Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 11

message: The talk page has become a garbled mishmash of debate.  I thought it would be worthwhile to clean up and start again.  Basically, I'm just going to start by asking, "What exactly about the article is in dispute?"  There seems to be some agreement from everyone that the current article is unsatisfactory, but we seem to get locked up in abstruse, narrow arguments that don't really have much to do with the actual article.  So, what exactly about the article is in dispute? john f kennedy 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule, warning tags like the NPOV tag should only be used if someone, preferably the editor adding the tag, can give specific examples of NPOV problems in the article; same for factual accuracy and other such tags. Perhaps a better tag would be one saying the article needs more citations, rather than the NPOV and accuracy tags? Wesley 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. I asked a while back why the tag was there, no one could could come with a good reason and the tag was going to be removed. The next thing I knew, this page was receiving spillover debate from the Talk:Jesus-Myth page, especially from people who were arguing that the "Jesus-Myth" was an argument for the ahistoricity of Jesus (although the term has a wider application!) After that, the debate got hard to follow....? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spillover discussions seem hardly relevant to this article or its NPOV status :/. Homestarmy 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence we start over. I suggest we wait until Monday to see if anyone has any objection to removing the disputed tag. If there are objections by then, discuss them and try to work it out. If not, remove the tag. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wesley, as a kindly reminder, you flagged the Mithraism article for NPOV issues, apparently, based on someone's talk post that questioned whether NPOV existed as a fact. I reminded said author that NPOV referred to "detectable" NPOV, not philosophical or otherwise. Perhaps you would consider removing the tag from the Mithraism article in light of this error. Thankyou in advance. 166.70.243.229 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up, starting anew

message: http://wikigadugi.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.114.188 (talk • contribs) 
:What is a Wikigadugi? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This same poster I think posted something about this on the Evolution article too, I dunno if there's a problem or what, but GDFL should cover the actions of whatever wiki that is I think. Homestarmy 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just don't know about this: 

message: I think the tag may be justified. I've been reading around trying to find citations for some of the info and am a little disturbed by what I've found. 
""The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art." (MS -- Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.) "
This is what I found on the web  - I have no way of checking whether it is a true quote (has anyone access to this stuff?) but we have in the article:
".....there are many who reject the notion that Christianity is the result of a syncretism or a new variation on the older Pagan myths. For example, the contributors to the Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies maintained that the only area which has any historical detail with regard to the influence of Mithraism on Christianity was in the area of art."
Which are subtly different. Our article implies the only area with a historically detailed influence is art but the actual quote is saying the only area we can know the details of the influence of Mythraism on Christianity is art. These are subtly but fundamentally different.
This is only the first thing I have checked in detail so a warning to the reader to beware of the accuracy is not unjustified. I'm not going to be able to follow much up for the next couple of weeks due to school hoildays but I think a very thorough reading and checking of all statements is called for. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, they are subtly different. Since you've taken the time to find the actual quote, I'll incorporate the quote itself into the article (if no one has beaten me to it). That way none of us will be guilty of trying to "spin" it, intentionally or otherwise. Wesley 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as though the ICMS's comment is not really even addressing "the notion that Christianity is the result of a syncretism or a new variation on the older Pagan myths." Influence of Mithraism on Christianity is most certainly not the same thing as whether Christianity is actually a result of such influence. john k 18:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (Also, is an academic congress from 1975 really a good source?  That's a long time ago.) john k 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The quote is directly lifted from Franz Cumont's 1903 book, The Mysteries of Mithra on page 196. The full paragraph is: The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art. The Mithraic sculpture, which had been first developed, furnished the ancient Christian marble-cutters with a large number of models, which they adopted or adapted. For example, they drew inspiration from the figure of Mithra causing the living waters to leap forth by the blows of his arrows, 1 to create the figure of Moses smiting with his rod the rock of Horeb (Fig. 45). Faithful to an inveterate tradition, they even reproduced the figures of cosmic divinities, like the Heavens and the Winds, the worship of which the new faith had expressly proscribed; and we find on the sarcophagi, in miniatures, and even on the portals of the Romance Churches, evidences of the influence exerted by the imposing compositions that adorned the sacred grottos of Mithra. 2 (196-197) It seems you will find the "misquote" all over the internet on those Christian pages devoted to damage control, and on Wikipedia of course. 166.70.243.229 22:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mysteries of Mithra: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/index.htm 166.70.243.229 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Mithra-art quote as used in this Wikipedia entry may actually be fraudulently cited. On the Christian apologetic website below, someone is using Cumont's quote in a context that seemts to be appealing to a mass authority of Mithra conferees, but citing the 1975 source unattributed, and after disparaging Cumont it seems. It seems this was done out of context, author uncited, for a propagandistic effect as if an entire congress on Mithraism decided the point that the author is trying to make. 166.70.243.229 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thread.php?topic_id=1575&&start=10
Either way, I did change the tag into a milder version (actually two milder versions-- one for POV and one for accuracy). It's good that someone is checking into this. It's also good that, so far at least, we seem to be discussing it civily. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've given up icivility for lent!. John does have a point though - what does a 30 year old obscure academic conference that admits it can't know much about the subject add? Other than the fact that Mithraic experts are none the wiser as to the influence on Christianity - which actually could be a useful point but there must be a newer review of the subject somewhere. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could always start with Google Scholar: Christianity and Mithraism. One could start there, but I can go no further because so much requires paid registrations. There are quite a few articles from JSTOR that someone could look into if they have access. The first citation on the first page is from 1999: "Mithraism and Christianity: How Are They Related, DR Morse - JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, VOL 22; NUMBER 1, pages 33-43, 1999 - ACADEMY OF RELIGION AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH." There are 229 citations listed since 1990.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: You might also want to fact check Mithraism#Similarities_to_Christianity. Again a reference from the 1970s, and again Osiris. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, I have no idea. It was just the first reference that popped up. There are 228 other citations listed, though one may need to separate the diamonds from the junk. There are also articles from Journal of Religion and Journal of Roman Studies in the top 5, BTW. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 12:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Just so you know, this article is currently Listed for an RfC, along with Talk:Jesus-Myth#RfC. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: There has been a long discussion of the Historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's divided into three subpages: Jesus as moral teacher; Jesus as apocalyptic prophet or messiah; and Jesus as Pharisee or Essene. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus article, historicity and sources.

