Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 20

Regarding footnote no. 1
The introduction paragraph leading to the first footnote says this:

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

I agree that most biblical scholars regard Jesus as a historical figure (of course they do - most of them are Christians), but not that historians or people in any other field of science are agreeing with this. What the person who has written this puts as reference are books by the following people:


 * Raymond E. Brown who is an American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar.


 * Shaye J. D. Cohen who is an ordained rabbi.


 * John Dominic Crossan who is a Christian author.


 * Paula Fredriksen who holds the position of William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University, which speaks for itself.


 * Géza Vermes who was born to Jewish parents, was baptized Roman Catholic, became a priest and a theologian, then left the Catholic Church and became a Jew again.


 * Paul Maier who is the Second Vice President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Identifies himself as a devout Christian and apologist.


 * N. T. Wright who is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England.


 * Ben Witherington III is an evangelical Biblical scholar.

My point is that these persons are NOT historians in the scientific sense, but even if they did scientific historical work their intentions would be highly dubious and I find the paragraph not representing reality. I think some revising should be done for there is no scientific, physical, independent evidence of the existence of any historical Jesus of Nazareth, later to be called Jesus Christ.

My suggestion is that "and history" in the first sentence has to be removed. Shiva4815162342 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article already mentions dissent but marks it as a minority opinion. You seem to be asserting that it's a majority opinion, which would need some serious backing up; luckily, since "controversy sells books", it seems like it should be easy to demonstrate if true.  Oh, and I don't think any deep meaning needs to be read into the fact that most of the texts cited are by Biblical scholars; there's a much simpler possible explanation!  :-)
 * While we're on this subject, of some edits relating to the point has a summary of "Rv. deletion of cited info and inaccurate changes." &mdash; as far as I can see the changes reverted didn't delete any info at all?  You're entitled to your opinion on the "inaccurate" part, I guess, although it looked more like a clarification of the existing text.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No my point is that none of the people cited are historians, they are theists and theologians. Hence, unless the author of that paragraph can actually show us that the majority of historians support the theologians when he says there was a historical Jesus (the Jesus depicted in the Bible) then he has to remove the "and history" part. I am not speaking in favor of there being many people dissenting from the majority view, rather that there is no majority view of Jesus existing among historians at all. In order for there to be a majority view one has to show for that by citing sources of historians that are not theologians (preferably).


