Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Regarding footnote no. 1

The introduction paragraph leading to the first footnote says this:

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this. What the person who has written this puts as reference are books by the following people:

• Raymond E. Brown who is an American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar.

• Shaye J. D. Cohen who is an ordained rabbi.

• John Dominic Crossan who is a Christian author.

• Paula Fredriksen who holds the position of William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University, which speaks for itself.

• Géza Vermes who was born to Jewish parents, was baptized Roman Catholic, became a priest and a theologian, then left the Catholic Church and became a Jew again.

• Paul Maier who is the Second Vice President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Identifies himself as a devout Christian and apologist.

• N. T. Wright who is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England.

• Ben Witherington III is an evangelical Biblical scholar.

My point is that these persons are NOT historians in the scientific sense, but even if they did scientific historical work their intentions would be highly dubious and I find the paragraph not representing reality. I think some revising should be done for there is no scientific, physical, independent evidence of the existence of any historical Jesus of Nazareth, later to be called Jesus Christ.

My suggestion is that "and history" in the first sentence has to be removed. Shiva4815162342 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article already mentions dissent but marks it as a minority opinion. You seem to be asserting that it's a majority opinion, which would need some serious backing up; luckily, since "controversy sells books", it seems like it should be easy to demonstrate if true. Oh, and I don't think any deep meaning needs to be read into the fact that most of the texts cited are by Biblical scholars; there's a much simpler possible explanation! :-)

While we're on this subject, this revert of some edits relating to the point has a summary of "Rv. deletion of cited info and inaccurate changes." — as far as I can see the changes reverted didn't delete any info at all? You're entitled to your opinion on the "inaccurate" part, I guess, although it looked more like a clarification of the existing text. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No my point is that none of the people cited are historians, they are theists and theologians. Hence, unless the author of that paragraph can actually show us that the majority of historians support the theologians when he says there was a historical Jesus (the Jesus depicted in the Bible) then he has to remove the "and history" part. I am not speaking in favor of there being many people dissenting from the majority view, rather that there is no majority view of Jesus existing among historians at all. In order for there to be a majority view one has to show for that by citing sources of historians that are not theologians (preferably).

Point being; the paragraph's footnote is not representing what the paragraph is saying. Shiva4815162342 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The cite is clearly from scholars asserting a fact, that the majority of historians hold Jesus was a real historical person. If you believe that is not true, show us your evidence that the contrary is true, that the majority of historians hold Jesus wasn't a real person. That citation cites respected scholars who are asserting a simple head count among historians, something easily checked. Encarta for instance makes the same claim. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the Encarta page and I'm still in need of anything to back up their claim. How can I back up that most historians are not accepting the historicity of Jesus? It is up to those who make the claim of him actually being accepted as a historical person to show the evidence for this. I have seen no such evidence. Do I need to show evidence for the majority of astronomers not accepting geocentrism? Isn't it better to show evidence of heliocentrism being accepted by most astronomers? Shiva4815162342 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Roy makes an excellent point. Furthermore, your list excludes many scholars listed in the citation (Sanders, Meier, Carson, Knopf, and Grant). You seem to be making a very strange leap of logic, that someone with a religious affiliation is somehow disqualified from being a scholar based on their personal religious beliefs. I believe it is also fallacious to imply that someone who is ordained cannot be a historian as well. Can someone be ordained and a Spanish teacher? Can someone be ordained and a electrician? Then why can't someone be ordained and be a historian?? I think you are going to have to argue a lot harder that these cited individuals are not historians. And the even more important task at hand, you have to demonstrate that the majority position among historians is contrary to what we state in this article. Good luck with your efforts. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. E. P. Sanders is also a theologian and has a doctorate in theology and literature.

2. John P. Meier is a Biblical scholar and a Catholic priest.

3. Don Carson is a scholar of the evangelical movement, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and "a speaker at many Christian conferences."

4. Alfred A. Knopf was just a publisher and he didn't have any authority in a scientific quest for the historical Jesus...

5. Michael Grant might be the only actual historical scientist mentioned so far... But still, Trinity College? Anyways, this hardly seems as a majority...

