Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive18

This is an archive page, last updated 20 October 2021. 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>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <19>, <20>

, (new)(back)

Daughtering out the bloat

Ok this article has gotten larger and is in need of some more daughtering out of material. Any suggestions? And what up with the archiving feature on the talk page, it seems to be broken.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think a better idea might be to copyedit it for style and grammar before spreading it out. Just looking at the first major section is a headache. Things are bolded, italicized, set off in colored blocks with quote marks inside them, indented, with no clear reason why this is done. Then there are the grammatical fiascos...

I would try to clean it up a bit, but I can't even figure out what all the different formatting styles are supposed to indicate. Quotes? An author presenting a conversation? I would recommend simplifying - put all the quotations in quote marks and the rest in unindented paragraphs. Then look for and remove duplications of words and especially phrases within the same paragraph.

After all that it might be short enough to leave as one article. ħuman 01:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, several things here.

The "colored blocks" are long quotes ie blockquotes. Shorter quotes get the quotation marks. Yes there is a an issue of blockquote and cquote boxes both being used but that is not going to fix the bloat.

The bold and italics are for emphasis and sometimes are the product of the author (ie sic) without using all caps (which is considered YELLING on the internet)

The indents are to help break things up. Sometimes they are for definitions.

Removing all of these would turn to the article into the dreaded wall of text and we would get even more of the TLDR (Too Long Didn't Read) nonsense here then we already get.

Finally, let's be realistic. The amount of duplication in this article and issues over grammar are not major sources of the bloat; therefore cleaning those up is not going to significantly reduce the bloat and certainly not to where the thing would be "short enough to leave as one article". Heck, we already had to daughter out the material on Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Thallus because the material on those guys was taking way too much space in the main article.

So let's drop what amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and get down to 'ok what can be daughtered out so the article doesn't read like a freaking book'--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

80-90% of the text should be cut. The section "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" says nothing that couldn't be covered by a short paragraph linking to Absence of evidence. The section "Chrestus/Christ, Chrestians/Christians" insofar as it's not badly-phrased waffle could be placed in a separate article on Chrestus, and the same for the section on the myriad of Jesuses, Jeshuas, etc. This could all be replaced by a sentence or two saying "Some documents refer to a Crestus or to Chrestians, which is taken by some writers to refer to the Biblical superhero, but these may not be references to the figure of the New Testament. There was more than one person called Jeshua in the Middle East: see list of self-professed messiahs in 1st century Judea." The discussion about maximalist and minimalist theories is irrelevant because all non-Biblical evidence is minimalist. The debate on Euhemerism and Apotheosism is also irrelevant and should be deleted. Dead Sea Scrolls should be a separate article (seriously, why don't we have an article on them?). It might be an idea to delete or move discussions about topics such as the existence of Nazareth which aren't directly about Jesus Christ, but if they can be edited down I think it's possible to keep them here.

Basically the article should have:

1. A short introductory section pointing to issues like the multiple Jesuses/Jeshuas in history, the question over what Chrestus refers to, problems with chronology (the further you get from traditional dating, the less compelling evidence is), and the fact that evidence of Jesus's mere existence doesn't prove that what the Bible says about him is true. Maybe other issues, but a paragraph or 2 each.

2. A brief general discussion of the nature of the Biblical evidence (independence of authors, date of composition, contradictions in events, dating, etc) with lots of links and little text.

3. Turning to non-biblical evidence, as an introduction provide a short factual account of 1st century historiography, record-keeping, document preservation, and what sorts of evidence might exist. This could also consider whether we would expect any evidence to survive, or if the lack of evidence is damning.

4. A discussion of each non-Biblical source (replaced by a short summary and link if they are covered in separate articles).

5. A brief conclusion saying what we can deduce from the Bible and what we can deduce from non-Biblical sources.

The article should trust that the reader has some ability to critically weigh evidence without having everything spelt out in tedious detail; this is a Wiki and you can link to other articles. If you structure the article properly you don't need to bold or italicise random chunks: you put the important bits at the start of a section or paragraph and follow it with evidence. Annquin (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember you are dealing with people who from what we have seen with other articles don't understand unless you spell out everything. Never mind that some of your statements are nonsensical. For example, the "debate" on Euhemerism and Apotheosism consists of one paragraph that is made up of three sentences; yeh like that is bloating the article. Also the discussion about maximalist and minimalist theories is relevant because if you really read them many arguments for a historical Jesus take the 'as close to the Gospel version as possible' route which chucks the whole argument out the window because anyone who really looks at the New Testament account knows it is propaganda which by its very nature employs deception.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Tacitus' "Shameful acts"

"Those who believe this refers to followers of Jesus need to ask what shameful acts earned early Christians hatred. Alternatively if it is assumed the early Christians did not act shamefully the passage is unreliable."

