Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Academic Consensus

As I understand it, most scholars now a day agree that Jesus did exist or at least he was model on a existing person. Whether he was a political as opposed to religious figure (or likely both), or that he was a healer (which no secular academic will claim unless "fake" is added) or the method of execution being crucifixion or hanging, are not at all affirmed even by majority of historians. This article also has serious problem in the extent that it does not at all discriminate the source between religious people and proper historians of antiquity. I don't mind creationist POV presented in the article titled "evolution" but I would mind greatly if such POV does not have proper attribution. Vapour

Unless you're defining crucifixion in a much more narrow way than I am, or than the normal usage of the word by academics, then there is a near to scholarly unanimity that he was killed through crucifixion. Of course, this may involve him being hung in some sense - crucixion was being hung by being nailed to a tree (or possibly a cross-beam.) TJ 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus being healer or being baptised by John the Baptist can only be sourced to Christian writing whose neutrality is obviously suspect. And the argument that historical Jesus was more of political figure than religious one has been quite common among secular scholars of antiquity. I do not mind Christian POV being presented but I certainly do mind if religious view is presented as a historical one. I will make it easy. I will add {{}} for each factual reference being presented as undisputed fact. If you can find reference by historian of antiquity which state there is a consensus for each factual reference, I will let this edit pass. If you can't come up with a citation, I will delete the reference per verification policy. Since the general reference is provided, all I'm asking is to make each reference specific to each factual reference. You are free to give citation by a Christian theologian. But in such case, it is only fair that such reference is presented as a POV rather than a fact. Vapour
First of all, please don't delete other's talk page comments. Next, I have reverted your fact tags because that sentence is heavily sourced. We have 14 citations. I urge you to go to a library and open up any of these books and use the page numbers provided in the footnote to verify this information. Multiple editors helped out with creating this sentence, and months of research went into it. Dig through the Talk:Jesus archives and subpages to learn more about this history of this sentence. We went through dozens of books and picked out the key facts that all of these scholars (some Jewish, some Christian, some agnostic, some historians, some theologians, etc) could agree upon. This is the minimalist historical Jesus, as represented by the majority of mainstream scholarship. The next sentence covers the small minority view of non-existent. So we cover multiple POV, and we have tons of sources. I don't know what more you could ask for. Besides, we are not presenting these things as facts, we are presenting them as what most scholars can agree upon.-Andrew c 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Your distinction between crucifixion and hanging is to some extent erroneous. The Oxford Bible Dictionary defines it as "The act of nailing or binding a person to a cross or tree." That is entirely consistent with it being a death by hanging, by most definitions.
Please do not delete my comments on the talk page, as you did earlier. I'm not being obscene, inflammatory, or making personal attacks, so it is likely against some policy or other - and even if it isn't, it's very bad manners. TJ 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus: Jesus as myth section

The following is a reply to the assertion that 'all but one are priests' on the long list of authorities who consider the 'Jesus as a Myth', 'effectively refuted':

To my knowledge very few are 'priests'. I grant JD Crossan is a 'de-frocked' (well nearly, read his account in 'The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue' (2006)) priest but I'm not sure that counts. Similarly I think Géza Vermes would be rather astonished by your classification! The following are all academics and are not, and never were (as far as I can ascertain), ordained Paula Fredriksen, WR Herzog II, Daniel B. Wallace, FF Bruce etc. Clearly if anyone wants to add to the list of references that would be great. Mercury543210 13:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs for Jesus as myth

These are all the refs that were used to support the fact that the Jesus myth is refuted by the majority of scholars.

  1. Raymond E. Brown - Catholic priest
  2. Shaye J.D. Cohen - Rabbi
  3. John Dominic Crossan - former Catholic priest
  4. Geza Vermes - former Catholic priest
Hardly, he was a priest for 4 years and has 'been a Jew' again for 40 years. I feel this is stretching the point! Mercury543210 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If we are looking for a broad concensus of academics he does not add to the diversity. Sophia 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Paul Maier - vice president of a Lutheran Church
  2. N. T. Wright - Bishop
  3. Ben Witherington III - Professor at an evangelical Seminary
  4. F. F. Bruce - evangelical Christian
  5. W R Herzog - ordained minister
I can find no evidence for his ordination. The scholar I referenced is W R Herzog II.
Are we talking about the same person? Mercury543210 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
See this (5th paragraph) "Bill was ordained on 20th July 1969..." [1] - we are talking about the same person. Sophia 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hoist on my own petard. I stand corrected! Mercury543210 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. J Ed Komoszewski - served at the Josh McDowell Ministry
  2. MJ Sawyer - writes for bible.org and is a professor at a Seminary
  3. DB Wallace - also writes for bible.org and is also at a Seminary college

