Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive13

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>

, (new)(back)

The Miner Issue

In the section The Miner Issue we state: "Believers in a true/historical Jesus accept any mention of Christ or Jesus as "proof" of his existence, while those who posit a legendary/mythic Jesus accept any tales remotely resembling the Christ story as "proof" there was never a flesh-and-blood man named Jesus."

I'm not sure that this phrase makes much sense: "while those who posit a legendary/mythic Jesus accept any tales remotely resembling the Christ story as "proof" there was never a flesh-and-blood man named Jesus."

Why would tales about Jesus be "proof" of his non-existence?

I guess that it's supposed to mean something like " ... while those who posit a legendary/mythic Jesus assume that pre-Christian stories about individuals who display Christ-like attributes are "proof" there was never a flesh-and-blood man named Jesus." (Though this smells a bit of straw man to me.)

Or maybe I have missed the point.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Both statements look like a strawman. I suggest scrapping those couple of paragraph and calling that section something more sensible, unless "Miner issue" is a phrase that people actually use. I've never heard of it & can't find it corroborated in internet searches. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of what we are dealing with: "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." This appears in Jesus Then and Now by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing on page 37. The problem is that is NOT true for the reasons explained in the article. In fact, NONE of these of mention Jesus by name.

The other side of the issue can been seen in The God Who Wasn't There...some of the stuff in that movie is just cringeworthy. The Raglan Hero Pattern clip is a prime example where it starts out reasonable and then goes into a black pit around 2:30, The whole "Born of a virgin on December 25" thing is drivel as the date wasn't set until well into the 4th century for Jesus. If some apologists are not assuming Chrestus refers to Jesus then why cite Suetonus as proof of Jesus?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Urrr. Why indeed? But that wasn't my point. I'm saying that the phrase " ...."while those who posit a legendary/mythic Jesus accept any tales remotely resembling the Christ story as "proof" there was never a flesh-and-blood man named Jesus." is badly worded if it means what I think it means.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is likely poorly worded but there is light years worth between bad worded and a strawman. But I have seen some really bad Christ Myth theories out there (Zeitgeist case in point. Gads where to begin on that mess) which latch on any similarity between a part of the Jesus story and proclaim it was the basis for the Jesus story (Dionysus for the water into wine is one such example).

One of the already referenced works states "If any of these reasons were correct, then it would be reasonable to expect a mixture of the terms "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the sources, but a mixture is certainly not found." If "Chrestian" and "Christian" (and one would assume their source terms Chrestus and Christ were being used interchangeably as is often claimed then you would see a mixture...but you don't.

As for "Miner Issue" that is simply a term to cover what in anthropology can be a ridiculously complex issue. A more proper term would be "hypothesis drives the data rather then data drives the hypothesis issue". Minor showed how going in with a hypothesis (one was going to see magic using "primitives") could if one was not careful drive every state of research from observations to conclusions. The concept of the emic and etic in part came out of that and there are whole libraries on that subject (Burke's Day the Universe Changed is entirely on that concept) and the article is insanely long as it is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that that was the main purpose of Miner's essay, which was to satirise some aspects of contemporary American culture & values, and to highlight the assumption (within anthropology & society as a whole) of our own society's superiority to (what are perceived as) more primitive cultures. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Horace Miner's "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" is a classic and apt example of how ethnocentrism can color one's thinking." (Preston, Frederick William (1988) Sociology: A Contemporary Approach pg 73.) Take this line from the article "The holy waters are secured from the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure." Now from the emic prospective that view is garbage; the "elaborate ceremonies" are chemical and mechanical purification to remove contaminates there is nothing "magical" about it at all and the whole Miner article is written like that. The article serves a dual purpose of not only satirizing then current US culture but also the way anthropologists were studying cultures.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But the way you're defining "the Miner issue" doesn't sem to have much to do with ethnocentrism. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism: judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. Now "culture" is a catchall category in anthropology (manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively) so that covers an insane range.

