Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Nazareth or Nazirite? 2 "an" horrendous spelling 3 Martin-Parrish debate on the historicity of Jesus 4 Perceived 5 mythology 6 Radical criticism 7 Proposed Deletion 8 Pagan? 9 Bit of a mess 10 11 Dec 05 11 12 Dec 2005 edits 11.1 Totally disputed 12 Thomas & Gnostics 13 "Revert War"? 14 Josephus 15 Disputed 16 Jesus's alleged Egyptian roots 17 Historicity of Jesus v. Historical Jesus 18 Warning tag 19 Graves 20 Pantera? 21 Contemporary versus Near-contemporary

Nazareth or Nazirite?

Some scholars have argued that the (largely Greek) Pauline Christians were unfamiliar with Jewish culture and that the term "Nazarene" was unfamiliar to those transcribing Aramaic oral tradition into Greek. This school suggests that a more appropriate translation of the historical rabbi Jesus, who came to be so thoroughly mythologized, was "Jesus the Nazirite".

Some scholars argue that there is no evidence Nazareth existed before the 4th century AD. Against this theory is the fact that all four Gospels specifically speak of a place named Nazareth (see Mark 1:9, Luke 1:26, John 1:46) in contexts where it cannot possibly be a confusion with "the Nazirite". (See also Matthew 2:23, which also speaks of a location called Nazareth, but has a quote which adds to the Nazarene/Nazirite confusion.) In addition, Dr. Ray Pritz observes that the Gospels frequently give examples of Jesus drinking wine, which was forbidden for Nazirites. One such example is Luke 7:34, in which Jesus says, "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard.'"

In 1962, a 15 cm x 12 cm marble slab with four lines of inscription in Hebrew square character was found by Israeli archeologists in Caesarea, indicating that priests from Jerusalem were assigned to live in the village of Nazareth in Galilee. The slab bears the first non-Christian mention of Nazareth and is dated from the late 3rd or 4th century AD. This suggests that Nazareth at least existed around the time the Gospels started to be transcribed.

Dr. Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land has been conducting excavations in Nazareth since 1996, and claims to have found pottery dating from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, associated with agricultural terraces and wine presses [1]. Based on this evidence, Dr. Pfann argues that in the 1st century, "Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over six acres (2.5 hectares)" [2].

There. At least it's out of the way. -Silence 03:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"an" horrendous spelling

"Revert obsolete "an historical" phrasing. Until we start using "an horrendous", "an hospitable", "an hilarious", etc., no." Or until we start talking about non-toxic erbicides, orrible monsters, etc. P0M 04:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the specific rule the user was adhering to is the fact that the initial "h" sound used to drop away in any word starting with an h where the emphasis was not on the first syllable. Thus, we have "a HIStory", but "an hisTORical" ("an 'istorical"). However, this quirk of pronunciation dropped away long ago in most spoken English, and was kept only as a matter of convention for a long time, most famously in "an historical", and, in fact, this led to inconsistencies, as people didn't use "an" for other initial-h words with emphasis after the first syllable, just for "historical". Thankfully, English writing eventually caught up with English pronunciation, and now a majority of textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. use "a historical". The older form is still used occasionally, but it's dying, and while it might not be worth going to the trouble of switching "an historical" to "a historical" wherever you see it, as some would consider it one of those minor spelling technicalities that it's not worth the trouble of trying to make consistent throughout all of Wikipedia (like "colour" vs. "color"), it's most certainly not worth going around doing the opposite, changing "a historical" to "an historical" all around the Wiki. Especially in an article that tends towards American rather than Commonwealth spellings, by and large. -Silence 04:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's crept to many other h-initial words lately. 4.152.93.225 05:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Like? I've only ever seen "an historical", and also "an history" from the ignorant masses. -Silence 06:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not ignorant at all, just historical. [3] Paul B 08:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, "an history" is an ignorant phrasing, not a historical one. Your link confirms exactly what I said, so I'm surprised that you'd then say "It's not ignorant at all". "An history" is a grammatical mistake of overcompensation (i.e. trying to sound smart by using really pretentious, proper-sounding grammar without understanding how the grammar actually works), much like "this is between you and I" or "he knows whom he is". Because the initial "h" in "historical" is commonly pronounced by modern English-speakers, "an historical" is an archaic and dying phrasing that endures only as a testament to the power of mindless prescriptive linguistics and tradition-obsessed linguistic elitism.

If an article already has "an historical" in the text from the start, it may be acceptable to leave it alone because it's not bad English per se, but adding "an historical" to articles that have been using "a historical" is unacceptable for the same reason that going through all of Wikipedia and changing "color" to "colour" (or vice versa) is a misuse of Wikipedia style guidelines. -Silence 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comment ("just historical" geddit?). Anyway the link explains the rule, as did P0M. I don't see "masses" of people, ignorant or otherwise, using "an history". It's a minority sport. You don't need to waste so much space on it. Yes it's pointless to change it, but its equally daft to get into a revert war about something so trivial, so I hope that don't happen here (btw "don't" is an acceptable but archaic abbreviation of "does not"). Paul B 15:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Correction. I see that it was you who explained the rule not POM. Paul B 15:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have no interest in an edit war. My current intention is to either let a third party revert the "an historical"s, or to wait a few months and then quietly change them at that point. :) -Silence 19:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"A historical" is just plain wrong. "An historical" is the correct way. If wikipedia uses "a historical" it will just make wikipedia look ignorant.207.157.121.50 02:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

Nope. "A historical" is perfectly acceptable. Wikipedia is not bound by the grammatical laws of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's bound by the grammatical laws of today, and is being written for the ordinary layperson today, not the college professor of 1853. Language changes. If you can't deal with that, you should go back to speaking Proto-Indo-European or something. :F -Silence 10:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not "just plain wrong." The word "an" has as its sole reason for existence the avoidance of problems involved in pronouncing two vowel sounds in sequence. Saying "a ape", "a edition," "a initiative," "a opinion," "a Uzi", etc. can be done, but I suspect there is even an instinctive tendency to stick some consonant sound between, e.g., "a" and "edition." If I try to say "a edition" at normal speed I find myself saying "a yedition." The same "y" sound (or a glottal stop) comes up in the middle of "I imagine." If one drops one's "Hs" and says "erb" rather than "herb" (As in 'Erb Teagarten), then it is natural and appropriate to use "an." Using "an" before "history" is just as senseless as saying "an yellow blossom." Following rules blindly makes for wierd spellings, too.  ;-) P0M 19:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so. -Silence 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin-Parrish debate on the historicity of Jesus

Does anybody here know how the Martin (atheist)-Parrish (Christian) debate of 1993-1994 ended?

From this link we know that Parrish (Christian) seemed to have had the last say: Martin -Parrish debate.

I am interested to know because it offers very good material for this article.

Parrish's first critique appears here: Parrish's book review. Arturo Cruz 06:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Perceived

Let's not get into a revert war. At least, not until we've tried talking this over. :) My latest edit was my attempt at a compromise: I conceded that not all three points are insignificantly disputed, and moved "perceived" to the factor of there not being any physical evidence of Jesus' existence (since many Christians claim surviving relics provide this evidence, though all of these relics are heavily disputed). "Perceived" isn't necessary to mention in reference to the other two factors, since next to no one seriously believes that there are detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than his followers, and just as few seriously believe that there are no similarities between the Gospels and various contemporary mythologies, even most of those who believe that the Gospels are the literal truth (and who have at least some background in those fields, of course).

The fact that your latest edit said "NPOV The dissent IS VERY significant, it's arrogant to pretend it's insignificant on ALL these "factors"" makes me think that you didn't read my last edit, since it didn't say that all of those factors are more or less undisputed (as much as anything relating to Biblical historicity is, at least), just two of them.

However, either way I agree entirely with Paul Barlow's edit summary ("the passage is a summary of an argument. "Perceived" is redundant."); thanks for explaining my original reason for removing "perceived" from the passage much better than I did. And, again, the "perceived" is still there in both of our edits: we've just moved it to the only factoid it (arguably) applies to in a meaningful way. -Silence 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"...next to no one seriously believes that there are detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than his followers..."

You've got to be kidding... Codex Sinaiticus 21:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"the perceived lack of reliable physical evidence or detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers" - So, now your objection is clearer. You believe that there is a "VERY significant" lack of agreement on whether or not there are extant detailed accounts of Jesus' life written by non-followers of Jesus and his teachings at the time? Can you cite any sources that dispute this? Or at least say which texts you are referring to? I can't think of any non-Christian writings on Jesus from the time that do more than briefly mention a name that could be his or indirectly refer to him via his followers (neither of which come close to being "detailed accounts of his life"); that's what's said in this very article, so if there are other views on whether such writings exist, they should most certainly be included in this article! If there aren't, then what's the point in qualifying the lack of "detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers" as being nothing but a "perception"? -Silence 21:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you couldn't have missed the entire preceding section about "non-Christian references", particularly Flavius Josephus, who may not be as "detailed" as the Christian writings, but is still more "detailed" than the brief mention given by the Roman historians... Codex Sinaiticus 21:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The earliest manuscripts of which we have are from the 9th century, and the text of which is pretty blatantly an insert by later Christian copiers (very probably in the early 4th century) seeking to fabricate evidence of Jesus' life from a non-Christian source. Any neutral observer reading a passage like this would be pretty dubious about its being from a non-Christian source!!

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

If this text truly had been written by Josephus, Josephus actually would be a Christian by most definitions of the term, since it would indicate that he apparently believes that Jesus is the Christ (i.e. Messiah), which is the chief belief of Christianity distinguishing it from Judaism. If not for biased Christian scholars succumbing to wishful thinking, the passage would be just about unanimously accepted as a fabrication.