 * Point being; the paragraph's footnote is not representing what the paragraph is saying. Shiva4815162342 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The cite is clearly from scholars asserting a fact, that the majority of historians hold Jesus was a real historical person. If you believe that is not true, show us your evidence that the contrary is true, that the majority of historians hold Jesus wasn't a real person. That citation cites respected scholars who are asserting a simple head count among historians, something easily checked. Encarta for instance makes the same claim. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Encarta page and I'm still in need of anything to back up their claim. How can I back up that most historians are not accepting the historicity of Jesus? It is up to those who make the claim of him actually being accepted as a historical person to show the evidence for this. I have seen no such evidence. Do I need to show evidence for the majority of astronomers not accepting geocentrism? Isn't it better to show evidence of heliocentrism being accepted by most astronomers? Shiva4815162342 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Roy makes an excellent point. Furthermore, your list excludes many scholars listed in the citation (Sanders, Meier, Carson, Knopf, and Grant). You seem to be making a very strange leap of logic, that someone with a religious affiliation is somehow disqualified from being a scholar based on their personal religious beliefs. I believe it is also fallacious to imply that someone who is ordained cannot be a historian as well. Can someone be ordained and a Spanish teacher? Can someone be ordained and a electrician? Then why can't someone be ordained and be a historian?? I think you are going to have to argue a lot harder that these cited individuals are not historians. And the even more important task at hand, you have to demonstrate that the majority position among historians is contrary to what we state in this article. Good luck with your efforts. -Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. E. P. Sanders is also a theologian and has a doctorate in theology and literature.
 * 2. John P. Meier is a Biblical scholar and a Catholic priest.
 * 3. Don Carson is a scholar of the evangelical movement, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and "a speaker at many Christian conferences."
 * 4. Alfred A. Knopf was just a publisher and he didn't have any authority in a scientific quest for the historical Jesus...
 * 5. Michael Grant might be the only actual historical scientist mentioned so far... But still, Trinity College? Anyways, this hardly seems as a majority...
 * Point being, again, I want the list to include more of the types of Grant. Historical scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists... something actually scientific. Not these scriptural researchers. There are no scriptures from the time of Jesus that mention him (only generations after his alleged life and death). So all the scriptures they're looking into are just proof of there being an early Christian Church. That doesn't mean that the Jesus depicted in the Bible ever existed. The Jesus character of the Gospels might simply be a collection of the different messiah types at the time... Shiva4815162342 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The challenger must back up his claim. Roy has no point.  "Historian" is a technical term.  The author should establish their credibility as independent, objective, qualified historians or scholars and he fails to do so.  I can claim that the majority of people in a field believer some way.  The challenger does not need to prove the negative, but he original claim needs to be backed up, or it reads like opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.248.104 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm challenging something? I'm not challenging anything. I'm asking you guys to provide any evidence that your challenge to the assertions of the article about the number of historians who hold to Jesus' historical existence is legitimate. Just saying you don't believe a Christian historian, even if they have doctorates in history from world renowned schools, isn't a rebuttal to what they say, only evidence that they are wrong is, and there's plenty of non Christian sources that make the same claim as this article. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, how can one prove that something didn't exist? One can't. The burden of evidence is on the ones making the claim that Jesus existed and the ones claiming most historians accept his alleged existence. Shiva4815162342 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think anyone who thinks that a significant number of historians don't believe that Jesus existed should read some books on the historical Jesus. It is not only accepted - it isn't even discussed because it's taken as a given.   It's like somebody arguing about the existence of Alexander the Great - it's a historical non-starter.


 * Has anyone who has claimed that Jesus didn't exist placed that contention into peer-review? If there is one,  I can't find it.  69.74.54.23 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, someone has claimed Jesus didn't exist in a peer-review publication. It was Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 and said:

"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." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text)


 * The main issue a few editors had with Fischer in regards to the Jesus myth hypothesis article was if it was relevant, a contention I found strange as I pointed out in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25. As I pointed out there all the reasons the presented for keeping Fischer out were identical to ones I presented for James Charlesworth and he was ruled as a reliable source; this IMHO was and still is a double standard especially as Charlesworth's book has problems on many levels.


 * On a related note comparison between Jesus and Alexander the Great is a bad one because there are contemporary sources for Alexander the Great: coins minted with his likeness, statues carved and cast in his honor, and even mosaics made commemorating some of his early achievements.  NONE of this exists for Jesus.  A better comparison would be with someone like Apollonius of Tyana (often called the Pagan Christ) but even in the case of Apollonius his own writings have survived so even here we have contemporary evidence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, we all know deep down that it's all made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fontwell (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shiva has a very good point. The sentence is manipulative and illustrates a rhetorical device attempting at persuasion rather than documentation of evidence. Shiva is trying to raise awareness of how the writer implied scientific methodology by the words "and historians" when in fact those were opinion of believers, that is, people who assume beforehand the historicity of the so-called Jesus of Nazareth. Shiva brings a valid, solid point that demands an honest description of sources, and the inherent bias of writers and scriptural scholars/believers. It's a matter of conflict of interest. If they accept that there is little or no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, then they must accept that they have worshipped throughout their lives a character from a fabricated story. That is a tough truth to live with. Julio moreno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.176.211 (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Shiva makes a very good point. The last line of the first paragraph (and repeated numerous times in the relates articles) states "(some authors)... have recently re-popularised the argument, though it carries little weight among the majority of biblical historians and scholars." Then has three citations, one pops down to the biblio and discovers the first one is from Seminarian graduates and professors. The second is published by a religious publishers that seems to publish a lot of works that counter secular researchers claims and third is back to being published by seminarians.