message: I'm not an expert at Wiki edits yet, so bear with me if this ends up more longwinded than necessary.
I've done a bit of research on the following statement from the article because something sounded a bit off.
"Tacitus simply refers to 'Christ' - the Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah”, rather than the name "Jesus", and he refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator", a specific post that differs from the one that the Gospels imply that he held - prefect or governor. In this instance the Gospel account is supported by archaeology, since a surviving inscription states that Pilate was prefect."
After digging through the link to procurator in the article, it gave a link to promagistrate which I understand is different, so don't jump the gun.  After reading the mention of procurator there, I found the sidebar with the offices of Rome.  I clicked on the link to praefectus which of course took me to prefect and discovered the term to be ambiguous.  I went further and decided to see just what a Roman governor was.  I discovered this:
"Though the practice of appointing equestrians to help manage provinces officially began with Augustus, governors from years before had appointed procurators to held [sic] them govern. However, it was not until the reign of Claudius that these procurators received the powers of a governor. Though by definition the procurators were prefects, a procuratorship was a more formal way of denoting a prefect’s authority to govern. It is important to note that procurators were not magistrates, so did not own imperium, and merely exercised the Emperor’s, or governor's, authority with his approval."
Further review of the reign of Tiberius Claudius puts him at a time period predating both the early Christian gospels and Tactitus' writing in question.  By this time period, it is quite possible that the terms procurator and prefect could both be accurate to Pilate.  Could it be that Pilate was acting prefect/governor of the province at the time of 'Christ' but would have been more formally denoted by Tacitus as "procurator" -- because he was acting not as magistrate, but as "the hand of the Emperor" per se?  This information could lend more credence to the validity of Tacitus' statements.  I would be interested if a more experienced historian might be capable of validating/refuting this hypothesis for me.  Caspian Greywolfe 15:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doherty repeats Wells' mistaken claim that "procurator...was the title of [Pilate's] post in Tacitus' day, but in the reign of Tiberius such governors were called prefect" (p. 202). A few years ago, correspondence with Wells on this point inspired me to thoroughly investigate this claim, and my findings will eventually be published. But in short, this sentence is entirely wrong. It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here.
The review is otherwise quite a positive one. john k 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tacitus 