Furthermore, a single paragraph still does not qualify as a "detailed account of Jesus' life" by any stretch of the word "detailed". You tried to show that it was "detailed" by comparing it to less detailed works, but the paragraph we're referring to doesn't use detailed in comparison to anything specific, just the general term "detailed". And the paragraph is certainly not "detailed". It's practically a blurb, going over a handful of key elements of the Gospel accounts and then abruptly transitioning into other elements (that the next line in the text is "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome..." is especially damning for those who still stubbornly believe that the passage isn't an insertion). Furthermore, the very fact that we already go into the Josephus account on this page makes it unnecessary to put "perceived" before every mentioning of the lack of detailed non-Christian accounts of Jesus' life throughout the page, since it's covered there and further information on the controversy can easily be added there and/or to the Josephus on Jesus page.

There's a difference between (1) real disputes over the historicity of Jesus, ones that are taken seriously and have historical weight to them, and (2) especially prominent hoaxes like Josephus and the (only marginally less believable) pseudepigraphical texts. (2) merits mentioning on the page, but only (1) requires us to go to the trouble of putting "believed" or "perceived" or "possible" or other weak words every single a fact is mentioned. -Silence 21:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I just now read Josephus on Jesus and found it very interesting, also see that there is much more to the story than the one side of it you gave in your summary above. I am satisfied with the neutrality of that article, but not with claiming that disputed pov's are "facts"... A "fact" is generally something indisputable, and those on one side are often all too happy to brush off the other side as if they didn't exist or were insignificant, and pretend that their own disputed "facts" are somehow "undisputed". If they are disputed, they require neutrally written language explaining why, but if they were truly proven "facts" with no reasonable doubt, it would be unnecessary. Codex Sinaiticus 23:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Something useful to know about this world: nothing is completely indisputable. Some things are just less disputable than other things (and, more importantly, some disputes have more substance to them than others). As for my use of the word "fact", I was speaking generally at that point, but fine, I'll withdraw the use of the term (only used it once anyway). Replace the end of my statement with "or other weak words every single time a statement is made" or whatever you prefer. Makes little difference, anyway; the word "fact" is never used in any of the article text we're talking about. In fact (whoops, I did it again! :P), the word "fact" is only mentioned once in the entire article, in the Tacitus section, and "factual" once as well, both in sentences discussing factuality rather than calling something a fact. So let's not overcomplicate this discussion; all of this is besides the point:

Your inclusion of the second factor as being merely "perceived" is totally baseless, not only because of the paragraph in Josephus being almost certainly a later insertion by Christians, and not only because if that paragraph was really Josephus' it would mean that Josephus was actually a Christian, but also because it's indisputably not a "detailed" acount in any case, and the statement in question specifically states that there are no detailed non-Christian contemporary sources. Which there aren't: the Josephus source, the only one you've mentioned thus far as a "detailed non-Christian contemporary source", is very likely not contemporary (because it's probably a later insertion), extremely likely not non-Christian (because it explicitly states that Jesus is the Messiah and otherwise echoes almost every major Christian belief, without any justification for the claims except an apparent dogmatic adherence to Christianity), and certainly not "detailed" by any meaningful sense of the word. That's zero for three. Any more problem with our version of the opening to Jesus-Myth? -Silence 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Josephus on Jesus does make it pretty inarguable that there is at least a lot of controversy on that very point. So I would argue that given the chance Josephus really wrote something even vaguely like that (maybe closer to the Arab version) it is potentially significant evidence, leaving it a matter of perception whether or not there is corroborating evidence. Codex Sinaiticus 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said that the passage isn't significant. It's very significant as a historical indication of the state of early Christianity. It's just got absolutely nothing to do with the section of the Historicity of Jesus article we're discussing:

This argument is based on several factors: the perceived lack of reliable physical evidence, the lack of detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers, and the similarities of early Christian writings with many mythological accounts at the time, both Pagan and Jewish.

You contested that the second factor ("lack of detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers") is disputed to such an extent that we can't even mention it within the context of a group's argument for Jesus' nonexistence without changing it to "the perceived lack of reliable physical evidence or detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers", based solely on Josephus and the other scraps of contested information in the "Non-Christian sources" section of Historicity of Jesus. I have shown that Josephus is not "detailed", very likely not "from sources other than Jesus' followers", and very likely not "contemporary", making it an exceedingly poor justification for adding "perceived" to this paragraph. I am now waiting for you to provide other evidence suggesting that there are "detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers", or to somehow show that I'm wrong in saying that the Josephus passage does not meet the requirements necessarily to contradict the second factor in the above text I quoted. -Silence 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well you still seem to be making an assumption that only your pov on Josephus is valid, about what is a very controversial matter, one that Josephus on Jesus in fact leaves open. Josephus was not Christian, but may well have written a paragraph, with minimal detail, on Jesus, something like the Arabic version. The Greek versions were obviously the same passage, heavily interpolated by a Christian translator. The point of the edit seems to be making the case that there was definitely NO serious corroborating evidence from non-Christians --- which is definitely only a perception, and sort of dismissing the entire above section with a single wave. Codex Sinaiticus 01:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Arabic version could easily be faulty as well. Or maybe it's not. Who cares? If you agree with me that his original passage very likely isn't extant, only a variety of at least warped and altered, and at most outright fabricated from scratch (remember the section of Josephus on Jesus showing how much more smoothly the passage moves without the Jesus section), sections, then we don't have that contemporary text on the matter, just later versions of what was once a contemporary text. And even if the common version of the current text is the accurate one, it's not detailed, and it's distinctly and blatantly (and with no justification or evidence or explanation to support why such beliefs would be correct) Christian in tone and message. And even if the Arabic version is correct, it's nothing but an obscure paraphrasing of a heavily disputed possible passage. We are not discussing hypothetical passages that may have been detailed non-Christian contemporary accounts of Jesus' life at the time, but ones that still exist, or at the very least that we have reasonable certainty existed at the time. We don't.

And while you're accusing me of assuming that my POV is the correct one (how ridiculous; if I didn't think that it was correct, then it wouldn't be my POV, now would it? why would I have a point of view that I didn't think was probably correct? If I did, it wouldn't be my POV!), you're doing the exact same thing, going to ridiculous lengths to try to show that Josephus did write about Jesus, and assuming that the Arabic passage must have been remarkably close to the original one (despite being a paraphrase!), completely ignoring the distinct possibility that the Arabic version is just as inaccurate as the other versions; it could even be more inaccurate than the other versions, for all you know, perhaps even being based on one of the "Jesus is Christ" versions and being changed to a less biased version either on purpose (to make the text seem less like evidence in support of the Christian ideology) or just as a result of misremembering or reading a mistranslation or miscopy. Either could easily be the case, with all the variables that exist around the history of the text. So why go to all this length to speculate wildly about what hypothetical texts may or may not have existed at the time, when there's still no reason to believe that there are any detailed contemporary non-Christian sources on Jesus' life? Which is the only thing that matters for discussing the line you want rendered with "perceived". You have failed to provide a single detailed contemporary non-Christian source for Jesus' life, and therefore I propose that we remove the "perceived" from applying to that factor until you, or someone else, does find such a text. Until someone does, it's actually more POV to have the "perceived" there than to not have it there! -Silence 01:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No, really it's only a reognition that the point IS disputed and should be worded neutrally and not make assumptions on behalf of the reader! Codex Sinaiticus 01:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not making assumptions for anyone, it's stating what the argument of people who believe that the historical figure Jesus never existed are. The article already makes it very clear what the disputes are regarding the Josephus passage; if you don't think it does, edit the Josephus section yourself and improve its coverage, rather than trying to spread your specific belief regarding what Josephus may or may not have said all throughout the article without a scrap of hard evidence of what we're talking about here: extant detailed non-Christian sources for Jesus' life.

Here's my current version of the disputed text, a more concise and clear version that both looks less like it's definitively weighing in on any dispute, and avoids ridiculous unnecessary wishy-washy phrases:

Some scholars argue that Jesus may never have existed outside of the mythological realm at all, based on a lack of reliable physical evidence, a lack of detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers, and similarities between early Christian writings and many contemporary mythological accounts.

Unless there are any further objections, I'll change the opening lines of Jesus-Myth section to that soon. -Silence 01:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding "what they say" is equally absurd. You still have yet to provide any evidence that any of the three claims are widely disputed, yet continue to try to push your POV on the page by adding "perceived" and "what they say" and other PC phrases without justification. Just because you personally have doubts regarding whether there are extant detailed contemporary non-Christian accounts of Jesus' life doesn't mean that Biblical scholars in general have any significant disagreements whatsoever about whether there are any such texts. Since you're the one trying to interject unnecessary uncertainty into a quite clear and concise paragraph, it's your job to cite sources to support your claim that there's this vast, "VERY significant" dissent regarding such a clear, obvious, for all practical purposes indisputable statement (which doesn't stop people from disputing it, but hey, there are people who think that space aliens control the government; nothing in the entire world is unanimously agreed-upon): "there are no detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers." If there are any, show me one and I'll gladly agree to add the statement. If you can't show me any, stop re-adding "perceived" and similar statements until you can.

Incidentally, do note that I changed "the lack of accounts" to "a lack of accounts", and "the lack of physical evidence" to "a lack of physical evidence"; that makes a world of difference in the meaning of the statements, as "the lack" makes it sound like there is none of the things in question, whereas "a lack" could be interpreted as meaning that there isn't enough of the thing in question.

Anyway, in case I haven't been clear before, the reason it's POV to add "perceived" and "what they say" and so on to statements which aren't widely disputed, is not only because it misleads people into thinking something's on much shakier ground than it really is (in other words, it does the opposite of letting people decide for themselves which side they agree with, which is your justification for adding it; if you could, would you add it to every sentence on all of Wikipedia? oy), but also because it suggests that everything else on the page that we don't add those PC words to isn't disputed by anyone at all. Since your criterion for letting something be stated without a "perceived" or "what they say" or similar added in is that the statement be "universally agreed-to" (how ridiculous!), such excessive Political Correctness leaves us wide open to anyone who comes to Wikipedia and says "I disagree with statement X, please add 'in their view' or 'what they believe to be' or similar", and we'll have to consent because one person's dissent violates the "universal agreement" you demand! Even if they, like you, don't provide any evidence to back up their claim! That's not a good state of affairs to be in. We should reserve such careful terminology for when it's really needed, and not use it recklessly on statements that aren't widely disputed.