Now, as a previous responder posted, does this automatically imply they can't be trusted historians? No, but it does make statements made by people who may or may not have an invested interest in a topic suspect. Do we trust the Tobacco Companies when they state that nicotine isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer? Do we take white supremacists at their word when they claim their groups are merely about pride?

Maybe they're correct in their assertions, but I'd like some sources outside of the religious establishment. Otherwise this article is rather bias. Of course, in the end, there's going to be far more people who want to prove Jesus existed, than didn't.Worlock93 (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree very strongly with the opinions of Shiva et al. Those two little words "and history" make all the difference. This applies even in an area of minimal contention. If, for instance, I read: "Most scholars in the fields of Jewish studies and history agree that the Holocaust happened" I would expect to see references to articles by an equal number of historians with no background in Jewish studies (and ideally, as the author could guess, no Jewish background overall) to those with that background. That is a reasonable expectation of an unbiased author, and the burden of proof surely rests with that author as long as s/he maintains that the two little words should stay in the text. Note that the same principle would apply if any other authority were mentioned, e.g. "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies, biochemistry and history agree...". The author needs to prove it, implicitly by around a third of the references being from biochemists. In other words, the author's choice of words is more significant than assumed vested interests per se. Adam 194.176.201.28 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence concerning scholarly agreement is misleading and is redundant. If virtually all agree then there are few who don't. Also no most historians don't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davezenko (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Romans 9:3-6
Andrew, how else would you interpret "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ". Paul is clearly saying here Jesus was a "human", whose ancestors were Jews. Some versions translate it into of the flesh or something like that, which also clearly means Jesus was a real flesh and blood person who was Jewish. I'll look for a cite if you wish, but we don't for instance provide scholars pointing out Paul's other quotes are relevant to the historicity question, even though we could provide several. We don't have any scholars talking about Pliny or Lucian or Celsus or Thallus, we just quote what they say. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind WP:NOR. We cannot be the first place to publish that the historicity of Jesus is bolstered by Romans 9:5. I think we really need to crack down on this in a number of places (as you point out). We must avoid original research, and since I noticed this recent edit, I figure it's better to tackle this first before going through the rest of the article. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways. We can't say this verse supports historicity, even if you personally believe it does (unless we are citing scholars who have already published this view). Sorry to be a stickler for the rules, but I think this will improve the article, at least in terms of WP:V. Hope this explains my tag! And hopefully we can get to adding sources for those other people (I know Meier and Ehrman discuss these ancient sources in their writings. We could add a sentence saying something like "Scholars examining the historicity of Jesus study the few non-Christian references to Jesus in the ancient writings of Pliny, Lucian, etc...." Because these ancient sources only have a paragraph at most discussing Jesus (which are quoted in these works by Meier and Ehrman), it should't be an issue. However, for Paul, he has a dozen letters that may relate in some way to the historical Jesus, and singling out a single verse needs citation. I'll try to track down those aforementioned sources, and I'll see what they say about Paul and see if Romans 9:5 is mentioned. -Andrew c [talk] 20:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you name a single historical evidence for the existence of Jesus?
Somehow you seem to think that historians do not regard the textual references to Jesus in the ancient texts listed on the page as representing historical evidence. These ancient texts are historical documents which almost all exhibit the precise same theme, that a man named Jesus who was regarded as the Christ lived, taught, and was executed by Pontius Pilate during the early 1st century in Palestine.

With this much consistency among this abundance of texts, to try and shrug it off as being non-historical is ridiculous.

A written record by a neutral person? Writings by himself? A piece of cloth worn by him? Maybe a cup he used to drink of? Writings by his relatives? No? Then please state that THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EVER EXISTED :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.78.93 (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of what is and is not regarded as "evidence" by actual historians. And you want this encyclopedia to incorporate your ignorance. Carlo (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. The evidence for Jesus is no better than that for Hercules. The cultural inertia of the West is only reason Jesus is accepted a as a real person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fontwell (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "On the contrary. The evidence for Jesus is no better than that for Hercules."< That statement is appallingly ignorant. Learn the first thing about the subject before you pontificate on it.  Carlo (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who makes up this garbage that you write? What does the cultural inertia of the West have to do with what the ancient texts clearly say? Your argument is a red herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.28.122 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact there are many views of the person called Jesus and there are other sources of information besides the Bible from which to learn about him. For instance, historical rabbinical literature refers to Jesus ben Pantera as the bastard son of Miriam Stada whose husband was Pappos ben Yehuda, the birth father being a Roman soldier with a common name ‘Pantera’ (panther) who was her paramour. Other historical secular references said a Roman soldier raped Miriam and Jesus ben Pantera was the result. Jesus Ben Pantera was accused of using Egyptian sorcery to heal and perform magic, enticing Israel to apostasy, therefore he was executed. [Ref Baraitha BT Sanhedrin 43a; 67a, b; Tosefta Hullin 2.22, 23, 24]71.113.4.39 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) P. A. O'Rouark

It is clearly the mainstream point of view among biblical historians is that Jesus was a real historical figure. However, this does not mean that those that hold that Jesus was mythical are merely a bunch of fringe scholars and popular writers. Robert M. Price, for instance, holds the mythic point of view, and he is a well respected New Testament scholar. His "New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash," which expounds the mythical view, was peer reviewed and published by Jacob Neusner, who is one of the most respected scholars of Jewish history in the world. In terms of historical evidence, there is not one non-New Testament piece of writing the witnesses to Jesus Christ as an actual historical figure. Their are ancient non-Christian writers (such as Tacitus) that refer to an historical Jesus, but these references refer to what the Christians of the writers' times were saying about Jesus, not that the non-Christian writers were claiming that Jesus was a contemporary of them. The historical and the mythic point of view are both interesting and explanatory competing theories. The Wikipedia article discussing the historical Jesus and the article discussing Jesus and comparative mythology (and the mythic Jesus one) should be joined. Both sides of the argument deserve to be given space in an article about the origins of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm missing the point here.. but most of this article refers to texts _from the Bible_ as proof that Jesus exists. How is that valid historical proof of anything at all? How can this article seriously be filled with so much useless illogical fluff? An event is proven because a book written by some people 70 years later said it happened? If that is to be accepted as proof of Jesus' existence then the opening crawl of A New Hope is valid historical proof of the existence of Luke Skywalker. Seriously, how is this "proof"? SoheiFox (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * More none biblical references would be helpful to those who asset the historical existence of Jesus, but two points for consideration are 1. Written documents some 70 years after is not a particularly long gap. Even today new historical writings can be collated if there are enough first hand witnessses of events seventy years ago or from those who who were close to such people.  2.  The Bible is not a single book but a collection of separate books.  Add to those wirtings ommited from canon such as the gospel of St. Thomas and there is enough to suggest the existence of such a man of Jesus irrespecitve of religious belief.  Dainamo (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask - some writers see the Thomas text as further evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus, others like Doherty and Price see it as evidence that there wasn't one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.58 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be interesting to example. I don't undertand specifically how the gosspel of St Thomas would be evindnce against a historical Jesus, so woul like some allaboration on the views in this particular area ecpressed by Doherty and Price. Also please sign your comments. Dainamo (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dainamo: In response to your point about using the gospels themselves as historical records even though there is no corroborating non-gospel records, I found a good quote from Christopher Hitchens in his 2007 book "God Is Not Great (ISBN 978-0-7710-4143-3) ... "[The four Gospels are in no sense] a historical record. Their multiple authors - none of whom published anything until many decades after the [supposed] Crucifixion - cannot agree on onything of importance. [To take one example,]Matthew and Luke cannot concur on the Virgin Birth or the geneaology of Jesus, They flatly contradict each other on the 'Flight into Egypt,' Matthew saying that Joseph was 'warned in a dream' to make an immediate escape and Luke saying that all three stayed in Bethlehem until 'Mary's 'purification according to the laws of Moses,' which would make it forty days, and then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem ... The Gospel according to Luke states that the miraculous birth occurred in a year when the Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census for the purpose of taxation, and that this happened at a time when Herod reigned in Judea and Quirinius was governor of Syria ... But Herod died four years 'BC,' and during his rulership the governor of Syria was not Quirinius. There is no mention of any Augustan census by any Roman historian, but the Jewish chronicler Josephus mentions one that did occur - without the onerous requirement for people to return to their places of birth, and six years after the birth of Jesus is supposed to have taken place (111-112)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.17.165 (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you are still not signing your posts! I would not argue against there being histoprical inaccuracies and likely errors within the gospels. Given the delay in recording detils an account of the life of Jesus there would be chinese whispers, possibly exaggerastions and general errors about what was going on at the time e.g. confusing one past ruler of Syria with another. However, what remains consistent in the texts is the report of a charismatic preacher named Jesus (divine or not) who gained a following before and after his life. Asserting that the errors in the reports mean the whole thing is doubtful is a little over the top. We might get many verbal versions of an unrecorded event during World War Two, but listenining to a few accounts allows us to discern what themes are oonsistent and what are likely to have been real. I thought also that a record of the trial of Jesus had been recorded by Josephus? at the time. Dainamo (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am somebody else than the wikipedian above. Just wanted to let you know that nothing like "the trial of Jesus had been recorded by Josephus" is reality. And the main question about Gospels is not if several decades passed after Pilate are problem or not but which authors wrote them and what is the literary genre of the gospels. Stories about Sherlock Holmes were written very closely to the time of the stories but this does not make Sherlock historical. The gospels clearly look like an allegorical writings where almost everything is based on the Old Testament. They surely do not look like works whose aim was to provide a description of historical events. If you want to believe that Sherlock was historical, you can (and many people wrote him letters to Baker street, in fact). Similarly you can believe that Jesus of Nazareth was historical, though all the early Christian literature outside Gospels (like the New Testament epistles, Didache, 1st Clement etc.) give not a slightest hint that the authors would know any recent historical Jesus of Nazareth. But as I say, you can believe that despite of this, the Gospels (which look allegorical and we have no slightest idea who wrote them and with what intention) are based on history, just because the later church understood them in such a way. But it is better to read Doherty and/or R.M.Price if you are really interested.88.101.6.226 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gospels are the works of at least FIVE separate authors, (Mark, Q, John, Special Luke and Special Matthew) all of whom talk about the same person, and at least four of whom are CLEARLY intending to provide a description of historical events.


 * Five separate authors all talking about the same guy, and all agreeing on certain details is an historical slam-dunk.


 * There is a reason that the "Jesus didn't exist" group is a fringe of a fringe.


 * There is also the fact that a church claiming him as its founder - and CLEARLY regarding him as an historical figure - was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his purported death.


 * There is no contemporary mention of him, but you would not expect there to be, since he was a preacher in a backwater of a backwater, who did not come to attention of anybody important until the week he died, and whose importance only began WHEN he died. However, there is MUCH contemporary mention of those who knew him, like Peter, John and James, the latter of whom is called his BROTHER.


 * Enough stupid conspiracy theories. Carlo (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call the Jesus-Myth hypothesis a fringe scholar conspiracy theory. Robert M. Price's work has been favorably peer reviewed by Jacob Neusner, one of the most renowned and respected scholars in the field of the history of Jewish thought in the world. If you want a good introduction to Price's work, go to his website and read "New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash," which is under the 'Theological Publications' section, under the 'Encyclopaedia articles' subsection. Then, go to his MySpace page (you can get there from a link on the website) and read his letter entitled 'The Quest For The Mythical Jesus.' The 'Midrash' paper destroys the idea of using New Testament writers as historical sources. But there are many other reasons to distrust what is said about Jesus. The New Testament is filled with mutually contradictory claims about Jesus that that are completely unsupported by the historical and archealogical record. Also, as Prof. Bart Ehrman has convincingly shown in 'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible And Why,' some of the gospel stories are patently fraudulent, like the story of 'he who is without sin should cast the first stone' from John 8: 3-11, because the story is not present in the best and oldest manuscripts we have and is obviously a later addition. When taken together, the Jesus Seminar findings and the work of others show that the Jesus stories are not original, but a Christian rehashing of older Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and Persian myths, mixed in with repetitions and themes from popular novels and stories of the time about empty tombs and crucifixions and the like. As for the canon, there are completely contradictory traditions. The Q source speaks of a Galilean preacher/miracle worker, who had nothing in common with the Pauline gnostic Christ. The canon probably began with Marcion's (and his well established group of followers) real or forged use of Paul portraying a gnostic Jesus, then Rome, for Political reasons, countered with a human Jesus canon, which was then drawn down through Irenaeus, to Eusebius, to Athanasius, and so forth. If this were a court case trying to establish that Jesus existed historically, it would laughably be thrown out     ;  John  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You said: "[S]ome of the gospel stories are patently fraudulent, like the story of 'he who is without sin should cast the first stone' from John 8: 3-11, because the story is not present in the best and oldest manuscripts we have and is obviously a later addition."


 * No, that doesn't make it "fraudulent" - that makes it a SIXTH source.


 * Price is one guy. One guy out of thousands is fringe.  And referring to his own website and myspace page for verification of his accuracy is laughable. And Paul practically quotes some of Q verbatim.  And Paul CLEARLY believes in an historical Jesus, not a gnostic Christ.  Which is part of the problem.  You can only ask for special pleading of so many things before your contention becomes increasingly improbable.  Those who don't believe in an historical Jesus ask for a whole lot of special pleaading. And if there was a case trying to DENY that Jesus existed historically, it not only WOULD laughably be thrown out - it actually HAS been, by the vast, vast majority of scholars in the field.


 * Oh - and you also addressed NONE of my actual points. Carlo (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Many scholars hold the gnostic view of Paul, including, to name a few, Elaine Pagels (Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton) and Tom Harpur (University of Toronto). Also, by your insane logic, if I wrote a verse and identified it as belonging to the gospel of John, then I wouldn't be perpetrating a fraud, but rather I would be a seventh source. Referring to Price's website just meant you could find the 'Midrash' article there if you were interested in seeing it. If you wanted something more dignified, You could also find it in Jacob Neusner's Major Jewish scholarly work "The Encyclopedia of Midrash," which only contains articles by scholars that are considered experts in their respective fields. There is no special pleading required here. The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is just as tenable as the historical Jesus hypothesis, and you can either accept that or continue to keep up your blinders. In any case I don't know why anyone would continue to debate you. I certainly won't (you get too angry and I worry for your health) - John  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An important new book concerning Paul on this issue is "How Jesus Became Christian (2008)" by Barrie Wilson. It is being called one of the most important studies on the origins of Christianity in decades. I just got through it and it's a must read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.151.61 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A few minor edits
I have amended the start of the article to make it more factual. The article is about the historical existence of Jesus as described by various sources that we have in the 21st century. It is not about the authenticity of the events associated with his life, (eg. the miracles). Secondly, I don't know of anyone who claims the whole of the Gospel of Thomas is an early source. Rather it is considered as a "Sayings Gospel" some of the wording seems to be closer to Q than that found in the Synoptic Gospel of Mark, which is otherwise considered the earliest. I have amended this statement to reflect this view. John D. Croft (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Historians?
First of all, please stop edit warring and come here to discuss your differences. Second of all, I believe the research, phrasing, and citations were lifted from Jesus (Nevertheless, non-historicity has been rejected by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.[108][109][110]) You may want to raise your concerns at Talk:Jesus, as it is the top tier article, and the users who helped write that sentence might be more likely to respond there as they may not be watching this page. Regardless, I'm concerned about consistency. If we edit the phrasing and sourcing of sentence here which came from Jesus, we should probably do likewise there and vice versa. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 02:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will endeavor to resolve that on that page as well. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that many historians who even want to touch this topic since it's so sensitive for Christians. This is a theological question that Bible scholars study. Not historians. --Joe hill (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to be blunt, but wikipedia does not operate on what you "don't know". You can make whatever claims you want, but all that matters is reliable sources. Not only do we have a very large footnote to back up the current wording, I ask you, in all sincerity, to name one historian that questions the historicity of Jesus.-Andrew c [talk] 23:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Be as blunt as you want. Give me one real non-Christian historian that claims that he or she can be sure that Jesus is a real historic person and not "just" a religious myth. As I said, this is not an area many historians tread because of its obvious religious implications. Biblical scholars is the correct word - not historians. This article suggests that the majority of historians in the world supports the historicy of Jesus - that's NOT correct. The majority of historians in the world avoids the topic of the historicy of Jesus. --Joe hill (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you claim that historians support this idea when most of the sources refered to in this article either are Christians or Bible scholars. --Joe hill (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Raymond E. Brown who is an American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar.


