Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive20

Key Points

This has come up enough times I am making a special section on it. This part will remain here.

Underhanding the Article

"This article is NOT about the Jesus myth theory or the Christ myth theory, but about the quality of the evidence (both for and against) presented regarding his existence. The debate will come up for context but this article is NOT on the debate. In fact, as the Christ Myth article shows its very definition varies so wildly that some versions would be considered historical Jesus positions. (The Jesus myth theory article is on the debate itself.)" I am getting really tired of people not actually reading the article and wasting our time with things which are addressed elsewhere.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield Phoenix Press's double blind Peer review

Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt is cited so much because his book is actually double-blind (neither reviewer nor author know who the other party is) peer reviewed, is the most recent work of such quality on the matter, and covers both sides of the issue.

In fact, Carrier explained exactly how Sheffield's peer review process works: "Independent, established professors whom I don't know personally, peer reviewed my book for Sheffield, just as such persons do all books at all academic presses. The standard is two. So any book you read from a bona fide academic press will have been peer reviewed by at least two professors of the subject not known to the author. Indeed, the process is double blind, just as for journals." Someone e-mailed Sheffield and got this reply: "We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted. But we cannot undertake to describe the process just to any person who asks us to do so—life is too short."

Another said this "The section for potential authors on Sheffield Phoenix Press’ website says, ‘Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press.’ (http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/authors.asp) That’s absolutely standard for history books published by UK academic pesses, although frequently it’s two readers, often one of series editors and an outside reader. " (That is the way the UK does it and it is double blind peer review so deal with it) (...) Academic publishers will sometimes ask authors for recommendations for possible readers. But of course they do so in the full knowledge that authors will recommend names they think will be sympathetic. This can be used as a way of working out who not to send the book to."

So we can stop with the BS about Sheffield Phoenix Press’ material not being peer reviewed or that Carrier sent manuscripts to his friends. The only reason anyone brings this nonsense up is either because they believe the FUD being spread around and don't bother to do some actual research or they don't like the fact there is an actual double-blind peer reviewed academic work on the Jesus didn't exist in a meaningful way part of the Christ Myth Theory and make anything up to avoid addressing Carrier's actual points.

The best any detractor who has gotten a peer reviewed article published has done is question Carrier's very weak Rank-Raglan hero type arguments and I agree. Rank-Raglan hero should have been left out as it is too up to the user to be anything even remotely useful. So far none of Carrier's other actual points have been addressed in a work of similar quality.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I trust Richard Carrier about as far as I can throw him. Not only does he have a major bias (seeing as how it's his own book), but he's shown himself to be not very trustworthy regarding past statements about a certain personal matter.

Second, I find Sheffield Phoenix Press' response problematic as well. What kind of an academic publisher responds to questions about their peer-review process with "we cannot undertake to describe the process just to any person who asks us to do so—life is too short"? Nowhere is it explained what this peer-review process entails in terms of rigorousness, only that it was sent to an editor and a reader for the press. Where does it mention that the book was looked over by relevant scholars in the field? Further, even if it's true that every other publisher in the UK does this for books, what's your point?

Third, Carrier's arguments have been addressed far more than you seem to let on. In particular, I believe the Gullotta article sufficiently points out Carrier's errors. If that's what you were referring to, it does far more than just criticize his use of the Rank-Raglan scale.Friedman (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fringe theory

I have to say, I'm somewhat disturbed by this article being on the wiki. Denying the existece of a historical Jesus is a fringe theory denied by almost everyone in this field of study. I understand that popularity of a viewpoint doesn't always correlate with the strength of the evidence, but there seems to be enough consensus on this issue (as well as sustained criticism of Carrier's work and methodology, which is repeatedly cited in this article) that I believe it's worth considering a major rewrite. I'm certainly not a Biblical scholar, so I won't try and argue specific points here. However, I strongly feel that this article is the equivalent of promoting the existence of alien visitation, psychic powers, or ghosts; it's a patently ridiculous pet theory, and its promotion only serves to demean what this wiki seems to stand for. Friedman (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more something starts to smell. Carrier seems very overrepresented among the sources. I'm certainly not saying that all sources need to be used equally, but the fact that Carrier is cited 51 times (out of 227 citations total) seems off to me. For comparison, no one else (either for or against a historical Jesus) has more than 8 citations. Further, I've seen certain people say that Carrier's book was peer-reviewed. If peer-reviewed is taken in the literal sense (that he sent it to his friends to look over) then yes, it was. I don't know how peer-reviewing for books works in the UK, but that does not constitute "peer-reviewed" in my book. I strongly suggest that an objective group of editors come in and look at cleaning up this page. Friedman (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm new here, so forgive any ignorance of RW etiquette and procedures on my part, but is it normal for less than a handful of users to award their own article bronze and silver status? I just figured there would be a more stringent nominating process. Friedman (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You really added to go back and reread the article and read the new section of Sheffield Phoenix Press's double blind Peer review. The very nature of double blind means neither reviewer nor author know who the other party is. More over while Carrier did send a list of preferred reader many double blind Peer review publishers use that as a guide as who not to send the manuscript to. At best this comes off as yet another attempt to hide the fact that what is behind the current view isn't much.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Richard Carrier being cited 51 times in this article is not a good sign. RationalWiki's Richard Carrier article: "This all occurred while Carrier himself was married, thus he was cheating on his wife in addition (honest person right?). He then tried to "come out" as polyamorous, despite the fact that this isn't a sexual orientation and doesn't make him not a horrible human being."[1] CamicianChef (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have much of a position on the article but the criticism above comes across as pretty textbook ad hominem.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Richard Carrier showed tremendously bad judgment in his lawsuits against PZ Myers, Ann Frank and Skepticon that involved a lot of wishful thinking and egotism (Richard Carrier Loses His Lawsuit (Again). These are not good traits in a historian. CamicianChef (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Or in almost any other profession. Except, perhaps, politician - where they may be expected.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I took a look at the references and what they say is so out of line with what they reference actually said that per living person guidelines I had to remove the entire sexual assault section. For example, the claim of "attempting to trade sex for a recommendation letter" document didn't even have the word "recommendation" in it! More over the only reasonable alternative ("reference") appears only once: "...alleges, and incorporates by reference all allegations of the foregoing Paragraph..." nothing about a letter in that. It looks like the same BS somebody did on the Little Red Riding Hood having vampire connections using a reference that in reality didn't support a word of what was cited. I might add if you compare the link used to an actual part of Case: 2:16-cv-00906-MHW-EPD Doc #: 1-25 the issues become even more obvious and it paints a very different picture.

If exact wording can be presented with a page number fine. But just throwing up link to a 35 page version of a court document isn't going to cut it, especially if it has some glaring irregularities and conflicts with a signed sworn affidavit (lying in which would be perjury). I might add sexual assault claims are a problem as just the claim that something happened can lead to disasters like what happened to Craig Charles and others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's lawsuits were quixotic farces and his extremely wishful thinking that he could win them shows very bad judgment on his part. He spent a lot of time and treasure with nothing to show for it. CamicianChef (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is blatant ad hominem as it has nothing to with Carrier's arguments in a double blind peer reviewed piece. What arguments have been presented against his book outside of the Rank-Raglan hero type (which should have, IMHO. never been there) that appears in an actual double blind peer review piece?