Oh, and I realize that this discussion's over a rather minor point, and it's been going on for a while, and there are any number of alternative solutions we could have used to circumvent the problem rather than facing it head-on. But I prefer to actually resolve this now, or at least come to a better understanding, because it seems to be indicative of some deeper policy difference that will may also be significant later and thus should be gotten out in the opening now. So, let's get things out in the open: do you have any detailed contemporary non-Christian texts on Jesus' life, and if you don't, why do you persist? -Silence 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that even if Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, he could in no way be considered a contemporary account; Josephus was not even born when Jesus was supposed to have been put to death, and he wrote over 60 years after that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. -Silence 04:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If Josephus actually wrote about Jesus, that would be about as close to a contemporary account as one can expect in the ancient world. Our only accounts of the reign of Caesar Augustus are those of Suetonius (writing 150 years after Augustus) and Dio Cassius (writing more than 200 years after Augustus). 60 years (if that - Josephus was active 40 years after Jesus, certainly) is not very much by that standard. That said, I imagine the Josephus reference to Jesus is like forged. john k 06:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"detailed contemporary accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than his followers" If such accounts exist, *please* name them in the article. Thank you. --DavidCary 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

mythology

I think that it is ridiculous to think that Jesus is simply inspired by myths. I might point out that many of these myths probably were made up after the historical accounts of Jesus were written. Also, even if they were there "before" the historical accounts, it is completely logical to believe that the similarities between the accounts and mythology are coincidental. There are many examples of this. The similarities between two stories that were written at different times don't mean that events from one of the stories were plagarised by the other; it is most likely that the author of the one accused of plagarism simply had not heard of the other story, or he had but did not realize how similar his story was to the other, much less with a historical account! Scorpionman 02:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Radical criticism

An school of thought starting in the 19th century that has to be presented in Wikipedia: see: http://www.radikalkritik.de/ Andreas 23:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this the same as the Earl Dougherty/Timothy Freke idea that Christianity was invented out of earlier pagan religions? My German isn't that strong, but it looks like that site is mainly concerned with debunking the "usual" accepted history of Christianity. Is that right? And as for presenting something that isn't here in wikipedia yet, edit boldly, within the usual wikipedia policies. Wesley 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The ideas are similar to those of other authors questioning the historicity of Jesus. My point is that all these 20th century thinkers base their ideas on 19th century European authors. What is missing here is a history of this area of thinking. See also: http://www.egodeath.com/drewshistorymythiconlyjesus.htm Higher criticism. Andreas 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

I believe the following sentence from the first paragraph is editorial in nature and biased towards those who dispute Jesus' existence. If no one objects, I propose to delete it. Does anyone mind?

"However, the true historicity of Jesus is difficult to determine, as few reliable records of his life exist."

I think it should be kept. It is true. The Gospels are hardly impartial and accurate, Josephus' mention is for several reasons covered in the article unreliable if indeed genuine, and later records from succeeding centuries equally unreliable due to seperation by time and impartiality issues again. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer goes beyond that assertion to maintain that the historicity of Jesus is unproven on the basis of all the evidence he had when he wrote -- and he was a good Lutheran theologian. P0M 06:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Lutheran, I'm not sure of the last statement, but you are welcome to your opinion. 8-) As one of German ancestry, I suspect he and his scholastic collegues had too high a view of literate cultures and too low a view oral cultures. They also assert Pontius Pilate didn't exist -- until a plaque in Caesarea turned up with his name on it in the 1960s. 8-)

I'm not questioning the usefulness of this article, although almost all scholars, including secular ones, believe that there is no question that Jesus existed, was born in Palestine during the last years of the reign of Herod the Great and died in Jerusalem by crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. See my tour of encyclopedia articles on the talk:Jesus page.

If you'd like, I can cite one scholar after another, including those who have little respect for the reliability of the Gospels. I am unaware of anyone with scholarly credentials writing in the last fifty years who advocates the position that Jesus did not exist. I'd appreciate any citations to that effect if I'm wrong.

The details of his life beyond this are in dispute by all manner of scholars at almost all points, but that is not the declared purpose of this article. This article is supposed to be about the existence of Jesus, the evidence for and against it and the opinion of those who question it. The article on the Historical Jesus is for that purpose.

So therefore, to say it is difficult to determine is a value judgment held by only a very few. In fact, it has always been a minority view. So it is very biased, a little on the lecturing side, too, to make this claim. The sentence should go and the reader allowed to draw their own conclusion from a balanced presentation of the evidence. --CTSWyneken 14:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The sentence should go because it's nonsense. If "few" reliable records exist, then that means that some reliable records do exist. If they do, then his historicity is not in doubt, making the first half of the sentence meaningless in the light of the second half. Of course it could be changed to "no reliable records", but such an assertion would be clearly POV. Alternatively "historicity" could be changed to "history", but then it would be saying something different, something perhaps relevant to the Historical Jesus article, but not to this one. I suspect that one of the contributors mistook the meaning of the word "historicity". Paul B 16:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise?

"However, the true historicity of Jesus is difficult to determine, as few records of his life exist, and the reliability of the extant records is disputed by scholars."

Few records do exist, few enough we can treat each of them in detail in this article; scholars do dispute their reliability- which says nothing about whether Jesus did or did not eist; and the matter is difficult to decide either way (note that this asserts that it can be decided, implying the reader can, on the basis of the evidence presented, decide.) Sound good? --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. The problem is that by far most scholars think that the existence of Jesus is very easy to determine. If you'd like, I can quote a few of the most prominent on this score. So, the statement is, in fact, a POV, and a very small minority one at that. To take it out does not harm the sense of the rest of the article, which describes both sides of the issue. To leave it in is to give the impression that scholarship generally supports the notion, which it does not.

As to the reliability of the texts, many people find them quite reliable. NPOV demands more that just a claim that they are not. In an encyclopedia like this, who is right and wrong is the judgment call of reader. Were it not, I would argue to delete the whole article, since the scholarly opinion of today is that Jesus' existence is settled fact. But some scholars had in the past argued the other way, so NPOV demands the question be explored.

So, let's delete the sentence. Save the arguments about where and when Jesus was born for other articles, as the scope paragraph at the beginning of our article suggests. --CTSWyneken 21:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pagan?

There seems to be great store set in not offending Christians in the comments and within the Article, however, the word Pagan is used in the article:

Here's what the opening paragraph of the Wikipidia page has to say about the word Pagan: Within a Christian context, paganism (from Latin paganus) and heathenry are catch-all terms which have come to connote a broad set of spiritual/religious beliefs and practices of a natural religion, as opposed to the Abrahamic religions based on scriptures. These beliefs, which are not necessarily compatible with each other, are usually characterized by polytheism and animism. Often, the term has pejorative connotations, comparable to infidel and Kafir in Islam.

It would appear that Pagan is an offensive word to millions of people around the world. My own view is that it is rather condesending. It is also very nondescript. But most of all, in an encyclopedia, simply to jumble up "suggested facts" into a nondescriptive term like Paganism does nothing to allow further research. Infact its lack of citation actually stifels further research. It appears to be used, whether intentionally or not, as a gratuituous comment.

Please consider rewriting for clarity of research or removal from the article for its offensive implications.

Please log in and sign your comments. This page is for dialogue. Also, it would help if you would tell us where in the article the term is used. Not all of us have read the whole thing in great detail. If you will sign in, however, I, for one, would be willing to consider substitute terms. Do you have one? --CTSWyneken 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Pagan is not offensive to many people who actually called themselves pagans. See paganism and neo-paganism. It is the nearest equivalent that we have to a neutral word, so unless you can think of anything better, I think it must stay. Paul B 12:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, many of us find the expression Pagan offensive. What are the names of the Pagan religions being reffered to in the article. I bet the people wo worshipped in those religions have a word for them. Its interesting that there is a big warning at the front of the Historicity article, via that page I arrived in this discussion page. But a satanish perspective can be kept out an article on Jesus....see somewhere above in the endless discussion. It seems there is great care taken not to offend Christians. Why is the same courtisy not extended to others, i.e., the majority of the population of the world. I have the impression that the article on historicity was written by someone with a Bias, who has convinced themselves of their extensive knowledge. But who has failed to write a neutral article. My next question is, why is this article even written, what is its relevance in an encyclopedia or any neutral medium outside of a Christian debating society for that matter.

The article is about as clear and informative on the "Historicity" of Jesus, as the use of the word "Pagan" is, to discribe Zoroastrianism, Summerian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Hinduism, Buddism,Druidism etc etc etc world religions. If I didnt know any better, I would be left believing that the majority of humanity is and always has been members af a great Pagan religion.

The neutrality is compromised and the writers have left themselves exposed to the criticism of having an agenda or even worse, not having a good grasp of their subject.

As I said above, you need to log in and sign in here to be taken seriously. We have no idea who you are otherwise. How can we know you actually know what you're talking about, if we do not know who you are. --CTSWyneken 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Pagan, is a word which can be used to discribe me, by condecending christians. I have been called this by christians and I am offended by it. Would you please extend the same courtisy to me and others like me, as you have to christians. BUt not wishing to censor your article, I would suggest you reference the religions you are referring to.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Wesley 18:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

At least three of the occasions on which the word 'pagan' is used in the article are quotations or book-titles, a fact that indicates that the term is established in scholarly usage. The other usages in the article all refer to features that are common to several belief systems, not just one religion. In any case to refer to the practices of Greece, Rome and even of Egypt as "a religion" is misleading. They were a combination of interconnected cults, not a single belief-system. Pagan is the best word we have, and it is one that is fully embraced by devotees of Wicca, Stregheria and other modern faiths that claim descent from pre-Christian traditions. Such people might well be offended by your treatment of "pagan" as a 'dirty word', and your wish to suppress its use. You do not say why you would be considered to be a pagan, or who "me and others like me" might be. It is difficult to extend 'courtesy' to you on such flimsy grounds, especially if it means denigrating people who embrace the word pagan. [4] Paul B 00:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"I have the impression that the article on historicity was written by someone with a Bias, who has convinced themselves of their extensive knowledge." Yes, you are absolutely correct. You may be astonished to learn that 100% of all Wikipedia articles are written by one or more human beings. According to WP:NPOV, every Wikipedia editor has a bias. I have the impression that other encyclopedias also include articles written by human beings. Please help us improve this and other articles. --DavidCary 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bit of a mess

The intro to the srticle (the bit in italics) says it's concerned with the actual historical existence of the man Jesus; but the article then forgets this and spends its entire length discussing his nature instead. It needs to be substantially shortened and focussed on what it claims to be about.