One of the main views with how history works in Western culture is the Great Man Hypothesis. The converse which came out of system theory as a actual hypothesis in the late 1960s is the Great Moment Hypothesis and was the whole point of James Burke's series. To oversimplify the Historical Jesus position is a Great Man Hypothesis while the various Christ Myth theories are a bunch Great Moment Hypothesis.

"In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. (Refuting Missionaries by Hayyim ben Yehoshua) but even suggest such a thing in a Western culture and one is branded a crackpot and compared with Holocaust deniers and Moon landing hoaxers.

Also we have the difference in how John Frum and Jesus are viewed even though thanks to the difference in technology and a fluke of history we have far greater detail on the John Frum movement's history by nonbelievers then for Jesus. But to doubt John Frum's existence is perfectly fine but not fine with regard to Jesus.

Finally, in the ancient Roman world Zeus and Heracles were regarded as one living people eventually deified but today they are written off as "mythical" characters.

Every one those things above is a form of ethnocentrism. As I said before to explain this to the level of detail you want would expand the article and it is way too long as it is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want any level of detail on Horace Miner, Zeus, Heracles or John Frum. These things are not evidence for or against the historical existence of Jesus Christ. The article is indeed way too long. I've been trying to cut out some of the needless digressions and poor arguments, but you just keep putting them right back in. In the case of "the Miner issue", you're using a phrase that nobody actually uses based on a rather tenuous interpretation of Miner's essay. It doesn't help anyone's understanding of the evidence for Jesus. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You are over focusing individual points and missing the big picture.

One of the pieces of "evidence" for Jesus presented is that one of that time or for centuries later came forth with the idea that Jesus didn't exist as a human being. That is Ethnocentrism (making Miner's article relevant) and ignores the Euhemeristic mind set of the day (making what people of that general time believed about Zeus and Heracles relevant)

Christianity itself is presented as evidence" for Jesus as well with the implication that such a movement must have a founder and that founder is Jesus...the cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular kicks that idea in the head. Furthermore, Carrier when asked "There is there thing that has puzzled me. The cargo cults in general and the John Frum cargo cult in particular seem to be an example case for how the Christ Myth theory might have worked. (examples deleted for space) There are are other cargo cults that have made known historical people their founder. The Rusefel (Roosevelt) Cargo Cult and the Johnson “Cargo Cult” are two such examples. Given there seems to be such a ready made set of examples…why are they not used?" Carrier's reply was "They are. Robert Price has been making the comparison for years, and I will be as well, extensively citing the scholarship, in my book on the subject (On the Historicity of Jesus).. So per Carrier himself John Frum is relevant and On the Historicity of Jesus is beginning to more and more look like the go to book to reducing the bloat in the article.

This is all ignoring Richard Dawkins comment of "Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed. (...) John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Euhemeristic mind set of the day". You keep saying that, but your insistence that the status of life in rome being relevant to the status of life in Judea leads me to think that isn't what most people of the day thought--Miekal 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

Well it is as good a shorthand as anything else. Richard Carrier has commented on this in several of his talks and writings. It seems that Carrier even made reference to the fact Euhemerus "interpreted Zeus as an earthly king" and was saying that this reinterpreting deities as human was very common in the Greco-Roman world. Carrier generalizes euhemerism as "The attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events" which agrees with Merriam-Webster's "interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events" Robert Price says something similar "I am of the opinion that the varying dates are the residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less recent history. It would represent the ancient tendency toward euhemerism. In like manner, Herodotus had tried to calculate the dates of a hypothetically historical Hercules, while Plutarch sought to pin Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt." (Price. Robert M (2011). The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems, p. 49-51 for the context) For those of you don't know Plutarch lived c46 – 120 CE ie after Jesus' supposed life time. So yes it does come up as an argument regarding the quality of the evidence of Jesus which makes it totally relevant to the subject of the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Are people even READING what's in the article?!?

