Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 16

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

Gnostic Texts

The article states that "Gnostic texts show a lack of attention to history", however there is no citation. This seems like an important point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.206.203 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Mythicist part of the article

I upgraded the mythicist part of the article because it seems to have been written from a Christian point of view, deriding the increasing number of scholars who now look on a historical Jesus as highly suspect. The bottom line is that there is no reliable factual evidence that Jesus and his disciples existed. Only conjecture. Unregistered. 10:36 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.9.57.80 (talk)

That section, as it is (now that I have reverted it back to what it was before your edit) is based upon verfiable fact - the fact that . It contains a quote by Michael Grant, who is an atheist, deriding the nonhistoricity thesis, to the effect that .
You claim that "there is no reliable factual evidence that Jesus and his disciples existed. Only conjecture." That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I happen to disagree, but to argue on that is irrelevant and contrary to the aims of this discussion page. This is because the truth of the matter is irelevant to wikipedian policies (like WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY)
Wikipedia is not the place to support 'the truth' (ie ones own opinions), but only the opinions of scholars. Your argument seems to be that you are right, therefore most experts must support you. I suggest you name a few - by which I mean people who hold PhD's in the relevant subject areas, rather than . To be worthy of inclusion on this page, rather than on a fringe page devoted to the subject itself (where these kinds of ideas have a fair bit of space devoted to them), the subject would have to have at least 5-10 recognised scholars (ie AT LEAST PhD's in the subject, ideally in a good teaching post at a research university) proposing it, to counteract the fact that there are many thousands of scholars in the relevant fields who disagree with it.
Your update not only failed to contain any references to support your claims, it also contradicted the references we have in place to verify truth. If you wish to update this section to include these views, I suggest you provide references by scholars to support what you wish to say. TJ 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing Lightfoot

I haven't got a source for the Lightfoot claim about Josephus, but my professor mentioned it and I believe that it's out there if someone would like to find it. If not then I will eventually, but it's not one of my goals right now. If need be go ahead and delete the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstanierm (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to delete the paragraph yet. I just think that it would be helpful for our readers (and in line with out verifiability/attribution policies) if we could add a citation to that section. If anyone thinks that the content is dubious or harmful, we can remove it. But to me, it seems plausible, and just simply would be better with a citation. -Andrew c [talk] 16:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad Sources

Source 57, which is supposed to support the claim that some scholars say that Suetonius wasn't speaking about Jesus or Christians does not support this claim in any way. I read the claim myself, and it only repeats the claim written in the writing of Suetonius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.233.213 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the page Atheists

I am going to resquest a ban for you from some Wikipedia administrators. You have very poor statements regarding the history of Jesus, or the possibility that Jesus was a myth; even your websites are very bad resources and do not look at the facts from a clear perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, can you sign your comments. The message at the top of every edit window on talk pages explains how to do it: This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Next, could you be a bit more specific about your concerns. It isn't a good way to start off a conversation by accusing other editors of bad faith, and threatening to ban them. Remember to assume good faith. Anyway, try to calmly explain your issues with the article, and try to be specific. As it stands, I do not know who you are referring to, what edits you consider "poor statements", nor do I know what links you consider to be bad resources. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Another thing, procurtator and prefect are actually very similar names, which is why I took out the statement regarding Pontius Pilate.Kevin j 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thallus