 * Shaye J. D. Cohen who is an ordained rabbi.


 * John Dominic Crossan who is a Christian author.


 * Paula Fredriksen who holds the position of William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University, which speaks for itself.


 * Géza Vermes who was born to Jewish parents, was baptized Roman Catholic, became a priest and a theologian, then left the Catholic Church and became a Jew again.


 * Paul Maier who is the Second Vice President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Identifies himself as a devout Christian and apologist.


 * N. T. Wright who is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England.


 * Ben Witherington III is an evangelical Biblical scholar.

These persons are NOT historians in the scientific sense, --Joe hill (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a copy and paste of a conversation that took place last summer. Why don't you read the responses and see if you can bring SOMETHING NEW to this discussion (preferably something in the form of a reliable source that supports your personal opinion). Thanks. In the mean time, can you please stop blanking parts of the article that there is prior consensus to include while we are having this discussion? Edit warring will get your no where.-Andrew c [talk] 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked these so called scientists myself, so it's not just a copy and paste. I just wanted to remind you and any other who possibly care about honesty. You can't seriously claim that a majority of historians support a historical Jesus. They don't. They don't even want to discuss the topic. Be honest and claim that a majority of the Biblical scholars support a historical Jesus. That's what the article actually says. --Joe hill (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"The cite is clearly from scholars asserting a fact, that the majority of historians hold Jesus was a real historical person. If you believe that is not true, show us your evidence that the contrary is true, that the majority of historians hold Jesus wasn't a real person." This is clearly a bullshit argument since no, or very few, historians discuss this topic. It's a topic for Bible scholars -not historians. That's the reason why all scholars you refer to are theologians and Bible scholars. If a majority of historians support your view Andrew then show us some non Christian historians that actually do so. --Joe hill (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Grant for one. How many will satisfy you?  And do you have any evidence of what you're saying, that most historians are actually agnostic on the issue?  And would it be possible in your view to be a historian and a Christian at the same time? Roy Brumback (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the global warming article, and a phrase like "the scientific consensus" and arguments raise about how the vast majority of scientists don't even study global warming. Perhaps all we need is a qualifier, like the one in the global warming article "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change". Obviously, we are talking about historians that study ancient Judea/early Christianity/ or Jesus specifically. I thought that went without saying, but apparently not. As for your ridiculous request, you already listed two scholars who are Jewish (and failed to mention Michael Grant, who we also cite). On top of that, it is entirely inappropriate to some how religiously discriminate our sources based on your personal prejudices. In fact, it sickens me, and if you want to try to change the article based on these prejudices as opposed to actual cited sources, please think again.-Andrew c [talk] 06:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)