Unknown

  1. Paula Fredriksen

You cannot extrapolate to the whole of academia from this very narrow selection. I'm not arguing that the mythical Jesus view is anything other than a minority so referencing should be easy. I would also ask Mercury543210 not to revert carefully researched edits without doing his/her homework. Sophia 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am rather puzzled by your point.
  1. At least two (Crossan & Vermes[see my comments above]) are former priests and may therefore be considered to be at best 'neutral' and at worst 'hostile' to Christianity. Both are certainly highly critical of any suggestion that Jesus was anything other than an ordinary human.
  2. Next I'm unclear how a 'Rabbi' (Cohen) can be classed as a priest and again is highly unlikely to be biased in favour of Christianity.
  3. FF Bruce may be an 'evangelical' scholar but he is a very, highly respected SCHOLAR and was never a priest. Presumably he was a Christian because his research convinced him that Jesus was 'special'.
  4. Five more work at seminaries but are NOT priests.
  5. Are you suggesting that anyone 'religious', now or in the past, in any way, is to be considered an inappropriate 'reference'? On this basis anyone who is 'not religious' could be accused of bias in the opposite direction and hence equally of 'no use'. Who would be an appropriate 'authority'?
Overall the 'Jesus never existed' hypothesis is SO dead that no reputable historian even considers it worth discussing.
Finally on a personal note I would ask that Sophia consider retracting his/her accusation that I had not done my 'homework'. They will, or should have, noticed that I had given links to CV's/articles of those who proved my original contention ie most were NOT priests. I thought it unnecessary to reference everyone, as some are priests, but that is not the point I was making.
Mercury543210 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
One thing I don't understand is why the big ref from the main Jesus article is being used to support the claim regarding non-history. To my knowledge, when we sourced that sentence in the lead of Jesus, we were not looking for these scholars opinions about the non-history hypothesis, but we were looking for these scholars opinions on the historical Jesus. It is possibly original research, or at least slightly deceptive to use this reference to support the statement Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians. I think we should remove the "see also [1]" from the end of the citation list for that sentence. Whether the remaining 3 sources are enough to verifiability support that claim or not, is another issue.-Andrew c 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't miss the point Mercury - this set of refs is way too narrow to then extrapolate and make definitive statements about a whole field of study. All but one (who's views I have not been able to determine) have based their lives on the fact that Jesus was a real person to the extent that they either train or were religious leaders - that is not a broad selection of available academic opinion for determining the historicity of Jesus. If the Jesus myth is so debunked as Mercury states (and I agree it is a minority view) then there should be no trouble referencing this fact with a broad selection of academics who come from different backgrounds. Arguments from silence "Overall the 'Jesus never existed' hypothesis is SO dead that no reputable historian even considers it worth discussing." are weak and undermine the integrity of the article - they should not be used as an excuse for inaccurate referencing. Sophia 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[Reset indent] - SOPHIA please explain your criteria. There is a rabbi, two ex-priests - one of whom has 'returned' to Judaism and a spectrum of Christians. If anyone knows of others I (and I'm sure you too) would be delighted to hear from them, but I repeat the non-existence of Jesus is 'SO dead' "that no reputable historian even considers it worth discussing". When did you (or anyone?) last read about the non-existence of eg Julius Ceasar? Serious, reputable historians don't discuss such things because it makes them look ridiculous. The existence of Jesus is about as solid a 'fact' as we have about any person in ancient history. Mercury543210 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c - I'm not arguing as I've not personally read these sources. They are, however, used to support a series of 'facts' about Jesus's life and so must ipso facto support the existence of some person called Jesus. Mercury543210 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV--obviously, you have vested interested in either your religious health or pushing your POV. However, you're wrong. I don't think he existed, because the lack of contemporary documents are amazing. I'm pretty smart, pretty learned, and very logical--I'm not some nutjob babbling about Zeus being the only true god. Fact? I don't think so. Possibility of this rabble rousing rabbi? Maybe, but not convinced. Orangemarlin 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin POV vs NPOV - refs please. I've quoted some, others have as well. Your views are important but must be backed up by refereed sources. Please reference your sources and we will all learn. Mercury543210 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break. How can I prove a negative. And don't condescend to me, PLEASE. I'll let it go this time. Orangemarlin 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the list of sources: While they do support a historical Jesus, they do not explicitly support the claim that the non-history hypothesis is defeated. Would there be any objection to me removing the "See also [1]" bit from the support of the statement in question?-Andrew c [talk] 20:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair point Andrew, though I would say that 'implicitly' they do. If the consensus is against [1] being used in this way, I will will go with the consensus. Mercury543210 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to Andrew, and anyone else, who'd correctly understood AndrewC's point. I've just noticed that there seems to be some confusion about the use of ref [1]. I did not ref it from the Jesus article but from the top of this Historicity of Jesus article. Hence I though it was relevant. Sorry to everyone that I didn't fully comprehend AndrewC's comment earlier. Mercury543210 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm slightly appalled (though not surprised) that all the "scholars" cited are employees, so to speak, of the religion whose tenets require the existence of the supposed supernatural individual whose historicity (or not) they're supposed to be criticizing. Nor can one reasonably use the gospels to prove the existence of Jesus, since they were designed as pro-Jesus propaganda. Self-reference is not valid evidence. In 30+ years of practicing professional history, I have yet to see a single objective, contemporary (or even near-contemporary) source providing evidence of the actual existence of this supposed person -- the supernatural and mystical elements quite aside. Finally, claiming there are more sources for the existence of Jesus than for the existence of Alexander is simply ludicrous. This entire article begs the question of the historicity of Jesus. --Michael K. Smith 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Overquotations from Paul

There are some passages that are cited as representative of direct quotations of Jesus made by Paul, that do not actually mention Jesus directly. I believe the interpretation of any passage included should be unquestionably referring to the person of Jesus, and not due to an extrapolation, because the article discusses proofs of the historicity of Jesus' figure. The section is Pauline Epistles. I will list them.

The section includes 1 Corinthians 2 7:10-11, which reads: "But for those who are married, I have a command that comes not from me, but from the Lord. A wife must not leave her husband. But if she does leave him, let her remain single or else be reconciled to him. And the husband must not leave his wife". Note that Paul here is mentioning the Lord, not Jesus, and we therefore have to infer whether he was referring to Jesus. While it is perfectly legitimate to interpret the passage as referring to Matthew (5:32), Mark (10:11-12) and Luke (16:18), it is not undisputable. There are other passages in the Old Testament where the Lord is said to comand directly that divorce should not be pursued, and we cannot be certain whether Paul was referring to those. Just as an example, Paul might as well be referring to Malachi 2:16, which reads: “For I hate divorce!” says the Lord, the God of Israel. “To divorce your wife is to overwhelm her with cruelty,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “So guard your heart; do not be unfaithful to your wife.”

The section states that "In [1 Corinthians] 9:5 he references Jesus' brothers and their wives", while Paul is in fact referring to the Lord, not Jesus. Again, while it is very plausible that he was referring to Jesus, as that identification with a real Jesus is part of what actually has to be proven, it cannot be assumed and become a proof. Furthermore, the phrase in the section is at least misleading, because Paul does not reference literally "Jesus' brothers".

Soon after, again the mention of the Lord by Paul is identified, and thus interpreted, as mentioning Jesus. The passage 1 Corinthians 9:9 in fact reads: "In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it".

