Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 11

Cleaning up, starting anew

The talk page has become a garbled mishmash of debate. I thought it would be worthwhile to clean up and start again. Basically, I'm just going to start by asking, "What exactly about the article is in dispute?" There seems to be some agreement from everyone that the current article is unsatisfactory, but we seem to get locked up in abstruse, narrow arguments that don't really have much to do with the actual article. So, what exactly about the article is in dispute? john f kennedy 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything, apparently. It seems the only way to solve this is to invent a time machine and go exploring. Assuming, of course, that said time machine does not take us to the sublunar plane or somthing. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of give up, too. A horribly frustrating experience, as so often with issues like this. It seems to me that religion articles are doomed to become fighting grounds of the two extremes, and that the middle ground is always going to lose. john k 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the main issue is that much of it is not cited; it would seem to me that a debate on the merits of the content in specifics can be difficult when what exactly the article will present when it is cited will probably look differently. Homestarmy

As a general rule, warning tags like the NPOV tag should only be used if someone, preferably the editor adding the tag, can give specific examples of NPOV problems in the article; same for factual accuracy and other such tags. Perhaps a better tag would be one saying the article needs more citations, rather than the NPOV and accuracy tags? Wesley 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I asked a while back why the tag was there, no one could could come with a good reason and the tag was going to be removed. The next thing I knew, this page was receiving spillover debate from the Talk:Jesus-Myth page, especially from people who were arguing that the "Jesus-Myth" was an argument for the ahistoricity of Jesus (although the term has a wider application!) After that, the debate got hard to follow....? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well spillover discussions seem hardly relevant to this article or its NPOV status :/. Homestarmy 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hence we start over. I suggest we wait until Monday to see if anyone has any objection to removing the disputed tag. If there are objections by then, discuss them and try to work it out. If not, remove the tag. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, as a kindly reminder, you flagged the Mithraism article for NPOV issues, apparently, based on someone's talk post that questioned whether NPOV existed as a fact. I reminded said author that NPOV referred to "detectable" NPOV, not philosophical or otherwise. Perhaps you would consider removing the tag from the Mithraism article in light of this error. Thankyou in advance. 166.70.243.229 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just don't know about this:

http://wikigadugi.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.114.188 (talk • contribs)

What is a Wikigadugi? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This same poster I think posted something about this on the Evolution article too, I dunno if there's a problem or what, but GDFL should cover the actions of whatever wiki that is I think. Homestarmy 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

I think the tag may be justified. I've been reading around trying to find citations for some of the info and am a little disturbed by what I've found.

""The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art." (MS -- Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.) "

This is what I found on the web - I have no way of checking whether it is a true quote (has anyone access to this stuff?) but we have in the article:

".....there are many who reject the notion that Christianity is the result of a syncretism or a new variation on the older Pagan myths. For example, the contributors to the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies maintained that the only area which has any historical detail with regard to the influence of Mithraism on Christianity was in the area of art."

Which are subtly different. Our article implies the only area with a historically detailed influence is art but the actual quote is saying the only area we can know the details of the influence of Mythraism on Christianity is art. These are subtly but fundamentally different.

This is only the first thing I have checked in detail so a warning to the reader to beware of the accuracy is not unjustified. I'm not going to be able to follow much up for the next couple of weeks due to school hoildays but I think a very thorough reading and checking of all statements is called for. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they are subtly different. Since you've taken the time to find the actual quote, I'll incorporate the quote itself into the article (if no one has beaten me to it). That way none of us will be guilty of trying to "spin" it, intentionally or otherwise. Wesley 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though the ICMS's comment is not really even addressing "the notion that Christianity is the result of a syncretism or a new variation on the older Pagan myths." Influence of Mithraism on Christianity is most certainly not the same thing as whether Christianity is actually a result of such influence. john k 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(Also, is an academic congress from 1975 really a good source? That's a long time ago.) john k 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote is directly lifted from Franz Cumont's 1903 book, The Mysteries of Mithra on page 196. The full paragraph is: The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art. The Mithraic sculpture, which had been first developed, furnished the ancient Christian marble-cutters with a large number of models, which they adopted or adapted. For example, they drew inspiration from the figure of Mithra causing the living waters to leap forth by the blows of his arrows, 1 to create the figure of Moses smiting with his rod the rock of Horeb (Fig. 45). Faithful to an inveterate tradition, they even reproduced the figures of cosmic divinities, like the Heavens and the Winds, the worship of which the new faith had expressly proscribed; and we find on the sarcophagi, in miniatures, and even on the portals of the Romance Churches, evidences of the influence exerted by the imposing compositions that adorned the sacred grottos of Mithra. 2 (196-197) It seems you will find the "misquote" all over the internet on those Christian pages devoted to damage control, and on Wikipedia of course. 166.70.243.229 22:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mysteries of Mithra: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/index.htm 166.70.243.229 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mithra-art quote as used in this Wikipedia entry may actually be fraudulently cited. On the Christian apologetic website below, someone is using Cumont's quote in a context that seemts to be appealing to a mass authority of Mithra conferees, but citing the 1975 source unattributed, and after disparaging Cumont it seems. It seems this was done out of context, author uncited, for a propagandistic effect as if an entire congress on Mithraism decided the point that the author is trying to make. 166.70.243.229 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=1575&&start=10

Either way, I did change the tag into a milder version (actually two milder versions-- one for POV and one for accuracy). It's good that someone is checking into this. It's also good that, so far at least, we seem to be discussing it civily. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given up icivility for lent!. John does have a point though - what does a 30 year old obscure academic conference that admits it can't know much about the subject add? Other than the fact that Mithraic experts are none the wiser as to the influence on Christianity - which actually could be a useful point but there must be a newer review of the subject somewhere. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One could always start with Google Scholar: Christianity and Mithraism. One could start there, but I can go no further because so much requires paid registrations. There are quite a few articles from JSTOR that someone could look into if they have access. The first citation on the first page is from 1999: "Mithraism and Christianity: How Are They Related, DR Morse - JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, VOL 22; NUMBER 1, pages 33-43, 1999 - ACADEMY OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH." There are 229 citations listed since 1990.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: You might also want to fact check Mithraism#Similarities_to_Christianity. Again a reference from the 1970s, and again Osiris. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Journal of Religion and Psychical Research? Is that reputable? It sounds a bit dubious. john k 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. It was just the first reference that popped up. There are 228 other citations listed, though one may need to separate the diamonds from the junk. There are also articles from Journal of Religion and Journal of Roman Studies in the top 5, BTW. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 12:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Just so you know, this article is currently Listed for an RfC, along with Talk:Jesus-Myth#RfC. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article, historicity and sources.

