RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ| Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) The article has problems with its content, sourcing and level of writing quality. Specifics: The content and sourcing of the article is woefully substandard. Virtually all scholars reject the Jesus Christ myth theory. Endeavors to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. The article is also poorly written and organized (I concur with User:Ariel31459 who wrote: "The text is almost unreadable. The introductory paragraph ends: The short version of it all, essentially: all the evidence in the world (thus far amassed) hoping to lend plausible confirmation (or, at times, even general support) to the case for a historical Jesus leaves much to be desired. Why do we need an article for that?"). And its formatting is second-rate with too much bolding. The article should have been deleted long ago. RationalWiki's main page says one of its core missions is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". Again, the scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. The notion that Jesus Christ never existed is a crank idea. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). Does RationalWiki want to be associated with an authoritarian regime known for its propaganda? LinuxLover (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which Jesus is historical? The one who walked on water, got himself killed, and then got up and walked around?  Or some obscure 1st century preacher whose life details were fleshed out with the actions, words and fates of other would be messiah?.  "As  stated in his 1946 book, Jesus: Myth Or History, at least as far as  was concerned, the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh-and-blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account, but rather: "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"."  No wonder you are trying to stealth AfD Jesus myth theory as well because that partial version  of the Jesus Myth theory is not crank...it is mainstream and you don't want to admit it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The article promotes a fringe theory, no different than Kennedy assassination theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories. Aside from that, the biggest problem with the article is its over-reliance on one source: Richard Carrier. 51 of the 227 citations in this article reference Richard Carrier, whose academic work is not respected by a majority of scholars in his field. He is generally considered a crank by others. Much of the argument for his position seems to come from his 2017 book, which despite repeated claims, there is no evidence was peer-reviewed by any relevant scholars whom Carrier did not personally seek out. At the very least, this article is unnecessary. It is bloated, and what little needs to be said on the topic can be said on the section on the page for Jesus. Friedman (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, subtle questions of historicity in antiquity are entirely analogous to absurd, baseless inventions. I appreciate that your metaphor is not elaborated on, and is meant to be taken for granted, but you're going to have to do better than arbitrarily compare [thing you don't like] to [thing everyone doesn't like].  Your objections about carrier can be considered entirely within the confines of improving the article, by adding other, more reputable sources, including ones that contradict the article's obvious intention.  Like it or not, the 600 years difference between Jesus and Muhammad included substantial improvements in record keeping and other material evidence that persisted to the modern era, and one is a great deal more historical than the other.  The historical method isn't so prone to the consensus-fringe dichotomy that characterizes science.  There's a lot of things that will be perpetually open questions unless time travel is invented.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that wikipedia's Christ Myth theory mentions/cites Carrier 72 times over its 404 references and the are have far stricter requirements for reliable than we do. Ie if Carrier is reliable for wikipedia then he should be reliable for us.
 * I would like point out per the Jesus myth theory article "Contrary to the picture some apologists like to paint, there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary with Muhammad. The earliest is the personal notes of an unnamed monk c. 636 CE mixed in with his copying of the gospels which mentions that "many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives"[348] and in 661 CE Sebeos writes about Mụhammad and is believed to be an eyewitness to many of the events he recorded."--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * C'mon BruceGrubb, this is the kinda of thing I mean, and you know it. This is the third time you've pulled out this "Wikipedia says it 72 times" nonsense, and I've already responded to it twice, yet you keep posting it other places as if I haven't addressed it. I'm still waiting for you to address it the first time you posted it. You've pulled the same thing multiple times. If you want to address Carrier's reliability, do it on his talk page, so you don't have to repeat yourself and I don't have to repeat myself. Friedman (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw the notice and replied "I said mention/cite ie mention and cite. Putting "Carrier" results in Safari saying "x of 72" for contains with the x changing each step you progress through the count.  The first mention in the text body is in the "Christ myth theorists" section (2 of 72; the first is in the inbox.) I again ask how can Carrier be reliable by wikipedia standard which is much stricter than our own but not here?  You have not formally addressed that question and have in fact carefully avoided it both here and on Richard Carrier's talk page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have replied via Carrier's talk page. Friedman (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Many of the claims in the AfD justification are overblown and unwarranted. I find it very suspicious that two accounts have literally appeared out of nowhere in the last couple of days, have overwhelmed the place with walls of text in multiple places, and are now hell bent on deleting content en masse. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Kind of weird how several accounts are recently signing up to promote the same agenda. Plutocow (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I find it rather suspicious that two editors appear almost simultaneously and attack one set of articles and one reference source. Scream!! (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Too important a subject to just ignore. If the article has to be completely rewritten, so be it. (I've always thought the "Christ" part should be dropped from the title. But that's a discussion for another day.) Spud (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) This is absolutely missional; the priority here should be improvement and finding better sources. We shouldn't just throw it all out without considering if it can change. Per Cosmikdebris, the sudden push for AFD is sus.Jake Holmes''yell at me 14:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Well it has been rewritten once before as it is actually shorter (I personally daughtered out I was say about a fifth there about). Also the person (Gullotta) used to "refute" Carrier stated and I quote "Suetonius describes Jesus as ‘the man who was crucified in Palestine".  This appears in nowhere in Suetonius!  Here is what Suetonius 'Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome.' and later (regarding Nero) "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.". There is nothing about either group's leader being "crucified in Palestine"  really wrote.  And the icing on this particular inaccuracy cake?  It appears in Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus which, and I quote, "The journal investigates the social, cultural and historical context in which Jesus lived, discusses methodological issues surrounding the reconstruction of the historical Jesus".  Can you say stacked deck, even if it is published by Brill?  This is why the article is the way it is - to preemptively kick this kind of nonsense in the head.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't want this page to turn into a debate over Carrier's merits, but I'm not going to let you keep pulling this crap. In response to the Gullotta article, you sent me a link to Carrier's blog. That blog post includes a note saying that Gullotta made a mistake in attributing to Suetonius what should have been attributed to Lucian (who was quoted in Gullotta's paper right before Suetonius), Gullotta intends to correct it, and Carrier himself accepts this explanation. So either you didn't read the source you sent me, or you read it and are making a claim you know to be false. Further, I've pointed this out to you before on the talk page for this article, so you either didn't read what you replied to or you're just reposting that here for the crowds of people who seem to have shown up but without having been present on the talk page beforehand. You repeatedly pull this kind of crap. Friedman (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd love to see this article improved and remove some of the more fringe opinions, but I don't accept AfDs from two clear troll accounts who actually think this place gives a shit what dogshit propaganda outlets think. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks like Ken bullshit. 16:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