I see someone thought my changes to the Thallus section should be reverted. My problem with the original is that it seemed to state that Thallus had definitely written about the crucifixion. All we know from Afrincanus is that Thallus wrote about an earthquake and an eclipse, which apparently coincided, but even that is not certain. Africanus claims that this earthquake and darkness coincided with the crucifixion, and that Thallus must have been wrong to call the darkness an eclipse. It is just as likely, if not more so, that Thallus, like anybody else, knows what an eclipse of the sun looks like, and therefore when he says eclipse he means eclipse. If Thallus did describe an ordinary eclipse which coincided with an earthquake, then these things did not happen at the time of the Passover/full moon (as it cannot, as Africanus knows). E4mmacro 01:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that C. Logan thinks that no one is arguing that Thallus mentioned Jesus of Nazareth. I see no harm it making it clear that we do not know that Thallus mentioned Jesus, because I thought the Thallus section could be misread to make someone think the opposite. If the Thallus section is merely there to tell us than an eclipse and an earthquake once coincided, sometime in the first century, what relevance to this page does that fact have? Why mention Thallus at all unless you think he mentioned Jesus? E4mmacro 02:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I understand, but the clarification that "we don't know for certain if it mentions Jesus" is not necessary, because no one is making such a claim. Perhaps a simple clarification concerning the purpose of the referencing by Africanus would be useful, but as I see it, the inclusion of such a statement is just as needless as the earlier note concerning Celsus which you'd removed (which, one could argue, is just as necessary for the clarity of the purpose of that statement's listing as this is). The fact that the text may or may not mention Jesus is irrelevant to the fact that Africanus is citing Thallus because his account of a natural development (apparently) coincides with the environmental happenings described in the Gospels. I hope my comment is fairly clear.--C.Logan 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the above was written before your comment above, I'll just clarify with your comment in mind. I think that a more neutral form should be used, while still describing the relevance of Thallus' work to the page. For example, we could describe that Africanus referenced Thallus because he felt the unusual events reported by Thallus appeared to coincide with claims of the Gospels. Africanus doesn't explicitly argue that Thallus refers to Jesus, so there's no "loss" if Thallus' text doesn't mention him- it's irrelevant to the matter, as he's being referenced only because of the description of events. I understand your concern for clarity, but I think the wording you'd chose poses a few problems in other directions. Maybe we could work out a form that we could agree on?--C.Logan 02:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the neutral form is to say that Afrincanus was interested in the Jesus story when he (Afrincanus) wrote in the second century. So the entry should start with Africanus, not Thallus. E4mmacro 05:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem I see with that would be that Thallus is considered notable largely because of his possible viewing of the "darkness" described in the Gospel narrative. He was a contemporary, so it would seem that his own testimony of such an event (and his non-bias in the matter, as opposed to Africanus) would be the focus. Also, I think one should note that this super-section is divided into "Christian" and "Greco-Roman" (read: non-Christian contemporary) sources. Thallus, and all the others listed in this subsection, are noted because of their confirmation of Jesus' existence, or of elements which occurred during his life (as reported in the Gospels). To list the contributor as Africanus, and to move to the "Christian" section, would vastly underplay the significance of this contemporary claim. It's noted here in the non-Christian section because it is an example of a non-Christian writer (supposedly) corroborating an event portrayed in the Gospels.
If of course you simply mean that the section should begin with something along the lines of "Africanus, an X X, noted the account of Thallus concerning a darkness perceived in Jerusalem during.... Africanus argued that the account corroborated....", then I would support such a change. Thallus is the key, here, but Africanus is essentially the one turning the key. As long as Thallus is the bold name, such a change would make sense to me.--C.Logan

