Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Old Archive

Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 1

Thus Spake Zarathustra

The qualification though this practice seems to date from the tenth century, when the mystery religions were no longer in vogue is NOT true. Mystery religions continued well into the 15th Century. The survival of the mystery religions, in particular, the versions associating with Jesus are the very reason for the creation of the Inquisition, see Cathars, for example. CheeseDreams 00:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ash is used on ash wednesday for purification, not conversion, or at least that is the traditional usage. People who have not converted (i.e. have always been Christian), together with those who converted many years ago, still receive ash. The historic church position on the matter is that the ash symbolises becoming pure for the 40 days of fasting before Easter. It represents the giving up of sinful/wordly things. It is thus a symbol of purity. Talk to a Jesuit for further details. CheeseDreams 00:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zoroastrians worship god through fire. They do use fire in their ceremonies, in a similar way to that of Orthodox Christians and Ikons. To the extent that there is considerable suspicion amongst biblical scholars that this is why there was a sacred fire in the Jewish Temple after return from captivity in Zoroastrian Babylon. Zoroastrian mystics regularly walk across hot coals - they do this for religious reasons not as part of a circus act. CheeseDreams 00:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason that the Byzantine Empire originated burning of Zoroastrians would clearly have been to mock their belief in the holyness of fire. Later explanations of the reason for using fire against heretics was that fire was purifying, a belief clearly still lingering from memories of the Zoroastrians. CheeseDreams 00:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ash has been used from ancient times on Ash Wednesday, not just from the middle ages. The practice is even related in the bible. The oriental origin of the practice is precisely that of originating in Zoroastrianism from Persia, an oriental country. See Ash Wednesday. CheeseDreams 08:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"conversion" is a technical term in Catholic doctrine. It means turning the heart toward God, and is required of all persons, not just non-Catholics. We don't claim that we are "fully converted". Ash Wednesday is not about purification (forgiveness of sins), but about our conversion from the attitudes toward sin. This is reflected very clearly in the words spoken by the priest upon applying the ashes (in one of the two allowable forms): "Repent and believe in the Gospel". (The other is "Remember, man, that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return."). And any Jesuit would say the same. The rite of Ash Wednesday, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia [1] as general usage for all Catholics from the 10th century, though earlier usage for penitents is cited, at least until the 8th century. Now, it might be related to memories of usages for other things, as is stated in the WP article, but there is no evidence of the feast day having existed. One must also consider the usage, shown already in the Hebrew Bible of using ashes to show mourning (see Book of Job) and conversion (see the Book of Jonah), for example. It seems more than plausible that the practice would be taken from Christianity's own scriptures, rather than from some another religion. Mpolo 09:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

In which case I would suggest "conversion (catholic usage)". By "purification" I meant "making ones self pure (e.g. by committing to fasting and cutting out worldly things)" not "being made pure (e.g. by absolution)".

The phrase I have heard the priest using upon applying the ashes is "in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost...". And I would assume that pre-Vatican II roman catholic priest would have said something in Latin along similar lines, such as "in nomine patri, et filii, et spiritui sancto...".

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not NPOV. This is clear by the use of the word Catholic.

Zoroastrianism is a particularly old religion. It dates from at least 600BC, the ancients who knew of it (e.g. Plato) considered it to be at least from 2000BC, and linguistic arguments (on grounds of comparative philology) imply it to be at least as old as 1300BC. Since the Book of Job dates from after the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews came into contact with Zoroastrianism (probably for the first time), it is highly likely that the practice in the Book of Job derives from Zoroastrianism, not the other way around.

Some surviving parts of the scriptures of Zoroastrianism are datable (by philology) to at least 1000BC, and mention of fire as being holy is still made. Whereas in Jewish Scripture (i.e. the Old Testament), there is no mention of holy fire until the texts dating after 600BC.CheeseDreams 20:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can use "repentance" instead of "conversion", but "purification" is wrong. "Purification" is almost always symbolized by water in Christianity. The ashes were not distributed with "in nomine Patris...", but with "Memento homo..." (Only the "remember, man," version existed before the Council. I understand that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not neutral as far as things that require a point of view, but they should have the facts about when the usage began in the liturgy, probably much better than any source outside of the Church. Mpolo 09:40, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Accusing Osiris

The section on Osiris needs a lot of work, if it is to remain in the article. Who claims this? It states that the Jo in Osiris is a reference to Ja -- evidence? Proof? It states that the house of the dead is also the house of bread (Bethlehem) -- evidence? Proof? Slrubenstein

Good point. Claims should be referenced. Jayjg 23:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't claim that the Jo in Osiris is a reference to Ja. There is no Jo in Osiris. The point in fact was that Joseph=Jo+Seth=The Lord, Seth. Please carefully read the article before accusing me.

In addition, the house of the dead in late egyptian mythology, Annu, also went by the name house of bread. For a connected reason, people in Thebes (once capital of Egypt) put loaves of bread in tombs as part of funeral rights!!. The goddess Ament who welcomed people to Annu did so with bread and water, the consumption of which forbade return.