I might add I pointed out on his blog regarding Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 which actually provides a better proof for his position regarding John Frum than the reference he had in the book!--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Friedman wrote in RationalWiki talk: All things in moderation - Problematic Article about this article: "...there is an article on this site that seems to (contrary to the site's purpose) endorse a fringe historical view. I don't like the idea that people may come to this site and, expecting rational material, instead be served garbage on a plate. The article I'm referring to is "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ". Although it claims to be an objective look at the evidence, it overwhelmingly cites Richard Carrier, a man who is looked at as a crank by all serious Biblical scholars. Richard Carrier is cited 51 times; the second most-cited person is cited 8 times. Richard Carrier's work is propping up the entire article, and when you remove it, the whole thing falls like a house of cards. I do not assume bad faith on the part of the user who seems to have taken the article as his own, but he refuses to look at the entire spectrum of evidence. I'm new here, so feel free to excoriate me for breaking RW rules, but I strongly feel that the article needs to be looked over by a committee of independent editors."

Why do you rely on Richard Carrier to the degree that you do in this article? If User: Friedman's contention is right about you over citing Carrier, over 20% of the article's 227 citations come from Richard Carrier.

Why are you ignoring the scholarly consensus among historians about the historicity of Jesus? CamicianChef (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Other than 'he existed" there is no scholarly consensus. The degree the historical Jesus matches up with the Gospel account varies with the author. If the Gospel Jesus was, as I strongly suspect, was a composite character (an idea John Robertson held in the c1900) that would explain a lot of the inconstancies. As for relying on Richard Carrier so much he is the only double blind peer reviewed work that looks at as much evidence as possible so of course he is going to be cited a lot. More over as Jesus myth theory article points out there is a spot where a actual living Jesus would fall between his historical and mythical criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that I later amended that statement to point out that I'm now assuming bad faith on BruceGrubb's part. Everything else stands. Friedman (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What bad faith? The sexual assault material was bad and needed to be removed.

As for "propped up on the work of this man" you do know Carrier uses a little thing called references in his book, right? It is just easier, (and saner) to use him then go back and use every reference he uses (some of them run for a third of a page, like we want that here). As for Gullotta's piece you do know that it is in the 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?

Besides Carrier goes over that review in detail in On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review even pointing to Gullotta's comment that OHJ is “a rigorous and thorough academic treatise that will no doubt be held up as the standard by which the Jesus Myth theory can be measured.”"

Carrier also adds his List of Responses to Defenders of the Historicity of Jesus as a supplement to Gullotta's work. More over even Gullotta admits the “historical Jesus … is ultimately unattainable, but can be hypothesized”--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Richard Dawkins quote in the lede

Was this confirmed to be Ken? I understand that Ken is a repeated, unwelcome presence here, but at points, it feels like random users are accuses of being Ken. Friedman (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, this account acts very similar to User:ADefenceOfChristianity, which is Ken as per his statement here. Ken takes on many different forms. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic Article

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation.

I don't even know that this is the correct place to post this, but there is an article on this site that seems to (contrary to the site's purpose) endorse a fringe historical view. I don't like the idea that people may come to this site and, expecting rational material, instead be served garbage on a plate. The article I'm referring to is "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ". Although it claims to be an objective look at the evidence, it overwhelmingly cites Richard Carrier, a man who is looked at as a crank by all serious Biblical scholars. Richard Carrier is cited 51 times; the second most-cited person is cited 8 times. Richard Carrier's work is propping up the entire article, and when you remove it, the whole thing falls like a house of cards. I do not assume bad faith on the part of the user who seems to have taken the article as his own, but he refuses to look at the entire spectrum of evidence. I'm new here, so feel free to excoriate me for breaking RW rules, but I strongly feel that the article needs to be looked over by a committee of independent editors. ^{— Unsigned, by: Friedman / talk / contribs}

Just for the record, the author of this article was permabanned from Wikipedia for, among other reasons, introduce fringe views on this topic. And because, as some of us learned in the painful way, it is extremely difficult to engage with them. GeeJayK (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I can personally attest to the "difficult to engage with them" part. Also, after seeing that they are now editing the Richard Carrier article by scrubbing any mention of the sexual harassment allegations against him, I take back my statement about him not acting in bad faith.Friedman (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The page creator has been gone for about four years. Criticism of the article should be confined to the article talk page. I will say here that I don't believe there is any way to prove whether or not historical Jesus existed and any attempt to do so belongs in a fun space. How did it get a silver brain?Ariel31459 (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I was thinking about that article myself. There's no evidence Jesus even existed, so why is there a wiki page presuming otherwise?--April ^Chat? 04:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too well equipped to deal with this article, but are you guys referring to BruceGrubb here? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

the sexual harrassment claims are, from the sources that went into great detail, unproven. two of these sources are legal documents stating the grounds for his legal action of defamation against some blogs reprinting and/or making claims of alleged sexual harassment. the case was dismissed as were subsequent refilings due the court he filed it in had no jurisdiction. the sexual harassment claims remain unproven. the detail of unproven claims within in these documents is far more extensive than is remotely needed for claims that are unproven. the commentary that these sources were supporting in the article treats unproven claims as fact describing carrier as a sexual abuser and sexual deviant combined with pointless moralising over his marriage and affairs with an inane statement as to the validity of polyamorous as an orientation that is neither here nor there. taken together it trys to paint a picture of a sexual predator with unproven claims and some frankly inane puritanism over their stated but unrelated sexual proclivities.

there is a brief mention of sexual harassment claims and a court case in the intro. thats all thats required here for unproven claims certainly not what was rightly removed. if much more than this is wanted then provide something more concrete than regurgitating the lurid detail of sexual harassment allegations via court documents of a case that was not heard. claims that are disputed and remain untested and unproven in court. assertions to the contrary and pearl clutching over marital infidelity tells me the bad faith is not in the removal of this from an article on a living person that requires extra care to support its claims.

i have no view as to anything else concerning richard carrier nor any particular interest beyond this post. a neutral party, if bad faith accusations are going to made over it AMassiveGay (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario, I am talking about BruceGrubb, yes.

@AMassiveGay, while I completely disagree with you on the Carrier article, that is a separate issue to the article on the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. I brought it up simply because I believe BruceGrubb's pattern of editing is suspect. I do not believe that Carrier's personal behavior in this regard should have any bearing on his scholarship.

@AprilIsTrying and @Ariel31459, I have no desire to get into a long debate on this page, but I feel I must point out that it's common ground among almost all Biblical scholars that (Christian claims of divinity aside) Jesus did exist. I originally brought it up on the Talk page for the article, but I believe the user who seems to control the page at the moment will not listen to reason. I only brought it up on this page, because I have tried the Talk page already, and I feel that this is now a general discussion over whether an article which endorses a fringe historical view belongs on this site. It's akin to supporting Kennedy assassination or 9/11 conspiracy claims.

