Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Second paragraph

There were some changes and two reverts so far in the past day or so, and we need to stop reverting and discuss. I had objections in both cases, specially about conformity to sources, e.g. the first version said "existed in some form" which seems just out of the blue and is really very confusing because it may suggest "existence as a mirage" as in the 2nd/3rd century gnostic groups. That is not what the sources suggest at all. Not at all. Then, the biblical accounts disputes were put upfront, diverting the issue of existence in that paragraph. I do not see these as an improvement in either case, the "existed in some form" part being really way out. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The triumphal tone of this article

Does anybody else find that the tone of this article is distinctly triumphal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhryssoHeart (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty may to be that User:History2007 seems to be a committed Christian with missionary zeal
The difficulty with that is that traditional teachers tend to embellish history to impress upon their students some particular issue. For example, Augustine was essentially gnostic - and (having abandoned his mistress and his 17-year-old son) decided that since the real world was evil and the spirit world good, felt guilty about fathering another human being (implicitly causing more suffering).
Therefore sin was synonymous with orgasm, and from this, later theologians decided that homosexuality was evil, and when women died in childbirth their unborn babies had to be ripped from their bellies and buried in unconsecrated ground before the (baptised) female cadaver could be given a 'proper' burial in a Christian cemetery (which they believed to be the only route to heaven) REF: Use wiki search using Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, this appears in Chapter 5 in a book of that name written by Christian theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann. You might also enjoy root of all evil by Richard DawkinsTimpo (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Timpo, you are hereby formally advised to focus on encyclopedic content, and not other editors. The rest of your comments are personal opinions (Augustine was long after the first century) and WP:OR; and are also WP:Forum-like talk. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with History. Khrysso asked a simple question. I don't think it has merit (it may in her POV), but that's simply what I think. However, it has NOTHING to do with any other writers personal beliefs, bias, or writing style. To imply as much not only hijacks the original question, but impeaches on the credibility of History as an editor. Even a cursory review of his edits and Talk comments will reveal his neutrality. Ckruschke (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

People sometimes comment on other editors when what the scholars say has already been settled. The literature in the libraries is there, so let us just move on. I ell you, all these talk page comments will pass next year, libraries remain. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with History2007 on both points. The comment which starts this thread, honestly, offers nothing even remotely like help in determining where the alleged "triumphal" tone is, so, honestly, it offers little if any real help in addressing the stated problem. Secondly, regarding History2007 himself, I note that he has for some time been heavily involved in content related to Christianity not because of his own beliefs, but because, unfortunately, people who believe some of the theories and concepts which have been put forward in opposition to ideas which have almost universal academic support, like the historicity of Jesus, tend to try to give those beliefs, which tend to be, based on the material in academic reference books, fairly clearly fringe theories as per WP:FRINGE, which by our policies and guidelines should not receive much weight as per WP:WEIGHT in the main articles on our topics. Yes, I am myself a Christian, but, yes, I have read the works of Dawkins, and Price, and others. I have also made a point of checking the more specialist academic reference books on a wide variety of religious topics, and have found in almost all cases that many if not most of these newer theories, which have a clear appeal to certain types of religious opinions themselves, get little if any real attention in those specialist academic sources. Dawkins and Price and others have put forward some interesting ideas, but, without any real evidence to support them, those ideas tend to qualify as, basically, speculation and fringe theories, and we are obliged to follow the guidelines regarding those matters. If anyone would like to point out exactly where they see this "triumphal" tone, so that involved editors might be able to perhaps deal with some sort of content which would actually be useful, they are encouraged to do so. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, given that the scholarly positions are clear, I would just assume a WP:JDLI comment and move on. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

