Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 17

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

Recent revert

The recent edit that stated that Paul had no first hand knowledge of JC is not POV - please show a source that states otherwise. It is relevant because the previous statement asserts Paul is used as a source for knowledge of JC: the fact that he never met him is significant as it establishes his knowledge as second-hand. Phyesalis (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What your sentence says is that all of Paul's knowledge came from revelation independent of the four gospels. Firstly, this is blatantly false - Paul talks about discussing Jesus with Peter and James, which is not "revelation" but "talking to people who knew Jesus". Secondly, Paul was writing before the Gospels were written. Your statement is misleading, as it implies the opposite. Thirdly, the Gospels themselves were probably not written by people with first hand knowledge of Jesus, so I don't see how Paul comes out behind the Gospel writers, as, again, your statement implies. Fourthly, your preferred statement says nothing at all about Paul's knowledge being second hand. It says it comes from Revelation. This is obviously trying to imply that Paul made it up, and as such is POV. Finally, nothing in the basic sentence does anything to imply that either the Gospel writers or Paul had any first hand knowledge of Jesus - just that they are the earliest sources. john k (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe Phyesalis is referring to Galatians 1:11-12: "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."(NRSV) I'm not sure Paul is actually claiming that he knows nothing of Jesus from other people, and even if he is we would have grounds to doubt it. However, the article doesn't say that any of the sources are first-hand accounts; only that Paul's writings, like the Gospels, are "among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life", which is surely agreed by almost everybody. The question of how reliable these documents are is, of course, a separate issue. Rbreen (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
First, it's not my sentence. I did not introduce "revelation" language. I was merely supporting its inclusion. Paul's knowledge is second-hand, not made up - I don't think you (John) are assuming good faith here, try not to read into my motivations. Having the opportunity to actually read an argument discussing the revert, I agree with you that "revelation" is misleading. Perhaps a nice compromise would be to change it to reflect Paul's second-hand knowledge? This would build on Mike's initial edit and satisfy your objection. The statement's relevance is not dependent upon whether or not the prior statement asserts first-hand knowledge. It is relevant to acknowledge that Paul's info, unlike the Gospels of the disciples, does not come from Paul's "experience" with Jesus. Some maintain that the Gospels are oral traditions maintained from the disciples (if not why would they be of any value in regards to historicity?). In contrast, that Paul's info (or lack thereof) is not derived from personal experience (and is still one of the earliest sources on J) is relevant. Phyesalis (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference in the lede is merely to the point that Paul is one of the earliest sources for the life of Jesus, and that is clearly the case, in so far as most New Testament scholars do in fact consider Paul a useful source, and is independent of the nature of Paul's claims - the writings still have historical value as an insight into the thinking of early Christian communities, whether Paul got some of his information from his experience or his imagination. We could qualify this with a comment about the reliability of Paul's information, but then in principle we would need to make a similar comment about the Gospel references; There is already a general reference in the next paragraph of the lede to the view that the NT documents "provide no historical information about" the life of Jesus. Surely the place to discuss these points in detail (and they are certainly relevant and useful) is in the body of the article, in the section on the Pauline Epistles, where the fact that Paul was not an eye-witness is already mentioned? Rbreen (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies if I was too quick to assume bias. I agree with Rbreen, though, that there's really no need to get into these kind of details in the intro. The statement itself says nothing about first vs. secondhand sources, so there's no reason to get into it. john k (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. I agree that the discussion is more appropriate for the body of the text. Phyesalis (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Paul's knowledge is not all second hand. Paul's claim is that he had an encounter with Jesus after his Resurrection. That may be what he is referring to in Galatians; either way you can't discard it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I don't particularly like the construction of the second paragraph. In terms of describing the majority view, I think we should be fairly clear that this is kind of a common minimum, accepted by most scholars as true. I.e., almost all scholars agree on all that stuff, but it's not true that most scholars agree that this is all we can know about the historical Jesus - many scholars do believe that, but many others believe that considerably more can be gleaned from the sources about the historical Jesus. I'm not sure how to construct the sentence to make this clear. john k (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jesus article includes the following sentence: "Historians are divided over whether Jesus followed a career of healing and exorcism, preached the end of the world was imminent, and saw his crucifixion as inevitable." That's lacking a source, unfortunately, but with sources I think it would be appropriate to add something like that between the "most scholars" and the "small minority" sentences. EALacey (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer, here at least, something along the lines of "Historians are divided over other issues, such as whether Jesus..." I don't like the idea that we're giving out all information here. john k (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No objection here, if you think that's a potential source of misunderstanding. EALacey (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucian and Thallus

Lucian, in the Others section, only describes christians and their beliefs. The existance of christians in the second century is hardly at debate and is not what this article is about. And that Thallus, according to some third century christian, had described an earthquake and a darkness, which said christian connected with the crucifixion, is also irrelevant in my opinion. 195.149.148.24 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucian isn't simply describing Christian beliefs. He clearly holds that Christ was a real person who founded the group and that his intended reader also "knows" that Christianity was founded by Christ as well. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations To Christians On Destroying This Article!

