Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 9

message: #ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should use AD format

message: #Alienus Historians use CE as a neutral format, whereas AD is religious.  This article is bout the history of Jesus, if any, not worship. Also, please note that the calculation by which 1AD was chosen does not appear to be historically correct.  In other words, if there was a historical Jesus, that was not the year of his birht. 20:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should use CE format

message: #KHM03 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should use both AD & CE format

message: While this is locked and we can't start a new edit war, can someone please explain why we have two articles essentially about the historical background of Jesus? I always try to write for the layman and I really think most people would consider them the same thing. I certainly did until I got into this wiki. The problem is that when you are new you think you must be missing something and when you've been around for a few weeks you've got so used to it that you forget it ever puzzled you. The current Historical Jesus seems to take most of it's data from the NT so should be encompased in the Biblical Jesus article. The only bit that sticks out is the section on the synagogue of Nazareth which really looks as if it belongs here.
This article should be expanded to include examination of the events recorded in the Gospels such as the census, the existence of Bethlehem, the star of Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents etc. all of which should have been recorded by other sources. There are views and arguments on both sides for these events which if I was searching for information I would expect to find here. Thoughts and explainations most welcome. SOPHIA 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of Bethlehem? You mean the existence of Nazareth? Paul B 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I mean the existence of Bethlehem in Galilee . SOPHIA 08:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Historical Jesus is supposed to be an account of Jesus in the cultural context of his time. The "Historicity" article is supposed to be about whether he was a real historical person, a conflation of real individuals plus myth, or a purely fictional/theological construct. Paul B 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to push an agenda here other than the problems of keeping data in sync spread across multiple pages. I understand that there is a lot to say and it may not all fit into one page but the current Biblical Jesus page seems like a subset of the Historical Jesus. Maybe, since the bible is also a historical document (we can discuss for ever it's accuracy  but it IS a histiorical document) the current small amount of different info in the Biblical Jesus page could be added to Historical Jesus and then redirected there. I think maybe I'll put a note on both those pages and see what's said. SOPHIA 12:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible is an historical document - just not a reli=able or contemporary historical document - it is a secondary or tertiary source with a massive POV. Robsteadman 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That, Rob, might be your POV, but it's painting with a much too broad a brush. Some books of the Bible are contemporary to their events while others aren't, some are more reliable than others. The NT is contemporary to Jesus and the Apostles. All books of the Bible are primary sources. As for POV (I guess you are using the strictly-wikipedia term to denote they have a certain interpretation or view on things), well, every source (except for relics) has a view and the Bible has no more of a POV than other ancient or modern sources. Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New TEstament is NOT contemporary to "jesus" that is false. Most books of the bible are NOT primary sources as they are written many decades after the events they "recount". To claim it is not POV is staggrering in its naivety. Robsteadman 11:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But the Bible is particularly holding a POV in relation to the subject matter of this article. It is a purpose of the New Testemant to convince its readers that Jesus both existed and was divine. While all sources may have a POV, they are not all holding a POV which relates to this topic, though it is perhaps true that the assumption of historicity affords a POV by default in any writing. --Myk 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said - we can still disagree over the bible's independence and accuracy : ) but seriously I would appreciate your view of the value of Biblical Jesus as an independent article. I used to be a data base administraitor and dislike having multiple copies of the same data as keeping them in sync is so difficult. I'm just going out but when I get back I'll take this to that page as it really should be there. SOPHIA 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. I have taken a first glance at both articles and I don't think they ídentical. BJ (or rather New Testament view on Jesus' life gives an account of Jesus according the NT), while Historical Jesus discusses certain historical issues (birth place etc.) I will update you when I can say more. Str1977 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen any reasons for merging the two, as they cover two different perspectives. Or are you offended by "TOO many articles about" Jesus? Str1977 18:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Back to the real issue. The only reason I've been looking at this is that we all agree (I think) that the NT is virtually the only early source of info on the life and teachings of Jesus (the later stuff is about christianity and christian theology). To have Historical Jesus and New Testament view on Jesus' life as separate articles almost implies that the NT is not a historical record of his life. I can see that the historical article has more external info in it to put the NT into context but the NT perspectives article does seem to follow a very similar chronological format of the events in his life. If there is different info in them you could ask why as if the NT is pretty much the sole source for the details all the important stuff should be the same. The one section on the Synagogue at Nazareth seems more appropriate here. Setting aside personal POV's as to what is true etc... (I see this as a wikipedia data integrity issue) is there really a case for separate articles? I don't want Rob to hijack the agenda here - this is not about streamlining wikipedia or reducing the number of Jesus articles. For me it's about making sure there is minimal data duplication as it's a nightmare to keep the copies in sync. What's "true"and what's POV etc....etc... are completely seperate problems. If it's going to be controversial or start more bad feeling edits I'll leave well alone. I really wasn't trying to stir up problems. I'm aware I do look at things in a simplistic data lead way which may not be appropriate in this case. SOPHIA 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Historical Jesus" refers to the so-called "Jesus Quest", which started in the 19th century (pretty much), included scholars such as Albert Schweitzer, and is seen today in the works of people like the Jesus Seminar.  They're all trying to "demythologize" or, better put, "detheologize" Jesus to get a "real" picture of what the man was like.  The article may not deal with this issue well, but the phrase "Historical Jesus" has a long and specific history in academia.  My two cents.  Go Steelers!  KHM03 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I did guess there was some back story to the current article splits and it's interesting to find out what it is. If it's generally agreed then they are the best classifications then they should stand. I started out questioning historicity vs historical but I on further thought I'm really asking why there seem to be two different historical articles when the core data of each comes from the same source (I'm referring to BJ and historical J here). I don't want to flog a horse if it's truely dead but I'll go and have a thorough look at them both and post my thoughts on those pages. Thanks for the info KHM03. SOPHIA 10:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes,it confuses some people. But that's why we have the italiciased explanation at the top. Paul B 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond the titles, I just want be sure that we apply the italicized explanations (in this and related articles) consistently. There is some overlap that may be redundant; such data should be fully explained in one article and summarized in other relevant articles based on the italicized criteria. (Although there might be some debate as to how to do that.) Arch O. La 19:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical vs Historicity