11 Dec 05

My edit summary on this date at 18:46 should have read "removed 'linkfarm' template"...my mistake. KHM03 18:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

12 Dec 2005 edits

The edits made by myself (and apparently one or two others) were to remove inaccuracies and the extreme POV bent apparent in the article. Much in the article was only nominally related; lengthy discussions of peripheral issues added nothing but POV to the article; unsupported claims are also not needed. Please discuss before restoring POV. Thanks... KHM03 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article contained those sections for ages. You have also removed for example the standard reasons for Josephus being rejected. The only reason I can see for you to do that is to cover them up - POV. Clinkophonist 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't care how long they were there...they're still POV. The article isn't about Josephus...mention what he has to offer and move on, don't dawdle. The stuff was deleted because it wasn't germaine to the subject at hand, not to cover anything up. Let the "Jesus didn't exist" position argue for itself; don't try and shore it up. KHM03 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about scholarly thought on whether Jesus existed and to what degree. Not mentioning what the main arguments are is like having an article only consisting of the text "well some scholars think he didn't exist, others think the gospels are a bit dodgy, but religionists disagree with them". Josephus IS majorly quoted by fundamentalists and others as the main non-biblical piece of evidence supporting Jesus' existance, and rather than being something which should be briefly skirted "A quote attributed to Josephus mentions Jesus, many scholars think its dodgy", it is a major thing which should be discussed. The stuff you deleted WAS relevant to the subject (I expand further on this at Talk:Jesus since you responded there first). Clinkophonist 23:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But the idea that Jesus didn't exist is so fringe, such a tiny, tiny minority, that mainstream scholarship doesn't even give it credence. Even the "liberal" Jesus Seminar affirms that he existed. It idn't mainstream and barely scholarly. We need to be honest about that reality. KHM03 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a tiny minority. Biblical criticism, particularly of the New Testament, is a very small field. What appears to be a small group of individuals is sub

stantive in respect to the field, for example, New Perspectives on Paul is pushed mainly by two individuals, BOTH of whom (James Dunn, who is the Durham University Professor of Theology, and Tom Wright (theologian), who is the current Bishop of Durham) are at Durham University, and BOTH of whom are part of its theology department, and BOTH of whom live within 1 mile of each other. Mainstream scholarship DOES give the Jesus-didn't-exist view credence, but, much in the same was as the Omphalos hypothesis, it isn't very practical to considering other theological questions - "how does Jesus fit into the problem of evil? the question can't be asked, he didn't exist. do you suppose Jesus spoke aramaic or hebrew? no he didn't, he didn't exist. was Jesus a vegetarian? no, he didn't exist" and for this reason it is put to one side - not discounted just something that gets too much in the way of carrying out other theological study for it to be practical to involve it, much in the same way as people disregard Quantum Electrodynamics when trying to work out which fuse has blown, or disregard Biochemistry when considering whether it is better to have chips or ice cream for dinner. The Jesus Seminar consisted predominantly of Christians; for it to have concluded that Jesus didn't exist, regardless of the merit of the position, is frankly ridiculous.

And back to your other point (as there was an edit conflict that prevented me completing a response). Why not let the "Jesus did exist" position argue for itself, rather than shore it up? But you can't do that can you, you are evangelical (or at least claim to be). Lets take your evangelicalism apart and turn it on its head. What justifies you evangelising to others the "Jesus did exist" position? Why do you think your position is in any way better than those who evangelise the "Jesus didn't exist" position? What do you think is wrong with one article discussing those who evangelise the "Jesus didn't exist" position and stating what they claim, we have hundreds of articles discussing what those who evangelise the "Jesus did exist" article claim. Clinkophonist 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The notion that Jesus didn't exist is a tiny minority in academia. Fringe. Not taken too seriously by respected academics. We needn't argue about that; it's reality. So, let's present the view (or views) which scholars do affirm. I'll grant you that academia by and large does not affirm the deity of Christ, which is a faith affirmation. And it can say little conclusively about his resurrection, which, again, is in the realm of faith, other than to say that something apparently happened which inspired the early Church. But academia does affirm that Jesus lived, and he lived in first century Palestine and was a Jew. There's no serious dispute about that. Now, there are those who hold these fringe views - such as "Jesus never existed" - tiny minorities who have found little acceptance in academia. Should we mention them? Yes. Certainly. But let's not pretend that their ideas are mainstream or that they are held in high regard by legitimate scholars. Let's call these views what they are - fringe minorities - and move on. If the arguments have merit, evidence will grow, academia will become convinced, and time will prove them correct. To date, that hasn't happened. Not even close. Let's just be honest about that. Fair? I'm not "evangelizing" the "Jesus existed" position; I'm simply stating the position of mainstream scholars. Your beef is with the academy, not with me. KHM03 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

--eleuthero 04:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) --Clinkophonist 11:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed

So now you are disputing factual accuracy as well? Eh? What is factually inaccurate? Clinkophonist 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

few believe that the Gospels are a fully reliable source of historical information

Bible scholars consider the Gospels biased and distorted, rejecting the supernatural and miraculous claims within,

Two off the top...there's more. And PLENTY of POV pushing. KHM03 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What is factually inaccurate about that? Total Biblical inerrancy is a very minority position, ESPECIALLY in the eyes of the majority of the world - who are non-Christians; notice the word fully it is where the emphasis of the sentence lies. Non-Christians (the majority of the world) do not generally believe that Jesus was the Son of God, or that Jesus was born from a virgin, or that Jesus came back from the dead, and take the bible with a pinch of salt, as do many Christians - i.e. few believe these things; and since few believe these things, and these things are in the gospels, few believe the Gospels are fully reliable. Biblical criticism ("Bible scholars") by definition treat the text as any other historic document would be treated by neutral historians - full of author's bias and flattering but unfactual attributes such as divine support and supernatural powers. Clinkophonist 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The truth is that most historians (secular and religious) believe that while the Gospels are certainly not written as strict history or biography, they are still invaluable sources of historical information. You dispute that...you're inaccurate. Also, Bible scholars do not by and large consider the Gospels "distorted" (weasel word, there), nor do they by and large reject the supernatural and miraculous (though they may have differing explanations for them). You dispute that...you're inaccurate. I edited the sections to make them NPOV...you preferred the POV versions. You can't dispute that. KHM03 02:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a similar edit of the Pauline epistle section. There seems to be the same variety of bias there. "majority of modern scholars" is highly deceptive ignoring whole traditions of Christians as well as a number of individual scholars within traditions that make no statement one way or the other.--eleuthero 04:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm with Clinkophonist on this one. While some of KHM03's edits are quite good, many of them are clearly unacceptable, deleting and censoring vast portions of the article without discussion. Also, you've clearly failed to produce any examples of genuine factual inaccuries (though I'm sure there are some in the article): your first example, "few believe that the Gospels are a fully reliable source of historical information", has been clearly proven to be a perfectly valid quotation, and you apparently missed the word "fully" in it, which makes the sentence mean that few people think that the Gospels are 100% accurate and reliable; thus, they aren't perfect. Your second example, on the other hand, almost seems like an attempt to distort the text to what you want it to be, since you cut the quote "Bible scholars consider the Gospels biased and distorted, rejecting the supernatural and miraculous claims within," out of its immediate context entirely, which was: "Nonetheless, while many secular historians and Bible scholars consider the Gospels biased and distorted, rejecting the supernatural and miraculous claims within, they still believe that they are based on historical events; the chief disagreement is to what extent." The adjective "secular" applies to both the historians and the scholars; cutting it out shows you either misread the line (as you misread the previous line) or, less likely, were trying to make it seem less accurate than it is. Your statement that Bible scholars consider the Gospels to be incredibly valuable sources of historical information is equally as true as the statement that truly credible Bible scholars consider the Gospels deeply biased and not "fully reliable" in every aspect. Both situations coexist: they're valuable and fascinating, but for all intents and purposes without a doubt full of distortions and mythology. The trick is distinguishing how much of it is mythology; at least a large portion must be mythologized and exaggerated, but there could still be a lot of truth there, so, that's the purpose of this page and the others like it. :) You're also, incidentally, 100% wrong in stating "nor do they by and large reject the supernatural and miraculous"—pretty much without exception, that's exactly what they do. They may recognize that various events happened (like Jesus seeming to walk on water), but they reject that those events could have been "supernatural" or "miraculous", regardless of the cause of that "miracle" or supernatural occurrence. Instead, they look for real, phenomenal explanations for those occurrences, like speculating that Jesus may have walked on a shallow stretch of water and seemed from a distance to be on the water, or any number of other possibilities. Describing such occurrences as "supernatural" or "miraculous" is profoundly unscientific, religiously POVed, and intellectually lazy.

