Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive14

Carrier book 2 out shortly
w00t! - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I really want this book as I feel we can use it to gut some of the more iffy stuff out of the article and streamline the heck out of this article and being peer review it will be the go to book for the philosophical Christ Myth theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I just got my copy and am using it to better reference what we currently have in the article and when relevant trim the bloat (such as with the Archaeological evidence section.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Christ is not Jesus
I'm curious who is being assumed to make such claims. I have never seen a historian, much less a historian of the ancient christian churches make this claim. It feels quite a bit like a strawman argument. One tin soldier (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of things in the article are a strawman argument. It's that sort of an article.  19:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of you seem to understand the point being made here even though the article is quite blunt about it: Similarly there seems to be this assumption that every mention of Christ must refer to Jesus. This forgets that Christ is a title not a name! In fact, Origen states that a man named Dositheus used the title 'Christ' sometime around the 1st century CE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do any reputable historians actually argue that the "Christ" referred to by Pliny, Tacitus, etc. is somebody other than Jesus? 16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have proof that the "Christ" referred to by Pliny, Tacitus, etc. is Jesus? I noted you ignored Suetonius with his Chrestus during the time of Claudius reference which interestingly is he is the same Caesar Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under in Demonstrations.  Do you have proof that Irenaeus wasn't using some variant Gospels that put Jesus in the time of Claudius and claimed Pontius Pilate was governor under him "even as the Gospel and all the elders testify"  That door swings both ways.
 * Also you talked earlier about getting reverences from the internet. But the example of Tacitus we have talks not of a "Christ" but of a "Chrestus".  Now this version is all over the internet but where does it ultimate come from? Have no clue as it isn't referenced.  This is why 1) not having a reference and 2) evidently using an online source is NOT a good thing!--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Demanding one single proof is a poor argument. Sure, we can't know that the Christ/Chrestus/whatever referred to in these sources in Jesus, but given the context it's not an unreasonable assumption to make, as per the comparative evidence method mentioned in the "what qualifies?" section.  If there's an alternative hypothesis that this was a different Christ, what is this theory and what sources or studies support it?  If it's just your own theory, I don't think it should be included it the article; it looks a little cranky.  18:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. The general standard of evidence for a historical Jesus is that these details are worth asking for - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, and we know that at least three other people used the title "Christ": Dositheus, Simon Magus, and Simon bar Kokhba two of whom are before Pliny, Tacitus, etc. To claim "Christ" (or Chrestus) must refer to Jesus when we have evidence that other people used both titles is not following the historical method.  I think there is a word for that...oh yeh psudoscience.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it time to carve this up a bit?
I know this has been suggested before but it's pretty difficult to address this article as a whole due to its size. Should we cut it up and then debate it piece by piece? Possibly we will need a special template or sidebar for the various sections.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said previously on this talk page. This article is the size of a small paperback, literally. It needs to be a main argument with the individual apologia detailed in subarticles. The hard part is putting in the editing slog, and I've singularly failed to - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone needs to pull their finger out and break this down so we can discuss each point in detail. Some of the assertions on the page seem like they are borderline. I don't mind doing some research and chiming in where neccessary but I don't have the time to lead the discussion. Tielec01 (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of the points have been or are being discussed already. Attempts to shorten the article by trimming superfluous content just get reverted aggressively.  01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And the reason is the supposed "superfluous content" weren't but rather important context. If we step back and look at the individual sections we see the problems are not in the supposed "superfluous content" but in the main points.  For example, the Josephus Flavius section has 10 (!) sub paragraphs regarding why claiming just Testimonium Flavianum as evidence for Jesus doesn't make sense.  And then you get another 6 subparagraphs on the James the brother of Jesus section.  This one section clocks in at 2203 words with over 13,000 character not counting the references.  In terms of words (27,000) that is nearly a tenth of the article right there.  And that is where the real problem with the article's length is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So is everybody in agreement that this should be split up into separate articles for the sake of readability?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article's size alone says yes. Subtopics to get their own pages, linked at the top of summary sections in this article. It is a fair amount of work to set up the structure, but well worth it. Nice project for someone interested in this topic. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Now the next question.  Do we move stuff to already existing articles like [History], [Josephus], and [Jesus] or make entirely new subtopics?  Oh for the record I just shorted the first part of the Josephus section to 6 paragraphs down from the 10 it originally had.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Summarise the subtopics and move the bulky text to the main articles? There should be summaries here - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where an appropriate article exists, it makes sense to expand it with content merged from here. Doing otherwise would just create duplication. Other sections may need a new page to hold their bulk. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that but take the Josephus Flavius section as an example. Would it make sense to move that to the Josephus article and risk bloating it or would having it a totally separate article ala wikipedia's Josephus on Jesus article make more sense? Also I not sure if the Gospels as history section really fits within the Gospel main article and I feel that the confusing of textual and historical accuracy part should remain in this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dunno, see how unbalanced it makes it? That would be a case by case thing - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll trying moving Josephus Flavius section to the Josephus article under the subheading Josephus on Jesus so if it doesn't work we can turn that part into a subarticle.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ironically the attempt to deny away all evidence without using actual methods of historical analysis used by historians means this entire article fits the wiki's own definition of pseudoscience. :) No other ancient historical figure is approached with the requirement that written evidence must exist within 50 years. This article is a joke. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to ask are we reading the same article?  The only comment in it regarding 50 years is with the range of paleographic dating and the There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person or event here) section  is in regards to other people Jesus is often compared to and shows the fallacy of such a position.  Finally, we have John Frum who is talked about a mere 17 years after the first native to use that name appeared and we aren't sure if the John Frum the cult describes ever existed.  Last time I checked 17 years is well within 50 years.