Thanks for not assuming good faith. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to assume that this article has been ruined "in good faith" by "well meaning" people, and I apologise for creating the impression that I was not assuming good faith. New Thought (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This used to be a good article, containing a wealth of evidence against the existence of Jesus. Now, it has all gone - and the article has been turned into a pro-existence manifesto, iced with "trust the experts we choose to allow you to hear". Note: a gentleman who states on his own talk page that he is a Christian removed this new section. A Christian is clearly POV on this issue - which I regard as serious and important. I request and require that if you are a Christian, you do not remove this section as POV, please. New Thought (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your blatant POV-ism is extremely troubling. I'm sorry, but it seems more likely that the article had previously presented non-historicity theories which much undue weight. As it stands, very few scholars doubt the historicity of Jesus, although many do doubt the complete validity of the Gospel presentation of him.
Your section was removed because you are coming to this page to simply complain because your POV is presented on a silver platter. Unfortunately, it would seem that much serious consideration in accordance with policy has been taken with this article, and as it stands, the objective viewpoint would favor the current version. This doesn't mean that the non-historicity theories are incorrect, but that very few individuals truly adhere to them- therefore, undue weight comes into play.
I would advise that you adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines when posting. Keep in mind that you should assume good faith- for one thing, adopting an "us vs. them" mentality isn't going to help your case. Your blatant accusation is that Christian users are attempting to domineer the article, and even this very talk page.
However, I have made it clear that the reason for removal is the non-productivity of this comment; it is simply a rant by someone who feels that their POV is not cradled lovingly in Wikipedia's arms. This is a common thing to see, and the best action is typically to delete such posts (or simply to ignore them). Removal was opted for in this instance because you are making accusations against users based upon their religious persuasion- which is a fairly bad idea.
It is important to note that there is a great gap in being a Christian who edits Wikipedia and being a Christian who promotes a Christian agenda on Wikipedia. Though your comment hints that you may disagree, there have been very few instances of the latter. On the other hand, you have made it apparent with your tone that you would like the article to cater to your own POV (which violates many policies; specifically, I think WP:UNDUE is a good example- the non-historicity POV has shrunk significantly in adherents over the past 100 years or so, and in the current state of things, giving a "wealth" of information would paint a false picture of scholarship and would grind against Wikipedia's mandates).--C.Logan (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not wish to create an article that advocates the position of non-existence. My problem is that this article should be a good resource for evidence for or against historicity - and the article used to be just that. Somehow, it has recently turned into a strongly POV pro-historicity article, and, worse still, the reader is subtly discouraged from taking the possibility that Jesus never existed seriously. I have no actual proof that Christians did this - but one has to ask oneself whose agenda such changes would serve: atheists? Hindus? Buddhists? Jews?
To be fair, though, the external links section at the end still contains links to websites that assess the evidence fairly and critically - but it is a pity that one is obliged to use these links to get to where the evidence is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Thought (talk • contribs) 00:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of policies such as WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia articles are required to reflect the viewpoints in relative proportion to their following (considering other factors as well). If evidence is presented that makes it clear that non-historicity is a minor theory with a skeletal following, then it is in the interest of policy, not of any specific religion, that such information be curtailed.
There are no promises that this article should be a resource in any direction (Jesus myth hypothesis may be a better place for this sort of thing), and as an objective encyclopedia, articles which cover a topic should keep perspective on the state of scholarship. For better or for worse, belief in the non-historicity of Jesus is no longer "in vogue", and most scholars ascribe to the existence of a historical figure, no matter how obscured they may believe him to be by all the religion surrounding him. As such, there is as much owed to keeping this article as a healthy resource to non-historicity theories as keeping the Figure of the Earth article a healthy resource for Flat-Earth theories.
If the actual community of scholarship disregards these theories and arguments, then why should we discuss such things in detail here, and not on a more appropriate sub article (such as the aforementioned Jesus myth page)? If the community of scholarship does not take these arguments seriously, than why should we puff up these ideas beyond their respective minority representation?
I've gotten very used to WP:UNDUE violations, as many people believe that WP:NPOV means equal representation for all views- it does, but only in perspective. There have been many occasions when many well-meaning editors add thousands upon thousands of bytes of information to the "Jehovah's Witnesses" section of the Jesus article; at one point, almost a sixth of the article was devoted to explaining the beliefs of this minority sect concerning Jesus. Undue weight is a concept that keeps the representation of views fair. As far as I am aware, this is the reason why non-historicity information and theories have been largely curtailed from the article.--C.Logan (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'scholarship' in this case, and that's the main problem. No academic basis could apply for proving the existence of somebody who left no proof at all. Try to prove Achilles, it's exactly the same thing. But there is huge political and religious pressure to make believe. Trencacloscas (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there is 'scholarship', there is certainly 'evidence'. As just a tiny example, the Census of Quirinius, a key element in Luke's nativity narrative, did not take place until 6-7 AD - ten years after the death of Herod. This implies that the story was fabricated later by people who didn't have access to historical records. I think that in a court case, a lawyer would argue that such inconsistencies discredit the gospels. An article that is supposedly about whether Jesus existed or not should contain such evidence IMO - or, at the very least, a link to an article that contains it. New Thought (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the arguments presented. I could understand if you disagree with the conclusions- however, here you cite no "evidence", which makes me wonder if you understand why certain scholars argue for the historicity of Jesus in the first place- even the Jesus Seminar, who makes great effort to curtail all the supposed embellishments of the Bible to reach the historical core of the Christ.--C.Logan (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just passed through the page and the discussion, and felt an impulse to express my disappointment with the current state of information in the main article. I do not plan to try to change it (one, though not the most important, reason being that I am not a native English speaker). I only wanted to focus on one point which might or might not prompt some activity of others.