However, I agree that there are many problems to solve with this article, and propose that the "totally disputed" tag be removed from this article (since we have yet to receive any compelling evidence that this article is severely POVed, much less severely inaccurate) and replace it with a "weasel words" tag making it clear that we need to cite sources for every claim inside an article for such a controversial topic. In the process of solving the weasel word problem (the "many scholars feel x...", "but some feel y...", which, though necessary in many cases, should be avoided when possible unless we have a poll or something to document such "general beliefs"...), we will inevitably solve the POV and factual inaccuracy problems as well, as we'll end up attributing all claims to their proper sources. A specific tag like "weasel words" is thus a much more valuable way to establish what our main goals should be than the inane "EVERYTHING ON THIS PAGE IS WRONG"-type warning. -Silence 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything on page is not wrong...but how it is presented is pretty much disingenuous and POV, I think. Bible scholars - including many in the more liberal Jesus Seminar - do not outrightly dismiss the supernatural events in Jesus' life; they may have other explanations or at times say nothing at all. The line about "secular" scholars is also inaccurate, unsourced, and misleading, for it implies that secular scholars hold one thing and religious scholars another, calling into question the academic integrity of the religious scholars, which is WAY over the line POV. I'm sorry you disagree with the inaccuracies I pointed out...but that doesn't change their veracity. Much of what I deleted existed - seemingly - only to push or imply a particular POV. Is the discussion that graffiti in 1st century Palestine reveals little of value regarding Jesus really necessary? What's the point? Does the article suffer by its deletion? I think it's stronger and more concise. I may agree to remove the "totally disputed" template (providing more misleading information isn't inserted) and replace it with a "POV" template, which is completely justifiable. KHM03 11:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, silence's disagreement does not change the veracity of what you claim, it proves that it has no veracity. Extracting a phrase from the middle of a sentence in such a way that its meaning is changed is not a proper way to draw attention to problems with a text. The grafitto, by the way, was there to suggest that belief the "god" of chritians was a crucified man was held at that time by non-Christians. And it wasn't in Palestine. Paul B 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Palatine"...forgive me when I type quickly. Obviously, I disagree with you. I was able to point out "weasel words" which demonstrated both inaccuracy and POV. KHM03 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

invaluable sources of historical information is not the same as fully reliable. fully reliable=100% accurate, wheras invaluable means gives a high degree of insight - invaluable could be applied to a complete work of fiction that nevertheless tells us a lot about the clothing, what was considered plausible at the time, what sorts of things authors of that time were thinking, etc. To use the term fully reliable when what you infact mean is invaluable is highly misleading.

Bible scholars DO dispute the supernatural and miraculous. It isn't a miracle or a supernatural event if they have non-supernatural and non-miraculous events. Bible scholars, as a rule based on methodology not belief, automatically reject claims of resurrection from the dead until proven otherwise, rather than automatically accept it. Bible scholars, as a rule based on methodology not belief, reject claims that water was literally turned into wine, since there is no scientific evidence for such events being plausible (wine into vinegar on the other hand...) etc. Biblical criticism, acting according to scientific methodology, by definition tries to find naturalistic explanations (including artistic licence) before resorting to any non-natural solutions, and hence DOES dispute supernatural and miraculous claims; whether the answers it produces are the right ones or not is a matter of belief, but it doesn't mean that they aren't the answers it comes up with.

"other explanations" IS a dispute of the "supernatural explanation"-it is an other explanation.

You ask - Is the discussion that graffiti in 1st century Palestine [intending to write Palatine] reveals little of value regarding Jesus really necessary?. The answer is:yes of course it does. If people go around claiming it proves Jesus existed when it doesn't actually say anything of the sort (or indeed anything else) it is notable to point that out. I've checked the edit history, and I know who brought up the Palatino graffito in the first place; they were (and probably still are) Christian. Clinkophonist 09:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

These happen to be all the known contemporary non-Christian potential sources there are for Jesus' historicity. To miss out the Palatino graffito would be misleading - it would either make it look like there were less potential sources, or that there were many many more (since at least one isn't included). Clinkophonist 09:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You state "The notion that Jesus didn't exist is a tiny minority in academia. Fringe. Not taken too seriously by respected academics". I challenge you to name someone who regards it as fringe and is a serious and respected LIVING biblical scholar (note that this does not mean a religious think tank, and does not mean Kenneth Kitchen who is NOT a bible scholar but an egyptologist). Clinkophonist 09:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar, a very liberal group of Biblical scholars (particularly Jesus scholars), has affirmed his existence (though they have challenged the orthodox view of Jesus). Crossan and Borg are two of the seminar's most prominent scholars who affirm his existence and consider the non-existence view fringe. N.T. Wright. E.P. Sanders. Dale Allison. Robert Gagnon. All are living and are acknowledged scholars & authorities. Known names in the field. You have cited Earl Doherty...not a Biblical or Jesus scholar, whose work is not taken seriously in the "Jesus research" field. Can you name someone who actually is taken seriously?

My point is that we shouldn't simply ignore the theory that Jesus never existed, as far out as it may be. But we need to recongnize that it is a minority, fringe theory, with which the "top minds" in the field obviously disagree. Let's not portray it as a major scholarly view, for that wouldn't be accurate. Mention it...explain it...even link to the "Jesus Myth" article where the theory is discussed in greater detail...but when it comes to whether or not Jesus existed, the vast majority of scholars say, "YES!" They may not affirm the orthodox, divine Jesus, but very, very few actually doubt that he lived. Let's be honest about that. KHM03 12:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not citing Earl Doherty as the source, just the position he was the first figure to notably support in the modern world. Earl Doherty is NOT it. It isn't attack Earl Doherty himself and use that to justify disregarding the argument he proposes (commonly known as a Personal Attack, and regarded as fallacious/false/falsehood). His argument is proposed by other figures, for example.

The Jesus Seminar never met to consider the question "did Jesus exist", but instead to consider "what was Jesus really like". It wasn't in their remit. Just like the Hutton Enquiry didn't consider the question "is the government to blame; did they leak his name; was Gilligans report factual", but instead "how much blame should be put on the media, particularly the BBC". The Jesus Seminar is irrelevant as to the question of "did Jesus exist", only having something to say on "what was Jesus really like". and "what is likely to have been genuinely said"; they began with the axiom "Jesus existed" - its an axiom, not a conclusion.

You still haven't produced someone who actually attacks the position. "Do you support X" is NOT the same as "Do you attack Y" even if "Y is the oppositite of X" - "we support the belief in Jesus' existance" is NOT "the position that Jesus didn't exist is untenable, and poor scholarship". These contain substantively different words, and meaning. So I ask you again, who, being still alive, and from the world of academic biblical scholarship (not amateurs such as Kenneth Kitchen, a professional Egyptologist), actively attacks the "Jesus Myth" position?

And can I take your lack of a response to the not fully reliable point to be your conceding that most...think...not fully reliable is factual? Clinkophonist 12:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thomas & Gnostics

Rather than "heretical", which, while true, may also be interpreted as POV, could we label these "Gnostic texts" or "Non-canonical texts"? KHM03 07:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not true. "Heretical" must be with respect to some belief and hence is inherently POV - it assumes that that belief is TRUTH, yes it is true that the Roman Catholic church, and general church orthodoxy, branded them as heretical, but it is also true that the gnostics considered what is now thought of as the orthodoxy to have been heretical, hence I could justifiably put "heretical texts" as the title of the section marking the canonical gospels. So let's have no claims that certain texts are heretical.

Another issue is that there is a great deal of uncertainty whether Thomas can be branded as gnostic or not. It is only the position of the late camp; the early camp places Thomas earlier than much of the New Testament, and if Thomas dates from then and is gnostic, then gnosticism was the original form of christianity - a gnostic text (treating Jesus as allegory/docetic) dating from just after Jesus is supposed to have lived is a bit implausible if he lived.

As for the others, gnostic texts are indeed gnostic texts and non-canonical, but non-canonical is too broad. Shepherd of Hermas is not gnostic, for example, and in fact it was for centuries regarded as more canonical than Revelations, which was discarded - it is even in the earliest surviving copy of the New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus). "Non-canonical" doesn't do it justice - it was once canonical, and only just fell outside when the canon was eventually made rigid. "Currently non-canonical" would be more accurate, but simultaneously also imply that the present canon is more flexible than it is.

And as for Q, Secret Mark, the Passion Gospel, etc. Since these are hypothetical sources for the canonical texts, if the hypothesis is correct, then these texts are by definition canonical - they are the source of the canon. So "Non-canonical" doesn't do these "lost texts" justice either. Clinkophonist 08:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Though heretical might be seen as POV, it can also be used in a descriptive way. True, it's based on the judgement of the church but this judgement is also a historical reality.

Yes, whether the "Gospel of Thomas" is fully gnostic or mere proto-gnostic is open. Dating it earlier than the canonical gospels however is not the standard view (and it of courses hinges on the dates assigned to the canonical gospels). Please note that Gnosticism doesn't imply Jesus as a mere allegory and his non-existence. Yes, Gnostics used Jesus as a carrier of their doctrines but that doesn't mean that they invented him. They used other persons as well. That is certainly no argument for doubts about Jesus' historicity.

"Non-canonical" would still work as a head-title. True there are other non-gnostic but also non-canonical title (e.g. the Shepherd, which didn't claim apostolic authorship), but I don't see a problem in placing Thomas and Gnostics under non-canonical. so far there are no other non-canonicals with bearing on this article (though one could include Protogospel of James, or some childhood gospel).

The Shepherd was never canonical. The inclusion in a certain edition isn't decisive. For some time its canonical status was ambiguous but during that time the canon was still in development (see the charts of Origen and Eusebius).

As for the hypothetical texts (and Secret Mark doesn't belong in here, it is either a hoax or a 2nd century heretical fabrication, but it is at least an existing (fragmentary) text): they are not canonical, even if they existed, as they have never been included in the canon. Granted, they would be great, first-hand sources, if they existed. However, I don't think they merit more than just the note included in "Gospels" (if even that much). Str1977 11:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, most importantly, calling many of these texts "heretical" is simply a matter of historical accuracy...they were deemed heretical by the early Church and have carried that label for 2000 years. There may be information of value in them, but that doesn't change their status. I just thought another term might be better (such as "non-canonical"). Is heretical best? What's the community's opinion? KHM03 12:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the use of term heresy, as long as it is used properly, to mean "officially rejected by the mainstream church". Doctrines are heretical, not texts as such. In practice we have no problem with that. The articles on Arianism, docetism, pelagianism etc are all included in the category "Heresy" [[5]]. I think it would be reasonable to say that a book that directly advocates a heretical doctrine is "a heretical text", but that does not apply to the Gospel of Thomas or many other non-canonical gospels, letters etc. Indeed heretical doctrines can be - and often have been - supported by passages from the canonical Bible. Thomas is not a "heretical text", since it does not advocate any specific heretical doctrines. It can be used to support heresies, sure, but so can the Gospel of John. It can also be interpreted as consistent with orthodoxy. Paul B 13:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been cases when specific texts were rejected as heretical. I think it was the fifth ecumenical council that condemned some specific writings of Origen, but did not condemn Origen himself, as part of addressing some heretical teachings of some "neo-Origenists" of their day. This happened several centuries after Origen himself of course. So if we use heresy or heretical to mean "officially rejected by the mainstream church," then heretical texts should generally be limited to texts like that, or to texts that specifically advocate a heretical doctrine.