I got this on my talk page:

But "Zeus and Heracles were regarded as one living people eventually deified", No. Bad. Wrong.--Miekal 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This proof of this is actually in the article itself:

In fact, Euhemerus himself stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete (Zeus Is Dead: Euhemerus and Crete, S. Spyridakis, The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8, May, 1968, pp. 337-340.) and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos (Preparation of the Gospel (10.12) "from the reign of Hercules in Argos to the deification of Hercules himself and of Asclepius there are comprised thirty-eight years, according to Apollodorus the chronicler: and from that point to the deification of Castor and Pollux fifty-three years: and somewhere about this time was the capture of Troy.")

The proof of the statement I made is right there in the article. When I read stuff like this I have to wonder are people even reading what is in the article?!? Better yet why was this on MY talk page rather then here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding actual discussion in the article's main page

In my talk to the above I stated:

Also stuff like this belongs on the talk page of the article in question NOT in my talk page which is where I put this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

To which I got this little reply,

Actually it wouldnt belong there, because it was completly off topic from that discussion. Also work from a 1968 article, basing itself on an ancient historian with a specefic philosophical bent he looked at everything under is not going to make me believe zeus was a king on crete who later became a god. --Miekal 05:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)--Miekal 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it wouldnt belong there, because it was completly off topic from that discussion. Also work from a 1968 article is not going to make me believe zeus was a king on crete who later became a god.--Miekal 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Several points here:

1) the section in question in the article is "Euhemeristic mind set of the day" ie the emic view of the people of that time.

2) the point "Finally, in the ancient Roman world Zeus and Heracles were regarded as one living people eventually deified but today they are written off as "mythical" characters." was into regard to the Ethnocentrism involved in how Zeus and Heracles are regarded today's Western culture rather then viewing things from the POV of the ancient Roman empire. In their world Zeus and Heracles were regarded as one living people eventually deified and ignoring that fact is Ethnocentrism.

3)where or not it was "completly off topic from that discussion" (sic) would be a matter for the editors on the subject's talk page to decide not one lone editor sending it to one editor's talk page (one of the main administrators on main wikipedia stated several years ago this was viewed as a way to bypass actual discussion on a topic)

4 It not the purpose of the section to make anyone today "zeus was a king on crete who later became a god" (sic) but rather to show what the people ancient Greece and Rome believed.

My talk page is NOT the place for this. HERE is the place for this so stop hiding on my talk page as I consider it HARASSMENT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to dial it down from a frustration level of 10 to a more reasonable 2 or 3. It's not harassment to talk about an issue on your talk-page, and this is not wikipedia. Just lay out the facts with good sources, the mob will ensure that the right info is not reverted (the mob is never wrong). Tielec01 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Per conduct guidelines: "If you are engaged in an ongoing argument with another user about something, please keep the dispute within the relevant talk pages." by ignoring that point I can consider it an attempt to harass per the various cyperbullying statues on the books.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Er... ok; just don't report us to the Florida State Department of Agriculture. On a related note - why is this page fully protected? Tielec01 (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Because he was a sysop, as were the people he was revert warring with, and thus the only thing too prevent more edit warring on the article was to just give a few days (i think i put 3?) of full protect (the theory was to actually force a real discussion and then that could actual;ly go into the article)--Miekal 06:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see, the edit that was rolled back by Weaseloid and yourself WAS problematic. Literacy in the Roman Empire was highly variable depending on which part of the empire we are talking about and also when. I have never seen an estimate over 10% though, so the claims made by Di Renzo seems suspect to me. Can you come up with some more references that support your position Bruce? Tielec01 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't seem to be the edit that cause the protection but rather the constant reverting of the "Chrestus, Christ, Chrestians, and Christians" section which David Gerard reinstated as there had been no justification as to why it was being reverted in the first place.