POV tag

Summary for the POV tag was: "Non-religious scholars and historians avoid the subject because there are no primary or even secondary sources, how is this expected to be taken as "evidence" or with historical accuracy? It is laughable." I guess will take 2 weeks to discuss... History2007 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the POV of the editor and is not a reason for adding a POV tag. Removing. Discuss rather than tag. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not POV, if you have some sources that mankind is not aware of then please provide these. POV is when a Biblical "scholar" concludes that Jesus exists based on a Gospel that's authenticity and source itself is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonChris (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, I suggest that you read WP:BURDEN, which indicates that it is incumbent on those who add material to justify it, not the other way around. And, actually, whether you want to believe it or not, I believe several clearly reliable sources like Encyclopedia Britannica discuss this subject, at least at some length in some article. Now, having not consulted them myself specifically on this point yet, I don't know how they deal with the subject, but that source, in whatever article it contains material regarding this subject, may well count as a good indicator of relative weight. Honestly, I tend to think, if they discuss it the World Book, Encyclopedia Americana, and Catholic Encyclopedia would probably be fairly good indicators of relative weight of the non-historicity of Jesus position, although I would have some reservations about the neutrality of the Catholic Encyclopedia, of course. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think DonChris genuinely believes that for any historical figure to exist, there must be existing remnants and documents left behind by themselves, or their immediate contemporaries. His argument and objection is not limited to Jesus of Nazareth, but could be applied to a number of other historical figures whose existence is accepted by scholars. This article has not made that clear enough - obviously. The "key example" of a source that had been used in the early 20th century to dispute the existence of Jesus is of course Embassy to Gaius written around c. 40 AD where, Philo criticized the brutality of Pontius Pilate but did not name Jesus as an example of Pilate's cruelty. That issue is discussed in passing here but at length in the Christ myth theory page, e.g. that Philo may have become familiar with the issues on his 2nd trip to Rome after writing Embassy to Gaius, that the focus on that document was different, etc. So these issues will need clarification for various other users may also think that the lack of contemporary references means that a historical figure did not exist. I will, however,mention in passing that it is not by any measure a Christian only issue given that some of the most respected scholars (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Louis Feldman or Paula Fredriksen) who support the existence of Jesus are Jewish. History2007 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that Don is not actively participating in the discussion after placing the tag, I suggest that the tag be removed. Once a tag is placed active participation in the discussion is required to resolve the issue, else the tag can be removed. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it might make sense to give him a few days to respond, because we can't be sure of his schedule and optimum times to edit. But, if we don't get any real indication that there is a POV, other than the statement above that "no one will discuss it," which is a fairly clear violation of WP:OR if it isn't sourced, by next weekend, then I cannot see how the rather questionable basis for the tag being added be given much weight. But, yeah, it is incumbent on Don to establish that there is reasonable basis for the POV tag, otherwise, there are real questions whether perhaps his own POV is driving his comments. If that is the case, it would seem to be him in violation of WP:POV, not the article. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let us wait a few days. But I looked and Don has made like 50 edits total in 7 years so... History2007 (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I came across a statement yesterday that may relate to the general notion that "only Christians study the life of Jesus". A simple survey of the field indicates otherwise of course, but the satement I saw in "Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner 2012 ISBN 0800698010 page 132" makes it sourced and reliable. What page 132 states is that while much of the older research in the 1950-1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly (and this is not from the book just mentioned) one of the main books in the field is "The Historical Jesus in Context by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., John Dominic Crossan 2006 ISBN 0691009929" which is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. So in the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. And the one item they agree on is the existence of Jesus. They may debate other issues such as the details of the gospel narratives, but the agreement on historicity is really global now. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be merged with Historical Jesus

