Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 21

Effectively proven?

What is meant here, that it has been effectively proven that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he walked on water, raised dead people and was resurrected? To say effectively proven suggests all of these things and these are far from effectively proven. The former statement suggested that Jesus existed, but made no claims to the proving of these suggestions about his life. As a result I have reverted the edit. John D. Croft (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is only about the historicity of Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true. That seems clear to me from what the text says. --Rbreen (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The exact phrasing in question is "Nevertheless, historicity is still regarded as effectively proven by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians." This makes three claims: 1) that scholars agree on criteria for "historicity" (implicit), 2) that there is "proof" of this "historicity", and 3) that "almost all" scholars and historians agree on this. It doesn't seem clear to me, the apologetic citations notwithstanding, than any of these criteria stand. Therefore, I have reverted the wording to a more neutral phrasing. davigoli (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Among modern scholars who would not agree that any form of historicity is "proven" are Burton Mack, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Funk. I doubt any of these scholars would contend conversely that the existence of Jesus has been disproven; however, the state of things continues to be that the question of historicity is highly controversial and not very well defined. That is the state that this article should reflect. davigoli (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One more point: you can soften this claim to make it more acceptable; I've just proposed one alternative with "widely accepted", but there are other possibilities. Another option would be "Nevertheless, historicity is still accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians." The point here is that "proven" is a very strong claim, a word that even scholars who incline towards historicity would probably not use. davigoli (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This really gets boring. All the scholars you mention believe there was a real Jesus, based on the evidence, and historicity is not really controversial at all. Encarta states "Today, scholars generally agree that Jesus was a historical figure whose existence is authenticated both by Christian writers and by several Roman and Jewish historians." Authenticated is of course just another way of saying proven. And in the end we're talking about cited material, and the phrasing must match the info in the source. I don't have those sources, so can anyone tell us exactly what they say and how they say it? Roy Brumback (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people take issue with the word "proven" in terms of history and science. Proofs are usually only part of mathematics. Some scholars go as far as to talk in terms of historical probability, saying they can't really know anything for certain. Saying "proven" and "authenticated" are simply synonymous may actually be more controversial than that. While I don't think any of this should act to undermine Jesus' historicity in any way, period, I also don't think we have consensus for the word "proven". Perhaps we can all find a phrasing we can agree on that doesn't use proven, but also doesn't act to undermine the confidence scholars have in Jesus' historicity. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the word 'proven' for exactly this reason. I am happy to go with "accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians."--Rbreen (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Again guys, what do the sources actually say? If they say the majority of historians think it is "proven" we should probably say that. Do any historians really disagree that is is "proven" Japan attacked Pearl Harbor for instance, or that Caesar was assassinated. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in reply to Rbreen, this goes back to a recent thread at the parent article, Talk:Jesus. Are there any Biblical scholars or classical historians at all that question the historicity of Jesus? Anyway, Roy brings up a great point. What do the sources say. I don't own any of those books, but I can check my local libraries and see if there are anyone online previews. If all 4 sources use proven (or maybe even some of them), then we should seriously consider using that word. Does anyone have access to those books or the quotes from them? I think I remember them being mentioned perhaps in the Talk:Jesus archives.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced a quote which seems to express this in a better way. I think it should satisfy everyone. Agreed? I am pretty sure I can find others to back this up. --Rbreen (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the text as it now reads is perfectly acceptable and neutral. davigoli (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of mythologists claim and scholars who oppose historicity

Hi guys. I deleted the claim that the majority of mythologists think there was no historical Jesus. I checked the source for the claim and as far as I can see it makes no claim at all about what mythologists think about Jesus' historicity, not on the page cited or any other part of the book that I have checked, and I have read its entire section on Christianity, so this seems to be a false claim. I also deleted the claims about scholars who reject historicity because they had no real sources, only other wiki pages, one of which said nothing about the issue at all, and the other sources said no respectable scholars hold the opinion, so that isn't exactly a source for claiming some scholars hold the opinion. It should probably be reinserted with better documentation, and with the exact numbers, not just the claim of a "minority", which is anywhere between 49 and 0 percent, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't rise to even 1 percent.Roy Brumback (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against authenticity of non-Christian authors

Hey all,

First of, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm of the opinion that Jesus probably never existed.

