Jump to content

Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Daughter article

Notice: This is a daughter article of Jesus Christ - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't this make the article a granddaughter of the Virgin Mary? Rickyrab 02:34, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. It's not about the Virgin Mary, it's about Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu

Who are these "some" and "others"? Whose characterization is this so-called Dutch Radical School? a rational reader might like to know. (This phrase has been rewritten as Tubingen school with a link, so that's okay now.) Who in particular is being tarred with this particular brush? May we know anything about them? Or are they merely dismissed in this non-NPOV phrase? (my rant) Is this acceptable at Wikipedia? Is this about history and historians? Wetman 01:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Still, not a single historian is named in this article. There is not a single title of a book. What are the specifics here? Why is historical source material separated, instead of being criticized and discussed? Wetman 22:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just added a lengthy quote from the well-known historian Will Durant

A good start. Let me see if I have anything in the house... Wetman 08:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC).

What about Jesus Chirst? He's a reformed Chirstian Vandal! Rickyrab 02:34, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the section about "Why historians do not dispute the 'historicity' of Christ". That section was majorly POV and also inaccurate. (If the author can't even bring himself to write "historicity" without scare quotes, that's one clue.) It basically said, in an obscure and subtle way, that the reason historians don't dispute Jesus is because of "cultural bias", "innate points of view", etc. etc. This is completely false. The reason they don't dispute it is because of the abundance of historical evidence for Jesus. Today, there is virtually no debate among serious scholars whether Jesus was real. More evidence will follow shortly.

Will Durant writes in Caesar and Christ (p. 555):

About the middle of the first century a pagan named Thallus, in a fragment preserved by Julius Africanus, argued that the abnormal darkness alleged to have accompanied the death of Christ was a purely natural phenomenon and coincidence; the argument took the existence of Christ for granted. The denial of that existence seems never to have occured even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity.

Here we see opponents of Christianity from the first century taking Jesus' existence for granted! Obviosuly, there is no "cultural bias" operating here.

The historical context of Thallus is summed up here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

I would like to intervene here on the issue of 'The Darkness' in the 1st Century. The link above points to the fact that we have no way of knowing when Thallus was writing, or indeed exactly what he did write. But references to a darkness in the 1st century AD could most certainly coincide with seismic activity and volcanic activity. Vesuvius erupted at this time - 72AD , and would have cast a darkness over the known world with it's ash. It's eruption was also surrounded by seismic activity around the meditteranean region. User:Trotboy

I am reverting the suppression of text by Anonymous User 68.123.238.178 .The text merely shows why secular historians don't need to "prove" the historicity of Jesus. Only religious historians deal with this question. Wetman 18:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? Many secular historians have dealt with the question at length. I think you are confused. At any rate, the section has nothing to do with Jesus, only with historical methods in general, and it doesn't belong on this page. And besides, there is no evidence of the "cultural bias" and "innate points of view" that the section asserts.
I don't agree with wholesale cutting of text, but Wetman, you can't assert that no secular historians care about whether an historical figure actually existed. The section on cultural historians is quite inadequate, I think, in that it completely ignore the fact that only historians operating under a particular set of assumptions see the past in that way. Jacques Barzun would be one example of a hugely important cultural historian who would not suggest that it is unimportant to consider the factual accuracy of accounts of the past. Furthermore, are Biblical scholars not historians? I think they often are, in fact. We have to find a way of showing that, given modern trends in historiography, many historians (especially cultural historians) feel the question of a person's actual existence is secondary to the impact of their supposed existence on others. But plenty of historians (especially those focused on the history of Christianity and related topics) still do take seriously the question of whether or not an individual existed. This article needs improvement. Not the "improvement" the anon is making, but significant changes, nevertheless. Jwrosenzweig 18:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I set out to assert the superiority of my race using historical quotes, I am not writing history (even though I may title it history), am I? Historians don't hunt for "proof texts," though bible scholars do. There's no issue here: the Durant quote in the entry begins with "mention of Christ" but actually only discusses Christians. So my only point is made, though it is not permitted to be discussed. No modern historian of Roman Judea is "proving" or "disproving" the existence of Jesus. An example of one would be useful. For lack of one, does a historian of Persia set out to "prove" the existence of Mani? Never. Does such a historian deal with, Manichaeism and its causes and results. Of course. I made none of the assertions Jwrosenzweig affects to counter. I am sorry to say that Biblical scholars are often not good historians. Jwrosenzweig: do you you mean to give the impression that Jacques Barzun discuss the historicity of Jesus? Establishing that certain early popes are fictional is not part of the history of their time, but of the time when the fictions were assembled....

I dont understand what you're trying to say about the Durant quote. Durant is not a Biblical scholar; that quote is from one chapter in a book that is mostly about ancient Rome.
Wetman, I disagree. Yes, Durant didn't address Jesus's history. But you want the name of "one" historian? How about Michael Grant (formerly a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Professor of Humanities at Edinburgh University; President and Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast; author of many books on the era of the Roman Empire including Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels in which he defends Jesus' historic existence)? And before you object to him as "hunting for proof texts", I'll note that it is my understanding that Grant is an atheist. I don't mean to give the impression that Barzun discussed Jesus' historicity -- that seems like a sort of odd jab. It seems obvious to me that I was raising the example of a "cultural historian" who does not accept the view of history that is presented as "standard" in the contested text. Anyhow, now that I've satisfied your demand for "one" modern historian (Grant is still living), perhaps you'll agree that we can't assert that no modern historian is interested in the question of whether or not a person actually existed. I would point to Homer as another persona from the ancient world about whom historians disagree concerning whether or not he "really" lived. Yes, much cultural history is written that couldn't care less whether Homer, Buddha, Jesus, and others _actually_ existed. But there is still history written by intelligent historians that deals with these sorts of questions. Jwrosenzweig 23:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So let me post the inadequate text here, so we can work on it without some anonymous fanatic troll getting in the way:Wetman 22:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why cultural historians do not dispute the "historicity" of Jesus

Among historians who are not Biblical scholars, the "historicity" of Jesus of Nazareth has rarely been at issue, and the reasons for this reveal something about the nature of historical inquiry. Historians remain skeptical of what they are being told in any historical text. They derive much of their information by reading between the lines. Those subtexts of Christian literature that reveal innate points of view and characteristic cultural bias, the documented activities of actual Christians and their influence on societal norms and culture are all of significance, while the 'historicity' of Jesus of Nazareth, minimally documented outside Christian sources, is not ordinarily addressed.

