Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 5

message: The article contains the statement: "Some notable historians have affirmed the resurrection of Jesus such as A. N. Sherwin-White, Thomas Arnold, and Michael Grant."  I think one has to make a distinction between a Historian making a statement of his/her personal faith and a Historian asserting a Historical argument based on evidence.  The proper question is not whether or not these Historians personally believed in the Ressurection, rather the question is: did they write articles in peer-reviewed Historical journals making this claim, or in academic books targeted at   other Historians?  I strongly doubt it, and if so we need a citation.
As written I find this passage highly misleading.  Imagine an article on "Scientific Proofs for God", in which it is pointed out that Scientists A, B, and C believe in God (or worse, that Scientists A B and C "have affirmed the existance of God" ).  It may be true, but it has nothing to do with whether or not that belief is based in any way on Science. (posted by User:24.5.199.205)
:I agree; there's not much any historian worth his/her salt can definitively say about Jesus' Resurrection...it's a faith decision.  I'd say that unless someone comes up with one heck of a strong citation, we eliminate the passage.  Historians almost unanimously affirm Jesus' existence, but can't say much about the Resurrection.  KHM03 18:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A historian cannot comment in anyway meaningful way on the Resurrection. Of course he can comment, but then it's his own personal opinion based on his philosophical-metaphysical-religious views and not part of his scholarship. If these scholars have affirmed these (and I don't think they have - at least MGrant, from what I know, is not a Christian) they have done so as believers and not as scholars. And vice versa: if a historian denies the Resurrection he has done so as a non-Christian and not as scholars. What a historian can scholarly affirm is the empty tomb, as that can be verified from sources, but the Resurrection is beyond verifiability through historical research. That doesn't mean that it did or didn't happen but you cannot get there merely by historical research. Faith is required. Hence, I am in favour of deleting the passage (or changing it to what these guys actually said) as well. Str1977 09:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually be extremely surprised if any modern historian (as opposed to classics/religious studies scholor) would even make any affirmative claims about the empty tomb story as verifiable history either...but I see that the Wikipedia article on Empty Tomb also makes this claim, so I'll take it up there.Bdrasin 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historians have affirmed the ressurection" 

message: The article on Philo does not mention him mentioning Jesus, but this article says he does. Does anyone actually have references? Or should the link to Philo be removed from this article? 11:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it references archived talk - that says IF "Jesus" was real - Philo would have mentioned him - Sparky 14:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philo 

message: Once CheeseDreams gets back from her block, I'm going to ask what pages of the books that she has added to references section that she used for this article. Otherwise, I'm getting rid of most of the references she's given. It's just not possible that she used so many references. I think that she just listed her bookcase, without referring to half the books as a reference. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "Against this theory is the fact that all four Gospels specifically speak of a place named Nazareth (see Matthew 2:23, Mark 1:9, Luke 1:26, John 1:46) in contexts where it cannot possibly be a confusion with "the Nazirite". In addition, the Gospels frequently give examples of Jesus drinking wine, most notably at the Last Supper, which was forbidden for Nazirites."
Are there any scholars who argue against "Nazirite" using these reasons?  If so, it would be better that they be cited.  If not, this is probably original research. Jayjg (talk) 04:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit I put it in based on my personal familiarity with the scriptures, thinking it was too obvious to cite further. A quick google search confirms that I wasn't too original in drawing these conclusions. See , . The second source is by Dr. Ray Pritz, whose bio can be found here: . Incidentally, who are the "some scholars" who think Jesus was a Nazirite? Wesley 04:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazarene or Nazirite? 