I am no scholar in this area but I verified for myself in the past (having personal reasons for this) the following: a reader reading the New testament from `Romans' to the end (and especially translations as close to the Greek text which we have as possible) who would `temporarily forget' everything he (or she) has heard about Jesus and Christianity so far could by no means come to an idea that the epistle writers were relating in their minds Jesus Christ about whom they speak with some "Jesus of Nazareth, a [recent] 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" (which is claimed to be someting on which most scholars agree).

Such a `reader-newcomer' who would also take into account as much as possible we know about the religious atmosphere of the first century Roman empire (including the works by Philo of Alexandria etc.) and about its roots in the past (but who would `know nothing' about the future) would have no problem to realize that the authors take their information from the Jewish scriptures, their claimed revelations and the surrounding religious ideas and overall atmosphere. The reader would have absolutely no ground to come to an idea that the Jesus in this works has anything to do with some recent `rabbi' who had some disciples, some family, whose life was connected with some concrete places, some concrete dates, ...

This is not a Point Of View, this is a concrete fact which every intelligent and interested person can verify. (As I said, I verified myself, just prompted by authors like Doherty, but not basing my verification on their claims.) One then does not have to be really a scholar in the area to realize that the mentioned early Christian literature (in fact, it is the case of much broader early Christian literature than just the New testament epistles), simply cannot be used as if it supported the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (which is the main question of the Wikipedia article). I am intentionally expressing this in the way "cannot be used to support historicity", though myself I take it as one of very good arguments for non-historicity.

Now the current version of the Wikipedia article surely gives an impression that something like Paul's epistles can be naturally used as a piece evidence for historicity ... It is true that ``most scholars (to which some editors here appeal all the time) just do not explore this point in their works and really take the epistles and other similar literature as if it provided a reasonable (though not much extensive, as they admit) piece of evidence for historicity, without any explanation on which objective grounds they base this automatic convinction.

I know, many editors here would probably say that they can see Jesus of Nazareth behind the text of the epistles (even behind such as the "Hebrews") though there is no Jesus of Nazareth in the text itself, and would thus say that my claim about the `reader-newcomer' above is subjective etc. etc.

I guess that the maximum I can hope to achieve at the moment is to ask for the changes in the following spirit:

Jesus Christ is also subject of writings known as epistles (by Paul and others). Jesus is there dealt with as a heavenly being, a mediator between God and men (who took the likeness of men, underwent death, was raised, [brought his blood as a sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary], sits on the right-hand side of God, and will soon appear to judge the world ) ...

