Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 9

Common Era v. Anno Domini

To remove accusations of POV it is important that we use the CE for dates not AD. Robsteadman 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is absolute nonsense, AD is no more POV than CE, its only much more widely understood. There was a "ceasefire" declared site wide months ago, and backed up by official policy not to convert articles from one to the other, and now you are liable to open the site wide edit war all over again by breaking the ceasefire. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put this on your talk page:

You have reverted the dates 3 times - contrary to Wiki rules - I am therefore suggesting that you should stop or risk suspension. There is no reason why the article should be an "AD article" as you put it - AD is outdated and irrelevant though many find it\d |"christian" slant offensive. Please stop reverting without discussion and please stop wanting to install a POV date system. Robsteadman 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the biggest cries at the time of the massive edit warring was that AD should not be used on articles that are about other faiths, and that Christians should restrict it to articles about their own faith. Now we are seeing even that being invaded. Only the most extreme individuals consider AD to be in any way, shape or form POV, it is simply the norm throughout the world. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement is false. AD is POV. There is no need for it and this article is not about "faith" but about whether "jesus" actually existed. PLEASE STOP REVERTING - Common Era tagging is appropriate, AD is not. I will revert one last time and then I will contact an admin to seek advice about your vreach of the 3RR. Robsteadman 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. If he keeps inserting AD, I will be glad to help you restore it to CE. This way, you don't run afoul of the 3RR. Alienus 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Robsteadman 17:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob and Alienus, the consensus style used in this article is AD. Accordingly, Wiki policy rules that it should stay AD. Neither version is considered POV under Wiki rules. Siniaticus' edits were perfectly allright and in line with Wiki policy. In fact, your edit-warring can be considered vandalism and hence reverting it is not breaking 3RR. Str1977 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The consensus WAS to use AD, but newer editors recognized this as POV and therefore changed the consensus. Now you have to live with it. Or, of course, you could launch an edit war and lose. Up to you, but I recommend the former. Alienus 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, could you please point out exactly where wikipedia policy "consensus" was changed on this matter??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that Wiki needs to update its policy - AD is POV. Codex regularly puts POV slants on stuff that need to be removed. It was not vandalism - just trying to get a NPOV article.Robsteadman 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

POV is POV as defined by Wiki policy. As long as the policy stands, Siniaticus' actions were defending that policy. Your actions however were pushing your POV (namely, that AD is POV) unto the article and at least bordering on vandalism. Quite apart from the issue whether you think something POV or not. Str1977 18:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree AD is pushing a POV, but so is CE. The issue is which one is more apros. The secular system (standard in academia) is better sinces its more inclusive by nature and in fiting with this article. Also, I don't think that edit waring to revert it back to AD can escape the 3RR rule under the pretext of reverting vandalism. Clearly to change the date to CE is not vandalism. 3RR is in effect. BelindaGong 18:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. CE is neutral and academic, as is appropriate for a encylopedia article, while AD is inherently biased. Alienus 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A loud voice (or a quick finger) doesn't stand in for intellectual substance. Belinda, you may think "CE" is "better" - then go and try to change the policy. AD is just as standard (if not more) in academia. Ad isn't biased. CE isn't more inclusive as it still the same reckoning, only with another name. The edit war is on your and your friends' part. I could live with CE, if it were the established consensus (and have done so on other pages or reverted to CE). Str1977 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So where does the debate need to take place to get Wiki to change to CE and drop the offensive and biased AD? Robsteadman 19:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you might want to try Wikipedia_talk:Eras/Compromise_proposal if you have a spare month or two to read all the associated fork pages and debates. The ultimate outcome of consensus is that AD is not biased, and neither is CE... but that there is to be a cease fire on changing from one to the other, articles that use one or the other should be left as they are and such changes are not welcome and may be reverted. I'm sure everyone will just love you if you really wish to reopen this whole can of worms, when there are much more serious issues than whether or not AD is slanted... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof that the Wikipedia bureaucracy is capable of failure. Alienus 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But we do have a policy for that! Wikipedia:No binding decisions. In other words, any decision may be revisited. So failures for today don't mean eventual failure of the project, just as an article that's currently in an incomplete or even vandalized state doesn't have to stay that way. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're right in principle, but not necessarily in practice. In practice, revisiting an ugly issue that the bureaucracy had previously stalemated on is a scary thing, a potential time drain yielding nothing but frustration. Look a how Codex Sinaiticus essentially threatened Robsteadman with sarcastic phrases like "everying will just love you". Unfortunately, it turns out that there are people who thrive on conflict and avoid resolution, pretty much ruining any chance of genuine consensus. Alienus 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't hold hope that consensus and the NPOV policy will eventually result in a high quality encyclopedia, you're probably doomed to frustration and disappointment on Wikipedia. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious ideas such as BC/AD are so entrenched in our society that if you look hard enough you can find offense everywhere. Every time you say goodbye you are effectively saying "God be with you". Life is too short and whether I subscribe to the faith system or not I'm uncomfortable at attempts to "sterilize" our culture. In a world where someone has died because a group of people are offended by the printing of a cartoon maybe we need to tolerate more and be offended less. SOPHIA 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that agnostic terms as BCE/CE are way more tolerant of the multiple vision of the world then some one-religion-pov terms as BC/AD. --BMF81 12:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I am sure that BC/AD is being used to a much wider margin than BCE/CE in the outside world (for example books). In fact I have a lot of books about history and most of them use BC/AD with the exception of some few books printed in the GDR in the german language. To be honest, unless they are books about ancient history the dating system is simply never mentioned (example "Hitler died in 1945 after...."). But fact is that BCE/BC is confusing for somebody who doesn´t know about it, while BC/AD is the most widely known version and as such the easiest to use. Flamarande 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: the idea that "AD" is more POV than "CE" is idiotic. Using the Christian dating system while pointedly refusing to mention its source is rather offensive. The dating system refers to Jesus of Nazareth. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that IS what it refers to, and your thin skin doesn't change that. And change the NAME of the thing doesn't change that.

"Common Era" is dumb - common to what? What, exactly, is common about the era? Nothing. It's just a vague, meaningless phrase used so that some people can use a Christian calendar without having to suffer the horror of saying that that's what it is. And that's offensive. For example, if I were to use the Moslem calendar (Year of the prophet) but changed the name of it so I didn't mention Mohammed, I would EXPECT Moslems to be offended by that, because it would clearly be an insult. Wouldn't it? Carlo 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the CE system is arbitrary and senseless Political Correctness. The AD system is so old and well-established that what it stands for doesn't matter anymore than the fact that "holiday" etymologically means "holy day", that "Thursday" etymologically derives from "Thor's day", and that "March" originated as the month of the god Mars. The origin of the word as a religious phrase, which is the sole reasoning for CE terminology, is so beside-the-point and irrelevant that the entire dispute comes down to pure nitpicking and semantics. If Christianity wasn't such a common religion today (and especially if it was a defunct one, in which case AD/BC would be treated exactly the same as the days of the week and the months of the year, as cultural relics that are acceptable because they're the common convention, even though Thor and Mars probably didn't really exist, and even though Jesus probably wasn't really the son of God, all things considered), not a single person would care whatsoever about us using a system derived from Anno Domini and Before Christ; because Christianity is so common, anti-Christian sentiment is commonly considered PC where the same sentiment would offend another group (and perhaps even be ban-worthy as "religious intolerance"), and on the Internet in particular, the very strong subculture and counterculture presence provides a driving motivation for disputes as ridiculous as whether to use "CE" or "AD". For God's sake, they're just letters. *steps off soapbox too* -Silence 07:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where it matters. Both have the same number before AD or CE. As long as everyone understands when it happened, why does it matter? I'm new, so if you could explain it to me, I would appreciate it. Vizelsword 19:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Vizelsword

Imagine that we live in a parallel universe where Islam achieved the cultural dominance that Christianity has in the real world, so everyone uses a dating system based on the birth of Mohammed as year 1. And in this parallel universe, the common practice is to mark dates before this as BT and AT, meaning Before Truth and After Truth. Non-Muslim scholars, not wanting to have to proclaim the truth of Islam every time they use a date, come up with an alternative system: BIE and IE, meaning Before Islamic Era and Islamic Era. Isn't BIE/IE the NPOV choice, rather than BT/AT?

