Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 1

message: Among historians who are not Biblical scholars, the "historicity" of Jesus of Nazareth has rarely been at issue, and the reasons for this reveal something about the nature of historical inquiry. Historians remain skeptical of what they are being told in any historical text. They derive much of their information by reading between the lines. Those subtexts of Christian literature that reveal innate points of view and characteristic cultural bias, the documented activities of actual Christians and their influence on societal norms and culture are all of significance, while the 'historicity' of Jesus of Nazareth, minimally documented outside Christian sources, is not ordinarily addressed.	 
To take a brief analogy from another area of Antiquity, where current sensibilities are not so involved on a partisan level, Herodotus, sometimes called the "father of history" tells the following tale: the king of the Medes, Cyaxares offers some Scythian suppliants at his court the opportunity to educate a group of Median children in the Scythian language and in archery (Histories1.73.3): after being harshly treated by Cyaxares one day, for returning empty-handed from a hunt, the Scythians have their revenge by killing one of the boys in their charge and feeding him to the king (1.73.5). The historian does not question the "historicity" of the event: whether it actually happened or not cannot be usefully assessed. Instead the historian assesses the Scythian reputation as archers, Greek perceptions of Scythian culture in the 5th century BCE, resonance of the myth of Tantalus and subtexts of Hellenic distrust of all inter-cultural relations.
----
I hate to spoil the party, but the fact is nearly all modern historians admit the existence of a man named Jesus. Any view that holds that he never existed is an extreme one indeed. And this has nothing to do with "cultural bias"; in fact, the question of Jesus' existence has been debated at length by scholars since the 19th century. The general consensus is that he was real, and this fact needs to be acknowledged in the article.
The article makes it seem like there is an ongoing controversy over whether he was real, but that's just not true. As far as mainstream historians are concerned, the matter is settled.
:"Nearly all modern historians"? That is quite the sweeping statement; do you have concrete proof of this, say the results of a poll? (I have to express incedulity at this statement; from my own experience, there are a number of historians in the US & Europe who are atheists, agnostics or Jews; I can't imagine any of them  embracing this belief.)
:My sense from reading the relevant literature (e.g. Roman history) is that historians mostly side-step the issue, which is easily done. After all, Christianity does not start to enter the  mainstream until the 3rd century, when the first officially-sanctioned persecusions begin. (Earlier persecutions were the result of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy where if someone was accused of being a Christian, they could avoid punishment by denying the charge, & offering a sacrifice. Apparently most of these charges were the result of the interminable petty feuds within communities, & until the Crisis of the Third Century, the Roman decided that they had better projects to devote their resources to than suppressing what they dismissed as a dangerous, but marginal, cult.) And even then, this issue whether Christ existed can be side-stepped by simply talking about the tradition of his belief; akin to a rumor or folklore that has become important. Unless a historian is studying an area where this question of the existence of Christ is clearly of importance -- the provincial life of Judea, & perhaps that of Syria or Anatolia -- whether or not Christ existed is irrelevant.
:I suspect the reason for this is that any discussion of the existence of Christ is a no-win argument: no matter what the stand a historian takes she/he will offend someone, find their work treated with contempt & hostility simply over this one point, & be distracted from their own calling by this topic. It is better to leave it to the historians of religion & the students of the Bible, many of whom likewise avoid the topic. -- llywrch 19:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  History is a Liberal Arts study, I'm more interested in what proof Anthropologists have to show. I do like the researcher who indicates Nazareth was still a one family farm a century after the passion play. And where are the precursor Pagan Skymen demigods like Attis and Osiris? Something seems dishonest here.  - Sparky 19:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why cultural historians do not dispute the "historicity" of Jesus