As for other material then Di Renzo (ok granted one article out of Journal of technical writing and communication is not enough to make an argument) there is his reference to Dupont, Florence. (1989) Daily Life in Ancient Rome Tr. Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell; pg 223 (The written word was all around them, in both public and private life: laws, calendars, regulations at shrines, and funeral epitaphs were engraved in stone or bronze....and Di Renzo is shortening the actual text--it takes up nearly the entire page!) Also there is a reference in the illiteracy section to Josephus in Against Apion (2.204) how the "law requires that they (children) be taught to read", and the New Testament itself with regard to Jesus himself being literate (Mark 1.39, 2.25, 12.10; Matt. 12.5, 19.4, 21.16; Luke 4.16; and John 7.15) I have seen a range from a low of 5 to a high of 30 percent mostly depending on the meaning of "literate" (William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 5; William A. Johnson, Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 3–4, especially note 5; T.J. Kraus, "(Il)literacy in Non-Literary Papyri from Graeco-Roman Egypt: Further Aspects of the Educational Ideal in Ancient Literary Sources and Modern Times," Mnemosyme 53.3 (2000), p. 325; Marietta Horster, "Primary Education," in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, pp. 89, 97–98.) so it is a problem.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you know of any studies on literacy in Judea specifically? Literacy rates in Rome are irrelevant.

RE the disputed edit to "Chrestus" section, you say "The apologists then make the illogical leap that these are reference to Jesus". This isn't illogical: it's the obvious conclusion. If you think the Christ being referred to was somebody else, tell us who & what scholars take that view. Also, they're not all "apologists" as you keep insisting. That Jesus Christ was a real historical person is a valid position taken by many serious academics. Don't keep lumping them with Christian apologists. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless we have a slam-dunk reference then it hardly seems that section is justified in its critique of claims of widespread illiteracy in ancient Judea. It seems that serious scholars fall on both sides of the issue, although it seems to me that a man whose appeal was mostly to the poorest sectors of the community in a backwater part of the Roman Empire was highly likely to meet very few literate people even if we grant higher estimates of literacy. Tielec01 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a tangent of this is used by Kenneth Humphreys in one of his youtube videos (Jesus in Wonderland) "Bizarrely Jesus manages to avoid all the towns on his doorstep and before the grand finally in Jerusalem avoids any city where there may have been an educated resident able to record his mighty deeds. The conclusion is obvious...Jesusland is a fictional landscape..a fictional landscape for a Jesus who never existed". I would like to point out that Jesus is portrayed as coming form a poor family but the Gospels also indicate that Jesus himself was literate...so (forgive the bad pun) why in the name of Heaven didn't Jesus himself write anything down?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't know whether he did or not, but you're grasping at straws here. If we have any evidence or even scholarly hypotheses about literacy in Judea, it would be relevant to cite it; everything else you're bringing up here looks very speculative. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Fair enough. So here are some quotes from Alan Millard's (2003) Literacy in the Time of Jesus - Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime? Biblical Archaeology Review 29:04, Jul/Aug 2003.

"How likely is it that someone would have written down and collected Jesus’ sayings into a book in Jesus’ lifetime? Several lines of evidence converge to suggest it is quite probable."

"This brings us back to Jesus’ words. It is sometimes said that, for example, “it is incontrovertible that in the earliest period there was only an oral record of the narrative and sayings of Jesus.” The evidence we have just adduced, however, suggests that many ordinary people knew how to read and probably also to write."

"Some scholars contend, with Stephen Patterson, that “very few people could read or write [in Jesus’ day].” But such statements are no longer supported by the evidence. Not everyone could read and write. And some who could read were not necessarily able to write. But archaeological discoveries and other lines of evidence now show that writing and reading were widely practiced in the Palestine of Jesus’ day. And if that is true, there is no reason to doubt that there were some eyewitness records of what Jesus said and did."

Millard states "To learn more about writing in the ancient world, see A.K. Bowman, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and Its People (London: British Museum Press, 1994)."--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is hilarious

"There are no historical references to Jesus outside of early Christian communities"

TIL the writings Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are worthless as historical documents. Thanks rationalwiki!--92.236.209.177 (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I care about this topic, but if you do, then you should add said sources to the article instead of whining about it. It's a wiki, that means random people collaborate to create content. Nullahnung (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ #Apologists' evidence. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to whine about it, you're all historical illiterates if you thin this page seriously undermines the historical existence of Jesus in anything but your own minds. Have a nice day, austistic losers!92.236.209.177 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