For people who say "I'm an atheist and I don't mind AD"--it's actually probably a bigger deal to people who believe that there really is a God and Jesus is not Him. Nareek 20:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

protected

because I really hate these CE vs. AD edit wars. Either agree to stick with what was here first, which seems to be BCE, or agree here to change it over, but knock off the edit war. —Charles P._(Mirv) 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work guys. We have so many really good things to fight over - why is so much energy being wasted in technical details? BC/AD is as POV as saying the days of the week are pro Roman gods. However since the article seemed to start out as BCE/CE it should stay at that and I would have supported the original dating system whatever it had been. SOPHIA 20:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we simply put it to a vote? Alienus 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have joined in with the vote I think this is a rather silly way to resolve this. AD is POV and offen sive. It should not be used in a neutral encyclopedia article. Robsteadman 12:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, could you please stop bickering about it, as this is really "POV and offensive" and not a perfectly common abbreviation. Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not "bickering" about it - if you're going to chuck around belittliing comments like taht it would be very easy to respond in kind about "faith". It is not bickering to state that AD is POV and offensive - it is an accurate statement and it is just very sad that some want to retain AD even when they are told of the problems. I wonder why that might be? Robsteadman 06:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it open for one week (closing Feb 10th) . Please sign one of the following with # and four tildes:

Also, it would help if some brief reasons were offered, as WP:TPG recommends. It's not too late to add your reason now. Without reasons, this becomes a matter of head count, not consensus. Alienus 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should use AD format

1. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Darwiner111 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
3. Homestarmy 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. ^rossnixon 10:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Str1977 11:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Historians use AD as standard, while CE was invented to push a POV (like Jahresendzeitfigur mit Flügeln.
6. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Flamarande 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) agreed with below
8. AnnH ^(talk) 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Though it doesn't have to be plastered all over the place. Once it becomes obvious that we're talking about AD rather than BC, we don't have to insert AD after every single date. Jdavidb has pointed out (on Rob's talk page) that CE/BCE are relatively unknown in many former British empire countries; that in itself is a good reason from preferring BC/AD. Others have pointed out that AD is no more POV than "Thursday", which is named after the god Thor. See also here, where the manual of style says both are acceptable. AnnH ^(talk) 13:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   Note. I may be taking a wiki-break, so I'd just like to say now that my second choice would be to use both the AD and the CE format, as suggested by KHM03. AnnH ^(talk) 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

9. Wesley 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Roy Brumback 21:37 9 February 2006 (UTC) Since both calendars are based on the same thing, Dionysius Exiguus's calculation of Jesus' birthyear, both are POV as both are basically the Jesus calendar. The only true NPOV calendar is ABT, after the beginning of time, but no one uses that and I don't suggest we do either.

    I agree that both are POV in their calculation, but BCE/CE is less, since it at least does not state it in its name.--BMF81 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    "it at least does not state it in its name" is hipocritical political correctness. If you want a religious neutral calendar then use another calendar and dont disguese the better known (of christian origin). Someone could also say that BCE/CE is a atheist POV and anti-religious. Flamarande 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

11. Robert McClenon 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
12. patsw 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC) It is my POV that "AD" is neutral and has always been regarded so. "CE" is a novelty of cultural warriors falsely casting themselves as the neutral ones.
13. Zundark 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC). BC/AD is the usual usage, and therefore neutral. BCE/CE is not only POV, it is also needless obfuscation, as many people (in Britain, at least) don't know what it means.
14. OneGyT/T|C 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC) As pointed out on Homestarmy's user page, "CE" was first used to mean "Christian era."
15. TrumpetPower! 02:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC) "The Year of Our Lord" is inappropriate in an article discussing the very existence--let alone the divinity--of the personage in question; it and "Before Christ" are both nonsensical when the Advent itself is in dispute and when even Christians can't agree on what year to use for it; and "Common Era" is a factual and neutral term that simply describes that we're all using the same (common) calendar with the same point in time pegged as year 1 (era). Arguments for AD and BC can only be justified as intellectual inertia or subversive proselytizing.
16. misterchill 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC) What the heck is the difference? 'CE' just confuses the matter, by trying to "politically correct" a term that is the norm and standard for centuries. If the world was adopting the CE format to standardize something, or if the CE format actually represented a new way of thinking, maybe. But who cares? 2006 AD is the same as 2006 CE? Let's stop trying to confuse things that most people don't even know what you're talking about anyways.

This article should use CE format

1. Alienus Historians use CE as a neutral format, whereas AD is religious. This article is bout the history of Jesus, if any, not worship. Also, please note that the calculation by which 1AD was chosen does not appear to be historically correct. In other words, if there was a historical Jesus, that was not the year of his birht. 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. SOPHIA 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Robsteadman 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
4. --maru (talk) contribs 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

   BelindaGong 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

   invalidated for sockpuppetry of Giovanni33 - see checkuser report. --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Giovanni33 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
6. BMF81 12:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

   vhjh21:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Invalid vote from Robsteadman sockpuppet. See WP:RFCU. AnnH ♫ 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

   robeaston99 Robeaston99 21:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Invalid vote from Robsteadman sockpuppet. See WP:RFCU. AnnH ♫ 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

7. Alecmconroy 01:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Nareek 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Is it really so difficult to see the difference between marking a date based on a recognized historical era and marking the same date as "the year of our lord"? If there are two alternative terms, Wikipedia should choose the more NPOV of the two--and it seems pretty clear which one that is.

   Well put. Thank you for explaining your view instead of just voting. Alienus 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

   The "recognized historical era" being AD of course? Str1977 23:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

9. Myk 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) BCE/CE is the scholarly way of representing dates. This is a scholarly article, so it should use them.

This article should use both AD & CE format

1. KHM03 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Pathdrc I am a Christian and feel it strange that people want to not offend by offending. The thing is, using CE or AD still has the same start year. The intrinsic meaning of both are the same. So, CE'ers, why should you change an AD'er's article and, even though I understand that people try their best to push Judeo/Christian God and Jesus out of all forms or public life, why start a war with changing a CE'er's date? Compare the two: Common Era and Anno Domini

   Because of what Anno Domini means! Robsteadman 08:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Arch O. La 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC) This is a reasonable compromise that has worked well in other articles. Both Christians and non-Christians should remember that Christians do not worship the calandar. Arch O. La 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Both Both because literature uses both. If, horrors, one of our readers were to pick up a book on the subject and read it, they would run into AD in some, CE in others and both in still others. It can be quite confusing. Putting both in serves both the communication principle and that of not offending either Christians or Non-Christians. Consistency with the Jesus article and both systems in use in Biblical Studies. --CTSWyneken 02:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Both. The fact is that using the Christian calendar while refusing - not neglecting, refusing - to mention that it IS the Christian calendar is offensive. There is such a thing as insult by omission. And some people find "AD" offensive. Well, sorry, but nobody has the right to be protected from being offended. Use both. Scholars use both. Simple. Carlo 04:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Other

We need to agree that NO changes will be made to the articles dating system as it currently stands until after the vote closes then we can ask for it to be unprotected.SOPHIA 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's use both BCE and BC, CE and AD. KHM03 22:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should leave things alone until there's a consensus, then abide by that consensus. If anyone tries to change this, I support reverting these changes and, if necessary, restoring protected status. In the meantime, it would be nice to be able to make other, unrelated changes. Alienus 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think if this vote gets extremely close, using a BC/BCE AD/CE notation for dates wouldn't be a problem if some sort of edit war gets out, with both notations at once, no matter what you like or dislike about either one, you always know which one means what anyway, and come on folks, 2 or 3 letters are not that offensive, it's not such a huge POV deal. Homestarmy 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia should not be POV. AD is POV. Its very simple. Robsteadman 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that BC/AD is POV. Yes, the system relates to what was once thought to be Jesus' birth year (most scholars now think it's off by a few years, 6-4 BC, but I digress), but it also became the dominant system of reckoning in the West, and remained that way for centuries. Most people know it. It's grown out of the POV to become a common, recognized dating system. Still, I think using both might be the best compromise. KHM03 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please just agree to not make any changes at the moment and abide by the vote so that we can ask for the page to be unlocked? SOPHIA 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I insist that the days of the week like Tuesday, Wednesday not appear in wikipedia, because they are simply a POV slant to the English gods, and offensive to me since I don't believe in the English gods. They must be replaced with NPOV terminology "first day", "second day", etc. Also, the names of the certain months like "January" "March" are not acceptable and POV slanted to Roman gods I don't believe in, and therefore I demand they be removed from wikipedia. There's no point in voting on a consensus on these things: They simply are POV, because I say so, and I'm offended.... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, First I must tell you that I am political incorrect person. Second, I am a atheist and proud of it by choice. But (and I am being completely honest here) I never even heard or read about CE and BCE before joining Wikipedia (and I have read and still read all too much) except in very few books of the old communist GDR were it was sometimes used, V.U.Z. = vor unserer Zeit = before our time (translated into english).

Then you write (see above): "I disagree. Wikipedia should not be POV. AD is POV. Its very simple.".

Look, in truth (joke) I must laugh and ask you : According to whom? YOU? ME? Be reasonable, Everything is POV and nothing is very simple (or there wouldn´t be any opposition to it, would there?)

AD (Anno Domini) and BC (Before Christ) is simply the most widely used version in this world and nobody can reasonably argue against that. In fact, they are only really used when somebody is writting about ancient history (mainly to help the average reader and not to impose any religious views upon the reader).

We live in a increasingly globalized World which as a whole was and still is culturally dominated by western civilization even if you, myself or anyone likes it or not. The world simply uses the western calendar to a overwhelming extent.

What is BCE (Before Current Era) and CE (Current Era) in my personal opinion? Its political correctness and nothing more. It is something like this: we are going to use religious neutral "BCE/CE", so that we and everybody else can still use the western calendar and we can "reasonably" deny its cultural and religious origins and importance in order not to hurt any NOT-Christian in his personal fellings.

Nobody is going to fall for that one. Does anyone for a second believe that a atheist, a budhist, a muslim or any not-christian is going to be offended in his personal sensibilities by the use of AD/BC? He will be offended only if he wants to be offended by it. He might also be offended (as I am) by BCE/CE for "you" are trying to deny the impact of Jesus of Nazareth and his teachings upon world history in the name of political corectness or worse, that you think that he is a ignorant fool and doesn´t know that and will be decieved by the use of BCE/CE.