Wouldn't this just mean they did something shameful according to the Romans' social/cultural/religious beliefs? Why would this mean something shameful by modern day standards?

This bit seems pointless.^{— Unsigned, by: 72.25.32.57 / talk / contribs}

Tacitus has been daughtered out into another article. This piece adds nothing to this or the other article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Tacitus speaking negatively of early Christians makes it more likely the piece is genuine. But it says nothing about a historical Jesus that can't be explained as secondhand Christian derived urban legends... Pizzameister (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't as that is just the Criterion of embarrassment BS in a different suit. In fact, as the Tacitus article shows there is more to argue against it being genuine. Not only does no one before the 14th century even know of the passage but even the Christians themselves weren't claiming that Nero was blaming them for the burning of the Rome until the early 6th century. Jay Raskin suggests that the passage actually was about Chrestians following a guy named Chrest being killed under Festus; as Jay states "The sudden leap back from the time of Nero to the time of Tiberius and leap forward again is what is really disconcerting about the passage. Tacitus would have had to explain more about the suppression of the new superstition if it died out in the 30’s and started again in Rome around in the 60’s. (The Fire was in 64). If the outbreak of the superstition happened in the time of Nero, as Josephus reports, there would be no need to explain what happened. " One of the commenters points out this passage "only comes from one copy rewritten by monks in Monte casino, Italy. The strange thing is in other Tacitus copies earlier and from other locations like Germany do not have this passage in it or even have those books dated after 117 Ce."--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter either way. If the piece is genuine, we get one more sliver of evidence in favor of their being early Christians in Rome at the time - something very few people doubt given the fact that Paul and others seem to have existed and been to Rome. If it isn't genuine, we still have a lot of evidence for Christianity spreading widely throughout the Roman empire in the first two centuries AD... Taking that piece as evidence for a historical Jesus is utter bollocks Pizzameister (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Heck, all the non Christian evidence even if entirely genuine is "utter bollocks" when it comes to evidence for a historical Jesus that we would recognize when you get right down to it. Doesn't mean Jesus wasn't a 1st century Ephraim McDowell or John Ballou Newbrough who in their own times were at best little more then curiosities that later generations elevated to a status they really didn't have in life.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The opening quote

It's really, really long. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 17:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's also really, really good, and is fully descriptive of the issue at the core of the historicity debate. Also, the article itself isn't exactly short (nor especially polished right now - I wouldn't consider it of Silver quality as it stands right now). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The Penn Jillette quote might be relevant for the Jesus myth article but here it really serves no purpose other then confuse the whole "which Jesus" (Gospel vs some average man) issue.

Also the argument presented is a non sequitur because we have far more evidence for nearly any person after 1436 then we have for Jesus thanks to the printing press.

With Elvis Presley the comparison with the Gospel Jesus is even more ridiculous if not idiotic given that the record keeping in the US in the 1930s was a thousand times better then existed in the time Jesus supposedly lived. Elvis Presley left movies, records, and writings that show he existed never mind the birth and death certificates and many contemporary newspaper accounts. NONE of that exists for Jesus.

Heck, the record keeping in Tanna by the officials there in 1940-1946 was better then in the time Jesus supposedly lived and we don't know if John Frum really existed as the white literate US serviceman the majority of believers there go on about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a good quote. It'd go better in JMT, as Bruce states. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 01:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonable statement, it's way too long to be a quote in an article and it's ridiculously too long and bloated to be at the top of any article. I've deleted it for now, if someone else wants to put it on JMT they can though IMO it's too ridiculously long and bloated to be at the top of any article - David Gerard (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with David, the Penn Jillette quote is too long and bloated to be at the top of any article. It rambles on way too long to get to its point. Nevermind it ignored the lead into the "Holocaust comparison" section "Comparing the quality of Jesus to that of any major person after the invention of the printing press in the west is bad enough..."--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@You guys: These points are all fair. I'll find a better use for the quote, and certainly not as a starter. Good talk, guys. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT ALL THIS INFO IS WRONG

