weird cherry picked list, what was the context for its creation? It looks like it was made by a POV warrior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, you mentiuoned WP:RS/AC. It states "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." Quite a lot of sources clarifying consensus and also fringe/unaccepted status on CMT, as you noted. It is what it is. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No that doesn't help answer what source the term is directly used by. It should not be this hard to get direct support for the literal FAQ, do you guys not understand how crazy that is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)