To take a brief analogy from another area of Antiquity, where current sensibilities are not so involved on a partisan level, Herodotus, sometimes called the "father of history" tells the following tale: the king of the Medes, Cyaxares offers some Scythian suppliants at his court the opportunity to educate a group of Median children in the Scythian language and in archery (Histories1.73.3): after being harshly treated by Cyaxares one day, for returning empty-handed from a hunt, the Scythians have their revenge by killing one of the boys in their charge and feeding him to the king (1.73.5). The historian does not question the "historicity" of the event: whether it actually happened or not cannot be usefully assessed. Instead the historian assesses the Scythian reputation as archers, Greek perceptions of Scythian culture in the 5th century BCE, resonance of the myth of Tantalus and subtexts of Hellenic distrust of all inter-cultural relations.

I hate to spoil the party, but the fact is nearly all modern historians admit the existence of a man named Jesus. Any view that holds that he never existed is an extreme one indeed. And this has nothing to do with "cultural bias"; in fact, the question of Jesus' existence has been debated at length by scholars since the 19th century. The general consensus is that he was real, and this fact needs to be acknowledged in the article.

The article makes it seem like there is an ongoing controversy over whether he was real, but that's just not true. As far as mainstream historians are concerned, the matter is settled.

"Nearly all modern historians"? That is quite the sweeping statement; do you have concrete proof of this, say the results of a poll? (I have to express incedulity at this statement; from my own experience, there are a number of historians in the US & Europe who are atheists, agnostics or Jews; I can't imagine any of them embracing this belief.)
My sense from reading the relevant literature (e.g. Roman history) is that historians mostly side-step the issue, which is easily done. After all, Christianity does not start to enter the mainstream until the 3rd century, when the first officially-sanctioned persecusions begin. (Earlier persecutions were the result of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy where if someone was accused of being a Christian, they could avoid punishment by denying the charge, & offering a sacrifice. Apparently most of these charges were the result of the interminable petty feuds within communities, & until the Crisis of the Third Century, the Roman decided that they had better projects to devote their resources to than suppressing what they dismissed as a dangerous, but marginal, cult.) And even then, this issue whether Christ existed can be side-stepped by simply talking about the tradition of his belief; akin to a rumor or folklore that has become important. Unless a historian is studying an area where this question of the existence of Christ is clearly of importance -- the provincial life of Judea, & perhaps that of Syria or Anatolia -- whether or not Christ existed is irrelevant.
I suspect the reason for this is that any discussion of the existence of Christ is a no-win argument: no matter what the stand a historian takes she/he will offend someone, find their work treated with contempt & hostility simply over this one point, & be distracted from their own calling by this topic. It is better to leave it to the historians of religion & the students of the Bible, many of whom likewise avoid the topic. -- llywrch 19:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
History is a Liberal Arts study, I'm more interested in what proof Anthropologists have to show. I do like the researcher who indicates Nazareth was still a one family farm a century after the passion play. And where are the precursor Pagan Skymen demigods like Attis and Osiris? Something seems dishonest here. - Sparky 19:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Editorial comment

I moved the following text from the page, even though it may be a helpful suggestion, because these types of comments belong on the talk page: Warning: The terms historian and scholar are used too freely in this entry. (Member of the Association of Ancient Historians-just an amateur) I would recommend an attempt to find out what is the definition of critical history; before one goes into the delightful mysteries, limits, and blanks of ancient history (Before 476 A.D.) Wmahan. 16:34, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)


NPOV

Just because something might be a fact, doesn't mean it can't be used to insert POV into an article. I eliminated a statement that one view was held by a majority, because it was phrased and positioned in such a way that it was hinting to the reader that the minority point of view was wrong. I have no objection to the alleged fact being in the article, but only if its communicated neutrally. ChessPlayer 11:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

If something is a fact then there is no POV. Facts are neutral, and to dispute a fact without any contradictory evidence is POV. I might also add that a fact is a fact whether it is recognized by the majority or not. DavidR 18:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What is the fact in question? Would chessplayer inform of what the fact that was eliminated was? --81.156.181.83 00:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem dating the Gospel of Mark

The article says "... The Gospel of Mark is considered by historians to be the earliest of the four. It is dated between 65 and 70, which means it may have been circulating while some of the apostles, or their immediate disciples, were still alive;..."

If I am not mistaken wasn't Mark written c. 45 AD? I am at work and unable to check my resources right now, but unless someone can correct me or show evidence for an early date being disputed, I plan to correct the article after researching my facts.

And on a related note, don't we also have the date of death of most of the Apostles, e.g. John died c. 95 AD. So to imply that "may have been...some of the Apostles...were still alive" rather than state that they were still alive seems disingenous to me. DavidR 18:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of responding to myself, my resources show that the Gospel of Mark was written between 55-65 AD. Therefore I intend to update the article with this information.
DavidR 15:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I changed the dating to 65-80 CE as is most commonly accepted. There are passages in Mark that allude to the destruction of the temple at the events of the First Jewish revolt which took place in 66--70 CE. Namely in chapter 13, Mark has Jesus predict the destruction of the temple. I think this is strong evidence that the text was written after the destruction of the Temple. Since you are asking for sources, have a look at [1] and at [2] an accessible presentation with extensive documentation and references. Which are your sources that date it to 55-65 CE? Dr_Absentius

I edited that paragraph rather drastically. The old paragraph is

Moreover, the same historians generally agree that at least some of the sources on which Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic account of his life and death. The Gospel of Mark is considered by historians to be the earliest of the four. It is dated between 55 and 65, which means it was probably circulating while some of the apostles and their immediate disciples, as well as numerous other eye witnesses, were still alive; so we can conclude that it was probably fairly close to the actual events of Jesus' life. When a document has been written within living memory of the people described in it, it is considered fairly reliable by historical standards. Furthermore, many posit the existence of a now lost "sayings Gospel" written during or shortly after Jesus' life consisting primary of the words of Jesus, typically called the Q document. This document is used to explain the considerable overlap in material between Matthew and Luke which is not common to Mark.