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.php

http://www.tektonics.org/harpur01.html

You may continue to defy G-d all you please, however there WILL be repercussions in the afterlife. Keep in mind.^{— Unsigned, by: 174.25.12.249 / talk / contribs}

James Patrick Holding is not the kind of person you want defending the Pro-Historical Jesus side as his arguments are almost on the level of Jack Chick's. His information at best (when it isn't totally wrong) covers the more extreme parts of the Christ Myth theory...which as the hatnote clearly states

"This article concerns the evidence put forward in favor of the suggestion that Jesus actually once existed as as a real-life, flesh and blood human being. For the debate on whether there likely was one single founder of Christianity, or if the early church just rallied around the myth of such a man, see our article on Jesus myth theory."

The first link (Mithra vs Jesus) covers material that isn't even in this article (heck it isn't even in the Jesus Myth article) In fact both articles point out the whole December 25 connection is a load of BS (the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" section of this article shows just how much BS it is.)

The second link is "Harpur's The Pagan Christ: A Critique" which is NOT the version of the Christ Myth theory that Carrier says is worth anything (that honor belongs to Earl Doherty who Holding tries to debunk elsewhere and spectacularly fails). Holding used the New Testament (1 Corinthians 2:7-8; 1 Thess. 2:14-16; and 1 Tim. 6:13-5) and the final part is about the problem with secular sources...and Holding's arguments are total drivel as well ignoring relevant facts.

First off Paul himself states "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12) so that throws everything thing else he wrote about Jesus out the window...because it came not from a human source but through visions. 1 Timothy isn't even from Paul and is general dated to 100-150 CE.

Holding's arguments against Doherty's source criticism are more drivel and my review of Shattering the Christ Myth shows why it is drivel. Heck, in that book he can't even keep straight who is a mythist.

I would like to point out your claim of having evidence that ALL of this article is wrong is FALSE. Holding says nothing about the John Frum similarities and I found even closer ones then Carrier knew about when he wrote his book. In fact, much of what is here Holding either doesn't cover at all or omits relevant information.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@174.25.12.249 "There will be reprecussions in the afterlife" ... There's a loving God. Don't you theists understand that you are like children threatening adults with Santa putting them on his "Bad" list? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No they don't understand as mainline Christianity was (and still is) a religion of fear. Don't do as the Church says (or believe the way I do)? Well hope you like Hell or Purgatory. Back to Holding the "Writing James P Holding Off!" article shows states "I consider Holding to be a spin-doctor and a bully" and "My opinion of him now is that he is an arrogant spin-doctor of questionable honesty who enjoys insulting people and arrogantly scoffing at those who disagrees with him." That sums up my experience with him.

There are far better pro-historical Jesus works out there. Eddy-Boyd's Jesus Legend comes to mind as well as the two books Carrier points to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

/r/AskHistorians' and /r/AcademicBiblical's takes on this article

Here's the more-academic /r/AskHistorians:^[a w]

RationalWiki is a specific tertiary source with a certain bias. That bias is very evident when you read this article.

> The short version of it all, essentially: all the evidence in the world (thus far amassed) hoping to be be able to lend plausible confirmation (or, at times, even general support) to the case for a historical Jesus leaves much to be desired. Yes, it leaves much to be desired. I would say all ancient historians feel that the data available to them leaves much to be desired.

Two immediate issues strike me about this page. Firstly, attempting to do history under the framework of science. History isn’t science and it’s not a science. I find this issue prevalent among people who think that all knowledge is scientific and knowledge that isn’t scientific isn’t knowledge. Philosophically this is untenable, since the scientific method is not itself provable by the scientific method and is a form of presupposition. Methodologically this is untenable since history is not a discipline subject to experimentation. You cannot run repeatable experiments with the data of historical investigation.

Secondly, the page quotes Jesus-mythicist writers without any serious critique, I mean people like Carrier, Price, etc.. Within historical circles these writers are viewed as cranks. Are all their ideas or writings irretrievably bad? No, of course not. But a lack of critical historical engagement with these writers, who tend in the conspiracy-theory direction of reasoning, suggests a form of bias that misunderstands historical scholarship and fundamentally misunderstands history as a discipline.

I find it interesting that several times they refer to “peer reviewed scholarly published On the Historicity of Jesus”. Why? Yes, it was a peer-reviewed book, published by a scholarly imprint associated with a very minimalist school. The reinforcement of its peer-reviewed status is a kind of appeal to authority probably because Carrier is known for producing a lot of non-peer-reviewed material that isn’t taken seriously. Certainly Carrier *can* do historical research and *has* produced some peer-reviewed material, but a lot of it isn’t.