I have a suspicion it may be to do with the lack of security over a grain harvest - thus valuing bread highly as a commodity. CheeseDreams 00:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yoseph = Yo Seth? That's a stretch. Yoseph (not Yoseth) means "will add" in Hebrew. The Bible gives the etymology. Jayjg 17:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

O agree with Jayjg, this "Yo-Seth" sounds like the fack etymology one finds in works of fiction rather than true scholarship. So where does it come from? An article in a peer-reviewed journal? Citation please. If it is not scholarly, I think we should cut it. I also don't see the connection between an pre-Hellenic Egyptian belief and the New Testament. It doesn't sound like real research to me. Again -- do we have a citation to a peer-reviewed journal article? Slrubenstein

Jo-, Ja-, Je- are all references to Yahweh. In the same way El- are all references to Elohim. Theophanic (a god-reference) names are standard practice in Hebrew and related cultures (such as Egyptian with Tut- (from Thoth) Set- Ra- (e.g. Ramasees (Ra+moses_), particularly in the Old Testament (the majority of names are theophanic).

Joseph means God will add . God being the Jo- bit.

The bible isn't the only translation reference. Try a professor of Hebrew and Aramaic. Or the internet. Or a dictionary.

Note also that the difference between Joseph and Joseth is entirely ignorable, firstly because of the slight difference in pronunciation between biblical hebrew and demotic, and secondly because pronunciation was flexible, particularly with accents. CheeseDreams 22:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The pre-Hellenic Egyptian belief is also a during-Hellenic Egyptian belief. The only difference being that it became syncretised to a mystery religion (in which there was a deeper meaning, and the stories were percieved, to the initiated, as myth, not fact, rather than the earlier belief in them as fact). In fact, later Hellenism in Egypt produced the syncretism with Dionysus called Serapis. This still contained the pre-Hellenic Egyptian beliefs, just a bit mangled up and mixed with Dionysus beliefs and the stories about Apis.

The point about mystery religions is that they are syncretic (i.e. they copy other religions, particularly other mystery religions, as they are not interested in the stories, only meaning that they can read into them).

As for the connection with the New Testament - The major religions in Rome (Mithras/Sol Invictis (which is a different name for the same thing)), Greece (Appollo/Dionysus), Persia (Mithras again, in a different guise), Egypt (Horus/Serapis/Osiris), were all Mystery Religions. I.e. Palestine was surrounded by them. It would be difficult to see how they didn't influence anything.

The Mystery Religion theory is that Jesus was a mystery religion. I.e. he didn't really exist, and there is in fact esoteric meaning to the stories about him. If this is true, then we would expect copying from other such religions, and, oh look, there is. Either it was copied, or it is an amazing (and suspicious) co-incidence.

I haven't put it in yet, but in support of this theory is St. Paul. He is increadably vague about Jesus as a real figure, and goes off into all sorts of ethical and mystical discussions, just like a mystery religion teacher would do. This is despite he was closer to Jesus than any of the other gospels in terms of time of writing, and yet they manage to describe his life as if it was easy to remember. Odd that.

There are a lot of clues in Paul's works which also suggest the idea of mystery religion. These include mentioning secrets and secret knowledge (this is also found in some of the gospels), an intrinsic part of mystery religions. Also, the very idea of the Secret Gospel of Mark is of this kind. I will put this sort of thing as a new section into the article when I have the time. CheeseDreams 23:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to a google search for you to find the meaning of Joseph This is the link.

This is not the place for original research.

It is not my research. I have put at least one reference down, on the article references section in the article please read them if you do not accept that it is not my research but that of others. CheeseDreams 23:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are evading the original question: what scholars make these claims? And, even if scholars do make these claims, the point remains that the section is horribly written. Here is the first paragraph: Similarities with the Osiris-Horus-Isis myth

In the later version of his myth, Osiris has a god for a father, but a virgin human female for a mother. In this myth, the mother is called Meri, and the father is Lord Seth (the hebrew name prefix "Jo-", being a reference to Yahweh, is usually rendered as "Lord"). The place of birth is the house of the dead (also known as the house of bread, which in Hebrew is "Beth Lehem").

The third sentence is a non sequitor.

The third sentance is an explanation of a connection between Nativity stories. So is the second. How does the third NOT follow the second?

What is the evidence that Yoseph means "Lord Seth?"

Are you actually reading the paragraphs I write? Yoseph = Yo + Seph. Yo is rendered Lord/God (usually Lord) in translation therefore you have Lord + Seph. CheeseDreams 23:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the evidence that Bethlehem is a reference to the Egyptian House of the Dead?

It has the same name once translated. Beth Lehem. It is also the place of birth of both. This could be co-incidence, but the case for Mystery Religions being copied is that it isnt, and the section is about the arguments for the case for Mystery Religions being copied. CheeseDreams 23:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This reads like fiction. If real scholars have made the argument, then it is poorly represented. Explain who makes the argument, what the evidence is, how the proponents of the argument deal with any criticisms or alternate readings (e.g. Speiser). Otherwise, it gets deleted. Slrubenstein

If you insist on deleting everything that does not support your POV, I will have to go to arbitration and have you suspended from editing. CheeseDreams 23:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is about describing the arguments for and against. The argument I have described exists. Therefore it should be included.

