Talk:Jesus/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Critical scholars/historians 2 Parsing the issue 3 Early life section 4 The article in general 5 re: POV flag 6 Historicity 7 Critical Historians 8 infidels.org 9 Additional references

Critical scholars/historians

Maybe this has been explained before, but what do you mean exactly by this phrase? I think the majority of the population will take is as meaning "those who do not believe in jesus and are critical" - but I'm assuming you don;t mean that? ARobsteadman 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The list that note 2 refers to includes exclusively believers including an evangelical.... are you really saying they do not believe his divinity? Robsteadman 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

CTSW said he'd find some scholars who aren't Christian who agree that Jesus existed, we can at least leave it like this now until he gets the time to help us out, and to tell you the truth, I dunno what critical means here myself, I didn't put it in there. Homestarmy 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone in the Jesus Seminar are Christian, and they affirm his existence. KHM03 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Critical" in this sense does not carry the negative connotation I believe you are likely ascribing to it. It doesn't mean "disagree". It means objective, analytical. To be a critical thinker, for example, would be to make the effort to objectively look at something from all angles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Critical" does not mean "irreligous." There are Christian denominations that follow the Higher criticism interpretation of Scripture. The ELCA, for instance. archola 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I don't have strong feelings either way, but "critical" scholars is fine by me.Gator (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, "critic" in this sense is like a literary critic or art critic. They do not see their job as bashing literature and art. They do, however, see their task to involve interpreting literature and art. Moreover, in the context of Biblical scholarship - as someone pointed out above - the term "critic" is associated with "higher criticism" and "source criticism" namely people whose interpretation of the Bible rested on three basic assumptions (and, in reference to the Hebrew Bible, none of these assumptions are shared by Orthodox Jews or Christian fundamentalists) (1) that human beings wrote the Bible (2) that the Bible was written over a considerable part of time and (3) that the text of the Bible should be interpreted in relation to the historical context in which it was written. Now, one can believe in God, and perhaps even believe Jesus is Christ. But interpretations of the Bible based on these assumptions, which are shared by historians and classicists, for example, people who interpret The Iliad or The Gilgamesh Epic, do not require anyone to believe in God or be religious in order to accept these interpretations. Sanders may or may not believe in Jesus. But one can read his book and agree with everything in it without believing in God, just as one can read eric Aurbach's comments on The Odyssey without believing in Zeus or Hera. Robsteadman, despite his protestations about believing in God, is in fact a fundamentalist, because he believes that the only reading of the Bible must be a religious one. He seems incapable of imagining reading it as a historical document. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says fundamentalists can't think the Bible is historical fact? :/. Homestarmy 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Parsing the issue

First of all, we should make sure that we write about historicity of Jesus is consistent with what is in Historicity of Jesus. Now, back to the issue. Let me propose a couple of principles here:

• The divinity of Jesus is not a historical issue. It's a religious issue, and I think even Christian theologians would agree that faith is not something one can or should try to prove through scholarship. So, on questions of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, we can only discuss the theology, not the history. Everyone agree?
• The historicity of Jesus is taken for granted in Christian theology, but is open for review among historians. This is complicated by the following scenario: Can a devout Christian historian say that Jesus was not a historical figure? Or can an observant Jewish historian say that Jesus was in fact a historical figure? The answer is that historians don't phrase things that way. They would try to reach common ground by examining the evidence. It is virtually impossible to prove that Jesus didn't exist, but one can certainly say that there is little archeological, literary, or other evidence that he did. As historians, one could attribute the story of Jesus to any number of explanations rather than his actually having lived, much like one would with other possibly historical figures, such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc.

I don't know at what point a historical figure's existence is proven beyond all doubt. I suppose we are fully convinced that Napoleon and Julius Caesar really lived, but I don't know about others. --Leifern 18:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, many who call themselves Christian don't literally think of Jesus as literal, as I understand it, cults such as Scientologists consider the Bible...sort of imporant.....but they also consider that nothing really exists, or so I understand. I think it would simply be a better article if we went on the assumption that our subject matter wasn't just a fairy tale, otherwise, we would be clearly taking a side against Christ, and this article is supposed to be reporting on Christ, not against Him. Homestarmy 18:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Even within mainstream Christianity there are those who consider there to be little connection between what they call the Historical Jesus, i.e. the man who actually lived, and the Christ of Faith, i.e. the figure about whom Christianity has these beliefs. Only very few of those would deny Jesus' actual existence, but then hardly anybody does that.

