Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Heavily Biased and Cherry-Picked Evidence.

It's definitely okay to state a point of view, but when there is two sides, stating only one is intellectual treason.

The majority of scholars consider the New Testament to be reasonably accurate, depending on the predisposed assumptions of the scholar. This has been somwhat stated. However, the evidence behind that belief is deliberately ignored.

More than 4000 manuscripts of the New Testament have been found in no less than three languages (Greek, Coptic, and Syriac at the very minimum) compared to less than 650 for Homer and much less for Julius Caesar. Compared to Homer, of which most of these manuscripts are from the 10th century AD or later, most of the manuscripts are earlier than the fifth century AD, and a great many in the early second century. There are references to it from even earlier. In fact, there is so much accumulated evidence that "the science of textual criticism has so far advanced and the textual problems of the Greek Testament have been so well traversed that one may read the Christian writings with an assurance approximating certainty". That Jesus existed is an intellectual no-brainer. The deity of Jesus is where the debate truly lies in scholarly circles. http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.151.76 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The number of surviving manuscripts has absolutely no relevance to the question of the reliability of the text. That's like arguing that the Da Vinci Code is more reliable than Martin Kemp's Leonardo da Vinci. Artist, Scientist, Inventor because there are more copies of it in existence. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that 4000 copies of the New Testament exist does NOT indicate that 4000 eye-witnesses each penned their individual recollections, it means that monasteries full of scribes repeatedly copied out a handful of thousand-year-old versions. Using this standard, Harry Potter would be more authentic than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin combined. Wdford (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean historically reliable rather than authentic. Psvait (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some might contend that it is the question of the deity of Jesus that is the "no-brainer". Psvait (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am chiming in to agree with this point. In fact, although there are very many copies of the Gospels,

There are many different versions of the same Gospels. In other words, copies of the same Gospels are quite different across times and places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.26.11 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for "very small"

Ehrman, Bart D. (februarie 2011). "8. Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament. Modern Forgeries, Lies, and Deceptions. The Death Sentence of Jesus Christ." (EPUB). Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. (First Edition. EPub ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55685655/Forged. Retrieved 2 september 2011. "This does not mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. But as with the vast majority of all persons who lived and died in the first century, he does not appear in the records of the Roman people." 

Besides, I did not check the reference given in the text, it may also claim that the number of such minded scholars is very small. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Very Small" is POV. Can you imagine ANY respectable encyclopedia ever writing a phrase like that? No? Then it is bogus and judgemental. I am removing it. Beyond that, "very small" implies a value judgement - one that should be avoided at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.91.73 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I showed a reliable source which proves my point. You lied that it doesn't. You did not show anything for your claim. It's vandalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between lying and simply not bothering to check the reference. Rklawton (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave a quote above. Is he/she blind? Or just purposefully misrepresenting the above quote? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And please don't use the term "vandalism" so lightly. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism clearly states that such an act is not vandalism. It may be edit warring or disruptive editing out of stubborness or a number of other things, but it is not vandalism. The important thing is that this matter should be settled on the talk page, not through edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have undone my revert in order to settle it here. Who considers that the revert should happen and who agrees more with not reverting it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two points here:

1. Is "very small" accurate.

2. Is "very small" appropriate language.

Lets start with issue 2: "Very Small" is just poor English. "Minority" is more professional than "very small", and says something tangible (e.g. less than half).

Which leads to issue 1 - is it accurate? You didn't show that "very small" is accurate. You showed a quote that doesn't give any quantification to the numbers who claim he didn't exist, and instead, you quoted "as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity". That says nothing of the number who do hold this view.

Let me give an example to explain: A very small number of homo Sapiens have ever held the world record for the 100 metres - reference: a number that is very small.

Change the terminology to minority or some other quantifiable statement or, as I did, just remove the entire chunk - it kind of reads like a dog's breakfast anyway. projectphp (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you do admit that you are the same editor as 60.240.91.73. My problem with what you did is that you have removed sourced information, which should not be done in lack of a good reason, and so far I don't see a good reason for such removal. The critique of the critical historical approach to historical Jesus is relevant and although I personally disagree with such critique I find it a matter of WP:NPOV to render all notable standpoints, as long as they are properly sourced. I have no objection for changing "very small" to "minority" since it renders the same idea. I don't nitpick words, but we still have to render the idea expressed by Ehrman, unless another reliable source is shown to say otherwise. Besides, the number of antiquity scholars is not large, so excluding "virtually every competent scholar" there remains a "very small" number of scholars, i.e. very small relatively to the total number of such scholars. E.g. the number of Jews in Romania is very small in relation to the total population of the country, but they could still be seen as many if they happened to gather in the same place.