message: The possessive of Jesus should be Jesus's not Jesus' as the s at the end doesn't make it plural....
:Actually, this is wrong. The apostrophe goes onto the end of the s when someone's name ends in an s. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree (and I should know -- my name ends in an S). My belief (and I haven't looked at the Anglo-Saxon for a long time, so please correct me) is that the 's, while now a free moving particle, was once a genitive form. Plurals in -s did not mutate by adding what has now become an apostrophe s. Is that not correct? The rule (as I learnt it) is -- plurals ending in -s have a ' rather than 's, but I have seen your rule quoted too. Your rule MUST be wrong because I would be quite offended if you didn't say Francis's, so why not write it?
Francis Davey 00:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, who are you talking to? Me, or the original poster? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The style guide I last read (I think it was Strunk and White, and will provide a reference if it's needed) indicated that most names ending in s should have 's added to the end, but that names from ancient history used only the apostrophe.  Sophocles, Socrates, and Jesus were the provided examples -- all are supposed to use only the '.  This was a matter of exceptional importance to me as a James -- I personally prefer that my possessions be called James' but have reluctantly accepted that they are James's.  I do, however, have a high level of confidence that I'm recalling the "classical exception" correctly. Jwrosenzweig 22:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: At time of writing, I see no reason to describe this article as either non-neutral or factually inaccurate. As far as I can see, the article is written in a meticulously neutral way - and in every case in which some information is used, the sources are given. It may not be perfect - but its as good as most other articles in these respects.
What is the procedure for removing the notice to say that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the page is in dispute? I suppose I could just edit the page and remove it - but I think it would be better if whoever believes that this notice should be there would come forward and say why - otherwise they will just restore a previous version of the page or start an edit war. Gordon Lallis.
:I dispute the assertion that most Jews consider "Jesus" real - perhaps only in this century we won't be killed for expressing that there is no human framework to the myth of "Jesus" - which should quiet the otherworldy claims. - Sparky 14:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Albert Schweitzer couldn't conclude that Jesus was "real", and he wrote a book on The Historical Jesus that is still highly regarded. As a Christian, he was highly motivated to take the question seriously and try to get a defensible positive answer. So how much difference does it make that some number of Jews affirm his reality? If we are comparing numbers of scholars to numbers of scholars it might well be relevant. But in this case, forgive me if I'm wrong, we do not even have real statistics, just somebody's "feeling" that most Jews believe that a historically important man named Jesus existed.  So what? (By the way, Schweitzer didn't get killed but he did get restricted from preaching by the Lutheran Church for a while, and that was during the first half of the 20th century). P0M 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Do We Get This Page Out Of "Dispute"? 

message: It appears to me that our anonymous editor makes a good point; the first references are not to "Christ", but to "Christians".  Also, where does the argument at the end of the paragraph come from? Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume, since the final argument is formatted as part of the quotation, that it's Durant's. Its validity can of course be questioned, and should be, but simply deleting a crucial part of the argument reduces it to nonsensicality. Better to find someone who disagrees, and summarize both views. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh!  I kept missing the fact that it was quoting Durant; I thought it was simply something some Wikipedia editor had authored. That's what you get for looking at diffs, not the actual text. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First mention of "Christ" 

message: A request: whenever one edits this article, adding a quote from an "expert" or an "authority" (those may be different, I suppose), could we please cite the work quoted, page number, maybe ISBN as well?  That would certainly help with the NPOV issues.  Thanks for the consideration.  KHM03 00:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I know this article has a troubled history, so I'll propose this here: Could we not refer to C. S. Lewis' conciliatory positon (in "Myth became fact") that Jesus is mythic and historical at the same time (this is of course a Christian position, but one that accepts that Jesus is also mythological). dab (ᛏ) 17:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. I don't agree with it, but I have a great deal of respect for C.S. Lewis. His opinion, while I believe it to be wrong, should be included. However, specific reference to what he actually wrote should be added. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lewis

message: Exactly who is he? It states that:
:Author G.A. Wells says regarding the New Testament: "it is not just that the early documents are silent about so much of Jesus that came to be recorded in the gospels, but that they view him in a substantially different way -- as a basically supernatural personage only obscurely on Earth as a man at some unspecified period in the past, 'emptied' then of all his supernatural attributes (Phil.2:7), and certainly not a worker of prodigious miracles which made him famous throughout 'all Syria' (Mt.4:24). I have argued that there is good reason to believe that the Jesus of Paul was constructed largely from musing and reflecting on a supernatural 'Wisdom' figure, amply documented in the earlier Jewish literature, who sought an abode on Earth, but was there rejected, rather than from information concerning a recently deceased historical individual. The influence of the Wisdom literature is undeniable; only assessment of what it amounted to still divides opinion."
Could we at least get a stub on who this gentleman is, and why his opinion is significant to this discussion? and can we get a reference to the work that is being refered to? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made Redirect to George Albert Wells. The quote above is from the first link there (, 3rd para). Rd232 11:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  G.A. Wells 

message: Aren't we reading our own NPOV policy into ancient history recorders? I thought that neutrality was only a recent occurence in historical recording and that ancient historians rarely (if ever) attempted to write from a neutral point of view!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as a neutral historian - only those that try to be neutral (rare until the Enlightenment), and/or who are clear about how they're not neutral. Rd232 11:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neutral historical record" in the lead section? 