Besides the fact that a radically early dating was presented more or less as the consensus, I also fail to see why the assumption of the existence of a common sayings source from which both "Mathew" and "Luke" plagiarized increases the value of the synoptic gospels as historic sources. If you have an argument to that effect it wasn't clearly expressed. As they stood those two sentences seemed out of place. Dr_Absentius

Most of the datings I have seen put Mark before the destruction of the temple, but near, say 65-70. A lot of Christians would have no problem with an earlier date -- if Jesus is God, we would expect him to be able to prophesy the destruction of the temple, wouldn't we? Obviously for a purely historical argument, that can't be introduced, but it does make the "destruction of the temple" argument somewhat moot as far as reaching consensus. Nonetheless, scholars usually date Matthew and Luke after the destruction of the Temple because they provide a great deal more detail about the event (and appear to be based on Mark).
Then there is the scrap of parchment from Qumran that one researcher (I forget his name, but could probably find it if pressed) claims is a fragment of Mark. That would definitively date it before the Temple destruction. (Personally, I'm not very convinced by his argument -- the parchment in question has about ten letters from three lines of text, and within those ten letters we are to assume a copyist's error and yet presume we can definitively say that it is Mark because "NESS"—from "Genessereth"—is so uncommon in Greek, conveniently forgetting about "Peloponessus".) In any case, the major discussion here should be in the article on the Gospel of Mark. Here it would be enough to say that "The Gospel of Mark is considered by historians to be the earliest of the four. Various dates are proposed for its composition, generally between AD 55 and 70, with a few scholars suggesting dates as early as 45 or as late as 80. This would indicate that it was in circulation while eyewitnesses were still alive. (John the Evangelist is thought to have died in the last decade of the first century.)" Or something in that direction....—Mpolo 07:22, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
This is a paragraph about the scholar defense of the historicity of Jesus and the value of the Gospels as historic sources. So if in order to date the gospel of Mark between 55 and 65 you have to assume a priori that it describes more or less real events, and that Jesus was a god then I think that this should be clearly stated. It would mean for example that the scholars who have this view are Christians and the dating 55-65 is not what most scholars, but what most Christians apologists believe. Dr_Absentius
I think that it's the other way around -- that "scholars" reject any date before about 67 "a priori" because Jesus "couldn't have known about the fall of Jerusalem". It's the same mindset that says "I've never worked a miracle, thus all miracles in the Gospel are fabrications," or "Since the Gospels are written by believers, we have to find independent contemporary proof of the existence of this basically obscure (in his lifetime) Galilean preacher (which obviously doesn't exist because of the relative backwater that Palestine was in the Roman world, and the relative lack of interest of the Romans for details of Jewish worship) in order to even possibly admit that he existed." There's got to be balance, otherwise, we've just decided the issue based on our assumptions about the issue. Obviously, believers have to be held to the same measure. Nonetheless, since the most commonly-cited dates are 65-70 or so (since there's nothing about the actual destruction of the Temple in Mark, the same scholars assume that it must have been written shortly beforehand, because obviously the author of Mark would have "written it into" the "prophecy"), I'm not really objecting to the content of the article.
Sorry if I sound too negative about critical scholarship. I am fascinated by the topic and have read a goodly amount, but I tend to get disgusted by the idea that a prerequisite to being able to "scientifically" discuss the books of the Bible is to assume that their contents is entirely false unless proven otherwise from an outside source. The critical movement really pushes the opposite extreme, and I don't think it's justified. I mean, we don't do that with Livy or Suetoneus, or even Aristotle...
For this article, it would be enough to give an approximate range of the most-cited dates and direct the reader to Gospel of Mark, where this is discussed in more detail, possibly noting that some hold to much earlier or later dates.-- Mpolo 15:27, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I think we should drop the referende to which is the most accepted or most-cited date. It is very hard to substantiate such claims. Something like "these scholars date it so, although there is no general agreement, see the relevant article for details".
Now, my comment about "the scholarly evidence" was not meant to imply a valuation of the "scholar versus the apologist". I simply meant that although this paragraph claims to present the views of "scholars" (whatever that may mean), it rather presents the views of Christian apologists. That said, I think that to compare the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus to the evidence for the historical existence of Aristotle is like comparing the evidence for the existence of flying saucers with the evidence for the existence of Boeings!!! The comparison with the historicity of Homer seems more apt. Dr Absentius 00:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note to Anon Poster who "If"ed the date for the Gospel of Mark. Please cite your sources (the talk page will be fine) if you have a difference of opinion with something someone has recently changed. In contrast, inserting weasel wording into known facts without at least engaging in discourse will be reverted.... Respectfully - DavidR 23:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Misrepresentations in opening paragraphs

The article reads:
"On the Christian side, the increased importance of the Christological argument for the existence of God in modern evangelical teachings have informed questions of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth with an enhanced urgency. The usual historian's criteria of authenticity, documentation, and the like, tend to be removed from ordinary historical discourse, to take up newly important places in Christological theology."

I have seen many other historical disagreements over non-religious issues where the authenticity of the documents in question, the abundance of documentary evidence, and other historical tools referenced in this paragraph are commonplace. It is my intention to edit this paragraph to reflect the reality of mainstream historical research tools, and not imply that such tools "...take up newly important places..." when dealing with Jesus Christ as compared to, say, Homer, Aristotle, et. al.
DavidR

Skepticism/defense

I've split the article into two parts, Skepticism and Defense. It badly needed to be seperated because it was getting confused and disorganized. There are obviously two different viewpoints working here, so the NPOV thing to do is present them seperately.