Please let me also bring to your attention the phrase in the Pauline section that says: "Paul claims he went to Jerusalem three years after his encounter with Jesus" (my emphasis). I think the natuure of this encounter should be specified, in an article that discusses the historicity of the figure of Jesus, because it is confusing as it stands. Did Paul meet Jesus personally? Does he account for what they said and discussed? Is this meeting compatible with other historical accounts? To my knowledge, Paul converted after having persecuted Christians, and tehrefore after Jesus' death. If he instead had met Jesus both being alive, we should change many accounts about those historical events. --209.150.240.231 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the page - you seem very knowledgeable and I would really like to see some suggested changes by you as I think you could improve the accuracy of the article. Sophia 06:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My suggestions. Guiding principles: A. Fore knowledge should not be assumed. B (related). The basic content of the article should be understandable and self-contained wihtout the strict necessity to access original sources, or related WP articles. C. The central focus should remain on historicity (therefore a mystical/divine meeting should be kept distinguished from a physical meeting, and the distinction be spelled out). D. Some minimal capacity of the reader to make obvious elementary connections between facts should be assumed, without the need, when possible, to connect the facts for him (alternatively, the connection should be argumented explicitly). Specifically, the noun "encounter" may cause confusion in the reader, especially because in conflict with the preceding remark that Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life. Someone unaware of the whole story may be tempted to assume that they had one preliminary meeting, although Paul was not an eyewintess of all of Jesus' life. While this is not the case, obviously, for anyone with a minimal familiarity with the history of Christianity, it is not so for someone who just happens to visit the page. I would suggest to change it to something sounding like: "Paul claims he went to Jerusalem three years after he reporeted to have encountered Jesus in a vision". There may be several better ways than mine to render this, it is up to the editors.
In regard to Jesus's brothers. the editor of the piece might have access to information I am unaware of, like translation etc. For what I know, but I may be wrong, Paul is not referring to the Lord's brothers as "Desposyni", that would imply a reference to members of Jesus' familily more or less uncontroversially. If I am not erring in this, I see no critical reason to elide the citation, but it should definitely be corrected. "Jesus' brothers" should be corrected to "the Lord's brothers". The reader may still come to the plausible conclusion that Paul was referring to Jesus as the Lord, but the error now present would be corrected and the conclusion would not be enforced upon the reader. As of 1 Corinthians 2 7:10-11, I find the argument much weaker than the others, and it could as well be elided. But that is a matter of taste. Again, if it is left standing, it is incorrect as it is. Paul did not report the commands of Jesus on divorce, but of the Lord. This should be specified while again, as before, the identifiication Lord-Jesus would be a plausible one by the reader (but not enforced upon him). In matters regarding historicity, interpolation and extrapolation should not be taken beforehand, espceially if the literal passages are interpreted and consequently modified by the editor. --209.150.240.231 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It is reasonable to assume that by "Lord" Paul meant "Jesus" because of 1 Corinthians 1:3: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." This appears to be clear evidence that the author identifies Jesus as "Lord." Wesley 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely that it is reasonable. And this very fact is precisely what is said in the preceding comments, if you took the time to read carefully. And that too is the very reason why the word used should be left as it is, citing what is actually truly said and not what the reasonable conclusion is. Because it is equally a reasonable conclusion any critical reader can rapidly jump to. But I see that what I'm hitting against here may be some involuntary reflex that may lead some editors to "feed" the reader, even when there is no need to. Let me ask you this. If during a speech Bush at some point mentions "the axis of evil", should the journalist report that Bush mentioned Iraq, or that Bush mentioned the axis of evil? Would the latter (correct) course prevent you from extrapolating what was arguably meant? --Gibbzmann 05:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But if I said the President of the US in 2007 I clearly mean George Bush so why not just say it. And Paul clearly means Jesus several times when discussing the Lord, as he many times calls him the Lord Jesus. And for instance regarding the command from the Lord regarding no divorce, Yahweh in the O.T. clearly permits divorce, so Paul doesn't mean that Lord, which only leaves Jesus as the source of the command. Similar reasoning applies to many other passages. Anyone know what the majority of scholars hold regarding who Paul is referring to in these passages? I'm pretty sure most scholars hold that James the brother of Jesus in Josephus and James the brother of the Lord in Galatians are the same person, but I'll get back to you all with a cite on that. He certainly doesn't mean the spirit of God's brother. Roy Brumback 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt you're in line with the majority view on most of these passages, but there is some debate over how some should be interpreted. According to the long entry on "Jesus, sayings of" in the Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (ed. G. F. Hawthorne et al., 1993), "The 'minimalists' who allow a minimum number of references, allusions or echoes of the sayings of Jesus in Paul deny a reference to the historical Jesus in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, understanding the phrase 'in the word of the Lord' exclusively in terms of the OT idiom which the prophets used in order to indicate in whose commission and authority they spoke. They discount also 1 Corinthians 11:23–25, arguing that Paul received and transmitted it as a liturgical tradition." (The entry does indicate that 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 and 9:14 are regarded as references to teachings of Jesus even by "minimalists".) Earl Doherty proposes some variant interpretations of Paul's letters; e.g., he thinks "brother of the Lord" in Galatians "would have referred not to a sibling relationship with Jesus, but to James' position in the Jerusalem brotherhood".[2] I don't doubt this is an uncommon opinion, but it shows one can in principle contest the usual interpretation of the phrase. I think we should avoid asserting interpretations of Paul as facts; it's simple enough to say that Paul refers to the "brother of the Lord", which is usually understood as referring to James the Just, etc. EALacey 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You can always have different interpretations of sentences and words, but we can certainly include what the views of scholars are regarding what the passages are saying, as well as the consensus on the issue. Roy Brumback 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Section: Ancient Creeds. Object missing

I am still sticking by the general principles A-B-C-D I have quoted above (with reference to the Pauline Epistles). More specifically, it must not be overlooked that the argument is one of historicity. I have great concerns with the section "Ancient Creeds". I have at first struggled to understand what the actual issue is. This must signify that the content is partly poorly conveyed. The way it is presented now, it more or less sounds like this: "A proof in favor of the historicity of Jesus is that ancient creeds flourished describing his mystical characteristics. The proof of the existence of such creeds is that the Gospels and Paul's letters ascribe to Jesus some characteristics, that we thus assume coincide with those of such ancient creeds." (was not that what we actually wanted to demonstrate?) As it stands, readers would think that we are merely using the New Testament passages to prove the existence of the creeds, after we started off claiming that those creeds are historically established indpendently of them. I am sure the cited sources have much more to say about this, in a more rational and sourced way. Therefore I am totally not in favor of citing the conclusions by the cited authors. It would be much more effective to cite their central arguments, or at least both (arguments and conclusions). In fact, would it make any sense to cite a review of a book, say, quoting the final phrase "overall I liked it", with no mention, brief summary or synthesis for the content of the review? Although the section is sourced, it looks as if the editor did not take the time to read their analyses thoroughly and jumped directly to the conclusions by the scholars. I am not saying that he didn't actually read them, only that it is conveyed in such a way that it looks as though he didn't. --209.150.240.231 03:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Early Church fathers

