Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
Editorial notes

Perhaps someone who has participated in the discussions below could add a summary of the points here.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

Contents

[edit] Newer "evidence"

This site] sites "evidence" not found in this article. Do you think we should add said "evidence"?--TemplarJLS (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really as Carrier addresses most of the "evidence" after 120 CE: "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible". Note that Justin Martyr lived from c. 100 – 165 CE ie most if not all of his major writings are after the 120 CE cut off date. In fact, of the list at that site only Clement of Rome and Ignatius qualify. After the 120 c the only writings of any possible use are those of Papias and Hegesippus. After those all writings "are so rife with legend and dogma as to be useless" in showing the historicity of Jesus (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 306) And for the record Carrier tears Papias and Hegesippus apart so we are left with only the writings c 120 or before.
Carrier's peer reviewed and scholarly published book is the new standard for evaluating evidence for the historical Jesus and ALL evidence must be checked against that standard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
"Carrier's peer reviewed and scholarly published book is the new standard"??? What???
JRCHReason (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
JRCHReason (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
even by the shitty standards memes go by, that is one shit meme AMassiveGay (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Strawman aside Carrier's "meme" is no different than then of Joseph Campbell's "(i)t is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles." (Campbell, Joseph (2003) The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology Vol. 3 ISBN 978-0-14-019441-8 pg 362) TIme to wake up and smell the reality and for both sides to stop using old and outdate arugments. Carrier's book is also new standard by which all Jesus myth theories will be judges (and most of them are to put it bluntly crap)--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I subscribe to the theory(?) that Jesus at that time was not a particularly popular preacher in Messianic Judaism, with people being more likely to support those such as Simon of Peraea and Judas of Galilee due to their resistance to Roman rule. Jesus would have become more popular to non-Jewish converts, who wouldn't have a cultural history of religious figures leading revolts against occupying forces (thus more peaceful preachings would be more palatable, particularly deeper into Romanized territory).-- Forerunner (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And Carrier addresses this point IN THE ARTICLE:
"It is also problematic to claim Jesus was a nobody. I grant that’s an out. But it comes with consequences. Because if it’s so, you are conceding the Gospels are lying (egregiously…and evidently, successfully) and that Jesus never said or did anything in life that would inspire fanatical worshipers or warrant anyone considering him worth dying for–because nothing Jesus ever said or did in life is ever relevant to the gospel preached anywhere in the authentic letters of Paul…which begs the question how he convinced anyone he was the Messiah and Savior who would soon return on clouds of glory if he never said or did anything anyone thought impressive enough to ever discuss until a lifetime later."
As I have said before the whole "It's too long" comes off as "I'm too lazy to actually read" especially when drivel like this keeps appearing in the talk.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bruce: Why are you so adamant about Carrier? Doesn't his use of Bayes' Theorem strike you as odd? That theorem deals with likelihood of things you can put definitive numbers on, not things which are matters of speculation. It is almost never used in looking at ancient history; it is used for predicting future outcomes which have tested statistical knowns. This seems like something that can be easily skewed if you are plugging in numbers based on speculation with preconceptions. Arachne1988 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your objection is a hypothetical objection. If you read the book, you'll see he fills in literally all of the details you claim could be left out. Sure they could, but you haven't shown they in fact have been (and, indeed, they weren't) - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope he has improved his arguments since the ones I read in 2012-they left me doubting him quite a bit. His knowledge level sounded way too much like Acharya S-who is just completely wrong. My major problem with the way he argues stuff is that it seems like he had failed to understand the Jewish theology that Christianity was borne out of. I regard Judaism's development and theology as good reason to doubt both Christianity and many forms of the Christ myth theory-not the one that regards Christ as based on actual people like the failed messiah John the Baptist.
Judaism is one reason why I will entertain the possibility that Jesus existed but the sacrifice explanation was a pathetic cover story for an accidental death. The Jewish messiah is not supposed to die and they have never thought that was likely. Their afterlife has always been insignificant and rather debatable so protecting people from hell just sounds ridiculous. Original sin doesn't exist either in Judaism-so why did Jesus need to fix that? The claim that Carrier makes that Jesus' sacrifice was spiritual and in a higher realm seems odd to come from a originally Jewish (Essene) cult. I think Carrier might not have been scrutinizing enough to realize how flawed the reinterpretations Christians made of the Old Testament are. Funny part of the brick bible I was reminded of.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
translation: "I haven't at all, so I'll lead off with an ad hominem and ramble on with my own uncited opinions" - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Blatantly obvious as the claim "Jewish messiah is not supposed to die" is directly refuted by Element 5 on page 73" "Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end time would actually be killed, rather then be immediately victorious, and this would mare the key point of a timetable guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter." Carrier even points to Isaiah 53 and Zech 12.10 as evidence of this. If anyone is going to contest Carrier at least demonstrate you have actually READ his book. --BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] It is sad

It is sad how you guys waste so much of your life making up lies about Christianity. (It's sadly ironic how you do exactly what you accuse Christians of, by all coming together to add lies and references to the lies of others to try to make people believe that your secularist myths are true.) — Unsigned, by: 100.32.91.98 / talk 07:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What "lies"? It is easy to claim someone is lying but but very suspicious that one give no examples of such lies. The nonense Jack Chick and his ilk comes to mind--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a historical person

"There are also non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities. (Nigosian, Solomon Alexander (2004). Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21627-3. pg 6) These non-Muslim written sources go back to about 636 AD and many of the interesting ones date to within some decades later."

