Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Archive

• Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 1
• Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 2
• Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 3
• /Archive 4

Philo

The article on Philo does not mention him mentioning Jesus, but this article says he does. Does anyone actually have references? Or should the link to Philo be removed from this article? 11:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

it references archived talk - that says IF "Jesus" was real - Philo would have mentioned him - Sparky 14:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References

Once CheeseDreams gets back from her block, I'm going to ask what pages of the books that she has added to references section that she used for this article. Otherwise, I'm getting rid of most of the references she's given. It's just not possible that she used so many references. I think that she just listed her bookcase, without referring to half the books as a reference. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene or Nazirite?

"Against this theory is the fact that all four Gospels specifically speak of a place named Nazareth (see Matthew 2:23, Mark 1:9, Luke 1:26, John 1:46) in contexts where it cannot possibly be a confusion with "the Nazirite". In addition, the Gospels frequently give examples of Jesus drinking wine, most notably at the Last Supper, which was forbidden for Nazirites."

Are there any scholars who argue against "Nazirite" using these reasons? If so, it would be better that they be cited. If not, this is probably original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I admit I put it in based on my personal familiarity with the scriptures, thinking it was too obvious to cite further. A quick google search confirms that I wasn't too original in drawing these conclusions. See [1], [2]. The second source is by Dr. Ray Pritz, whose bio can be found here: [3]. Incidentally, who are the "some scholars" who think Jesus was a Nazirite? Wesley 04:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

The possessive of Jesus should be Jesus's not Jesus' as the s at the end doesn't make it plural....

Actually, this is wrong. The apostrophe goes onto the end of the s when someone's name ends in an s. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree (and I should know -- my name ends in an S). My belief (and I haven't looked at the Anglo-Saxon for a long time, so please correct me) is that the 's, while now a free moving particle, was once a genitive form. Plurals in -s did not mutate by adding what has now become an apostrophe s. Is that not correct? The rule (as I learnt it) is -- plurals ending in -s have a ' rather than 's, but I have seen your rule quoted too. Your rule MUST be wrong because I would be quite offended if you didn't say Francis's, so why not write it?

Francis Davey 00:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, who are you talking to? Me, or the original poster? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They are pronounced the same anyway. the way i learnt it is that you use the apostrophe on its' own in every case. in fact when i learnt this in school -Jesus'- was the example used.--Bakutaro 16:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The style guide I last read (I think it was Strunk and White, and will provide a reference if it's needed) indicated that most names ending in s should have 's added to the end, but that names from ancient history used only the apostrophe. Sophocles, Socrates, and Jesus were the provided examples -- all are supposed to use only the '. This was a matter of exceptional importance to me as a James -- I personally prefer that my possessions be called James' but have reluctantly accepted that they are James's. I do, however, have a high level of confidence that I'm recalling the "classical exception" correctly. Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is that there is no correct answer. Style manuals differ, because they either (1) reflect what people say, and different people say different things, or (2) reflect what the grammarian believes English should be, and gammarians differ as well. Historically (back in the days of Old English, when we had nominal declensions), the possessive plural had no s at all, as if the two esses cancelled each other out ("one dog's bone; two dog bone"). But we lost nominal case, and the system leveled out to its current ambiguity. What we now have are a competing plural s suffix for nouns and a possessive s clitic for noun phrases. Whether you treat nouns ending in s as if they were plurals is an almost philosophical issue. James' is a stylistic choice backed up by grammarian tradition (which is why this is more important with historicl figures, where there is a longer literary precedent), but Francis's is backed up by popular usage. I don't think I personally know anyone who would say Jesus', and I've even heard triple s sequences like the Joneses's house. Few people would actually write that, but it illustrates how compatible the two endings have become: in the spoken language, people would hear the Jones' house as an attributive rather than a possessive, like saying the Miller house. The spoken language has moved beyond this conflict, and the written language is slowly catching up, but meanwhile both Jesus' and Jesus's are generally acceptable. --kwami 07:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will Durant

Will Durant was an only-decent writer who produced, with his wife's assistance, what is in effect an encyclopedia itself -- so that by citing him as an authority here we are, in effect, one reference work citing another. --Christofurio 00:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

How Do We Get This Page Out Of "Dispute"?