This section implies that the healings and resurrections allegedly performed by Jesus during his ministry are considered "historical details", which of course they're NOT. Also the sources mentioned (i.e. the church fathers) are heavily biased and therefore their accounts are not trustworthy. Anyone can make up a text and say "hey, i know some people who know some people who saw pigs fly. I even have their testimonies on paper !" Does this prove that pigs do actually fly ? Well, no, it just proves how silly the "i know some people" argument is, especially when coming from individuals who have the most interest in making other people accepting their view. The fact is that we don't have any reliable sources of information about Jesus' life or ministry...all we have is the "tradition" preserved in the gospels 50 years or so after the actual events took place (by largely unknown authors that is). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.137.235.100 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That opinion of the church fathers is one opinion, but it doesn't mean those references should be removed. While they may be biased, others would have been just as biased to report that Jesus performed no miracles. One great thing about citing sources is that each reader has the ability to evaluate those sources as they see fit, without Wikipedia needing to pass judgment. Wesley 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right on this point. But how about the healings and resurrections ? Are they considered "historical details" ? If not why does the article imply they are ?

You are SURE that these are not "historical details". This shows that you are biased. But if it helps, perhaps the wording could be changed to plain "details" or "recorded details"? rossnixon 02:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, overall some sections of this article do suggest bias by some editors who participated. I think the question of the historicity of Jesus is an interesting one, but some editors here seem to be under the conviction that trivializing this fascinating issue is some sort of way to prove a point. The consequence is that, historically, the article fails to be in any way of significance and conclusive. Above, in the two preceding comment sections, there are some other examples. Some have gone thus far as to modify what the scriptures actually say (for example, in Pauline Epistles, when "the Lord" is mentioned the editor has changed the scripture quotation into "Jesus"). Not only is this an historical malpractice, but also, if you want, a doubtful scholarly approach. But I see that nobody of the usual editors has taken note and tried to resolve the issue, as if in the end accuracy in regard to such historically important events is not so much relevant (so, why bother with editing this article?). The section "Early Church Fathers" is the culminating act. We are led to believe that true historians would give significance to some people of faith in around 120 AD who reported to have heard about people who met people who had been healed or resurrected, and were still alive about one hundred years later. I have no problem with believing that this actually happened on reason of faith, but historically this is so easily debunked that historians wouldn't even start to rebut it. Of course there are no citations. But the fact that there are citations in the section as it is now, to support this view, is of very little significance, historically I mean. The Flying Spaghetti Monster supporters continuously claim that they did assist to something supernatural. That I can cite their quotes as sources does not justify that I put in their claims in some article in Wikipedia as historical facts. Nor is of any relevance the fact that no historian has debunked those particular claims about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course historians deal with historically valid arguments and deal with them dialectically, they don't deal directly with historically improbable accounts. Finally, the fact that there are sources and that they are cited does not in any way imply that the section can get around Wikipedia no-bias policies. I hope that action will be taken by the habitual editors in order not to generate a controversy, because I respect their work. However these issue cannot be ignored indefinitely, or soon other editors will radically change this article. The section "Early Church Fathers" is a good point where to start. --Gibbzmann 04:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"You are SURE that these are not "historical details". This shows that you are biased. But if it helps, perhaps the wording could be changed to plain "details" or "recorded details"?" (rossnixon)

Yes i am sure, because no serious historian would accept an allegedly supernatural event as "historical" (*). History just doesn't deal with supernatural events. And yes, when it comes to healings and resurrections i am highly biased, just as i am about flying pigs or any other claim that defies common sense and for which there is absolutely no evidence. Take "alien abductions" for example. Like in the case of Jesus' miracles, there just isn't any real evidence to support them, except for the testimonies of some alleged witnesses of course. So what do we do ? Do we accept them as fact based on eyewitnesses alone or wait for some actual evidence ? That said, until Jesus decides to descend back on earth and prove the gospels and church fathers right all that a rational person can (and must do) is to reject their accounts as far-fetched and ridiculous (as I'm sure you do in the case of ET abductions).

(*) and that based entirely on some ancient propagandistic texts or some other clearly biased accounts !

"That opinion of the church fathers is one opinion, but it doesn't mean those references should be removed. While they may be biased, others would have been just as biased to report that Jesus performed no miracles." (Wesley)

That's funny because there are no reports like this dating from the first century ! The Jews, you might think, after seeing that simply killing Jesus would not make people forget about him or his miracles, would have surely written something to denigrate him. But they didn't. In fact no text on their part mentions him until the late first century, after the first Jewish-Roman war took place and after the first gospel was written ! And not even then do they try to debunk him in any way (on the contrary, the passage in which Josephus speaks about Jesus even implies that Jesus was the Messiah !) So either the Jews were all Christians either the Jews really did not know anything about Jesus until the second century a.d.! Or, there is another theory, that Christians from the second century on made most of the negative references about Jesus disappear from history, in which case the lack of first century Jewish references to Jesus (especially prior the first Jewish-Roman war) is somewhat justifiable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.137.235.100 (talk • contribs).