Are you simply going to deny the profound impact of christian religion upon world culture? Notice that I am not telling anyone that christanity is good or bad for that truly depends on your personal POV but its cultural influence (good and bad) is simply undeniable.

You couldn´t even use another calendar (like for Example Sputnic era) confusing a lot of readers who never saw CE/BCE before (it confused me).

You are trying to impose your POV about AD/BC and BCE/CE in which one pair is "good" and the other one is "bad". Notice, that I am not doing that, I am telling you that AD/BC is simply the better known pair and that we should use it in the name of common sense.

To finalize: You are a ZEALOT who is trying to save/change Wikipedia. I am stating a fact and I hope you won´t be offended that word, but I personnaly think it is the more correct description.

But hey, that is only my POV, fell free to disagree, perhaps you can even convince us through truly convincing arguments and perhaps I will change my mind. Flamarande 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Robsteadman a zealot or is he Christophobic? ^rossnixon 08:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am anti-the influence of "faith" - I am for rational thought and reason. I am a Bright. Whilst I accept that religions have had a profound effect on the formations of societies I wonder how much better that would have been without the division, suppression and evils that the "faiths" brought with them. However, that is irrelevent. I am trying to get this article to be NPOV and balanced. Currently it is not, and AD doesnt help. Robsteadman 15:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he's got a little tired of living in a country where the "christian" majority (most of which never put their heads inside a church from baptism to burial) are so sure they are right that they can't seem to understand other people have a different, just a passionate, view without thinking they are misinformed or just plain pig headed. A country where non christian children (as 2 of mine have) come home from school crying because their "christian" school mates have told them they are going to burn in hell because they are not christened, even though Jesus did not baptise babies. These issues do arouse passionate feelings and we need to avoid ranting, raving and labeling as this will only entrench views and create a partisan atmosphere. We need to keep as neutral as possible and give referenced views rather than personal diatribes as this is the only way we will reach a peaceable consensus. Not subscribing to any faith I have had my moral system, my parenting and my suitability to work with young people called into question by "christian" aquaintences (I have used quotes not to offend but rather to illustrate that I don't feel the core teachings of Jesus in anyway justifies what these people have said or done). Choosing to live without a faith can be a little isolating as we all have come to this decision for different very personal reasons and there is no cozy church to go to with lots of other people who think exactly like we do. As I have illustrated with personal examples if you don't align yourself with an established faith you can get rather used to being on the defensive. If everyone accepts that everyone elses POV is just as valid as their own to that person then hopefully we will reestablish a respectful and calm environment. SOPHIA 09:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Rob appears to be British, I think that's rather unlikely. Britain is one of the most secular countrries in the world. Paul B 15:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be something "rob" will never accept, though. Every article he participates in appears to spiral into edit wars with no end in sight. No compromise. If you choose to be without faith, then that's your own choice, and no one has the right to lambast you for it. Others have the right to think you are taking the wrong path, just as you think they are taking the wrong path. But there are many people who call themselves Christian who oftentimes do not act like Christians. Not everyone is like that. --Oscillate 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that all young children are capable of great cruelty everywhere, and the faith issue was just the stone that happened to be used (for example: they could have insulted the parents). A live without faith does not isolated noone, you isolate yourself from the rest of society only if you want to. Notice that ostracism (being isolated by all the others) is a totally diffrent issue. This country wouldn´t be the U S of A, right? Flamarande 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am Brithish too - for a secular society most people would be surprised at the grip religion has on the school system. Ban the nativity play and there would be an outrage. I and my kids do not associate unthinking acts by misinformed adults and children to Christianity. In fact my kids actually sing in a church choir to support their teacher who struggles to recruit members from amongst the "faithful" - I join in too sometimes when required.

I merely wanted to explain that people who are sure they are right and are in the majority can be very arrogant to those who choose differently. I have the same problems with being a vegertarian - the number of people who feel it's their right to question me if my kids are getting enough protein and vitamins despite them being very tall for their ages and very healthy and active. As for being isolated - I was talking intellectually as you are not very welcome at bible studies groups and I've never come across an Alpha type course for the non christians. This can make us a little jumpy and defensive as I've never had a christian aquintence say "good on you for making your own mind up". However I am lucky enough to have some deeply religious good friends who are respectful and accepting and humble enough to admit they may not be right so I am used to agreeing to disagree. A skill I am finding very useful in the wiki world. SOPHIA 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer Str1977 down here where it will interfere with the voting as little as possible:

I have no problem acknowledging that the "Common Era" referred to by CE is the Christian era--that is, the era when the extremely important historical movement called Christianity occurred. Both Christians and non-Christians can acknowledge the importance of this era, hence the use of it as the basis for our dating system. Only Christians, however, can comfortably assert that 1 CE is the first "year of our Lord." That's what makes one NPOV and the other POV.

As for the assertion that it's simply a meaningless acronym, that reminds me of the claims that "under God" is just meaningless verbiage in the Pledge of Allegiance--meaningless verbiage that would cause riots if taken out. I have heard Jerry Falwell declare that the Constitution is a theistic document because it uses the phrase "in the year of our Lord." In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention endorsed the use of BC and AD, writing, ""The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history." [1] If that were our goal here, I would advocate using AD and BC as well. As our actual goal is to produce an NPOV encyclopedia, I suggest we use the appropriate terminology. Nareek 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I still believe using BC/BCE and AD/CE is our best option. KHM03 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the purpose of the Encyclopedia is to inform, and should therefore use the notation that is most readily understood by the largest audience, which would be AD/BC. However, I also understand that to some it must be galling to write effectively 'In the year of our Lord' when they themselves do not recognise any such Lord. For myself, I have no problem with AD/BC, despite being an atheist; Western dates are whether we like it or not linked to the perceived birth of Jesus and I'm quite happy to play along with convention on this one. I have no big objections to using the comprimise position BC/BCE and AD/CE, but I think just BCE/CE by themselves have too great a potential to confuse. TimTim 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This vote has apparently been ongoing for a month and a half. Isn't it bloody wll time to close the polls and salute the winner? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If we do, I would only request that some sort of indication be made as to just how controversial the matter is. I'd personally go for a brief sentence at the top explaining which format was chosen and why, but might not be too upset at linking the first instance to Common Era or Anno Domini as appropriate, with an aka linking to the alternative. I also like the idea of not using either when not strictly necessary for disambiguation, as seems to be the current practice.... TrumpetPower! 02:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical vs Historicity

While this is locked and we can't start a new edit war, can someone please explain why we have two articles essentially about the historical background of Jesus? I always try to write for the layman and I really think most people would consider them the same thing. I certainly did until I got into this wiki. The problem is that when you are new you think you must be missing something and when you've been around for a few weeks you've got so used to it that you forget it ever puzzled you. The current Historical Jesus seems to take most of it's data from the NT so should be encompased in the Biblical Jesus article. The only bit that sticks out is the section on the synagogue of Nazareth which really looks as if it belongs here.

This article should be expanded to include examination of the events recorded in the Gospels such as the census, the existence of Bethlehem, the star of Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents etc. all of which should have been recorded by other sources. There are views and arguments on both sides for these events which if I was searching for information I would expect to find here. Thoughts and explainations most welcome. SOPHIA 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The existence of Bethlehem? You mean the existence of Nazareth? Paul B 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No I mean the existence of Bethlehem in Galilee [2]. SOPHIA 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus is supposed to be an account of Jesus in the cultural context of his time. The "Historicity" article is supposed to be about whether he was a real historical person, a conflation of real individuals plus myth, or a purely fictional/theological construct. Paul B 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that article be called a Historical construct of Jesus or something like that for clarity. Most people assume that a historical page has the undisputed historical data marked and the analysis and interpretation of that data also clearly marked. The current Historical Jesus refers in the main to biblical accounts of him with external contemporary social evidence used to fill this out. That is not how I understand a" history" of a subject as it is prone to POV assumptions. SOPHIA 10:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Sophia. "Historicity ..." is the proper title as this is what is disputed. Str1977 11:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push an agenda here other than the problems of keeping data in sync spread across multiple pages. I understand that there is a lot to say and it may not all fit into one page but the current Biblical Jesus page seems like a subset of the Historical Jesus. Maybe, since the bible is also a historical document (we can discuss for ever it's accuracy but it IS a histiorical document) the current small amount of different info in the Biblical Jesus page could be added to Historical Jesus and then redirected there. I think maybe I'll put a note on both those pages and see what's said. SOPHIA 12:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sophia, I am heartened by your classification of the Bible as a historical document (among other things), as too many people around here lately have denied this. I haven't looked into Biblical Jesus and don't know what it says. The title suggests a difference to Historical Jesus. The former is "Jesus as the NT potrays him", the latter is "Jesus as the historical craft can reconstruct him based on the sources, including the NT". Note that the latter is not identical to "Jesus, the real Jesus as he walked the face of the earth". But if the two articles say the same, there is no point in having two articles. And BJ can be included as "representation of what the primary sources say".