Point being, again, I want the list to include more of the types of Grant. Historical scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists... something actually scientific. Not these scriptural researchers. There are no scriptures from the time of Jesus that mention him (only generations after his alleged life and death). So all the scriptures they're looking into are just proof of there being an early Christian Church. That doesn't mean that the Jesus depicted in the Bible ever existed. The Jesus character of the Gospels might simply be a collection of the different messiah types at the time... Shiva4815162342 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The challenger must back up his claim. Roy has no point. "Historian" is a technical term. The author should establish their credibility as independent, objective, qualified historians or scholars and he fails to do so. I can claim that the majority of people in a field believer some way. The challenger does not need to prove the negative, but he original claim needs to be backed up, or it reads like opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.248.104 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm challenging something? I'm not challenging anything. I'm asking you guys to provide any evidence that your challenge to the assertions of the article about the number of historians who hold to Jesus' historical existence is legitimate. Just saying you don't believe a Christian historian, even if they have doctorates in history from world renowned schools, isn't a rebuttal to what they say, only evidence that they are wrong is, and there's plenty of non Christian sources that make the same claim as this article. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, how can one prove that something didn't exist? One can't. The burden of evidence is on the ones making the claim that Jesus existed and the ones claiming most historians accept his alleged existence. Shiva4815162342 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone who thinks that a significant number of historians don't believe that Jesus existed should read some books on the historical Jesus. It is not only accepted - it isn't even discussed because it's taken as a given. It's like somebody arguing about the existence of Alexander the Great - it's a historical non-starter.

Has anyone who has claimed that Jesus didn't exist placed that contention into peer-review? If there is one, I can't find it. 69.74.54.23 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, we all know deep down that it's all made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fontwell (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shiva has a very good point. The sentence is manipulative and illustrates a rhetorical device attempting at persuasion rather than documentation of evidence. Shiva is trying to raise awareness of how the writer implied scientific methodology by the words "and historians" when in fact those were opinion of believers, that is, people who assume beforehand the historicity of the so-called Jesus of Nazareth. Shiva brings a valid, solid point that demands an honest description of sources, and the inherent bias of writers and scriptural scholars/believers. It's a matter of conflict of interest. If they accept that there is little or no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, then they must accept that they have worshipped throughout their lives a character from a fabricated story. That is a tough truth to live with. Julio moreno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.176.211 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Shiva makes a very good point. The last line of the first paragraph (and repeated numerous times in the relates articles) states "(some authors)... have recently re-popularised the argument, though it carries little weight among the majority of biblical historians and scholars." Then has three citations, one pops down to the biblio and discovers the first one is from Seminarian graduates and professors. The second is published by a religious publishers that seems to publish a lot of works that counter secular researchers claims and third is back to being published by seminarians.

Now, as a previous responder posted, does this automatically imply they can't be trusted historians? No, but it does make statements made by people who may or may not have an invested interest in a topic suspect. Do we trust the Tobacco Companies when they state that nicotine isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer? Do we take white supremacists at their word when they claim their groups are merely about pride?

Maybe they're correct in their assertions, but I'd like some sources outside of the religious establishment. Otherwise this article is rather bias. Of course, in the end, there's going to be far more people who want to prove Jesus existed, than didn't.Worlock93 (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree very strongly with the opinions of Shiva et al. Those two little words "and history" make all the difference. This applies even in an area of minimal contention. If, for instance, I read: "Most scholars in the fields of Jewish studies and history agree that the Holocaust happened" I would expect to see references to articles by an equal number of historians with no background in Jewish studies (and ideally, as the author could guess, no Jewish background overall) to those with that background. That is a reasonable expectation of an unbiased author, and the burden of proof surely rests with that author as long as s/he maintains that the two little words should stay in the text. Note that the same principle would apply if any other authority were mentioned, e.g. "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies, biochemistry and history agree...". The author needs to prove it, implicitly by around a third of the references being from biochemists. In other words, the author's choice of words is more significant than assumed vested interests per se. Adam 194.176.201.28 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Romans 9:3-6