That aside, the Jesus article is what I wanted to focus on. The massive scholarly consensus is that (without making any comment on divinity, as that is not a historical issue) there was a historical Jesus, who led a group of followers. Carrier is seen as a crank by other scholars, especially for his claim that Jesus never physically existed, and his work has been torn to pieces. For a good example, Gullotta wrote an article doing so, and I would advise everyone to check it out. You can find it here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321766971_On_Richard_Carrier's_Doubts_A_Response_to_Richard_Carrier's_On_the_Historicity_of_Jesus_Why_We_Might_Have_Reason_for_Doubt) and download it through sci-hub. Friedman (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Why is this conversation on ATIM? If you want to discuss or change this article, do it on the talkpage for the article. If you have issues with BruceGrubb's conduct, then please present a diff of them acting in ways against the Community Standards (ie. edit wars). I'm with BruceGrubbs comment about BLP violations for the page on Carrier, that's not a violation imo. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. "The article in question is Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and it has gotten pulled into the Christ/Jesus Myth tar pit so many times that it had to get this: This article is NOT about the Jesus myth theory or the Christ myth theory, but about the quality of the evidence (both for and against) presented regarding his existence. The debate will come up for context but this article is NOT on the debate. In fact, as the Christ Myth article shows its very definition varies so wildly that some versions would be considered historical Jesus positions. (The Jesus myth theory article is on the debate itself.)" (sic except for reference)

Also on the talk page I said this: I strongly suspect that the Jesus of the NT is a composite character - formed out of several would be messiahs written to conform to Paul's vision. For example, the Egyptian who "came out of Egypt to Jerusalem" and "advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer." might have been a component for Matthew. Similarly, Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE) has a large correlation to the Passover section of "Mark". Such a Jesus would not be historical even though he was composed out of historical people.

As for me "owning" the article if you actually looked at the article's history I have not done that much editing on the article itself. In fact, I think Cosmikdebris has done more edits on the article than I have from August 2021 to now. If you want to see the nonsense other editors have to deal with slug through the mess that is Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive19

As for getting banned from wikipedia the excuse used was me linking' to Remsburg's The Christ not making edits on the Christ myth theory (which has drifted from the extreme position it was when the nonsense happened).--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the article, this discussion has nothing to do with site moderation. It belongs on the article talk page.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Once more, I'd like to point out that I have brought this up on the talk page, and BruceGrubb obstinately refuses to take part in any meaningful dialogue about the subject. The reason I have posted about it here is because the article endorses a fringe historical view, and is akin to promoting a conspiracy theory. I do not believe this is the kind of article that should be on this site. It is a prime example of false balance. 51 out of 227 citations are to Richard Carrier (the second most-cited has 8). He is seen as a crank by almost all Biblical scholars, and his works are considered methododlogically sloppy. Why should the article be propped up on the work of this man? Friedman (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC)I am not a mod. But I see you and BruceGrubb and others talking about this on the article page and the Richard Carrier page. It doesn't like like an issue for moderation to me. But I guess that a Mod may have another opinion. I will put a welcome template on your page with links which explain how the site is run.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Both Bob M and I have stated your points were, to use his words "pretty textbook ad hominem."----BruceGrubb (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

My only issue after glancing at it is that the article uses way too much bold text for emphasis. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, my points are not ad hominem. Are you saying that criticizing a particular source, despite his field's consensus of the sub-par quality of his work, is ad hominem? I linked you the Gullotta article, clearly stating many refutations to the arguments made in his book, showing just how sloppy it is. I do not understand how criticizing a source for their work is ad hominem. Nowhere did I claim that his sexual harassment allegations had any effect on his scholarship; I have, in fact, claimed the opposite. This is not ad hominem. Carrier's work itself is not up to par.

I really don't want to sound like a nut yelling into a void, but I feel like no one is understanding what I'm saying. This is a fringe view among Biblical scholars. Carrier's work is laughed at for its abysmal quality, and this is what's propping up the article. I've provided a peer-reviwed source that effectively backs up what I'm saying. If we keep this article on the site, we should no longer call ourselves RationalWiki.

I've tried discussing this on the talk page, but BruceGrubb obstinately refuses to listen to reason. If all I can do is bring it back to the talk page, if there's no way I can get an objective group of editors to look at the page (along with the paper I provided that no one seems to have read yet), then the system is broken. One editor can effectively control an article, and stubbornly refuse to make any changes.

Again, I'll post a peer-reviewed source which points out the obvious problems with Carrier's arguments. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321766971_On_Richard_Carrier's_Doubts_A_Response_to_Richard_Carrier's_On_the_Historicity_of_Jesus_Why_We_Might_Have_Reason_for_Doubt) You can download it through sci-hub. Friedman (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Overuse of bold text for emphasis comes off as hyperbolic and mildly hysterical, imo. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄^{Ask about our holiday specials!} 14:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC)Bruce, you weren't banned for that article alone and you know it. That was just your first topic ban (you got at least another one, with universal support in both cases). You were permabanned for repeated violation of the topic ban and sockpupperty.

In pretty much all cases against you on WP:AN (there were many more) people complained about how hard it is to engage with you. Also, Cosmik didn't really add any content on that article, so he's not the one editing the article (no one is?).

Still regarding Carrier, I couldn't find his profile on Google scholar, but I saw people saying that his h-index is as deplorable as 5. I think some people might be misguided here. Books aren't the main source of scientific research nowadays, they are mostly used for divulgation. We need to check the articles too. I could find two articles written by Carrier that touch the subject (although they really aren't about the subject). One was published by the Journal of early Christian studies and the other by Vigiliae Christianae. Both have an extremely low H5-index rating. Their JIF is even more embarrasing, close to zero. I couldn't find if Dr. Carrier teaches in any university too, despite having a very good CV. So, yeah, he doesn't seem like a very good souce. I do agree however that the sexual harassment accusations aren't very good since the main source is wordpress. GeeJayK (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, honestly, if we are criticizing people for their actions on Wikipedia, I'm a much easier target. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't criticize Bruce for his actions on Wikipedia on my first post, I just said that Carrie's view was considered too fringe due to his poor methodology even for Wikipedia's neutral-POV and that it has been known for years that it's extremely hard to engage with Bruce. Then I answered his post when he claimed that he got banned for "liking to Remsburg's The Christ", (according to Google it's a book from bloody 1909) which is not true. GeeJayK (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please continue discussion on the respective talk page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

All that does is force the argument to stay on a page that is only visited by people with a vested interest in the topic, effectively burying the problem. My point in posting here was to bring wider attention to this issue, and have a community discussion. This is a topic that affects the site as a whole, not just one page. Having pages that advance fringe theories is a joke, and brings disrepute to the entire site.

If you want further proof of the low-quality of Carrier's work (in addition to the Gullotta article cited above), Petterson reviewed his book, and a (self-published) article by Hendrix takes his use of Bayes' Theorem to task. Friedman (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No it's not a site wide issue. It's only so if discussion has veered far off into disruption. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It is perhaps a larger problem because there are many other articles (Second-god (Christ), Christ myth theory, Jesus myth theory among probably a few others) that rely too much on Carrier's work. Also, it's nearly impossible to use the talk page since it's nearly impossible to have an actual discussion with the two main authors of these articles. GeeJayK (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably could be a discussion with Carrier's page. I do have difficult experiences with BruceGrubb as well regarding in the talk for Anita Sarkeesian so I can see your complaint but I'm not sure how an All things in moderation talk makes it easier to change the page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Any talk page is insufficient, in my opinion. No matter what information is provided, BruceGrubb does not budge; that's his M.O. on this topic. Nothing will ever get done if this stays in his court.

If there is a better page for discussion of problematic articles in general, I'm all ears. My point was to bring this issue to the attention of the wider community.