There has been a long discussion of the Historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's divided into three subpages: Jesus as moral teacher; Jesus as apocalyptic prophet or messiah; and Jesus as Pharisee or Essene. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I just created the subpage and updated the links to my comments above. We also have about 25 sources on different models of the historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. Some of these sources might be useful here. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tacitus

I'm not an expert at Wiki edits yet, so bear with me if this ends up more longwinded than necessary. I've done a bit of research on the following statement from the article because something sounded a bit off.

"Tacitus simply refers to 'Christ' - the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah”, rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held - prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect."

After digging through the link to procurator in the article, it gave a link to promagistrate which I understand is different, so don't jump the gun. After reading the mention of procurator there, I found the sidebar with the offices of Rome. I clicked on the link to praefectus which of course took me to prefect and discovered the term to be ambiguous. I went further and decided to see just what a Roman governor was. I discovered this:

"Though the practice of appointing equestrians to help manage provinces officially began with Augustus, governors from years before had appointed procurators to held [sic] them govern. However, it was not until the reign of Claudius that these procurators received the powers of a governor. Though by definition the procurators were prefects, a procuratorship was a more formal way of denoting a prefect’s authority to govern. It is important to note that procurators were not magistrates, so did not own imperium, and merely exercised the Emperor’s, or governor's, authority with his approval."

Further review of the reign of Tiberius Claudius puts him at a time period predating both the early Christian gospels and Tactitus' writing in question. By this time period, it is quite possible that the terms procurator and prefect could both be accurate to Pilate. Could it be that Pilate was acting prefect/governor of the province at the time of 'Christ' but would have been more formally denoted by Tacitus as "procurator" -- because he was acting not as magistrate, but as "the hand of the Emperor" per se? This information could lend more credence to the validity of Tacitus' statements. I would be interested if a more experienced historian might be capable of validating/refuting this hypothesis for me. Caspian Greywolfe 15:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing seems to be overblown. This apologetics site has a decent review of the issue, citing mainstream sources like Meier and Sanders. Also note, from Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's book, this comment:

Doherty repeats Wells' mistaken claim that "procurator...was the title of [Pilate's] post in Tacitus' day, but in the reign of Tiberius such governors were called prefect" (p. 202). A few years ago, correspondence with Wells on this point inspired me to thoroughly investigate this claim, and my findings will eventually be published. But in short, this sentence is entirely wrong. It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here.

The review is otherwise quite a positive one. john k 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And what are the opinions of scholars who don't have a religious axe to grind (e.g. not part of the apologetics site)? Clinkophonist 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Richard Carrier, quoted above, is not part of the apologetics site - he's a fairly militant atheist, in fact, who likes Doherty's book and thinks Doherty may be right that Jesus didn't exist. john k 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And note how I said the apologetics site quotes mainstream scholars like Meier and Sanders. A site can be an apologetics site and still provide useful information. john k 15:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added the sentence "It is also possible that Pilate held both offices, which was common." I hope no one takes too much issue with that. I feel the Tactitus argument is a very minor point in this article, and thus adding that final statement to summarize the remaining theories on the subject, help trivialize that which is trivial without removing it entirely. Without such a statement, it almost appears that most scholars believe Tactitus isn't credible because of an "error" in his statement, whereas I don't think most scholars discredit Tactitus, but rather debate on the nature of the second paragraph. Caspian Greywolfe 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

POV-check/fact-check

I don't see any evidence of discussion about these tags on this talk page, nor in the last archive. It's been months since anyone talked about POV problems in the article. The tags are normally used when someone tried to fix the problem, but was thwarted, and was arguing their case in the discussion page. Since no one is talking about it, it looks like it's time to remove the tags from the article. Are there any objections? --Yath 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm not even sure what the POV problems were. The fact-check just means that we need to cite sources a little better. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 16:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I basically gave up editing here a few months ago because of POV enforcement and information suppression (see my note below in Pilate section). I come back and find the Pilate section was added, which is extremely POV by its inclusion alone. Anon166 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pilate inscription

Do we really need a whole section on the Pilate inscription? It's pretty marginal, since almost all scholars, including mythers, accept that the "public" figures mentioned in the gospels are historical. Paul B 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

True, although check out Talk:List of High Priests of Israel, in which various Orthodox Jewish types seem to suggest that Josephus's list of high priests is unreliable, and represents a Christian POV. Caiaphas has thus apparently been inserted into Josephus by a Christian interloper, or something. Even those folks accept, as far as I can tell, Pilate and Herod Antipas as historical figures. john k 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Pilate Inscription..." part seems almost entirely bogus to me as making a strawman out of doubts of his title and role to associate doubts for the historicity for Jesus. Philo and Tacitus mentioned Pilate, as did Josephus in many places. So, it is a case of special pleading and makes a reverse argument instead (the silence of Philo on Jesus, and interpolations in Josephus of Jesus). Also, who removed the POV tag? This article does not accept views contrary to a hard-bitten Christian view. I've had nearly every edit suppressed when I twice came here, and under the lamest of excuses, including those who cite the "popular" view (without citation) to censor and limit the minority view in the minority view section! Note that this is the page to cite all views on the existence of Jesus. The approach to historicity here is apologetically POV. Anon166 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section creates the false impression that skeptics have routinely doubted Pilate's existence. It then trumpets the discovery of the stone as proof that skeptics are confounded and the bible confirmed. Very few authors ever doubted Pilate's existence. Paul B 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Without its fallacious attempt to argue for an association to the same "wrong" criticism, it doesn't even claim to belong here. As such, it didn't even have a factual basis for its existence here. I say it should be deleted immediately. If people really want to include the idea, they can write a sentence and pin the fallacy on someone who has published it without promoting it, but not giving it a separate section. Anon166 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jews

Contrary to what the article says, there is huge amount of mention of Jesus in jewish sources. He is described as worst fraudster and illegitimate son of Mary and a roman army officer named Panthera (which shows jews misunderstood the meaning of greek word parthenogenesis - being born to a virgin). The fact that ancient jews deal so much with christ rebuttal supports the historicity of Jesus.

Sign your comments. Haizum 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comparison

The Shroud of Turin should have a mention. I meanm, no other ancient people has a photo. To consider this, this let's look at Sandor Petofi, who is considered the most significant hungarian poet. He only lived 26 years, the exact place and date of his birth are debated, disappeared (in battle, considered KIA on next day eyewitness account) but walked great distances in his final years. These details are quite similar to Jesus. There is one photo remaining of him from 1846, which is a metal daguerrotype.

