Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 17

message: The recent edit that stated that Paul had no first hand knowledge of JC is not POV - please show a source that states otherwise. It is relevant because the previous statement asserts Paul is used as a source for knowledge of JC: the fact that he never met him is significant as it establishes his knowledge as second-hand. Phyesalis (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What your sentence says is that all of Paul's knowledge came from revelation independent of the four gospels.  Firstly, this is blatantly false - Paul talks about discussing Jesus with Peter and James, which is not "revelation" but "talking to people who knew Jesus".  Secondly, Paul was writing before the Gospels were written.  Your statement is misleading, as it implies the opposite.  Thirdly, the Gospels themselves were probably not written by people with first hand knowledge of Jesus, so I don't see how Paul comes out behind the Gospel writers, as, again, your statement implies.  Fourthly, your preferred statement says nothing at all about Paul's knowledge being second hand.  It says it comes from Revelation.  This is obviously trying to imply that Paul made it up, and as such is POV.  Finally, nothing in the basic sentence does anything to imply that either the Gospel writers or Paul had any first hand knowledge of Jesus - just that they are the earliest sources.  john k (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Phyesalis is referring to Galatians 1:11-12: "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."(NRSV) I'm not sure Paul is actually claiming that he knows nothing of Jesus from other people, and even if he is we would have grounds to doubt it. However, the article doesn't say that any of the sources are first-hand accounts; only that Paul's writings, like the Gospels, are "among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life", which is surely agreed by almost everybody. The question of how reliable these documents are is, of course, a separate issue. Rbreen (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, it's not my sentence. I did not introduce "revelation" language. I was merely supporting its inclusion. Paul's knowledge is second-hand, not made up - I don't think you (John) are assuming good faith here, try not to read into my motivations. Having the opportunity to actually read an argument discussing the revert, I agree with you that "revelation" is misleading. Perhaps a nice compromise would be to change it to reflect Paul's second-hand knowledge? This would build on Mike's initial edit and satisfy your objection. The statement's relevance is not dependent upon whether or not the prior statement asserts first-hand knowledge. It is relevant to acknowledge that Paul's info, unlike the Gospels of the disciples, does not come from Paul's "experience" with Jesus. Some maintain that the Gospels are oral traditions maintained from the disciples (if not why would they be of any value in regards to historicity?). In contrast, that Paul's info (or lack thereof) is not derived from personal experience (and is still one of the earliest sources on J) is relevant. Phyesalis (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference in the lede is merely to the point that Paul is one of the earliest sources for the life of Jesus, and that is  clearly the case, in so far as most New Testament scholars do in fact consider Paul a useful source, and is independent of the nature of Paul's claims - the writings still have historical value as an insight into the thinking of early Christian communities, whether Paul got some of his information from his experience or his imagination. We could qualify this with a comment about the reliability of Paul's information, but then in principle we would need to make a similar comment about the Gospel references; There is already a general reference in the next paragraph of the lede to the view that the NT documents "provide no historical information about" the life of Jesus. Surely the place to discuss these points in detail (and they are certainly relevant and useful) is in the body of the article, in the section on the Pauline Epistles, where the fact that Paul was not an eye-witness is already mentioned?  Rbreen (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I was too quick to assume bias.  I agree with Rbreen, though, that there's really no need to get into these kind of details in the intro.  The statement itself says nothing about first vs. secondhand sources, so there's no reason to get into it. john k (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. I agree that the discussion is more appropriate for the body of the text. Phyesalis (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent revert

message: I don't particularly like the construction of the second paragraph.  In terms of describing the majority view, I think we should be fairly clear that this is kind of a common minimum, accepted by most scholars as true.  I.e., almost all scholars agree on all that stuff, but it's not true that most scholars agree that this is all we can know about the historical Jesus - many scholars do believe that, but many others believe that considerably more can be gleaned from the sources about the historical Jesus.  I'm not sure how to construct the sentence to make this clear. john k (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jesus article includes the following sentence: "Historians are divided over whether Jesus followed a career of healing and exorcism, preached the end of the world was imminent, and saw his crucifixion as inevitable." That's lacking a source, unfortunately, but with sources I think it would be appropriate to add something like that between the "most scholars" and the "small minority" sentences. EALacey (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer, here at least, something along the lines of "Historians are divided over other issues, such as whether Jesus..."  I don't like the idea that we're giving out all information here. john k (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here, if you think that's a potential source of misunderstanding. EALacey (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: Lucian, in the Others section, only describes christians and their beliefs. The existance of christians in the second century is hardly at debate and is not what this article is about. And that Thallus, according to some third century christian, had described an earthquake and a darkness, which said christian connected with the crucifixion, is also irrelevant in my opinion. 195.149.148.24 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucian isn't simply describing Christian beliefs.  He clearly holds that Christ was a real person who founded the group and that his intended reader also "knows" that Christianity was founded by Christ as well. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucian and Thallus