On the Christ/Chrestus issue, there is some debate, but I think this article is pushing *very* hard to raise as many possible variations of other theories to generate ‘doubt by number of possibilities’. i.e., suggest enough variations of possibilities, and one option begins to seem very less supportable.

> In fact, the word χριστω (christ) appears in the Old Testament[85] but is translated literally as "anointed" or "anointed one" in many English Bibles to hide this.[86]

This is not even the proper text for Christ in Greek (Χριστός), which does appear in the OT; the translation as “anointed one” is not an attempt to ‘hide this’, it’s a very legitimate translation choice. The reason for translating it ‘Christ’ in the new testament has to do with new testament usage patterns and historical legacies of bible translation; not an agenda.

> Never mind that as the cargo cults in general and John Frum show, not only does a religious cult not need a founder but the cult can latch onto the idea that a person founded their religion regardless of that person actually doing so, such as is the case with the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults.

The continued comparisons with cargo cults is unfortunate, as well. Cargo cults are an interesting religious phenomenon worth studying in their own right. They do not, in my view, make a great set of comparative religious phenomena for the origins of Christianity though. This is a common appeal by Jesus a-historicists for how the idea of Jesus arose.

I think I’ve read enough of the article. As I went on, it became more and more clear that there is a very heavy reliance on Carrier to frame a lot of the arguments. It does raise a lot of the evidence, but it lack investigative depth. On the pro-Jesus side it often engages apologists, and rarely engages a serious range of pro-historical Jesus scholarship at any depth. On the a-historical and mythicist side, it relies very heavily on Carrier.

tl, dr: go and read some books, and Carrier 2014 and Remsburg 1909 are not enough.

I don't think so. To be honest, I don't think I have ever seen a more dishonest article on RationalWiki (and trust me, that's saying something). I'll cite their stuff in italics and attempt to show why I think it's not trustworthy.

(1) *While it is true there are arguments regarding the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century, its existence (or nonexistence) wouldn't prove (or disprove) the existence of Jesus* They add, somewhat contradicting their earlier sentences, 'Scholars generally have agreed that Nazareth did exist during the time of Jesus, however, with due skepticism their scholarship, we find that they are strangely not as highly qualified as the few scholars who believe that Nazareth did not exist then'.

They assume that the consensus is that Nazareth did not exist during the Time of Jesus. I know of no scholar who takes this view anymore (it was a theory back then, but it's been debunked by top scholars like Ehrman). And is it not strange that the scholars who believe Nazareth did not exist at that time are somehow more qualified than the numerous ones who believe it did ? Once again, no citation is given, but I don't think they could find a source to back up this ludicrous claim.

2) *stated above, arguments regarding Jesus as a historical person tend to improperly mix reductive and triumphalist theories. So instead of debating the existence of an ordinary man one gets a lot of nonsense about miracles, earthquake, and darkness (any argument involving Thallos). Interestingly enough, there are many scholars, ranging from non-religious to religious who agree that a historical Jesus did exist. We will demonstrate why this means nothing, and why a deferral to certain scholars is nothing but a logical fallacy. The term "scholar" can be a weasel word. It's worth asking the question "Who is this scholar, and what are his investments in the issue?" If he is a theologian, then it is worth asking "Would this theologian ever be able to even say that the Christ did not exist, or would his theological underpinnings prevent him from saying that?" When apologists quote scholars or 'experts' of Jesus' historicity, they are often quoting theologians whose focus is theology, and whose vestment in the argument is clear.[213] Further, those who have a bias towards not challenging the theology as they know it have often preselected the texts that are "canon" and "authentic"[214]*

This section was especially laughable, and was written as a 'counter-apologetic' to the fact that the vast majority of scholars who study the subject, whether religious or not, believe Jesus did exist. According to them, 'scholar' is a weasel word, and the vast majority of people who support the historical Jesus have biases (yet Hector Avalos, Robert Price and Carrier, their main sources of data, are somehow exempted from having biases) or are theologians who have 'clear investments in the issue'. The claim that a deferral to the authority of 'certain' scholars means nothing almost comes across as satire, since they themselves are deferring to the authority of one historian who is not even a New Testament Historian. Apparently, according to Richard Carrier, the methodology used in Jesus studies is much lower standard than other historical figures - although no citation is given for this claim, which to me seems like they made it out of wholecloth. If anything I would expect it to be higher, given that a religious figure almost 'always' has extraordinary claims attached to their names which must be diligently separated from history by the critical historian.