It was found based on historic mentions in 1948, in a totally blackened form and had to be acid-etched to uncover the image. Being an early photo attempt it is of very low quality. Yet, without it, one could actually debate whether Petőfi existed, as only his poems would speak for him. Now, I haven't heard of anyone here or abroad denying Petőfi existed.

The Shroud is 1000x better resolution, 3D, has AB blood, wounds, jerusalem dust, flower imprints, whatever detail you desire. Logically this should provide ample proof of Jesus existing in body and flesh. Otherwise, only his evangelions would speak for him, but we have a photo.

Similarly, photo gave proof of nonexistant bird being real: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0428_050428_extinctwoodpecker.html

Well, the Shroud of Turin is certainly not definite evidence for the existence of Jesus. See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/shroud.html for a hypothesis that it was made by Leonardo DaVinci, which seems fairly well-supported by the evidence. Every detail you mention about the shroud fits with this hypothesis, and it also anwers a few questions about the shroud that you faield to mention, such as "Was Jesus 6'8" tall?" "Why is his hair hanging as though standing, rather than as it would on a prone figure?" Yes, we have a photo, but there is certainly a question regarding who this photo is actually of. In the case of Petofi, the claim of his existence holds no great significance other than him being the author of the poems, so there is little purpose in questioning it. --Myk 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second...

I have a problem with this new sentence and the reference here, it's the second one:

• "So whether the gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a nonissue." (The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, p41; The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg). However it should be noted that there has been criticism leveled at this book because Strobel only interviews people who support his view, and did not interview anyone with a dissenting view.[2]"

Does Strobel simply not answer the objections of detractors, or does he actually say something about them? Is it supposed to be necessary to interview people with a dissenting view in the type of work Strobel was making? And finally, that ref there, it starts out with something from the Jesus Puzzle and, quite honestly, begins by, well, whining about how "badly" Jesus Myther's like the author are treated. That hardly seems to me to be a very good source to use to basically make a sentence trying to discount whatever it is Strobel is saying. Homestarmy 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the source wasn't very solid for the point being made. Which is why I've done more research.

• "However, these late dates are hardly late at all compared to other ancient records that historians regard as credible. For instance, "the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 BC, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander did develop over time, but it was only in the centuries after these two writers. In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander's story pretty much intact; legendary material began to emerge over the next five hundred years. So whether the gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a nonissue." (The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, p41; The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg)."

I feel like this entire section should be removed. It is blatantly self-serving and wrong. For example, if we look at Alexander the Great's entry, we see that while the earliest complete biographies may have been written 400 years after he died, there was a wealth of direct source material written while Alexander was still alive:

• "Apart from the cuneiform evidence from Babylonia that is now being disclosed, the Greek and Latin sources for Alexander's life are, from the perspective of ancient history, relatively numerous. Alexander himself left only a few inscriptions and some letter-fragments of dubious authenticity, but a large number of his contemporaries wrote full accounts. The key contemporary historians are considered Callisthenes, his general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus and Onesicritus. Another influential account was penned by Cleitarchus, who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used the sources which had just been published. His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many surviving historians. Unfortunately, all these works were lost. Instead, the modern historian must rely on authors who used these and other early sources."

The main problem in proving the historicity of Jesus is the fact that not a single document was written detailing his existence while he was alive. Comparing this to Alexander the Great, who had multitudes of documents written while he was alive, is rather disingenious.

I would like to further point out the fact that many of the things attributed to Alexander the Great in later accounts are doubtful in veracity and that the historian society on a whole acknowledges which parts of Alexanders life are most likely "legendary", ie, made up after the fact. For instance, the unwinding of the Gordian knot, and the fact that he was proclaimed the son of Zeus.

