Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 1

message: This article is a good example of why it might be useful, for some topics that are particularly contentious, and unlikely to achieve consensus, to have a system of "alternative points of view" written and linked from a common index page. 
At the same time, I do think the effort to arrive at a common POV for an article about "historical Jesus" is valuable. 
BTW, after reading 'The Jesus Mysteries' by Freke and Gandy and taking a look at material from Earl Doherty's pages (he's the author of The Jesus Puzzle) and other sources, my own view is that the evidence is in: Jesus never existed as a historical person. He's quite clearly a fusion of the Egypto-Greek Osiris/Dionysius myth with the Torah stories of Joshua, the prophet who is said to have brought the Jews across the river (which in turn is a riff on the Moses-parting-the-Red-Sea myth). In other words, he's a syncretic mythological construct, probably invented initially by Alexandrian Jews and propagandized effectively by Saul of Tarsus, the real founder of the worship-circles that became the Christian church. (posted by User:Jaspersky)
:We need to realize, however, that the vast majority of the academic community does believe Jesus to have been an actual historic figure (though they can obviously say very little about his presumed divinity, miracles, Resurrection, etc.).  So, to mention the Jesus-Myth theory or any other minority view is OK, as long as we don't give it undue weight or give the impression that it's too greatly accepted by scholars.  KHM03 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jesus Puzzle 

message: Does anyone else feel like I do that this article should mention the possibility that Jesus' visions may have been influenced by cannabis?  I am referring to the material found in Sex, Drugs, and the Bible by Chris Bennett.  I'll write a little bit if there is agreeance, but I won't waste my time if people keep deleting it because of bias. RecSpecz
:I would have a real problem with that, not because of bias, but because it's not generally supported by scholars.  I suggest you make your case here on the talk page first.  KHM03 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nowhere is it recorded that Jesus had any visions himself, afaik.. Although others in the Bible certainly did... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus and Drugs Use 

message: Whats the difference between this article and the main one in Jesus and the New Testament view? -C2Sane
Not much; this article considers critical scholarship, where the other one does not; I suppose they could be merged. Ben Standeven 06:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The difference? 

message: This page can be edited to make a worthwhile article, or at least  a worthwhile stub.  It does not fit criteria for speedy deleteion. Rich Farmbrough 23:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I am oppposed to deletion.  Please remember the history: in an attempt to keep the Jesus article NPOV, detailed accounts of a variety of views were added, and the article became too long for many servers.  There was a quick consensus to have the article focus on the Christian POV, with sub-articles on other points of view, and very brief summaries with links as subsections of the Jesus article.  The main topics spun off were on the historical and cultural context for Jesus, which placed Jesus in the context of what we know about Jewish history and culture; one on the "historicity" of Jesus, meaning, debates over whether or not Jesus actually existed; this article, and I think one or two more on the critical study of the NT and Christology.  I am sure that some of the material in these different articles can be redistributed, and that many of them could use much more development.  But we simply can't put all the relevant content reflecting diverse points of view in one article, which means we need subarticles like this.  This article should not be an account of Jesus' life according to the NT, it should be about different ways critical historians have reconstructed Jesus' life sans theological interpretations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy delete

message: Vote failed per Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Historical_Jesus. --Woohookitty 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vfd vote

message: Why did you revert yourself?
* My User:Peter_Kirby/Historical_Jesus article with which I plan to replace this one is not finished. I pasted in the material here by mistake. --Peter Kirby 21:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Kirby

message: The article as written relies exclusively on the New Testament as sources of information about a historical Jesus.  However, since the epistles were written by someone who had never met Jesus before his death, and the gospels were written by anonymous parties at least five decades after Jesus' death, there is good reason to doubt the reliability of the NT.
Here  is a link to a list of articles critical of the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus as a historical figure.  The current wiki article as written seems to violate NPOV. The Bearded One 19:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have found the scholarship on infidels.org to be quite good in this area.  Based on the articles there, only two contemporary mentions of Jesus are existant anywhere other than the NT.  And those two are likely to be forgeries later added by Christian apologists.  qv: Josephus on Jesus. The Bearded One 15:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am glad you like the scholarship there.  I am the author of one of the essays linked from Infidels.org (and from the Wikipedia page). See here. --Peter Kirby 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: * Additionally, there is an article within the "Jesus" topic group called New Testament view on Jesus' life which is about exactly that.  An article called "Historical Jesus" should either be deleted in favor of the Historicity of Jesus article or merged with it. The Bearded One 15:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * The "historical Jesus" is not identical to the "Biblical Jesus."  The New Testament view on Jesus' life talks about the "Biblical Jesus."  This page should talk about Jesus as reconstructed by scholars with a historical approach.  For my attempt at describing the scholarly view(s), see User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus.  It's a work in progress, but it's gotten positive feedback and will likely overlay onto this page.  So please comment on it if you like.  I will note that this page (Historical Jesus) has already survived a Vote for Deletion. --Peter Kirby 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * You misunderstood me.  I meant that the articles Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus cover such similar ground that they could easily be merged, or one subsumed into the other.  Your homepage article ends its introduction with the sentence, "Reference to the historical Jesus presumes the historicity of Jesus, that is, that he existed."  If the Historical Jesus page had such a disclaimer, I'd have much less problem with it. The Bearded One 01:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've added that sentence to this page.  If I do my job, the entire page will be swapped out in September. --Peter Kirby 01:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahistoricity of Jesus