If I had my way, an appointed group of objective editors would take a look at the issue from both sides, and discuss it, making suggestions. Kind of like a RW SCOTUS. That being said, I understand people have lives. Friedman (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario, I found this on your profile page. "The main function of the moderator is to monitor conflicts and use the tools they are given to keep discussions from veering off in directions that are harmful to the community and the site." With all due respect, I do believe this is a valid example of that. Friedman (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario, the main discussion here is, I believe, whether Carrier is a reliable source or not. I explained the reasons why I think he isn't. Carrier's talk page should be used for discussions about the article, not about the problem we're talking about here. ATIM is indeed a really bad place for this subject, especially since this sort of thing should be decided by the mob, not by the moderation, but I'd say Carrier's page is even worse, so I don't know what we can do about this. Since, however, where the discussion is going to take place is something that mods should decide, I'll respect any decision. Probably won't be able to check this page for at least a couple of day anyway. GeeJayK (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't put Carrier at the top of my "distinguished intellectuals list", having said that...sceptical inquiry into biblical scolars ins't exactly welcome with wide open arms and there is also an unhinged bias in biblical scolarship towards literal Jesus. Having studied at a catholic university in the philosophy/theology department, I know about the vicious resistance to even minor cricism of biblical scholarship. In any case though, no, our article shouldn't rely so heavily on Carriers work...having said that his basic argument is sound: that some guy named Jesus was likely Cruxified in the region around the time but virtually no other details about such a person named Jesus can be confirmed by text outside of the Scriptures which are for the most part extremely dubious sources of information meaning virtually every quality attributed to him...we must take the word of the text written by people trying to create a religion. ShabiDOO 17:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

At this point nothing is stopping discussion on the talk page for this article. I would like to engage with interested parties on the subject of whether the article is actually biased towards Carrier's POV. Please go to the TP to give your opinion on this question. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The amount of talk page discussion on this article is unusually large. Carrier should not be relied on as the sole citation for anything. An academic author choosing their own reviewers is highly unusual and problematic. It is however not unusual for an author to suggest some reviewers to the editor, but that the author should remain blind to whom the actual reviewers are. Bayesian analysis of ancient history seems extremely fraught. I suggest removing the silver brainstar; there seems to have been no vote on it (though this may not have been standard at the time), and possibly calling for an AFD. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Carrier is pretty much disgraced/debunked in academic circles last I heard. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo, I'm not even sure Carrier argues that, though. The main argument of his 2017 book seems to be that in the early days of Christianity, Jesus was acknowledged as a celestial being and not a human at all.

Also, there are many problems and unknowns with the peer-review process Carrier's book went through. As BruceGrubb himself noted above, someone emailed the publisher and they said "We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted. But we cannot undertake to describe the process just to any person who asks us to do so—life is too short." What reputable academic publisher says this? Friedman (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Carrier's publisher, Sheffield Phoenix Press, the Wikipedia page misleadingly states "All SPP’s titles are double blind peer-reviewed", but this is not confirmed by the citation given on the WP page.[2] SPP strictly publishes Bible-related publications, mostly orthodox, but some heterodox ("Ancestral Queerness The Normal and the Deviant in the Abraham and Sarah Narratives"). Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that this is a "problem child" article. What is going to be the remedy for this article? Majorly revised or start from scratch? LinuxLover (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also support removing the silver. And the bronze on Jesus myth theory (which is 10 times worse than this one). GeeJayK (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an old article, and it has Carrier all over it for literally years. How did it take so long for people to realize the bulk of the article was written by a discredited academic? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Same reason why most articles on economics here on RW were written ten years ago by two inactive users (Osaka Sun and Nebuchadnezzar) and are still full of extremely fringe, outdated ideas from the Post-Keynesian school. First you need an active, motivated, user that undestands at least a bit about the subject point out the problems of the articles. Then you need to convince the rest of the Wiki. Also, I think Bruce did a relatively decent job on the minimum wage article, even if I disagree with him on these articles about the historicity of Jesus. GeeJayK (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm starting to come to a point where, if it's built on questionable sources, is it even missional enough here? I am not going to make that call but I do want to throw it out there. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is the issue is not so much with Carrier himself but his On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt which is peer reviewed. Sure there is some material by Carrier that is not at level but they should fall under wikipedia's Acceptable use of self-published works guidelines. It I counted them right, of the 35 citations for Carrier only 9 are self published with another 5 being different timestamps in a single YouTube debate. That said a lot of the references do need to be combined (the exact same refence is used three different places).

As for missional considering the subject matter I don't see how it isn't on mission per "Documenting the full range of crank ideas;" Personally, I think Carrier overplays his material and there was a human being (or rather several) who had a hand in forming the story in the Gospels. As sort of Christian Mandela Effect.

As far Gullotta he claims "Suetonius describes Jesus as ‘the man who was crucified in Palestine". Newsflash people, 'Suetonius makes no such claim'.

Here is what Suetonius actually says (that are credit to being about Jesus: '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" (facepalms(. One reviewer jokingly called this a Daniel Dash but lamented that today's scholars are skimmers with collections of long out of date cliff notes from some college course where a trusted professor summarized it all for them (he is being sarcastic as all get out here).

People complain about my "word walls" or "Gish gallops" but at least I make sure when I reference something I have the actual work in front of me. Gullotta is so egger to lambast Carrier with evidence he stumbles and screws up part of it up and claims something that is blatantly false. And this is the quality of the material that refutes Carrier. Wonderful. Well I guess it is better than those comparing denying Jesus as a historical figure to denying the Holocaust (I don't think I need to go into how many levels of dumb that is)--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I count 51 citations for Carrier, including the four or five debates he's listed in. Are you counting by actual citations or by how many different things are cited? That may be the cause of our discrepancy.

I'm actually really starting to wonder whether Sheffield-Phoenix is playing fast and loose with the definition of peer-review. It seems the only solid sources we have for his book being peer-reviewed (let alone double-blind peer-reviewed, as he has claimed) are Carrier himself and an email you say that someone sent to the publisher. Ignoring Carrier for the moment (which I believe is the right thing, considering his obvious bias), the email from S-P said, "We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted. But we cannot undertake to describe the process just to any person who asks us to do so—life is too short." Aside from the ridiculousness of a publisher who says that sort of thing, all it says is the book was peer-reviewed. But, also via BruceGrubb, the "section for potential authors" on the publisher's website says, "Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press." That sounds like copy-editing and proof-reading. In fact, a quick Google search of their site didn't actually turn up any instance of the term "peer-review" at all.

Regarding Carrier as a whole vs. his book, I'd say both are the issue. His book is consistently touted as "the only peer-reviewed book supporting the mythical Jesus argument" (take a drink every time this was said on the talk page archives for this article), which essentially launches Carrier to the go-to guy for defending this POV. Without the book, he's just another one of many Jesus mythicists whose work is not respected by scholars, albeit one without a "peer-reviewed" book that targets the popular audience. Friedman (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as Carrier is concerned, if the article simply describes his views, which are outliers as I understand it, without adopting them in any summary way, this should satisfy Friedman's complaints. The fact is, no conclusion about historical Jesus can be regarded as final. The obvious historical affects of the Christian religion suggest a founder, and the empirical judgment that religions begin in personifications such as Buddha, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed are typical examples. This wiki should not favor any particular view on the matter. It is quite correct to conclude with the common consensus. We should not bother with a Shakespeare-style controversy about the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. Probably he was one person, he may have been a composite. I presume to declare, we don't care, really.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is Carrier did enough to get pass Sheffield-Phoenix's peer-review process which someone stated is "absolutely standard for history books published by UK academic presses". As for Sheffield-Phoenix's flippant e-mail response the process just for a master's thesis can get complicated (without repeatedly sending manuscript for corrections of requires for more citations) so I can kind of understand their response to some unknown non academic sending them an e-mail out of the blue like that especially if the one sent them was in anyway snarky or the secretary was in a bad 'can't you read?' mood (it happens more often that you think).