At time of writing, I see no reason to describe this article as either non-neutral or factually inaccurate. As far as I can see, the article is written in a meticulously neutral way - and in every case in which some information is used, the sources are given. It may not be perfect - but its as good as most other articles in these respects.

What is the procedure for removing the notice to say that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the page is in dispute? I suppose I could just edit the page and remove it - but I think it would be better if whoever believes that this notice should be there would come forward and say why - otherwise they will just restore a previous version of the page or start an edit war. Gordon Lallis.

I dispute the assertion that most Jews consider "Jesus" real - perhaps only in this century we won't be killed for expressing that there is no human framework to the myth of "Jesus" - which should quiet the otherworldy claims. - Sparky 14:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even Albert Schweitzer couldn't conclude that Jesus was "real", and he wrote a book on The Historical Jesus that is still highly regarded. As a Christian, he was highly motivated to take the question seriously and try to get a defensible positive answer. So how much difference does it make that some number of Jews affirm his reality? If we are comparing numbers of scholars to numbers of scholars it might well be relevant. But in this case, forgive me if I'm wrong, we do not even have real statistics, just somebody's "feeling" that most Jews believe that a historically important man named Jesus existed. So what? (By the way, Schweitzer didn't get killed but he did get restricted from preaching by the Lutheran Church for a while, and that was during the first half of the 20th century). P0M 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First mention of "Christ"

It appears to me that our anonymous editor makes a good point; the first references are not to "Christ", but to "Christians". Also, where does the argument at the end of the paragraph come from? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would assume, since the final argument is formatted as part of the quotation, that it's Durant's. Its validity can of course be questioned, and should be, but simply deleting a crucial part of the argument reduces it to nonsensicality. Better to find someone who disagrees, and summarize both views. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! I kept missing the fact that it was quoting Durant; I thought it was simply something some Wikipedia editor had authored. That's what you get for looking at diffs, not the actual text. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why Revert?

Do you just randomly revert things for no reason Jayjig? Or is there a reason you like having an extremely POV inaccurate article? The Rev of Bru

I'll give you one example; you twice state that most historians think Josephus is forgery, when this is clearly false. Most historians think the parts of Josephus are forgeries, but parts are real. The rest of your edits suffer from the same issues; unsourced and inaccurate claims. If you can't NPOV or source your edits, they'll end up getting reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I 'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread what the edit said. The point is that the passage is josephus(which is what was mentioned) is generally regarded as a forgery. It doesnt fit with the surrounding text, it reads completely differently, and NOONE mentions it until Eusebius (who himself repeatedly said things like 'Its ok to make things up for a good cause') 'edited' the book centuries later. Most honest scholars do indeed regard the passage as a forgery. The Rev of Bru

I read the edit, and it was simply wrong. I don't know how you define "honest scholars", but most respected scholars in the field view is as emended, not entirely forged, and most also view the other reference as authentic. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and you keep deleting the end of a direct quote, simply because you don't like the argument made. That alone is reason enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I kept deleting that nonsense because it is not NPOV. Admittedly it was not clear that it was a direct quote, not being in quotation marks. I take it its fine to point out the utter garbage that this 'argument' is in the spirit of NPOV? Or provide a competing quote from a secular scholar?The Rev of Bru

You have misunderstood the NPOV policy; the policy states that you must present differing POVs, including ones you disagree with. If you want to counter that view, quote some respected scholar who disagrees with Durant on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the Durant book, but I did just check out the disappearance of the end of the direct quotation mentioned above. If a supposed quotation needs to be emended then that should be the subject of a discussion on the talk page before the change is made. P0M 02:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will Durant

Is not a historian. He has no training in any discipline relevant to rational enquiry into history. I think having such an unqualified layman as a supposed authority in an article is severely POV. A philosophical approach to history may be pleasant to read, but it definitely is NOT valid scholarship. Removing nonsense by Will Durant. The Rev of Bru