Most scholars identify this Christ Jesus with Jesus of Nazareth and take these texts as a piece of evidence for historicity of the latter.

I believe that changes like this would give a more balanced view to the reader ...

I repeat that I have just expressed my disappointment with the current text, I have shown one concrete point which is surely misleading for a Wikipedia reader (who would, among others, also wrongly deduce that Paul writes that he knows some _disciples_ of Jesus, that he writes in Galatians about his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus etc.), and I suggested a possible change which better reflects the reality of the epistles and the "most scholars" viewpoint. But I will surely not "fight" to apply such a change.

(I also appreciate, as somebody mentioned, that there are the external links at the end, and the interested reader thus can assess the arguments of both sides by himself (herself). At the moment, the text does not really invite the reader to do so, giving an impression that the old quote of Grant somehow closes the dispute. ) Jelamkorj (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article primarily presents a Protestant evidentialist apologetic view of the issue, relying on Grant (old, the one peer-review of his book in 1975 (?) mentions that he is working outside of his area of expertise), Van Voorst (book not peer-reviewed) and heavily on conservative religious publishers like Eerdmann's. It does not give due weight to skeptical scholarship in comparative mythology/religion, doesn't even allow a link to the Jesus in comparative mythology page (I tried about a month back). While I don't care to speculate on why, I'd just like to mention that the page has had a long history of POV violations. Phyesalis (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Every argument used by Jesus-mythers is given, including that some argue his story is similar to tales of other gods and religious figures, although not in detail as there is a whole page about that already.

There is no Christian/Protestant/whatever bias as it just states what books there are about Jesus, what they basically say, and what the consensus among historians and scholars on the issue is. If anything, it gives undue weight to mythicist arguments as almost all scholars in the relevant fields believe they have been debunked.

if these scholars have reasons for believing in the historicity of Jesus, then it would be helpful to add these reasons to the article. Otherwise, the statement has no more value than scholars from the middle ages holding a consensus that the world is flat. New Thought (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Scholars in the Middle Ages all largely knew the Earth was round. Almost all educated people have known this since the ancient Greeks all but proved it. Maybe you should bone up on real history more and not just fall back on chronological snobbery. And all positions on truth are largely determined by scholarly consensus, even on things like laws of physics. Almost all physicists believe they are the best explanations for observed data and thus they are held to be "true". The same goes for Jesus. Almost all historians hold that the best explantion for all the evidence saying he existed is that he in fact did. Specific arguments are already given as to why they hold this, but we can certainly have more if you guys really wish. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And this consensus is not old or unsubjected to peer review. Encarta says the scholarly consensus is for Jesus being historical, Columbia doesn't even hint that there is any issue over his historicity among scholars at all (which there pretty much isn't) and Britannica also holds him to be historical. These are very recent articles based on the best research and consensus currently available. Are all of these also guilty of Christian POV bias? Roy Brumback (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not about us vs them. Once we go down that route we end up with a POV article such as here and (as the editors there have just picked up on) Christianity. The point of this article was never to debunk the historical Jesus but to lay out the evidence that is used by scholars to support a historical Jesus. Scholars do use the fact that people were talking about Christians in the second century to say that Jesus must have been real. The Testimonium Flavianum is central to the case that Jesus lived at the time the Gospels say. The dating of the Gospels is very important for this also as there is a need to establish how long after Jesus' death these were written to establish their reliability as a historical source. Etc.
But I thought you held Jesus didn't exist at all. What then would it matter when they were written? It only matters how long after Jesus died that they were written if in fact he did exist. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The only way to get this article into shape is to list all the evidence used to support historicity along with scholarly refs to why it is used. We need to date evidence, to give some form of chronology of the writing and it's history. Problems such as the Gospel inconsistencies (so why did no one else notice the slaughter of the innocents?) and the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum will need to be discussed as these are of major note.
They are discussed, the Testimonium in good length. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically to do this article properly will show very little evidence that has been spun over the millenia into a case that would fail in any court. That, apparently, is how historians work however, so it will then need to be fleshed out as to the methods historians use to convince themselves they are right.
So now historians use shoddy methods? Last I heard they used the method all scholars use, evidence and reason. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The biggest problem with this article is that this is a subject most Christians avoid and are as surprised as the rest of us that the evidence is so thin and so open to interpretation when laid bare. The movie The God Who Wasn't There demonstrates that beautifully - ask loads of people coming out of a Christan service to talk about Jesus and you can't stop them, ask them how early Christianity began and there is a deafening silence.
Guess they haven't read Acts of the Apostles or Paul's letters. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I gave up writing here not long after I had a fight just to put dates on the authors as it clearly shows Josephus was writing from secondary sources (he wasn't born until after Jesus died) and this was considered biasing the evidence against historicity in the view of the reader. Fortunately sense prevailed but it is very time consuming. There are an awful lot of bible colleges so be prepared to be referenced to submission. Sophia 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
All referenced scholars work at or are respected by secular academic institutions, except of course Freke and Doherty. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a very real problem here with lack of evidence. However, that same problem applies even to people such as Pontius Pilate, who can only be proven to have existed at all by the inscription at Caesarea Maritima and the accounts of Josephus, who lived only shortly thereafter. The extant evidence seems to indicate that most recent documentation in Jerusalem regarding most subjects was destroyed in the Siege of Jerusalem (70). While that can and should be mentioned in the article, if a verifiable, reliable, source can be found, it does indicate that the lack of extant evidence may very easily have nothing to do with the actually historicity of the subject, but rather the fact that he may have existed during a period whose documents were seemingly almost all destroyed. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Pontius Pilate, I am not aware of the existence of a large body of evidence that implies that he wasn't a real person. This is in stark contrast with the case of Jesus Christ. New Thought (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
"Jesus mythers" may be covered, but the skeptical position of disciplines like comparative mythology , those that make pro, anti and ahistorical (maybe, maybe not, no real way to prove it) arguments and acknowledge that they are only arguments, is not adequately covered. Aretalogy is not covered. I think the difference is that a number Christian theologians have to prove that Jesus exists whereas there is a more diffuse body of scholarship that causally treats with the subject of J's historicity. One side has a religious mandate toward evidential apologetics, the other a secular interest in the material available. There should be some discussion of apologetic scholarship. Phyesalis (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
How so? Roy Brumback (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A digression: a remark to the type of comments like "There is a very real problem here with lack of evidence. However, that same problem applies even to people such as Pontius Pilate, ..." Such comments are surprisingly frequent in such discussions as if the problem with historicity of Jesus of Nazareth was lying just in a small amount of evidence (which some scholars find sufficient and some not). I repeat what I said in my first input above, now in more detail.