Maybe a rewrite is needed?

1. Believers
2. Skeptics
A. No common ground
B. No actual proof of existence
  1. Why Philo of Alexandria, Justus of Tiberias, Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Suetonius are not proof of any kind.
3. Why it shouldn't bother those of Faith
4. Phony artifacts as fuel for deeper skepticism

Sparky, please sign your posts. It makes them easier to find. Also, making an edit that changes the fundamental meaning of an article and marking it as a Minor edit is less than honest.

Sorry, bad habit from the Metaweb that I am trying to break. But there is no independent historical testimony on Jesus from non-Christian sources. Really. - Sparky

Having said that, I'll agree with #4 but don't see what it has to do with this article. Pretty much everyone knows that there are enough fragments from the True Cross to make about 500+ crosses. Likewise everyone knows where and why they sprang up: as morale boosters during the Muslim siege of Jerusalem during the Crusades.

The article is poorly written. It smacks of POV.

As for calling the list of validated historical manuscripts into doubt regarding the existance of Jesus, you'll need to explain here (Talk page) why none of those ms. are valid when most secular historians find no reason to doubt them if you seriously expect not to get reverted out of hand. Frankly, to call the actual existance of Jesus into doubt is to cast doubt on everything we know of antiquity. Assuming of course you use the same criteria for Homer's existance that do you for Jesus'. Of course failure to do so without a very good, well documented reason casts your entire argument into doubt. Respectfully - DavidR 02:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What VALIDATED manuscripts? Please list them ASAP. - Sparky 20:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is now the end of october. No VALIDATED manuscripts have been listed. Can we take it that they do not exist? CheeseDreams 12:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With regard to Homer: We know the Oddessy exists (as we can read it). Therefore someone must have created the original story (in whatever form). This person has no name. Early sources call the author "Homer". They provide very little other information about this "Homer". Therefore by assigning the name "Homer" to the author, all we are doing is saying that (a) the author exists and (b) early sources thought the author existed and (c) the author had the name "Homer". This is no-where near as controversial as assuming Jesus existed, as there is more than mere existance, and a comment he is claimed to have made, to the Jesus story. Jesus is supposed by some to have been something other than just a teller of koans/parables/sermons. This is not the case with Homer. CheeseDreams 12:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No reference whatsoever to Jesus from contemporaneous Jewish sources

  1. Philo of Alexandria: would have been a contemporary of Jesus — someone who maintained an active interest in the welfare of Israel and thus should have learnt of this Son of God — and in his writings there is no mention of Jesus or his followers.
  2. Justus of Tiberias was a Jewish historian who was born in Galilee about the time of the claimed crucifixion. In his two great works, a history of the war of independence and a chronicle of events from Moses to Agrippa II (d. AD100), not a single reference was made to Jesus.
  3. Flavius Josephus was trained as a Pharisee and the passages attributed to him do not read true to this; It fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not used by Josephus per the Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf, 2002. Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West.
There are numerous Jewish references to people called Jesus in the 1st century in the Yeshu article.CheeseDreams 12:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No independent historical testimony on Jesus from non-Christian sources

  1. Cornelius Tacitus echoed popular opinion about Jesus and had no independent source of information. The passage in the Annals as written in 115 CE has no value as a historical evidence for Jesus.
  2. His contemporary Suetonius's erroneous single use of the title Chrestus as though it was a proper name indicates that he got his information from popular opinion and not independent historical testimony as he is talking of the period of 41 - 54 CE when Claudius is ruling Rome as Emperor.

Reference

ISBN 0968601405 The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?: Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, Earl Doherty, Publisher: Canadian Humanist Pubns; 1st edition (October 19, 1999)
ISBN 085632096X The Jesus Hoax, Phyllis Graham, Publisher: Frewin; (1974)
ISBN 2226047298 Jesus, Charles Guignebert, Publisher: Albin Michel; (December 31, 1969)
ISBN 0879752564 An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, Gordon Stein, Publisher: Prometheus Books; (December 1, 1989)
ISBN 087975429X The Historical Evidence for Jesus, George A.Wells, Publisher: Prometheus Books; (January 1, 1988)
ISBN 089526239 Jesus: The Evidence, Ian Wilson, Publisher: Regnery Publishing; 1 edition (October 1, 2000)

Better? - Sparky 05:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the references, tho I don't see how the other mythologies tie in. I'll get back to you on this, we were hit with a virus at work and I have zero spare time at the moment. DavidR 20:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Focus on the Mediterranean cultures in regards to pagan skymen. The germ of the Jesus Myth was already there before the Passion Play occured. Then visit the Storyteller chapter of the PBS link. Many quest for proof of Jesus meaning they've not found it yet. - Sparky 20:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a bit of an amature historian. I am familiar with evidences for Jesus. I still maintain that the documentation we have for Jesus as a person is far more than we have for Homer or Aristotle. I hope to have time to discuss it with you in here shortly. In the meantime I will delete your POV and weaselwording regarding the believers believeing because they wish to believe. Please feel free to edit the half of the article regarding disbelief without a thought I might revert that. As long as you keep it from getting too extreme and can show logical reasoning I'd be happy to see that part of the article fleshed out.
As a footnote, just because the extra-Biblical ms. were not written by people who saw Jesus personally doesn't automatically invalidate them. In order for there to be a large enough group of Christians in Rome to offend Nero the movement must have been spreading for a while. And so forth. As I said I'll detail this out with additional references over the next week or so. Just been a bit busy in the interrim. Respectfully - DavidR 21:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Christ is a claim