I do not know alternate readings. The point of Wikipedia is that people who know about X add in details about X. It is not my job to provide both sides of the argument. It is the job of people who know about side X to put side X into the description, and that of people who know side Y to add side Y. There is already a "Scholarly defence of Jesus" section in the article. Please add the criticism (e.g. Speiser) in there. CheeseDreams 23:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please also note that at least one other editor (with whom I do not always initially agree) has commented on the section and said that it is a really good article now. CheeseDreams 23:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubstein, you cannot just delete things you disagree with. That is not according to policy. All sides of an arguement should be presented fairly and without bias. The Rev of Bru

You want to try and get me suspended. Go ahead and try. "Slrubenstein, you cannot just delete things you disagree with..." Huh? What on earth are you talking about? Have I deleted anything from the Osiris section? No: I was suggesting it be deleted if it cannot be rewritten in an encyclopedic way that more clearly explains the argument and provides an account of the research behind the claim. This is at worst a provocation for debate -- actually, something very good here at Wikipedia. I still don't understand why Joseph=Yo Seth, or why the Bethlehem in Judea is the same as the house of bread in Egyptian mythology. Joseph is such a popular Jewish name it is no surprise that a Jewish carpenter in the time of Augustus would be named Joseph. What is the evidence that it is actually a reference to Seth? I still don't see any evidence. We are trying to write an encyclopedia. Let's try, seriously. Slrubenstein

Indeed these were common names. However, how common is it for a virgin called Mary married to Jo-seph (a carpenter) to have given birth to a son who is the saviour of mankind, in Beth-Lehem, whose father is god, for which the virgin conceived by the holy ghost, and for which she was told in advance by a heavenly messenger, and on the birth she was attended by 3 persons each offering a gift ?

All these things are true of Horus (Seph was considered a carpenter, amongst other things), and of Jesus. And many are shared with other mystery religions too. The tale itself only really appears in the Gospel of Luke, one of the later gospels.

The article is not about WHAT DID HAPPEN, only the arguments for and against. The argument for Syncretism (i.e. stealing from other religions) needs to be expressed. The argument is that which I wrote in the article (though I have cut it short somewhat, as I don't intend this article to be a massive essay).

It doesnt matter that it is contested. This is about what people claim, not about what actually the truth is. CheeseDreams 21:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You continue to ignore my questions -- Who (which scholars) have made this argument, and based on what evidence? The section in the article is useless if it doesn't have this information. If you can answer these question you don't need to do it here, add it to the article. Wikipedia is not for primary research, your own speculation does not belong in the article. Slrubenstein

Here is a link to a section of a (particularly large) but NPOV website. The section is about this subject. CheeseDreams 23:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things to note about the connection with Horus, is that if the story was copied, then it implies that Jesus resurrected Lazarus in the same way that Osiris was brought back to life. Since this was in many legends by (urm, how can I put this) a certain sexual act, it has an interesting bearing on the Sexuality section in the Jesus article. CheeseDreams 23:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is Tom Harpur your major source? Why don't you identify him in the article then? Slrubenstein

Who on earth is Tom Harpur? I have never read anything by him at all. I have many more sources than that. And I have, repeatedly, stated that I have put a reference to at least one book on the article (which is not by Tom Harpur, by the way). CheeseDreams 18:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You want to know who Tom Harpur is? Well, just follow the link you suggested I follow! I never heard of him myself until I followed your link. Didn't you follow your own link? Slrubenstein

Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence for a Historic Jesus? The assertion is frequently made that 'most historians think a historical Jesus existed' - why? Where is the evidence? The gospels are rejected as not being reliable; they contradict each other, they were not written at the time (possibly one was written in living memory, but still not definitely from a first hand source) - they are second hand, or even third hand, accounts, not eyewitness accounts. The events related in them are not reported by any other writers in the area (sky darkening, dead rising from graves, etc etc.) Joesephus et al are neither contempory nor mention Jesus Christ authentically (blame Eusebius for that.) Where is the evidence?The Rev of Bru (this section was incorrectly inserted at the top of the page rather than at the bottom, apologies.)

You reject the Gosepls as utterly unreliable, but not everyone does. There is the evidence (which some people reject) of the martyrdoms of the first disciples -- the ones who would have been "in on" the great falsehood that you are proposing. There are lots of arguments and evidence. The problem is that you -- personally -- have rejected all of them. But that doesn't mean that everyone has rejected those reasons and arguments. You seem to be saying that unless we have a person writing the life of a historical figure exactly contemporaneously (which until modern times happens pretty rarely, except in major centers of learning and culture where there is an active historian), we have to assume that that figure never existed.

I have not 'rejected' anything. I'm awaiting any evidence for them. If you have such evidence, not just a story someone told you which you believe, please supply it (preferably by a reliable, qualified secular scholar.) You seem to be saying that just because one group of people believe a story, that means it is true. Also, you've shot yourself in the foot with the claim about historians.

John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

• Josephus
• Philo-Judæus
• Seneca
• Pliny Elder
• Arrian
• Petronius
• Dion Pruseus
• Paterculus
• Suetonius
• Juvenal
• Martial
• Persius
• Plutarch
• Pliny Younger
• Tacitus
• Justus of Tiberius
• Apollonius
• Quintilian
• Lucanus
• Epictetus
• Hermogones
• Silius Italicus
• Statius
• Ptolemy
• Appian
• Phlegon
• Phædrus
• Valerius Maximus
• Lucian
• Pausanias
• Florus Lucius
• Quintius Curtius
• Aulus Gellius
• Dio Chrysostom
• Columella
• Valerius Flaccus
• Damis
• Favorinus
• Lysias
• Pomponius Mela
• Appion of Alexandria
• Theon of Smyrna

According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles.

To your other point: think this through. If someone was wandering around doing miracles to entire cities (as it says in the bible, and other events such as described in the gospels happened (dead rising from their graves, sky darkening, etc etc etc), someone would have noticed it. We are not talking a guy sitting quietly in a house doing nothing, according to the bible Jesus was out performing miracles, casting demons out of people, cursing trees, and so on - this WOULD have been noticed by the surfeit of historians and chroniclers in the area. It wasn't.The Rev of Bru

To add to that point, John the Baptist is mentioned i n quite a few of the above, and in addition in Roman Records. I.e. John the Baptist is far more likely to have lived, when considering numbers of witnesses to the fact, than Jesus. CheeseDreams 21:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From a historian's point of view they are utterly unreliable.