I'm kinda troubled by the lack of any serious ahistoricity argument for the Flavium Testimonium or the Tacitus reference. The Josephus reference is almost certainly made up, and the Arabic corroboration dates only to the 10th century, right? Surely this could merely have been lifted from the forgery - after all, as the main page for the Testimonium (Josephus on Jesus) indicates, the narrative flows better w/o its inclusion, Josephus wasn't a Christian, etc. And aren't we almost certain that the alleged Tacitus reference was interpolated by Sulpicius Severus in the fifth century AD? It doesn't appear in ANY early Christian writing (much like the Testimonium), and you would think that someone would have mention such slam-dunk corroboration. And as far as Seutonius - Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Really? IMHO, we should probably delete the Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius references, or at least include a full disclosure of how deeply troublesome their alleged authenticity is. I will write contra arguments into the article, with citations to people who have done exhaustive work on this matter, if people think it's appropriate. Seems to me this article should be limited to the synoptic gospels and the apocrypha, and even then we should include some language positing the potentially allegorical nature of these sources. After all, they do copycat tons of stuff from other religions and mythologies (cf. Mithras, Oedipus, &c.), and even Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) never actually wrote that a historical Jesus existed. Lastly, the tone of this article is not, again IMHO, NPOV. I'm not asking that Christians be disqualified from editing as some commentors have, but the absolutist tenor discussed above (all historians accept as proven) reeks of bias. The encarta reference is, for reasons discussed above, also very troublesome. Just my two cents. Chris kupka (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Just my two cents - I'd appreciate some feedback.

Feedback-The article already says what people think about Josephus, that some think the Testimonium is wholly forged, that some think it's partially forged, and that a few even think it's totally real. "We", whoever that is, are not in any way certain that Severus interpolated the Tacitus reference to Jesus, in fact pretty much all scholars on the issue think Tacitus wrote the passage just as it comes down to us, although the only legit argument against it bolstering Jesus' historicity is that we don't know his source for the info. We already say Seutonius is probably not talking about Jesus. And Paul did clearly say a man named Jesus did exist as a real flesh and blood person, otherwise on a first basic level how could he argue Jesus died and was resurrected if he held he never lived?. People do argue over the sources of the gospel stories, but we already say that too. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roy - thanks for the quick response. In re: the latter Josephus reference - that "James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" bit - later in the same passage Josephus writes that said Jesus is the son of Damneus, who became high priest in 64 AD. It's literally in the next paragraph, yet the page doesn't mention Jesus bar Damneus. We all know that Yeshu was not an uncommon name, and there are in fact several other Jesuses referenced in contemporary works. My problem with the Testimonium reference in this article is that it doesn't even mention the argument from silence against ahistoricity - there are no references to the Testimonium for several hundred years, and for such an allegedly monumentally important figures, it is very, very curious that Josephus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth in any of his other writings (as mentioned above, "who was called Christ" re: Jesus son of Damneus is certainly an interpolation).

In re: Tacitus - maybe we don't know that Sulpicius Severus did the interpolation, but isn't it more than a little suspect that he plagiarizes the language w/o sourcing his reference, and that he's the first to do so? Surely if Sulpicius had access to an extant Tacitus writing, other Christian or Pagan writers would have mentioned it - after all, Tacitus was a pretty big deal, and Christianity blew up pretty quickly around the end of the first century.

In re: Seutonius - the allusion doesn't even mention Christ, so I think that the phrase "As such, this passage offers little information about Jesus" is an understatement - it doesn't offer any information about Jesus.

I'm sorry if my tenor was a little over the top in the first post - I can see why people wouldn't want to remove all reference to the Pagan historians, but given the serious problems with each of the authors' alleged writings, I think there should be far more contra historicity arguments accompanying each one - I really can't see how someone honestly applying the historical process can consider them authentic.