A POV claim is not being made whenever Jesus is called "Jesus Christ". Whether Jesus is in fact the Messiah is not being decided by recognizing that "Christ" and "Jesus Christ" is almost universally what this person is called. The POV agenda is on the side of those who want to remove this title from the encyclopedia. Mkmcconn — 19:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The title should only be in the "Titles of Jesus" section of the Jesus page. It is a title, and therefore not relevant to general references to the person. Jesus is just a name, but Jesus Christ is a POV title. It is more neutral not to have such titles in the name wherever possible, except when discussing the title itself, or the use of it. CheeseDreams 11:58, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jesus vs. Jesus Christ

Although many people believe "Christ" is Jesus' last name, it is actually a POV claim about him being the Messiah. As such, it has no place in an NPOV article. This issue has already been discussed at length and agreed upon in the Jesus article, which is why the article now points to Jesus. Jayjg 19:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Only an ignoramus thinks that "Christ" is his last name. The title has become part of the identification of this person. Whether the implied claim is true or not, is not at issue in using the title. Mkmcconn — 19:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The title is a claim by Christians, and as such is NPOV. It is well known and understood who Jesus is, which is why the title is unnecesarry and POV. That is why the article on Jesus points to Jesus, not Jesus Christ which for some odd reason you keep pointing to, and which Wikipedia therefore has to re-direct to the correct article. Again, please review old discussions on this topic in Talk:Jesus. The issue has already been settled in Wikipedia. Jayjg 19:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The title is used by people regardless of whether they are Christians. The article Jesus Christ points to Jesus, because that is what this person is called. The old discussions on this topic are just as skewed as this discussion is. May I point out that you claim that the issue has been "settled" in the talk of an article called "Historicity of Jesus Christ". It is petty and naive. Common usage rules should prevail here, and the effort should be resisted which attempts to use Wikipedia as a driving force in changing common usage. Mkmcconn — 19:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The title is used by some people, not by others; certainly not by academics or scholars. The article Jesus Christ points to Jesus because Jesus is the correct term for this person. The issue has been settled in the main article; former stubs like this have yet to be brought into line with proper Wikipedia NPOV usage, which is what I am attempting to do. Regarding the title of this article, thanks for pointing that out, it has now been fixed as well. Insisting on adding a religious title to his name is certainly not NPOV. As for common usage rules prevailing, that's hardly the case with the article on Muslim or Quakers, which both re-direct to preferred neutral usage. Jayjg 20:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have you moved the article on Buddha to Sidhartha? After all Buddha is a title, too. DavidR 20:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Something on the "to do" list; Buddha should be a re-direct. Jayjg 21:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is fanaticism. I suppose that next you will want to "fix" references to "Christianity" to point to "Jesusism". Mkmcconn — 20:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Most people will not look for information on Sidhartha by typing in Sidharta, very few actually recognise this name as being a reference to Buddha. Wheras, conversely, rather a lot of people look for the Jesus article simply by typing in Jesus, and certainly rather a lot recognise the name. CheeseDreams 12:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please don't be absurd; Christians are those people who believe Jesus was the Christ. Mind you, there are plenty of people who believe that and object to being called "Christian". Nevertheless, Christians are exactly the group who believe the claim, and support the use of the title, so it would make no sense to attempt a re-direct. On top of that, of course, there is no such word as "Jesusism". Jayjg 21:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What you aren't willing to grant is that what you call absurd, here, is no less absurd in the other case. Christians claim to follow the true Messiah; but to call them "Christian" does not imply support of their claim. By precisely the same rule by which you say that Jesus Christ is not a neutral reference, neither is Christian neutral. To put the case as boldly as possible, the fact is that Jesus is only of historical interest, and for exactly zero additional reasons, because he is so uniquely called "Christ". But to call him this does not equate to belief in the claim that he is, in fact, the Messiah. Mkmcconn — 22:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point 1, Jesus Christ is common usage, therefore it is what should be used on Wikipedia, QED.
Point 2, Talk to me after you have de-titled every other figure in every other relegion, then I'll know this isn't just some special POV reserved for Jesus.
Respectfully - DavidR 21:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  1. Jesus Christ is common usage for Christians, but not common academic or scholarly usage. Scholars and academics use NPOV terms, and so should Wikipedia. QED.
  2. I'm working on these things one at a time, and I can't do them all at the same time. Next I'll have every other special interest group pleading the case for its own favorite religious leader, and telling me to fix up Jesus first before picking on them.

Respectfully Jayjg 21:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So what is it about the title Christ that offends you so? It means "annointed one" and was applied to many throughout Biblical history. And I might add that I sit at a computer all day and can set this back to Christ at least as many times as you can take it away. So, how childish do you want to get in your pursuit of your atheistic POV? DavidR 21:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The title is POV, and Wikipedia is all about NPOV. Christians believe Jesus was "the Christ", others do not. As for your claim about the title being applied to others, it is quite disingenuous. The title "moshiach" was applied to all Jewish kings and High Priests, and even some non-Jewish kings, but the title "Christ" was not. I don't see articles here about King David Christ or King Cyrus Christ. Many followers of Rabbi M. Schneerson believe him to be the Messiah, yet we do not have an article titled "Menachem Mendel Scheerson King Messiah" as much as his followers call him that, and would like everyone too. Regarding your threat, Wikipedia has a mediation process, and if I have to ask for mediation with you I will. Regarding your statement re "atheistic POV", it reveals your bias and agenda, no more. Jayjg 21:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Christ is the Latin translation of the Hebrew moshiach. So your point is?

Re: Mediation, you are the one making unilatteral changes without proper discourse. Bring it on.