Andrew, how else would you interpret "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ". Paul is clearly saying here Jesus was a "human", whose ancestors were Jews. Some versions translate it into of the flesh or something like that, which also clearly means Jesus was a real flesh and blood person who was Jewish. I'll look for a cite if you wish, but we don't for instance provide scholars pointing out Paul's other quotes are relevant to the historicity question, even though we could provide several. We don't have any scholars talking about Pliny or Lucian or Celsus or Thallus, we just quote what they say. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:NOR. We cannot be the first place to publish that the historicity of Jesus is bolstered by Romans 9:5. I think we really need to crack down on this in a number of places (as you point out). We must avoid original research, and since I noticed this recent edit, I figure it's better to tackle this first before going through the rest of the article. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways. We can't say this verse supports historicity, even if you personally believe it does (unless we are citing scholars who have already published this view). Sorry to be a stickler for the rules, but I think this will improve the article, at least in terms of WP:V. Hope this explains my tag! And hopefully we can get to adding sources for those other people (I know Meier and Ehrman discuss these ancient sources in their writings. We could add a sentence saying something like "Scholars examining the historicity of Jesus study the few non-Christian references to Jesus in the ancient writings of Pliny, Lucian, etc...." Because these ancient sources only have a paragraph at most discussing Jesus (which are quoted in these works by Meier and Ehrman), it should't be an issue. However, for Paul, he has a dozen letters that may relate in some way to the historical Jesus, and singling out a single verse needs citation. I'll try to track down those aforementioned sources, and I'll see what they say about Paul and see if Romans 9:5 is mentioned. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you name a single historical evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Somehow you seem to think that historians do not regard the textual references to Jesus in the ancient texts listed on the page as representing historical evidence. These ancient texts are historical documents which almost all exhibit the precise same theme, that a man named Jesus who was regarded as the Christ lived, taught, and was executed by Pontius Pilate during the early 1st century in Palestine.

With this much consistency among this abundance of texts, to try and shrug it off as being non-historical is ridiculous.

A written record by a neutral person? Writings by himself? A piece of cloth worn by him? Maybe a cup he used to drink of? Writings by his relatives? No? Then please state that THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EVER EXISTED :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.78.93 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of what is and is not regarded as "evidence" by actual historians. And you want this encyclopedia to incorporate your ignorance. Carlo (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. The evidence for Jesus is no better than that for Hercules. The cultural inertia of the West is only reason Jesus is accepted a as a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fontwell (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"On the contrary. The evidence for Jesus is no better than that for Hercules."<---- That statement is appallingly ignorant. Learn the first thing about the subject before you pontificate on it. Carlo (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who makes up this garbage that you write? What does the cultural inertia of the West have to do with what the ancient texts clearly say? Your argument is a red herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.28.122 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact there are many views of the person called Jesus and there are other sources of information besides the Bible from which to learn about him. For instance, historical rabbinical literature refers to Jesus ben Pantera as the bastard son of Miriam Stada whose husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, the birth father being a Roman soldier with a common name ‘Pantera’ (panther) who was her paramour. Other historical secular references said a Roman soldier raped Miriam and Jesus ben Pantera was the result. Jesus Ben Pantera was accused of using Egyptian sorcery to heal and perform magic, enticing Israel to apostasy, therefore he was executed. [Ref Baraitha BT Sanhedrin 43a; 67a, b; Tosefta Hullin 2.22, 23, 24]71.113.4.39 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) P. A. O'Rouark

It is clearly the mainstream point of view among biblical historians is that Jesus was a real historical figure. However, this does not mean that those that hold that Jesus was mythical are merely a bunch of fringe scholars and popular writers. Robert M. Price, for instance, holds the mythic point of view, and he is a well respected New Testament scholar. His "New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash," which expounds the mythical view, was peer reviewed and published by Jacob Neusner, who is one of the most respected scholars of Jewish history in the world. In terms of historical evidence, there is not one non-New Testament piece of writing the witnesses to Jesus Christ as an actual historical figure. Their are ancient non-Christian writers (such as Tacitus) that refer to an historical Jesus, but these references refer to what the Christians of the writers' times were saying about Jesus, not that the non-Christian writers were claiming that Jesus was a contemporary of them. The historical and the mythic point of view are both interesting and explanatory competing theories. The Wikipedia article discussing the historical Jesus and the article discussing Jesus and comparative mythology (and the mythic Jesus one) should be joined. Both sides of the argument deserve to be given space in an article about the origins of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm missing the point here.. but most of this article refers to texts _from the Bible_ as proof that Jesus exists. How is that valid historical proof of anything at all? How can this article seriously be filled with so much useless illogical fluff? An event is proven because a book written by some people 70 years later said it happened? If that is to be accepted as proof of Jesus' existence then the opening crawl of A New Hope is valid historical proof of the existence of Luke Skywalker. Seriously, how is this "proof"? SoheiFox (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