I have to ask; how is questioning Jesus' existence any different than questioning if Sun Tzu really existed? Sun Tzu has better references than Jesus (summaries of actual historical records by historians one of which went out of his way to note some of the irregularities in the source material) and yet we aren't sure Sun Tzu existed even though his teaching have been around for 500 years longer than Jesus and you can supposedly hold a copy of the Art of War which Sun Tzu supposedly either wrote or dictated?

As for Google searches as I explained elsewhere 1) They only lists things for which there is an internet presence. 2) Google searches use text so if the information is in a format like a pdf composed of photoscans, or archived away in some compressed format (like .zip) Google will not directly see it. 3) Many times Google searches will display the most recent version of a page so if the page is updated then odds are Google will find that version and NOT the one for several years ago. 4) poorly designed or limited access sites that can restrict what Google can find. (Robot.txt IIRC can also stop Google's webcrawler)--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"Did X, a person supposedly of low rank and relatively unimportant during his own lifetime, exist in the world?" is a question that typically cannot be answered with certainly. What are you expecting to conclude? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ah but that is the argument the pro historical Jesus side makes as outlined in the daughtered out (but summarized) the "Comparison of Jesus to other people and/or events" material links to. Some among pro historical Jesus side (including Ehrman I might add) have compared denying Jesus to denying the Holocaust and the article goes into why that is beyond nonsensically stupid and effectively shoots the whole pro historical Jesus argument in the foot with a 21 gun salute. If the evidence was as good as everybody claimed than why in the name of logic and rationally are some of the pro historical Jesus group comparing what is one of the most documented horrors of the 20th century to what, at best, is a fragmentary account by Paul and a group of anonymous writers? It is an emotional grab and if the pro historical Jesus is resorting to that you start wondering not if the emperor has no clothes but rather if their even is an emperor. Ehrman generally has good points that that has to be the dumbest thing he ever said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, if I have already posted a response to one of your posts, please do not go back an hour later and add two more paragraphs to what I responded to; it's confusing and it looks dishonest (editing post facto). Just put new stuff at the bottom.

Further, you seem to be personally offended when anyone questions the quality of Carrier's work. As for your criticism of Gullotta, he has stated that he made a typo (that quote was intended to be attributed to Lucian, who is quoted directly before the erroneous Suetonius quote). For all the criticism I levy at him, at least Richard Carrier accepts this point, as he has said on his blog. Funny how that's the same blog post that you posted in response to my posting the Gullotta paper earlier. Either you did not read Carrier's blog post, or you were dishonest in trying to criticize Gullotta just now for what you knew was a mistake that even Carrier agrees to. You then proceeded to go on a mini-rant saying that this major mistake is indicative of all of Carrier's critics. I'm getting very tired of your behavior, and I do indeed believe it to be in bad faith.

BTW, I need to take another drink, as you've mentioned once again how Carrier's book was peer-reviewed. Is it just normal peer-reviewed or "double-blind peer reviewed" as you've now stopped saying, but had been saying for quite a while before this major discussion was brought here? I have personally emailed the publisher on the topic, and am awaiting a reply. Frankly, I'm at the point where I'm fairly certain the publisher did not send the book out for scholarly peer-review (that is, to relevant academics in the field). Here (https://web.archive.org/web/20160114000113/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090), Carrier himself even admits that he sent it out to four self-chosen peer-reviewers separate from the publisher.

@Ariel31459, I'm perfectly happy to have Carrier's views presented in context. However, as to the historicity of Jesus, there's good evidence to suggest he did exist. Do we have as many records about him as the Holocaust? No. But there is enough evidence that, in order to refute what's there, you often have to misread or twist the current evidence to say something it doesn't. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's acceptable, in my opinion. As for the article, I believe we are on the same page (pun not intended).Friedman (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa... BruceGrubb, when you said that "The thing is Carrier did enough to get pass Sheffield-Phoenix's peer-review process which someone stated is 'absolutely standard for history books published by UK academic presses'." Also, when talking about Sheffield-Phoenix's reply email, you also say "someone" emailed them. I was under the impression these were people here that you knew. Could these "someone"s be posters on the Straight Dope messageboards? https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-peer-review-work-for-books-in-the-academic-discipline-of-history/694719/24?page=2

I believe they are. Both of those quotes are there, and the people on the board also come to the same conclusion I do: that this is all very fishy. Friedman (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You should both take your debate over Carrier to his article talk page. The ontological status of ancient persons is not a scientific question. Following the preponderance of opinion is not a scientific method. The purposes of this wiki should not entail deconstruction of religious figures. "Such and such should be acceptable according to the norms of contemporary historical standards" is not a strong hypothesis in any science-based wiki. Believe me, I suppose both POV are possible. Issac Asimov was not a mathematician, otherwise he could never have written about "psychohistory" with a straight face.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why should the debate be taken over to the Carrier article when it is clearly very relevant over here? If there's one thing BruceGrubb and I can agree on, it's probably the importance of Carrier's work to this article.

The purpose of this wiki, as I have seen in practice, is to seek objective truth, with a dash of fun and snark. That is why we have articles on decidedly non-scientific topics. Further, I think the existence of a hisorical figure who has inspired a religion as focused on on this site as Christianity at least deserves a nod. I don't think we should be making a firm objective stance over whether he existed, but considering the evidence, it's worth pointing out that there a reason it's considered convincing. Hell, one line on the Jesus page is fine with me.

Have you read the Gullotta article I posted? It details a pretty good example of what history can tell us. Again, is it as exact as things like physical laws? No, not at all. But historical research is its own, very valid field. You have to weigh the evidence, and there's enough evidence to have convinced the majority of scholars. Friedman (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ariel31459, also, I'm trying not to come off as arguing that we should be proving Jesus' existence. Sorry if I give that vibe. Essentially, all I'm trying to say is that the article endorses a fringe theory, it's propped up by a disreputable academic's work, and therefore it should be changed or deleted. Everything I've said has tried to be in service of that argument. All in all, I'm fine with just AfDing the page, and adding a blurb to the page for Jesus. It actually seems there's already a small section on that page for whether he existed or not, which makes this page more redundant. I would argue it should be rewritten, but that is an argument for a different talk page. Friedman (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please propose text changes you want to make. It would be better if we did not focus on the single source in dispute. Treat it like a minority opinion. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean text changes to the relevant section in the Jesus article? I'd have to look at that. It would take some work, and I'd rather any discussion about it take place over on the talk page for that article, just for space's sake.