message: I don't see any evidence of discussion about these tags on this talk page, nor in the last archive. It's been months since anyone talked about POV problems in the article. The tags are normally used when someone tried to fix the problem, but was thwarted, and was arguing their case in the discussion page. Since no one is talking about it, it looks like it's time to remove the tags from the article. Are there any objections? --Yath 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral. I'm not even sure what the POV problems were. The fact-check just means that we need to cite sources a little better. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I basically gave up editing here a few months ago because of POV enforcement and information suppression (see my note below in Pilate section). I come back and find the Pilate section was added, which is extremely POV by its inclusion alone. Anon166 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check/fact-check 

message: Do we really need a whole section on the Pilate inscription? It's pretty marginal, since almost all scholars, including mythers, accept that the "public" figures mentioned in the gospels are historical. Paul B 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, although check out Talk:List of High Priests of Israel, in which various Orthodox Jewish types seem to suggest that Josephus's list of high priests is unreliable, and represents a Christian POV.  Caiaphas has thus apparently been inserted into Josephus by a Christian interloper, or something.  Even those folks accept, as far as I can tell, Pilate and Herod Antipas as historical figures. john k 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Pilate Inscription..." part seems almost entirely bogus to me as making a strawman out of doubts of his title and role to associate doubts for the historicity for Jesus. Philo and Tacitus mentioned Pilate, as did Josephus in many places. So, it is a case of special pleading and makes a reverse argument instead (the silence of Philo on Jesus, and interpolations in Josephus of Jesus). Also, who removed the POV tag? This article does not accept views contrary to a hard-bitten Christian view. I've had nearly every edit suppressed when I twice came here, and under the lamest of excuses, including those who cite the "popular" view (without citation) to censor and limit the minority view in the minority view section! Note that this is the page to cite all views on the existence of Jesus. The approach to historicity here is apologetically POV. Anon166 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The section creates the false impression that skeptics have routinely doubted Pilate's existence. It then trumpets the discovery of the stone as proof that skeptics are confounded and the bible confirmed. Very few authors ever doubted Pilate's existence. Paul B 16:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without its fallacious attempt to argue for an association to the same "wrong" criticism, it doesn't even claim to belong here. As such, it didn't even have a factual basis for its existence here. I say it should be deleted immediately. If people really want to include the idea, they can write a sentence and pin the fallacy on someone who has published it without promoting it, but not giving it a separate section. Anon166 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilate inscription

message: Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref 

message: Contrary to what the article says, there is huge amount of mention of Jesus in jewish sources. He is described as worst fraudster and illegitimate son of Mary and a roman army officer named Panthera (which shows jews misunderstood the meaning of greek word parthenogenesis - being born to a virgin). The fact that ancient jews deal so much with christ rebuttal supports the historicity of Jesus.
:Sign your comments. Haizum 22:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews 

message: The Shroud of Turin should have a mention. I meanm, no other ancient people has a photo. To consider this, this let's look at Sandor Petofi, who is considered the most significant hungarian poet. He only lived 26 years, the exact place and date of his birth are debated, disappeared (in battle, considered KIA on next day eyewitness account) but walked great distances in his final years. These details are quite similar to Jesus. There is one photo remaining of him from 1846, which is a metal daguerrotype.
It was found based on historic mentions in 1948, in a totally blackened form and had to be acid-etched to uncover the image. Being an early photo attempt it is of very low quality. Yet, without it, one could actually debate whether Petőfi existed, as only his poems would speak for him. Now, I haven't heard of anyone here or abroad denying Petőfi existed.
The Shroud is 1000x better resolution, 3D, has AB blood, wounds, jerusalem dust, flower imprints, whatever detail you desire. Logically this should provide ample proof of Jesus existing in body and flesh. Otherwise, only his evangelions would speak for him, but we have a photo.
Similarly, photo gave proof of nonexistant bird being real:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0428_050428_extinctwoodpecker.html
:Well, the Shroud of Turin is certainly not definite evidence for the existence of Jesus. See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/shroud.html for a hypothesis that it was made by Leonardo DaVinci, which seems fairly well-supported by the evidence. Every detail you mention about the shroud fits with this hypothesis, and it also anwers a few questions about the shroud that you faield to mention, such as "Was Jesus 6'8" tall?" "Why is his hair hanging as though standing, rather than as it would on a prone figure?" Yes, we have a photo, but there is certainly a question regarding who this photo is actually of. In the case of Petofi, the claim of his existence holds no great significance other than him being the author of the poems, so there is little purpose in questioning it. --Myk 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting comparison 