The problem is that

  1. we do not know when Thallus lived and wrote. It could be as late as the second century. Why do you assume Thallus was a contemporary of Jesus?
  2. we do not know that Thallus associated any darkness with Jesus
  3. we do not know that Thallus associated any eclipse with Jesus, it could be Africanus who associated Thallus's eclipse with Jesus
  4. Thallus probably described an eclipse, which cannot be associated with the darkness described in the Gospel, except by the wishful thinking and conclusion-jumping used by Africanus which entails that Thallus is so unreliable as to mistake a mysterious 3 hr darkness at the time of a full moon, with an eclipse. E4mmacro 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning your first issue: we don't, of course. However, many individuals do, in fact, believe that he was a contemporary. This complicates the issue, but disregarding the possibility is rather POV.
On the second issue, I've already explained that this point is irrelevant, so it's a little pointless to bring it up again.
Actually, as far as I can see, you asserted that no one is arguing that Thallus mentioned Jesus, to which I said, I think, that many readers will assume from what is written, that Thallus did mention Jesus, to which you gave no reply, not even to deny that anyone would be misled. I my view, it was worth mentioning it again. But if I missed your answer, sorry. E4mmacro 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about this. See, my point was that the clarification you'd originally posted was slightly misleading, as it might lead the reader to assume that the citation of Thallus makes much of a difference to Africanus' (or Christians') argument, here. I think that what Thallus claimed, and what Africanus took from it should be clarified. Thallus reported a darkness (possible during the time of Christ), and Africanus took this as empirical evidence of the historicity of Jesus the Christ (read: Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels). To report such an uncertainty is equally misleading, because Africanus apparently did not base his argument on that fact. It would be important to note, however, the uncertainty in dating Thallus, and Africanus' own possibility of error in interpretation.--C.Logan 01:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On the third issue, that does appear to be the case. That's my point. Again, Thallus reported the relevant event, and Africanus made the connection between these events. Of course, we know little more concerning Thallus' work, so I'm afraid that very few arguments could be made in either direction.
Concerning the rest... while you're free to express your own POV on the matter itself, I don't believe it makes much of a difference, in light of WP:NPOV.--C.Logan 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


In short, this should be under 2nd-3rd century Christian claims that Pagan authors mention Jesus or the Jesus tradition. Thallus does not belong in the section on Pagan authors who mention Jesus, because we don't know that he did. E4mmacro 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Thallus is the focus, and we must of course consider the fact that we don't know whether he did or did not. The important point to note is that the section is not called Pagan authors who mention Jesus, nor does it ever make such a promise. At best, it states that the individuals made statements "relevant to Christianity". Thallus did indeed make a statement which is "relevant to Christianity", whether or not such a connection is even warranted. I propose that Thallus remain under this section, though emphasis be placed on Africanus' role in connecting the two concepts, and the uncertainty surrounding Thallus should be expanded. Like I've said originally, whether he mentioned Jesus or not is irrelevant, as Africanus made the connection between the event he described and the event which the Gospels describe... as it seems that that statement had brought us here in the first place, I think it's good to note, to keep the discussion on track.--C.Logan 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The nagging difficulty I still have is that the Thallus entry seems more directed to proving the truth of a wondrous Gospel story (an amazing darkness at the death of Jesus) rather than the historicity of Jesus. There would be many (most?) who accept the historicity without believing Matthew's account of the crucifixion. Does anyone think it would add weight to the historicity of Jesus even if we knew for sure that a full eclipse, as seen from Jerusalem, occurred 15 days before or after Passover in the years say 28AD to 33AD, or indeed anytime in those years? This is very like the old story: "I shot a giant bear in the woods, right beside an oar tree, And if you don't believe me I will show you the oak tree." E4mmacro 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If Africanus argued that the statements of Thallus added weight to the claims of the Gospels, then yes, it makes a difference. First of all, it's important to note that one of the claims often leveled against the New Testament account is against it's more fantastic portrayals of certain events. The "darkness" issue is an arguing point I've seen many times, because it would seem apparent that such an event would be noted in some secular history. If Africanus makes the claim that this is indeed such a report (whether he is correct or not), then it is a valid presentation concerning the history of Christ as found in the Gospels. It's important to note that, while you or many others may be satisfied with the possibility of the "wandering homeless philosopher" as endorsed by the Jesus Seminar and others, the vast majority of the 2.1 billion Christians in the world put their faith in the Gospel as being a largely historical representation of events (with various degrees of belief, of course). To Christians, the truthfulness of the Gospel goes hand in hand with the "historicity of Jesus". That being said, I think we should clarify this fact in the article itself.--C.Logan 01:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To further explain my difficulty. suppose I added a Phlegon section, something like

Phlegon of Thralles wrote a history in the 140s AD. George Syncellus a 9th century monk, while discussing the events surrounding Jesus crucifixion, mentioned Phlegon's history, writing: "All these things happened to occur during our Lord's passion. In fact, Phlegon ... wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying thus: "Now in [32AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