3)*1) The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles. And in any case, Paul never met or even saw Jesus in person. The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century. "A viable theory of historicity for Jesus must therefore instead resemble a theory of historicity for Apollonius of Tyana or Musonin Rufus or Judas the Galilean (to list a few very famous men who escaped the expected record more or less the same degree Jesus did.)"[227]*

The claim that Paul 'seems more intent on Jesus in his head' is flatly ridiculous. How likely is it that he would be sending out letters about some fictitious person, whom he 'gave' a brother? During his debate with Carrier new Testament scholar Mark Goodacre states that Paul actually did know stuff about Jesus teachings (I can't remember which, but it's on the show Unbelievable, if you would like to see it). The Gospels being written as late as 140 AD is not a view given the vast majority of scholars....although perhaps I shouldn't complain about that since it says 'between'

4) *Josephus (ca. 37 - 100 CE; oldest Greek copy is 11th century though there is a 5th century version in Latin): The Jewish historian Josephus is claimed to be earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93-94 CE) with the two references being referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum and the "Jamesian Reference". However, there is much debate regarding how much of the Testimonium Flavianum (if any of it) was written by Josephus[140] as there is no reference to it before the 4th century [141][142] While Carrier use Bayes’s Theorem to argue that both passages are not from the hand of Josephus the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum and all of the "Jamesian Reference" are genuine[143], but based on Carrier's examples of Ned Ludd and John Frum even if the entire passage as we have it was written by Josephus it would still not show Jesus existed as a human being simply because it is too brief and there is no consensus on exactly what parts of the Testimonium Flavianum are actually from Josephus.* This was under the section that attempts to counter the point writers mentioned Jesus. I don't know how it being brief somehow devalues it as a source of information, but according RationalWiki it somehow does. According to Bart Ehrman,

• “It is certainly worth knowing that the most prominent Jewish historian of the first century knew at least something about Jesus—specifically that he was a teacher who allegedly did wonderful deeds, had a large following, and was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate. This account confirms some of the most important aspects of Jesus’ life and death as recounted in the Gospels.” (Jesus Interrupted, p. 150)*

Use RationalWiki to get a good laugh or two - I would certainly agree it can be downright hilarious at times - but I would take a ~~bag of~~ grain of salt when using it as a source of info on Jesus' life. I hope my answer helped :)

And the less-academic /r/AcademicBiblical:^[a w]

I would say its a heavily biased interpretation of historicity that leaves a lot out and interprets several sources in specific ways that aren't really right.

Also it makes the mistake of applying modern historicity to ancient which is just stupid. There are entire kings and emperors that no one argues didn't exist who have a lot less evidence behind them than Christ.

Yeah I'd say this is at best deeply suspect.

The bibliography ranges from cranks to actual scholars (Jacob Neusner). However, the article needs to be treated as what it is, a mythicist apologetic.

The page is embarrassing. It takes almost nothing from legitimate scholars and instead emphasizes pop-"scholars" with no formal training. The quote at the top of the page if from fucking Richard Dawkins. Say what you will about him (I have ZERO idea about how he is viewed in the realm of environmental biology), but the man has absolutely no training in the fields of history, anthropology, biblical studies, theology, or anything laterally related. That popular-atheism holds him with esteem should be embarrassing.

Nope, and it also shows incredibly strong signs of bias. It's RationalWiki for crying out loud. It's wikipedia for wankers.

Carrier, Price and a number of JHC articles are given far too much room, whilst leading scholars such as Brown are sidelined. In fact, Penn and Teller get more citations than he does. That's not a good sign.

The arguments are also not fantastic. For example, the old Chrestus-Christus thing comes up, which is irksome to say the least. The two were almost certainly homonymous, so it's an easy mistake for non-Jewish historians to make. Not sure why this is ever made a big deal of.

First, I skimmed through the **very lengthy** article and it seemed to contain some motifs that I've read before concerning arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus. There are a lot of footnotes that I dare not take the time to backcheck and only 4 items in the bibliography of which 2 are Josephus. Thus, not as scholarly as I'm used to reading.

Therefore, I would be very cautious about this article.