These critiques are likely from reddit, http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1v11bu/rationalwikis_page_on_the_historicity_of_jesus_is/ They make some good points. This article shouldn't appear on the main page until some of these issues are cleared. --Frybread (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no "issues" other then the majority of the reddit posters giving us rambling nonsense. Much of what they are complaining about is already addressed in the article; they are either ignoring it or refusing to accept it--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Although (and i think even this is dealt with in the article) people challenging Christianity do have a bit of a "that's not a document" bias; historical texts are handled differently when challenging xianity than challening writing of other religions and non-religions. but it's neither here nor there, cause really, who but believers cares if Jesus was real, sorta real, or totally fucking made up.One tin soldier (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet there does seem to be this wonkyness with regard to the martial on Jesus we don't see with other "legendary" figures. Take Josephus the cornerstone of the non-Christian evidence for example. We know the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist in the form we have it and there are clues the whole thing is forgery and yet the pro-historical Jesus crowd claim that some part of it must be true and their evidence is variant some 700 years after the forgery is thought to have happened. Anyone else and that type of nonsense would be laughed out of the room and yet it is accepted for Jesus--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I might add that the dismissal of Carrier shows that reddeit as far as this topic is concerned doesn't have anything nor does it add anything.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Going over the "issues" reddit begins up shows how silly taking anything it says seriously is. "someone should just go through and insert {citation needed} as appropriate"; Weaseloid was complaining we had too many citations in the article!

If that wasn't enough one of the posters there is actually trying to defend the Holocaust comparison as an analogy. Well so is a comparison to the Bermuda Triangle so how is that one wrong and the Holocaust one "right"? This same poster doesn't even know Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt is by Sheffield Phoenix Press! These are the issues that need to be cleared?!? As I said before reddit is giving us rambling nonsense. From what I have read the majority of people commenting there wouldn't know rational or research if either walked up to them and shook their hand.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Jesus Myth and Holocaust Denial comparison

"The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust." (Perrin, Nicholas (2008) Lost In Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus pg 32)

"Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus’ non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio." (McClymond, Michael James (2004) Familiar Stranger: an Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth pp. 23-24)

"A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." (Powell, Mark Allan (1998), Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox p. 168)

"One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?" (Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008)

“There are people out there who don’t think the Holocaust happened, there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin and Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Ehrman says. “Among them are people who don’t think Jesus existed.” ( John Blake, CNN (April 7th, 2012) The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth)

"The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust." (Piper, John (2006,) Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die, Wheaton: Crossway, pp. 14-15)

"There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe." (Micael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, p. 112)

And there are those who claim such a comparison does not exist and this is a strawman argument. Well there are the references that PROVE it exists and if it is a strawman argument then the argument is coming from the PRO historical Jesus side and needs to be addressed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, what you are missing is that this is not a comparison of the data that is out there, but a comparison of how academics see the historicity of the Jesus figure. No one in academics is saying "there are films, and bone relics, and a dead wife" of Jesus, they are simply saying - from an *academic* stand point, few if any in the academic community think Jesus is an invented persona; most think a real man/teacher/profit/nutjob was on this earth inspiring the myth. And, the go on to say "we believe this so strongly, that within the academic community, saying other wise is about as silly as saying global warming is false, or hitler didn't exist". You are trying to make the point that the academics are arguing there is equal amounts of evidence. that is not what they are arguing. One tin soldier (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC) (EC)

And by the way, for academics working on the Jesus story, or studying the bible as history, or doing archeology - the burden of proof is quite different form what science demands. Academics in this field talk about things like "the fact that stories almost never pop up out of the blue". They argue that even myths about gods, probably have real human story under pinings. It's how cultures form. So there are a lot of assumptions in the historicity of Jesus that would not fly in a more liner field (Like science) but which are normal and necessary when actual evidence of anything is scant to non-existent. Which is why this article itself is so strange. there is little *evidence* in the scientific sense of anything before the printing press, cause what little that might have been written down, has been shredded by thousands of years. But at the same time, there is intellectual reasons to assume such figures existed. so it's a confused article from the start, because we are unclear about that very point.One tin soldier (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

John Frum is a real world example that shows that any "academic" comparing Jesus Myth to holocaust denial is either ignorant, purposely ignoring what John Frum and the cargo cults show use about the foundation of relgion, or is creating what at the end of the day a morally and ethically bankrupt strawman argument because they don't have anything else. And this claim that history is not a science is BS. History like anthology is a social science and the scientific method is no different. The best the historical Jesus crowd has now is to dial Jesus down to where he is on the level of Robin Hood or even King Arthur: a vaguely "historical" person that next to nothing definite is known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In the comments above and in a redit (I think) thread posted above people seem to be saying that we are wrong to "say that Jesus certainly did not exist" or something of that nature.