Such an entry would be directed towards trying to prove God's displeasure at Jesus' death, on the basis that the coincidence of the year 32AD, earthquake, eclipse, time of eclipse, and a location Nicaea (700 km from Jerusalem, but maybe nobody will notice) could not be explained by natural causes. But of course, even if God showed displeasure at something in 32AD it does not show that Jesus was history. The Thallus entry seems no more (even less) that this Phlegon entry which I doubt we would accept. E4mmacro 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note again what I said above: one of the charges frequently leveled against the historicity of the Gospel narrative are the fantastical elements, with the above signs/disasters being the primary focus here. It would seem to me that the monk's own interpretation of the events described by Phlegon would be an example of a secondary source. As Wikipedia is, these are the sorts of sources we're supposed to hold to, and as the monk is relating a secular historian's account to the Gospel claims, than it should doubtless be included on the page, as it concerns the historicity of Jesus as found in the Gospels. In the relevant case we've been discussing, to list Thallus' work alone and make the connection would be Original Research, but as Africanus is the one who has connected Thallus' account with the reality of the Gospel narrative, this is not the case.--C.Logan 01:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Eclipse, not darkness

I still think you miss the point - Thallus says eclipse, not "mysterious darkness". Eclipses are not mysterious. For some reason you think Africanus, who wasn't around to see any darkness, is right and that Thallus, who may have seen the darkness he describes, is wrong. The argument seems to be: "Jesus existed because there was a mysterious darkness at the time of his death and if you don't believe let me tell you about an eclipse very near the reported time of his death". It is just a non-sequiter. But I look forward to seeing the Phlegon non-sequiter inserted in the article.

Of course I might have missed the point. I thought the page was about the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, did he exist, as opposed to never existing as a man on earth, the view discussed briefly in the "myth section". I didn't realise the page was about the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts or the views of 2.1 billion Christians; I thought would be on a page called "Historicity of the Gospels". E4mmacro 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, we have to keep neutrality in mind. Your own opinion on Africanus' conclusion here is not relevant to the article, as in the interest of WP:NPOV, we don't show preference to certain information because of individual editor opinions or theories- if Africanus himself made the connection, and Christians use this as a claim to historicity, it should be included. Additionally, as far as I'm informed in the matter, we don't have enough of Thallus' work in our hands to understand the context or additional information presented. Africanus seems to argue that Thallus' judgment of the darkness as an eclipse is incorrect because an eclipse can not occur during Passover, as the moon is full. Again, this is not my argumentation, but his. The Hebrew calendar is lunar, so there is a definite moon phase in association with it. Whether or not Thallus noted the time of the eclipse as being on Passover is unknown to us- but again, in a similar manner, to what you describe above, Africanus read Thallus in full, whereas we have only fragments. Who should have a more thorough knowledge of what was said in his writings? I'm not saying that Africanus is correct, but I'm certainly saying that he's working with much more information than we are. This is yet another reason why we should avoid making judgment concerning the actual conclusions reached by secondary sources, and discuss more so how these sources can be appropriately inducted into the article.
Additionally, I'm unsure if you missed the relevance of the "darkness/eclipse". Note the fact that a common charge against the Gospel account (and the historicity of Jesus as found within the Gospels) is that supernatural occurrences, the darkness at the Crucifixion being the present example, are often determined to be spurious because there is a dearth of contemporary sources which report such a claim. Here is Africanus, connecting Thallus' account to the account of the Gospels (whether warranted or not), which in addition to it's own statement of historicity, is used by apologists as well as an argument for the historicity of the Crucifixion account. Again, it's not here because it's correct, but because it is based on verifiable sources. If a source uses Africanus as a claim to the historicity of Jesus (and Africanus appears to have been doing this in part himself), then it is considered an argument for the historicity of Jesus based on 2nd and 3rd-party sources.
Currently, there is no page on [[Historicity of the Gospels; however, the subject here is of inestimable importance to that topic. As I've noted, the argument against the supernatural elements found in the Gospels are often used as an argument against the historicity of Jesus as well, and therefore the events surrounding the life of Jesus are directly influential in determining how much of the Jesus story is historical. All the major information we have concerning Jesus is found within the Gospels and the New Testament; and the assessment of these documents is the key to determining the historicity of Jesus in the first place. If one element of this document (the closest thing to a biography that we have) is found historically relevant (and specifically when it is often used as a reason for disbelief in the account), then it certainly pertains to the subject upon whom the narrative is based and inseparably intertwined. It's simply a piece of the puzzle, and it's difficult to complete the picture without it.--C.Logan 07:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this page about?