• Second/third/fourth hand witnesses wrote them
• They were collected together and chosen from a large range of other material (some of which is called the Apocrypha/Pseudopygrapha) by people who had a vested interest in what was selected and rejected.
• There are variances between all the earliest manuscripts known, some in particularly important places, such as whether the ending of Mark actually existed or not.
• They look like they were doctored - phrases such as "and they came to Jericho. And as they went out of Jericho" look like they have been cut, others, such as John 21 look like they have been added (it ends perfectly well, indeed better, at chapter 20)
• Some of the translationscut whole verses out (e.g. Matthew 18:11)
• Some translations choose to gloss over inconsitencies (see Creation accounts in Genesis)
• There are many inconsistencies.
• Some translations others to mistranlate deliberately (Greek "Magoi" - a zoroastrian priest is translated in some versions as "Wise Man" or "King" rather than "Magi" or "Mystic priest" or "Magician" (Magician as a word derives from Magi))
• Some translations add highly POV footnotes distorting the meaning of the text (e.g. at 1 Corinthians 6:9, there is the footnote "practicing homosexuals" means adult males who sexually abuse young boys in the New American Bible)
• They contain at least one forgery (dating from the 14th Century and inserted into a passage to imply the idea of a Trinity was always part of christian doctrine, it is now known conclusively to have been a Spanish forgery - 1 John 5:7-8 (the explicit bit about the trinity), and cut from many more modern translations).

These disqualify the item from being regarded as reliable for historicity, though they do not for being reliable for church development. CheeseDreams 23:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By your standards, Socrates must have been a complete buffoon, because the only contemporary reference I know about him is The Clouds. And all these silly people accepting Plato as evidence for him... Pshaw, don't they realize that he put his own arguments into Socrates' mouth. We can't trust anything he says about the man! If that weren't enough, the other eyewitness to the trial who took the trouble to write about it, Xenophon, has him facing a different charge and giving a completely different defense speech. Besides which, Xenophon and Plato are both disciples of this man, so can't be trusted at all.

Jesus is as well-documented as most other unimportant figures from his time. The Bible never gives him a crowd of disciples bigger than 500 or a crowd seeing him larger than 5000 men, not counting women and children. As far as the history writers were concerned, he was a non-entity until the religion based on his life and teachings started to grow. If everyone who is not mentioned in a contemporary history doesn't exist, you must be conversing with a figment of your imagination, because I don't appear in any history book either. Mpolo 15:23, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, that is not true. John the Baptist is SIGNIFICANTLY better documented. Just because the bible is more popular doesn't make it a greater number of pieces of evidence.

Anyway, most classical scholars don't regard evidence about Socrates to be terribly conclusive. (not that it matters, in this article) CheeseDreams 20:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The best evidence that there was a Jesus was the fact they found his ossuary.... with him in it. The fact that he was anything more than a man is doubtful. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what does a collection of bones with the name "Joshua", a common Jewish name, written on the side of it proove? That someone called "Joshua" who had a parent "Mary" and father "Joseph" existed? How rare an occurrance is that? I mean, there is absolutely no-one else who ever existed called "Joshua" whose mother was called "Mary" and father called "Joseph" is there, or am I wrong? I fail to see how this implies that the Jesus mentioned in the bible existed, only that someone with the same name, and with parents of the same name, did, which isn't terribly surprising.CheeseDreams 21:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In fact, if they found an ossuary for Jesus, doesn't that mean he is dead and didn't have a resurrection? CheeseDreams 14:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Horus

I have just realised that I have mixed together Osiris and Horus. I will try to correct this error at some point.

The new Mystery Religions information needs some cleanup, but I think you're planning on that. I don't have time to read it right now, but I noticed that you blame Christians inequivocally for the burning of the Library of Alexandria, where there are considerably more theories in vogue than that one. Mpolo 10:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't finished the Mystery Religions section at all. I just put a few things in, it needs to be rearranged and integrated. I will do that this UTC evening.

I am thinking of putting the discussion above (Where is the evidence?) into the article in some way, as it seems relevant. I will probably do that this UTC evening as well.

The Christians were sent to the Library of Alexandria to burn it down (by Theophilus of Alexandria)- it was attached to a non-Christian temple (the priestess of which they killed)!!!! CheeseDreams 13:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Where's the evidence" is already there. It's in the companion article Alleged textual evidence for Jesus, where all evidence that exists is discussed. It's also linked in the "Scholarly Defense of Jesus" section. We also need to see how much of the "Mystery Religions" section belongs here and how much in Mystery religions. When we were just talking about similarities with Christianity, that was one thing, but that section is gradually expanding under your hand into a complete article on the subject, thus losing the focus of this article. Let's not get into pushing a point of view.