And one more thing, I read the original "discourse" (to be polite) and how at least one of the proponents of this change were have a hissy fit at even the suggestion that the article should be renamed Jesus of Nazareth. That pretty much blows all pretense of this being about NPOV out of the water. And just incase you haven't figured it out yet, my comment about Buddha was sarcasm. It's no skin off my nose if the Buddhists want to call Sidhartha Buddha. Why should it bother you that one man in history has a unique name/title to identify him? Do you want to rename Caesar, too? Or how about removing "the Great" from the name of Alexander? Really, this is not about NPOV it's about atheism and hatred of any religion. Respectfully - DavidR 21:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having reread the original disucssion under Jesus I see that no consensus was reached there, but rather the change was forced through much like what you are doing here. Does this seem honest to you, Jayjg? Respectfully - DavidR 23:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Christ being the Latin translation of the Hebrew Moshiach, to begin with, the title Christ means much more than the Hebrew word Moshiach. And in relation to this debate, you were the person who disingenuously brought up the idea that it had been applied to many in history. I will point out again, that Moshiach might have been, but Christ was not, and in any event we don't have any articles pointing to "so and so moshiach". Regarding "unilateral changes", I was bringing this article in line with both the main Jesus article, and with scholarly usage. I might also point out that the usage was inconsistent in this very article; in some places "Jesus Christ" was used, in others "Jesus" was used, yet this didn't seem to bother you. You have yet to reply to what the addition of "Christ" to some instances of the name Jesus added to the contents of the article; surely it was not to clarify that the article had not switched to some other Jesus mid-stream, was it? As for the rest, again, your ad hominems (stating that the argument is about atheism and hatred of religion) expose your bias and agenda, no more. Jayjg 05:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Christ is the Greek (not Latin) term meaning anointed with Chrysm. It does not necessarily refer to the Hebrew term, though its use has obvious parallels. CheeseDreams 12:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pretense of Neutrality

That's enough for me; you have cooperated in showing what I think needs to be shown. This subtraction of "Jesus Christ" is motivated by pseudo-intellectual nitpicking, dishonest pretense of "neutrality", and overt revisionism. You have a lot of work to do, as links to the title Jesus Christ will show you; but as you proceed in this whitewashing of history campaign, you are discrediting this encyclopedia as a neutral source. Mkmcconn — 20:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If by "overt revisionism" you mean to imply that I am attempting to revise a known fact about Jesus, that he is the Christ, I would have to object. As for the article, Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus, as we have seen before.
Now, please tell me this; what do the multiple uses of "Jesus Christ" in the article add to it? Have we become confused half way down the page as to which specific Jesus we were referring to, and needed a refresher? Jayjg 21:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


The known fact is that people use the title "Jesus Christ" without any consciousness whatever, and certainly without belief, that they are claiming that Jesus is in fact the Jewish Messiah. It is not true that when Jesus is called "Jesus Christ" it implies either 1) belief that Jesus is the Messiah or, 2) the ignorant idea that Jesus is "Mr. Christ".
The fact is that he is called this for the same reason that people are called "Christian", and what they believe is called "Christianity". It is not "POV" to call a person "Christian". Neither is it POV to call Jesus, "Christ". It's simply part of the language and culture. The fact that some people think needs to be "fixed" looks very fishy, to me.
Jesus is not "more proper", "more correct", or "more scholarly" than Jesus Christ, and to go around pretending that scholarship and neutrality are on the side of "fixing" and "correcting" people when they refer to Jesus Christ (but do not believe that he is the Christ), is silly. To insist on it in the name of neutrality strikes me as fanatical. Mkmcconn — 21:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The fact that people use the term unconsciously in no way contradicts the fact that it is POV; most English speakers grow up immersed in a Christian milieu, or one strongly influenced by Christian ideas. As explained earlier, Christian is the name for people who believe Jesus was the Christ; it is not POV to call them that, since that is indeed their POV. However, it is POV to call Jesus "Christ", since he has a perfectly good name already, and doesn't need a POV title hanging off it. Scholars do not use "Jesus Christ" because it adds nothing, and displays POV. If you can explain what the uses of "Jesus Christ" inside the article itself added to the article (aside from extra words), I'd love to hear it. As for calling those who prefer neutrality "fanatical", it strikes me as little different from saying that they are "atheist religion haters". Jayjg 05:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Get real. Suetonius, Josephus, and Tacitus all call him "Christ"—and they were Roman historians! They certainly weren't "immersed in a Christian milieu"; actually they viewed the Christians as a mere annoyance. This simply shows that "Christ" was a common name for Jesus as early as the second century, conveying no religious endorsement. Removed NPOV header.
  • I call this perspective "fanatical" because it is a religiously potent point of view that confidently promotes itself as being self-evidently right in all cases without being open to exception, and because it disguises its hostile nature. There is a difference between removing "Christ" for the sake of the article, and removing "Christ" in order to say "No he isn't". When you say "scholars", surely you realize that you are being selective based on your point of view. Mkmcconn — 17:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Josephus was a christian apologist. Tacitus and Suetonius refer to Jesus as Christ because they are commenting on the Christians, and are discussing what the Christians call Jesus. They are not talking about the actual history of Jesus, but of Christians, which is why they use the POV term. CheeseDreams 12:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added NPOV header. DavidR 12:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent Developments paragraph

By studying the ancient literature that has survived we have learned interesting and puzzling new things about the ancient literate cultures of Greece and Rome. Ancient writers see that is important to copy earlier writers. They do this to honour past traditions, and they seem to do it without question. Their copying is to such an extent that the earlier sources are easily recognized within the ancient world. To this they will add new literature, an expression of a personal view from their contemporary time. This is attempted in a skillfull and artistic way to gain praise and recognition from literates. There is a strong believe that important knowledge can be gained for the present, by reviewing the past and keeping it vivid.

What does this paragraph add? What does it mean? Jayjg 15:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much. I think the point is, that ancient literature often copies from other sources with embellishment, hence also the Gospels were composed in this way. Although it never really tries to make the connection... Mpolo 16:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mpolo,The gospels are being REINTERPRETED.Their individual embellishments are the clues.They are not retelling the story. The writer is speaking to a specific reading audience with an ancient form they recognize. The contemporary ancient literates know exactly what the gospel writer is doing. He is preaching. As time past this was forgotten. I think this has value. 