Does this page address the question

  1. Did Jesus exist as an historical person, as opposed to a myth, or
  2. are the Gospels accurate accounts of the life of Jesus (given that he exists) or perhaps
  3. what sort of person was Jesus.

Does anyone have an opinion?

I have had pleasant, though long and fruitless, discussion with C.Logan (see above "Thallus") which only went on for so long because I had assumed 1 above was the topic, whereas C.Logan seemed to think 2 was the topic. I doubt I am the only understands "Historicity of Jesus" in sense 1 above, so it would be a good idea to clarify for future readers. Thanks E4mmacro 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a pleasant discussion with you as well, and it's unfortunate we haven't resolved things yet.
I think that all of the above are the case, with 2 being the most "iffy" of the three. The establishment of a "historical Jesus" is based primarily in a reduction of the Gospel accounts to the "most probable" or "historically plausible" accounts. As the determination of "who Jesus was" is then based almost entirely on the Gospels themselves (in addition to the speculation of historians on other probabilities), sources relating to the historical veracity of the events surrounding Jesus' life are also relevant to the topic.
The connection here is between the possibility of an event (used by many as a point of criticism against the Gospel account) occurring which the author felt necessary to include as a dramatic event connected to the Crucifixion. Each historical possibility which is "nixed" from the account brings us to a Jesus who is further and further away from the Gospel account. If the Gospel claims that Jesus visited a city, when previous study suggests that the city did not exist during Jesus' life, it poses a problem; likewise, when evidence is found to the contrary, it is relevant to the historicity of Jesus' life. The eclipse/darkness may have been coincidence or divine expression, but the verification of this occurrence in the life (or rather, death) of Jesus contributes our assessment of the accuracy of the Gospels; again, our only real sort of "biography".
All attempts to discover Jesus and the events surrounding his life, ultimately start with the Gospels. This page does not simply concern the question "Was there a historical Jesus?", but certainly also "How much of what we think we know about Jesus is actually true?"--C.Logan 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing after I read the article. Why is it that the vast majority of the article supports Jesus as a historical figure? Only once in the introduction is it mentioned that some people believe Jesus is the re-written adoption of alternative cultural myths (not to mention astrological personifications), but it isn't elaborated on as it's implied that the arguments are unreliable simply because it's a small minority that believes this. Oddly enough, two paragraphs later it's stated, "As with all historical sources, scholars ask: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and whether or not these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or inventions." Yet the article rarely mentions anything which interprets the historical sources as unreliable (and arguably even uses irrelevant sources to support a historical Jesus as was brought to attention in the Thallus debate). The only other mention of Jesus possibly being a myth is a small, undetailed 3-4 paragraph section, half of which is criticism of it.
I sincerely hope that the only reason this article appears so one-sided is because the only citations provided for it were in support of the one side. The fact that only a small minority of scholars believe Jesus is a myth should not matter, nor should their "rank" or the controversy of their findings. There is already a detailed article written on the the Jesus myth on Wikipedia which could be used as a source for this article, as well as an article on Historical Jesus. If this article is the middle ground for both as its title (and the "Historical Jesus" and "Jesus Myth" articles) implies then it's my opinion, with all due respect, that this article should become inaccessible until a detailed section on the Jesus Myth is added. The article should be divided into two detailed sections ("Historical Jesus" and "Jesus Myth") with separate criticism sections of both, neither of which base the reliablility of its target on the respect of the source's among other scholars. ArchitectINTP 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"The fact that only a small minority of scholars believe Jesus is a myth should not matter..."
The article is partly in the form it is today because of WP:UNDUE, which extensively argues against your above statement. WP:UNDUE is a subsection or WP:NPOV, an official policy, and thus is binding upon editors. Therefore, the fact that only a small (very small?) minority of scholars support this theory directly correlates with this "lopsided" coverage of the topic, and with good reason.Jesus myth hypothesis is the relevant article for these arguments, and therefore the minority view can and should be covered extensively on that page, again per WP:UNDUE. That this page has a link at the very heading to that page is more than sufficient by WP standards.--C.Logan 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, is this discussion still going on? I was here a year ago going over this same stuff. I looked up old 2004 versions of this page and it seems as if E4mmacro's 1 is the actual topic, 2 is appropriate because it relates to arguments of 1, with 3 being totally irrelvant (suggest making a page like Jesus myth for Historical accounts of who Jesus may have been, assuming and stating the assumption -based on evidence- of historicity). The way I see it, this page should present the three basic academic positions, theology/biblical crit (positive estimate), comparative religion/mythology (skeptical) and Jesus myth (negative estimate). This article has little mention of the CR/M positon as skeptical (as a discipline it offers pro, neg and skeptical theories), no mention of aretalogy, and no mention of divine hero scholarship. IMO, after it has given due weight to each of the positions (CR/M should get at least equal weight with pro-historical biblical criticism, JM is debatable), then it should move onto non-biblical evidence, then discussions of the bible as historical evidence, then the theological arguments. Then CR/M, then JM. This page should be the parent page for the three daughter pages on each position. Phyesalis 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so silly, 3 is clearly covered by the page for "historical reconstructions" on Historical Jesus, as is noted at the top of the article. Phyesalis 20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant quote