When you talk of the source/opinion thing, do you mean on this article or the Jesus one? I'm fine with not focusing on Carrier over there (given that his opinions on that article seem to be part of the discussion at large, rather than buttressing the article's central argument), but I think his presence here warrants attention to his credibility. Friedman (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's stay here on this article for now. This article is not the place to criticize Carrier's work. That should be done in the article on Carrier. It should be enough to state his opinion is considered dissent when it is referenced and do it indirectly by referencing our Carrier article, which is where you can write in your criticism of Carrier.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. I'm not really sure what you mean by "dissent" though; do you mean it does not agree with consensus, essentially? Also, when you say "this article," do you mean the article or the talk page? I'm going to assume you mean the talk page, since no one has mentioned expanding upon Carrier's credentials in the article. I'm unsure how that solves what to do with this article, though. Unless someone wants to attempt a major rewrite, I'm for AfDing it. My argument is thus:

This 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.

If my simple mention of Carrier is something you feel belongs on the talk page for his article, then I don't know what to tell you. There's literally no way to point out that the article overly relies on a disreputable academic, than to bring up the reliability of Carrier as a source. Friedman (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'm still not necessarily sure why the discussion of Carrier's reliability as a source should be moved to his talk page. Frankly, I'm fine with that article. Should the reliability of a source be discussed on their talk page if what is determined will not affect that page but a different one? Just one to ponder. You might have a straight answer, though; I'm new. Friedman (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As pointed before by Bob "the criticism above comes across as pretty textbook ad hominem". If Carrier's arguments are good and properly sourced in the Sheffield Phoenix book (which they seem to be for the ones I have personally looked up (it doing this that resulted in me finding Guiart, Jean (March 1952). "John Frum Movement in Tanna". Oceania. 22 (3): 165–177. which both supports and rips holes in Carrier's John Frum example.

I manually counted the references looking for Carrier taking more care this time. Two references appear in the Notes section. In the reference section column one there are 22 separate references 7 of which are self published, column 2 has 17 two of which are self published; the third and final column 14 of which 5 are self published and 3 of those are a YouTube video. That may seem a lot until you actually look at them. One is Vigiliae Christianae which wikipdiea describes as "peer-reviewed academic journal published by Brill Publishers" and yet when you go to the page there is nothing there about peer view - you have to go into a PDFs for that and boy it is not fun to read through. The rest is different parts of Carrier's ~700 page book so yeh you are going to get a lot of references out of that thing.Biblical Reception shows the problem with how Sheffield Phoenix Press labels things - you have to go to the individual books to find "Papers will be peer reviewed." How Sheffield Phoenix Press tells you stuff is peer reviewed could be better. --BruceGrubb (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bongolian @LeftyGreenMario Shall we Afd this article? @BruceGrubb The problem I see is your take is too dependent on one author, who is not really well regarded by some of our users. Also you repeat the same arguments answering Friedman's complaints, but they don't answer mine: we don't know what is true about the historical Jesus. Stuff that is printed in journals is usually somewhat speculative.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I admit my ignorance on the subject. I also admit that I'm very sensible to fall into the good old credentialism fallacy and, as a result I'm extremely biased to agree with the mainstream on pretty much every subject (I don't believe vaccines are good because I've studied about them, but because people that studied vaccines say they are good). But, supposing we're not nuking this article, I think it should in fact support the view that Jesus existed since pretty much every scholar other than Carrier, Price and a few others that wrote mostly popular books seem to agree on this view. Regarding AFD, IMO we should start with another article. Second-god (Christ) is probably the worst of them, followed by Jesus myth theory. Maybe this one is not beyond salvation. GeeJayK (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ariel31459, I already suggested and afd, but I'd prefer not to initiate it myself. I'm not well enough versed in this issue. Bongolian (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The content and sourcing of the article is woefully substandard. It is poorly written and organized. And the formatting is second-rate with too much bolding. The article should have been deleted long ago. LinuxLover (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It now reads. "New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall 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.'"(ref).

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". So by Bart Ehrman's definition aJesus 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 "nonhistorial" Jesus."

What if the Gospel Jesus stripped of all the supernatural elements is a composite character with a 1st century preacher named Jesus in the mix? Is that a "Historical Jesus"? And people wonder why this article is a verbose train wreck on steroids.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand the point you're trying to make, but as far as I'm concerned, it's trying to put a band-aid on a gaping, festering wound. The whole article is propped up on Richard Carrier quotes. If you read a scholarly book, and then found in the notes that 20% of the book's citations came from a crank, would you consider that book reliable?

I'll be more than happy to discuss the issue of his credibility with you over in the section I have set up on his talk page. Friedman (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the information the reformat above accurate to the situation of what a Historical Jesus is? Yes or no. And in wikipedia proper Carrier is mentioned/cited 72 times in their Christ Myth Theory article. If he fits their criteria of reliable he certainly fits ours.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, please post any discussion about Carrier's reliability on the section I've set up on his talk page.

Second, are we even reading the same article? I count Carrier's name appearing in 13 citations out of 404 total. Considering that Carrier is one of the main proponents of the Jesus myth theory, I would expect him to be cited. Just not 80 times, which is (percentage-wise) what the equivalent of this article would be.

I've stated my concern about putting a band-aid on a necrotic hole. I'm interested less in the tiny details, than the article as a whole when Carrier is not given undue weight. Friedman (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Carrier is just one voice. We should be interested in his arguments themselves, and not accept any author's conclusions because he is cited in a context with academic standing. As I understand it Carrier concludes there is less than a 50-50 probability that the historical Jesus existed as an individual. That's interesting in a nerdish way. But I doubt it would convince anyone, who was at least agnostic about the question, that it really proves anything objective. If there is a 30% chance of rain, I might bring my umbrella when I go out of the house.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that, in his book, Carrier comes to the conclusion (using Bayes' Thereom, which really isn't very good for this sort of thing) that the best chances for a historical Jesus are 1/3. Just mentioning. Friedman (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. @Friedman It doesn't look like users are willing to go along with deleting this article. My advice is to mourn for a respectable amount of time and then if you are so motivated begin to edit the article. My opinion is it is too long for what it accomplishes, which is basically that there is insufficient common evidence to establish the existence of historical Jesus. Of course, any ancient document can be impeached. The proper conclusion should be, we really don't know and the question, though interesting, is purely academic in that it can't really be answered with finality. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I'm not disappointed, but I appreciate all the advice you've given me throughout this. How long does the AfD stay up? Friedman (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The AFD was closed as 9-2-2, keep-delete-merge. It mainly has to do with bad but on mission articles are generally kept on the basis of "improve over delete", unless there is a compelling reason why improvement is not possible.