More none biblical references would be helpful to those who asset the historical existence of Jesus, but two points for consideration are 1. Written documents some 70 years after is not a particularly long gap. Even today new historical writings can be collated if there are enough first hand witnessses of events seventy years ago or from those who who were close to such people. 2. The Bible is not a single book but a collection of separate books. Add to those wirtings ommited from canon such as the gospel of St. Thomas and there is enough to suggest the existence of such a man of Jesus irrespecitve of religious belief. Dainamo (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask - some writers see the Thomas text as further evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus, others like Doherty and Price see it as evidence that there wasn't one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.58 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be interesting to example. I don't undertand specifically how the gosspel of St Thomas would be evindnce against a historical Jesus, so woul like some allaboration on the views in this particular area ecpressed by Doherty and Price. Also please sign your comments. Dainamo (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dainamo: In response to your point about using the gospels themselves as historical records even though there is no corroborating non-gospel records, I found a good quote from Christopher Hitchens in his 2007 book "God Is Not Great (ISBN 978-0-7710-4143-3) ... "[The four Gospels are in no sense] a historical record. Their multiple authors - none of whom published anything until many decades after the [supposed] Crucifixion - cannot agree on onything of importance. [To take one example,]Matthew and Luke cannot concur on the Virgin Birth or the geneaology of Jesus, They flatly contradict each other on the 'Flight into Egypt,' Matthew saying that Joseph was 'warned in a dream' to make an immediate escape and Luke saying that all three stayed in Bethlehem until 'Mary's 'purification according to the laws of Moses,' which would make it forty days, and then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem ... The Gospel according to Luke states that the miraculous birth occurred in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census for the purpose of taxation, and that this happened at a time when Herod reigned in Judea and Quirinius was governor of Syria ... But Herod died four years 'BC,' and during his rulership the governor of Syria was not Quirinius. There is no mention of any Augustan census by any Roman historian, but the Jewish chronicler Josephus mentions one that did occur - without the onerous requirement for people to return to their places of birth, and six years after the birth of Jesus is supposed to have taken place (111-112)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.17.165 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you are still not signing your posts! I would not argue against there being histoprical inaccuracies and likely errors within the gospels. Given the delay in recording detils an account of the life of Jesus there would be chinese whispers, possibly exaggerastions and general errors about what was going on at the time e.g. confusing one past ruler of Syria with another. However, what remains consistent in the texts is the report of a charismatic preacher named Jesus (divine or not) who gained a following before and after his life. Asserting that the errors in the reports mean the whole thing is doubtful is a little over the top. We might get many verbal versions of an unrecorded event during World War Two, but listenining to a few accounts allows us to discern what themes are oonsistent and what are likely to have been real. I thought also that a record of the trial of Jesus had been recorded by Josephus? at the time. Dainamo (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am somebody else than the wikipedian above. Just wanted to let you know that nothing like "the trial of Jesus had been recorded by Josephus" is reality. And the main question about Gospels is not if several decades passed after Pilate are problem or not but which authors wrote them and what is the literary genre of the gospels. Stories about Sherlock Holmes were written very closely to the time of the stories but this does not make Sherlock historical. The gospels clearly look like an allegorical writings where almost everything is based on the Old Testament. They surely do not look like works whose aim was to provide a description of historical events. If you want to believe that Sherlock was historical, you can (and many people wrote him letters to Baker street, in fact). Similarly you can believe that Jesus of Nazareth was historical, though all the early Christian literature outside Gospels (like the New Testament epistles, Didache, 1st Clement etc.) give not a slightest hint that the authors would know any recent historical Jesus of Nazareth. But as I say, you can believe that despite of this, the Gospels (which look allegorical and we have no slightest idea who wrote them and with what intention) are based on history, just because the later church understood them in such a way. But it is better to read Doherty and/or R.M.Price if you are really interested.88.101.6.226 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gospels are the works of at least FIVE separate authors, (Mark, Q, John, Special Luke and Special Matthew) all of whom talk about the same person, and at least four of whom are CLEARLY intending to provide a description of historical events.

Five separate authors all talking about the same guy, and all agreeing on certain details is an historical slam-dunk.

There is a reason that the "Jesus didn't exist" group is a fringe of a fringe.

There is also the fact that a church claiming him as its founder - and CLEARLY regarding him as an historical figure - was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his purported death.

There is no contemporary mention of him, but you would not expect there to be, since he was a preacher in a backwater of a backwater, who did not come to attention of anybody important until the week he died, and whose importance only began WHEN he died. However, there is MUCH contemporary mention of those who knew him, like Peter, John and James, the latter of whom is called his BROTHER.