Here is a good reference on the distinction. DJ Clayworth 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy says "we would be clearly taking a side against Christ, and this article is supposed to be reporting on Christ, not against Him." A couple of minor corrections. Actually the article is about "Jesus" not "Christ". The latter is a particular title many use to describe Jesus, but they are not one and the same from an encylopedic perspective. Also the objective is neither to endorse nor disendorse Jesus. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea I get it, it's just these days, Christ is sort of almost like Jesus's last name in addition to being the messiah title. But still, this article at least has to report on Him, technically speaking, if the article doesn't really take a side itself in the debate, I can't see why it would be a problem necessarily, people would still know about Christ, and it would still help get people interested anyway. Homestarmy 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Early life section

Moving on in helping this article, does anyone see anything we need to correct about this section? It seems fine to me, but if anybody wants to bring something up about it, we might as well get it done now so that we won't have to argue over it in the future. Homestarmy 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The article in general

Just reading this article, I don't see how it is even qualified as a featured article. The chronology of Jesus according to the New Testament jumps around sporadically and doesn't really do a good job with a biography in what should be a biographical article. In my opinion, a person who wasn't familiar with Jesus would have a hard time even understanding what the NT said about his life without outside research. I think we desperately need a better illustrated biographical section according to the NT followed by the more in-depth discussion. This article just assumes the reader knows a lot more about Jesus than it provides. I think a major rewrite is in order. —Aiden 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

re: POV flag

Right now the article states:

"However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, and similarities to other mythological heroes, a minority of critical Biblical scholars, and other academics, question the historicity of Jesus."

I think the above is overblown.

I cite:

Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth by Christopher Price

Here is an excerpt from the above:

In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia...

Robert Van Voorst

It is also obvious that the diverse and all but completely unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians remain completely unconvinced by the Jesus Myth arguments. Robert Van Voosrt writes in Jesus Outside the New Testament:

Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question. [1]

I also cite:

Following a brief introduction regarding the importance of the evidential approach, particularly regarding the Resurrection, within evangelism, the authors briefly discuss 5 historical principles (e.g. multiple attestation) that they will go on to use in making the case for the Resurrection. Next, the authors introduce what they call "The Minimal Facts Approach," the criteria for which is 1) data with substantial supporting evidence and 2) data accepted by virtually all scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike. After this, Habermas and Licona present their "Minimal Facts" case for the Resurrection by appealing to 4 facts accepted byvirtually everybody, plus one that is granted by a sizeable majority of scholars, yet not as much so as the other 4. These are 1) Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; 3) Paul, an enemy of Christianity, was suddenly changed; 4) James, a skeptic during Christ's earthly ministry, suddenly changed; 5) and the one accepted by, according to Habermas, 75% of scholars (not virtually all like the other four; pg. 70), the empty tomb.[2]

Reason for POV flag:

I put a small minority of scholars above and the word "small" was erased.

Before it read:

"However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, and similarities to other mythological heroes, a small minority of critical Biblical scholars, and other academics, question the historicity of Jesus."

I don't think we need to give so much space and at the beginning of the article for such a small minority opinion but if we do we should clearly say it is a small minority.

ken 16:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I made a change in the article but I think this small minority opinion should be place much farther down the article. ken 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please note the paragraph is under discussion above. I think the paragraph as it stands is fair. There are a large number of folks out there who buy into the minority opinion. I think one sentence is acceptable, with a link to the Historicity of Jesus artcle. This gives us the opportunity, for future reference, to document the relative support for the existence of Jesus.

You are welcome to join us in the effort on the main page to document both positions. --CTSWyneken 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

to: CTSWyneken, you wrote: "There are a large number of folks out there who buy into the minority opinion." I am not granting you this statement in terms of the "folks". You never cited any polls. With that being said, I care about what the vast majority of scholars say as I documented and not what the "folks" say. Now the article states "scholars" and not "folks" and let us not confuse the issue. ken 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