What I guess you could do is take it to RW:DUPLICATE and try to get it merged with another Jesus related article, but given the shear length of the article and the length of the others, it is likely to be immediately failed. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I feel like this article should be deleted, and what's said here could be covered on the Jesus myth theory article, but I will take a more detailed look at my options. Friedman (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be cautious. Jesus myth theory is 161 kB of prose, not factoring in the 103 kB of references/links. This article is almost exactly 100 kB on the dot of prose and has 27 kB of references. Merging two bloated articles is a horrible idea, so you might wanna find a better merge target. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh geez, don't get me wrong, I definitely don't want to merge both articles wholesale. That would be terrible. What I personallu would prefer would be if this bloated mess of an article was deleted, and any relevant, worthwhile information either being moved to the Jesus myth article (which also needs to be cut down severely) or condensed into the Jesus article in the section for whether Jesus was real. Friedman (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki frowns upon articles recently AFD'd get deleted again, see RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Xenogender as an example. RW also believes that articles should be improved over deleted. Merging kinda falls in a grey area in that regard. I don't think they would go for just a section, though. This should probably be discussed later. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up on how things go around here. Preferably, I'd bring more of the mainstream sentiments over to the Jesus article (I believe there's a section there dedicated to whether he was a real person or not), more of the mythicist arguments over to the Jesus myth theory article (which, while I have some problems with as it currenty is, I do believe it's definitely a worthwhile article to improve for keeping), and delete the rest. The only parts I'd really look into deleting is a lot of what I'd consider pointless explication. I'd love to start a group project going through and talking about the article piece-by-piece sometime. Friedman (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Given how Richard Carrier is now only in 8 refs (use control f), I am upgrading it to a Level 1 article. No brainstar, but not significantly problematic. We can continue to discuss this. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

How are you getting 8 references? I used control+F on the citation list and (excluding sources discussing Carrier, but not by Carrier, and including debates in which he partook) I still get 50+. Our counting methods must be different. Friedman (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

My count shows references 27, 76, 80, 108, 182, 183, 184, 185 and 189 as being by Carrier, which is 8. However, note 4 also discusses Carrier, as do two links. He is also mentioned six times in the article for a total of 17. That isn't quite an overreliance. Andrew5 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

My bad, just a simple "Carrier" type shows a lot more references, and is mentioned 88 times in the article (but not as references). I'm personally on the fence between significantly problematic and not, but this can be discussed. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, see what I've been doing was counting the number of times he's cited. I suppose it would be smart of me to go through each of those to see how much they rely on him, and whether it's used as a general reference or just to say "Carrier believes..." Friedman (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want, I can help with that. --Andrew5 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That'd be awesome, thanks! I'll take a look later, but I'd love to have a second opinion. Friedman (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Richard Carrier a reliable source?

Since the page is now up for AfD, I have (at @Ariel31459's suggestion) decided to start a discussion over on Richard Carrier's talk page as to his reliability as a source. As @GeeJayK mentioned, Second-god (Christ) and Jesus myth theory are also problematic articles, and they are also buttressed by Carrier (even more than this article). I am hoping that any discussion of his general reliability can help with any decisions made on those pages as well. Friedman (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A Review from Journal of Religious History

"The Journal of Religious History is an international, double-blind, peer-reviewed journal that aims to publish high quality, impactful scholarship and research that makes original and significant contribution to the field of religious history." - Wiley

"My only real criticism is that the minimal mythicist theory fits the evidence so perfectly which some may see as suspicious. This could be because the theory is simply true, or because it has been carefully crafted for this purpose, and suffers from a lower prior probability as a result (cf. apologists who inadvertently damage their hypotheses by inventing evidentially-unsupported excuses to counter the evidences of evil and hiddenness, in arguing over God’s existence). It is up to historicists, however, to show that this theory is inherently implausible." - Raphael Lataster (Dec 2014) https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9809.12219

"Raphael Lataste holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney. (..) His research interests include Philosophy of Religion, Christian origins, and alternative god-concepts such as pantheism and pandeism. He enjoys discussing and considering different religious and political points of view" - personal webpage

By contrast Daniel N. Gullotta is a Ph.D. candidate (ABD) at Stanford University and specializes in American religious history. Isn't Biblical history a little out of Gullotta's wheelhouse?

The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is double-blind, peer-reviewed journal but you have download and read the Instructions for Authors PDF to find that out but at least we know that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"It is up to historicists, however, to show that this theory is inherently implausible." That might be true, if it were a falsifiable theory. I don't think "theory" means what you think it means. "speculative academic guess" is what I hear when historians and archeologists use that word. Since you like to refer to Wikipedia so much, their article says "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory." Ariel31459 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You have read the talk page on Christ myth theory the wikipedia article, right? Especially the "Critics of the historicity of the Christ" section which starts with "The "Christ myth theory" is not a fringe viewpoint. Virtually every biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the living Christ holds that the "Jesus the Christ" figure is a myth. WP should therefore have two articles "Christ myth theory" and "Jesus mythicism"."?

That is what the "The elephant in the room: The Two Jesuses" sections are all about as well as the sentence "In fact, as the Christ Myth article shows its very definition varies so wildly that some versions would be considered historical Jesus positions.

For example, Constantin-François Volney[7] (1757-1820), regarded as one of the two fathers of the modern Christ Myth, allowed for the confused memories of an obscure historical figure being integrated into a mythology that had formed organically,[8] which was echoed in a 1938 Manchester University Press book.[9] Herbert George Wood in a 1934 University Press book grouped the Christ Myth theory with the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."[10] Many of these sound much like the current version of the historical Jesus don't they? And yet they are all examples of the "Christ Myth"."

From Can We Trust the New Testament? by George Albert Wells (Nov 26, 2003) ISBN 0812695674 pages 49-50: "In my first books on Jesus, I argued that the gospel Jesus is an entirely mythical expansion of the Jesus of the early epistles. The summary of the argument of The Jesus Legend (1996) and The Jesus Myth (1990) given in this section of the present work makes it clear that I no longer maintain this position",' He clarified on page 50: "My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q, or at any rate parts of it, may well be as early as ca. A.D. 50); and if I am right, against Doherty and Price - it is not all mythical." If I am reading that right Wells seemed to have abandoned the did not exist at all position and gone for a mythical Paul Jesus + Actual 1st century preacher from The Jesus Legend on but he was still being called mythist as late as 1999.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1982, 1995) on "Jesus Christ". in Bromiley et al.. The international standard Bible encyclopedia : fully revised, illustrated, in four volumes. Vol. 2, E-J. 2. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 1034. ISBN 978-0-8028-3782-0. "Some skeptics have sought to explain the NT [New Testament] witness to Jesus and the rise of Christianity in terms of the Christ-myth theory. This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes". But there are pieces of mythology of known historical people that fit into this insanely broad definition Washington's supposed vision of the United States' future (1861) which some have said predicts the World Wars (yeh it is stretching but it is there) is a prime example of a story of an actual historical person that never happened.

As if to muddy the waters some more NuVision Publications, LLC in 2007 took Remburg, who if one actually reads him accepted the evenidence posted to a flesh and blood man behind the NT accounts, and renamed his book (The Christ) "The Christ Myth".

It is a mess because there is no really consistent definition as to what Christ Myth even is; something that article has long tried to deny and yet year in year out it keeps coming up. Some define it as the story of Jesus being mythical and others say it is the idea the man himself existed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A talk page is not an article. Friedman (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant as we already have pointed out in "Criticisms of Wikipedia" there are issues and even wikipedia states it is not a reliable source by its own standards.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It is to be expected that over decades and centuries the stories about a messiah would be inconsistent. The Gospels don't agree. It would be a shock if they did. Everything that appears fantastic and supernatural is part of the myth. The story of Jesus is of course a series of myths. Was he a real man? Who knows? He could have been. Abraham, Moses, King David might have existed. They are part of the mythical cannon. what you cannot do scientifically, is prove there never was a Jesus who professed some or all of the teaching that the Bible reports. There could have been a sequence of such folk. Unfortunately it is a fool's errand to try to prove one way or the other. Did you ever notice how biblical scholars try to baffle one with endless citations. The problem as I see it is bible scholarship is an art form. We can report the hermeneutics but it doesn't have much bearing on the scientific reality that the person of Jesus is inaccessible to us. Lots of people make up stories out of frustration. If one cant explain an argument to a sixth grader, I don't believe one really understands it oneself. Try to do that. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, I feel like your very valid points over the fact that there's many definitions of a mythical Jesus supports my view that this article is unneccesary. The Christ myth theory should be kept (but drastically cleaned up) as it is a fringe theory, and we document those things. I would actually be more comfortable with this article if it were a literal list of Biblical and extra-Biblical sources which are claimed to support the existence of Jesus, with perhaps accompanying counterpoints. But even then, all of that could be greatly condensed for the relevant section of the Jesus article. But as it is, it's a massively bloated mess. Friedman (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It is interesting that Abraham, Moses, and King David came up as Moses not existing as an actual person is actually part of the formal scholarship. King David is also all over the map as well though things are leaning toward him being historical but not as grand a rules as the Bible would indicate. Abraham by contrast is in a kind of 'was he historical' limbo.