I understand that you and Bru and many other atheists have personally rejected every source of Jesus' life, but not everyone (by a long shot) has. Most people and most academics accept the Gospels as providing a certain amount of valid history. You have personally concluded that there is none there. There are major differences of opinion about all of the sources. Again, you have rejected them, but you (and those who believe what you do) are not the only people on the planet. The section above gives the impression, "well, I've rejected all these sources, therefore there are no sources, therefore Jesus never existed, therefore, we should really rewrite everything to present the truth." But that's not possible in a neutral encyclopedia. Mpolo 14:12, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

• I am not an atheist. My mother is Roman Catholic, my father is Protestant Anglican (this is the same as Episcopalian). I have spent the last 7 years living at one of the UK's top university theological departments. In fact, I hold a first class honours degree. I have a Masters degree. You clearly have a POV bias about people who add critical evidence against Jesus to articles/talk pages.
• The Rev of Bru worships a fizzy orange drink with a unique taste (which isn't of orange, by the way), which is more popular in Scotland than Coca Cola.
• "Where is the evidence" needs to go into this article as a seperate section, then be recut into the seperate article Sources of Jesus.
• The Mystery Religions section will eventually go into another article, but it will need to be something like Syncretism and coincidences involving Jesus and mystery religions as the Mystery Religions article is a bit of a mess, and is really about what a mystery religion is (and there is no way that Scientology or Mormonism has a bearing on the Historicity of Jesus). The Osiris-Dionysus article is more relevant (though still should not be about connections with Jesus), although that article is really in need of a LOT of work.
• Most biblical criticists dispute the accuracy of the Gospels. Most academics in the field consider the Gospel of John to conflict violently with the other 3 Gospels (though I knew this before, I read the relevant article recently, though I do not remember its name).
• The "Where is the evidence" section will obviously be rewritten when inserting it into the article.
• The only sources are (a) The bible and associates (apocrypa etc.), (b) A forgery by Eusibius in Josephus, (c) a disputed reference in Tacitus, (d) a comment in Philo about Christians NOT Jesus. Its terribly easy to reject all the non-biblical sources, as they can hardly be considered (a) reliable or (b) numerous - as the list of people NOT mentioning him shows.
• I don't think the scholarly defence of Jesus section should remain. I think it should be woven into the relevant parts of the article instead. Though I haven't had time to read it and work out how.
• The Mystery Religions section is ABOUT a POV. It is indeed rather large, but this is because I haven't finished it and put all the elements together yet (as you can probably see by the duplication of elements). Eventually I will detatch it and put most of it into a new article, with a summary, but I haven't (a) worked out a title for the article or (b) finished the section enough to work out how to detatch/summarise.

CheeseDreams 14:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I lumped you in with atheists. I don't care whether you're an atheist, a Zoroastrian, a Bru-ite, an agnostic, an Orthodox Jew or whatever. You are pushing one point of view very hard (although Bru pushes it harder). If you haven't noticed, I've been working with you on this article. I'm not saying that the Mystery Religion point of view shouldn't be presented, just that it was threatening to get overly long and losing its focus as regards the article.

I understand that lots of people doubt the Bible's accuracy. I would go on to say that a minority hold it to contain someno inaccuracies. But the vast majority of scholars, Christian or otherwise, feel that it represents historical truth in various points. Is Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallo to be totally thrown away because he says he saw unicorns in the Black Forest?

There is well known to be a forgery in the bible, so much so that ALL the modern versions cut it out (though it is still in the KJV and some other early versions). The MAJORITY consider at least this one inaccuracy to exist, and indeed there are many other (now) known forgeries which are cut in modern versions for this very reason. I can't remember the reference to the first forgery, but it is somewhere on this page, I think it is in John (Gospel of). Compare the KJV to a really modern translation. The text simply dissappears. CheeseDreams 19:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I mistyped above when I said "a minority hold it to contain some inaccuracies" -- I meant to say "a minority hold it to contain no inaccuracies". Sorry for the confusion. You seem to be laboring under the idea that any text that has more than no errors is completely useless and so should be discarded. This is an extreme point of view. The phrase you are referring to is the "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John. It was in Erasmus's Textus Receptus, but in few other Greek texts, so has not been accepted by most modern Christians. But that doesn't mean that the Gospels have no value. Mpolo 20:03, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, that seems plausible now. Exactly where did I say ALL of the text should be ignored? I was pointing out that it should be viewed with suspicion. There have been found many forgeries - that doesn't mean we have found them all. Yes, it is the 3 heavenly witnesses bit, it is in the KJV. The point is, that once you remove the forgeries, copying from other religions, sayings actually from Aesop, anti-gnostic vitriol from Iranaeus, etc. all you have left is a description of a fairly standard jewish teacher who did fairly normal things. Of course the state of the Gospels have value - they tell us a LOT about the early church and its sensibilities. CheeseDreams 20:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have four extensive sources (plus the Gospel of Thomas, and some mentions in Paul, not to mention the quotes from earlier authors preserved in Eusebius -- not everyone rejects every word that he wrote because he said that sometimes a lie can be morally acceptable, plus aside mentions in Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny) on the life of this man. You can't pretend that your decision that these are to be thrown away totally is neutral and shared by the whole world.