In re: scholarly consensus - there is only a consensus of theological seminary and university biblical scholars, which, of course, suffer from extreme selection bias (atheists don't go into religious studies). You can find plenty of lay historians on the internet - e.g. Rook Hawkins, Kenneth Humphries - who adhere to the valid historical process and reach the exact opposite conclusions.

I know this has probably been rehashed plenty of times on the archived talk pages, but the article in its current form is quite subjective in that it wholly ignores very convincing arguments against historicity.

Thanks again for your prompt response. Chris kupka (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, the euhemerized myth hypothesis is entirely consistent with Paul's writings. Why couldn't Paul have believed that Jesus was crucified and resurrected in a mystical realm between Heaven and Earth? It is my understanding that mysticism was very popular at the time, and the epistles never mention any acts at a specific place on earth. If Heaven is a mystical place, why can't there be an in between? Chris kupka (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Arguments from silence are not generally logically valid, although most scholars take that into account when you consider the fact that Origen says his knowledge of Josephus is that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the messiah, and that he does quote Josephus's smaller sentence about James being Jesus' brother. The simplest explanation for this is that Origen's copy didn't have the testimonium as we have it or at all but clearly talked about Jesus especially in reference to James being his brother. He quoted this almost a century before Christians had any kind of power to alter copies of books, so pretty much everyone thinks that that's what Josephus wrote, although arguments for "who was called christ" being an interpolation are on the Josephus on Jesus page. We can't however pack them all in here so the article just says the two positions and their relative following among scholars and not arguments from each side. The arguments for accepting the smaller reference to Jesus as authentic are not really given either.

Also consider that Josephus never mentions Christians at all except for perhaps the unaltered testimonium, if it existed. However the existence of Christianity in Palestine at the time is a historical fact, so why didn't he talk about it at all? Always beware the argument from silence.

As for Tacitus, Sulpicious's use of the Tacitus quote without sourcing it is the norm of all ancient works. None of the Gospels for instance cite their uses of Old Testament sources very much, although they occasionally do. People quoted from the Iliad and Odyssey without mentioning Homer or what book the quote came from, ect... That's one of the reasons scholars generally don't find anything suspicious about it, and your second point is again another use of the argument from silence.

Actually some atheists do study religion (I would hope they all would, how else would they know why they don't believe what they say they don't believe) and the majority of atheist historians also conclude their was a real historical Jesus.

What actual changes do you want to make, more about Sulpicious? What good sources do you have for the info you want to put it? Roy Brumback (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

re: atheists studying religion - Ceteris paribus, a historical Jesus still doesn't prove anything supernatural ever happened, so this debate is wholly irrelevant to metaphysics - but that's a discussion I'd love to have with you on an appropriate forum.

Arguments from silence are not logically conclusive, but that isn't to say they aren't valid considerations. When you consider the sheer enormity of silence, it militates strongly against a contemporaneous Testimonium, or Tacitus reference. I find it extremely doubtful that someone as well published (an anachronistic phrase, I know) and wide-read as Tacitus would've written an account of Jesus that would've gone unmentioned for centuries (again, I know that the vast majority of what was written in that time is no longer extant, but still...)

I assume Josephus wouldn't have written about it for the same reason he never wrote about Appolonius or any of the other alleged messiahs at the time - he probably assumed the sect would die out. I will grant you, however, that there were a sizeable number of christians at the time, so it is at least puzzling that they never got a head nod.

I understand what you're saying about Origen, but his sloppy methodology ought never have been perpetuated through the ages. From Antiquities 20:9:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Again, not the Jesus of the bible. different Jesus - one who became a high priest c. 62 AD and was born of Damneus. Wholly irrelevant. Also makes certain that "who was called christ" was an interpolation. This point really isn't debatable...