message: I have a problem with this new sentence and the reference here, it's the second one:
*"So whether the gospels were written sixty years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is negligible by comparison. It's almost a nonissue." (The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, p41; The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg). However it should be noted that there has been criticism leveled at this book because Strobel only interviews people who support his view, and did not interview anyone with a dissenting view.[2]"
Does Strobel simply not answer the objections of detractors, or does he actually say something about them? Is it supposed to be necessary to interview people with a dissenting view in the type of work Strobel was making? And finally, that ref there, it starts out with something from the Jesus Puzzle and, quite honestly, begins by, well, whining about how "badly" Jesus Myther's like the author are treated. That hardly seems to me to be a very good source to use to basically make a sentence trying to discount whatever it is Strobel is saying. Homestarmy 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read The Case for Christ I can testify to it's poor research so would support scratching the lot. It's an appologetics tool not a scholastic reference work.  Sophia 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, actually, my objection has to do just with the criticisms of this one book, not Strobel's premise :/. Homestarmy 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anon ip has done a great job showing why this work should not be referenced here.  Sophia 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that biographical sources were highly preferred to first hand accounts, something about "The biases of first hand witnesses" or something like that? Homestarmy 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was starting to go the route of OR so I've removed the section. Lee Strobel is not a good reference for this point and the IP has proved it's a bad analogy anyway. The dating of the gispels and their reliability is the subject of many respected books - lets use one of those intead. Homestarmy you have your homework!  Sophia 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the assumption that the dating of the gospels and their subsequent reliability already had many references somewhere? Homestarmy 21:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hillel claimed that "I and the Father are One?" Hmm, false messiah's were around alot longer than I thought then....But seriously, I sort of doubt that everything that Alexander the great was ever credited with doing has absolutly no dispute concerning it whatsoever, and I doubt even more that the mistakes concerning Josephus or other possible forgeries alone somehow means Jesus never existed period. Homestarmy 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being one with the god predates Christianity by several thousand years. I can't think an older theological concept. Also, unless I'm reading you wrong, you seem to reserve all the doubt for anything but Jesus. Anon166 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You may not realize this, but you are rejecting the possibility of NPOV by using the either/or fallacy. A non apologetic source is NOT therefore a polemical or anti-Christian source, although you have assumed it. Your entries also use an improper prounoun (we, we're), as if teaching people your POV. It only needs to digest the cited points you are making, not promote a new explanation. Anon166 19:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it's not the pro-christian POV of Strobel that's the problem - it's the shoddy research.  Sophia 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And back to my original question, is this "shoddy reaserch" the product of not interviewing opposing viewpoints, or some other undisclosed reason? Homestarmy 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, I never said a nonapologetic is an anti-Christian source.  I said that if "we" (the wiki editors) are allowed to insert info and arguments from Jesus-myth books and articles than one can easily use Christian apologetics too.  Do you disagree that one can use Christian apologetics as a source if it contains valid info and arguments?  And SOPHIA, I agree it's not the most impressive book on the subject but simply declaring it guilty of poor research is not the same as saying why these arguments are incorrect.  I don't buy the dating arguments, but the transmission of oral info is interesting.  As I said before, if you have refutations of these positions, as I did by stating the dating techniques use the argument from silence, then put them in.  Roy Brumback 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy, you specifically said: If we can have Jesus-myth sources, a position most historians and Bible scholars reject, we can easily include info and arguments from pro-Christian sources too. This does need some cleanup but not deletion. If you have scholarly refutations of this positions, feel free to insert them. This argument makes no sense for many reasons. For one, the Jesus-myth belongs here. Two, you appealed to the views of what mainstream scholars allegedly claim, but then ignore them likewise. Three, the "non-negotiable" policy of wikipedia is NPOV, despite your claimed ability to justify a religious POV here. Four, it's not a debate on the gospels, no insertions needed. Now, these are minor criticisms compared to this last one. The articles on wikipedia relating to the Acts of the Apostles contradicts your argument here, which seems to be wholesale quoting of one source as an argument, rather than simply stating it and citing it. Let that concept grab you: state it and cite it, end of story. Your argument belongs somewhere else, perhaps in gospel of Mark, or gospel of Luke, where your point can compete with others, but not in a little  section here devoted to a single idea--or we'd need to include a dozen or so more other viewpoints to address your claims. In short, you are missing the point here. Your claims don't make a difference, but argue a pet peeve. Finally, the argument you are making misses the stonger point that most scholars agree that the gospel of Mark and other sources were written for non-Jews, who could never correct the story teller on the details if they wanted to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Audience Perhaps this is why it is important to learn NPOV before selling out to a single viewpoint. Anon166 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I said.  