message: * "Some also claim that evidence for a historical Jesus is provided by the Epistles, especially those by Paul." - who claim this? Can we cite sources please. 
* "Some historians claim that at least some of the sources on which Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic account of his life and death" - which historians?
* "The Gospel of Mark is considered by historians to be the earliest of the four. These scholars date it between 55 and 80; so they conclude that it was fairly close to the early oral preaching about Jesus' life." - is that so? well, let's have some sources then! What scholars date it between 55 and 80? This is a very confident statement, so it should not be a problem to say which scholars say this. 
* I've noted this already, but who is G.A. Wells, and why is he significant to this article?
* "However, there were no mention of these passages by early Christian writers, in the case of Tacitus nothing being noted about Christianity until the 'translation' by Sulpicius Severus." Why is the word "translation" in scare quotes? Can we have some clarification of this point?
* "However, John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been forged." I have also heard this, but I would like to know what internal indicators these might be... though maybe we should be referring the reader to Josephus on Jesus?
* "Some Christians proclaim that the lack of references, and the difficulty in associating Yeshu with Jesus, is due to Christianity being negligible when the Talmud was predominantly created, in addition to the Talmud being more concerned with teachings, than recording history." - can we please have a source for which Christians claims this?
* In the "Jesus as a Myth" section, I see that this has been well written and (I must say) is very neutral. However, I don't see any sources in the references section. Could we have these? Using Template:Ref and Template:Note, it would be easy to make footnotes. 
* There is a reference to a Professor James Dunn. Who is he? What are his qualifications? Professor of what exactly? 
* "Some scholars have argued that the (largely Greek) Pauline Christians were unfamiliar with Jewish culture and that the term "Nazarene" was unfamiliar to those transcribing Aramaic oral tradition into Greek: a more appropriate translation, this school suggests, of the historical rabbi Jesus, who came to be so thoroughly mythologized, was "Jesus the Nazirite." Some scholars argue that there is no evidence Nazareth existed before the 4th century AD." - some scholars. Some scholars. Argh! Who?!? 
Overall, however, this article has improved out of sight. Everyone should be congratulated on their great efforts at presenting facts and opinions in a balanced and neutral fashion. The article still needs a lot of tightening up, however :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More issues 

message: I find this statement questionable. "Many if not most Jews also acknowledge the existence of Jesus, although whether the Talmud itself contains references to him is in dispute. " I feel it is only under coercion Jews think about “Jesus” at all. Might as well say many more Jews consider Santa Claus and Hannukah Harry more 'real' than "Baby J." - Sparky 20:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would one even know if "most Jews" acknowledge the existence of Jesus. It would take quite a wide-reaching and sophisticated statistical survey to find out, and then the relevance of the information to the topic of the article would still be highly quesitonable. P0M 01:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely right. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... Many if not most Jews also acknowledge the existence of Jesus ... 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing a new policy proposal 

message: One person added, and another person reverted, the following sentence:
:Hindus such as Gandhi saw Jesus as God in human form.(see Avatar)
The person who deleted the sentence offered to support its inclusion in this article if substantiation could be provided, but (IMHO) it does not belong in an article on what Schweitzer called "the quest for the historical Jesus." Whether Gandi is a true example of this interpretation of what Jesus was, or what number of people with similar religious and/or cultural backgrounds hold this interpretation, are both irrelevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus unless those individuals have credentials as competent judges of issues of historicity.  
Perhaps the information that has been offered would fit better in another article that discusses how people over the ages have interpreted the stories (historical or not) that are a very significant part of history. One question that may already come up in that article (if it exists) is how mystics of later times have reported their contacts with the spirit of Jesus. P0M 18:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recently reverted passage 

message: The body of the article is wishful thinking. Someone with an agenda has mangled the con position to bolster the pro position. I think that is poor form. - Sparky 21:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs a rewrite 

message: I'll suggest starting to merge with Jesus and textual evidence, see . There is just too much overlap. --Pjacobi 20:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
At the same time, it should be merged with Jesus-Myth.  I suggest merging them all into Historicity of Jesus. --Peter Kirby 20:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the two. However, I had to leave out a few large chunks of text from Jesus and textual evidence because they struck me as unsalvagably bad or deeply off-topic (like the part that spent multiple lengthy paragraphs discussing that canonicity of various Biblical texts). If anyone has any problems with how I did it, feel free to make as many changes as you want; you can still find all the text from the last version of Jesus and textual evidence here. -Silence 20:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This section seems out of place in the context of everything else in the article. It's the only part that discusses a specific aspect of Jesus' life rather than addressing the subject as a whole, and it could probably easily be merged into other articles, like Nazareth and Nazirite and Historical Jesus. It just doesn't seem to fit at all. -Silence 09:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does "Nazareth or Nazirite?" really belong here?