What about the content of the passage? James, the brother of Jesus, was accused of breaking the law and sentenced to stoning by Ananus; then, Agrippa removes Ananus from office and makes this Jesus high priest? It doesn't appear to make sense that Agrippa would put one into office who may have been disliked by any group. As king, he would have wanted as much peace as possible, and so would have chosen someone more neutrally associated. By the circumstances given, it looks like Ananus was trying to take advantage of the situation in order to get rid of someone he (and the Sanhedrim) hated for some reason. Why could not the phrase "who was called Christ" fit with this? It easily explains why Ananus wanted James dead, as well as the apparent ease and quickness he had in getting the Sanhedrim to agree. Albinus was angry with this because Ananus had usurped the power to condemn that Rome had reserved to itself. If the James at the beginning of the passage is the brother of the Jesus at the end, several difficulties arise, one of which is the non-neutralness of Jesus as high priest. For another, why did Josephus specify these people using different references? ("James, brother of Jesus" and "Jesus, son of Damneus") The only link between these references is the name Jesus, or Joshua, which was (and is) a very common name.Cerebretic (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes I would like to make, again, would be brief writeups (1-2 sentences) about why the pagan references are specious. We can still have the pro- arguments as well, but as the article currently reads it does not reflect the actual weight of the evidence. I'd like to quote from Hawkins and Humphries, but if you want someone with letters after their name we could go with Price or Wells.Chris kupka (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the advice of a friend, I just read Maier on Josephus on Jesus. Perhaps my absolutist position on 20:9 passage above isn't w/o valid counterargument, but I still believe that the close positioning of Jesus bar Damneus with Jesus who was called Christ, w/o further clarification, is not entirely conistent with Josephus's normally painstaiking attempts to avoid ambiguity. I'm unpersuaded by the alleged corroboration offered by the Agapian version of Josephus, given that there are good reasons to believe that the Agapian version - written in Arabic, and thus probably not predating the fifth century (my friends studying arabic have advised me on this) - is not from a source older than Eusebius. I don't know, Roy, you seem to have done a lot of reading on this - is there something I'm missing? Chris kupka (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have little to add to CK's reasoning for why such arguments about the non-reliability of the pagan historians should be included, but I would like to add that I strongly believe that a brief summary of such arguments should be included. In order to be NPOV, I think that article requires including _legitimate_ arguments on both sides of any important question. In deciding whether or not to include the arguments I would think that it's all about whether the issue is important to or peripheral to the overall debate, and whether the argument is valid on its face (can be weak or strong, but not something that can immediately seen to be invalid). The reason why _strength_ of the argument should not be a reason to include or exclude the argument is because that's what a debate is all about: comparing the arguments and determining which are stronger.

So, should we include the arguments _against_ the reliability of the relevant passages attributed to Flavian Josephus, et al.? 1. It seems this page was set up as a "debate" about the historicity. Pages which assume the existence could simply be titles "jesus" and be biographical in nature.

2. One or some Argument/s FOR one side require acceptance of the relevant passages as accurate and credible.

3. Those who rely on the relevant passages believe that it is important enough to this debate to include them and even discussions on them. Thus that side of the debate must implicitly concede that this is not so peripheral as to be unworthy of time/attention to these arguments.

4. Ergo, if we wish to retain NPOV and be in compliance with wikipedia standards, any facially valid arguments of reasonable length for the non-reliability of the passages must be included.

5. I believe that there are clearly facially valid arguments against reliability of the passages.

6. Therefore, we must include statements of reasonable length (more than a few phrases so that the argument can be truly explained, less than double the length in _favor_ of the passages and the implications of valid passages on the argument for the historicity of Jesus ben Joseph) OR We could agree that neither side will reference the disputed sources in the article.

...I believe that readers are better served by including the arguments on both sides than they would be by an agreement to avoid these evidences entirely.

I would also say that anytime there is a paradigm shift there is a period when the previous point of view remains the majority even though evidence has already come to light invalidating it...simply because the evidence has not yet received wide enough study/ attention.