To: CTSWyneken, addendum: ::The vast majority of scholars say Jesus existed. Here is the current state of New Testament scholarship thoughout the world: Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? by Gary Habermas ken 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please forgive the lack of clarity. By "large number of folks" I'm referring to among the general public. A quick google search will show that. I'm not referring to the state of scholarship. Please note that I'm one of the folk trying to document that the minority opinion is indeed samll. It is indeed curious to be challeged at one moment for not wanting to give the minority a voice and then at the next moment for giving them a voice. --CTSWyneken 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that there will always be people who believe Jesus was a myth coming here and editing the article. Find a way to include comment in the intro to reduce future edit wars - and even reduce some vandalism --JimWae 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we really need to think about this in perspective for a minute. From what I can tell, We've got a big, ugly POV tag on this enormous article because of the difference between "a small minority" and "a minority" in one sentence. is this really necessary? Homestarmy 19:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. KHM03 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But the POV flag is justified for much of the rest of the slant of the article. Robsteadman 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed --JimWae 20:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well according to the person who put up the flag, the only reason is because of "a small minority" vs. "a minority", there needs to be a better reason that that....or AD/CE debates....or consensus debates.....Homestarmy 21:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The clause citing "similarities to mythological dieties" is in itself POV. Who is to say a diety is mythological and not truly divine? That clause adds nothing to the substance of the paragraph and isn't needed in the least. —Aiden 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Stating "other mythological deities" is either a clever way of inadvertently referring to Jesus as myth or a simple oversight. I'll assume good faith that it was unintentional, but even if it's kept, we ought to remove the "other" to remove the blatant POV. KHM03 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia changed it to "older deities" which is just as POV. Christians consider Jesus as God incarnate and the only god at that. Saying other deities are older or even lumping what one groups believes is the true God in with what they consider false gods is in itself POV. This insistence on marginalizing Christian views is not going to fly. —Aiden 05:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be controversial but accurate. The Jesus myth camp doesn't only quote the lack of documents, they also use the similarities to the older religions of the time - these mythical deities were worshiped as gods then. This bit I feel would sit better in the historicity section but I can't see how to refer to another "god" that won't be taken as an attempt to "marginalise Christian views". The "documents" and the "similarities" can all fit in one sentence and between them pretty much sum up the jesus-myth camp so people following the link there will know what they are going to find. SOPHIA 08:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Historicity

I restored the bit about historicity in the intro. This stuff has been debated for weeks and weeks, and, while we are probably far from a full consensus, we need to show all sides respect (WP:NPOV and all that), and discuss these things before simply removing them. Please review the lengthy discussions on this page and join the dialogue rather than just eliminating passages. Thanks...KHM03

A section in the Historicity section has been removed by an anonymous editor. We can argue as to the paragraphs content and length but without it there is no mention in this section that there is a minority view that disputes the historicity. SOPHIA 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Critical Historians

We seem to have found no "critical historian" in the list of academics being listed so why is this still in the intro? It also seems that POV scholars who are pro existence are allowed but those who disagree are being dismissed for spurious reasons. Why don;t we simply put that "a majority of Biblical scholars"? ~At least people will understand they are coming from a particular POV. Robsteadman 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, we had a list of people who disagreed with Jesus's existance in the article, didn't we? I know we dismissed one for just plain not being qualified to make a decision, but I thought we left the others somewhere in the article? Homestarmy 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Only those who agreed were included. Odd that. Robsteadman 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well where did the names we had in the section about people who didn't believe Christ existed go, we reviewed some of them above in talk, and I thought we only struck out one of them? Homestarmy 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is true. And if Robsteadman will not object, I will add a footnote to the minority opinion sentence and list the names. Since I'm still answering his challenge to provide specific references for the names in footnotes one and two, someone else will have to pin the references down or wait for me to be done with them.--CTSWyneken 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman reveals a serious lack of understanding of Western academe. There is a tradition division of labor at universities between professors of modern languages and professors of so-called dead languages - thus, most universities have a "Modern Languages" department (or school) and a "Classics" department. This disciplinary division has spilled over into history. Since knowledge of Greek and Latin is essential to historical research on ancient Greece or Rome, for a very long time, and to a large degree even today, historians of ancient Greece and Rome were trained and then taught in Classics Departments. The same reasoning goes for the Bible. Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Sumerian, and Ugaritic are taught in Biblical Studies departments, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies, or Departments of religion. Again, this reflects the deeply instilled, institutional divide between "living" and "dead" languages. Robsteadman probably does not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugarritic, or Akkadian, or even Koiné Greek, and is probably not qualified to do original research on the history of the ancient Near East. He is not alone - many people have claimed to be "Bible experts" and yet they are utterly unqualified to do any serious historical research as they have no knowledge of the languages necessary to do university-level research. Nevertheless, anyone who wants to get a PhD. from, or teach in, a good university on the topic of Biblical history will have to learn at least a few of these languages. Although they will start with the same assumptions, and use the same methods, as anyone studying French or German history, they are not likely to study or teach in a History Department. Instead, they are more likely to train and teach in a Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies; Classics; Biblical Studies; or Religion - it really depends on the University. Now, this is not an absolute statement: there are History Departments who hire people qualified to teach Biblical history. Nevertheless, very few - if any - history departments have enough well-trained people to train new PhD.s in Biblical history. You are still better off going to an Ancient Near East or biblical Studies or Classics department for your training. BUT you are being trained to read historical sources, whether literary or historical, critically. And the products of these departments are historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

