Talk:Jesus/Archive 38

message: I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist. Raisinman 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Historians tend not to assert things that cannot be proven or documented; to do so is the realm of religion. Historians can say that no contemporaneous documents exist that prove the existance of Jesus; they can not say that this demonstrates Jesus didn't exist, since the vast majority of living people (of that period, certainly, and I imagine of most periods) left no contemporaneous record. At best they can say "case unproven" until they find the secret scrolls that record the conspiracy to invent Jesus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, for the record, their "best guess" (an educated guess, based on the available evidence) has been that Jesus did exist (though obviously they can say little regarding miracles, divinity, etc.).  KHM03 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jpgordon.  Arguing from the negative (no historians think ...) is always a bad idea.  For one thing, has Raisinman surveyed all historians to see what they believe?  How can we know whether or not an article will come out tomorrow by a major historian stating that Jesus did not exist?  This is not a joke - few if any of us read all of the history journals and it is common for encyclopedias to lag behind the fields they represent - especially if something is a matter of ongoing discussion.  All major historians I know of believe Jesus existed, and I feel confident saying this because I have done considerable research on the topic.  But even having done this research, I cannot say that there are no historians who believe he did not exist.  How could one prove such a statement? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, I don't think Josephus is positive about the non-existence of Brian son of Naughtius. A close tie between the historicity of Jesus vs. Brian, then :p dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, everyone knows Brian existed.  Haven't you seen the movie with your own eyes?  Guettarda 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but did Josephus exist? ;-) --CTSWyneken 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember - was he in the movie?  Guettarda 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody exist? I think, therefore I am...I think. But what is "real"? How do we define "real"? Should I take the red pill or the blue pill? Arch O. La 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're debating the meaning of life, go | here :D. Homestarmy 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist 

message: I think the article should say that all the Jesus mythers are non historians. Raisinman 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's early evening here. Good commentary, though ;) Arch O. La 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rick Norwood, a previous poster, said there have been historians who said Jesus never existed yet he didn't mention any.  I would like to see a historian quote saying Jesus did not exist from Rick Norwood. Raisinman 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And make that modern historians, otherwise it doesn't belong in the intro. rossnixon 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Define what precisely you mean by modern historian? pookster11 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's a good lead, but we'll have to check it. Do you have a title? --CTSWyneken 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... am I the only one that doesn't see anything about Jesus-myth in that quotation? pookster11 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks! We don't own a copy here, but I'll send for it from one of the other 180+ libraries that own a copy. A look at the version in books.google.com did not yield enough info to say one way or the other. The author does do, however, a rather thorough historiography of the study of Jesus. Reading about 15 pages from the book, I did not run into his opinion once. --CTSWyneken 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the encyclopedia quote is enough, because historians who accept Jesus' existence (Vermes, Fredricksen, Sanders) seem to think the same thing abou the NT.  Rick Norwood's quote is a good one, but it illustrates the critical approach to NT studies in general and does not, as Rick points out, necessarily mean that Jesus did not exist, or that the critical scholar does not believe Jesus existed.  The whole point of the scholarship on the historical jesus is to distinguish between jesus the man, who really lived, and Jesus the myth, as he came to be represented in Christianity.  (Of course, this view does not require one to believe Jesus existed; I am just saying that we have two separate things here: views of the NT as historical document, and views of Jesus as a historical person)Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised idea: I think the article should say that all the Jesus mythers are non historians