I didn't want to suggest that you were pushing an agenda. I was only honestly answering your suggestion. Str1977 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is an historical document - just not a reli=able or contemporary historical document - it is a secondary or tertiary source with a massive POV. Robsteadman 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That, Rob, might be your POV, but it's painting with a much too broad a brush. Some books of the Bible are contemporary to their events while others aren't, some are more reliable than others. The NT is contemporary to Jesus and the Apostles. All books of the Bible are primary sources. As for POV (I guess you are using the strictly-wikipedia term to denote they have a certain interpretation or view on things), well, every source (except for relics) has a view and the Bible has no more of a POV than other ancient or modern sources. Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The New TEstament is NOT contemporary to "jesus" that is false. Most books of the bible are NOT primary sources as they are written many decades after the events they "recount". To claim it is not POV is staggrering in its naivety. Robsteadman 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But the Bible is particularly holding a POV in relation to the subject matter of this article. It is a purpose of the New Testemant to convince its readers that Jesus both existed and was divine. While all sources may have a POV, they are not all holding a POV which relates to this topic, though it is perhaps true that the assumption of historicity affords a POV by default in any writing. --Myk 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said - we can still disagree over the bible's independence and accuracy : ) but seriously I would appreciate your view of the value of Biblical Jesus as an independent article. I used to be a data base administraitor and dislike having multiple copies of the same data as keeping them in sync is so difficult. I'm just going out but when I get back I'll take this to that page as it really should be there. SOPHIA 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I have taken a first glance at both articles and I don't think they ídentical. BJ (or rather New Testament view on Jesus' life gives an account of Jesus according the NT), while Historical Jesus discusses certain historical issues (birth place etc.) I will update you when I can say more. Str1977 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that these two articles should be merged - but then so should many of those explaining "jesus" from a "christian" angle. Basically there are TOO many articles about him! Robsteadman 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reasons for merging the two, as they cover two different perspectives. Or are you offended by "TOO many articles about" Jesus? Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No it just seems that there are such a vast number, nearly all with a POV and Wikipedia could do with streamlining and NPOV. Robsteadman 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the real issue. The only reason I've been looking at this is that we all agree (I think) that the NT is virtually the only early source of info on the life and teachings of Jesus (the later stuff is about christianity and christian theology). To have Historical Jesus and New Testament view on Jesus' life as separate articles almost implies that the NT is not a historical record of his life. I can see that the historical article has more external info in it to put the NT into context but the NT perspectives article does seem to follow a very similar chronological format of the events in his life. If there is different info in them you could ask why as if the NT is pretty much the sole source for the details all the important stuff should be the same. The one section on the Synagogue at Nazareth seems more appropriate here. Setting aside personal POV's as to what is true etc... (I see this as a wikipedia data integrity issue) is there really a case for separate articles? I don't want Rob to hijack the agenda here - this is not about streamlining wikipedia or reducing the number of Jesus articles. For me it's about making sure there is minimal data duplication as it's a nightmare to keep the copies in sync. What's "true"and what's POV etc....etc... are completely seperate problems. If it's going to be controversial or start more bad feeling edits I'll leave well alone. I really wasn't trying to stir up problems. I'm aware I do look at things in a simplistic data lead way which may not be appropriate in this case. SOPHIA 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Historical Jesus" refers to the so-called "Jesus Quest", which started in the 19th century (pretty much), included scholars such as Albert Schweitzer, and is seen today in the works of people like the Jesus Seminar. They're all trying to "demythologize" or, better put, "detheologize" Jesus to get a "real" picture of what the man was like. The article may not deal with this issue well, but the phrase "Historical Jesus" has a long and specific history in academia. My two cents. Go Steelers! KHM03 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I did guess there was some back story to the current article splits and it's interesting to find out what it is. If it's generally agreed then they are the best classifications then they should stand. I started out questioning historicity vs historical but I on further thought I'm really asking why there seem to be two different historical articles when the core data of each comes from the same source (I'm referring to BJ and historical J here). I don't want to flog a horse if it's truely dead but I'll go and have a thorough look at them both and post my thoughts on those pages. Thanks for the info KHM03. SOPHIA 10:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe that the articles are meant to cover different perspectives, but over time the distinctions between the articles have blurred. When I went through the Talk:Jesus archives I noticed that this article forked from from Jesus under the title "Jesus and textual evidence." Why was it renamed? The title is close enough to Historical Jesus to cause confusion. 07:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes,it confuses some people. But that's why we have the italiciased explanation at the top. Paul B 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)||||

Beyond the titles, I just want be sure that we apply the italicized explanations (in this and related articles) consistently. There is some overlap that may be redundant; such data should be fully explained in one article and summarized in other relevant articles based on the italicized criteria. (Although there might be some debate as to how to do that.) Arch O. La 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

non-Christian writings

These need to be at the beginning, since they are the best evidence that he really existed. The people who wrote them had no motive to have made it up, so they are more likely to be true.

Nonsensical, you say there are non-Christian writings regarding Jesus, meaning that non-Christians accept his existence. Doesn't that verify that Jesus did indeed exist? If so, then the Christian writings wouldn't be POV in believing that he existed but would be more precise and observant, therefore more reliable. Darwiner111 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. See what the non-Christian texts say. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitor. It's like saying that Muslim writings about Muhammad are likely to be "more precise and observant, therefore more reliable" than non-Muslim writings, and this is because non-Muslims accept that he existed. Paul B 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

for review and comments prior to me making edits

Non originality as evidence of fictional creation from copying. For example, Mithra was a figure who was born on Dec. 25th of a virgin, died, and was resurrected, had 12 apostles etc...and his existence predates jesus by several centuries.

There are no references or documents to Jesus having even existed until AT LEAST a centry and a half AFTER he supposedly died.

This and everything else we know point to Jesus being yet another mythical creation in the same way that, say, Hercules is.

There is nothing to show that the Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe.

Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the best works written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ."

How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

And, isnt it strange that after his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world?

On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion?

Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ -- the human element as well as the divine -- is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.

If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth -- a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead.

John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him.

Philo, one of the most renowned Jewish writers was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

Giovanni33 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, once again.

• You can very well hold to the belief that this is all fabrication, but it's not a scholarly one. Maybe existence is imagination, maybe, it's not impossible. But is it likely? If we followed your logic we would assumed that nothing ever happened. Granted, there are writers who claim it is all a fake. But who believes them.
• We have as sources: Paul's letters written in the 50s (which closes down the margin to 20 years), we have the gospels whose dates are arguable. But the most common dating is from Mark (shortly before the fall the Temple) to John (100). 150 years after the events is nonsense (that would make 180 AD) - we have actual pieces of John's gospel dating to 120.
• But most of all, there is absolutely no reason for believing that Jesus didn't live. And it's the best explanation for the existence of both Christianity and the NT.
• The testimony of the apostles is far more trustworthy than Caesar writing about this conquests etc. But even if untrustworthy, there first has to be something before you can speak falsely about it.
• Since you bring up Mithra, tell me please when Mithra lived and died? Under whom? Both the number 12 as the date of 25 December (winter solistice) are cross-cultural phenomena, if not Mithraism copied from Christianity.
• It isn't strange that Jesus vanishes out the story (not existence) as a boy growing up isn't that exciting. You can give anecdotes and Luke gives one but noone wants to read about the everyday stuff. You ask for historical characters: Socrates, Caesar
• If you don't understand the symbolism of the lamb go and ask for help. And what the "crucified ass" graffitti?
• "Miracles do not happen", says Giovanni. Can you be sure. And even if they could not happen, that'd be irrelevant on this issue. Do you doubt the existence of Caesar because of his aposteosis?
• "the fact that history has not even recorded his name" is not a fact but a fantasy, as the sources are abundant. You cannot first deny all sources for spurious reasons and then decry the absence of sources. Remsburg's list is irrelevant, as is is "argumentum e silentio" or rather from "partial silence", as you forget the authors you mentioned Jesus (Gospels, Paul, rest of NT, Josephus, Tacitus, Sueton)
• Philo is only a special case of this "partial silence" fallacy. Philo lived in Alexandria ("His home was in or near Jerusalem") and died 40 AD ("lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died"). In the year 40 Christianity was still a small sect, so it is not that likely that Philo had seen any of them.

So to sum up, Giovanni gives a great list of logical fallacies, misplaced positivism, inaccurate information and a complete lack of understanding of the historical craft. Thank you very much. Str1977 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence to support your claims of those dates? The gospel accounts are unreliability as the historical documentation is often biased and second-hand, and dates far after the events described. Also, the Gospel accounts are neither objective nor accurate, since they were written or compiled by religious followers and exclusively portray a positive, idealized view of Jesus. As a general rule, people do not believe in divine intervention or miracles. Maybe you do, but if you do you can believe in anything! Giovanni33 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The burden is on you to provide anything whatsoever to back up your completely wild assertion, that nothing was written until 180 AD. It's generally acknowledged that by that time, most of the Early Church Fathers had already been written, let alone the New Testament. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I hardly have time to comment on your most extraordinary claims. Very briefly, there are numerous scholars who for an early dating of the New Testament. I can mention, for example, William Most, Jean Carmignac, Claude Tresmontant, and John A.T. Robinson. The theory of a later date seems to have originated when some liberal scholars decided that since the Gospels tell us that Jesus predicted the Fall of Jerusalem, and since he couldn't possibly have been able to predict that, the Gospels must have been written at a later date. You say that Walter R. Cassels's book is "one of the best works written on the origins of Christianity". Who says it is? Isn't that a bit POV? Could you not just qualify it with "in my opinion" or something like that.