SOPHIA said that is was guilty of poor research, which is debateable, and was an apologetics tool, which I agree with but as Jesus-myth books are not generally accepted by most historical scholars and this article uses them then Christian apologetic books with arguments in favor of the historicity of the gospels are just as allowable as a source as that bears directly on the historical existence of Jesus.  And Anon, these are not my arguments or my source as I said below I don't have that book.  I just think the points are interesting and worth considering in this article.  And I don't get what you mean with the cite it and state it stuff, but arguments in favor of the gospels historicity can certainly be included on this page.  And I don't know where you're getting that info about storytelling and Jews and non-Jews but the article on Mark doesn't seem to have it but does say "...note passages such as 1:44; 5:7 ("Son of the Most High God"; cf. Genesis 14:18-20); 7:27; and 8:27-30. These also indicate that the audience of Mark has kept at least some of its Jewish heritage, and also that the gospel might not be as Hellenistic as it first seems."  Now, I also said that these block quotes need to be cleaned up but the general points about dating, which I don't agree with but some Christian scholars date them that way and that assertion certainly has not been disproved, and points about the transmission of oral info do bear on the historical existence of Jesus and so are relevant to this page.  As for NPOV, are you saying one can list points made in favor of the idea that Jesus never existed at all, which this article does, but not ones in favor of the historical reliability of the gospels?  One achieves NPOV by having them both.  Roy Brumback 07:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy, read the last link I gave to answer your question. You might as well go there and tell them what they don't know, rather than try to sneak it in here. Also, I was plainly referring to your argument, not your claims. There is no room for an argument in a space devoted to recapping the general views, because the ariticle is about something else. Furthermore, your material is contradicted in wikipedia elsewhere. This will warrant a warning tag that nobody wants to see. Finally, you are wrong about NPOV being a mish-mash of POV's, and the issue is "non-negotiable" as per policy. I suggest you familiarize with NPOV before excusing yourself of it. Is your material pasted here because nobody else on wikipedia will have it? Anon166 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Strobel interviews Christian academics - for a potential reference we should go directly to their own published works and discuss their merits. Primary sources are always much better when there is no need to use a summmary paper (or book). However I was not impressed by any of the arguments in the book as they were all flawed. Many of them suffered from the same logical problems that the Anon pointed out. Roy's previous post did imply you were either for Jesus or against him which is an argument from the excluded middle.  Sophia 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SOPHIA, I agree it's better to use Strobel's sources directly, but I don't have any of them, do you?  I don't have Strobel's book either to do a good cleanup on this section, but if someone does please do that.  And once again, I'm not excluding the middle in any way.  I said that if one uses a Jesus-myth book as a source, a position rejected by the majority of all historians, then Christian apologetics can be used too.  And once again, if you don't buy the arguments, why?  I think Jesus-myth arguments are very weak, as do most historians, as they basically ammount to I don't believe it, other people or gods are claimed to do similar things, and the argument from silence, but I'm not trying to delete the Jesus-myth arguments from books I think are poorly researched and argued works.  Roy Brumback 21:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy, I think you need to worry about getting the editors of the other "gospels" sections on board before you try to debunk them here. Are you worried they won't accept it? You may be correct. Your cut and paste of Lee Strobel will be laughed at and brand you as a neophyte who got excited after reading a faith-promoting book, but didn't know it wasn't scholarly. Just warning you. Anon166 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warned huh?  Anon, there are tons of editors of those articles, including me, and the articles do list the arguments for early dates and as far as I see do not contradict arguments about oral storytelling.  For instance the article Dating the Bible says "Gospel of Mark: +70 CE (conservative dating may be as early as 50)".  And like I said before, I don't believe that but I think can be included.  And please listen to me as I said I don't have that book or are you accusing me of lying?  I did skim through it once in the book store and in my opinion it is not the most accepted scholarly work but the Jesus-myth books that are cited are not generally accepted as great scholarly works by historians either.  Roy Brumback 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Roy, I was thinking you were hijacking the entire article to make a point that is not made where it technically belongs. I was warning you about using Strobel over there. Anyway, I made an attempt to cleanup your argumentation out of context using the wrong pronouns. Anon166 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I gave my copy to my Christian Mother-in-law as I knew she'd enjoy it so I can't get to it any more. I'll try to find out the sources he uses and search for their stuff on line. As for what makes a convincing argument - as a scientist I'm used to having to go back to first principles and analyse primary data and that's where it all goes wrong with Christianity - there isn't any primary data. Agreed that some Jesus Mysth stuff is bunk but there are some very interesting books out there. I'm currently waiting for the updated Thomas L Thompson book to be published  which should give some interesting information to add to these articles.  Sophia 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of difference between science and history, in one the events are supposed to be repeatable or something, but in the other you can't repeat the events because they've already happened. (Unless you do a reconstruction or something, but that's not the same thing) Homestarmy 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Tell that to Big Bang theorists.  Sophia 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but many models of Big Bang theory say that it will all just happen again, so it supposedly will be repeatable :D. Homestarmy 22:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold on a second...