So the bias is what exactly? That the sources are biased? Are not all sources biased? That people of faith wrote them? So what? That they are written in the second century? How is that POV? If anyone has good scholars discussing these claims pro and con, feel free to insert them, but just stating what people said doesn't seem biased at all. Plus please note all anti Christian writers of the second century also held Jesus was a real human being. Roy Brumback 03:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You really don't get it, do you? The bias is not in that a theologian (Bauckham) has translated and interpreted Eusebius, Papias, Quadratus etcetera. The bias is in that the translated quote by Quadratus is deliberately reported in full in the section, in a supposedly encyclopedic article about hard proofs of a historical event. The quote implies that all readers should concur that some purported testimonies, that everything they ever said of themselves was that they were healed or resurrected by one person, are fully reliable historical testimonies about what that person did in his life (and I stress, that they were healed or resurrected is everything we know of them in relation to Jesus, no other fact narrated by them). Apparently you fail to understand that for a believer, and for many theologians, accounts of miracles are reliable facts, because you believe that in the first place. For example, the miracles in the Gospels themselves can be considered reliable facts on the basis that the person reading them believes them on faith (indeed anything supernatural ever said about Jesus would be acceptable, and therefore historically true, for the very reason he is considered to be one with God). But these personal attitudes are not encyclopedic at all; hence the accuse of bias. Indeed, if we let this kind of quotes stand all throughout WikiPedia for historical hard proofs, then we might conclude that Martians are constantly among us, most divinities since antiquity have actually lived, some people have been healed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I can find quotes of testimonies for all of the above. It is the quote attributed to Quadratus by Eusebius, written in the WP text in such a way as to imply that we know of reliable testimonies who met Jesus, to enforce a non-encyclopedic POV. It may be, and I would agree, that if Quadratus did write that, he may have added that sentence to give divine credibility to his story, and at the same time still be consistent (not a definitive proof though) with a historical Jesus. But that he did meet these people is very doubtful. And I'm not sure about this, but I think Papias reportedly even wrote about common Christians healing other people. If that is the standard of encyclopedic reasoning, I find it very pitiful (let alone for a person of faith, by the way, who thus relies on the accuracy of Papias, who wrote that any Christian could do whatever miracles he wanted to). The section could still stand, if written in a more intelligent and critical way, pointing out all the subtleties. In its present form I find it far too poor. But I see that you insist, so I won't touch it anymore. We'll let other editors judge in the future. I started to do gradual sensible adjustments, and I'm a neutral person; I thought I could help, but I'll drop it. Other editors in the future might be harsher. --Gibbzmann 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem you are facing is that it is just such a level of "proof" that has been accepted through the ages as definitive. So to present the mainstream view (bearing in mind that it's only in the last couple of decades that you would be widely published without fear of reprisals) is to base it on such stuff. Examinations of the evidence such as you are doing above border on original research so can't be used. The weight of academia that deals with this area comes down on the side of Jesus being a historical person - I agree with you that it is based more on wishful thinking than fact but that is the way it is. Still everyone used to agree the earth was flat..... Sophia 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on guys, all the section says is the early Church Fathers gave details of the life of Jesus, which is simply a fact. Feel free to add counter points, but simply saying what the early Fathers said is not POV, which is the issue. Simply attacking them as "people of faith" (which everybody is by the way, we all have faith in things we don't know to be true for certain) is simply an Ad Hominum attack. And these are not "proofs", just statements they made. If you think the section endorses their views, which I don't, what changes do you suggest? Roy Brumback 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry SOPHIA, but I don't agree that what I'm saying is OR. I'm just questioning the argument that is openly put forward by the past editors of this section, which is very apparently an explicit proposition. One that is far from encyclopedic (in my very personal view). You can argue about critical reading being something relatively new, but I'd have a very hard time going back decades and find any section in any encyclopedia that deals with the issue of the historicity of Jesus and at some point, with very little comment, puts forward two ancient quotes in support of the historicity of Jesus. The second quote being, Eusebius reported that Quadratus in 127 wrote: "I've met people who told me they were healed, others resurrected by Jesus". The article is indeed implying very explicitly, simply by quoting it, that this account suggests that they were positive eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. The section is not neutral, or, let's say, encyclopedic. The argument surrounding the early fathers is far more complex than this. In fact, scholars are typically forced to first justify Quadratus's motivations to say what he said (probably that it was useful to attract pagans). And only next dig deeper to find out what part is actually true. Even the critical reading of the Gospels of the modern times deals continuously with these kinds of issues, by discarding first all instances that were arguably primarily held to promote the movement. Sure enough, encyclopedias never mention that Jesus was seen walking on waters by many, as one of the arguments suggesting that he is an historical figure. Or do they? It's fine for me that Quadratus (and whoever) indeed might have met people who had known others that were very reliable sources about the life of Jesus. In fact, I don't even know. But the question is not in the trivial terms suggested in this section.
Re: Brumback. If you argue that I'm attacking anybody as people of faith you must have got very little of what I'm trying to say. My only interest is in accuracy, method, coherence. I can guarantee you that I have no convinced position about whether some of the narrated facts are historical, how many, and how many about Jesus. I'm just saying that it is wrong to let an encyclopedia advance an argument about a supernatural event as historical. This has to do with method in history, and it has nothing to do with faith, people of faith, miracles, alien abductions, ascending to the heavens by means of suicide-homicide, visions, charity, solidarity, philanthropy. We cannot allow history to go back in history. This is not just a website, it is an encyclopedia, and people of every faith and every culture deserve the best opportunity to understand historical details about Jesus. I cannot see them in any way profiting in a positive way from that one quote, largely unexplained. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus lived, or what he did in life, nor with people who have faith. All that said, I might as well be wrong, this is my personal opinion based on my personal way of reading that section. My reaction is as clear to me as I'm aware that I have strong opinions. --Gibbzmann 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just gone over the section again and have to agree that is is pretty poor as it asserts things as significant without ever saying who says they are. Finding the scholars who support this would then give us scope to balance this with critical comments from authors about the accuracy of "eyewitness" testimonies at least 70 years after the events. Sophia 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy Brumback, I think i have specified from the beginning what the bias is. The section we are talking about clearly implies that the healings and resurrections are historical details ! Of course if you're a Christian and believe that Jesus was/is the Son of God and that the gospels are 100 % accurate narratives of his life you have no trouble accepting this, but keep in mind this is simply YOUR POINT OF VIEW (that is, the Christian point of view) ! That said, in order for this article to comply with wikipedia's NPOV policy, I took permission and modified it accordingly by adding the word "alleged" in front of "historical details". Because that's exactly what these miracles are: alleged by some, rejected by others, historical details of Jesus' life.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.137.235.100 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 July 2007.