No serious historian can claim that there are factual evidence present without any relics, primary sources, secondary sources, dwellings or artifacts. These so-called scholars range from those who accept Jesus existence based on a few "non-christian" sources (which authenticity and references is disputed or unknown, none of which is contemporary) to those who pursuit angels and talking serpents as factual. Historians avoid this subject because there are no credible sources of Jesus existence, none verifies his existence. DonChris (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You apparently miss an understanding of the debate (going beyond fundamentalist Christianity vs. fundamentalist atheism). No historian says there's much evidence beyond the Gospels, all historians (except the fundamentalists) agree that the Gospels are unreliable historical sources, but those who studied the existence of Jesus do not think that the Gospels are entirely fiction. If there was no real Jesus, then writing the Gospels would have been much easier and a coherent piece of fiction could have eliminated the contradictions existing in the Gospels. Besides, it would have set in stone some basic theological doctrines, whose uncertain character divided Christianity for centuries. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They have yet to provide any reliable or credible source to Jesus existence, the Pauline epistles is not a reliable source. Incoherency does not verify anything, again, provide some serious material of his existence other than meager speculations and assumptions. Even Erhman acknowledges that there is no evidence "There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus ... including no archaeological evidence of any kind", although he still insists that Jesus existed. DonChris (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tgeorgescu. They are two different subjects and each deserves its own article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Besides, we don't need to prove anything about the existence of Jesus. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources, so they are not part of the scholarly debate. Wikipedia editors render the viewpoints of reliable sources and follow WP:UNDUE in respect to the scholarly consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is dangerous when we allow scholars who believe in talking serpents and supernatural powers to be presented as serious scholars. The scholars cited often appear in the "Jesus Seminar", a highly criticized seminar for its Christian biases. None can say there is evidence of Jesus, there are none whatsoever, there are speculations and assumptions (which is why I believe this should be merged with Historical Jesus), not historical evidence. DonChris (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of any other discussions, per WP:Length, a merge of this article with Historical Jesus can not take place due to procedural reasons. This article is about 50k (prose size only) and the other is about 40k. WP:length states that at 40k-50k, the size is fine and there is no compelling reason for division. However, at 60k the resulting article would probably have to be divided. And as we go above 60k, the requirement for division goes up. One could argue (rightly so in my mind) that these are distinct topics (that pass WP:Note on their own) as both articles state with sources, but that is not even necessary given guidelines and procedural barriers that rule out a merge. History2007 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When scholars do believe in talking serpents they do so in private, since anyone is entitled as a person to hold religious beliefs. As Bart Ehrman put it, historians could never attest the occurrence of any miracle, this has to do with historical method (naturalistic methodology). So, historians of all religious faiths have consensually agreed that history cannot ever prove that a miracle has happened, and whatever they think about the possibility of miracles, they think it in private, not as historians. It is therefore a red herring to say that historians believe in talking serpents. In their role as historians, they don't even know if talking serpents could exist or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right on that issue, and the historicity of any miracle by Jesus or Moses, or Buddha can is questioned. But this article does not deal with that and does not support even the fact that Jesus had 12 key disciples. Just that he walked the streets at some point. So those issues are beside the point as you indicated. History2007 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Much of it is already available under Historical Jesus so this page should just be removed all together, so not much would need to be merged. Christ myth theory also covers much of what can be found on this page, and not to mention the main Jesus page itself. I saw Paul Meier, a cited scholar making the case for resurrection , but alright fair enough, not all of the cited scholars seems that out of touch. To History2007, but there are no evidence that Jesus even existed. Apart from a few exceptions, 1th century biographies or events should not be portrayed as being factual especially from source texts. Assuming there wasn't any biases, none of the non-Christian sources actually witnessed Jesus, they are just repeating what Christians themselves at time were claiming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonChris (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the focus of the Historical Jesus article is distinct from this, and and as stated above both articles clearly meet WP:Note - there is always some overlap in articles, as would be expected. The Christ myth theory is a separate topic also, and again WP:Length will not allow any of the mergers you suggest. The text you want it deleted is well sourced. Regarding your comment that "but there are no evidence that Jesus even existed", again you are arguing the extreme case of Christ myth theory, a view that no single history professor in any university holds. So we are entering a "debate about content" as a justification for an article merge. The fact that an editor does not agree with what scholars state, can not be any justification for text deletion per WP:V, of course. It seems that your basic argument is that "this article needs to disappear because you do not agree with its conclusions". I am sorry, but that is no rationale for the removal or merging of content in Wikipedia, and I think unless you have other reasons, this discussions will vacuously fail. Moreover, you placed a POV tag above based on effectively the same reasoning (i.e. you do not agree with content) and unless you provide further "policy based" rationale, I would move to have the tag removed. History2007 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well sourced by Christian theologists who have grown up with an imagine that a historical Jesus always existed. G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Robert M. Price, David H. Lewis, Thomas Brodie to mention a few share my view or similar. The evidence is bleak, having read some of the work of Ehrman, he has no problem maintaining that Jesus existed while recognizing that there are no contemporary Roman or Greek sources, no "hard physical evidence" and no "archeological" evidence, his own words. The mainstream argument from cited scholars in this article boils down to two arguments for Jesus existence: "independent witnesses", which is not really witnesses and at best only based on oral tradition. The second argument is based on Paul's claim to have met with Peter and James, essentially Jesus' disciple and brother. It argues it is impossible that a physical Jesus didn't exist because people who do not exist do not have brothers and disciples. How do we know that the meeting even occurred? Because Paul claims so. The argument is so historically weak I don't even.. The scholars who argue Jesus existed are shrinking, just like Christianity is in the West. It wasn't long ago that raising any doubt about Christianity could have fatal consequences and the evolutionary theory was labeled insanity, still Christianity has a large influence in Western education, it comes in the form of Christian literalists scholars who realized the magic guy in the sky and water walking no longer was good enough to feed the population, and while there surely was a prominent Galilean preacher (see Q sources), there is nothing suggesting this guy had any disciples, met Pilate or was ever crucified. Was there a Jesus? I don't know, but quite frankly neither does the Biblical Christian cited scholars, their arguments are extremely weak, they are meager speculations at the very best. DonChris (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but you need to check up on G. A. Wells. He was the standard bearer for the non-existence movement, but has since abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom the gospels were based. That is reflected in his later book Can we Trust the New Testament, pages 51-53 if I recall right. But again, you are debating from first principles, it seems. I am sorry, but your statement about which side of the debate may have shrinking scholars is an example of WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL and one can not speculate, except in the case of Ellegård who is already dead. Wells is 86 and he may go for X years, not for us to say, etc. and one could speculate that in 3 years the other deniers or supporters may have joined Ellegård, but that is not for us to speculate for per WP:V and WP:OR Wikipedia needs to be based on sources. What is clear, again, is that the denial of existence is supported by less than a handful of scholars (and not one professor of history) and is WP:Fringe, regardless of any editor's personal beliefs on the subject. And we should really follow WP:Forum and avoid personal speculation and deduction here in any case. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the Q source refers to Galilean preacher but does not mention this guy had any disciples, met Pilate, were crucified, nor is he referred to as Christ. Meager evidence. As stated on the G. A. Wells wiki article: "However, Wells has clarified that this Q preacher "is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents". In his view, the figure of Jesus thus becomes a composite of elements from two different sources.". Debating from first principles? Nah. The quest for Jesus existence is comparable to that of Robin Hood. Just like Jesus, Robin was a common name at the time of his purported region, a larger-than-life figure with a likable purpose caring for the less fortunate. It's not unthinkable a guy in medieval England pocketed from the rich and distributed his wealth to the poor, right? Almost certainly. Similarly, supernatural aside, Jesus name, occupation and actions was not particularly unique, not even his purported crucifixion was there anything unique about. It is slightly easier to identify whether a significant person such as a Roman emperor existed or not, yet even that can at times be tricky. DonChris (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, you just presented personal analysis there wrt Robin Hood, etc., so per WP:Forum one has to pass on that. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Majority of Historians