message: Just because something might be a fact, doesn't mean it can't be used to insert POV into an article. I eliminated a statement that one view was held by a majority, because it was phrased and positioned in such a way that it was hinting to the reader that the minority point of view was wrong. I have no objection to the alleged fact being in the article, but only if its communicated neutrally. ChessPlayer 11:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If something is a fact then there is no POV.  Facts are neutral, and to dispute a fact without any contradictory evidence is POV.  I might also add that a fact is a fact whether it is recognized by the majority or not.  DavidR 18:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the fact in question? Would chessplayer inform of what the fact that was eliminated was? --81.156.181.83 00:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: # Philo of Alexandria: would have been a contemporary of Jesus — someone who maintained an active interest in the welfare of Israel and thus should have learnt of this Son of God — and in his writings there is no mention of Jesus or his followers.
#  Justus of Tiberias was a Jewish historian who was born in Galilee about the time of the claimed crucifixion. In his two great works, a history of the war of independence and a chronicle of events from Moses to Agrippa II (d. AD100), not a single reference was made to Jesus.
# Flavius Josephus was trained as a Pharisee and the passages attributed to him do not read true to this; It fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not used by Josephus per the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West.
:There are numerous Jewish references to people called Jesus in the 1st century in the Yeshu article.CheeseDreams 12:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No reference whatsoever to Jesus from contemporaneous Jewish sources

message: A POV claim is not being made whenever Jesus is called "Jesus Christ".  Whether Jesus is in fact the Messiah is not being decided by recognizing that "Christ" and "Jesus Christ" is almost universally what this person is called.  The POV agenda is on the side of those who want to remove this title from the encyclopedia.  Mkmcconn — 19:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The title should only be in the "Titles of Jesus" section of the Jesus page. It is a title, and therefore not relevant to general references to the person. Jesus is just a name, but Jesus Christ is a POV title. It is more neutral not to have such titles in the name wherever possible, except when discussing the title itself, or the use of it. CheeseDreams 11:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Christ is a claim

