Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive3

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>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>

, (new)(back)

Gnostic gospels

These really should be mentioned in the article. I am given to understand that some were even written in Egyptian and other languages in the area at the time, instead of the the Greek we base the modern bible on. These show that their were other forms of Christianity at the time before Paulian Christianity was on the scene. This is one of the reasons I would suspect their was a person at the centre of this, but we are left with only Paul's interpretation of him. - π 14:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be covered under the reference to non-canonical gospels in biblical evidence? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would have assumed "non-canonical" would have covered these. Perhaps they can be noted as evidence of non-Pauline Christianity - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It must be noted that said gospels were also all (AFAIK) written after Paul. How much do we actually know about said non-Pauline Christianity? (And, of course, quite a lot of useful information on this question was actively suppressed over the centuries.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Many years ago I read "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels. Very interesting read, but I think this article is big enough as it is without exploring them in depth.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thinking back there was a branch of Christianity which had the roles of God and Satan reversed in the Garden of Eden. It was Satan who was the good guy who wanted humanity to have knowledge and Yawha was the villain who wanted it kept from people. More logical in a way, but you can see how it would be heretical.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's off-topic for the article, though. I've added a note that non-canonical includes gnostic, and that Paul still precedes the lot - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's off-topic - I just mentioned it as an example of the width of Christian thought in the gnostic community. I seem to vaguely remember a surprising interpretation of Christ being tempted in the wilderness, but it won't come back to me now. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC first mention of "Gospels" by anyone isn't until 100CE or so. Mind wants so say Justin Martyr. Тy^Talk. 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Gnostics are in interesting bunch, however their works are not that significant to establishing the historicity of Jesus. For instance, many Gnostics believed Jesus never existed historically (that is Jesus was never born or existed in the flesh, he was more of a spiritual concept more than anything). Groups like this were so large that even 1 John and 2 John took notice. Usually when the gospels take note of someone, that means they were worthy rivals to the growing religion (sort of like Simon the magician). However, Gnosticism did not arise until the end of the 1st century or beginning of the 2nd. Many of them relied on several of the gospels as basis for their beliefs (even gospels that never made it into the Bible), but none of them were there to be eye-witnesses. Despite the disagreement on the nature and character of Jesus among Gnostics, I have read an article that states that at least one Christian may have never heard of Jesus; Theophilus of Antioch. Hard to accept maybe, but nothing in his work ever mentions his name or hint that he knows Jesus. Like I said, they are interesting, but I do not think they are worth going into depth in this article. Feredir28 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an important article

Or so I feel from anecdotal chats from ex-Christians for whom the tipping point was actually looking into the historical Jesus. Eusebius pulled just so much shit with the historical record that merely finding out what we actually know is enough to explode many a good Christian's head.

What does this article need to make silver?

• More references.
• In particular, citations for all the terrible, terrible counterarguments of believers.
• That one about scorn by theists for Jesus myth theorists does indeed need that citation.

- David Gerard (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Silver

This is a very long, rather nice article, with quite a few references. Тy^No 21:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Shall we upgrade it to silver? Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I still think a few questions hang over this article. - π 09:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, and comparisons

'King Arthur' is accepted as originating in a fusion of several historical/actual characters (Roman legionaries/officers, native rulers etc) and with some mythic/syncretic elements added, followed by 'adding of actual stories' (Thomas Mallory etc) including some elements of back-projection to explain the current situation: was Jesus a similar composite?