In respect to reading "as a dog's breakfast" you could have simply rephrased the information. Editors worked hard to find the reliable sources from the given references and then you came and canceled their work because it did not read well. That's why I considered that it would be a form of vandalism. Perhaps if we consider the history of the article, the information may have read well in the past, but it could have been modified by other editors. I find it disrespectful for the work of other editors to simply do away with properly sourced information. If it is not to the point in this article, we could move it to another article, but I still don't think that it needs being removed from this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And it is relevant to know which information is consensual among historians who studied Jesus (consensus is not unanimity, but certain data about Jesus are broadly agreed by such scholars). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read this discussion page, the removal of some information which you have removed was already discussed. Some pointed that there would be an overkill of references, but this could have been simply solved by keeping only the most relevant references and removing redundant references. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are so long and over the top - find me another article with so many strung together in a row for a single point. I'll pick an article at random - Homer - and count. The most sources next to each other at any single point is: TWO. Most statements have a SINGLE source. Why does this article run sooo many together? Even now, after I cut that first paragraph down, it still has a two, a three, a five and a six source, run together look. Why? What other article does that? That aside, lets look at the quotes. You are arguing that the quotes given match. Your "source" for "small number" was not any research, but rather the quote "as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" - that says nothing of the numbers, so is not a quote in support of anything numbers related. But that said, I've got a solution: why don't you rewrite that section, so that it reads well, avoids poor English and reduces the multiple citations for a single point, and we can discuss your rewrite. Sound fair? projectphp (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored text after rewriting it (or copying/pasting it from Jesus). I have also reduced the citation overkill, and kept references which are most contrary to the beliefs held by that particular scholar, kind of criterion of embarrassment applied to modern scholars. If I have removed too many citations, feel free to put them back. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Ehrman as a source provides any evidence for the existence of Jesus: he in fact states in the paragraph above the one quoted: "We have no birth certificate, no references to his words or deeds, no accountsof his trial, no descriptions of his death—no reference to him whatsoever in any way, shape, or form. Jesus’s name is not even mentioned in any Roman source of the first century." He then adds to this statement with what you have quoted in the wiki text but then doesn't support it or source it at all. How can a source for a statement that requires a primary source to be considered credible be basically the statement reworded with no primary source to support it?

As another discussion point, I don't see how Christian scholars who 'believe' (like Ehrman) can not be seen as having a vested interest in the existence of Jesus. Would you ask a wiccan to conduct a study on the effectiveness of wiccan practices? But what i have said above is of more import I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.73.158 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman is not a Christian, but "a happy agnostic". Besides, we don't do original research here, we just let the academic authorities decide the matter and we render their views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence,

What is the basis of their belief?217.94.205.131 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the existence of an oral tradition about Jesus, which was written down in many gospels and the letters of Paul. They think that these records are not 100% fabricated, but they are based upon a person who really existed. There were no records kept about ordinary people, that's why first century Greek and Roman sources never mention Jesus. In his own time, Jesus was not famous, he was just one of the many Jewish religious rebels who got punished by the Romans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The idea there were no docs about ordinary people is incorrect. The gospels actually start with the Holy Family travelling to Bethlehem to be counted in the a popular census. Furthermore, Pontius Pilatus was supposed to report to Rome about executions of politically dangerous people, thus the "Acta Pilatei" or Jesus's court case file had been searched for centuries, yet no trace so far. Maybe it will turn up someday, maybe it burned in Nero's time or when Rome was sacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The best proof for historic Jesus is the mention of Pontius Pilate in the gospels. The person of this prefect in unknown in roman annals, no clues anywhere about his familial background and the guy was long considered fictional at best, thus making gospels look like fables. Then in 1960 an antique sidewalk was dig up by archeologists in Jerusalem and the milestone carving said that sidealk was repaved on the order and expense of prefect Pontius Pilate. This sudden proof greatly enhanced the credibility of the gospels, showing their accuracy in minor detail - thus there is no reason to doubt their the major detail, the historc existence of Jesus.

Furthermore, jews always professed that Jesus was real, but an unholy/evil prophet in their view. They claim Mary was impregnated by a roman army centurio named Panthera to deliver Jesus. That is an apparent mistranslation of greek, as in Panthera generis (from Panthera's groin) <-> Partheno-genesis (being born to a virgin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses? Marcus clearly writes he was there on the last night.

> Since the four canonical gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses ...

This statement of the article seems weird. In the gospel of Marcus he clearly writes in first person singular tone that he was the very youngster who narrowly fled from the hill with a loss of all of his clothing, when the sanhedrin's soldiers came to arrest Jesus and his followers. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An absurd aspect of this article

The current article goes on and on to quote literary criticism, without ever mentioning that we have a polaroid photo of Jesus as proof of his existence. Yes, I am talking about the Shroud. Some say it is a fake, however it is a large and extremely detailed photo negative representation, thus it contains uncomparably higher magnitudes of graphics information then the entire antique book corpus of Jesus's mentions. Therefore it is much more important for the topic, pro or con, without regard to the debate about its authenticity. (Although the latest discovery about the femtosecond UV-laser effect seems to ban any fakery claims, unless one is willing to believe in antique UFO visitors instead of Christ.) 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but even if the shroud was actually as old as claimed, there is nothing proving it was that of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gross over-exaggeration

I find the claim made in this article 'most scholars believe Jesus existed' to be without foundation. Please cite sources, as during a a recent debate at the Royal historic society (UK) not a single historian in the room (200+), when canvassed, accepted that there was enough evidence outside of the bible and scriptures referencing the existence of Jesus to support any claim that he did indeed exist. Who are the 'most scholars' that the Christian writer who wrote this article is referring to? Only references to claims and letters relating to claims exist. As such the claim that 'most' scholars believe is without foundation and a gross over-exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipslap (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you consider that most scholars are Christian theologists, then maybe the statement doesn't appear that far-fetched? For the rest it's always good to add references, and if a reference for the statement could be found, then it would be good to add it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a myth

The last para of the section Jesus as a myth should need some improvement: the academically respected George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price are mixed with the academic outcast John M. Allegro and the pseudohistorical popular writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. The Jesus as a myth should deserve some expansion with the theories of all the above, carefully distinguishing academic-strength argument from incoherent allegations.

And for the rest it is odd how a list of sources for the existence of Jesus is dominating in an article that is about the historicity of Jesus. (FYI: I'm for the historicity of Jesus as an obvious Occamic solution, but this article should take great care to make a proper case for those who put the historicity in question). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is generally good. My criticism indicating bias is incorrect. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)