Shepherd of Hermas was part of the New Testament in various local communities for a century or two, and I think it may still be in the NT canon of the Coptic Orthodox Church, but it was never universally accepted as canonical. After the NT was finalized without it, it was still deemed to be valuable for instructing catechumens and new Christians. Even if Q or Secret Mark did exist and did provide the source material for parts of the gospels, they would not be canonical, as those documents themselves have never been canonized by any Christian community. Paul quotes a couple of Greek philosophers here and there in his epistles, and Jude either quotes from or alludes to a couple of Old Testament era non-canonical works, but that doesn't make those writings canonical either. Wesley 17:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to respond in bullets for clarity:

• My concern with "Non-canonical" for those such as "Shepherd of Hermas" is that they were canonical. "Non-canonical" implies that they have never been canonical, which is false.
• With regards to Q and Secret Mark, the reverse becomes the problem. "non-canonical" implies they will never be canonical, but it is likely that if they are conclusively proven to exist, and recovered (e.g. by some amazing discovery, or the vatican actually admitting to having copies in its vast secret library), then they must, by definition, meet all the criteria for canonicity (since if the gospels are based on them, they must be equally/more inspired/eyewitness), and hence likely to become canonical. And so again "non-canonical" contains a false implication. Also, we do not know if these were always non-canonical. Clement apparantly knew of Secret Mark, so it must have met some sort of criteria for canonicity as far as he is concerned. Hence "non-canonical" is here a misnomer as well.
• I agree Gnosticism doesn't automatically imply Jesus is a mere allegory and non-existant. But it DOES IF IT WAS FIRST. I.e. if non-gnosticism didn't exist until later. I.e. if Jesus-as-allegory predates belief about Jesus-as-real, then Jesus is most likely not real. Whether gnosticism is first or not is a different matter, but this is why the precedence of their beliefs is an important question.
• There is a good chance that Thomas derives primarily from Q. Thomas could infact be derived entirely from Q. Thomas could even be a version of Q itself.
• Regarding Secret Mark as a current/ancient hoax is POV. There is no concrete way to deny it is genuine, and so claiming that it is not is biased, particularly when scholarship is increasingly regarding it as genuine.
• It may well be the historic reality that "the church" decided that certain texts were heretical. It is also historic reality that the non-"the church" equally viewed certain of the church's texts as heresy. Marcion for example, who wrote the first known canon, regarded the Gospels as canonical. It is POV to take "the church"'s side. I could equally take Marcion's and slap "heresy" over the section discussing the canonical gospels (excepting parts of Luke, of course).

Non-canonocal is not a misnomer. It means that they are not in the canon, not that they never have been or never will be in the future. We can't say what the future will be. As for the past, we are talking about the period of canon formation and dispute. I don't think that the Shepherd of Hermas was ever "canonical" in the sense that it was officially accepted as part of a stable body of writings, but even if it was, it is not part of the canon now, and that's what the title refers to. Paul B 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Revert War"?

Clinkophonist: Please work with the community on this article. The page was changed as other editors (inc. myself) sought to remove the evident POV and inaccuracies. Most of the critical information is still in the article...just the POV stuff has been removed. There's no need for you to fly solo on this article. Let's all work together...it's possible that what you consider NPOV is actually very POV, isn't it? That's what I think we're dealing with. So let's all be part of an editing team here and not simply revert other editors' work. Thanks...KHM03 12:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You are the one doing the major deletionism. I will continue to protect the text against your campaign of censorship. Clinkophonist 11:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, can you both please stop full reverts and keep those bits, which are valid changes? For example cannot see any accuracy problem with stating that most secular historians of the Bible [...] reject the supernatural and miraculous claims within. Isn't this the very definition of secular? --Pjacobi 13:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi, if that is the definition of "secular" than the passage is right but also redundant. (Though IMHO atheist etc would be more fitting). However, secular can also mean merely not affiliated with any religion. It can also mean "scholars on secular history" (as opposed to "church history"). The problem is, secular is not really helpful here at all. The basic agreement with historians is to leave out such supernatural causes of events, but that is not rejecting the supernatural. Granted, a historian might be philosophically so inclined and reject it, but it is methodically unsound, and he's crossing the line in doing so. Str1977 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And the POV implication is that "secular" historians are unbiased and therefore have greater academic integrity than historians who hold a religious faith. That's not only completely untrue, it is POV. A simple change can eliminate that, which is what we're trying to do. Constant reverts to the POV version are not helpful. KHM03 14:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

@KHM03: Where do you see this implication?

@Str1977: Yes, it is somewhat redundant, but clarifying. Perhaps leaving out or ignore fits better.

Pjacobi 14:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The implication KHM refers to, lies in the ambiguity of the term "secular". This is often perceived as neutral, but a historian who rejects the supernatural or the special status of Jesus (as in the opening paragraph) is not more neutral as a historian who (as a Christian) accepts Jesus as the Messiah. If such a man were termed more accurately as adhering to another, non-Christian religion (be it another religion or atheism), aynone could the question-begging and unsubstantial quality of the passge. The neutral position would be to leave it open or, and this is the actually useful thing to do as a historian, to say that he and his followers considered him the Messiah. Str1977 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this is not the case. A secular historian is not one who "adheres to another religion" nor is it synonymous with "atheist". A secular historian is simply one who, regarding claims of miracles, would adopt exactly the same sceptical attitude to miracles ascribed to any figure: Mohammed, Jesus, the Buddha, Alexander the Great, Romulus or any one else in history or mythology. That is s/he would not start with an assumption that some miracles are more likely than others. On the basis of Hume's rule, it is virtually impossible to accept miracles, since the likelihood of impossible things happening is impossible to assess. If they are deemed possible in the way that other events are possible, then they asre no longer miracles. Paul B 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But Str1977's analysis is correct: the implication is that secular=neutral and religious=biased. Both can be biased; both can also be objective. I, for one, am trained in history and theology, and while I refute the idea that Jesus' miracles can be explained rationally, affirm them as a matter of faith. But to simply say "they didn't happen" can't objectively be proven without the invention of a time machine. So...the implication remains, and that's POV, and that's why we keep editing it to be NPOV. Thanks...KHM03 16:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify:

there are various possible biased positions to a miracle by Christ: the Christian will believe in it, other religions might, if they oppose Christ's status, reject the miracle, an atheist/naturalist (in this context I always mean someone who rejects the supernatural) will reject the miracle, as "miracles do not happen".

Hume certainly falls into the third category and hence his argument is not based on universally shared axioms. He claims miracles are impossible and hence of course they do not happen. That is not a methodologically proper position for a modern (i.e. post-Enlightment) historian. Whether something happened or not must assessed on the basis of sources and not on some preconceived notion. Such a notion can only be derived from the things that are generally the case, but there's a hole in general that cannot be filled.

There are two definitions of "miracle":

• the broader is any event brought about by God at one point of time for some reason, even if He is working through natural agency, e.g. the parting of the Sea before the Israelites. It had a natural cause (the wind), but that it occured at that time, and lasted only so long as to let the Israelites escape and drown the Egyptians, is so unlikely that God must have been behind it.
• the narrower definition: an event (e.g. a cure) not explicable under the laws of nature. In this sense a miracle is always the exception to the rule (= the laws of nature)

Hume, I think, deals with the second defintion. But he presupposes that miracles, as exceptions to the laws of nature, are impossible. This is consistent with his naturalist-deist view, which allows for no exceptions, but he cannot prove that there are no exceptions.

Now, I did not claim that a "secular historian" is one who "adheres to another religion" or an "atheist" (meaning what I clarified above), but that a historian rejecting the supernatural would fit these qualifications. And I disapproved of cloaking such a historian behind the term "secular historian"

A "secular historian", when restricting himself to the methodology of historiography, will not address the issue of whether this or that miracles happened. As a historian, he's not fit to say whether the resurrection did occur or not (though he can address the historical fact of an empty tomb). A secular historian in that sense can be both a Christian, or a Jew, or of any other religion or an atheist. His religious-philosophical background will influence his answer to the issue of the resurrection, but at that point he's no longer speaking as a historian.

Str1977 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Secular in this context means simply "does not start with a religious-view-based axiom". It does not mean that they do not consider questions of miracles, and many do. But it does mean that they avoid circular arguments and don't assume from the start that they are true before even investigating them. Clinkophonist 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Josephus

I deleted most of the section on Josephus not because there was anything especially wrong with it, but because it seemed to duplicate the detailed discussion in the separate article. It was nearly as long as the main article itself. If I did remove anything that isn't in Josephus on Jesus, it should probably be added to that article rather than put back here. Wesley 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just mentioning "Josephus appears to have wrote a passage about Jesus, but its a bit dodgy" isn't exactly covering, even in a summary, what is the main piece of evidence that "Many Christians use...as evidence that the New Testament is not the only contemporary document concerning Jesus".