message: These need to be at the beginning, since they are the best evidence that he really existed. The people who wrote them had no motive to have made it up, so they are more likely to be true.
:Nonsensical, you say there are non-Christian writings regarding Jesus, meaning that non-Christians accept his existence. Doesn't that verify that Jesus did indeed exist? If so, then the Christian writings wouldn't be POV in believing that he existed but would be more precise and observant, therefore more reliable. Darwiner111 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article. See what the non-Christian texts say. Your last sentence is a complete non sequitor. It's like saying that Muslim writings about Muhammad are likely to be "more precise and observant, therefore more reliable" than non-Muslim writings, and this is because non-Muslims accept that he existed. Paul B 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Christian writings 

message: We're working on such citations in the main Jesus article. Also see Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios. Arch O. La 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Citations needed" tag on nonexistence hypothesis

message: This article states that some number of scholars (mostly, but not always, Christian) see the accounts (Gospels?) as mostly or entirely historically accurate. Could the kind of people who view the Resurrection and all that as historical events be called "scholars" in this matter? I don't think too many people who don't worship the guy believe that he rose from the dead. elvenscout742 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  While most scholars maintain that there is certainly historical truth in the Gospel accounts, they can say little about the Resurrection or miracles, etc.  KHM03 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Any scholar who believes the Gospels to be entirely true will, of necessity, be a Christian, since belief in the absolute accuracy of the Gospels entails Christianity, whether as an effect or a cause of such belief. Still, it's true that there are scholars who believe that there is reliable evidence for the Resurrection. Obviously they are all Christians. Paul B 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But many of them don't believe the Gospels are entirely true, did our discussion over that big committe of reaserchers get archived or is it still up there to look at? Homestarmy 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Paul, the resurrection is an event beyond the scope of the historical craft, which can neither confirm nor refute it. I know of no historian that claims that. But maybe you mean the empty tomb, which very well is a event "researchable" by historians. Str1977 (smile back) 09:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most prominent exponent of this view is Tom Wright in his book on the subject  Paul B 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course a WP article and an Amazon description are too little to base an opinion on, but it seems to me that Mr Wright is a theologian (maybe with a historical training, maybe not) who essentially wrote an theological book, however based on historical research. The historical result would be the empty tomb, the religious explanation for that the resurrection. This is a bit of updating by theologians, many of which seem to a bit behind actual historical research, some of them still swearing on bygones like Bultmann. Str1977 (smile back) 10:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The query was about the word "scholars", not about the word "historians". Wright is a distinguished scholar by anyone's standards. Yes, he is a theologian. He's the Bishop of Durham. As I said, anyone who believes that the Gospels are literally true in all respects must be a Christian by definition (Wright doesn't actually go that far). But the fact is that he is an important scholar and he believes that the best explanation for the NT stories of the Resurrection of Jesus is that they are true. You may, of course, take the view on evidential or philosophical grounds that he is wrong, or that "historians" cannot make such claims. I don't believe it myself, but that's neither here nor there. We can't arbitrarily declare what true historians must think, or what the limits of the discipline are. He's a respected scholar and an expert on the history of the period. His arguments need to be taken seriously. Paul B 11:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also has a tremendous singing voice.  KHM03 12:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Paul, if I have given you the impression that I object to citing Mr Wright I am sorry. I do not. As a historian I can say that there is more to reality than just what is historical - that goes for the present and for the past. I agree with Wright that go can scholarly conclude the resurrection as plausible, as the most plausible explanation of the historical fact "empty tomb" - saying that I have already moved beyond the realm of historicity, but not of reality. Str1977 (smile back) 21:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitude that the accounts are "entirely" historical... 

message: and since this is wikipedia, we must respect NPOV by placing fringe lunatic secular agnostic aeitheis- prominant POVs such as theirs in a place that is as degrading to christians as possible--152.163.100.136 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That gave me a bit of a chuckle, but i've got to wonder, will this help? Homestarmy 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: what in the hell are you talking about? 69.71.166.93 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's some sort of joke. Homestarmy 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus isn't real

message: If it would help, we have been accumulating scholarly references on this subject at the Jesus article. You all are welcome to copy them here. --CTSWyneken 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly References