Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive6

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

, (new)(back)

Silver and gold

I think this article is worthy of silver, and I think we should list some of the issues with it, to bump it up to Gold. It's one of our better essays in the religion/xianity categories, it presents a very RW view, with a few weasel words to remind everyone that no one knows shit about what happened 2000 years ago. It's well researched, covers a broad range of documents, and includes a good into of "why this damn process is so hard, and who has stakes in it". There is no reason it shouldn't be silver, but what i"m really after is "what does it need, to go gold?". --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To be gold we need to have it silver and vote on it. At least one person should LANCB over it becoming gold. An abstract should be written. Ty^talk 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, i don't mean it should be gold now. i mean, what do people who are reading it, think is missing? what improvements do we need to make. Siver - it's that quality now. but no, i'm not suggesting it's gold quality - sorry. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs} 16:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just silvered it. (Anyone seriously objects, feel free to re-bronze it!) For gold, we need more and better refs all through, as Godot has noted before. Bits of the writing could do with smoothing too - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not found of the tone, and would like to see a summary somewhere explaining that most scholars see no reason to doubt Jesus' existence, and that this all happened so long ago it's nothing we can ever be concrete about. But I suppose the anti-theists here don't like that idea.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the tone do you not like? Secondly, have you read it? Cause that's in the very first paragraph. "most scholars think a man named Jesus likely lived, pissed off some people and died".GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC) (readded)

Yes, Brix made a similar comment above which I didn't understand either.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Brx has commented in various places how he thinks RW is too harsh and disrespectful to religion. Maybe we should add him to the Nag. Ty^talk 20:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Brx, specifics that he has issues with. On this article. "tone" is relative and really tells us nothing. We want a critical article about the real facts. Not the christian "facts". But if there are specifics where he can point to our tone being bad, let me know. I hate articles that sound prejudiced from the start. (unless they are male bashing articles. those i must have bias in.) --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the Cutting across the grain and Historicity sections as preliminary examples.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So I see the "cutting across the grain" section. what is your problem with it. I don't happen to agree with that theory, and there's no citations, but you said "tone". what is the tone you want changed? --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems to represent belief in Christ's historical existence as wishful thinking. It seems to imply that there is no good evidence for him. I could be wrong. I don't really know how to convey my meaning, sorry.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole page implies that there is no good evidence for his existence, cause there isn't any evidence. All 4 of the bible texts tell a different story; non canoconical texts tell different stories, so there is no consistency of distinct authors. The single only evidence anyone has is deeply circumstantial. "he must have existed cause religions in the past and present religions do not make up their leaders." And while that is pretty compelling to say "some dude existed", it's hardly "evidence". So what are you expecting to see? This is an article on "evidence". And it works piece by piece through the lack of evidence. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the Jesus myth article is largely redundant with this one, and this one is better. Merge? - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't want to merge them, cause from a Religious Studies perspective they are quite different. One is slightly wooish, or agenda driven psuedohistory, the other is just "what evidence is there". In effect Jesus myth theory states "it fucking doesn't matter if he's real or not, the aggrandized accounts of him are what matter to the religious, and those could never be proven, cause they are, well, supernatural." BUT, we might want to look at rewriting that one, and directing the "evidence" here? GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC) (hey, you deleted my comments accidently. stop that. :-)

I would like to revisit theCommon objections to doubters of the historical Jesus section. I think it's a bit too apologetic toward the "duh, he never existed you idiots" tone than the rest.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(Talking to myself all over this place.) I moved the "common objections" here because this page is really long already. I'd love it if someone would reword the opening to the new page. Mine is very awkward, but i can't figure out how to say "we broke the page into 2, cause it was long". GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"The article was long" is not a rationale for an unnatural split - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gutted the redundant sections of Jesus myth theory and put halfway reasonable bits here - the rest need citations or to be put somewhere else sensible. (The James bit is very interesting, but not spot-on relevant to here.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Bullet list of issues to address and improvement needed

Can we keep a list of things that need fixed, researched, or rewritten as we find them? It would be helpful if you would keep this list a bulleted list, and comment below it. Thanks)

• Tomb paragraph is sketchy, unless you know who J of A is, or what his relevance is. Also there are 4 different accounts of the tomb, and this isn't addressed. (WFG)
• Lots of missing citations once we get into the more opinionated sections, like "Common Objections", "archeology evidence" and "Nazareth". (WFG)
• *Can we fix the opening two paras. It sort of reads "There is scant evidence that Jesus was historical but must scholars accept that he was." OK, I'm putting the worst possible spin on this but then we are going for gold. I'd favour something more along the lines of

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the bible is only found in the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the churches to the long dead leader of early Churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.

Having said this, Historians generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, who likely had a very small following of people studying his views, who was likely killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this there is serious doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers.

• Fix Weasel words. (Blue)

Comments on the List

• Can we fix the opening two paras. It sort of reads "There is scant evidence that Jesus was historical but must scholars accept that he was." OK, I'm putting the worst possible spin on this but then we are going for gold. I'd favour something more along the lines of

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the bible is only found in the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the churches to the long dead leader of early Churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.

Having said this, Historians generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, who likely had a very small following of people studying his views, who was likely killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this there is serious doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers.

I'd change it myself except I want some consensus. Bad Faith (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also a significant problem with weasel words like "most historians" and "most Christians." I've added more than a few {{fact}} tags to the "Biblical evidence" section alone, and I've yet to read the other half. Blue (is useful) 22:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Blue, there isn't a problem with "most historians" when that is exactly what it is. It also isn't a problem for "most Christians". the word most is not a weasel word when it is true. it's a weasle word when you are trying to hide something. BAD FAITH - it sounds fine to me, except that you want to say something like "of the variosu churches", rather than the churches, cause at that point they were not one body (which is significant to this whole argument. I'd remove "serious doubt" at this juncture, and leave that to the reader. "doubt", but "serious doubt" can be debated. I think most of us get that no man died and rose, but it is not true that there is "serious doubt" about where he preached, adn what words he said. there is just "doubt". GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 23:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words or not, you and you alone are the one asserting that anything is "true" if you don't cite it. What I'm looking for are citations for the frequent insistence that a vast majority of scholars believe that, say, "the gospels of the Bible are sufficient evidence to say that Jesus, or some human seed for the stories who we may as well tag "Jesus", did exist, and his existence can be assumed from them." Blue (is useful) 23:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So you want me to list every scholar that says this? Why can we say "the vast majority of scientists belive in evo" in our gold evo pages? "vast majority means something, Blue. and that's what we are talking here.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 23:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC) and this is a bulleted list. your comment about weasle words needs to be in the list so people can address it.

I want a source corroborating the claim. Wikipedia makes the same claim several times, but has no less than three such sources pertaining to biblical scholars. This is history, not science. Blue (is useful) 00:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the word "most". if science gets to do it, so do we. "most scholars". yes, wiki lists a scholar for each claim, they hardly list "most". the *claims* about the content are what wiki is linking to, not the idea that "most scholars think". you really think there is a difference between saying "Most scholars of history vs. most scholars of science? Interesting, and again, in order to address these points, I'm asking they be bulleted. So we can find them. oh hell, i'll just make another one for you, since you cant even be bothered to help keep a section organized. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs} 01:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole talk page is filled with RationalWikians criticizing the article's tone. Who hijacked this?--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Name

This article isn't just about evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It's about evidence for the historical Jesus, both whether he existed at all and his historicity. Blue (is useful) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Whether he existed at all, versus 2) whether his life as described in the gospels and contemporary Christian texts is accurate. Blue (is useful) 22:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

you are getting into semantics that cause a huge problem on "what is jesus". is he the man, or is he also the "as written". We are not really getting into his "historicity" frankly. NO one is talking about miracles, or dying and rising. the title, though long, is effective enough. i would probably take out "historical" if i were trying to shorten the name. "evidence for the existence of jesus". And for that matter, it's not jesus Christ. that's a different argument.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Since both questions are just variations on "what does the evidence really tell us about this guy?", I don't think covering them in two separate articles would be a useful move. The title could possibly be reworded slightly, but I don't think it's critical. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

All I advise is changing the title to "Evidence for the historical Jesus Christ."

@WfG: The article introduction states, "What is in doubt, though, is the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers." Further on it says "...the very term 'historical Jesus' itself has two meanings: that Jesus existed, rather than being a totally fictional creation like King Lear or the Doctor from Doctor Who, or that the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events..." There is a section on the historicity of the gospels. So yes, we are getting into it. Blue (is useful) 23:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, Weasleoid, i agree. The article is fine by that representation. the archaeology part however (which i apparently never read) is a complete sham. What the hell does the author mean we have no archaeological evidence for these cities and towns? The only one of question at all is Nazareth, and it's probably more about mis transliterations than anything else, as there were no less than 5 dialects or languages in the area to give names to places. And who the heck thinks that it's "not even worth biblical archaeology". It's not like the bible is made up - humans don't do that. the STORIES are made up, exaggerated. but if you are trying to lie aobut your reborn hero, say in the US, and trying to convince people he is real, you are not going to say "oh, he came from salmoinciam. you're going to give his made up story creedance, by saying "yeah, he came from Chicago. it's windy there". The man may be a myth, but virtually no one thinks the towns are myths. grrrr... some days anti christian people drive me batty. grins. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fact tag:Christians accept this as evidence, while mostly rejecting the stories of Joseph Smith or Muhammad.

We have a fact tag on this statement at the start of the Paul section. I'm not quite sure of the purpose of this tag. "True" Christians would regard Christianity to be the only true religion which has uniquely received the revealed word of God and that miracles are possible through Him. Under those circumstances it seems clear that they will reject the supernatural stories of any other religions. So what is the fact tag asking for? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it's some sort of "those bigoted Christians only think their scripture is valid" argument from a slightly obtuse new atheist (do I capitalize that? I learned when to/when not to capitalize stuff in first grade. It's been a while)--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But surely standard Christian teaching is that it's the only true religion? I'm pretty sure that it's the Catholic Church's position.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Remove the fact tag.--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the fact tag has gone, but I've changed it to "Christian churches accept ..." to show that we are referring to most formal Christian doctrine as opposed to the views of individual Christians who may believe a whole host of things and still call themselves Christians.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I got into a fight with Blue over this. I have no idea why we have to fact ever "most" but she insists we do. I think i lost my temper at least twice last night, over it.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

????? So the fact tag was over the word "mostly" in the quote above?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Common objections

Excising it and putting it elsewhere without a local summary doesn't make sense - the subarticle only exists as part of this topic here - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put it back, seeing above that the only rationale was that the article was long. Nevertheless, it's one topic - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't actually trying to get ride of it, but the page is huge. So I thought moving it to it's own page would help. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the page is a bit on the big side. It might be a good idea to summarise some sections and hive them off into separate articles.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There should be ways to word sections more tightly without losing information. The Josephus section springs to mind - though Josephus is a favourite of apologists, so not losing information is important. Also, we need an article on Eusebius - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What sections would actually make good standalone articles? (e.g. "common objections" didn't) - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, reading it through, if CO didn't make good side article (and i agree it didn't, which is why working the "why i sliced it" was so poorly written), the other would be even less. but let's see what happens if we get more concise. I realized as i was reworking some sections last night, we do say the same thing over again, several times, to make a point. maybe some of those can be looked at. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented out two sections in "authorship of the Gospels (renamed evidence in the gospel). I think they can be removed because they are redundant to other articles? but i wanted to see what you all thought. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the essential reason this article is long is because this is a big topic, but the whole article is about this topic. Large sections of the Jesus myth article actually do belong here too. I'm iterating over the article trying to fold stuff in and word things more tightly - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)