message: Although many people believe "Christ" is Jesus' last name, it is actually a POV claim about him being the Messiah.  As such, it has no place in an NPOV article.  This issue has already been discussed at length and agreed upon in the Jesus article, which is why the article now points to Jesus. Jayjg 19:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Only an ignoramus thinks that "Christ" is his last name.  The title has become part of the identification of this person.  Whether the implied claim is true or not, is not at issue in using the title.  Mkmcconn — 19:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The title is a claim by Christians, and as such is NPOV.  It is well known and understood who Jesus is, which is why the title is unnecesarry and POV.  That is why the article on Jesus points to Jesus, not Jesus Christ which for some odd reason you keep pointing to, and which Wikipedia therefore has to re-direct to the correct article.  Again, please review old discussions on this topic in Talk:Jesus.  The issue has already been settled in Wikipedia. Jayjg 19:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The title is used by people regardless of whether they are Christians. The article Jesus Christ points to Jesus, because that is what this person is called. The old discussions on this topic are just as skewed as this discussion is.  May I point out that you claim that the issue has been "settled" in the talk of an article called "Historicity of Jesus Christ".  It is petty and naive.  Common usage rules should prevail here, and the effort should be resisted which attempts to use Wikipedia as a driving force in changing common usage.   Mkmcconn — 19:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is used by some people, not by others; certainly not by academics or scholars.  The article Jesus Christ points to Jesus because Jesus is the correct term for this person.  The issue has been settled in the main article; former stubs like this have yet to be brought into line with proper Wikipedia NPOV usage, which is what I am attempting to do.  Regarding the title of this article, thanks for pointing that out, it has now been fixed as well.  Insisting on adding a religious title to his name is certainly not NPOV.  As for common usage rules prevailing, that's hardly the case with the article on Muslim or Quakers, which both re-direct to preferred neutral usage. Jayjg 20:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Good point.  Something on the "to do" list; Buddha should be a re-direct. Jayjg 21:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is fanaticism.  I suppose that next you will want to "fix" references to "Christianity" to point to "Jesusism".  Mkmcconn — 20:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most people will not look for information on Sidhartha by typing in Sidharta, very few actually recognise this name as being a reference to Buddha. Wheras, conversely, rather a lot of people look for the Jesus article simply by typing in Jesus, and certainly rather a lot recognise the name. CheeseDreams 12:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Please don't be absurd; Christians are those people who believe Jesus was the Christ.  Mind you, there are plenty of people who believe that and object to being called "Christian".  Nevertheless, Christians are exactly the group who believe the claim, and support the use of the title, so it would make no sense to attempt a re-direct.  On top of that, of course, there is no such word as "Jesusism". Jayjg 21:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you aren't willing to grant is that what you call absurd, here, is no less absurd in the other case.  Christians claim to follow the true Messiah; but to call them "Christian" does not imply support of their claim.  By precisely the same rule by which you say that Jesus Christ is not a neutral reference, neither is Christian neutral.  To put the case as boldly as possible, the fact is that Jesus is only of historical interest, and for exactly zero additional reasons, because he is so uniquely called "Christ".  But to call him this does not equate to belief in the claim that he is, in fact, the Messiah.  Mkmcconn — 22:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The title is POV, and Wikipedia is all about NPOV.  Christians believe Jesus was "the Christ", others do not.  As for your claim about the title being applied to others, it is quite disingenuous.  The title "moshiach" was applied to all Jewish kings and High Priests, and even some non-Jewish kings, but the title "Christ" was not.  I don't see articles here about King David Christ or King Cyrus Christ.  Many followers of Rabbi M. Schneerson believe him to be the Messiah, yet we do not have an article titled "Menachem Mendel Scheerson King Messiah" as much as his followers call him that, and would like everyone too.  Regarding your threat, Wikipedia has a mediation process, and if I have to ask for mediation with you I will.  Regarding your statement re "atheistic POV", it reveals your bias and agenda, no more. Jayjg 21:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Re: Christ being the Latin translation of the Hebrew Moshiach, to begin with, the title Christ means much more than the Hebrew word Moshiach.  And in relation to this debate, you were the person who disingenuously brought up the idea that it had been applied to many in history.  I will point out again, that Moshiach might have been, but Christ was not, and in any event we don't have any articles pointing to "so and so moshiach". Regarding "unilateral changes", I was bringing this article in line with both the main Jesus article, and with scholarly usage.  I might also point out that the usage was inconsistent in this very article; in some places "Jesus Christ" was used, in others "Jesus" was used, yet this didn't seem to bother you.  You have yet to reply to what the addition of "Christ" to some instances of the name Jesus added to the contents of the article; surely it was not to clarify that the article had not switched to some other Jesus mid-stream, was it?  As for the rest, again, your ad hominems (stating that the argument is about atheism and hatred of religion) expose your bias and agenda, no more. Jayjg 05:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ is the Greek (not Latin) term meaning anointed with Chrysm. It does not necessarily refer to the Hebrew term, though its use has obvious parallels. CheeseDreams 12:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus vs. Jesus Christ 

message: No, not the James Ossuary, but the Jesus Ossuary. It was not covered in the American media. This bone box was uncovered many years before the James Ossuary and is quite likely a genuine ossuary of a man named Jesus who was the son of Joseph and had relatives named Mary and Jude (Jude was mentioned as a brother of Christ in Mark's gospel). See the bottom of this fairly good article. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 03:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So the first archaeological evidence pointing to Jesus' existance also points to him being definitely dead?CheeseDreams 12:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jesus Ossuary 

message: Read the history and see that I rewrote history, or, historicity.  Someone should review the meaning of "primary source".  I replied about Durant too. lysdexia 02:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi there

message: I do not see how Pliny and Tacitus mentioning Christians implies Jesus existed. There are many people who believe Harry Potter really exists, observation of the existance of such "Potterians" does not mean that Harry Potter is real.
:But Pliny and Tacitus both mention a "Christ". They don't claim to have firsthand knowledge of this person, but neither do they say that the Christians are worshipping someone who didn't exist. Mpolo 13:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
::But they don't say that they are worshipping someone who DID exist either. CheeseDreams 15:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV about Roman Commentators