User talk:Philip Cowley

Welcome!
Hello, Philip Cowley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Paleo Neonate  – 05:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
In relation to this edit ("community of historians are much less so"), Wikipedia attempts to present the mainstream scholarly view, where Carrier's views have not gained consensus (and can be considered fringe in academia, like for the Christ myth theory). Historians do question aspects such as miracles and source criticism does acknowledge tradition development, but very few modern scholars dispute that the man existed and was influential. Please see the talk page archives of those articles. Thanks and happy editing, — Paleo Neonate  – 05:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I tried to be very careful to not claim that the mythicist position was predominant, only that historians are not as wholly bought into the idea that Jesus was a historical figure as theologians. I just wanted to correct the false impression in the article that the historicity of Jesus was entirely accepted by historians (which it isn't), and that there was a genuine debate on the subject.

While most historians do accept that Jesus was a historical figure, many historians other than Carrier see the historicity of Christ as tentative and not proven by any means. It was this doubt I tried to add as a balance to the original rather definitively worded article.

Philip Cowley (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that it was only a question of wording, I also have no special status on Wikipedia and only wanted to make sure that you were aware of the distinction between acceptance of all of the gospel claims versus the historical Jesus. Talk:Historical Jesus would be the place to seek consensus for your proposition (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS).  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)