infidels.org

I think an essay posted on a website whose goal is to "defend and promote a naturalistic worldview" is not sufficiently NPOV for a site about Jesus. So much has been written about Jesus, we ought to be able to find a more reliable source for any opinion worth including in this article. --Allen 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Though as web sites go it seems to have been going for 11 years - so not just a flash in the pan. Why is a web site any less appropriate than a book or magazine publication? Is it just because it doesn;t say what you want it to say? Robsteadman 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's because with a title like "defend and promote a naturalistic worldview" it fits the very definition of POV slant, 11 years of existance or not. We don't have to delete this site as a reference, as long as information from other sites or something is used to balance whatever we get from that site. What information comes from that in this article anyway? Homestarmy 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A problem with the site can be found here (which, to be fair, is also a problem with many Christian websites), also here and possibly here. I think we ought to be able to do better than any website as a source. In my experience, most are not as authoritative or worthwhile as many journals or books by scholars. KHM03 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think them having submission criteria and the sheer quantity of documents etc. makes them at least as relevant as some of the so-called "Biblical" scholars. Robsteadman 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(response to Robsteadman and Homestarmy) It's the second paragraph of "historicity". I've been trying to find out more about the author of that piece, Robert M. Price, but it's tough. He apparently teaches at the Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary [3] in Florida. Is this really an accredited school? Why does it have a .org, rather than a .edu domain? And apparently he also teaches at the Center for Inquiry Institute ([4]), which was started by CSICOP and also doesn't seem to be an accredited school. Robsteadman, if this were an article about a relatively obscure religious topic, I'd support taking what we could get for references. But when it comes to Jesus, I'd like to see some heavier scholarly guns behind claims, especially claims as controversial as that he didn't exist. --Allen 21:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is "jesus" any different? Are you saying you accept non-contemporary docuiments written by non-eyewitnesses as evidence? Should we rep[ort "historical" events mentioned in the gospels for which there is no oither documentation? Robsteadman 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The sources you are referring to, Rob, are indeed contemporary and some possibly eyewitness accounts. Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the infidels site is anywhere near as relevant or academically authoritative as, say, a book or article by E.P. Sanders or any number of other scholars. Websites are still gaining a foothold in academia, and a site like infidels, which has such bias problems, is hardly non-partisan. And regarding non-contemporary documents acceptance, etc., remember that we're here to parrot academia, not make any case on their behalf. They think Jesus existed (though a few depart from that consensus), so we need to represent that fairly and accurately here. If you disagree with the position of the scholars, take it up with them (many of their websites have email links). KHM03 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Believing scholars say he existed despite the lack of evidence. How many non-believers say he existed. And, to be honest, I'd be more interested in historians rather than Bible scholars because that is what we're talking about not biblical content. If we're checking the historical existence of someone we should be looking at what bhistorians say not those who are just trying to prove their own scriptures. Robsteadman 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from a minute fringe practically all scholars would consider Jesus as having existed. Historians even more than Bible scholars/theologians (who are sometimes shock-awed into "anti-fundamentalism"). Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, give us some notable names. KHM03 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, I thnk, that there are none - because there is no contemporary historical evidnce for "jesus", his birth, the star, the massacre of the innocents, his crucifixion, ressurection or just about anything in the gospels and at the basis of "christianity" - not even for Nazareth at the time. Robsteadman 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Again just because you are dismissing the "contemporary historical evidnce" for Jesus' existence (particulars and accuaracy disputes nonetheless) doesn't mean the evidence is not there. In any case, give notable names that make such claims. Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the existence of Jesus that's at issue here, not the other tenets of Christianity that you mention. And if there's no historical evidence that Jesus existed (I'm leaving out the word "contemporary" because I don't know the details of what's considered valid evidence to historians), then there ought to be examples of respected historians saying there's no such evidence. --Allen 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But surely historians talk about what is there not what isn;t? As there is no evidence would an historian bother commenting unless specifically asked?Robsteadman 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They talk about what is, not what isn't, when it comes to things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But when the existence of a person is the basis for the religious faith of billions of people, then the non-existence of that person is indeed something that I would expect historians to talk about. --Allen 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone heard an update on this... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html ? Robsteadman 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, historians do believe there was a Jesus because there is evidence. It dates from the 1st century. Let's stop this silliness...Rob, you've had all kinds of time to convince users to reject academia, and you've failed. Let's just agree that the minority "Jesus myth" view will be mentioned briefly, linked to, and we can move on. Let's end it, for crying out loud. We're wasting time and brain power on one user's absurdities. KHM03 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that "jesus" existed - unless you're claiming books written decades later which write about events not documented anywhere else. Historians do NOT say that "jesus" existed or that there is proof he did - that is exactly the point. Bible scholars, being mostly believers,. say he did but other scholars in fields rather more neutral don;t. Odd that. No need to resort to personal abuse btw. It is not absurd. We should be reporting on the verifiable evidence and, at the moment, the article does not - it presents a heavily biased POV that does not reflect actual fact but a "faith" position founded on a lack of evidence. Robsteadman 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier (see above), a historian says there is evidence for the existence of Jesus, as does Michael Grant, the eminent historian of ancient history. In addition, Ph. D. holding scholars in Biblical Studies are historians for the most part, as their writings attest. Arguments from silence only convince those who are already convinced. --CTSWyneken 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, the gospels and other non-contemporary historical accounts are evidence, whether you think that them being non-contemporary makes then un-authoritative or not, it doesn't matter how bad evidence seems in, well, just about anything, even if evidence is bad, (Which it isn't in this case, but we've gone in circles over that anyway already) it does not stop being evidence. If I had a computer from the 1970's, it's very poor quality when compared to today would not stop it from being a computer. And yes, historians do say Jesus existed, you'll have to submit quotes from every historian who ever lived that says Jesus never existed to disprove that and we would indeed need very particular citations to see, some of those Bible scholars are supposed to be historians anyway, and now that I think about it, didn't it even say historians before it said Bible scholars? We have gone over most of the famous names mentioned in this article somewhere above as I understand it, we ruled out one person who didn't believe in Christ's existance because he had no credentials at all historically, please feel free to prove to us that all our names do not have historical, archaeological, or otherwise highly related degrees in history to make them authoritative on this subject, then we can improve the article by getting real names of actual historians and the like, and at the end of the day, we will have made this article better. I see no problem with this suggestion. Homestarmy 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, practically all historians (excepting a fringe of which some members are not historians) do accept the evidence as conclusive that Jesus existed. It is those that deny his existence that are putting forth a "faith position". Their beliefs require that Jesus did not exist so they doubt all they can, but that is a unreasonable approach as it quite frankly leads to no knowledge at all (another parallel to Creationism), as you can doubt anything. It is not mere skepticism, as it is selective: they do not question the historicity of Socrates, Caesar, Mohammed or Voltaire. Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the great myths of the "christian" - that there is more proof of "jesus" thanm of Julius Caesar - absolute rubbish. Robsteadman 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rob for your indeed profound insight and your unique niveau in dicussions. I did not say that that there was more proof, only that if you were consistent you would have to throw the people I mentioned out as well - and many many more. The thing is that there is sufficent evidence for Jesus' existence and everyone except the loonies accept it. But the loonie don't have an axe to grind with Socrates, Caesar or Voltaire and are too afraid to tak on Mohammed. Str1977 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, as discussed above, you miss the point about historians and what they report. What IS there, not what ISN'T. Are there any agnostic or atheist historians who say that "jesus" existed as an historical person? I think it just said scholars before - which was VERY misleading. Bible scholars are, as far as I can tell, a self selecting group as a result of "faith" - are there any atheist BIble scholars? And, if there are, son they agree that "jesus" existed? Robsteadman 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, it is not our job here to provide names of "agnostic or atheist historians" (though I am sure there are loads of these who disagree with you). It is overwhelming consensus that Jesus did exist and only the loonie fringe denies that. Since you cannot accept this fact you try to blacken the consensus by claiming bias in these historians. However, before you ask us again to provide atheist historians, have you ever proven your insinuation?