message: I'd revert, but anon166 has references, and I don't think it would be a very well recieved revert. What's this about "His prophecies failed almost immedietly"? I may not be the Worlds Best Christian(tm), but I must of missed that while reading the Bible. The points the person being used as a reference also seem to make several grand assumptions that if Jesus were God, then He should have done things as splendidly and magnificantly as possible all the time, or else He wasn't God. And where is that "Believing He was abandoned" thing coming from? Im sorry, but I just plain do not like this paragraph at all, it looks like (shamelessly takes page from Sophia) shoddy reaserch and even shoddier conclusions. Homestarmy 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, Larson was referring to Matt. 10:23, although you probably claim that Christ is infallible and human, so you excuse your objectivity if so by having it both ways. You just can't argue both ways in scholarship to prove that someone existed. Anon166 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not talking about whether Jesus existed or not, im simply commenting on the references given and critisizing them because I find faults with them and the new content that is purported to be supported by them. And if I may ask, did we in fact finish going through all the cities? Not simply walking into them all and exiting again, the word for "Going through" in Ancient Greek here is "Telew", and the only sources that seem to come up on Google for it (Mostly apologetics sites and things in languages I can't read, but they all seem to agree, I think even Infidel.org did which I thought was odd since, you know, they tend to not like whatever it is apologists say) say that it means to basically compleate a task or finish something, and since in verse 16 it is written that Jesus is "Sending you out like sheep among wolves" and the rest of the verses are talking about what will happen, and since Jesus said in Matthew 10:7 "As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near'", the prophecy in Matthew 10:23 has to be referring to finishing preaching through these cities. Back then, many cities did in fact repulse all attempts for Christians to evangelize in them, and they still often immensly dislike it today, so I would say we have not in fact yet "gone through" all the cities of Israel preaching Jesus's message because many Jews simply don't like it and haven't allowed it. I mean im not trying to be an anti-semite here, they simply don't like it, just as many people do not like Christians evangelizing to them, happens all the time. Don't know why you think im arguing both ways in scholarship though.....? Homestarmy 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, and I nearly forgot, Matthew 10:23 aside, there's still no real reasoning I can see behind all the "Because Jesus didn't live a glorious life, He couldn't of been God" thing. Homestarmy 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quoting scholarship, I don't need to convince you of all people, merely educate the reader on the problems and issues. This is getting weird and you are rambling about your POV. Anon166 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You took it for granted that Matthew 10:23 must be a failed prophecy, so I decided to try and correct your mistake with another POV. I fail to see how you do not have a POV on this issue yourself and why I should not consider the person's opinion you've provided as weird itself? The reader will also still certainly not be educated by the shoddy assumptions that simply not acting like God made Jesus certainly not God in any sense, which are still listed in the section without any countering POV whatsoever on the issue. Homestarmy 18:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was quoting Larson, who points out that it is evidence of a human. This is not a religious debate. Larson's point was that no myth would include such apparent failures or confusions, therefore human. However, there are other possibilities. If you disagree with Larson, then you can argue the Jesus-myth. Anon166 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My problem here is not that Larson seems to be arguing for Jesus's existance, but that he seems to feel that only after one accepts the ideas he purports can Jesus be considered extant, while supposedly if Jesus was in fact what the Bible said He was that He would normally just be a myth. Homestarmy 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might as well discuss "Internal evidence" section 