Erm, textual criticism has fairly conclusively shown that the quotes in Eusebius are doctored, i.e. in places forged, by none other than Eusebius. As for the Gospel of Thomas, all it is is "Jesus said X", and a sizable proportion of the quotes can be shown to be from other not-Jesus sources, e.g. Aesop's Fables (I am assuming you don't mean the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which is just insane), to the extent that the Gospel of Thomas is thought, not only in some way to be Q in a later form, but also to have been simply a collection of known wisdom sayings, to whom Jesus is latter attached. A proportion of the letters attributed to Paul (known as the Pastorals) are considered NOT to have been actually written by Paul, but rather other people to support their views. The Pastorals are the only place Jesus is ever referred to as having actually existed, rather than as a gnostic myth, in the whole of Paul's known writings. CheeseDreams 19:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not universally accepted textual criticism. Eusebius "doctoring" his own writing is called "editing". When I correct my own text, it is not a sign of academic dishonesty. While a certain cadre of skeptics likes to accuse Eusebius of editing Josephus, there is clear evidence of the other interpolation to Josephus reported by Eusebius. This would indicate that Josephus had been doctored at least once before Eusebius. I personally don't accept the Gospel of Thomas as having much value, but I am willing to let those academics who say it's the most important document about him have their say. You don't seem to want to do that. Please read 1 Cor 11,23-25. Paul, not in the pastoral letters, writes about the Last Supper. Please read 1 Cor 15,3-7. Paul, not in the pastoral letters, writes about the Resurrection. You have rejected all evidence of Jesus' existence, but yours is not the only opinion that matters. Mpolo 19:59, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

No, I mean't Eusebius doctored Josephus' text that he "quoted". Thomas is important because it provides evidence for Q, and the whole synoptic thing. The resurrection in Paul is written about in a way entirely consistent with Gnosticism, i.e. a metaphorical resurrection, as would happen to ALL initiates once they are ready to receive gnosis. Likewise the last supper. It matches, remarkably well, the principles in other contemporary mystery religions, who also had this resurrection - it was a central part of the religions.

The list of people not mentioning Jesus is not all that surprising, considering that none of the historians listed was in Judea, except for Philo and Josephus, who have been discussed elsewhere. It's funny that when you look for evidence of Jesus, you insist that it has to be contemporary sources, but when you want to ridicule the lack of evidence, you stack the deck by listing those who were up to a century later.

Eusebius was something like 3 centuries later, if my memory serves me correcly. Philo mentions Christians, not Jesus. The only historians really to in Judea in a big way were the Jews. Their text is however unusable as it is all in coded allegorical references. Hillel is not a real name, nor is Shammiel, the terms just mean "winner" and "loser", which is a fair description of what happened to them. The Jewish texts refer to many characters called Jesus, too scrambled together to be much use, but nethertheless, not really surrounding the same time, either too late, too early, or killed at a date much later. CheeseDreams 19:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which means, for neutrality's sake, in your "Where's the evidence" section, you can only consider writers who were contemporary with Jesus, were writing in detail about the events of the region (if they only list the prefects, it's hardly surprising that they miss events), also indicating which of their works have survived. The ones who are contemporary and mention John the Baptist would be the ones to cite, I suppose. Mpolo 18:46, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you are from the US, you can buy The Rev of Bru's object of religious worship here CheeseDreams 19:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As to the Library, the prevailing opinion is that the last gasp of the library was at the time of Theophilus, but there were several other disasters in the course of the library's history. See the WP article for more. Mpolo 14:32, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have mentioned that it was Theophilus on the talk where we were discussing that about 30 minutes ago. CheeseDreams 14:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I realize that, but the article would indicate that a good deal of the destruction had happened beforehand. That is, you can't blanket-condemn the stupid Christian backwater mobs for the loss of the Library, without abandoning a neutral point of view. Mpolo 19:59, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed there was such a prior damage. What came before could be compared to rioting, however, to completely destroy the library so that nothing survived is more systematic and controlled. CheeseDreams 20:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Structure

I was thinking of arranging the article something like

Syncretisms

(In which various similarities/copying are discussed, including that of depictions in art)

Better to call them similarities. There is no proof of copying. The reader is smart enough to decide. Mpolo 20:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would like something that encompasses both sides of the arguments I was thinking "Syncretisms 'with X" where X is something like "mystery religions", as it doesn't take a side as to which way the syncretism went. Similarities is POV as it suggests co-incidence (likewise Copying is POV because it suggests, erm, copying). CheeseDreams 20:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Surroundings

(in which the apparant absence of a mystery religion in Judah is noted, despite the idea swamping the remainder of the hellenic world in which it was at the centre of)

• Horus

(discussing similarities, and how Horus stories came to be known in Israel)

• Pythagoreanism

(discussing the origin of Mystery Religions in greek philosophy, and how mystic numbers such as 12 (disciples) and 153 (fish) are significant geometric properties matching their assigned things (i.e. 12 = number of spheres possible to surround a sphere of same size and still touch it, 153= geometric ratio for Ichthys shape)).

• Osiris-Dionysus
• Mithras (who is also Sol Invinctus)

(the above four are in chronological order)

• Priority

(In which it is discussed as to whether the religions copied Jesus, or vice versa (unlikely in the case of Horus as it is many centuries BC), and the Astronomical meaning behind the non-Jesus stories is discussed - implying either they copied Jesus and it is a remarkable coincidence to be able to be interpreted thus, or Jesus copied them, or it is a remarkable coincidence (despite the cultures being right next to each other and trading).

Sources

(In which the lack of sources are discussed)

• Sources FOR Jesus

(describing the sources which show Jesus, such as Josephus, and explaining why they are to be discounted, e.g. because they are forgeries)

Surely you meant, "why some academics feel they should be discounted". Note that this can be a summary section, as there is a complete article at Alleged textual evidence for Jesus. Mpolo 20:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I was intending for the whole Sources section to become a new article (eventually) which is merged with Sources of Jesus (probably with that title). CheeseDreams 20:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Numbers (this title needs to be worked on)

(Explaining who the other possible writers and commentators at the time are, and how many (i.e. how few, if any) have mentioned Jesus, and also explaining how this contrasts with the amount of evidence for a less significant contemporary (John the Baptist).