The writings speaking about Jesus Christ which seem to have to be dated as the first among those we have (according to probably all scholars) deal with Jesus as with a pre-existent heavenly being, almost equated with God, a mediator between God and men (who took on the likeness of men, underwent death, was raised, [brought his blood as a sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary], sits on the right-hand side of God, and will soon appear [not return, btw] to judge the world). If the authors did relate their Jesus Christ with a recent man, Jesus of Nazareth, who had some disciples, some family, whose acts are still remembered by eyewitnesses and are connected with concrete places and dates, then the most extraordinary thing has happened for which we have nowhere a parallel: The authors heavily deified a man within a few years after his death but in their works they seem to feel no need to defend this which would be seen as an extremal blasphemy from the Jewish point of view (however hellenized these Jews could be) and, moreover, they seem to be completely uninterested in the life, words and deeds of this supposed recent man; the way they write seems to suggest that they use Jewish scriptures, their claimed revelations and the surrounding religious ideas and overall atmosphere. A reader of these works has just no chance to recognize that they speak about a recent man.

Sorry for this digression, I do not want to try to repeat what can be thoroughly studied elsewhere. I just wanted to illustrate how much different this case is than the case of historicity for Pontius Pilate and such people. (This aspect is also ignored in the current version of the main article. )

Another comment to the text of the main article. It says "Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. At the extremes, they range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus,[5] to the view that they provide no historical information about his life." I must say that it is beyond my comprehension how the view "that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus" can be labelled as a _scholarly_ opinion. By which methodology a scholar can arrive to that view? This is a big problem in this area that there is, in fact, no agreed scholarly methodology which would be clearly stated and then carefully applied. This problem is also clearly discussed in

Price, Robert M. (2003). The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-121-9

which should be certainly added to the references. This fact about the lack of agreement on a methodology should be also reflected in the main Wikipedia article. Otherwise a reader can get a wrong impression that these "most scholars" have elaborated and used a scholarly methodology to derive their (various) claims on historicity and such people like Robert M. Price just have not done their homework ... Jelamkorj (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)