message: What is the page Historicity of Jesus/Temp for? Should it exist?
To me (a newly registered wikipedian, not finished reading the introductory info) it looks like an old draft that could be deleted.
And more generally, it seems to me it would make more sense to put such drafts as a subpage of the talk page or a user page or similar, rather than in the encyclopedic space. So if it shouldn't be deleted, it should at least be moved.
Recent edits looks like people editing the Temp page have been mistaking it for a proper page.
(Here is a notice about the creation of the Temp page.) --Alderin 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity_of_Jesus/Temp page deletion 

message: There is a redirect from Historicity of Jesus/ (notice the trailing slash) to Historicity of Jesus. I don't know (maybe because I'm a newbie) what purpose that redirect serves, maybe it could be deleted? , but I guess it doesn't hurt anyone.
However, there is also a redirect from Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/ (notice the trailing slash) to Talk:History of Christianity! Slightly confusing.
Could both redirects with trailing slashes be deleted? Otherwise I guess the talkpage redirect should be changed to point to this talk page? --Alderin 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/ (with trailing slash) redirect 

message: There is a redirect from Historicity of Jesus/temp (temp with lowercase t) to Historicity of Jesus. I don't know (maybe because I'm a newbie) what purpose that redirect serves, maybe it could be deleted? , but I guess it doesn't hurt anyone.
However, there is also a redirect from Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/temp (temp with lowercase t) to Talk:History of Christianity! Slightly confusing.
Could both temp redirects be deleted? Otherwise I guess the talkpage redirect should be changed to point to this talk page? --Alderin 11:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/temp redirect 

message: For the first time since I joined wikipedia this article no longer has a POV flag - an anon removed it but are we ready to leave it off yet?  Sophia 16:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A first

message: You need a source quote for Strobel since it is just an interview. According to critics I have discovered, Strobel is just a columnist who is making a case for his view, basically a sell-job. He is not an author of that idea. This is an ethical concern, despite what you may think is never wrong for your devotion. Also, you can't remove balance from a piece when the idea in question is challenged by so many, as if tying to make it a mainstream viewpoint. This is another ethical concern. I worry about the low standards for many here. Too many apologists tend to be pious frauds, and their readers often carry forward their lax standards. Anon166 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So your saying he plaugerized? If so, I don't see how his editor would of let him get away with it.... Homestarmy 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Strobel is an interview, not his own idea. Anon166 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Strobel interviewed the person making that comment? Do we know who he's interviewing if so? Homestarmy 02:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All populist works are suspect and should be used with caution - Jesus-Myth sources included as they do tend to brush over topics. Especially for a pro Christian stance there is no reason at all to use a work such as this as there are whole Christian run universities that churn out book after book on the validity of their version of the "truth". Not all Jesus myth proponents are populist and some are respected academics - their standards are not low - just their ideas are not mainstream. I'm holding out until the Thomas l. Thompson book is published  as he is a professor of the old testament.  Sophia 11:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Roy, I didn't find out it was a interview book until I went looking to restore the balanced portion. I trusted your source originally, but now realize that it can't be trusted. I see now what the others are saying. Why else would I not restore the balanced portion? By the way, you are committing a fraud here if you insist. Somebody authored that idea and others have a right to know in order to properly credit it down the road from this source. Anon166 13:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it for now, but I will delete it if you try to present it unbalanced as if nobody ever considered it before. The argument is flawed, and ignores all the other evidence, written for people who only read faith promoting material and can't be bothered with the problems. Anon166 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is the only problem here that the section innapropriatly attributes the source to Strobel when it should be attributed to Strobel's interviewee, or that you feel that the interviewee uses a flawed argument? Homestarmy 14:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the source was bogus--wrong name--but the claim also needs to be balanced in standard fashion because it is ignoring the scholarship of other evidence. Typical apologetics. It would be like saying that someone found an ossuary box with Jesus's name on it, and not mentioning that it was since declared a forgery. See the potential fraud aspect in misreporting and misattributing? Most scholars are despised by apologists because they won't spin the evidence. Anon166 14:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we even know who the source is? :/ Homestarmy 15:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Roy. Anon166 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roy

message: The Anchor Bible dictionary is not a credible source to say most academics believe Josephus's work true.  Josephus was a devout Jew: he would not have said "the Christ".  This is not widely accepted, and in fact is regarded as a smoking gun.  Please find a better reference, or this will need to be removed.  (This is weasel language anyway).  --Chuchunezumi 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put this back. No evidence was provided to show this source as being non-credible. But the sentence could be worded better. rossnixon 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, there is no way that this can be presented as fact, regardless of the citation, unless this source has polled and has the voting numbers of all the academics.  It can only be cited as opinion.  This source is credible for other information, but there needs to be a study done to make this generalization true.  This is weasel language anyway.  I should have been more specific about why I think that this isn't an acceptable statement and I apologize.  Cheers!  --Chuchunezumi 02:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yikes!  I only meant to take out the first sentence of that edit.  I apologize for taking the rest too!  (Chuchunezumi hides in corner, feeling sheepish).  I edited the statement to say some scholars, which is all that can be stated factually.  --Chuchunezumi 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Josephus

message: The changes noted above were reverted without discussion, but just a vapid edit summary. I'm not going to get in an edit war here.  I can easily provide a statement with citation that says most scholarly authorities now reject Josephus's work.  I won't add that because it too is a weasel statement.  If this is reverted again, I'm going to request mediation.  This isn't a fact, because there is no definition of what these authorities are, who was actually interviewed, what the "score" was...there is no way to prove this statement, so unless it is presented as a cited opinion, it cannot be in the original form.  Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.   --Chuchunezumi 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're ignoring another possibility: That James lied to Paul about being Jesus' brother, and Paul believed him. --Myk 16:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I specifically said "unless either James and Peter or Paul are lying". Roy Brumback 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry. I failed to parse your statement correctly. --Myk 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most scholars were never interviewed

message: I think the Talmud section is wrong.  I understand that there are old copies (prior to Christian emendations or burnings) that contain comments about Jesus.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) August 22, 2006 04:15.
:What you have in mind may just be the references to "Yeshu" which are already described in the article. Some books will state as fact that they are about Jesus. The same books may also state that they are the best source of information for a historical Jesus, because they were not censored by Christians. Maestlin 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talmud

message: Below is a paragraph, with the blod section being what you added, Roy:
:The first three Gospels, known as the synoptic gospels, share much material.  As a result of various scholarly hypotheses attempting to explain this interdependence (see above), the traditional association of the texts with their authors has become the subject of criticism.  Though some solutions retain the traditional authorship, other solutions reject some or all of these claims.  The solution most commonly held in academia today, the two-source hypothesis, would give Mark priority with a date of 60-70, whilst other solutions, such as the Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis, would give Matthew priority and a possible date of 40.  John is most often dated to 90, though a date as early as the 60s, and as late as the second century have been argued.  According to most scholars the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s or slightly after the year 70.  Matthew and Luke were then probably written ten to twenty years after Mark.  John was then probably composed around the years 90–100. 
Now, isn't that redundant?  Perhaps the bit about Luke and Matthew being dated 10-20 years later is new.  This is the kind of stuff I am trying to clean up - it doesn't remove a view, it just keeps from saying a view again and again.  Lostcaesar 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the redundancy bit, but I just want to say that 60-70 doesn't really cover the majority of acedamia. As pointed out in the intro of the Gospel of Mark article, 60-80, while a broader ranger, covers nearly every position except the extreme skeptics and the extreme conservatives.--Andrew c 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, per these comments I will try and make the passage more accurate. Lostcaesar 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy, that is redundant