Andrew c and C. Logan, this quote has had issues over on JM. However, we did get a footnote that Grant got his scholarship from 3 sources from 1967-1971 (I think, might have been 1976). The info is over on Talk:Jesus Myth under Van Voorst I think. This hardly qualifies as a "modern" review of scholarship. I have real issues with blanket statements with no scientific method to back them up. If such quotes want to be characterized within one of the three particular disciplines, fine. But surely there is a way to impart this info more accurately and neutrally. Phyesalis 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was being helpful by giving the references on that particular footnote. It was not anything like a listing of every souce that went in to Grant making that pronouncement. It would be absurd to think so.Peterdgi 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You were. Did I imply that you weren't? I'm sorry. I thought I expressed my appreciation when you contributed it. My commentary was addressed to the material as to the aptness of scholarship from the early 70's in representing what is supposed to be the current historical view. Also, apparently you and Grant were unaware of the numerous papers written on aretalogy and divine hero myths that do attest to ahistoricity and historicity. I say this becuase of your last edit summary. Suggestions that they don't address issues of historicity testify to the extreme bias and POV in this article (although this is apparently from a lack of knowledge about other disciplines not by design) that comes from overweighting biblical scholars. Perhaps we should avoid pronouncements of absurdity so early in a conversation. Phyesalis 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That some scholars contest the historicity of Jesus does not negate the article's claim that most scholars accept the historicity. Jesus may be a historical person whose deeds were later conflated into unbelievable stories or adopted tales from other myths. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't know what other disciplines you have in mind. I don't think it would be acceptable to include other disciplines' opinions in an undue fashion or without giving due weight to the pertinent discipline. Jstanierm 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be inherently biased towards theological positions. The skeptical position (often exemplified by comparative religon/comparative mythology) is completely legit. BTW my intro edits were statements of fact that can be easily verified. They do not require citations. They should not have been removed, particularly as they were staging for a comp. religion section. Phyesalis 06:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, this is not a matter of theology, but of history. To argue for the historicity of Jesus is not the same as taking a theological position. As historians the Gospels serve as one of the best types of sources available given the time periods in question. They are perhaps infused with religious overtones in order to portray the central figure as "heroic" or "divine." Yet, this is hardly a reason to therefore deny some form of historical core to the man Jesus. CompareThis is the current scholarly opinion as is cited, and all others are minority views. Jstanierm 02:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)