Jesus as Myth, small adjustments

I have removed a quote from a little known scholar. The quote was strongly POV. It would have been partly justified if it came from an historian at least as known (better if more known) as the names who preceded the quote, as in such circumstances it would have represented a very notable point of view. Furthermore, the author of the quote was not even introduced (of course, he is not notable), and it looked as though that phrase was written by Durant, clearly an absurdity. Editors MUST realize that the main text must be clear at all times as to who says what, references representing support information only for whoever wants to dig deeper. References are NOT essential information to understand the main text. One CANNOT discuss what X says, and then unannounced put a quote there from some anybody Y, that Y being specified only in footnotes.
Also, I eliminated "alleged" similarities in favor of "some" similarities, more adherent to the hypothesis that is discussed in that context of the text. The hypothesis introduced in "Jesus as Myth" is supported by some historians, whose argument is being presented and later countered, and therefore to put in "alleged" is editor's POV, not that of those historians. It is better to have the neutral "some" similarities, an objective and verifiable fact, rather than introducing the alleged-able WikiPedia's POV that the similarities are ... "alleged". --Gibbzmann 05:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point about quoting scholars with things that sound like they're from other scholars seems quite right, and I think I agree with you about alleged (although I may have worded my reasoning differently).
I have removed a quote from a little known scholar. The quote was strongly POV. It would have been partly justified if it came from an historian at least as known (better if more known) as the names who preceded the quote, as in such circumstances it would have represented a very notable point of view.
Firstly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The quote was strongly POV" - pretty much all of the sources we use on wikipedia are POV, because non-wikipedians are not bound by wikipedia policy! Indeed, any NPOV source would be close to useless, because all NPOV means is we should make the encyclopedia give a balanced representation of reliable sources on the matter. If all the sources did was give balanced representations of each other, then they're not going to say anything at all significant, are they?
That said, despite having written that lengthy a response to the suggestion that the source was POV, it's actually entirely plausible - indeed, I think fairly probable - that I missed the entire point of what you were saying. If so, please correct me!
As for whether he is as well known as the historians who preceded him, he may not be in the popular sphere, but certainly when professional biblical historians/bible scholars (working at a secular uni) have spoken to me, they've utterly dismissed figures like Doherty and and Freke as insignificant fringe-fgures - if they've heard of them. I'd really like to hear any evidence they are regarded as of any kind of significance in scholarly circles.
In any case, I've lengthened the Michael Grant quote to cover much the same ground as the Van Voorst quote, so I'm not convinced that we need the Van Voorst quote at all anymore. I just don't quite get your reasoning. TJ 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is structured wrong, given it's title/intent

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth

To phrase this differently: "What is the historical support for Jesus Christ as presented in the Christian Bible?"

To examine whether the Christian figure is historical, it is entirely circular reasoning to quote anything from the Christian Bible. The Christian Bible can't answer whether elements in the Christian Bible are supported.