With regard to your "Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue" statement, and your little dig about Str1977 believing in anything, you possibly don't read Chesterton. In fact, you almost certainly don't. He said that when a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes in anything. Perhaps I shouldn't do this, since I've already asked you not to post long quotes from other pages and websites here, but I'll make it short, and I don't have a habit of it:

For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot imagine, nor can anybody tell me. For some inconceivable cause a "broad" or "liberal" clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the number of miracles; it never means a man who wishes to increase that number. It always means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ came out of His grave; it never means a man who is free to believe that his own aunt came out of her grave. It is common to find trouble in a parish because the parish priest cannot admit that St. Peter walked on water; yet how rarely do we find trouble in a parish because the clergyman says that his father walked on the Serpentine? . . . The man of the nineteenth century did not disbelieve in the Resurrection because his liberal Christianity allowed him to doubt it. He disbelieved in it because his very strict materialism did not allow him to believe it. (Chesterton: Orthodoxy, Chapter 8.[3])

Its easy to answer Chesterdon. It's not an extraordinary at all to explain the reasons...its just plain rationality. One should have evidence to support ones claims, facts and logical reasoning, intead of faith, which is blind in nature and is based in irrational thinking. Its more liberal because freedoms from using the power or reason to defeat dogmatism, and arbitrary power was part of the emancipatory movement of the enlightenment,and its moral advancements in humanism. Unsupported claims that did not stand up to the power of reason, such as miracles, came under heavy attack during the Enlightenment, and led to liberal Christians following in this tradition. This also was part of the rise of science. Miracles are a violations of well established laws of nature. Unless shown otherwise by strong evidence, the rationalism dictates that we should hold such violations an impossibility. Materialism is the foundation of all science, it's not just a POV. Matter is the crown of existence. It's proven daily and has proven itself through the ages, the foundation of all progress. If it were not for this we'd still be in the dark ages, mired in the swamps of superstition. Giovanni33 06:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Str1977 believes in anything. I see a certain amount of evidence that he checks sources carefully, and studies and reflects on things. You, on the other hand, recently inserted into an article that Galileo was tortured. Every modern reputable history book that deals with that case will tell you that Galileo was not tortured. I'm not a historian, and I knew that he wasn't tortured. But you found a quotation that said he was, and apparently accepted it immediately as something appropriate for the article. And now, you seem to have unquestioningly accepted that the Gospels were written around 180. It's strange that you can use the expression "blind faith" about Christians. Isn't there a bit of blind faith in your unquestioning reliance on the accuracy of criticism of Christianity?

And, by the way, didn't Josephus mention Jesus? I have a copy somewhere in the house. AnnH ^(talk) 03:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, your proposed edits are utter nonsense. Your materialist supposition is a philosophical POV, and is in no way neutral or "obvious to all right thinking people" as you seem to suppose. As other have written, your points contradict nearly all scholarship on the subject. Take it to http://www.infidels.org where your POV is more at home, unless you're borrowing your material from them in the first place. Wesley 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's some support I offer. I disagree its utter nonesense. I think you calling that is what is utter nonsense, esp. my views on miracles. hehe Yes, I like infidels.org, and I think they belong here, too, but in NPOV language. The fact is that many secular schoalars believe that "Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.” In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical.

The other positions holds that th believe that "Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.” A natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional—made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. This is the “pure-myth” position.

There are many many atheist and freethinkers sites that argue this stance like: http://www.eastbayatheists.org/jesusneverwas.html and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/creation.html

I find it inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus' life. Writing was common at the time, yet an extensive search by many scholars over centuries has turned up nothing. The very few references to Jesus that allegedly date back to his lifetime are clearly forgeries, forged no doubt hundreds of years later by people who realized this embarrassing lack of evidence needed to be rectified Dee Joseph Wheless Forgery in Christianity [4]

Here are mainstream views and sources which lend support. So much for my views contradicting "all scholarship on the matter." False. What follows are mainstream, accepted scholarhip.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html

http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/

I do know the estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly, and the 150 date I gave is on one end of the spectrum, some even saying 170AD. Its not nonsense. You should know the evidence for any of the dates is scanty at best. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view

Luke: c. 80–100

John: c. 90–110. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

As the mainstream scholars point out,

"A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. "[5]

"Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark."

Authorship questions also point to lack of veracity. Its the majority academic position that the Gospels were written and/or edited by people other than the disciples for whom they are named. Also, how about the vast number and types of gospels? During the 2nd century, writing gospels became practically a "cottage industry." It was Irenaeus, who became the bishop of Lyon, who in about the year 180 CE, suggested that the proper number of gospels should be only four. He invoked a curious logic: there are four corners to the earth, there are four winds, there are four beasts of the apocalypse. See:[6]

""The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position." From the PBS Frontline special on the Gospels. "

"Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark..."

Allen D. Callahan, Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School Says the Gospels are not eye witness accounts.

"If you take the gospels as a factual account of the life of Jesus, they're not all in sync... Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way.

Are you saying that the gospels are of little value as eye witness accounts of his life?

Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns...,

Among other things, they were writing for an audience, or audiences, who already knew something about Jesus; there was a market out there for their literature, and in order to engage that market, they really had to write about somebody that people knew about. They wanted to tell more about a figure about whom people already knew. "

Gospesls are stories for Moral Edification, not literal in any way. Harold W. Attridge, The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School

"At the time when the gospels were written, how did people read those documents? Did they read them the way we read a newspaper or a piece of history, at least with the hope, that is the factual rendition or are they reading it at a different level?

Most of the people in the early Christian movement couldn't read so they wouldn't have been reading the gospels....

Early Christians certainly read scripture allegorically, understanding it to refer to some kind of so-called higher realities that weren't really present in the text itself.

Since the Christians wanted to retain the Hebrew Bible as their scripture... it was necessary for them to make certain interpretive gestures to try to rein in the meaning of the Hebrew Bible text.

Most of the early Christians certainly would think that the gospel stories happened. They did have problems because there are so many discrepancies among and between the gospel stories which they themselves could notice, but they had a hard time perhaps putting them all together in what we would consider a literal kind of way. Basically, early Christians wanted to use these stories for moral edification. For a general message about salvation. Jesus lived. He died. He saved us from our sins. There's going to be an end to the world on judgment. A few basic phrases like that..."

John Dominic Crossanm Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University

How do the four gospels evolve then?

"The first gospel, Mark, is around the year 70. So within 70 and, say, 95, we have the four gospels. 25 years. But that leaves 70 to 30. 40 years before that. If you watch the creativity within that 25 year span, from Mark being copied into Matthew and Luke, possibly also by John, then you have to face the creativity of that 40 years, even when you don't have written gospels. And that may be equally intense."

This sounds extremely unreliable as evidence.

Did oral tradition play a part in preserving the traditions of the early movement?

"Oral tradition is something that we have rather abused, I think, in scholarship. If you take, for example, the common material behind the Q gospel and the Gospel of Thomas, there's 37 sayings without any order so this is not a document of any type. Who is preserving it? The people who are living like Jesus, the itinerants who are trying to follow the life of Jesus. They are interested in these stories, not just because of oral tradition, but because it justifies their lifestyle. So whenever somebody says oral tradition, I want to say, "Could you show it to me? I know you can't show me oral tradition, but can you show it to me some way in the text, or at least, in the lifestyle of somebody who would have cared about it?" Otherwise we have a free-floating oral tradition that is becoming kind of meaningless. "

What do the gospels have in common? Is it possible to say what they do share?

"What the gospels do share, of course, is Jesus. But that is almost trivial to say that. Because they are interested in not simply repeating Jesus. They are interested in interpreting Jesus. Matthew, even when he has Mark in front of him, will change what Jesus says. And that's what's most important for me, to understand the mind of an evangelist. It is that Matthew is saying, "I will change Mark so that Mark's Jesus speaks to my people." Now, there's a logic to his change. He's not just changing it to be difficult. He will change Mark, but what Jesus says in Mark does not make sense to Matthew's people.... What is consistent about the gospels is that they change consistent with their own theology, with their own communities' needs. They do not change at random. If you begin to understand how Matthew changes Mark, you see it worked again and again and again. You don't have to make up a different reason for every change. Once you understand Matthew's theology, you can almost predict how he will change."

How significant and discrediting to belief are the differences between the four gospels?

"For somebody who thinks the four gospels are like four witnesses in a court trying to tell exactly how the accident happened, as it were, this is extremely troubling. It is not at all troubling to me because they told me, quite honestly, that they were gospels. And a gospel is good news ... "good" and "news" ... updated interpretation. So when I went into Matthew, I did not expect journalism. I expected gospel. That's what I found. " John Dominic Crossanm Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies DePaul University

To recap the common sense point. Where's all the historical evidence, esp. any from non-Christian propagandists? Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus. The historical evidence is overwhelming—the Jesus of the Bible never existed.

Absence of evidence, is usually not evidence of absence, i.e. in general a mere lack of evidence is not sufficient to conclude a proposition is false. We must also demonstrate: 1. All of the evidence used to support the proposition is untenable. 2. Adequate tenable evidence should exist. 3. A thorough search for this tenable evidence has been made and none has been found.

We can not prove that Jesus never existed, just as we can not prove that Santa Claus never existed. Quite a lot of people believe Santa Claus exists, but at least they are mostly young. hehe 64.121.40.153 05:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I don't have the time to address all of your posts (Hamlet II.2.192), so just a few points.