It's basically comparing apples and oranges. The biographical works written 400 years after Alexander lived are based on first-hand primary sources. In the case of the Bible, the primary sources themselves were written 60+ years after the events that they supposedly document, and by people who couldn't have witnessed the events. Therefore the concern about their validity is very real, and the book does not actually address this. 64.65.248.221 19:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Having read The Case for Christ I can testify to it's poor research so would support scratching the lot. It's an appologetics tool not a scholastic reference work. Sophia 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, actually, my objection has to do just with the criticisms of this one book, not Strobel's premise :/. Homestarmy 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the anon ip has done a great job showing why this work should not be referenced here. Sophia 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that biographical sources were highly preferred to first hand accounts, something about "The biases of first hand witnesses" or something like that? Homestarmy 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It was starting to go the route of OR so I've removed the section. Lee Strobel is not a good reference for this point and the IP has proved it's a bad analogy anyway. The dating of the gispels and their reliability is the subject of many respected books - lets use one of those intead. Homestarmy you have your homework! Sophia 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that the dating of the gospels and their subsequent reliability already had many references somewhere? Homestarmy 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The comparison of Jesus to Alexander the Great is evidence that Jesus probably didn't exist. Alexander is credited with doing things that cannot be disputed in history, such as invading Persia. If they spelled his name wrong or said he was really a god, the invader of Persia still existed. This is called necessity. Jesus has none of it. All of Jesus' sayings can be reconstructed from Hillel and others. People have been forging things for millenia trying to give him some sort of necessary existence. Anon166 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hillel claimed that "I and the Father are One?" Hmm, false messiah's were around alot longer than I thought then....But seriously, I sort of doubt that everything that Alexander the great was ever credited with doing has absolutly no dispute concerning it whatsoever, and I doubt even more that the mistakes concerning Josephus or other possible forgeries alone somehow means Jesus never existed period. Homestarmy 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Being one with the god predates Christianity by several thousand years. I can't think an older theological concept. Also, unless I'm reading you wrong, you seem to reserve all the doubt for anything but Jesus. Anon166 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The info from Case for Christ is relevant. It is a Christian apologetic, and not neutral, but so what? If we can have Jesus-myth sources, a position most historians and Bible scholars reject, we can easily include info and arguments from pro-Christian sources too. This does need some cleanup but not deletion. If you have scholarly refutations of this positions, feel free to insert them. Roy Brumback 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You may not realize this, but you are rejecting the possibility of NPOV by using the either/or fallacy. A non apologetic source is NOT therefore a polemical or anti-Christian source, although you have assumed it. Your entries also use an improper prounoun (we, we're), as if teaching people your POV. It only needs to digest the cited points you are making, not promote a new explanation. Anon166 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also it's not the pro-christian POV of Strobel that's the problem - it's the shoddy research. Sophia 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And back to my original question, is this "shoddy reaserch" the product of not interviewing opposing viewpoints, or some other undisclosed reason? Homestarmy 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I never said a nonapologetic is an anti-Christian source. I said that if "we" (the wiki editors) are allowed to insert info and arguments from Jesus-myth books and articles than one can easily use Christian apologetics too. Do you disagree that one can use Christian apologetics as a source if it contains valid info and arguments? And SOPHIA, I agree it's not the most impressive book on the subject but simply declaring it guilty of poor research is not the same as saying why these arguments are incorrect. I don't buy the dating arguments, but the transmission of oral info is interesting. As I said before, if you have refutations of these positions, as I did by stating the dating techniques use the argument from silence, then put them in. Roy Brumback 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy, you specifically said: If we can have Jesus-myth sources, a position most historians and Bible scholars reject, we can easily include info and arguments from pro-Christian sources too. This does need some cleanup but not deletion. If you have scholarly refutations of this positions, feel free to insert them. This argument makes no sense for many reasons. For one, the Jesus-myth belongs here. Two, you appealed to the views of what mainstream scholars allegedly claim, but then ignore them likewise. Three, the "non-negotiable" policy of wikipedia is NPOV, despite your claimed ability to justify a religious POV here. Four, it's not a debate on the gospels, no insertions needed. Now, these are minor criticisms compared to this last one. The articles on wikipedia relating to the Acts of the Apostles contradicts your argument here, which seems to be wholesale quoting of one source as an argument, rather than simply stating it and citing it. Let that concept grab you: state it and cite it, end of story. Your argument belongs somewhere else, perhaps in gospel of Mark, or gospel of Luke, where your point can compete with others, but not in a little section here devoted to a single idea--or we'd need to include a dozen or so more other viewpoints to address your claims. In short, you are missing the point here. Your claims don't make a difference, but argue a pet peeve. Finally, the argument you are making misses the stonger point that most scholars agree that the gospel of Mark and other sources were written for non-Jews, who could never correct the story teller on the details if they wanted to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Audience Perhaps this is why it is important to learn NPOV before selling out to a single viewpoint. Anon166 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. SOPHIA said that is was guilty of poor research, which is debateable, and was an apologetics tool, which I agree with but as Jesus-myth books are not generally accepted by most historical scholars and this article uses them then Christian apologetic books with arguments in favor of the historicity of the gospels are just as allowable as a source as that bears directly on the historical existence of Jesus. And Anon, these are not my arguments or my source as I said below I don't have that book. I just think the points are interesting and worth considering in this article. And I don't get what you mean with the cite it and state it stuff, but arguments in favor of the gospels historicity can certainly be included on this page. And I don't know where you're getting that info about storytelling and Jews and non-Jews but the article on Mark doesn't seem to have it but does say "...note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18-20); 7:27; and 8:27-30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems." Now, I also said that these block quotes need to be cleaned up but the general points about dating, which I don't agree with but some Christian scholars date them that way and that assertion certainly has not been disproved, and points about the transmission of oral info do bear on the historical existence of Jesus and so are relevant to this page. As for NPOV, are you saying one can list points made in favor of the idea that Jesus never existed at all, which this article does, but not ones in favor of the historical reliability of the gospels? One achieves NPOV by having them both. Roy Brumback 07:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy, read the last link I gave to answer your question. You might as well go there and tell them what they don't know, rather than try to sneak it in here. Also, I was plainly referring to your argument, not your claims. There is no room for an argument in a space devoted to recapping the general views, because the ariticle is about something else. Furthermore, your material is contradicted in wikipedia elsewhere. This will warrant a warning tag that nobody wants to see. Finally, you are wrong about NPOV being a mish-mash of POV's, and the issue is "non-negotiable" as per policy. I suggest you familiarize with NPOV before excusing yourself of it. Is your material pasted here because nobody else on wikipedia will have it? Anon166 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I'll make this real simple. I did not insert that materiel, I have no hidden agendas. I'm just saying arguments in favor of the historical reliability of the Gospels are pertinent to an encyclopedic page of all knowledge relating to the subject of the historical existence of Jesus. Do you disagree? If this article is a "recap" of the general views, it needs to be a lot shorter and scrap all Jesus-myth sections as the general accepted view among historians is that Jesus was a real human being. I'm not voting for that mind you, but I see nothing POV, except maybe the wording and tone, about those general points. Roy Brumback 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Strobel interviews Christian academics - for a potential reference we should go directly to their own published works and discuss their merits. Primary sources are always much better when there is no need to use a summmary paper (or book). However I was not impressed by any of the arguments in the book as they were all flawed. Many of them suffered from the same logical problems that the Anon pointed out. Roy's previous post did imply you were either for Jesus or against him which is an argument from the excluded middle. Sophia 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I agree it's better to use Strobel's sources directly, but I don't have any of them, do you? I don't have Strobel's book either to do a good cleanup on this section, but if someone does please do that. And once again, I'm not excluding the middle in any way. I said that if one uses a Jesus-myth book as a source, a position rejected by the majority of all historians, then Christian apologetics can be used too. And once again, if you don't buy the arguments, why? I think Jesus-myth arguments are very weak, as do most historians, as they basically ammount to I don't believe it, other people or gods are claimed to do similar things, and the argument from silence, but I'm not trying to delete the Jesus-myth arguments from books I think are poorly researched and argued works. Roy Brumback 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy, I think you need to worry about getting the editors of the other "gospels" sections on board before you try to debunk them here. Are you worried they won't accept it? You may be correct. Your cut and paste of Lee Strobel will be laughed at and brand you as a neophyte who got excited after reading a faith-promoting book, but didn't know it wasn't scholarly. Just warning you. Anon166 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Warned huh? Anon, there are tons of editors of those articles, including me, and the articles do list the arguments for early dates and as far as I see do not contradict arguments about oral storytelling. For instance the article Dating the Bible says "Gospel of Mark: +70 CE (conservative dating may be as early as 50)". And like I said before, I don't believe that but I think can be included. And please listen to me as I said I don't have that book or are you accusing me of lying? I did skim through it once in the book store and in my opinion it is not the most accepted scholarly work but the Jesus-myth books that are cited are not generally accepted as great scholarly works by historians either. Roy Brumback 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Roy, I was thinking you were hijacking the entire article to make a point that is not made where it technically belongs. I was warning you about using Strobel over there. Anyway, I made an attempt to cleanup your argumentation out of context using the wrong pronouns. Anon166 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave my copy to my Christian Mother-in-law as I knew she'd enjoy it so I can't get to it any more. I'll try to find out the sources he uses and search for their stuff on line. As for what makes a convincing argument - as a scientist I'm used to having to go back to first principles and analyse primary data and that's where it all goes wrong with Christianity - there isn't any primary data. Agreed that some Jesus Mysth stuff is bunk but there are some very interesting books out there. I'm currently waiting for the updated Thomas L Thompson book to be published [1] which should give some interesting information to add to these articles. Sophia 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of difference between science and history, in one the events are supposed to be repeatable or something, but in the other you can't repeat the events because they've already happened. (Unless you do a reconstruction or something, but that's not the same thing) Homestarmy 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to Big Bang theorists. Sophia 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but many models of Big Bang theory say that it will all just happen again, so it supposedly will be repeatable :D. Homestarmy 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the no-eyewitnesses citation