Last time I checked 636 AD is not "150 years" from 632 (the year Muhammad died). This would be contemporary works showing Muhammad existing as an actual historical person. The statement in wikipedia is nearly a word for word copy of page 6 of the referenced work. Check the references before you remove stuff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, I think the section was deleted as per User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive1#Muhammad so I rewrote it accordingly (I hope), let me know what you think. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
FuzzyCatPotato's references were to detailed biographies of Muhammad not to references. Also his point about when the Quran was written is in dispute per the wikipedia page on it:
"According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations.[10] Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it.[11]"
10 Donner, Fred, "The historical context" in McAuliffe, J. D. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 31–33.
11 Campo, Juan E. (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Facts On File. pp. 570–74. ISBN 0-8160-5454-1.
As a result I have removed direct reference to when the Quran was written and complied and added details on the two earliest non-Muslim references to Muhammad.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That's cool, I asked because I wanted my contribution checked and I thought there was something to the issues raised in the earlier edits. Keep up the good work. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Argument for Christianity

I moved this piece of apologetics by — Unsigned, by: 174.25.12.206 / talk / contribs to Talk:Christian apologetics since it didn't concern the historical evidence for Jesus at all, but only why it's a jolly good thing to believe in Christianity. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and you are right. That piece at best only served to highlight the whole Reductive vs Triumphalist issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Popular bad source: Germinius

Alluded to in this Facebook post: "A little story: my father read me a text he had found on the Internet regarding the historicity of Jesus, and in it there were quoted supposed eyewitness accounts of stuff like Jesus's trial and resurrection etc. I was utterly dumbfounded by that, because I know the subject pretty well and I've never heard of such written-down testimonies, not even fake ones. I did some digging and this Russian website: http://rusvera.mrezha.ru/335/7.htm (looks reliable and trustworthy, doesn't it ;] ?) is the one and only original source of the text, which was copy-pasted to a number of other Russian websites. Then it was translated by someone into Polish, and quickly spread among Polish Christian forums as well. Now, the text claims to be a copy of an article written by a Soviet scholar, who quotes alleged writings of Germinius/Germisious (I'm guessing here based on how the name is rendered in Cyrillic) the Greek, the 'biographer of Pontius Pilate'. I cannot find any reference to such a person or his writings anywhere else and as far as I know both are completely made up. /// I know perfectly well that all of this is complete bullshit, but still, the audacity to actually invent Greek chroniclers and eyewitnesses, complete with written accounts, that's pretty hardcore. So, if there's anyone here who knows Russian or has encountered similar forgeries before, I'd be interested hear your thoughts on this. ;]" (Maciej Grabczyk)

This sounds like a ludicrously terrible source, but if it's actually popular in some circles then we should probably go through the trivial debunking required. wp:Germinius of Sirmium isn't noted as a biographer of Pilate and died in 375/376, so may or may not be the fellow the source talks about - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason Carrier with only two exceptions cut off every thing after c120: "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible (Element 44)" to the point that works after c120 CE "are so rife with legend and dogma as to be useless". The 4th century seems to be a particular bad time for works on Jesus; it is when the infamous Testimonium Flavianum is first referenced, it is when the claim "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs." was made. It is when you have the statement that Jesus was born in the times Alexander Jannaeus (c100 BCE) while also living in the 1st century CE (Epiphanius of Salamis).
The 4th century is so full of off the wall bonkers logic go bye bye stuff that you tend to ask just what the Christians were smoking in that century as it makes Revelation look rational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps they were just high on GOD!? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
On a more serious note: The bullshit fiesta of the 4th century might have been linked with the acceptance of Christianity after Constantine. As a recognised religion under the Roman Empire (rather than a superstitio), Christian scholars and clerics had good reasons to burnish their faith's credentials, but already had far too many spurious traditions to pen down, not to mention a motive to fabricate even more. Sounds plausible? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ossuary of James: BoN cites new evidence, I'm less convinced

Rosenfeld,et al, (2014) published in Open Journal of Geology "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary"supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited. Note this is based on geochemical and physical analysis, not paleographic as earlier claims were. — Unsigned, by: ‎70.94.24.5 / talk 18:42, 17 April 2015