• Reliability

(In which the discussion of validity as a reliable source to historians for the bible is made - i.e. what (known) forgeries exist in the bible, selection of books to go into the bible, translation problems, etc.)

Gnosticism

(In which the idea that belief in Jesus was originally gnostic (i.e. Jesus was a teaching myth and not considered real) is expressed)

• Paul

(In which the works of St. Paul are discussed as to how they do not ever describe a necessarily real Jesus, and could be interpreted as gnostic tracts)

Without silencing the majority opinion, that they are not Gnostic tracts. Mpolo 20:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Of course there would be something like "Traditional viewpoints on Paul's letters are ...." e.g. some scholars consider him to have been a self-loathing homosexual who bitterly hates the whole world, others that he was violently against James, to the point of committing murder (being the unseen assasin of James at the temple steps) (James vs Paul seems to match up remarkably well with Shammiel vs Hillel), others still use Paul's writings to support non-liberal viewpoints on a variety of subjects. CheeseDreams 20:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The Synoptic Gospels

(In which it is pointed out how there is much mention of secret teaching (i.e. gnosis), in addition to gnostic symbolism, such as the naked youth at Gethsemene, and (doubting) Thomas Didymous (Thomas is greek for Twin, Didymous is Twin in another language, so he is called "The twin" rather than actually having a name, a gnostic concept - the twin is a representative of the initiate into the gnostic faith, who doubts etc.)

• The Gospel of John

(In which the Gospel of John is discussed as to how it varies from the other gospels (linking to the relevant article, rather than duplicating it wholesale), and yet how it makes a very good piece of Anti-Gnostic propoganda (which is remarkable, considering the first person to mention or quote from it happened also to be Iranaeus, a reknowned fanatically anti-gnostic writer)

• Other Gospels

(In which the various non-canonical writings e.g. Apocrypha, are discussed and how they show that gnostic teaching exists in the bible).

• Persecution

(In which is discussed how the Gnostics were persecuted, and how the early church gained victory over them to be the state religion)

Amongst all of this, I would like to weave the "Scholarly defence of Jesus" section, and other similar arguments for that side of the fence.

After this, the article will need to be budded off into daughter articles, reducing each of the above sections into a summary, somehow.

Thoughts? CheeseDreams 18:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The outline looks fine (two or three comments above). We just have to be careful about declaring that the conclusions that you or I or anyone else may have made about the matter are the final word. Mpolo 20:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would try to avoid conclusions alltogether.CheeseDreams 20:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

problem with syncretism sections

The agument for syncretism is not an argument that Jesus never lived, it is an argument that the NT account of Jesus, his nature, life, teaching, etc, is heavily distorted. I have two suggestions for how to respond to this problem. First, how do the different scholars who claim Jesus never existed specifically connect the argument that the NT account is distorted, to the argument that Jesus never existed? Add this to the article, with specific citations. Second, remove the material on syncretism from this article and use it to make a new article which could be titled either The Historicity of Christ (to refer specifically to the supernatural Jesus rather than Jesus the man) or Christianity as a Syncretistic Religion or Cultural influences on Christianity or something like that. Slrubenstein

That is reasonable. The right title is difficult to find... Cultural influences on Christianity isn't bad, but may be too near to Cultural and historical background of Jesus, though the change from "Jesus" to "Christianity" does differentiate their focus. What about Christianity and the mystery religions? That seams pretty neutral and to the point. Cheese is planning on "spinning off" that section at any rate. Mpolo 20:15, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the argument for sycretism splits into two camps

• One group who go "oh, its just an amalgam of other things, so it isn't really real at all"
• One group who go "which proves he is a mystery religion, because mystery religions do that all the time, indeed do so deliberately. In fact, many of the syncretisms are with other mystery religions (i.e. Osiris-Dionysus), which would be expected if Jesus was one."

It is here because of the 2nd part. The first is still a valid argument however, and it is important to include the fact that some people do use the fact of syncretisms for this purpose, or even just have the implication that they do.

The argument for syncretism isnt about complete proof of non existance, it is just about eating away at the historicity a bit. Therefore it is still Historicity of Jesus.

I know that Slrubenstein doesn't want this article to exist (see his DELETE comment some way above), but that is no reason to change the title. If you see the above, Slrubenstein, you will see that the Mystery religions bit is intended on being a seperate article eventually, particularly as there is so much information.

I know that Slrubenstein doesn't want to have issues of Historicity of Jesus discussed at all, but the fact is that other people discuss them, and a good encyclopedia should both mention that they do, and what they discuss.

Trying to change the title, like on other articles, is trying to assert your POV on what articles ought to exist. If you want an article on Cultural Influences on Christianity you are quite welcome to create it yourself. Wikipedia always welcomes new articles. CheeseDreams 20:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Calm down, stop getting hysterical. Take a breath. You know I never suggested deleting this article. You know that on other talk pages I have referred to this article approvingly. I even wrote part of it. Before, you seemed to understand perfectly well that when I suggested a deletion I was referring specifically to a three sentence paragraph. I reproduced the paragraph in question on this talk page, explained why I thought it was poorly-written, lacking evidence, and meaningless, and I said I would delete "it" -- meaning the paragraph -- if these problems were not addressed. Look, if English is not your first language, I apologize if my comments are not always clear to you but please go back to the section in question on this page -- I really don't see how anyone could possibly think that I am refering to the whole article and any discussion of "historicity" when I am specifically refering to three sentences. Moreover, I never suggested changing to the title of this article. Why do you think I suggest that? And why do you constantly try to argue with me about things I do not believe and never said? Slrubenstein

My first language is English. Not American.