There are a lot of things a sixth grader wouldn't understand no matter how simple you made it. Heck, I doubt many adults understand how big the orbits of the planets are in relation to the planets themselves. Cliff Stoll talks about his final exam and the question "why is the sky blue" and in his words "An hour later, I'm sweating hard. His simple question—a five-year-old's question—has drawn together oscillator theory, electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, even quantum mechanics". Simple doesn't not mean accurate and I think a lot of what is on the wiki would fly so far above many 11-12 year olds it would be in orbit. My late mother did editorial work for Ohio State University and one professional math paper for some insane reason needed to be written, in their words, "on a See Spot. See Spot run level". It became the laughing stock of the university and the math department was not assumed. Have no idea what happened to the genius that come up with that idea.

Also we have been over the whole Christ myth theory is a fringe theory before. It is not one theory Go and look at Myth as to why the very name is a problem. For some "Christ myth theory" means "Christ (historical) myth theory": "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You keep talking about how there's more than one definition of Jesus myth theory, but I don't really see anyone arguing with you on that point. Regardless of the exact definition of Jesus myth theory, I strongly believe the article should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb, with these results:

▪Part of the article should be transferred over to the relevant section over on our Jesus article, and that section cleaned up.

▪Part of the article should be moved over to the Jesus myth theory page, and that page should be cleaned up (especially for length; it's nearly as bad as this.one).

▪The rest (most) of this article should be deleted. It's a bloated mess, "a verbose trainwreck on steroids," as I believe you said.--Friedman (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We had a vote on AfD. Delete got two votes. Merge/redirect only got 2 votes. Keep got 9 votes with 3 saying the article could do with a some clean up. That ship tried to sale and didn't even get out of the harbor.

Regarding the Christ myth theory the issue is people keep saying 'all' Christ myth theory is fringe. So they are saying these versions of the Christ Myth theory are fringe:

"The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. 'He is the Christ myth. [...] It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology " - Remsburg (1909) whose book I might add was rereleased in 2007 as The Christ Myth

Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." - summery of John M Robertson's view. A Jesus who died of old age, only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups, or was killed outside the 26-36 CE reign of Pontius Pilate (as expressly stated in Irenaeus' Against Heresies and Demonstrations (75) both c180 CE) would fit under this version. Heck, if take that definition to it an extreme a Jesus who didn't preach everything recorded in the Gospel would be part of the Christ Myth theory

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography by Albert Schweitzer. Yet Arthur Drews, and especially John M. Robertson and James George Frazer did not, if one is paying attention and actually read what they wrote rather than repeat what the last apologist wrote, 'contest the historical existence of Jesus' nor 'pretended that Jesus never lived'

Bromiley said "This view [Christ Myth theory] states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." But some of those stores (Troy and Vinland) are based on historical events never mind there are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus"" -- George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories, as told, are almost certainly fictional in nature. Bromiley then got on how the Gospel Jesus miracles and all was a historical person. For Bromiley, a Jesus who didn't match up with the miracle Demi-god but was an ordinary man was Christ Myth theory. Heck, he even uses the Thallus source as evidence of the darkness as proof that Gospel event.

On the fringe edge is

"Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) under the heading "Christ-myth Theory" History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17)--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, no offense, but you have a really bad habit of posting walls of text that are completely irrelevant to what's going on.

Again, no one is disputing that there's a million different theories about what parts of the biblical Jesus are true and which aren't. My point has nothing to do with that. My point is that this article is unnecessary. Anything of value can either be moved to the Jesus page or to the Jesus myth theory page. Most of this article is pointless blathering without actually saying anything substantial.

As for the AfD, what's your point? Argumentum ad populum? Instead of actually being open to other people's suggestions, you're hiding behind the vote results, using them as a justification for why you're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm actually trying to help improve the wiki, but you're just sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying "I don't have to change anything, because I won the vote," and copypasting paragraphs of text (half of which you probably don't even read) so that people will eventually give up so that you can have your way.

I'm trying to make reasonable suggestions, and you're being a brick wall. Friedman (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe you need to get Bruce to agree with your edits as long as you don't war over them. I won't let him stop you from editing the article, but they must be clarifying edits. @BruceGrubb there is only so much dilation a limited subject like this can contain before it becomes incoherent, as it has already done. I am not completely ignorant of archaeology, never mind Moses, the entire Exodus myth is likely to have been have been a fabrication. Please stop replying with academic free association rather than discussing emendations to the text. If you don't think the text can be improved you should look elsewhere to improve the wiki.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to look through more carefully, because my initial approach was big, but I'm sure there are edits that can be made within the article. In the long-run, I really do feel the best idea would be to move some stuff over to the Jesus article (they already have a section covering whether he was a real person or not; that alone, I feel makes this article redundant), move some stuff over to the article on Jesus myth theory (which, while I disagree with it as is, is a worthwhile article on the whole), and everything left gets deleted (I'm glad you used the word "dilation", because that's a perfect word for it; there's so much of the article that's not related to evidence, and just pointless blather). I'd love to go through the article section by section with other editors to determine what should go where, but that's jumping ahead.

As for Bruce, we've been having a discussion over on Carrer's page, but I'm getting somewhat frustrated. He's cited Wikipedia for a number of his arguments, and it turns out that pretty much all of those were edited into Wikipedia by him. It turns out that he's the one who added "double-blind" to the section on peer review on Sheffield-Phoenix Press' page (Carrier's publisher), a few days after I showed up here. In so many words, I told him how dishonest that comes off as, and (a few minutes after adding a small header to his user page about having autism) he accused me of being the kind of person who wants to run him off of Wikipedia and RationalWiki because he has autism. Suffice to say, I'm not too fond of him at the moment. Friedman (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC) As far as I'm aware, 3 is usually considered a JIF. The Journal of Religious History has a JIF of 0.15, which puts them on the embarrassing tier in my book. Although, granted, they h-Index is not appaling, even if it's still very, very low. These metrics are more important than being peer-reviewd or not (which is not even the bare minimum). GeeJayK (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Lataster is only slightly more respected than Carrier (that is to say, not much). He's also considered a fringe theorist in line with Carrier.

@GeeJayK, what's the (EC) at the beginning of your comment mean? Friedman (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Friedman It means they had an edit conflict (see wp:wp:EDITCONFLICT for more).But we should use {{ec}} instead. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Friedman (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)