Talk:Jesus/Archive 30

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

text: "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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Critical scholars/historians

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Parsing the issue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Early life section

message: 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)
thread_title: The article in general

message: 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)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Critical Historians

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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  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 (), 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  infidels.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Additional references