I can assure you I am perfectly calm. If I was not, I would already have spent the better part of the day raising an army of people who support my POV to oppose yours. CheeseDreams 21:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then why did you say that I do not want issues of the historicity of Jesus discussed at all? Why did you say that I want to delete the page? Also, if English is your first language, why do you think a sentence like "I think someone Jewish would be better placed to ask someone about this" means the same thing as "someone Jewish is best placed to find out the answers." In the first sentence someone Jewish is a subject that has as its verb "to ask," while in the second sentence you seem to use someone Jewish as the subject that finds the answers. What are you trying to say? (p.s. better look up the word "army," I don't think it means what you think it means) Slrubenstein

Because asking someone who knows is (usually) finding out the answers? Maybe I should spell everything out when I am replying to you, as you don't seem to comprehend implicit connections. Is english your first language? If not, I can try to find someone to translate this for you. CheeseDreams 00:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.s. (from the O.E.D.) Army: (meaning 2) a vast group.

Please look up the word yourself before you suggest that someone doesn't comprehend it. CheeseDreams 00:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Progress on developing the article

At this time, I have created basic outlines for most of the sections. I will slowly flesh them out as the week progresses.

Once I have finished fleshing out the Sources section I will merge it with (i.e. replace, having already merged the info in here, restructured it, provided more content and made it more NPOV (which is not finished yet, it looks POV at the moment)) the Sources of Jesus article, summarise the section and link to it instead. This section is the easiest to write as it doesnt take much analysis to produce.

I will then attempt to sort out the mystery religions bit (the syncretisms section), integrate the content and explain the Jesus-as-a-mystery-religion theory. Then this too will be budded off into some new, as yet untitled article.

Then the most difficult section, about the various biblical and associated texts, and the pointers to Jesus-as-a-gnostic-belief-to-start-with (i.e. Gnostic Priority rather than Literalist Priority).

I will leave the {{sectstub}} tags in (for some reason it only renders the first few, the remainder are left as Template:sectstub written in the text) until I am satisfied that I have finished the various bits.

When I take one of these stub messages out you are quite welcome to edit the section, as I will consider it finished. (please check the base of the section first for any stub message which isn't displayed)

Note, however, that the 3 sections (Sources, Syncretisms, Gnosticism) are eventually destined, in my design scheme of this, for seperate articles, so don't worry too much about their current size, or the size of the article.

I would welcome comments on the bits so far (though note that they are not finished so don't worry too much about NPOV issues, as I haven't got round to sorting that out yet).

CheeseDreams 21:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a general rule, it usually works better to work on large changes like this in scratch pages, maybe even inviting other to join in editing there. You really can't expect everyone else to ignore your edits for a week or more. Wesley 02:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting them to. I was about to sort out the previous article part (mainly syncretism) and merge it in to the newer article part, which would have taken only a few hours or so. After that point it would have had a strong semblence of a normal article, though lacking in content in a lot of sections, and with the wording not being as nice, complete, or NPOV as it could be. But it was locked from editing late the previous night/early morning, as the admin (one of the group who are monitoring Sam's edits) decided it needed to be locked as Sam was about to delete it or something. CheeseDreams 22:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You can't make a mess out of an article like that! You can't say "work in progress, please don't edit for a week", or whatever it is your doing. I'm about to list this mess on VfD, or merge it w Cultural and historical background of Jesus and/or Sources_about_Jesus myself. Sam [Spade] 00:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam,

• The article isn't a VfD. You can't just wipe out critical evidence against jesus because you don't want it to exist.
• Likewise cultural background or sources of jesus
• Please read the above section(s). They will explain what I am doing.
• I live in UTC time.
• The article is only temporarily a mess, it will only be like that one or two days, many articles are in a much worse state.
• This article is not just about sources for jesus or jesus background, it is about critical arguments against jesus, and critical evidence for him.
• If you had actually read the above sections, you will notice that I am myself going to move a large portion of the text to Sources of Jesus. I have already merged most of the stuff on that page into this article, and intend to include more, such as the Herod letters (I have already written a stub for this, but it will be rewritten and fleshed out), there is a small mention that Mpolo found in Lucius, and criticism of the bible as a witness, etc.
• You CANNOT merge it with Cultural and historical background of Jesus. That page, fortunately, is protected.
• Sources about Jesus is not very NPOV, and lacks detailed criticism, and is certainly not about mystery religions, pythagoreanism, gnosticism, or the like.

CheeseDreams 00:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that CheeseDreams wants to turn this page into a minority view held by only a dozen scholars. Should the article on historicity of Jesus start with a list of pagan gods like Horus, Pythagoreanism, Osiris-Dionysus, Mithras?? That sounds like a nineteen century anti-Christian pamphlet. By this format he is trying to prove his personal belief that Jesus is a pagan myth, instead of clearly presenting the views of scholars (on both sides) and what they think. I suggest reverting this guy's edits once the article is unprotected. OneGuy 01:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was a belief of many at the time of the early church. See the quotes in the article from some of them. Pythagoreanism isn't a pagan god!! Its the group of mystics which included Pythagorus. And reverting immediately on unprotection is extreme POV, and will just result in the page being reverted back and locked again. CheeseDreams 22:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)