Also - just as some popstars achieve a minor popularity and a few then achieve major notability (often after they are dead) - Jesus 'faded into view'. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point about King Arthur. The same can be said about Merlin and several other figures, but there are several who are entirely mythical such as William Tell. When comparing to Jesus, it is difficult to figure out which is more likely: is he entirely mythical or a nobody (much less the Son of God). IMO, if you examine Jesus' story, it is very parallel to Old Testament stories (see here to see why), making it more likely Jesus is a mythical construction more than a nobody who later grew a reputation. With the little evidence we have, the historical context in which this new faith arose in Hellenistic Judea, the contradictory and fabricated gospels and no witnesses, not to mention the earliest churches had huge disagreements who Jesus was, the likelihood that Jesus was a nobody is weaker than than the Jesus myth. Feredir28 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not difficult to figure that out at all. I think lots of people who are critical of xianity, are so used to being told this and that about jesus, that they have a knee jerk reaction to anything. But virtually every scholar who studies religions, religious icons, and human myth making will tell you that you do not have a named figure as the front of 30 known churches, without he or she really being there. That is, it's possible one church **might** make up it's leader, though that is very uncommon. But for 30 seperate little churches to pop up in the next 50 year naming Jesu the Christ as their leader? pretty much confirms for anyoen this man was a teacher/leader. --En attendant Godot 19:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with WfG on this. But as with Arthur, the probability that such a person existed accounts for only a very small part of the fanciful stories about them. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to respond to this, but Weaseloid got it first and my message was erased. I forgot most of what I was going to write, but I want to say thank you and well put to WfG. It is true that several churches did spring forth, but not that many. The ones we know of, each had conflicting beliefs and tenets who Jesus was more than Jesus' teachings. For instance, bishop Theophilus of Antioch never mentions Jesus - to some he may have never heard of Jesus. Some churches taught that Jesus never existed historically, that he was more of a spiritual concept than a flesh and bone person. In fact, that crowd of doubters was so large that 1 Peter and 2 Peter had to call them out and warn other "believers" of these people. True that religious leaders are not commonly made up, but keeping in mind that this started by Jews in a land controlled by Romans, a time when the people were desperate for a Savior (and many many candidates rose up, but all failed), which makes the likelihood of a made up leader grows just a bit. To many scholars concerning the life of Jesus, they agree that his stories are more metaphorical and theological than literal and historical. Perhaps there was a wise teacher, but it seems more likely that he lived in a much earlier time than commonly believed, and over time his reputation grew and became a legend - in the same manner as King Arthur and Merlin - and I think that is what the author of this section was aiming for. Feredir28 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just curious how many you think there were. Again, I've been out of academia since 95ish, and my phd was on native religions, but never the less, our classes were talking of at least 14 named and known churches, not at all including Paul's other 15 to 20 on his own. Of the non Pauline churches off the top of my head, you have: The Church of Peter (50's), the church of mary (also pre temple destruction), Church of John (post temple), John the Theologian, Church of Judas (likely pre temple), Church of Luke (again post temple), Church of Thomas, Phillup. Many of those were of course, gnostic or essene. and that's not including ones we have no names for, but are refereed to as "others". -- anyhow, i was just curious what they are teaching now, as the number of churches we know of. --En attendant Godot 22:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

These are covered in the second section of the article. Should they be covered more clearly? - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Shall we say there were 'a number of historical persons' in the time from Augustus to Nero in the area of Judaea who promoted religious/ethical/chilleastic programmes; and there were also local nationalists/intending restorers of autonomous Judaea, Siccari etc. There was a degree of appropriating prophecies and local stories and legends by these persons and then, after their deaths, by their followers. There was also a populist movement ('we who pay for all will be rewarded in heaven, them who tax us and oppress us will be sent to hell...). Given the nature of communications, and existing tribalisms, there would be many local developments of the Jesus story, adapted to suit local conditions. Probably even a very short time after 'the persons serving as the basis of Jesus and his associates' died the myth associated with them was quite different to the actuality. They were most inconsiderate then - they did not have the internet, newpspers, oral historians on university grants and suchlike to ensure that all relevant materials would be recorded for posterity. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Strawmen?

The section "Common objections to doubters of the historical Jesus" needs citations that anyone has ever made these objections, at the moment it feels the article is beating strawmen. - π 09:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Though I vaguely recall most of these arguments, including the really really shit ones - I don't think they're straw men, but we need examples of them. If these can be found, I think this article is silverable - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly the least convincing part.

• "Why do most scholars think Jesus existed?" assumes that most "scholars" do indeed assume that "Jesus" existed. And if so which "version"? "Magical Jesus" or "historical Jesus"?
• "Would the apostles die for a lie" assumes the truth of the apostles' martyrdom. I don't doubt that they were, in fact, martyred - but in an article which questions everything else about the Jesus story it seems to assume a lot.
• "Skeptics have blind faith in the words of man" and "Skeptics just don't want to be accountable for their sins" are simply irrelevant to the argument.

--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Those last two are goddamn nonsensical. They're also raised by Ray Comfort (though again, a precise citation would be nice). That the arguments are irrelevant idiocy doesn't mean they shouldn't be noted - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But it's hardly "evidence" one way or the other. It's about as relevant as saying "Sinners will go to hell".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they're nonsense. But they are actually raised as objections, therefore should be listed. If you have the coherent thinking skills of Ray Comfort, this is what passes for argument - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New objection: "Jesus-Mythers are just bad historians" [1] [2]. Presumably there is evidence otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there it is - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that's the existence of each of these arguments cited in the relevant paragraph, except "Skeptics just don't want to be accountable for their sins" - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. A peer reviewed anthropological journal flat out states "here is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived".--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)