Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 10

message: This has just come up at Talk:Jesus and will likely come up here soon as well. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could get ugly..... Homestarmy 20:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugly is as ugly does. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't object to such a passage, but I'd also want one that points out that there is no actual evidence to support those conclusions, only "scholarly" opinion. (Jesus healing in the name of the Devil? Whoah!) The degree to which the Seminar's conclusions impeaches the credibility of extant sources should also be mentioned. TrumpetPower! 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robsteadman would agree with you. All I care is that we accurately reflect what the JS is saying and adhere to NPOV. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait, this is the wrong article, doh, ignore my comment. Homestarmy 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where the Jesus Seminar material fits into this article.  Doesn't that apply more to Historical Jesus?  The notable thing about the Jesus Seminar for this article is probably that they are basically secular, and highly doubtful of the accuracy of the Gospels, but still believe in the historicity of Jesus. john k 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to including them, if only for my own personal POV that they've done a delightful job in demolishing the only actual evidence for Jesus that anybody has. Which probably means either not including them or making sure that others keep it NPOV.... TrumpetPower! 19:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point, John...the Seminar represents (by and large) the left wing of mainstream scholarship, affirming Jesus' existence but unsure that much in the Gospel accounts is historically true.  They deserve mention here, though, and probably at Jesus, but, yes, they should have a prominent spot at Historical Jesus.  KHM03 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jesus Seminar]]

message: I'd like to suggest that, once Jesus-Myth is unprotected, we move the "Jesus and Syncretism" subsection to the Jesus-Myth article. Thoughts? TrumpetPower! 15:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Jesus-Myth kind of a POV fork, like Jesus as Mythical Creation is? That is, a page designed to give one half of a controversial issue?  If so, WP frowns on that.  If not, how does the topic of that page differ from this page? Nareek 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move "Jesus and Syncretism" to Jesus-Myth 

message: In an attempt to get this article out of dispute I have listed an RfC. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The following excerpt from the article, in bold, is begging the question (circular reasoning). It assumes Jesus existed in order to conclude Jesus existed. The mistake should be mentioned for balance, since it bothers to cite its "validity" and Wikipedia has an entry on BTQ. Some historians believe that the texts on which the Gospels were based were written within living memory of Jesus' lifetime. They therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide valid evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, and a partially reliable account of his life and death.
The following part of the article is also a fallacy, called "misplaced concreteness" or a reification, or hypostatic fallacy. It argues in favor a text that reads minds, when absurdly citing the fact that known history does not read minds. This does not make things more concrete, but less so. It ignores that true history is based on concreteness of evidence; ie, the idea that someone conquered Persia, etc, therefore Alexander existed. No such concrete evidence for Jesus exists, nor can it be argued in this way. It is arguing from the text and not from known achievements. In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that historians often have to contend with documentation of differing quantity and quality. In many cases—Sanders provides the examples of Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill—historians are fortunate to have access to a good deal of documentation, although much of it has to be interpreted critically. In some cases—and Sanders presents Alexander the Great as paradigmatic—the available sources tell us much about his deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. Sanders considers the quest for the "historical Jesus" to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to details on Jefferson or Churchill. For this reason, he concludes, "the sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought" (1993:3). (posted by User:166.70.243.229)
:I added a qualifier to the first sentence in question.  KHM03 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're proposing for the second section, though; could you clarify?  KHM03 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is meaningless as an argument. Not pointing out the problem makes it a biased attempt at arguing for it. 166.70.243.229 23:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose both paragraphs could be removed entirely to avoid any mention of them, but that would be extreme, although fair to avoid favoritism. They are also listed in Wikipedia. See begging the question and follow the links to the fallacy pages. 166.70.243.229 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any falacy in second paragraph. It does not "argue in favour of a text that reads minds", it simply says that we have sources that provide information about Jesus's opinions, but sources tell us little about Alexander's opinions. Furthermore, it states what Sander's opinion is. It does not state that it is true. There may be falacies in Sander's argument, but that's for the rreader to decide. The first para can simply be changed to emphasise that the argument is about the claim that they were written within living memory of period they describe, and that this is a reason to believe that they refer to real people who still lived, or who emembered events. Again, it doesn't matter whether you or anyone thinks this argument is specious, what matters is that historians have proffered it. Paul B 01:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't spell "fallacy" then nobody would expect you to see it. If it's for the reader to decide, then let the reader decide. What are you afraid of? They will decide against your POV? 166.70.243.229 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to resort to cheap and pathetic shots like that, then, yes, I think we can let the reader decide how seriously to take your contributions.Paul B 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said in my clearly typed comment on my revert, I don't see a fallacy here either, its like saying that since I have an instruction booklet for a computer written when the computer was being produced, that pressing the button marked "on" is a logical fallacy simply because the instruction book was written while the computer was new, how does it have anything at all to do with begging the question? Homestarmy 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallacies should be noted in recapping arguments, for balance