However, I would recommend [A Marginal Jew](https://smile.amazon.com/Marginal-Jew-Rethinking-Historical-Problem/dp/0385264259/) series as the best historical treatment that we have to date on the subject of Jesus' historicity.

In short: we might want to consider how historians would view this page when compiling and presenting our evidence. Otherwise, it might not be persuasive to those who know some history (or those who think they know some history). FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 18:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Both of those posts are full of drivel.

"History isn’t science and it’s not a science."

That any "academic" would make this statement is laughable. "Under the aegis of the History Department, the Social Science major....San Diego State University", "The Department of History at Michigan State University ...." - College of Social Science, "The social science major is administered by the Department of History..." (Radford University). Prentice Hall ("nation's leading publisher of middle school and high school textbooks and technology") even printed a book titled History as social science in 1971. I could go on but I think you get the point on that piece of nonsense.

(1) Omits the very important "The existence of Nazareth no more proves Jesus existed than the existence of Atlanta, Georgia during the United States Civil War proves that Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara were real people." I have removed the biased follow up as it detracted from the counter point Carrier himself provides.

(2) Totally ignores the fact that argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

(3) "How likely is it that he would be sending out letters about some fictitious person, whom he 'gave' a brother?" John Frum has Prince Philip as a brother and we aren't sure John Frum existed as a human being either. Not only missed the boat on the point but doesn't look like they were even in the harbor.

(4) Josephus has problems and the fact it does have problems even if you take it entirely as by his hand and not something inserted into the text centuries later. The Josephus article explains the problems in far more detail then would be sane in this article. Based on what I have read nobody at Reddit bothered to follow the link. The goal here is to keep it as to the point as possible.

Reddit itself is good for a laugh but it isn't really relevant except to show just how bad the understanding on the issue is out there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We lack the institutional knowledge to deal intelligently with BruceGrubb. Wikipedia got rid of him for allegedly pushing fringe theories in this topic area, but Wikipedia also got rid of a bunch of people who believe climate change is real for pushing fringe theories in that topic area, so they don't have the best record at picking sides. Hipocrite (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own set of issues and it has bias problems with certain matters. Despite many reliable sources they claim WWII started in 1939 when other sources give 1931 as the start date. The Open Journal of Geology was pointed out to be unreliable back on 20 September 2015‎ and repeatedly restored even though Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly stated "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (sic) and yet this highly questionable source was put in again and again and not formally removed until June 2016. Let's be blunt; that abomination should have never been in the article in the first place and it should not have taken nearly nine freaking months to permanently remove it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm very clear on that. The question is - are you a nutter or were you unfairly maligned by wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfairly maligned as the site is very against rational discourse and I am not the only one having problems there. All my attempts to put in the peer reviewed book Weston Price himself wrote which showed that he had abandoned Focal Infection theory were removed under the guise of OR. The gaming of the system to ban me can be seen in my last edit: editing a link for a book that had 'Christ' in the title. If you can justify that nonsense I think we would all like to hear it. --BruceGrubb (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is the traditional historic method, a parallel to the scientific method would lend very little concern to the possibility that Jesus didn't exist. This is because records from the time period are sparse, and any person indicated in any way, by even close to contemporary literature is of some plausibility so that's enough. Whether Jesus actually existed is completely unprovable in either direction with the quantity of information available. The burden of proof our article implies it wants is impossible. The problem is, to a credentialed historian, that would probably not be a big deal. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The existence of historical Jesus is akin to talking about a historical John Frum or Ned Ludd; in terms of the bigger picture it doesn't matter as there are movements that act as if they were historical people. Note we have far better records for the periods Ned Ludd or John Frum lived in and we can't tell if they ever existed.

The article's main point is there is not a consistent way the historical method is applied. Compare Sun Tzu to Jesus and you quickly see the problem. If the existence of Sun Tzu as a historical person is in doubt then why accept Jesus who in terms of records is in far worst shape?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure." --Law, Stephen. Evidence, Miracles and the Existence of Jesus. "Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Pages 129-151" 
• "The main reason for holding to the historicity of the figure of Jesus ...resides not primarily in historical evidence but derives instead from a modern theological necessity." --Pfoh, Emanuel (2012). "Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem". In Thomas L. Thompson. "Is this Not the Carpenter?": The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus. Thomas S. Verenna. Equinox. p. 80f. ISBN 978-1-84553-986-3. 

69.197.181.194 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)