 * 1) Overly reliant on a single author, but is missional and seems to have value. Essayspace it. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Essayspace per reliance on one source and might have value. Also could be worth a funsapce. Andrew5 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * There is a notice on the talk page of the article saying: "This Christianity related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Heavily built on a source that has been deemed questionable." LinuxLover (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there have only been two or possibly three editors who have questioned the source. All others disagree. Scream!! (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Might just add that I'm a tad suspicious of the two editors who appeared almost simultaneously with one set of articles as their focus. Not accusing but looks a bit socky or at least collaborative. Scream!! (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand why it looks suspicious, and I'd just like to say my intentions are good. I'm a frequent reader of the site, and I've always had a little list of edits I wanted to make someday, if I ever got around to making an account. However, seeing this page spurred me into making an account and making my feelings known. I find it very disturbing that such a fringe theory is condoned on the site. I doubt my explanation will change your mind on the vote, but I just wanted to explain my motivations. Friedman (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to see what consensus on the source is before making a vote. if it really is significantly problematic, I'd kind of be neutral, but I'd keep it if it was deemed not. For now, I'll wait. Andrew5 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki's main page says one of its core missions is "Documenting the full range of crank ideas". The scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. The notion that Jesus Christ never existed is a crank idea. The only encyclopedia in world history to deny the historicity of Jesus was The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Moscow, 1952). Does RationalWiki want to be associated with an authoritarian regime known for its propaganda? LinuxLover (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Freedom From Atheism Foundation is mocking RationalWiki for its fringe view on the historicity of Jesus Christ. LinuxLover (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonder who made that entry? Scream!! (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: the title of the article is "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ" not "Did Jesus Christ exist?". Scream!! (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a self-inflicted wound by RationalWiki. The scholarly consensus is that Jesus Christ is a historical figure. All attempts to deny the historicity of Jesus Christ have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. When RationalWiki adopts crank views, it should expect to be mocked. As wise King Solomon wrote: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?". LinuxLover (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope RationalWiki doesn't take the next step and say there is a malevolent conspiracy among scholars when it comes to the issue of the historicity of Jesus Christ? LinuxLover (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL, this "Freedom from Atheism Foundation" shares the Kendoll Conservapedia "essay" spew on their Facebook feed. That's a first, someone actually taking that shit seriously. Funny that one person replies to the second post asking if this is a parody account... tee hee... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I smell a room full of CP socks. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've changed part of the lede in for Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ to this:

"New Testament scholar in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus stated "[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." laying out the range of a Historical Jesus going from "the person called Jesus really existed" to "'The description of Jesus in the Gospels corresponds to what he was actually like.'"(reference).  Depending on where you are on that range the evidence goes from excellent to ridiculously bad.    Ehrman (himself not a mythicist) in his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?, complicated matters by when he summarized the views of Earl Doherty: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". (Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist? (2012), Harper Collins, p. 12.) So by Bart Ehrman's definition a Jesus who existed but picked up the remains of an existing Chrestian/Christian cult or actually preached a form of Judaism that was turned in Christianity by other after his death would be a "non-historical" Jesus. And people wonder why this article is a train wreck on steroids."

Two pro historical Jesus authors and their definitions of what is historical and nonhistorical shows the real problem with the article - it has to deal with every version of Jesus along Ian Howard Marshal' huge range and even if you can show Jesus existed as a human being if you can't reasonably show Jesus actually preached Chrestian/Christian (or what ever it called itself before 44 CE) per Ehrman's then you have a "non-historical" by his definition. Never mind what if the Gospel Jesus stripped of all the supernatural is a composite character with a 1st century preacher named Jesus in the mix? Is that a Historical Jesus?

I might add that we have a "stealth" AfD for Jesus myth theory by one of our two people. Can we just combine the AfDs and then work on cleaning up the articles. Jesus myth theory is a mess but the stuff is on topic so I am not sure how to clean that thing up but being a mess is not what AfD is for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The significantly problematic tag was added by me. Everyone seemed relatively in agreement that Carrier had multiple issues with peer review and didn't have enough goodwill behind him to make up for it. If I was too hasty with adding it, I can remove it. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are confused. I checked the Fossil Recorder the main page  of both articles. The AfD was put on "Evidence..." by LinuxLover "as of 02:56, 8 December 2021" and on Jesus myth theory by LinuxLover "as of 06:23, 8 December 2021".  Your post was on the talk page  "Evidence..." "as of 00:57, 7 December 2021".  Posts on the talk page are fine and in fact encouraged.  If is the AfD on the main Jesus myth theory page (different article) with nothing here that I am having issues with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Barring aditional information these new accounts do not argue in the same way as Ken. 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The complaints about Carrier are irrelevant. It is not that I don't want an article with this title. I just don't like this article. Has anyone who voted to keep it been able to read the damn thing? Ariel31459 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Would need to be more concise but no point. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:4D (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)