Well, surely you agree we need a consistent standard. The Columbia Encyclopedia and the American Heritage Dictionary both identify Durant as an historian. If we "remove nonsense" by Durant (and to be clear, I agree with you, he was not an expert on Biblical critical history), we also should delete the "nonsense" by Freke, Gandy, Messori and Wells. Surely, if Durant does not have the appropriate credentials for inclusion in this article, these four do not either. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted both of your edits to the last version by KHM03. I don't think that deleting references to named scholars (whether or not they're "experts on Biblical critical history") is at all helpful for this article. Obviously it would be better if we can find suitable quotes from experts, but surely the purpose of this article is to discuss what people believe about the historicity of Jeus? Therefore, if people have published books discussing this we should include what they believe- as well as other people's critiques on their theories and academic credentials if necessary. Deleting stuff because we don't think they're suitably qualified is getting dangerously close to original research in my opinion- especially as we haven't got an agreement on who counts as suitably qualified. For example, Rev of Bru would probably argue that the only suitably qualified people are "secular" scholars. Therefore lets reach agreement here first on who should be quoted in the article before deleting them. My vote- they should all stay. --G Rutter 08:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not that certain povs are presented; the problem is that the section on Durant was presented as if it were historical fact, not opinionated nonsense. As I have tried in the past to counter this with other POVs and had that removed, the only course that seemed available was removing it.

Since you agree that all POVs should be presented, I will add some contrary POVs on Pliny and Suetonius. I'd like to know also of any way you can think of that non-secular scholars can possibly write in a NPOV way on issues they believe in. I do not think it is possible. The Rev of Bru

I am content to wait to let Rev of Bru chime in, but in principle I think you are wrong about original research; people writing an encyclopedia have to make choices about appropriate sources all the time, and no encyclopedia accepts anyone and everyone as an "expert." I also suspect you are wrong about Rev of Bru arguing that the only acceptable scholars are "secular." Durant was secular, so it is evident to me that RoB thinks that being "secular" is insufficient to qualify someone (look, Betty Crocker is secular, but however much an expert she may be on angel's food cake, that is not sufficient to make her an expert on the Bible or Jesus). Slrubenstein | Talk 14:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The issue is with people who have strongly held beliefs and cannot write about issues close to those beliefs. They are able to write perfectly well on issues seperate from their beliefs in most cases. The issue is that Durant simply wrote his opinion on the issue. He did not research anything (apart from his years training for the priesthood as a young man, which would be the opposite of unbiased research)on the subject. It is not his lack of formal acedemic qualifications that is the issue, it is his lack of the correct research methodology, approach and evidence.The Rev of Bru

I'm not sure why you think that training for the priesthood would be the opposite of unbiased research. Hypothetically speaking, would someone who is personally convinced that atheism and naturalism are the correct views be qualified to research a history that includes claims of miracles? Personally I would think not, because their personal opinions would predispose them to assume that any and all claims of anything supernatural would have to have some sort of naturalistic explanation. Surely that's at least as POV as a religious person's approach to history, and I would say more so, because most religious historians will give various levels of credibility to various accounts of the supernatural, and not just depending on whether the account aligns with their religious views. Wesley 02:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its called reality. Being honest and rational is the opposite of being irrational and dishonest, not another form of it. You misunderstand what NPOV is. The Rev of Bru

See my comments, below. --G Rutter 16:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is another citation to be made in a similar vein to the one by Will Durant from a less controversial source. Any suggestions? KHM03 21:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wesley. I think the problem here seems to be a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. The introduction says:

"[The policy] doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

In other words, scholars don't have to write in a NPOV way (as people are arguing) to be included- we merely need to balance the varying POV's to make an article which is overall NPOV. --G Rutter 13:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rev of Bru is above expressing his own POV blindness. There is no reason to think that people like Gandy and Freke do not have strong feelings about Jesus, or that their work is any more objective than Durian's or anyone else. In any event, Durant's knowledge concerning the historicity of Jesus comes not from his early training for the priesthood, which he broke with, it comes from his research for his multi-volume history of Western Civilization. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grutter is above expressing his own POV blindness. I ask simply what research Durant has done on the issue, and where it is. What evidence IS there for a historical Jesus? Surely there is some? Plenty of evidence against - none for. The Rev of Bru