Therefore I think it HIGHLY APPROPRIATE to take note of the majority opinion, but I don't think it should be a reason to spend such a disproportionate amount of time on the arguments of one side. There is far to much information for either case to be in a way that could remotely be called _in full_. So I do not argue that the case FOR historical Jesus (Jesus ben Joseph, as I like to call him) should be shorter, but it hardly seems NPOV to give the other side such short shrift.

I am not the scholar who could write that, but it seems that I could add a point or two with which I am familiar and, as I look back, it seems that it has not been easy for small changes to be made progressively. Perhaps we could solicit someone with much more familiarity with the details of the evidences to write a draft anti-Jesus ben Joseph? Using the current pro- arguments word count as a loose guide for space considerations?

Otherwise this will continue to seem more like a NPOV apologia to me than an actual debate.

Thanks, --)-> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripdyke (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how useful this is but I was able to trace the Jesus, the son of Damneus idea as far back as 1887 in a book called The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ by a Richard M. Mitchell which was republished in 1893. Unfortunately both editions were self published, other than a few contemporary reviews there seems to be little on this book, and the name is so common that I can't determine if the guy was notable in his own time.

On firmer reliable source ground is Remsburg's 1909 The Christ (parts of which are sometimes published under the title "The Christ myth" which was used for three chapters of the book) who says "To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim."--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's what most historians do, they conclude Josephus got it more right than Hegesippus, although even if he got it wrong that still has nothing to do with whether he actually wrote the passage. Roy Brumback (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok perhaps I have been over at the Jesus myth hypothesis talk page a little too long but that just doesn't make any sense to me. I think Remsburg and similar points would lock you into a catch 22: either the passage has been tampered with (and is therefor useless as evidence) or the passage is genuine and it points to someone else with an totally incompatible history to that of the Gospels being called Jesus Christ.

Though there are times when I wonder if logic takes a holiday regarding some of the argeuments I see regarding this subject. for example, Bishop Irenaeus is sometimes presented regarding the age of the Gospels and yet the same people ignore the fact that in Against Heresies 2:22:6 Irenaeus expressly states Jesus was over 50 years when he died a claim Irenaeus said was supported by the Gospel and Elders--despite that it would have required Jesus to have been born c15 BCE at the earliest ie more than 11 years before the c4 BCE date.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How is Joesphus saying Jesus' brother was killed in 62 "totally incompatible" with the Gospels? And most historians think Irenaeus simply was mistaken. Roy Brumback (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Roy Brumback, You are making the mistake of arguing two DIFFERENT points together. Joesphus saying saying Jesus' brother was killed in 62 was totally incompatible with Hegesippus who as A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 1904 pg 127 states "has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 AD, and as thus being in direct conflict with Josephus; as a consequence some follow his supposed date, others that of Josephus." There is a lot of handwaving to obscure the Joesphus-Hegesippus problem but the reality it is a problem. The only reason to support Joesphus over Hegesippus is your trying to shoehorn that the passage in Joesphus supported the Biblical Jesus.

As for Bishop Irenaeus, he cites a passage straight from John 8:56-57 that shows Jesus was a minimum of 46 years old when he died so there is no way Irenaeus could be "mistaken" as it is right there in the Gospel just as he said it was. Irenaeus even goes into a full freaking paragraph showing how this passage shows a minimum age of 46 (ie a c10 BCE birth year) for Jesus. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why so rude? In all due respect to Irenaeus, that passage says Jesus wasn't yet fifty years old, which remembering our math is that same as saying (age of jesus)<50, which of course could be any number less than fifty. And notice you're quote clearly implies that even though historians (in 1904) debated who was right, Heg. or Josephus, they were not arguing whether Josephus actually wrote about Jesus' brother. Roy Brumback (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to appear rude but I do have a sore spot on this when people get basic facts regarding it wrong. "To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim." Remsburg, John E. (1909). The Christ. New York: Truth Seeker Co. ISBN 0879759240. shows that yes that some historians DID argue if Josephus actually wrote about Jesus' brother. The tap dancing to accept Josephus over Hegesippus like that in Dods, Marcus (1903) An Exposition of the Bible pg Page 565 to paraphrase the Amazing Randi 'should be read sitting down let you hurt yourself falling down in a fit of hysterical laughter'. Yes it is that bad.