Unless you have a servey done to see if the majority do believe in the existance of Jesus, you can't claim the majority do, there is no proof to that effect. Just taking the word of four randoms that "The majority believe this" to be true is obserd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.122.179 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not as obserd as your argewmunt. Experts are not "randoms". Perhaps you've been eating these. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, the Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically advises to do what this article does: use a scholarly quote as a statement of "Academic consensus". So the formal guideline has been carefully followed here. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, it says that a reliable source must be used, that doesn't mean that all sources are valid.

"Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. You may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."

This article uses only books as sources, but I'll admit I couldn't find a meta-analysis on this matter in any peer-reviewed papers in my university's online library. This probably is the best we have.Feyre (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right, this is the best we have and after many searches and past discussions, it seems that "this is the best there is out there" as far as anyone can see. And the sources were discussed, they are WP:RS given that the publishers are good and authors are too, etc. Moreover, after many searches and looks on opposing web sites, no long list of opposing scholars has shown up. In a week or so I will build a FAQ page for his article that summarizes those, links to past discussions, etc. That is the best way to have information ready for another IP who may come across the page and ask the same question. I am sure the question will be asked again in a month or two. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, there seems to be near daily drama here from; people not accustomed to disagreeing with consensus, or people who don't understand that history isn't as exact as certain other sciences.Feyre (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in article claims

At the end of second opening paragraph, the article states "the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." and appears to essentially say that all other events are of dispute in some way. Yet at the end of 1.1.1. Basic Historical Facts, the final paragraph reads "Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who reigned 26-36 AD." As far as I can make out, the article quotes that only two events, the baptism and crucifixion were the only almost consensually agreed upon events, but later quotes a historian in that there were more events in "a consensus of sorts". Which one is it? --Sgtlion (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is in fact a complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first. The story is this:

• Hardly any scholars dispute the crucifixion or baptism.
• A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" - some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
• More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

So Amy-Jill Levine is correct of course and she chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciple" instead of followers there would have been screams from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of gathered, there would have been objections, but not scream etc. But that issue is somewhat peripheral to the "historicity of Jesus" yet needs to be mentioned here as background information. I will try to think of a way to clarify that, but it is not going to be that easy. These scholars have very specific positions regarding the hierarchy among the followers, etc. and that is why the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, say follower to disciple or apostle, etc. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)