I would suggest that everything prior to "New Testament apocrypha" should be removed as not relevant to the intent of the article -- it is already covered in Biblical Jesus. 60.241.193.143 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A corollary to what I just wrote would be that you could include information from the Christian Bible which *contradicts* historical events. For example, the lack of a Roman census during the reign of Herod (events which the Christian Bible claims were coincident with the birth of Jesus Christ).
60.241.193.143 10:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The sentence immediately after the one you quoted reads: "Scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition." Perhaps it could be made clearer, but the article is not just about "Jesus Christ as presented in the Christian Bible", which, as you note, is treated at New Testament view on Jesus' life. That article is a summary of the N.T. gospel narratives, whereas this article is concerned with how far they provide evidence for the historical Jesus. EALacey 10:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My point was that the New Testament can't provide evidence for its own account -- by definition, it can only provide the Biblical Jesus story (which isn't the point of this article). To look for the historical Jesus, an agreement must be made between the Christian Bible and something else.
Further, the third and fourth sentences of the article, are highly problematic/POV. The first of these:
The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.
is unsupported in this article and arguably misleading. Again, by definition, Christians are primarily concerned with the Biblical Jesus -- there is no burden upon them to learn historical details.
The fourth sentence:
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]
claims to give the opinions of many scholars, but the evidence upon which this detailed claim is made is not presented. This approach is against the "Undue Weight" and "Let the facts speak for themselves" sections of WP:NPOV. Again, since this article only gives Biblical sources to support these features of Jesus' life that are described Biblically, this line reaffirms the "unsupported/unverified/unsourced" nature of this article.
60.241.193.143 11:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that a collection of texts (such as the New Testament) "can't provide evidence for its own account"? If so, I'm not sure what I can say in reply. The same logic would entail that the "supporting" sources themselves "can't provide evidence" for what they say; this reasoning would seem to render any speech act meaningless, including this discussion. If you're simply saying that no historical statement can be accepted unless it's attested by multiple sources, then you're still taking a position that virtually no ancient historian would accept. And please note that the New Testmant itself contains multiple sources, even if those were later collected in a canon. EALacey 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I am arguing that in the specific case of the New Testament, the different components are not independent at all. Collections are only as independent as the means used to assemble them. The New Testament is a compilation entirely orchestrated by the Christian Church (see Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon) -- which had a self-evident bias in doing so. The Church selected (and likely revised/rewrote) the stories it liked (over the course of 400 years) and labelled the works that they didn't like as apochrypha. Even notwithstanding this deliberate manipulation, the Two-source_hypothesis (and most other hypotheses) imply that the different parts of the New Testament are derivations of themselves.
(Clarification: I am the initial few 60.241.193.143 posts, the one lower down is someone else on my network) Mattisgoo 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to promote personal views. It seems like you have invented your own historical method whose sole criterion for determining historicity is a biased form of double attestation (i.e. if the Gospel of John says something, and a non-Christian source agrees with it, then it must be historical?) I know of no scholars that use this technique. Remember, on wikipedia, everything has to be verifiable by attributing ideas to sources. What is the source for this new historical method? It seems to me that this is nothing but original research. If a critical historian like John P. Meier has a set of criteria that he uses to determine historicity of the biblical accounts, then your initial premise (The Christian Bible can't answer whether elements in the Christian Bible are supported) has already been refuted (because we have cited sources that disagree). However, if you can come up with a notable source to cite regarding your ideas, we can present them in contrast to the scholarly historical methodologies. Without sources, we are just wasting time talking hypothetically here. Does this make sense?-Andrew c [talk] 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
He's talking about triangulation which is a valid research method in all academic fields but is difficult to apply historically due to the lack of surviving texts. Sophia 21:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Triangulation depends on combining methods that have some independent evidential value. In any case, even if the N.T. were (as I think the user is arguing) non-evidence that could be turned into evidence by a comparison with other sources, it would still be part of the evidence for the resulting conclusions about the historicity of Jesus, and would merit coverage in this article. The only way we could justify excluding the N.T. from this article would be if historians made no use of it at all in examining the figure of Jesus. EALacey 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hence his comments about the NT and the Roman census - one document would support the other. Us non historian types find the level of certainty expressed over a few contradictory, obviously POV reports to be perplexing. I may be misrepresenting the anon but I think that is what he was getting at. It's an important point and I'll have to reread the article again but I think it's one that is already covered as discrepancies are addressed from what I remember. Sophia 06:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Darwin's "Origin of the Species" isn't evidence of evolution. It's just a book. If you happen to believe that Darwin was an honorable man who wrote the truth about his reasonable observations then you might well TRUST Darwin as an authority. Luckily, you don't have to. The evidence that supports the theory of evolution is all around us, and Darwin's claims can be tested and tested and tested and tested. Nobody's asking you to believe a single sentence of "The Origin", when read by itself (which it isn't).
Suddenly you're asking us to believe claims in the Bible BY THEMSELVES? Sorry. No. Absolutely not.
None of the claims in the Bible can be used to support any story about Jesus. The Bible, being so ridiculously errant, foregoes any kind of accuracy let alone historical. It is a fantasy story. It's nonsense. It's written solely for the control of the masses, a hundred years after the last person who could have possibly seen Jesus was dead. It's a folk tale. It's contents are so silly that it beggars belief that any reasonably literate person could put their hand on their heart and say that any of the four gospels are even talking about the same story.
Let's have some ev-i-dence now. The scientific approach is to use trusted sources. The bible is so errant in so many ways that we cannot truthfully believe it is a trustworthy source. The way to trust sources is to first establish at least some level of agreement with another source. edit: There are those of us who doubt the internal consistency of the Bible to the extent that we do not TRUST its authors as authoritative recorders of history without corroboration.
:"(i.e. if the Gospel of John says something, and a non-Christian source agrees with it, then it must be historical?) I know of no scholars that use this technique."
(Uh... Yeah. It's called, wait, tip of my tongue, what was it? Oh yeah, it's called verifying your sources. No wait, that's journalism where you have to tell the truth. This is just Wikipedia.) You mustn't have studied history at school then. Historians usually prefer to get the facts straight before they put their reputation on the line. It's actually quite common for a historian to use their common-sense, hard as that might be for you to believe.
If a critical historian like John P. Meier has a set of criteria that he uses to determine historicity of the biblical accounts, then your initial premise (The Christian Bible can't answer whether elements in the Christian Bible are supported) has already been refuted
That's just a WEIRD thing to write! JPM is a Catholic Priest! He's obliged to believe that the Bible is historically accurate - so he is automatically ruled out as an impartial, scientific authority on the historical accuracy of the Bible. I don't TRUST him, because I have GOOD REASON to believe that his professional integrity is biased by the fact that he's a priest.
However, if you can come up with a notable source to cite regarding your ideas
Ideas have to be cited now? Where's your citation for that idea? No, you have it wrong - it's factual claims that have to be cited. Plain old logic and common sense are allowed to be let stand - the reader is allowed to verify for themselves the idea that A = A is reasonable.
I am in complete agreement with every statement made by anon. It's a basic scientific principle that an edifice cannot be its own foundation. The bible cannot be used, by itself, as proof of any of the claims in the bible. To do so is to commit a facetious form of hearsay.
Evilbrent 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion boards. If you want to present your personal beliefs and argue them, please take them elsewhere. Thanks. Keep in mind that wikipedia operates on verifiability and attribution to reliable sources, and that original research is strictly forbidden. -Andrew c [talk] 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Evilbrent's last paragraph quite succinctly summarises what Anon and other people's problems are with this page It's a basic scientific principle that an edifice cannot be its own foundation. The bible cannot be used, by itself, as proof of any of the claims in the bible.. Let's stick with looking at claim in the bible and verifying them using material outside the bible. 60.241.193.143 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC) {{<-- I'm not the same anon as before}}
Andrew, I apologise. For some reason I thought we were in disagreement. I completely agree with you: "wikipedia operates on verifiability and attribution to reliable sources, and that original research is strictly forbidden." Let's call it consensus and remove the offending section then. Thanks for your help. Evilbrent 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a section that is violating the 2 policies and 1 guideline I mentioned? What section is completely lacking verifiable, reliable sources? What section is entirely original research? If you are talking about the "Gospels" section, then I think we are back in disagreement. I read through and did some revising and added one citation needed tag. But I clearly did not see the entire section in violation. Perhaps you could find a citation for that sentence to help clear this matter up?-Andrew c [talk] 00:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
The Bible very certainly has a poor reputation for fact checking. It has incredibly poor editorial oversight. At the VERY least, we cannot trust the unbiased reputation of the author of an authorless book. "What section is completely lacking verifiable, reliable sources?" All the sections which use the Bible as their reference are lacking verifiable, reliable sources.
This article is about the "historical Jesus". A man who, in my understanding, answered to the name Joseph who wondered about giving free sermons and basically avoiding the police because of his incitements to rebellion and almost claiming to be the Messiah. YMMV. The Bible contains stories about Jesus, a Greek name given many years later to a fantastical mythological half-man/half-god being who could float, do magic tricks and "heal" people. Two seperate people.
The Bible can only be used to make claims about the theological specifics of Jesus - it cannot be used to then make claims about a third party: Joseph. Remove the entire first section which relates to what the Bible has to say about Jesus. Evilbrent 03:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I just read your changes to the article. Much better. Still a bit screwy, but now much better. Evilbrent 04:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost amused by this discussion. Folks, you cannot -- repeat, CANNOT -- appeal to statements in the New Testament as proof of the claims the New Testament itself makes. Can't do it. Forget it. That's not how historical research works.