Its the main piece of evidence quoted; it deserves more than a passing mention, even in a summary. What are the "internal indicators"? just leaving "internal indicators" makes it look like it is some vague and obscure thing which isn't at all obvious, which is highly misleading. Even just pointing out that Josephus remained a devout Jew would give an idea about what is so dodgy about it. And another important point is who first mentioned it, and why, and who didn't mention it. The dodgy arabic version (that's the 10th century one by Agapius for those who aren't sure what is being referred to) is also important enough to warrent mention, even if briefly. Clinkophonist 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

The article is looking far more NPOV and without some of the accuracy issues; I would be willing to remove the "totally disputed" notice at the top if there are no other objections. KHM03 17:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks NPOV and factually accurate at the present time (12:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) to me. Clinkophonist 12:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, it can't happen until you're finished inserting your POV edits and inaccuracies. I guess we'll just wait till your finished and start working with others. Too bad; a real shame. KHM03 13:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is you who is making the POV edits and inaccuracies. I guess we'll just have to wait till you finish and learn to work with others. Too bad; a real shame. Clinkophonist 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted some compromise / conciliatory edits on 15 Dec. Doesn't look as if Clinkophonist wants to do the same...I hope I'm wrong. KHM03 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I want an explanation of exactly why you think your massive deletionism campaign on this article is justified, article-section by article-section. Clinkophonist 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

inline replies by Clinkophonist

1. Getting rid of the bold in the intro - Just style & neatness. Change it back if you wish.

   It directly emphasises what "historicity" actually means. Many people wouldn't get it without the bold.

2. Under "GOSPELS": "Few believe the Gospels..." - Unnecessary and POV sounding. You've already stated that they gospels are only partially relaible...why beat a dead horse? The point is made. Also, the word "distorted" as used sounds awfully POV and "weasel"...just remove it and the point is still made (that the Gospels themselves are biased, which is true). Discrepancies & Mark 16 - It's conjectural. It's also not necessary to showing anything in the section.

   "distorted" - important because this makes it clear that "not fully reliable" doesn't just mean "this bit is true, this bit is false", but also "this bit is sort of true, but has dodgy bits, and is twisted/spun from the actual facts" - if you can think of a better way to say that, be my guest, but it has to contain this level of clarity.

   Mark 16 is not conjectural. Check out modern bible versions - even they mark it as dodgy; check out codex sinaiticus (the oldest known copy of the new testament) yourself - its in the British Library - Mark 16 is simply not there in the same way that it is traditionally seen (it has a completely different ending). Read Mark 16 (the article), particularly the "theological significance" section. It isn't conjecture, it is fact that the old copies just don't contain it and have very divergent text instead.

   This is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus himself. Wesley 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Under "EPISTLES": "Two-thirds..." - unsourced. "Most" is just as true. Pagels - Mentioning her is OK...she's a legitimate scholar. But let's put her research in context, by simply saying that most scholars respect her but disagree with her. That's honest and fair and NPOV.

   Source for "two-thirds" is the vatican. You could instead ask any university theology department. Take it up with them. Most is not just as true. 51% is most. Two-thirds is 66%. Pagels - she is not only a legitimate scholar, but one of the most reknowned in the field of gnostic study of the text, and holds a VERY well respected university post, something you dont get by holding spurious opinions. Most scholars do not disagree with her; you have no cite for that (false) claim either.

   If source for "two-thirds" is the vatican, where exactly can I look it up? Wesley 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

4. "GNOSTIC" stuff: No need to explain gnosticism here...let the reader go to the article. That just wastes space. The lost texts bit is just guesswork..."If they existed, that'd be great." That's just conjecture and really doesn't belong here, as it can't prove anything.

   Gnostic stuff - look if gnosticism was the original christianity, then Jesus didn't exist, so it is extremely relevant to mention it in the "historicity of Jesus" article. Lost texts - it isn't just "guesswork"; it is careful and serious academic study that is well respected in the field. Read Q Gospel for example. The Signs Gospel is also a very well respected idea. It is far less a product of "guesswork" than faith is (definition of faith).

   I don't think that gnosticism necessarily claims that Jesus didn't exist. Support for gnosticism is not the same as support for the Jesus-myth. Wesley 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Any POV that says Jesus didn't exist is lunatic fringe. It's only "well respected" by the lunatic fringe. It's still a POV. You might as well to prove Napoleon didn't exist. That can easily be done too, just scoff haughtily at any evidence or records that he did, and say it's all a massive conspiracy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything not based on an extremely opinionated false premise (Just because a "lunatic fringe" hold an opinion doesn't mean that the "sane majority" don't as well, it doesn't mean that the position is wrong either. The earth goes round the sun, the majority thought otherwise once, but that doesn't stop it being a fact that the earth always went round the sun) to contribute to the discussion? Clinkophonist 22:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your question seems to concede the point that this is a minority view. Wesley 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. "NON-CHRISTIAN" stuff: Durant isn't a Jesus / Bible scholar taken seriously at all. Quoting Pagels, a recognized scholar, is one thing. Durant is another. No need to quote him any more than quoting John Lennon or Walt Disney.

   Tell me, why do fundamentalist Christian organisations put so much effort into attacking the arguments of Durant, Doherty, et. al., if they aren't even worth mentioning? The Jesus Myth is a serious academic proposition, and you have yet to provide a single example of someone who satisfies all of (a) is living (b) is a recognised academic bible scholar (c) actually attacks the view.

2. "JOSEPHUS": I didn't cut much of that, so you'll have to ask someone else. My understanding is that they left a summary while pointing the reader to a lengthier article, as they felt the section was just too long and added little to the argument.

   Cutting Josephus, who is the major quote made by supporters of Jesus-is-real, to a summary like the others is like cutting mention of George Bush from an article about the Kyoto Protocol into a brief aside and dismissing more substantive mention as "not really that important". Clinkophonist 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

   I think I cut that section not because it isn't important, but because it was duplicating too much from the main article on the subject. State its importance and refer readers to that article for the details. Wesley 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3. "PLINY": Just made it NPOV.
4. "Pseudepigraphical writings" & the Palatine: They just don't have anything substantial to add in terms of proving or disproving Jesus' historicity. There's not a whole lot of content there.

   We are talking in that region of the article about supposed contemporary non-biblical sources for Jesus. There aren't many, so there is no good reason not to include mention of all of them. The more obvious Pseudepigrapha of the letters of Pilate and the Palatino graffito are two of them. In the view of most academics the passage in Josephus is technically Pseudepigrapha.

5. "Doherty": See comments on Durant.

   I don't see why you have split these into people. We should be (meta) discussing the Jesus-Myth section, not some of its proponents.

I may have missed something...but does that help? KHM03 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Very hard to follow when you reply intext like that. But I'll try and respond.

DISTORTED - I think "biased" says it effectively; no need to expand.

MARK 16 - I am well aware of the issues surrounding this chapter. But to simply say that the earliest copies we have don't have beyond verse 8 isn't saying a whole lot as to Jesus' historicity, which is the subject of this article. It may have an impact on how we interpret his resurrection, but says little about whether or not he existed.

TWO-THIRDS - Cite your source.

GNOSTICISM - The idea that this was the original Christianity is a small minority. Mention it and move on, since academia really doesn't support the theory. Certainly, we don't need to belabor the issue.

JESUS-MYTH: It is a theory simply not taken seriously by academia. Sorry. Doherty and Durant are not serious Bible critics or Jesus historians. That's simply reality. If you want to cite an authority regarding this theory, that's fine; but you'll have to do better than two men whom the academic community doesn't trust. Of course, on the Jesus-Myth article...go to town.

PALATINE, etc.: I'd be happy if you shortened these bits; I have nothing against them, I just don't think they add a whole lot.

In short, you must realize that the dominat view of experts is that Jesus existed. To say so is not POV, it's just the way it is. Someone could deny that JFK existed, but that doesn't make it so. We need to treat the "he never existed" school honestly, in context...as a minority view that doesn't carry much weight in academia. Respectfully, KHM03 23:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• Distorted - I don't think "biased" says it effectively. In fact I think it is highly misleading, and appears to be an attempt to supress the academic view. "oh its a bit dodgy" isn't anywhere near as indicative of academic opinion as "some bits may be completely true, some bits completely false, and the rest may be based on facts but have been spun out of recognition". Clinkophonist 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Mark 16 - the earliest copies do go beyond verse 8, but not the same way, even in the slightest. Taken with the two-source hypothesis, the absence of Mark 16's ending means that there is absolutely no historic contemporary claim to Jesus' resurrection whatsoever, i.e. that the historicity of the resurrection is based on no evidence whatsoever. Most people would consider this a pretty major issue about the historicity of Jesus. Historicity of X is not just "did X exist? One word answer; yes or no?" it is also about the historicity of each aspect of X, including the resurrection, in Jesus' case.
• Two thirds. I have cited it. If you need further evidence, just go and ask any academic in the field (as to whether 2/3 is accurate). I assume you have good familiarity with academia in the field, given that you edit in this area of Wikipedia?
• Gnosticism - no it isn't a small minority, it is quite a big group actually, out of those who actually discuss the question at all (some theologians, for example, prefer to concentrate on whether westward or eastward facing is the appropriate behaviour during mass). In fact it is supported by one of, if not the, worlds leading scholars of gnosticism - Elaine Pagels.
• Jesus-myth. It is a theory taken seriously, just becase Doherty and Durant are dodgy doesn't mean they acted seriously. You have to remember that Biblical criticism was a newer field when they proposed their ideas, and the material they had available to work with was far more flaky than it is now. The theory itself was proposed well before Doherty and Durant and continues to be raised now.

For example, one of the most prominent recent proponents of the idea is the Freke, whose degree specifically addresses ancient philosophy, and who plastered their article in a hefty weight of references; yes some of the references are misleading, and they really need to learn to use more recognisable names - "anup the baptiser" should really say "anubis the embalmer" for example ("baptiser" is however an accurate description (via greek) of one of Anubis' titles, and "anup" is the actual egyptian version of the name "anubis", which is the greek translation). But there is a great deal of accurate scholarship in there. The only criticism I have ever found on google about this is from people who are either dead or are fundamentalists and not biblical scholars. Likewise I have never found any criticism of this in the university library excepting from people who are dead or not biblical scholars.

So I challenge you once again. You have yet to provide a single example of someone who satisfies all of (a) is living (b) is a recognised academic bible scholar (c) actually attacks the view. The view shall stay to its full extent within the article until you are able to back up your position with examples of people who meet all 3 criteria.

• Palatino graffito etc. Why do you feel they need shortening? What would you cut out from their sections? If you feel the "contemporary non-Christian evidence" bits are too big, perhaps we should split that off into a seperate article?