Yet the introduction states: Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely an individual named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions.[2] Beyond this, however, there is no evidence over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A small minority, past[3] and present,[4] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories, representing an extreme in the other end of belief.

So we don't seem to be making the claim that we are accused of.

To be fair, I haven't read the whole massive article as I don't have a couple of days to spare (Yes, this was Hyperbole.), so perhaps we do say this somewhere.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are dead on. We state what is the current status of academics, then delve into the "evidence" as scientific evidence (which means - virtually none). I still strongly disagree with BG that historians of this era use facts and evidence the way science does. We don't, we can't. we make lots of assumptions based on what we do know about other cultures and modern society, and extrapolate. It's how the academics of Ancient Egypt or Greece, Native America or Jerusalem are done, because largely, when you have one pictograph to work from, you do a lot of academic guessing. One tin soldier (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are describing the way history used to be and it as relevant to actual practices as cultural particularism. That type of history died with the coming of Binford and Dunnel in the 1970s who while they were hammering out system theory also debated if style had function over the next decade or so.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't outright say that "Jesus certainly did not exist" but it does seem over-zealous to dismiss all arguments and sources in favour of his existence and to demonise people who take the view that he existed ("the apologists"). I think this attitude should be toned down, like a lot. This really is an issue with a lot of unanswerable questions & no easy answers, and this isn't reflected well in the article's current one-sided bias. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

False balance. Bruce gets overenthusiastic, and is a sloppy writer, but the evidence is bloody awful - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

BG is a bit more than an overenthusiastic sloppy writer...--ZooGuard (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read that you see the editor filling that claimed The London Times was the same thing as Times Literary Supplement and that a Columbia University Press work was not reliable in a article about Jack Chick' tracks. The talk page show what was really going on there. I should mention the Christ Myth theory article over at wikipedia is improving again and includes "if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels" as part of the definition--the very definition John Robertson used over 100 years ago.

David Gerard is right in that the evidence for a historical Jesus on par with the one in the Gospels is " bloody awful ". I would go so far if such evidence in terms of quality was presented for anyone else the very concept of certain historical existence would be laughed out of the room. But is is Jesus and so different standards apply.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Who and why filed the proposal is mostly irrelevant. What matters is why it was upheld. I am more concerned about the charge of misinterpreting sources. And the part about blasphemy laws preventing publications by certain academic publishing houses was just hilarious and confirmed that you are willing to pursue a "whatever sticks" approach.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You have proof that anything cited in THIS article as it exists currently has been misinterpreted? If show show it otherwise you are blowing smoke and effectively engaging in ad hominem challenges. Or you you support the idea that anyone who questions Jesus as a historical person is on par with a Holocaust denialist?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That introduction is by Ehrman who is a way too free with his comparisons of Jesus Mythers to Holocaust Denialists and by "historians" does he mean secular historians (who as a rule of thumb don't really care anymore then they care if John Frum was a real person) or Biblical historians-theologicans (who let's be honest have a vested intrest in saying Jesus was historical)? Constantin-François Volney, Bruno Bauer, Edwin Johnson, Harry Elmer Barnes, and Richard Carrier are all Christ Myther historians.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman doesn't see a difference between Carrier and Acharya S ... he's pretty much lost it lately. (See previous archives of this talk page.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. That is really bad. I hoping to get my hands on On the Historicity of Jesus': Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt as from what the Table of Contents indicates it may well be THE go to book for this subject. At least we can use to trim some of the bloat.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)