• The dates I provided (and which you confirmed) are indeed the consensus among Biblical scholars, while there also those who date them earlier (Robinson). Your dates are old news from the 19th century.
• You are demandind something of sources that cannot be provided for anything. But you do not doubt the existence of any other event or person.
• I will not go into the points about accuracy, as even an inaccurate source gives evidence for the existence of what it talks about.
• You say that many people believe in Santa Claus (meaning the bearded man coming down the chimney, not him). Granted. So it shouldn't surprise you that there are some people that believe in the non-existence of Jesus. That's the atheist version of the Flat Earth Society - there are some but no one really takes them seriously.
• You are making the common sense point "Where's all the historical evidence" - now, where is any historical evidence for the non-existence of Jesus? There isn't any, while there are loads of evidence for his existence (to say the least).
• You rant about miracles, rationality and science. Science observes nature and extrapolates "laws" and models of how things happen. Miracles are not part of this and this is called "methodological materialism". However, you cannot use this methodological materialism to argue for a "philosophical materialism", which says that miracles cannot ever happen. Miracles are not common and are not what usually happens, but you don't have to be a rocket science to know this - people in the 1st century knew that much: that men do not walk on water and that dead people don't rise up again - usually. But if we have witnesses for that, we have to deal with it. You are free to hold your philosophical materialism and deny, or to disbelieve the witnesses, or to believe them. But don't say that one is more rational or even reasonable. Your point may be rationalistic but that is not the same.
• Since you speculated about my "beliefs" I will let you in a bit: Yes, I do believe in the possibility of miracles. Not that I see a miracle (in the strict sense) everywhere, but I don't rule out the possibility. You devoutly believe in the impossibility of miracles. That, in the end, makes me a skeptic and you a believer.

Str1977 09:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you ignored my addressing your point or didnt see it before you responded. I stated that th absence of evidence, is usually not evidence of absence, i.e. in general a mere lack of evidence is not sufficient to conclude a proposition is false. That is true. However, if also demonstrate: 1. All of the evidence used to support the proposition is untenable. 2. Adequate tenable evidence should exist. 3. A thorough search for this tenable evidence has been made and none has been found, then my argument stands. Giovanni33 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No miracle? Everything is explained by human science? Nope... Life is a miracle. An Orange tree is a miracle. (etc.) To carry Giovanni's skepticism to its logical end, how could one "prove" that anything exists at all, and is not really a hallucination, or "maya" -- even oneself? There has to be an anchor somewhere, and for most, that is the Force that controls the Universe... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seem you and Str1977 disagree about what is a miracle. He says they are rare and does not point to anything we can look at, yet you make the opposite claim--that they are the most common events around us, i.e. life, and orange tree, etc. Maybe you need to define what you mean by miracle. It certainly doesnt fit with the conventional definition of a violation of a genuine natural law. Incase your wondering science gives natural explanations for these common events and they are in keeping with natural laws of the universe. Infact, if you understood how science worked, and the nature of how these natural laws come to be, then you would realize that a miracle is really a logical impossibility. As far as proving anything, its true there is no abosolute proof, there is only evidence, including very strong evidence that support understandings, and which nothing diputes it so far so we hold the phenonomen to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. That is why truth in science is tentative and always open to looking at any evidence. Its not dogmatic.

As the mainstream biblical scholars I quote above were saying, the bible are products of story tellers with a purpose. This best explains the "evidence" of miracles, and a rational mind would not take them as literal. They are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with an artistic theological flavor. They are stories inspired by faith and goodness that bring about wonder and surprise in the listener. Persons become bigger than life, and certainly more memorable. Miracle, wonder, and magic stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary. In the world of miracle, wonder and faith the imposssible become the possible. Through bravery and courage, charity, sacrifice and reason Good always triumps over evil. Study your mythology.

To be more specific these accounts of miracles is in a genre of literature is what we call a "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such literature was also a tool of propaganda.

Str1977 says that he believes in the accounts of the miracles because of the eyewitness accounts. Lets take the resurection of Jesus in the flesh, an event placed some time between 26 and 36 A.D. For this we have only a few written sources near the event, all of it sacred writing, and entirely pro-Christian. Pliny the Younger was the first non-Christian to even mention the religion, in 110 A.D., but he doesn't mention the resurrection. No non-Christian mentions the resurrection until many decades later--Lucian, a critic of superstition, was the first, writing in the mid-2nd century, and likely getting his information from Christian sources. So the evidence is not what any historian would consider good, even if one wanted to take these stories literally.

In fact we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians. And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.

In ancient times belief in miracles to create faith, is understandable. Superstition was very high along with ignorance. But that excuse doensn't hold true today, so this makes it irrational. Then, only a small class of elite well-educated men adopted more skeptical points of view, who belonged to the upper class and could afford books. Their skepticism was scorned by the common people. Plutarch laments how doctors were willing to attend to the sick among the poor for little or no fee, but they were usually sent away, in preference for the local wizard. By modern standards, almost no one had any sort of education at all, and there were no mass media disseminating scientific facts in any form. By the estimates of William Harris, author of Ancient Literacy [1989], only 20% of the population could read anything at all, fewer than 10% could read well, and far fewer still had any access to books. Only the rich had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which there were few. The result was that the masses had no understanding of science or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled, nor even interested, in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like that of the Gospels: utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class society--even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life. Who wouldn't have bought a ticket to that lottery? Opposition arose mainly from prior commitments to other dogmas, not reason or evidence. But, what is the excuse today for holding on to this? Clealry it is in an abandonment of rational thought. 64.121.40.153 17:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Looks like I was signed out when I left the above message. Giovanni33 03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To reply briefly, I will just say that science as you have presented here is very dogmatic philosophically in that it insists on philosophical materialism, the premise that everything that exists can be explained through "natural" physical processes. Not all scientists hold this philosophy, nor have they. Many recognize the philosophical limits of scientific research and recognize them, while still applying the scientific method to make additional advances in knowledge. Your historical analysis is clearly colored by your philosophical POV and its associated anti-religious bigotry. Don't expect it to be published here as though it were objective fact. Wesley 17:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Science, as I have presented it, is the antithesis of dogmatism. As I stated science is tentative pending evidence that support or alters its understandings. If flexible within the paramaters of what the facts tell us. It doesn’t base itself on any absolute truths. That is what dogmatism is about and that is what Christianity bases itself on--absolute truth. The fact that I correctly state that naturalism (materialism) is the basis of all science, it's the starting point in both it's assumptions and methodology is a fact--matter is the crown of existence. Saying this is true and and only describes what science is, it does not make it dogmatism unless you think looking at the observable material universe, relying on what the evidence tells us only is what dogmatism is about. I suggest you review what the word means becuase you have it backwards. Dogmatism means making an authoritative assertion of unproved or unprovable principles, and esp. holding on to such beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. I stated that science's is based on the doctrine of materialism--that that all that exists is composed of or somehow derived from matter - in other words, that there is nothing that is completely independent of matter/energy. Science relies upon this methodological naturalism which assumes that everything is "natural" (material) because that's the only way it can operate; it does not, even try to demonstrate that it is "true" in a metaphysical sense, it just works, being rooted in logic and appeals to evidence, and rationality. Science does not even consider supernatural explanations since they are not rational, i.e. based on an appeal to reason as supported by the evidence.

Yes, I say there is no supernatural. That is a fiction, which if you want to believe is fine but it has no place in science. That is what makes religion religion--supernatural explanations. It doesn’t matter that some scientists may personally hold to some articles of faith (most do not)--it simply doesn't apply in their work in science, which rejects such an approach as anti-scientific. Sure the ideas may occur in people's minds, but that is still a function of matter, of matieralism, as all the evidence has always pointed to, and which there is no scientific evidence that points to non-materialist notions such as dualism. None. Zero.

Do we ever find any theists addressing any of the scientific evidence that does exist to support their claims? Or, for example, see any discussion about how mystical and religious experiences can be induced physically? Nope.