But if your objection against Josephus is that it conflicts with Heg. then you are in effect arguing that Heg.'s version is the correct one, and thus that Jesus did in fact have a brother who died in 69, thus proving Jesus existed. If Josephus identifying James as Jesus Christ's brother was forged to match accepted early Church history, then why does it differ from Heg.'s version? Roy Brumback (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to Irenaeus, he directly address the issue you bring up: "Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "You are not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age." (Against Heresies 2:22:6). The logic Irenaeus presents here is far better than why there are only four gospels (which is in essence a bunch of mystic nonsense) and he is right in this case.

No, he's wrong. Jesus might have been nearing forty when he died, but since most scholars accept he died in 30 or 33 you have to reject him being born around 15-20BC. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But two ancient histories being off by 4 or 5 years and differing on specific details is pretty common. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What most scholars? The ones who can't even add correctly or ignore the facts that totally FUBAR the timeline and destroy the 30 to 33 year old claim?! While not a scholar JohnLArmstrong does give a good illustration of just what kind of mess the Jesus Timeline is in; some part of the Gospels must be said to be in error to get everything to work and if inerrantcy gets into the argument you can kiss that idea goodbye.

Luke 1:1-4 gives us the the closest thing to a year for the start of Jesus' Ministry: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,... or about c29 CE. Here Jesus would have to be a minimum of 31 years old assuming the 4 BC year, that the 15 year reign does not count 14 CE itself (which in reality it does), that there is no Year 0, and that Jesus has not celebrated his 32 birthday yet. Now the Gospel of John mentions three passovers and Irenaeus is quick to point out you can't have three passovers in one year so the Gospels themselves show that Jesus had to be a minimum of 34 years old or c32 CE.

And it gets worse Luke 3:19, Mark 6:17 and Matthew 14:3-5 all have John the Baptist being arrested and executed before Jesus is crucified. But Josephus in Jewish Antiquities (book 18, chapter 5,2) puts this event no earlier than c34 CE and the majority of scholars tend toward a c35 or even c36 CE date for this event and some authors even try to say John dies after Jesus because this passage so messes up the timeline. Remember Irenaeus is specifically arguing against Jesus being just 33 years old when he died and for him eing 50+ years old and if Irenaeus is good enough to establish what Gospels are canonal then he is good enough to show what they mean.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings all. I have read this entire discussion and determined that the mythical perspective should deserve nothing more than a link on an article that clearly says "Historicity of Jesus." The mythical perspective simply doesn't qualify as belonging to an article that is clearly dedicated to historicity. These two perspectives should be seperated so that the reader does not become confused about what is deemed historical and what is considered mythical.

Placing the mythical perspective into an article which is clearly designed to propagate a historical view seems to contradict the point of the article. The article is about "history," not about mythology. Place only a link to the mythical view and be done with it. Since the original grieviance has been dealt with, I suggest removing the neutrality disputed tag.Team FFI (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse historical with historicity. This article is not about history. AFAIK, historicity means studying the evidence for the validity of the alleged historical facts. ^rossnixon 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

True but when you get right down to it what "validity of the alleged historical facts" are there outside of the Gospels? As Remsburg puts it regarding his list of 42 possible sources "Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Josephus is know to have been tampered with from Origen (as documented by Rembsurg who sites Bishop Warburton, Rev. Dr. Giles, Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Dean Milman, Cannon Farrar, Theodor Keim, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, and Dr. Alexander Campbell all throw out the first passage and Remsburg states "Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ" which discredits the second passage), France says Tacitus is not that reliable on this matter, and Pliny the Younger just mentions the movement and NOTHING about its founder. WHen you try to match them to history the canonal Gospels have problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does Origen say that Josephus has not mentioned Christ? He says in his [1] Commentary on Matthew that he did not accept him as the Christ and partially quotes Josephus's passage on James being the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. He says in the [2] Anti-Celsus that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus as the Christ and then again partially quotes the passage from Josephus about James being Jesus Christ's brother. Is there any specific passage from his works where he says Josephus didn't mention Jesus at all, since that would conflict with what he wrote in these two passages, where he clearly says Josephus does talk about Jesus Christ and his brother James and actually quotes the passage in the form we have it in our copies of Josephus?Roy Brumback (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Historians, Cont.