I sometimes like to ask earnest evangelicals if they will therefore accept the validity of the Book of Mormon, as translated from those golden plates dug up in New York by Joseph Smith with the aid of the angel Moroni, etc. They generally become indignant and accuse Smith & Company of fraud. But why? The situation is closely parallel to accepting as valid what the church fathers did -- who, as has been stated, patched together the New Testament from those pro-Christian propaganda pieces they approved of while discarding the rest. The feeling seems to be that the New Testament dates from mysterious ancient times, which makes it believable, while Joseph Smith was only a 19th century figure, and therefore insufficiently mystical. Theology is not history. History is not faith. "Show me the money."

For all I know, the board of directors in A.D. 190 decided it was necessity of invent a lovable icon for the ignorant masses to focus on (along the lines of Uncle Sam or Aunt Jemima), one sufficiently removed in the past that potential witnesses would no longer be able to cause dissent to the party line. Note that I am NOT saying that this was the case -- only that HISTORICALLY it's a equally valid possibility compared to anything involving faith in a supernatural being. ---Michael K. Smith 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re "That's not how historical research works": could you explain briefly how historical research does work? I've recently finished a degree which included several papers on ancient history, and all the academic work I've read in the field treats statements in ancient texts as evidence for the truth of those statements; in many cases it's hard to imagine what other evidence there could be. ("Proof" is another matter, but that word isn't used in the current article.) And more specifically, with regard to the historicity of Jesus, can you indicate any reliable published source (whether pro- or anti-historicity) that discusses the topic without using the New Testament as evidence? EALacey 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's very strange as I'm reading Jared Diamond's Collapse at the moment and he states that historians rejected written stories based on oral traditions that the Vikings had landed in America until the archaeologists discovered the remains of a camp and carbon dated them to the time the legends described. Even then there are still disputes on how much of the writings can be taken as factual. I won't speculate on what type of University awarded your degree. Sophia 10:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that statements made in texts are never open to doubt, merely that they constitute one form of evidence. Sometimes this evidence will be found unreliable, or even unworthy of discussion, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that should depend on the judgement of reliable sources and not of editors. EALacey 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You asked for evidence of how the historical method works with regard to extraordinary claims in documents and that is what I provided. Way back at the beginning of this thread an anon editor raised this very point and I have been surprised at the resistance to to obviousness of his point. However as you say there has been virtually 2 millennia of political backing in the west for these documents so there is a glut of reliable sources ignoring the contradictory nature of accepting extraordinary claims without external evidence so this is what the article must and does represent. As you so rightly say editors can have opinions but wikipedia articles are no place for them. Sophia 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we seriously disagree. I asked for evidence of how the historical method works with regard to claims in documents, but I didn't use the word "extraordinary". I quite agree that extraordinary claims require more evidence than others and that there is insufficient historical evidence for things most Christians believe about Jesus. My scepticism was only towards the view that some principle of the historical method rules out the New Testament completely as a source of evidence. (Herodotus and the Augustan History make many inaccurate claims, and the latter is often deliberately misleading, but historians of the periods they cover do cautiously use them as sources.) Rejecting specific statements in texts based on their improbability (whether they involve Viking transatlantic journeys or people rising from the dead) is another matter, and I don't doubt that historians do this routinely. EALacey 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no archeological evidence for the existence of Socrates. What would you accept as evidence for his actual existence then except for the books, not written by him, that claim he existed? Roy Brumback 02:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Triangulation does not necessarily have to come from archaeological sources - this article covers the point you are trying to make. To EALacey - where there is doubt as to the authorship and integrity of writings this should be made clear. Certainly in my education I was never told that Matthew Mark Luke and John are unknown people writing at an ill defined time - poll most people and they will say what I would have until a decade ago - that the Gospel authors were disciples and were eye witnesses to the events. No one says the NT is not historical evidence - it is great evidence for Christianity and the growth of a religion but it's limitations as a description of historical events is very suspect due to its inability to accord with other historical records of the time (the census and the massacre of the innocents are two obvious examples). All this is irrelevant however as we have a glut of reliable sources that do accept the NT as broadly reliable. This article does represent the mainstream view and going back to the start of this thread this is the only answer we can give the anon editor who began all this. Sophia 06:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
With Socrates, there are three primary sources (Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon) which discuss him in detail. They are relatively trustable sources because they are directly attributable to named figures, who lived contemporary to their subject and who knew him personally and who wrote about him while he was still alive. With Jesus of Nazareth, there is only one significant source for his existence (the New Testament -- which cannot be considered multiple sources due to the two source hypothesis and Irenaeus' editorial oversight). It is written by unknown individuals, at an unknown date, who never claim to have met Jesus personally, and is religiously biased in relation to facts around the individual in question. The best other sources for Jesus' existence (as listed in this article) are single paragraph remarks by historians many decades afterwards which predominantly mention "Christians" rather than Jesus and are disputed anyway. Mattisgoo 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A debate over the relative quality of documentation for Jesus and Socrates would be off-topic, since it's not going to bear on improving the article, but I feel bound to correct some factual errors, since people looking for encyclopedic information may read the talk page. Aristophanes' Clouds is a fictional comedy and not a "trustable" source for anything in any simple sense (which is not to say one can't necessarily extract historical information from it). Plato and Xenophon use Socrates as a figure in dialogues that aim at least partly to express their own philosophical ideas rather than to represent the historical Socrates. Of these three authors, only Aristophanes wrote during Socrates' life. The two-source hypothesis does identify multiple sources within the New Testament (as its name suggests). I'm not aware what the evidence is that Irenaeus had "editorial oversight" over the New Testament. EALacey 10:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of Irenaeus was that his work "Adversus haereses" is the first known document to assert the primacy of the New Testament canon in functionally its current form. He believed in 4 gospels (among countless apocrypha at the time) because it would reflect the four elements: earth, wind, fire, water. He then wrote about how the Gnostics were nuts and should be wiped out (they were). Since apocrypha have been purged over time (leaving only Nag Hammadi and Tchacos as sources of what once was) it is difficult to consider the current gospels independent; they have been selected from a wider range of works to present a consistent and narrow view. Hence my comment about "editorial oversight". Mattisgoo 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)