You may not like these facts but an ignorance of what science is based on doesn't make it what I said untrue, even less so bigoted. I notice you like to throw that word around. If anything your anti-scientific view rooted in irrationality is a what is associated with long history of religious bigotry against those who prefer to use reason. Giovanni33 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Science does base itself an assumption: that the only reliable way to acquire knowledge is through the evidence of our senses. This works well for learning about the material universe, but when a scientist says that this is all there is to know, they are stepping outside of science into the realm of philosophy, namely metaphysics, and taking a philosophical position as a given. In this sense they are being philosophically "dogmatic" in these sense that this is a given that is not open to debate. I agree that the supernatural has no place in science; I also think that the supernatural does have a place in reality. Of course there cannot be scientific proof of supernatural phenomena, any more than there could be visual proof of sounds or audible proof of color. It may be "good science" to assume there is no supernatural, but it is poor philosophy. More importantly for editing here though, it is but one POV. Wesley 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the WP:NPA policy includes among banned editing behaviour, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Please avoid both this and other forms of personal attacks. Wesley 06:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything in your reply above that I disagree with in regards to what Science is. And, I maintain that my view of what science is not dogmatic. Your point seems to be saying that my adopting the philosophy of Science, though, is where the dogmatism lies. No, its only dogmatic if I do not open myself up to the arguments and consider the arguments of the idealists. I don't do that. I just state that the assumptions science uses is far superior as is evidenced by its achievements in creating knowledge, whereas the religious method (idealism, denial of matter as primary, etc) is interesting as a POV but largely discredited given its metaphysical claims have yet to be supported by any evidence (that I know of), and that its suppositions are not logical. This is not poor philosophy, its good philosophy, which is why science assumes this approach. It’s not logical to assume the existence of a mystical force that is independent of matter to try to explain things when a materialist explanation is readily available. The logical principal of Occams Razor, which is relied about in science support this as well. Again, not poor philosophy, not dogmatic, just good philosophy. And, ofcourse it’s a POV. I never said otherwise. However, it should be stated that the POV of miracles existing is not on par with the POV of science, its fringe, and has no evidence and therefore is righly rejected by academia. And, thanks for pointing out the NPA policy because that is exactly what others have been doing to me--dismissing my views on the basis of it not being mainstream but "extreme." Giovanni33 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio is always being blasted for stepping out side of his expertise area and I'm afraid Wesley it's a warning you should take to heart. I cannot with my senses detect neutrinos but I can devise experiments that will convert their presence into something my senses can detect. The MOST important thing is that this "evidence" will only be accepted by the scientific community if other people can replicate my results. A scientific theory (take String theory) can be considered fringe and erroneous but as soon as it's potential value is recognised it moves to the mainstream (a string theory lecturer at my very small uni who had moved around quite a lot to secure funding is now a professor at Oxford). No house arrest, no posthumous appology. It's still not "proven" but it's seen as a valuable view to explain physical phonomena. Some still think it's wrong and are developing alternative theories. If it's proven wrong at any point it will be discarded and another theory will become front runner. This is not seen in terms of heresy and orthodoxy but as the natural evolution of ideas. Wherever there are people you will always get politics so there are some shameful examples of suppression of ideas for personal promotion but these cover ups do not last for very long because all this debate happens in the public domain so anyone is free to follow up what they choose.

Unlike religion, science has no "back story" that must be adhered to at all time. If you can, as Einstein did, show that our view of the world is in error then the scientific community (after verifying) will rewrite the rule books. Even if you can't prove you are right, if there seems to be some value in this new view, others will take your theory and develop it. Religion looks backwards all the time to check that any new development in society conforms to what was taught thousands of years ago whether it's revenant or not.

It's easy to see why science and religion clash. It's easy to see why who use the scientific method have problems on these pages. I've seen so many times the lack of documentation for the existence of Jesus backed up by the "well look at the influence and all these Christians" comments and "you can't prove other historical figures exist". A scientist will take a theory and apply it in new situations to test it's validity. I would say well that makes buddism, islam, hinduism, jews .... etc just as "true". In dealing with a non religious figure, a historian "who doesn't" have his entire belief system hanging on it will admit the verifiable proof is nonexistant, and concede that he may be wrong. He will justify his position by his interpretation of the availible data using contextural evidence but I doubt that he would get away with using that to have huge impacts on people's lives and the world (appologies to the RC's but the situation on birth control and AIDS in Africa is deplorable).

The supernatural will have a place in science when it's effects can be demonstrated by the scientific method. That day may not be far off if you look at current research [7] [8] but I don't think it's the place it wants. SOPHIA 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, this is not about science, it's about history. History is not a science. We can't do a series of repeated experiments to provide explanatory models for historical events. Events only happen once, and they leave traces of various kinds. We build models of what is likely to have happened of varying degrees of reliability based on a set of guidelines built up from other known evidence and experience about the reliability of these traces. On that basis, we look at the details in the Gospels and ask whether it is likely that the authors would - could - have made up a person called Jesus and placed him in the local context of religio-political struggle of the time. As far as a I know, there are no examples of any comparable complete inventions of people in a realistic context like this in the ancient world. It happens all the time nowadays, since the invention of the novel, but it's not a feature of ancient culture. So we conclude that it's likely that he existed - but its not proven. We also see the context of messainaic prophesy and so are aware that believers in the messainic identity of Jesus will want to fit him into these prophesies, especially given the intensity of their desire to believe in forthcoming divinely-inspired world-shattering changes. We can be fairly confident that such beliefs were widespread and that they fuelled the Jewish rebellion a few decades after Jesus's death. We also know that there are many examples of stories about people that can develop very rapidly into myths about their lives and actions. It happens all the time. Stories of miracles are also commonplace. Even figures like Muhammad and Buddha who never claimed to have miraculous powers were quickly credited with miracles. So we may reasonably be sceptical of such claims, but cannot rule them out, since they are not capable of either proof or disproof. We have to stop going off on tangents here about science etc and just try to summaries the arguments of all sides in the debate. Paul B 12:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are both right. The study of history is not anti-scientific. Hitory is part of the social sciences, not arts. The social sciences do emphasize the use of the scientific method and rigorous standards of evidence in the study of humanity, including quantitative and qualitative methods. Sure it might seem “less scientific” than the natural sciences, but is only because of the nature of the subject matter. My point it that its in keeping with the scientific method to reject claims if miracles. The fact that a document claims miracles gives us evidence about the nature of that historical documents per the scientific approach that also guides the study of history. That is why the mainstream of scholars on the gospels I reference above agree with me. As I show, they say the the bible are products of story tellers with a purpose. This best explains the "evidence" of miracles, and a logical mind would not interpret this literally or true. They are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with an artistic theological flavor. They are stories inspired by faith and goodness that bring about wonder and surprise in the listener. Persons become bigger than life, and certainly more memorable. Miracle, wonder, and magic stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary. In the world of miracle, wonder and faith the imposssible become the possible. Through bravery and courage, charity, sacrifice and reason Good always triumps over evil. Its all basic mythology, and in a genre of literature is what called "hagiography," a sacred account of a holy person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal. Such a genre had as its principal aim the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus. Such literature was also a tool of propaganda. Giovanni33 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni playing peacemaker - we are definitely off at a tangent. Seriously though Paul does have a point when he talks about historical events happening only once and being nonreplicable. However historical events do fall into categories. It was nothing new at that time to have religious cults based around messianic miracle working figures as Giovanni has demonstrated at some length : ) however the one unique event in it's history is the fact that it got adopted by the worlds only superpower at the time which happened to excel at standardising and organising and distributing that standard view. Someone once put a post when I was new on the historical page about adding a section on the state of the jewish nation at the time as they were increasingly desperate for a messiah. This could be interesting as I've read the same ideas myself. I've got some references on this angle but has anyone else got anything? SOPHIA 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, a lot of work has been done on that subject at cultural and historical background of Jesus. That page should be linked or mentioned prominently on the Jesus article, but I'm not sure it still is. Wesley \

Regarding Giovanni33's point about miracles, I think we at least agree that philosophical materialism is a POV; namely, that the evidence of our senses (and yes, by extension scientific instruments that extend the range of our senses) are the only way to acquire knowledge about the universe. It's nice that Giovanni33's confident about it, but it cannot be presented as the POV of wikipedia without violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. Sorry. That means that wikipedia cannot assume miracles did not happen because they cannot happen, although of course it can and should cite academics who make this sort of claim. Wesley 05:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Gio's willingness to talk about this here. But, I'm not sure I understand all that he proposes. The "unoriginality" factor doesn't seem a big deal for me. We can mention it, but I don't think a long section is called for (historians might mention it as an aside and move on to more "hard" material). The Synpotic Gospels were first century documents; almost all scholars agree on that (Mark dating from around 70 AD/CE, Matthew & Luke a decade or two later). So, for us to suggest otherwise would fly in the face of critical consensus, and we ought not do that. Paul's letters date from around 50 or go AD/CE...even earlier...and while they contain little in terms of biographical info, they certainly suggest that Jesus existed. The cross idea goes back at least to Paul, only a few decades after the event (pretty good in terms of ancient sources). No, we can't say much about miracles (were they supernatural? wondrous explanations of natural events? historians can't say) or about the Resurrection, obviously. But we also need to stick with the scholarly consensus...the Gospels were 1st century, Jesus did exist...while mentioning other views. This would be an appropriate article to discuss those other ideas, even while mentioning that they aren't the dominant views of scholars. KHM03 11:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A note on life expectancy

The article makes the point that life expectancy around the time and place of Jesus was in the mid-twenties. It has to be kept in mind that this figure is life expectancy at birth, and as such is skewed by high infant mortality; around 25% died before one year. Those who survived early childhood could reasonably expect to live into their forties and many lived beyond (as in the well-known Psalms 90:10). Thus while 28 years may be formally correct, it is not relevant to the context of "living memory" in which it appears in the article. mascarasnake 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Psalms 90:10 is surely poetic, it is not saying that that was life expectancy then. I don;t think poetic licence can be counted a s factRobsteadman 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Psalm is poetic but it would use these figures if they were highly unrealistic. But anyway, life expectancy is mere statistics and of no value. There always were men living up to high ages. See Snake's comments about the statistical make up of the figure and mine about the relevance of such a figure. And what is this to proof anyway? That Jesus couldn't possibly exist because he was 7+30=37 years old at his crucifixion, too old as he was 9 years past life expectancy? My grand-mother died at 90, my great grand mother at 98 - so they are just inventions because the lived way past 80? Give me a break! Str1977 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is that ALL the gospel writers would have had to have hugely exceeded life expectancy (and written in a foreign language despite being fishermen, etc.) if they were written by the disciples themselves or by eyewitnesses. Robsteadman 23:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know where this statistic comes from, but it's almost certainly based on infant mortality, which makes it irrelevant to adult life spans. Nowadays parents have few children, most of whom survive. In those days parents typically had many children, a few of whom survived. The upshot was probably much the same in terms of numbers reaching adulthood, though probably more families would have multiple adult children then than in the West now. Yes, they were still more likely to die of disease, injury or violence before old age, but a substantial number made it through, and there were certainly many people who made it to their sixties and seventies ("three score years and ten"), and some who made it to their eighties. The gospel of Mark is traditionally supposed to have been written by a non-disciple, as is Luke. Matthew is traditionally ascribed to the most "middle class" of the apostles, but that ascription is weak. John claims to be by the youngest of the disciples, who lived to an advanced age and who was widely believed during his lifetime to have been made immortal. Some scholars find special-pleading and elements of embarrassment in the Johanine texts, given they have to account for the fact that he eventually died. Paul B 11:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I see, but I don't agree.