Enough stupid conspiracy theories. Carlo (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call the Jesus-Myth hypothesis a fringe scholar conspiracy theory. Robert M. Price's work has been favorably peer reviewed by Jacob Neusner, one of the most renowned and respected scholars in the field of the history of Jewish thought in the world. If you want a good introduction to Price's work, go to his website and read "New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash," which is under the 'Theological Publications' section, under the 'Encyclopaedia articles' subsection. Then, go to his MySpace page (you can get there from a link on the website) and read his letter entitled 'The Quest For The Mythical Jesus.' The 'Midrash' paper destroys the idea of using New Testament writers as historical sources. But there are many other reasons to distrust what is said about Jesus. The New Testament is filled with mutually contradictory claims about Jesus that that are completely unsupported by the historical and archealogical record. Also, as Prof. Bart Ehrman has convincingly shown in 'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible And Why,' some of the gospel stories are patently fraudulent, like the story of 'he who is without sin should cast the first stone' from John 8: 3-11, because the story is not present in the best and oldest manuscripts we have and is obviously a later addition. When taken together, the Jesus Seminar findings and the work of others show that the Jesus stories are not original, but a Christian rehashing of older Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and Persian myths, mixed in with repetitions and themes from popular novels and stories of the time about empty tombs and crucifixions and the like. As for the canon, there are completely contradictory traditions. The Q source speaks of a Galilean preacher/miracle worker, who had nothing in common with the Pauline gnostic Christ. The canon probably began with Marcion's (and his well established group of followers) real or forged use of Paul portraying a gnostic Jesus, then Rome, for Political reasons, countered with a human Jesus canon, which was then drawn down through Irenaeus, to Eusebius, to Athanasius, and so forth. If this were a court case trying to establish that Jesus existed historically, it would laughably be thrown out  ; John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: "[S]ome of the gospel stories are patently fraudulent, like the story of 'he who is without sin should cast the first stone' from John 8: 3-11, because the story is not present in the best and oldest manuscripts we have and is obviously a later addition."

No, that doesn't make it "fraudulent" - that makes it a SIXTH source.

Price is one guy. One guy out of thousands is fringe. And referring to his own website and myspace page for verification of his accuracy is laughable. And Paul practically quotes some of Q verbatim. And Paul CLEARLY believes in an historical Jesus, not a gnostic Christ. Which is part of the problem. You can only ask for special pleading of so many things before your contention becomes increasingly improbable. Those who don't believe in an historical Jesus ask for a whole lot of special pleaading. And if there was a case trying to DENY that Jesus existed historically, it not only WOULD laughably be thrown out - it actually HAS been, by the vast, vast majority of scholars in the field.

Oh - and you also addressed NONE of my actual points. Carlo (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many scholars hold the gnostic view of Paul, including, to name a few, Elaine Pagels (Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton) and Tom Harpur (University of Toronto). Also, by your insane logic, if I wrote a verse and identified it as belonging to the gospel of John, then I wouldn't be perpetrating a fraud, but rather I would be a seventh source. Referring to Price's website just meant you could find the 'Midrash' article there if you were interested in seeing it. If you wanted something more dignified, You could also find it in Jacob Neusner's Major Jewish scholarly work "The Encyclopedia of Midrash," which only contains articles by scholars that are considered experts in their respective fields. There is no special pleading required here. The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is just as tenable as the historical Jesus hypothesis, and you can either accept that or continue to keep up your blinders. In any case I don't know why anyone would continue to debate you. I certainly won't (you get too angry and I worry for your health) - John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An important new book concerning Paul on this issue is "How Jesus Became Christian (2008)" by Barrie Wilson. It is being called one of the most important studies on the origins of Christianity in decades. I just got through it and it's a must read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A few minor edits

I have amended the start of the article to make it more factual. The article is about the historical existence of Jesus as described by various sources that we have in the 21st century. It is not about the authenticity of the events associated with his life, (eg. the miracles). Secondly, I don't know of anyone who claims the whole of the Gospel of Thomas is an early source. Rather it is considered as a "Sayings Gospel" some of the wording seems to be closer to Q than that found in the Synoptic Gospel of Mark, which is otherwise considered the earliest. I have amended this statement to reflect this view. John D. Croft (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Historians?

First of all, please stop edit warring and come here to discuss your differences. Second of all, I believe the research, phrasing, and citations were lifted from Jesus (Nevertheless, non-historicity has been rejected by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.[108][109][110]) You may want to raise your concerns at Talk:Jesus, as it is the top tier article, and the users who helped write that sentence might be more likely to respond there as they may not be watching this page. Regardless, I'm concerned about consistency. If we edit the phrasing and sourcing of sentence here which came from Jesus, we should probably do likewise there and vice versa. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will endeavor to resolve that on that page as well. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Effectively proven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletions of mythologists claim and scholars who oppose historicity

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

Arguments against authenticity of non-Christian authors

Hey all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, --)->