I figured since an edit war may be brewing, I may as well start this section here now to discuss. It took me some reading since the source did not exlusively have anything to do with who may of written the gospels, but I believe the line being used to back up this claim may be this: "(As with the other Gospels, Mark is not the account of a single eyewitness, but rather consists of a collection of narrative units handed down in the Church's early history. Nonetheless, the primary author or editor--possibly John Mark--intended his account to serve a clear theological purpose.)"

I fail to see how this says that there were no eyewitnesses helping with this gospel at all, just a rather unsupported looking assertion that the gospels were not produced by merely one single eyewitness. Unless im missing something in this article, (And I read it relatively carefully) then the source provided does not back up the claim of the sentence. Any thoughts? Homestarmy 02:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Do a search, there are very many that mention it. Which authors do you assert claim that the gospel writers knew Jesus? I have never heard of any, but I don't read pulp apologetics. This is probably the easiest general opinion to prove in this entire article. By the way, the person who first delted the sentence used the excuse that it said Jesus didn't exist. Then you changed reasons and now claim that most scholars think the gospel authors knew Jesus? Anon166 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are very many who mention it, why could you not use a source that explicitly stated "Most scholars agree that the Gospels were not eye-witness accounts" instead of this citation which fails in this claim? I mean, feel free to replace the citation with a better one any time. I don't know why the first person thought it said Jesus didn't exist, but I might note that the fact tag I put did its job quite well, you gave a reference, (albiet one I wish to dispute) so I don't see what the problem with my edit was. I am not trying to claim anything about what most scholars believe because I don't know what most scholars believe, but I do know that the citation given does not support the assertion of what exactly most scholars believe. And thus, here we are. Homestarmy 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmey, I didn't write the sentence, but I know it is factual. I'm quite amazed you don't understand this much about the New Testament because you wouldn't have made it through a simple book on the subject without encountering this basic belief. You also seem to have deleted it by mistake because you were/are defending a mistake. You might want to do some basic reading on this subject before editing. Anon166 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh? My last edit simply put a fact tag at the end of the sentence, I haven't deleted that sentence at all. If you think that other guy is a sockpuppet of me, by all means, request a checkuser if you really want to. But whether you say it is a basic belief or not, it is still compleatly valid for you here to add in a reference that actually backs up the sentence, because right now the reference doesn't seem to back it up at all. Homestarmy 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you didn't delete it, why don't you show some NPOV and go find the best cite that suits you. I will do so tomorrow, but I have a schedule tonight and don't want to be accused of failing the second time in a rush. Anon166 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request. I think i'll take a page from the summary of a book edited by someone from Cambridge, or rather, more than 200 of them, (Though im thinking probably only one or 2 pages somewhere contradicts the sentence in question) detailed at This catalog page which says "Part One traces the origin of the ‘gospel’ of Jesus, its significance in Jewish and Hellenistic contexts of the first century, and its development from eyewitness memory to oral tradition and written text."

Nextly, there is a book written by one Richard Bauckhem(scholarlyness detailed here), entitled "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The gospels as Eyewitness testimony" summary located here, which certainly does not seem to follow the pattern of general scholarly belief you propose be mentioned in the article.

Lastly, you were correct about the contents of my search, there were indeed many articles purporting the viewpoint you propose is correct. Every last one of them appeared to be an atheist advocacy website. Not simply skeptics, atheists, which I thought was rather interesting, don't other skeptics ever weigh in on this issue? They almost unanimously started with the statement "Scholars agree that there were no eyewitnesses for the gospels" or something like that, and very rarely seemed to ever back up this claim. Whenever they tried, they may of cited maybe one or two scholars, hardly a consensus of scholarship. There were occasionally a few somewhat scholarly looking type things out there purporting a belief that no eyewitnesses were ever involved in the gospels, but the authors generally had little to do with the actual field of Biblical scholarship. I'll admit though, the first source I give here wasn't exactly written by a Biblical scholar itself, though I am unsure of the status of the editor, so I figured i'd list it anyway. The second however most certainly was written by a Biblical scholar looking person, and doesn't seem to be going along with the flow you suggest scholarship goes at. Of the scholars I found which did not agree about any of the gospels being written by any eyewitnesses at all, most of it was along the lines of "I do not think the Gospels were meant to be read as eyewitness accounts", which is hardly something definitive one way or another in this debate. As of now, I fail to see a case for the vast majority of scholarship leaning one way or another on this issue, and I still do not see how the source provided originally for this sentence backs up the claim of the sentence. Homestarmy 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are fine, they are required to be representative, not necessarily authoritive unless specfied. Anon166 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy - www.earlychristianwritings.com is a great source. See what they have to say about Matthew [2], Mark [3], Luke [4] and John [5] and you will see that the majority of academics do not think the Gospels were written by eyewittnesses for very good reasons. Sophia 10:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of their reasoning is not so good. The early "church fathers" were unanimous that Matthew the Apostle was the author of Matthew. ^rossnixon 11:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem Sophia is, quite frankly, in the hour or so I spent looking up sources, what I put into the article was basically it as far as academic-lookingness came, and it seems the sentnece requires specifically academic sources. I mean I would of been glad to put in like the 15 or so apologetics websites that came up, but then the 10 or so atheist sites would of probably have to of gone in too, and it would of gotten really weird :D. I don't see any academicy looking credentials on that site, not that it makes it bad, but im not sure how its authoritative. Honestly, even though I still don't agree with the assertion of the sentence, it seems fine to me now. Homestarmy 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Might as well discuss "Internal evidence" section