 * I present this as an example to Щєазєюіδ as to why we need things like There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person or event here) and John Frum in the article...if only to shut down this type of nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh for the record both these points appear in Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt so saying they're not relevant won't wash anymore.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The questions are
Was there a 'rabbi, preacher, hedge priest, visionary etc' called Joshua ben Joseph, living in Judea, possibly married to a Mariam in the period of the imperators Augustus and Tiberius?

Were there other 'rabbis etc' operating in Judea at the same time - and were there nationalists/UKIP-equivalents/Judea-autonomists around (whether or not Siccari))?

To what extent did JbJ resemble Jesus of the Bible?

Was it 'just chance' that Joshua ben Joseph's group of followers just 'struck it lucky' in getting their system of beliefs generally recognized (while all the others who came to an arrangement with the authorities 'we will keep the peace and ask God to look after the Imperator and the Governor and the Roman respublica' but who did not write down their materials (and get it copyrighted) vanished from history? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh, much of this is in the article. For example, the "other 'rabbis etc' operating in Judea at the same time" is touched on in the Chrestus, Christ, Chrestians, and Christians section.  Carrier uses the "reductive" historical Jesus criteria of Rudolf Bultmann and I. Howard Marshall which resulted in this minimal criteria:


 * An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an an identifiable movement after his death
 * This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities
 * This is the same Jesus some of whose follower soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)


 * Note Carrier's criteria for a historical Jesus is quite broad; it doesn't matter if Jesus lived and died in the first century BCE or was killed in the time of Herod the Great as long as the person meets Carrier's three criteria one has a historical Jesus. In other words the story of Jesus may have been time shifted for social-political reasons such as what happened with Robin Hood who instead of being in conflict with "King Edward" as in the earliest ballads was moved to the time of King Richard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Boyd and Eddy Quote
The citation is incorrect and implies that this is a view they hold. It is not.


 * If you are referring to


 * The increasingly common view of Jesus as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament"


 * I don't see how you come to that conclusion.


 * 1) It says nothing about Boyd and Eddy themselves holding to that view.


 * 2) The full quote in Boyd and Eddy is "An increasingly common view among New Testament scholars today—especially scholars who stand in the post-Bultmannian tradition—is that historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus. But, they argue, the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament."


 * 72.209.22.163, you are claiming something that is NOT true so don't waste our time with untrue nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)