Clinkophonist 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, your "splitting things off into separate artciles plan" seems to have failed miserably, in my view, creating multiple POV problems where there was one (or maybe two), so maybe the best approach re: the graffiti, etc. is to simply shorten the section to only necessary material. Try that.

Also, the reason reputable scholars (generally) don't address the Jesus-Myth issue is that they feel that it's ridiculous, and that it's problems are self-evident. Most theologians/scholars are far more interested in dealing with "reality"...i.e., that Jesus did in fact exist, although folks may disagree about who he was, what he did, what he said, etc. Even the Jesus Seminar, which is hardly traditional, proceeds from this common understanding. So, until any reputable scholars begin to adhere to the Jesus-Myth theory, we need to treat is honestly, as a fringe view academia rejects. Mention it here, link to the main article, and move on...but the article should proceed from the perspective of academia, which is, of course, that Jesus existed.

As far as Gnosticism...same thing. Mention it, and mention Pagels (who is notable), note that the view isn't generally accepted, point the reader to the Gnosticism article, and move on. That's fair.

Again, the Mark 16 issue treats the historicity of Jesus' resurrection...not his existence. I suggest you take these points to Resurrection of Jesus. That would seem appropriate. But many, many scholars (a la the Jesus Seminar) believe that Jesus existed, even if the resurrection never occurred. So that probably doesn't belong here.

As far as "distorted"...can you think of a less "weaselly" word with which to get your point across? KHM03 13:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur that 'distorted' is a flagrant weasel word. I think the more literate word here might be 'partial', instead of 'distorted'. As in: "Nonetheless, while most historians consider the Gospels biased and partial toward the Christian perspective..."... (BTW, it might be interesting to note that the Gospels themselves share the same antipathy toward the "scribes", that the "scribes" show toward them, so perhaps the feeling could be said to be mutual...!) Another point about the last 24 hrs, you can always tell when someone thinks their opinion is "more important" when they show flagrant disregard for the 3RR rule... (Precisely what it is intended to avoid..!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If I've done that, I apologize; my intent is only to work with the community in trying to get a more NPOV article. KHM03 15:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Wesley:Wesley, re: your inline replies -- I agree 100% with your thoughts; the portions were deleted because they relate only peripherally to the historicity question. While I hate the "inline reply" method (it makes for confusing reading, making it difficult to follow the conversation), your replies are right on. KHM03 01:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus's alleged Egyptian roots

There's this article: Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism linked to from here and from a bunch of old talk pages, which contains a very dubious section about some serpent-god Herrut. This all stems from me finding that Herrut fella, finding absolutely no basis for him or the supposed myth in any Egyptology sources, and subsequently finding a whole lot of Christianity and Jesus related articles that reference the myth.

I've made a case against the whole thing in Talk:Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism, but since that place is deserted I figure I should also mention it here. BTW just to be clear I have no interest in historicity of Jesus, I just hate to see pseuo-Egyptian crap made up all over the place to support crazy theories. I'd like to get some consensus on what to do with that section over on that other page. Flyboy Will 20:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it had already been discussed at an AfD at the end of which it was turned into a redirect to here, so I've restored that. Thanks for spotting it- it's one of the many hangovers from the days when User:CheeseDreams was rampaging through the system. --G Rutter 13:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus v. Historical Jesus

Dear Friends:

From the summary at the beginning of the article, this text is supposed to be about whether Jesus existed or not and the Historical Jesus article about the discussion of what Jesus said, did or what happened to him. If this is the case, alot of the material here should be shifted to the Historical Jesus article, if it is not there already. Does anyone mind if I move and/or delete such tangental material to the Historical Jesus article? I would take care that we loose none of the discussion in the process. --CTSWyneken 13:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What material would you like to transfer? KHM03 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As I look at the whole article, this may be it (I'll likely ask about other things for other reasons later):

The difficulty of distinguishing which parts of Jesus' life may be historical and which may be unhistorical is one of the main obstacles for Biblical historians. Even accurate accounts of events in Jesus' life may have changed in subtle ways during re-tellings. Others may have been exaggerated on purpose, and some may even have been totally invented, possibly reinterpreted from older stories - virgin births and dying/reborn gods were common features of Pagan godmen myths, such as Osiris-Dionysus. Some notable historians have affirmed the resurrection of Jesus such as A. N. Sherwin-White, Thomas Arnold, and Michael Grant.

OK with me. KHM03 13:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll wait a day or two in case someone else wants to chime in.--CTSWyneken 22:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning tag

What do we need to do to get this removed? KHM03 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Graves

Shouldn't there be something about Robert Graves' "King Jesus" in this article? Its scholarship is simply stunning. (from User:213.48.73.94)

I'm not familiar with that work. Anyone else? KHM03 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If the little bit of research I just did is accurate, "King Jesus" is a novel. I'm not sure that's appropriate for an article of this nature. KHM03 18:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pantera?

I can only ask: If this is a serious article about the "Historicity of Jesus" where is the mention about Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera which in a few ancient fragemnts of christian opponents is claimed to have raped or seduced "Holy Mary" before her pregnacy ? One can say that is was simple slander (debatable) but there is not a SINGLE mention of it in this article. Flamarande 20:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No fragments mention Tiberius. He's just some bloke whose tombstone survives and whose name is similar to the "ben Pantera" name sometimes ascribed to Jesus. The problem is that the claim that JC was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier really has no bearing on his historicity. It doesn't help us to determine whether a fictional character had a fictional father or a real person had a real father. The tombstone isn't evidence of anthing, anymore than finding a tomb of a "Jesus" would be. It just proves that the name existed at the time. Paul B 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I must ask have you even read the article? You wrote that no fragments mention Tiberius, and that seems (as far as I know) to be true, nevertheless read the final part: Jesus connection

Celsus, quoted in Origenes "Contra Celsum" wrote [1]:

"when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera."

The link between Celsus' Panthera and Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera was made in "La vita di Gesu" by Marcello Craveri (1966)[2]

Celsus seems to have combined the biographies of Yeshu ben Pandera and Jesus of Nazareth.

I don´t claim to be a expert in the matter, but still... it raises some intriguing questions and it has a certain logic. For example: Why didn´t (as far as we know) Jesus preach a violent revolution against the Romans? How was Mary pregnant before the marrriage? And by the way, Celsus appears to be a scolar of the second century.

Then you wrote that: "The problem is that the claim that JC was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier really has no bearing on his historicity.". Well, I guess that all depends on whom you ask. Ask a "believer" and he will answer that Jesus was the son of God. Ask a atheist and he will say Jesus was the son of a "unidentified" man, probably Joseph.

I can only ask you if following this "logic" we should use the biblical testaments at all, if they were written decades and in some cases centuries after JC was dead? Are they (according to your cold and hard logic) a "real" evidence?

Look, I don´t know or pretend to know who was the father of the historical JC but I think that we (in this article) should simply mention this let us say "theory"? Flamarande 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the point. Whether he was considered to be the son of Joseph or of Pandera, or even of God does not help to determine whether he existed at all, which is the subject of this article. The difference between "Joseph" and "Pandera" is just one of names. Paul B 11:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply don´t get it (sorry for not understanding your POV).

This article mentions the gospels of the christian bible (which were written decades and/or centuries after the "event" and were, to put it simply, "Not-NPOV"),

It mentions ancient writers, quoting: "Nonetheless, the work of four major non-Christian historians contain passages possibly relating to Jesus: Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus." (notice the possibly, and notice that all of them also wrote decades and/or centuries after the "event"),

It presents jewish records like the Talmud: "Jewish records of the period, both oral and written, were compiled into the Talmud, a collection of legal debates and stories so large that it fills over 30 volumes. There is no mention of anyone called "Jesus" (in Heb. Yehoshuah) within it, the closest match being a person (or persons) called Yeshu from the Babylonian Talmud." (notice the controversy about the name)

click on the link and you will find another article with the following paragraph:

quoting: "ben-Pandera

In the Tosefta reference to Yeshu, the title ben-Pandera (son of Pandera) is added after the name. The surname Pandera is not known from any graves or inscriptions, but the surname Pantera (the Latin form of Pantheras, literally meaning Panther), is unusual but not unknown. A first century tombstone in Bingerbrück, Germany has an inscription which reads: "Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera of Sidon, aged 62, a soldier of 40 years' service, of the 1st cohort of archers, lies here"." unquote

this article presents theories like: "The idea that Jesus never existed" and "Jesus and syncretism"

Why should this article not include the mention of Celsus, who was a historical scolar and ancient writer in the 2 century, who apparently knew and wrote "something" (slander or not, that is debatable) about Jesus ? Notice that the story? (claim?) of Celsus could have been based in the above reference (or not!) and that this article has no problem with the same jewish records. It may (in modern times) be only a theory, but so what? Other theories are included in this article.

Notice that Origen "whose writings are important as one of the first serious intellectual attempts to describe Christianity" had to counter-argue Celsus 70 years! after Celsus death.

If you want to include only "unambigious and undisputable" evidence then I am sorry to tell you that you have to delete this whole article, for we simply don´t have any of such unambigious evidence.

We don´t have his birth certificat, we don´t have his medical records, we have no writen evidence written by that person, we don´t have his tax records, we don´t have the roman acts of his trial, we don´t even have his corpse :). Is this "absence of evidence" a proof that he didn´t exist? No, for he was at the time of his death a Nobody (sorry for that term but I couldn´t find any better) and at that time ( ~30AD ) unimportant people simply did not have such papers. Flamarande 17:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary versus Near-contemporary

None of the contemporary sources quoted in this article are contemporary - i.e. at the same time as. All of them post-date the alleged date of Christ's life. The heading Contemporary sources is therefore misleading. Ian Cairns 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have wondered about that one myself but I didn't want to start an edit war! Can you think of a NPOV title that won't upset anyone? SOPHIA 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Early sources", or "Ancient sources"? KHM03 00:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea but I suppose "Earliest known sources" is the most factual and NPOV. Nothing earlier such as Q has been found (yet). Let's see what others think. SOPHIA 01:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with "Earliest known sources". KHM03 01:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, too. Alienus 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)