I'd revert, but anon166 has references, and I don't think it would be a very well recieved revert. What's this about "His prophecies failed almost immedietly"? I may not be the Worlds Best Christian(tm), but I must of missed that while reading the Bible. The points the person being used as a reference also seem to make several grand assumptions that if Jesus were God, then He should have done things as splendidly and magnificantly as possible all the time, or else He wasn't God. And where is that "Believing He was abandoned" thing coming from? Im sorry, but I just plain do not like this paragraph at all, it looks like (shamelessly takes page from Sophia) shoddy reaserch and even shoddier conclusions. Homestarmy 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, Larson was referring to Matt. 10:23, although you probably claim that Christ is infallible and human, so you excuse your objectivity if so by having it both ways. You just can't argue both ways in scholarship to prove that someone existed. Anon166 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not talking about whether Jesus existed or not, im simply commenting on the references given and critisizing them because I find faults with them and the new content that is purported to be supported by them. And if I may ask, did we in fact finish going through all the cities? Not simply walking into them all and exiting again, the word for "Going through" in Ancient Greek here is "Telew", and the only sources that seem to come up on Google for it (Mostly apologetics sites and things in languages I can't read, but they all seem to agree, I think even Infidel.org did which I thought was odd since, you know, they tend to not like whatever it is apologists say) say that it means to basically compleate a task or finish something, and since in verse 16 it is written that Jesus is "Sending you out like sheep among wolves" and the rest of the verses are talking about what will happen, and since Jesus said in Matthew 10:7 "As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near'", the prophecy in Matthew 10:23 has to be referring to finishing preaching through these cities. Back then, many cities did in fact repulse all attempts for Christians to evangelize in them, and they still often immensly dislike it today, so I would say we have not in fact yet "gone through" all the cities of Israel preaching Jesus's message because many Jews simply don't like it and haven't allowed it. I mean im not trying to be an anti-semite here, they simply don't like it, just as many people do not like Christians evangelizing to them, happens all the time. Don't know why you think im arguing both ways in scholarship though.....? Homestarmy 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, and I nearly forgot, Matthew 10:23 aside, there's still no real reasoning I can see behind all the "Because Jesus didn't live a glorious life, He couldn't of been God" thing. Homestarmy 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting scholarship, I don't need to convince you of all people, merely educate the reader on the problems and issues. This is getting weird and you are rambling about your POV. Anon166 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You took it for granted that Matthew 10:23 must be a failed prophecy, so I decided to try and correct your mistake with another POV. I fail to see how you do not have a POV on this issue yourself and why I should not consider the person's opinion you've provided as weird itself? The reader will also still certainly not be educated by the shoddy assumptions that simply not acting like God made Jesus certainly not God in any sense, which are still listed in the section without any countering POV whatsoever on the issue. Homestarmy 18:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I was quoting Larson, who points out that it is evidence of a human. This is not a religious debate. Larson's point was that no myth would include such apparent failures or confusions, therefore human. However, there are other possibilities. If you disagree with Larson, then you can argue the Jesus-myth. Anon166 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem here is not that Larson seems to be arguing for Jesus's existance, but that he seems to feel that only after one accepts the ideas he purports can Jesus be considered extant, while supposedly if Jesus was in fact what the Bible said He was that He would normally just be a myth. Homestarmy 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Historicity_of_Jesus/Temp page deletion

What is the page Historicity of Jesus/Temp for? Should it exist?
To me (a newly registered wikipedian, not finished reading the introductory info) it looks like an old draft that could be deleted.
And more generally, it seems to me it would make more sense to put such drafts as a subpage of the talk page or a user page or similar, rather than in the encyclopedic space. So if it shouldn't be deleted, it should at least be moved.
Recent edits looks like people editing the Temp page have been mistaking it for a proper page.
(Here is a notice about the creation of the Temp page.) --Alderin 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/ (with trailing slash) redirect

There is a redirect from Historicity of Jesus/ (notice the trailing slash) to Historicity of Jesus. I don't know (maybe because I'm a newbie) what purpose that redirect serves, maybe it could be deleted? , but I guess it doesn't hurt anyone.
However, there is also a redirect from Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/ (notice the trailing slash) to Talk:History of Christianity! Slightly confusing.
Could both redirects with trailing slashes be deleted? Otherwise I guess the talkpage redirect should be changed to point to this talk page? --Alderin 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be connected to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historicity of Jesus/ (note last slash), which seems to have been a keep vote. Unfortunately I don't understand why it was kept, but thats afd I suppose. Clinkophonist 13:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/temp redirect

There is a redirect from Historicity of Jesus/temp (temp with lowercase t) to Historicity of Jesus. I don't know (maybe because I'm a newbie) what purpose that redirect serves, maybe it could be deleted? , but I guess it doesn't hurt anyone.
However, there is also a redirect from Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/temp (temp with lowercase t) to Talk:History of Christianity! Slightly confusing.
Could both temp redirects be deleted? Otherwise I guess the talkpage redirect should be changed to point to this talk page? --Alderin 11:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be mentioned at the (very messy) top of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jesus. From reading that, it seems like it was once an article (in 2004), and a lot of its content was merged here. Consequently, due to the GFDL, we are compelled to keep the article (although retaining it as a redirect must be allowed). Clinkophonist 13:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A first

For the first time since I joined wikipedia this article no longer has a POV flag - an anon removed it but are we ready to leave it off yet? Sophia 16:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy

You need a source quote for Strobel since it is just an interview. According to critics I have discovered, Strobel is just a columnist who is making a case for his view, basically a sell-job. He is not an author of that idea. This is an ethical concern, despite what you may think is never wrong for your devotion. Also, you can't remove balance from a piece when the idea in question is challenged by so many, as if tying to make it a mainstream viewpoint. This is another ethical concern. I worry about the low standards for many here. Too many apologists tend to be pious frauds, and their readers often carry forward their lax standards. Anon166 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So your saying he plaugerized? If so, I don't see how his editor would of let him get away with it.... Homestarmy 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the Strobel is an interview, not his own idea. Anon166 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So Strobel interviewed the person making that comment? Do we know who he's interviewing if so? Homestarmy 02:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My own section, cool. Yes Anon, I do recall that the book was largely Strobel interviewing Christian apologists and writing about their arguments convincing him. As I said, this is a popular Christian apologetic work and so should be eventually replaced with better scholarly sources. But as you seemed to agree about including it by editing it with "circular reasoning" statement, even though as I said most scholars agree Jesus info was transmitted by oral methods first, then saying it needs to be deleted because of worries about low standards only after I deleted your comments about the subject seem to be unfounded. I am working on finding better sources, but my local library doesn't seem to have it available soon and Strobel's sources were pretty academic if I recall so they probably won't be at the local bookstore or the local library without library loans and such, so as I said before, if one can use Jesus-myth sources, considered low scholarly works by the majority of scholars working on the subject, then info from a Christian apologetic popular work can be included too. Roy Brumback 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All populist works are suspect and should be used with caution - Jesus-Myth sources included as they do tend to brush over topics. Especially for a pro Christian stance there is no reason at all to use a work such as this as there are whole Christian run universities that churn out book after book on the validity of their version of the "truth". Not all Jesus myth proponents are populist and some are respected academics - their standards are not low - just their ideas are not mainstream. I'm holding out until the Thomas l. Thompson book is published [6] as he is a professor of the old testament. Sophia 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Roy, I didn't find out it was a interview book until I went looking to restore the balanced portion. I trusted your source originally, but now realize that it can't be trusted. I see now what the others are saying. Why else would I not restore the balanced portion? By the way, you are committing a fraud here if you insist. Somebody authored that idea and others have a right to know in order to properly credit it down the road from this source. Anon166 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it for now, but I will delete it if you try to present it unbalanced as if nobody ever considered it before. The argument is flawed, and ignores all the other evidence, written for people who only read faith promoting material and can't be bothered with the problems. Anon166 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So is the only problem here that the section innapropriatly attributes the source to Strobel when it should be attributed to Strobel's interviewee, or that you feel that the interviewee uses a flawed argument? Homestarmy 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the source was bogus--wrong name--but the claim also needs to be balanced in standard fashion because it is ignoring the scholarship of other evidence. Typical apologetics. It would be like saying that someone found an ossuary box with Jesus's name on it, and not mentioning that it was since declared a forgery. See the potential fraud aspect in misreporting and misattributing? Most scholars are despised by apologists because they won't spin the evidence. Anon166 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

But do we even know who the source is? :/ Homestarmy 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask Roy. Anon166 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Josephus

The Anchor Bible dictionary is not a credible source to say most academics believe Josephus's work true. Josephus was a devout Jew: he would not have said "the Christ". This is not widely accepted, and in fact is regarded as a smoking gun. Please find a better reference, or this will need to be removed. (This is weasel language anyway). --Chuchunezumi 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put this back. No evidence was provided to show this source as being non-credible. But the sentence could be worded better. ^rossnixon 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, there is no way that this can be presented as fact, regardless of the citation, unless this source has polled and has the voting numbers of all the academics. It can only be cited as opinion. This source is credible for other information, but there needs to be a study done to make this generalization true. This is weasel language anyway. I should have been more specific about why I think that this isn't an acceptable statement and I apologize. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I only meant to take out the first sentence of that edit. I apologize for taking the rest too! (Chuchunezumi hides in corner, feeling sheepish). I edited the statement to say some scholars, which is all that can be stated factually. --Chuchunezumi 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars were never interviewed

The changes noted above were reverted without discussion, but just a vapid edit summary. I'm not going to get in an edit war here. I can easily provide a statement with citation that says most scholarly authorities now reject Josephus's work. I won't add that because it too is a weasel statement. If this is reverted again, I'm going to request mediation. This isn't a fact, because there is no definition of what these authorities are, who was actually interviewed, what the "score" was...there is no way to prove this statement, so unless it is presented as a cited opinion, it cannot be in the original form. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --Chuchunezumi 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the passages disputed, and for invalid reasons it seems to me.

"Nonetheless, the passage that refers to James "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic. Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1"

Now, the Anchor Bible Series is a perfectly acceptable source, as it's article shows. Now, are you disputing this citation as a fact, and if so where is your claimed source for that? And how is it weasly to state "majority of scholars hold x", when this just tells you the state of the scholarship of the subject? So it's not weasly, and the source is perfectly acceptable, so the only remaining question is is it true? If you dispute it's truthfulness, give source.

The second passage is

"Having a "brother" and "apostles" who are arguing with Paul over what Jesus' real intentions were during his life is impossible if he never existed." is simply logically true. If Jesus had a brother who Paul met, he existed, as you can't have a brother and not have existed. Try it. The word Paul uses, adelphos means blood brother or perhaps general relative, and so almost assuredly refers to a family relation, and having a family proves you existed, unless either James and Peter or Paul are lying, which it why is says "if one believes Paul". Roy Brumback 10:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring another possibility: That James lied to Paul about being Jesus' brother, and Paul believed him. --Myk 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I specifically said "unless either James and Peter or Paul are lying". Roy Brumback 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I failed to parse your statement correctly. --Myk 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're willing to discuss things! Discussion is so much less stressful than arguing! I'll respond when I get work tonight, since you were so kind to write too. Thanks for being civil...sometimes people take things like this personally and for me it is anything but personal. I look forward to discussing this later tonight! Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Talmud

I think the Talmud section is wrong. I understand that there are old copies (prior to Christian emendations or burnings) that contain comments about Jesus.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) August 22, 2006 04:15.

What you have in mind may just be the references to "Yeshu" which are already described in the article. Some books will state as fact that they are about Jesus. The same books may also state that they are the best source of information for a historical Jesus, because they were not censored by Christians. Maestlin 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

cleanup

Considering that this matter will be the subject of future attention, I thought it important to clean out this page in order to provide some kind of working framework for the future. The page contained excess information better handled in main articles. It had redundancies. It was full of unsourced material. And, in general, I thought it sounded amateurish, often insulting the intelligence of the reader. Lostcaesar 12:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there has been some question about the changes, I have decided to elaborate. The article needs additional material; and I would like to see the various views on the historicity of Jesus given their proper space, with appropriate references. However, the only real material contained in the article was a disorganized discussion of the sources which mention Jesus. Dispersed though this were unreferenced or poorly referenced claims dotted with weasel words. In response, I reorganized this section by fixing the titles and moving material. Now it gives a general overview of the sources, traditional scholarship, and some issues resulting from modern criticism. As a nice benefit, the pov nature of the article is toned down. Previously, it used certain positions as foils or straw men to then batter down with ambiguous references to “mostly all historians…”; this one-side-vs-another swaying of the article’s theme, a basically amateurish quality, is now gone. Furthermore, there was simply too extensive a discussion of topics better dealt with on their respective main pages, such as the synoptic problem, the census of Quirinius, a bio of St. Paul, and the like. Personally, I don’t like it when picture captions make disjoined arguments not taken up anywhere else in the article; now the captions are merely informative. The mythological section was wordy, I cleaned up the prose without removing material; the same goes for the next section (do we need to say “a reprehensive of wisdom and knowledge” – are those not the same thing?).