message: :::* You misunderstood me.  I meant that the articles Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus cover such similar ground that they could easily be merged, or one subsumed into the other.  Your homepage article ends its introduction with the sentence, "Reference to the historical Jesus presumes the historicity of Jesus, that is, that he existed."  If the Historical Jesus page had such a disclaimer, I'd have much less problem with it. The Bearded One 01:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've added that sentence to this page.  If I do my job, the entire page will be swapped out in September. --Peter Kirby 01:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: The article states that "Luke's gospel records that Jesus' mother, Mary, was the sister of John's mother, Elizabeth, making the two men first cousins." It does not. The King James Bible reads that they are "cousins." The Revised Standard Version uses the term "kinswoman." Several other translations use "relative."
Unlike the question of Jesus's miracles, his resurrection, or even his existence, this matter is easily verified. The question is not whether Jesus and John are first cousins, but whether the Gospel of Luke says they are. Cousin Ricky 23:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the word in Luke 1:36 is Koine Greek συγγενις/sungenis, meaning a related female
===A subtle challenge for the faithful===
A potential snare for faith-related articles is the author's faith mindset itself. I started paying serious attention to the Bible about a dozen years ago, and to my surprise, discovered that what a lot of believers say is in the Bible ain't there. Faith means never having to go back and make sure. However, this attitude must not be allowed in a disinterested scholarly work such as an encyclopedia. All of us need to be aware of our biases, of course, but my experience is that people of faith are likely to take many of their biases for granted, not realizing that these beliefs are not facts, and not universally held. Christians need to be extra careful when they discuss Jesus in a neutral setting. Cousin Ricky 23:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I agree (though most Christians haven't read much of the Bible either), but that's not relevant here: having an opinion on Christianity without having read the Bible isn't significant to avoiding bias in a "Historical Jesus" article. Rather, having a strong opinion on Jesus without having studied accounts of his life is indeed a danger for Christians and non-Christians alike. This is also just as much a danger for people who have heavily studied the Bible, and assume its complete accuracy, ignoring external concerns. So every extreme in this matter can lead to bias; all the more reason to work hard on improving the article, and all the more reason for all of us (myself included) to try to get a view of Jesus that's both detailed and nuanced, and thorough and widely-researched, acknowledging multiple sides on numerous issues—though not assuming that all sides are equally significant to reconstructions of the historical Jesus! -Silence 13:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifying the reference

message: A potential snare for faith-related articles is the author's faith mindset itself. I started paying serious attention to the Bible about a dozen years ago, and to my surprise, discovered that what a lot of believers say is in the Bible ain't there. Faith means never having to go back and make sure. However, this attitude must not be allowed in a disinterested scholarly work such as an encyclopedia. All of us need to be aware of our biases, of course, but my experience is that people of faith are likely to take many of their biases for granted, not realizing that these beliefs are not facts, and not universally held. Christians need to be extra careful when they discuss Jesus in a neutral setting. Cousin Ricky 23:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I agree (though most Christians haven't read much of the Bible either), but that's not relevant here: having an opinion on Christianity without having read the Bible isn't significant to avoiding bias in a "Historical Jesus" article. Rather, having a strong opinion on Jesus without having studied accounts of his life is indeed a danger for Christians and non-Christians alike. This is also just as much a danger for people who have heavily studied the Bible, and assume its complete accuracy, ignoring external concerns. So every extreme in this matter can lead to bias; all the more reason to work hard on improving the article, and all the more reason for all of us (myself included) to try to get a view of Jesus that's both detailed and nuanced, and thorough and widely-researched, acknowledging multiple sides on numerous issues—though not assuming that all sides are equally significant to reconstructions of the historical Jesus! -Silence 13:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A subtle challenge for the faithful