I remain sceptical about the authenticity, especially as this journal promises peer review within 2-4 weeks (considering the usual back and forth this doesn't suggest deep scrutiny). If this study was rigorous and considering the subject matter, I'd expect the results to appear in a publication a bit more... prestigious. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right to be skeptical about the authenticity of Open Journal of Geology There is an interesting piece on Scholarly Open Access regarding a list of predatory publishers for 2014. In the comment section the author states that Scientific Research Publishing (the parent publisher of Open Journal of Geology) "is known for accepting and publishing questionable science, and this could hurt the reputation of your work if you publish in one of their journals."
Of course the first alarm bell should be that what is a matter of archeology is going to a journal in geology. As the Sphinx debate alternative explanations to observed "irregularities" that still result in the original conclusions still being valid.
The second alarm bell is the wikipedia entry on Scientific Research Publishing which indicates the publisher has a multitude of problems: copyright violations, padded and inaccurate editorial boards, and accepted a paper created by a random text generator.
The final nail is that there is no clear connection to any academic institution for what is a very young (2007) publisher who is in China. I have found even the scholarly publications out of China (like Ingle's Endodontics) to have example of less then sterling research. "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection..." claims the 2002 edition...despite peer reviewed sources presenting focal infection as a viable theory clear into the 1950s. In fact, works published just a few years later (Carranza's clinical periodontology (2006), and Textbook of Endodontology (2009)) as well as their own 2002 Essentials of oral medicine proved Ingle's Endodontics was spouting nonsense. When your scholarly publisher puts out two books the same year that say the opposite thing...you have a major problem.
Compare that to the Archaeological Institute of America which published two articles on the issues James Ossuary had founded in 1879 and got its Congressional Charter in 1906 or the Israeli Antiquities Authority which as the Israel Department of Antiquities dates all the way back to the founding of Israel in 1948. The Open Journal of Geology journal is clearly a vanity publication and any article it produces is a joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I did wonder about that stuff (I suspected that OJoG was "parajournal", i.e. a place for sloppy research). I can also see that Wikipedia's consensus, for what it's worth, has so far settled on a very terse, bland and hedging reference "A 2014 study supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited."
But the OJoG article s clearly one of those pieces of obscure (pseudo?)scholarship that is (and probably will continue to be) endlessly touted on apologetic webs(h)ites as "PROOF!!1!! For REALZ!!1! Repent, sinner!!1!" ScepticWombat (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Is the term "parajournal" for these things actually found in the wild? I looked it up and saw (a) an Android app to flight-log paragliding (b) a newsletter for paralegals called Parajournal. I ask because we could do with a term for journals that are well on their way to pseudojournals - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"Parajournalism" is a thing. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
huh, new on me, cheers. Looks like what we now call "journalism". Or what journalists call things that threaten their job. Nothing to do with journals - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I admit to having invented "parajournal" (I have no idea whether others use it) as a description of a sloppy journal, rather than the more deliberate crankery found in pseudojournals, the "advertising journals" that some medical companies have dabbled in, or personal vanity publishing (which may well overlap with pseudojournals). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No reason we can't create a word -- it certainly feels like a good description of those journals. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I have watched what wikipedia allows as a "reliable source" degrade to the point it is a joke. If you look at the reference you will see the highly questionable Open Journal of Geology being used as a source. That abomination is reliable?!? What are they smoking over there?!? What is freaking next using tabloids?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I pointed out in RW's article on William Lane Craig, I think there are several problems with WP's "reliable source" criteria, incl. citing the echo chambers of apologetic publications, but not blogs criticising the likes of Craig. The Wikipedia article on Craig seems to be run by a clique of his fans and effectively amounts to a whitewash. If William Lane Craig[wp] was your only source, you could be excused for thinking that Craig was a towering intellect in modern philosophy - not a two-bit apologist working at a couple of fundie schools and dressing his Gish Gallop up in fancy sounding philosophical'esque lingo (not to mention his constant name dropping and notorious quote mining, cherry picking straw manning, and just flat out deceit). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is why it is always a good idea to cross check anything wikipedia gives you. The quality control over there has evidently dropped to nil if what amounts to a pseudojournal qualifies as a reliable source. The fact the talk page on James Ossuary does NOT even bring up the question of Open Journal of Geology qualifying as a reliable source (it clearly doesn't) shows that the majority of people over there don't have clue one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I also notice that according to the talk page this (bad) article popped up on RW due to someone having read a reference to it by Ben Witherington III.[wp] However, he's one of the usual suspects of (not always too transparently) biblical literalist "New Testament scholars" (aka theologians) so beloved by popular evangelical apologetics. Others of this ilk that should set any slightly sceptical reader's mental alarm bells ringing are Gary Habermas,[wp] Craig Blomberg,[wp] and Paul L. Maier[wp] (granted, he actually has a history degree, but his claims for the bible are the usual apologetic bunk). And these are just the ones I could name off the top of my head. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support