Note also that not all bible scholars actually are Christians or really care about the existing Jesus. Str1977 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, academia has made its decision...Jesus existed. Some members of academia are religious, some are not; the point is moot here. We need to report what they (and society at large) believe, with a reference to the fringe view and a link to the Jesus myth article. KHM03 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, there are certainly Jewish scholars who say Jesus existed, and they generally interpret what's reported about Jesus in light of what is known about first century Palestine, Messianic expectations at the time, and so on. There should be some references at Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Would they qualify as "unbiased" scholars, in your opinion? Wesley 19:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional references

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/jesus.htm This provides references and a clearly argued case. I'd certainly like the references to be included. Robsteadman 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And the references on here shuold be included: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

First one starts POV with an attack on all historians who "are" reaserching modern methods of determining whether Christ existed and what He was doing despite what that website claims, (In effect, this article is saying that historians are lying when they say they are reaserching about Christ in the modern day and have written many modern-day books on the subject)then goes on to not mentino that the Bible today is about 99 percent textually accurate when compared to the oldest manuscripts, then doesn't mention that most of today's Bible's were not written by the church, (I can bring in citations of copyright and history from www.biblegateway.com if you wish)I don't see why I need to read on further from there, and that was just the first 2-3 paragraphs I think. We've already discussed the infidels site above, haven't we? Homestarmy 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Biblegateway is neutral! "A ministry of gospel communication"! The references are the important thing in the links I provdie above. Robsteadman 23:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Touche on the Biblegateway thing, but they cite the history of the Bible versions they have from non-Biblegateway sources, but anyway, i'll take a closer look at the top one to look for citations, but I don't think i'll have anything more favorable to say about an article that starts off with lies and doesn't appear to want to stop, hold on a minute or two while I take a closer look. Homestarmy 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at that first website closer, and as I suspected, it didn't become much better. Most of the stuff in the first few paragraphs which spelled out the author's apparently dislike for history and factual accuracy wern't cited at all, and even when things were cited, they were either just discussing direct quotes from things, or wern't making anything less than extremely unverifiable points. Furthermore, almost all those citations were extreme POV to the max, I really don't think I need to explain why with the titles they had. I did think that NEP thing at the end was very interesting, especially when the person claimed it did not disprove Christ and then the person turns around and says that because of this they think Christ was a myth, and because it actually seems surprisingly similar to your views Rob. the article also seemed quite deceptive in it's use of comparing Soctrates's existance to Jesus, the evidence we have for Socrates is not the norm, the evidence for all extremely ancient figures is all very different depending on the person is. I could probably go on at more length if I examined that thing point by point, but what im trying to get at Rob, is that I think you'll need a much better source than that to cite for the views you want in this article. Homestarmy 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So we're dismissing Bertrand Ruseell too? Robsteadman 16:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure we're dismissing Bertrand Rusell too, as he isn't qualified to speak on the subject - he was a philosopher, a mathematician, but was he a historian? Str1977 17:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So philosophers aren't allowed to talk about religious matters and be taken seriously? Seems a little harsh. Or is it just convenient because many are non-believers? Robsteadman 17:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be part historical, which means philosophers cannot have a historically credible opinion without also being a historian, which many of them are not. the rest of the article is about people's beliefs on Jesus, Christianity is first since it was the first source to talk about Jesus and has the oldest and most important culturally sources, next comes Islam and other views, and then we are supposed to have a paragraph about dissent on Christ's existance. I see no issue here. Homestarmy 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd accept Russell, though he had no specific expertise in Christian history or in Jesus research, since his is such a prominent voice on the atheist side (one of the few taken seriously in the academy, actually). Russell is perhaps the spokesman for the atheist faith. He might merit a mention...if not here, then on the articles for God or Religion. KHM03 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with merely mentioning the guy and his position especially since we have a paragraph about the opposing position which of course isn't just about historian's POV, but the issue is whether or not we can refer to him as, say, on par with an actual historian or the like. Homestarmy 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that Islam has something to say on Jesus while Russell's "he might not have existed" is exactly the historical question for which he is not qualified. Str1977 11:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)