Lastly, there seems to be an issue over the book by Freke and Gandy, and the controversy over the admittedly sloppy and allegedly fraudulent scholarship concerning the cover art. In my view, if we are going to mention this text, we are stuck mentioning this fiasco. Perhaps such a work doesn’t deserve mentioning in wikipedia. Whatever the case, if something is true then it cannot be libel, so there is no need to dance on egg shells here. Lostcaesar 08:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Lostcaesar 08:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotta disagree. The article wasn't disorganized. It went from Gospels to other historical sources in general order then myth section. What POV nature exactly was there before? Listing what majority of scholars on subject think is entirely appropriate in article as that just tells you the state of the scholarship on the issue. The census issue is relevant for the reliability of the Gospels, as are dating and synoptic and Johannine problems and authorship and ancient testimony. Section on Paul isn't bio, just discussion of his meeting with Peter and James, "the Lord's brother", and if this refers to a family member of Jesus is positive proof of his existence, which was a point entirely lost in your edit. It needs to be expaned even more as there are other sections of Paul's letters that deal with historical Jesus. Feel free to work on the captions and wordiness, but please try to stay within current structure as I too have a version I could write that I would think was perfect and change your edit tomorrow and someone else do the same thing the next day. Roy Brumback 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't really a rewrite, it was a cleanup. I mostly moved information, or cleaned up the prose. For this reason I don't understand your objections. I think you are just comparing the two versions, seeing a lot of red, and reverting. But this is misleading because moving text, or cleaning up prose, results in a lot of red without major content change. Lostcaesar 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me say a couple more things. I do not wish to impose myself on the article absolutely. I want collegiality and the contribution of others. To be honest, I am a bit surprised, and happy, that someone else is interested in this article. My motivations for cleaning up the article were simply to prepare it for the inclusion of further information (there has recently been talk on the Jesus page about handling related articles). I would like to work with you to improve the article. I will say that I certainly feel it needs improvement, and I think you can agree with me there (after all, you said some things were improved). We need to move to specific issues, I think. What do you feel was lost? Lostcaesar 09:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just butting in to say that after reading the two versions, I prefer Lostcaesar's. Oh, and to answer the previous question; I think Caesar was lost :-) ^rossnixon 10:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I thought the bit about the cover photo was handled very poorly in your edit, Lostcaesar. To go from the fact that a blog is playing gotcha with controversies over authentication in archaeology to the conclusion that the authors have been "greatly discredited" is POV pushing in the extreme. I didn't take out the bit from the CNN guy, though I found it hardly less disappointing--it's absolutely untrue to say that Freke and Gandy don't deal with the Jewish tradition, the whole argument of the book is that Christianity is the adaptation of the Osirian mystery religion into Jewish tradition; Christianity's Jewish roots do not contradict Freke and Gandy's thesis, they are integral to it. That the CNN reviewers are argument would seem to make any sense at all indicates that we haven't explained the argument of The Jesus Mysteries in any coherent way at all. Nareek 11:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of how I did not rewrite much. The bit about the image is cut and paste from the main wikipedia site on that book, including footnote; the CNN buisness was already in the article. I did not add anything original here. Lostcaesar 11:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As per your comments, the section has been revised; let me know if this is fitting. Lostcaesar 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's clearly some resistance to the idea of a wholesale cleanup--and also some feeling that a wholesale cleanup is what's needed. Maybe you could reintroduce your changes section by section--with a day or so between each dose--so that people can respond to them more as individual suggestions? Nareek 11:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nareek is right. As far as I can tell the so-called "cleanups" have been little more than POV "cleansings" that eliminate points of view that were disagreed. This kind of elimination of multiple points of view is unacceptable. Future efforts to improve wording must be especially careful to protect the various points of view of other editors. --Haldrik 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article to 08:50, 2006 September 7 Roy Brumback, which represents pre-POV-editing (as far as I can tell). Three separate editors have complained about the POV of the previous so-called cleanup. --Haldrik 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nareek, I will take your advice and advance in section by section. What I need for all of you, however, is specific discussion rather than general discussion. Exactly what point of view was stricken from the record by my edits? Please, give a sentence and show how its removal eliminates a point of view. I am not trying to pov push or remove pov’s. I think that should be obvious from the fact that I did not delete any section of the article, and left in a diverse grouping of points of view – no one could read my edits and say that the article afterwards only expressed one point of view. Please, very specific points would be a great help to me. I will try and be precise myself in my section by section changes. Also, if anything is removed, or if my wording is inappropriate, I would be happy to revise my changes in the spirit of collegiality, if I am merely pointed to the specific area of a problem, which my edits here have shown in regards to Nareek’s comments about the one section in question. Lostcaesar 08:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"I am not trying to pov push or remove pov’s." Alright. Personally, the section I'm monitoring closely is Jesus as a historical figure, which I would rather rename Jesus as a historical person. Go ahead and cleanup this section, I'll doublecheck later to make sure it stays in sync with the main article. --Haldrik 20:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

K, have a look; I flipped two paragraphs since I think this order is better, I took out some wordiness and cleaned up a couple links, and I changed the title. Also, I have trouble with this sentence; can you explain its meaning:

Sanders considers the quest for the "historical Jesus" to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to those historical figures with adequate documentation. Lostcaesar 09:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So far the cleanup looks good to me. --Haldrik 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy, that is redundant

Below is a paragraph, with the blod section being what you added, Roy:

The first three Gospels, known as the synoptic gospels, share much material. As a result of various scholarly hypotheses attempting to explain this interdependence (see above), the traditional association of the texts with their authors has become the subject of criticism. Though some solutions retain the traditional authorship, other solutions reject some or all of these claims. The solution most commonly held in academia today, the two-source hypothesis, would give Mark priority with a date of 60-70, whilst other solutions, such as the Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis, would give Matthew priority and a possible date of 40. John is most often dated to 90, though a date as early as the 60s, and as late as the second century have been argued. According to most scholars the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s or slightly after the year 70. Matthew and Luke were then probably written ten to twenty years after Mark. John was then probably composed around the years 90–100.

Now, isn't that redundant? Perhaps the bit about Luke and Matthew being dated 10-20 years later is new. This is the kind of stuff I am trying to clean up - it doesn't remove a view, it just keeps from saying a view again and again. Lostcaesar 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the redundancy bit, but I just want to say that 60-70 doesn't really cover the majority of acedamia. As pointed out in the intro of the Gospel of Mark article, 60-80, while a broader ranger, covers nearly every position except the extreme skeptics and the extreme conservatives.--Andrew c 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but you left out certain things, like Mark being 60's-post 70, John 90-100. Just wanted to clarify what the majority views are. And hardly anyone thinks John was written in late second century, so this needs to be labeled as such. Roy Brumback 08:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, per these comments I will try and make the passage more accurate. Lostcaesar 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)