 Charlie Turek  charlesturek@comcast.net

Hi Jay, You asked what does this mean? It means ancient writers had a method and a way of doing things that is (not?) used today. It seems to mean that ancient contemporary writers didn't know if earlier writers did any inquirey or research or did they care, but because this was a past tradition that was widely known to literates and held a place of honor, they were copied to the extent that the earlier source is identified (There are no footnotes) and artistically expanded. Art, recognition and popularity by literates comes into play. What does this do? It makes the ancient past more complex than it was thought to be. Ancient writers did not aim to express contemporary experience (What really happened). Their concern was to create literature that was a worthy continuation of previous literature. This puts new light on the memories of Jesus's life.

Please replace my entry. If you think you can make it clearer have at it. I'm only a grunt. 

   Charlie Turek    charlesturek@comcast.net
Charlie, who says this and where? I think the point is an interesting one, but it's still a POV, and it needs to be shown who says this applied to the gospels. Jayjg 15:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was reading the introduction to Lucian: Satrical Sketches by Paul Turner, an English Professor whose publications include the translation of Greek and Latin literature. He pointed out the methods used by many ancient writers. Then there is another thing I had just never thought about for sometime. Ancient books are the property of the literate. The literate run the show. The ancient literate leave clues to their sources. Clues that are obvious in their own time. If I remember correctly in the 3rd century those who copied the gospels became aware of their literary links. They didn't know what to make of the obvious word for word connections. They also could not understand the obvious differences in the gospels. As time has passed (today) each gospel has been recognized as having its own point of view and pecularities. Redaction criticism. The secret Jesus of(early) Mark is not yet the Word made flesh of John. Even though we do not, and probably never will know who wrote the gospels, clues from the texts themselves tells us they are probably not the work of one person. They become more eloborate. The gospels are products of literary art that carried a tradition that others saw as something to be copied, saved and REINTERPRETED. Elementary, my dear Watson 

            Charlie Turek    charkesturek@comcast.net
Charlie, I've moved the relevant information here so we can talk about it in the proper place. Jayjg 19:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Demythologizing Jesus paragraph

This paragraph actually appears to repeat much which is already contained in earlier parts of the Skepticism section; should it be eliminated, and any valuable information incorporated into the rest? Jayjg 17:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved Bultmann up to the "myth" section, and refactored the remaining material to speak about mistrust of the available texts among certain schools of critical Biblical history. See what you think, and change as necessary. -- Mpolo 18:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

One stream of critical historians tries to avoid confusing the memory and records of past events (things said and done) with the events themselves. Scholars from this school would prefer to avoid the works of professional, critical, ancient historians because they feel that they can deduce "what really happened" in the remote, ill-documented ancient past. This reluctance to accept other sources is unlikely to change. The goal of history is a search for objectivity, not the support of various movements or preconceived convictions and self-serving conclusions. These historians instead relish the lost and unknown, with a love of mystery. - I'm sorry, I don't think this paragraph really adds anything, or, indeed, is even particularly comprehensible. Jayjg 19:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't understand it completely when I tried to make it understandable either. :) I think the point is that some critics essentially throw away all of the early texts and go on their gut feelings. (The Jesus Seminar strikes me as falling in that category, but they would probably dispute this.) But to include it in the article, it would need to be rewritten and include names of who thinks this way.—Mpolo 19:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

You don't understand this because this has been chopped to pieces and the meaning has been corrupted. Here it is. Critical professional ancient historians are not hacks. The historical jesus is hopelessly lost as he should be. We are going back two thousand years to a very ill-documented time. Tell me about your great grandfather back about 20 generations and you'll get the picture. Pop Jesus detectives are not interested in objectivity and or satisfied with dead ends. They can't handle it. They crave answers that are in reality emotional convictions and things they can sell to themselves and the naive public. Since decisions of faith are based on the feelings of the heart this should not be too surprising. One sees it in the faithless and the faithful. Cold uncomfortable facts are not important. F--k professional critical ancient historians! What the hell do they know? I'm smarter. I know what really happened! Wanna bet? 

14 Sept 2004 Charlie Turek  charlesturek@comcast.net
Whose POV is this; yours, or that of some recognized scholars or schools of thought on Jesus? Jayjg 02:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Study what is ancient history and you'll find the answer. I am not a professional ancient historian, only an amateur. But I do recognize the best and listen to what they have to say. I was very fortunate to be taken under the wing of the Association of Ancient Historians. As time has passed, 20 or 30 years or so, I have learned others do not understand me. Only one, Martin Gardner, one of the world's most foremost puzzlist. We both share genuine curiousity and a passion for the obscure. This seems to frighten people. I have no boundaries.
   Charlie Turek   charlesturek@comcast.net 15 Sept 2002
If you could quote or refer to some recognized historians promoting this view vis a vis the gospels specifically, it would be quite valuable for the article. Jayjg 14:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the best I can do. Remember you asked for it. Somewhere on this screwy net is a commentary on Vatican 2's historical Jesus by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Yep. They don't say much. My favorite ancient historians: Ramsay MacMullen, Robert L. Wilken, Adolph Von Harnack, Moses I. Findley, E.R. Dodds. Biblical Scholars: Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer Reference books, The Jerome Biblical Commentary 1968, (Fell asleep many times reading this 1968 monster,) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary 1989( An update, Women Biblical Scholars make their mark this time around) I have a confession. I am a philogynist. A periodical a grunt can understand, if they have some biblical background. Bible Review. Their letters from readers are a must. You gotta keep up to date with this stuff. The problem: The History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom by Andrew D. White. Higher Criticism is about to see the light of day. It sure as hell took long enough. Comment: If people are happy with what they believe, what ever it is, they look no farther. I'm a misfit. And brother, I've paid my dues 

   Charlie Turek  15 Sept 2004

The Jesus Ossuary

No, not the James Ossuary, but the Jesus Ossuary. It was not covered in the American media. This bone box was uncovered many years before the James Ossuary and is quite likely a genuine ossuary of a man named Jesus who was the son of Joseph and had relatives named Mary and Jude (Jude was mentioned as a brother of Christ in Mark's gospel). See the bottom of this fairly good article. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 03:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So the first archaeological evidence pointing to Jesus' existance also points to him being definitely dead?CheeseDreams 12:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi there

Read the history and see that I rewrote history, or, historicity. Someone should review the meaning of "primary source". I replied about Durant too. lysdexia 02:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV about Roman Commentators

I do not see how Pliny and Tacitus mentioning Christians implies Jesus existed. There are many people who believe Harry Potter really exists, observation of the existance of such "Potterians" does not mean that Harry Potter is real.