"And would it be possible in your view to be a historian and a Christian at the same time?"

That is possible but I don't think it's possible for such a historian to be impartial while studying the historicity of Jesus. Of course a Christian historian who's also a pastor or priest will come to the conclusion that Jesus is a historical figure. If not this person would have a very hard time to continue to be a Christian.

So which historians from which religion (atheism included) would be less impartial? And please note, the majority of all non Christian historians, by a long shot, hold to the historicity of Jesus. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Obviously, we are talking about historians that study ancient Judea/early Christianity/ or Jesus specifically."

So why don't you refer to some of all these historians instead of just refering to Bible scholars? You can of course be both a historian and a Bible scholar - but I think it's obvious that Christians use this article to promote their own religious views instead of sticking to facts.--Joe hill (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the article doesn't present anything in support of the claim that "virtually all historians" support the idea of a historic Jesus it shouldn't state that. Why do you want to suggest something that's not true? What's your agenda? And what's the problem with "Bible scholar"? It's a more honest description of those scholars you refer to as being "virtually all". --Joe hill (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything? We have several historians making the claim that pretty much all historians hold Jesus to be historical, including non Christian historians. Again, how many non Christian historians making this claim will satisfy you, as a few seems not to satisfy you? And despite all your complaining, you have yet to produce any evidence that the majority of all historians don't agree Jesus was historical. You just keep saying in effect you don't believe the historians cited or Christian scholars saying what historians think. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A source that hasn't been cited in the article or in this current discussion is Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." Note that Stanton talks about "nearly all historians"--which is close to the current wording of the article. Stanton is an eminent scholar (even his Wikipedia page makes that clear), and is excellent evidence that historians regard Jesus as historical. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"We have several historians making the claim that pretty much all historians hold Jesus to be historical, including non Christian historians."

Several? I think that would be two out of ten. And then to claim that those two are "virtually all" historians? "Many" historians would be more honest. And why not be honest enough to also state the fact that many historians doubt that there was a historic Jesus because of the lack of evidence and because of the dubious nature of some of the evidence. The part of the article that claims that both historians and Bible scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and then crusified by Pilate is definitely not true. That's the view of your priests and Bible scholars - not of "virtually all" serious historians. I agree that "many" historians believe that there are at least support for a historic person called Jesus who may have been a teacher or a miracle worker. But that's it. We don't know anything about that persons life. --Joe hill (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how wikipedia works. All we do is summarize what we find in reliable sources which we cite. We cannot publish our original thoughts (nor can we cite our personal knowledge). We have multiple citations which agree on this point. The ONLY WAY, on wikipedia, to change that it to find a competing source that conflicts. You can state your personal beliefs on the talk page all you want, you can criticize the sources all you want, but it matters not on wikipedia. We are citing reliable sources, and they agree. Again, the ONLY way to have the article text change is to find a source that conflicts with these assessments. Maybe you could start with this... you say "the fact that many historians doubt that there was a historical Jesus..." why not list them here for starters? Or better yet, find a source (a WP:RS at that) which we can cite that says these things you personally believe, and which clearly contradicts the sources we are already citing. I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but just because you don't like or agree with something personally, doesn't mean your personal thoughts deserve to be in wikipedia. I hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not enough just to have a WP:RS but that it is reverent. For example, take "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text) Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16. The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#When_is_a_peer-reviewed_Journal_not_considered_reliable.3F shows just how well trying to use such a source went.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)