Only one of the gospels actually claims to be an eyewitness account (John), while one actually says the opposite (Luke). You might draw arguments from this for their reliabilty and stuff, but I can't see how this leads to a non-existing Jesus. Str1977 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, such a statistical figure is both questionable about its origin and irrelevant when talking about individuals. What is life expectancy today? Eighty? But still we have those that are 100 years old. Str1977 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Many arguments about life expectancy are statistically wrong. The nature of life expectancy has changed, but it has changed in one respect and not another. Life expectancy has changed. Lifespan has not. The Psalmist is referring to lifespan, which is the length to which one lives if one's life is not cut short. That is still approximately 70 to 80 years. In the past, some people lived to 70 to 80, and then died "of old age". That is still true. The only difference is that fewer people fail to reach old age. People who survive to age 70 or 80 tend to live the same length as they always did, and a few live past that. It is not implausible that John lived from 10 AD to survive a persecution in 96 AD. Robert McClenon 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The reliance on life-expectancy statistics in a historical context often bothers me. In my researches in 16thC. history, my subjects (mostly well-off) commonly lived to their mid-60's and 70's, with a few reaching 100 years. Not unlike today. I never come across research that backs up cited statistics, and to rely on them to discount the survival of a particular man into old age is simply daft.--shtove 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Citations needed" tag on nonexistence hypothesis

We're working on such citations in the main Jesus article. Also see Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios. Arch O. La 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Attitude that the accounts are "entirely" historical...

This article states that some number of scholars (mostly, but not always, Christian) see the accounts (Gospels?) as mostly or entirely historically accurate. Could the kind of people who view the Resurrection and all that as historical events be called "scholars" in this matter? I don't think too many people who don't worship the guy believe that he rose from the dead. elvenscout742 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true. While most scholars maintain that there is certainly historical truth in the Gospel accounts, they can say little about the Resurrection or miracles, etc. KHM03 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Any scholar who believes the Gospels to be entirely true will, of necessity, be a Christian, since belief in the absolute accuracy of the Gospels entails Christianity, whether as an effect or a cause of such belief. Still, it's true that there are scholars who believe that there is reliable evidence for the Resurrection. Obviously they are all Christians. Paul B 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But many of them don't believe the Gospels are entirely true, did our discussion over that big committe of reaserchers get archived or is it still up there to look at? Homestarmy 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul, the resurrection is an event beyond the scope of the historical craft, which can neither confirm nor refute it. I know of no historian that claims that. But maybe you mean the empty tomb, which very well is a event "researchable" by historians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The most prominent exponent of this view is Tom Wright in his book on the subject [9] Paul B 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course a WP article and an Amazon description are too little to base an opinion on, but it seems to me that Mr Wright is a theologian (maybe with a historical training, maybe not) who essentially wrote an theological book, however based on historical research. The historical result would be the empty tomb, the religious explanation for that the resurrection. This is a bit of updating by theologians, many of which seem to a bit behind actual historical research, some of them still swearing on bygones like Bultmann. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The query was about the word "scholars", not about the word "historians". Wright is a distinguished scholar by anyone's standards. Yes, he is a theologian. He's the Bishop of Durham. As I said, anyone who believes that the Gospels are literally true in all respects must be a Christian by definition (Wright doesn't actually go that far). But the fact is that he is an important scholar and he believes that the best explanation for the NT stories of the Resurrection of Jesus is that they are true. You may, of course, take the view on evidential or philosophical grounds that he is wrong, or that "historians" cannot make such claims. I don't believe it myself, but that's neither here nor there. We can't arbitrarily declare what true historians must think, or what the limits of the discipline are. He's a respected scholar and an expert on the history of the period. His arguments need to be taken seriously. Paul B 11:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He also has a tremendous singing voice. KHM03 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul, if I have given you the impression that I object to citing Mr Wright I am sorry. I do not. As a historian I can say that there is more to reality than just what is historical - that goes for the present and for the past. I agree with Wright that go can scholarly conclude the resurrection as plausible, as the most plausible explanation of the historical fact "empty tomb" - saying that I have already moved beyond the realm of historicity, but not of reality. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus isn't real

and since this is wikipedia, we must respect NPOV by placing fringe lunatic secular agnostic aeitheis- prominant POVs such as theirs in a place that is as degrading to christians as possible--152.163.100.136 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That gave me a bit of a chuckle, but i've got to wonder, will this help? Homestarmy 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

what in the hell are you talking about? 69.71.166.93 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's some sort of joke. Homestarmy 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly References

If it would help, we have been accumulating scholarly references on this subject at the Jesus article. You all are welcome to copy them here. --CTSWyneken 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gospels as source

I made a change which Rossnixon rolled back. The gospels are a source. They do not contain sources. They contain text. If no one objects, I will roll back the change by Rossnixon. Eiler7 12:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rossnixon has a point. The Gospels are historical documents but the details within them are largely unconfirmed (or contradicted) by external contemporary sources. So I have to agree with Ross' revert. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not they are unconfirmed or contradicted is beside the point. The sources are not "contained within" the gospels, the gospels are the sources. Sources could only be "contained within" the gospels if the gospels were quoting other, earlier writers, or referring to documents or other evidence in some way, but they don't. They just make assertions. Paul B 14:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rossnixon and Sophia have a point. For one thing, the gospels are not independent of each other. The synoptics, in particular, have whole sections in common. Not only do they copy from each other (or from one or more common sources, depending on which theory you adhere to), but they disagree on some matters. In short, the situation is more complex than your summary admits to.

The bottom line is that the canonical gospels, taken as a whole, constitute at most one anonymous document of uncertain origin and timing, which can neither claim to be contemporaneous nor strongly supported by other sources. There's even reason to think that it's not independent from the second, non-fraudulent Josephus mention!

In short, I support Rossnixon's decision. Alienus 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's two anonymous documents: the basis of the synoptic Gospels (be that Q or whatever) and another basis found only in the Gospel of John. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be. There are, as I suggested a whole bunch of different theories. Some say the synoptics started with Mark, with new material added from oral or written histories to create the other two. Others trace all three to a common document, and then trace the quotes attributed to Jesus to Q. The list goes on and on. However, it's not clear whether these multiple anonymous and non-extant documents would help confirm a historical Jesus. For example, there's no particular reason to think that the quotes from Q were initially taken from the same person they were later attributed to. In fact, given their variation, Q might represent a collection of related traditions, not one persons' words. If all this makes the origins of the gospels sound like an unfanthomable mess then I've accurately relayed the facts of the matter. Alienus 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There in the original Markan narrative, Q, Special Luke, Special Matthew and John. That's five sources. Six if you think John is actually originally two documents.

Sources are not required to be independent. The expression "independent source" is commonly used. Eiler7 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I suggested that sources are required to be independent just to be sources. My point, rather, is that independent confirmation requires one source to be supported by another that is independent of it. In this way, the synoptic gospels are not capable of supporting each other.

The other issue here is that, among the viable explanations for the overlap among the synoptics is the sharing of non-extant origin documents (such as Q). This is what the "contained within" may well reference. Alienus 17:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So...what is it that most scholars believe, re: Q and all that? KHM03 ^(talk) 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of theories, each with many variations, and little consensus. Historically, the most popular was that the gospels were written in a particular order, each having access to previous ones. There are assorted variations of this, and lots of fighting over which one is best. Originally, the oldest was supposed to be Matthew, I think, but Mark gets a lot of support, too. Some even claim John came first, though that's not so popular. These days, the idea of Q is quite popular but not universally accepted by any means. Here's a link I googled that at least scopes out some of the issues while largely endorsing on particular view: Gospel. Alienus 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You said "Rossnixon and Sophia have a point. For one thing, the gospels are not independent of each other." seemingly in support of the revert. This implies to me that you wanted them to be independent in order to validate my change. The fact is that the gospels are sources which is what my change was. The current text says that they contain sources which is not the case. If they contained sources, you should be able to see that by reading the gospels. You should be able to say that source A begins here and stops there. However, there is no Q document in existence. So, the gospels cannot be solidly said to contain it, or even parts of it. The current wording is problematic. If you want to say "the gospels are documents which, according to current historical analysis, draw upon previous writing which no longer exist", then that would be clearer in my view and I think I would be happier with such an approach. Eiler7 16:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The gospels have been analyzed extensively, to the point where there actually are versions with specific lines color-coded out to show their source. In other words, you could point at a part of Luke and say "this came from Mark" or "this is from Q". Q is not extant, but there are reconstructions of the three parts, again due to heavy analysis.

Given this complexity, I'm really not sure what wording we should wind up with. I just know that, of the two choices presented, I favor one. Alienus 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)