But Pliny and Tacitus both mention a "Christ". They don't claim to have firsthand knowledge of this person, but neither do they say that the Christians are worshipping someone who didn't exist. Mpolo 13:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
But they don't say that they are worshipping someone who DID exist either. CheeseDreams 15:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Mpolo: no. Pliny mentions that Christians sing hymns to Christ. He does not mention Jesus as a real person. The letter from Trajan to Pliny also casts doubt on the Christian claim that they were unfairly prosecuted : 'But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.' (Trajan to Pliny, Letters 10.96-97).

Tacitus's passage is widely contested and not thought to be authentic (it is not quoted nor referred to until the fifth century, despite the fact that Christian Apologists of earlier centuries were desperate for Pagan writings on Jesus. It also is not contempory and, if true, only describes what Christians believed: not evidence for a historic Christ. The Rev of Bru

Order

I don't like the way that the Skepticism section is sandwiched between Christian perspectives and Scholarly defence of Jesus. It seems to me to be non-NPOV. It is like the defence opening AND closing the argument. Almost as if the against historicity argument is considered an aside. Since it is the main point of the article, can it either be moved to the top, or to the bottom? CheeseDreams 23:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would probably work best with that section at the end, I would think, if it must be moved. If it's at the beginning, you're, so to speak, trying to write an article about "nothing" -- that is, there is no motivation for skeptics if there is no belief presented to be skeptical of. The current ordering is more or less chronological, though -- real studies from the positive point of view were brought about in response to the skepticism. That is, without having the skepticism section, the "Scholarly defence" has little motivation... I would vote for the current order, but won't raise complaints if it is turned around, as long as sufficient rewriting is done to motivate each section. Mpolo 13:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Content of the article - rewrite

This article seems to have lots of comments about who the various antagonists in the debate are. But absolutely nothing about what their evidence is. CheeseDreams 11:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Somthing on their evidence could (and should) go here, but ideally, each of these antagonists should (eventually) have his own page, going into greater detail on his methods and evidence. Mpolo 13:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

I have put quite a lot of content into the Jesus as Myth section now under a new heading. Having had a look at the resulting article, I think the whole article should be restructured so that we can go through the various arguments one by one, and split the new section up into subsections.

Maybe the article should start with something like "There are various approaches to the historicity of jesus ranging from (total denial)......(total acceptance). This should then have a brief subsection for Christian perspectives, but not go into detail about the for/against arguments (so that these can be put elsewhere), and have a brief subsection about scholarly perspectives (and not go into detail about for/against here either).

Then go through a section for each of the positions (in the order total denial to total accepance (or the reverse)).

How does that sound? CheeseDreams 13:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would probably be O.K. As it's a major change, maybe you could create the new article in a sandbox, like User:CheeseDreams/temp. That way everyone can look at your article before we "bring it live". Mpolo 13:51, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Osiris crucified?

The stories I have read have Osiris cut up into pieces, not crucified. Do you have a reference for this claim? Mpolo 13:41, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, many variations on the Osiris myth. I have also read the cut up into pieces thing, and I think this was the main version up until the mystery religions got hold of the legend. I shall see what references I can find. CheeseDreams 15:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Looking through the Mystery religions section, there are a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims, which go against the information already in Wikipedia about these cults. For instance, there is no evidence of a crucifixion in connection with Dionysus, Osiris or Mithras in those articles. Furthermore, several offhand statements are made about Christian belief without substantiation, in addition to gross factual errors, for example, the Gospel of Luke doesn't say where Jesus was born at all, neither in a stable, nor in an inn, nor in a cave. (The Gospel of Matthew mentions a "house" (οἰκία).) It only says that he was laid in a feeding trough or manger. Someone who has some good references will have to heavily edit this section. As it stands, it is highly POV at least, and possibly misleading and false. Mpolo 14:49, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
I think actually it was Osiris in the form of Serapis (a syncretism of Osiris with Apis, and a few other gods such as Dionysus), that was crucified. According to the roman Emporer Hadrian, Serapis was even referred to as Christ (Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ. - Hadrian to Servianus).
Up until the 2nd world war (it has since been lost, but photographs survive), the Museum of Berlin contained a small 1.5 inch long amulet showing a figure being crucified on a cross. The similarity with the traditional Jesus pose (which, by the way, there is only evidence pointing to such imagary having existed from the 5th century), is remarkable. The text which forms part of the figure, however, indicates that it is Osiris-Dionysus, and not Jesus at all. The figure dates from the 3rd Century. I have an photograph of it in a book I own, however, the book is copyright.
There is a surviving 2nd/3rd century sarcophagus (in white marble) depicting a large cross being brought to a baby in a mothers arms. This is not Jesus, but rather a reference to a yearly 3 day festival in Athens where a cross was carried around the city to honour Osiris-Dionysus' death and resurrection. The sarcophagus is currently in the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore.
In the national museum of Naples is a surviving marble sarcophagus from the 2nd/3rd century, in which a representation of Dionysus is depicted being lifted up onto a tree, to be crucified (in the same way figures of Guy Fawkes are created to be burnt) in the spring Dionysus festival. Cross-bars were often used in these festivals to hold up parts of the figure, creating death on a crucifix. CheeseDreams 17:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then if all the data post-dates Jesus, isn't somewhat likely that the mystery religions were affected by Christian beliefs, rather than vice-versa, at least in this particular point? Mpolo 19:01, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, that was a charge made by early church fathers. What is important to note, however, is that depictions of Jesus in this manner only (as far as the evidence goes) only appear in the 5th century, whereas (surviving) depictions of Osiris-Dionysus in this manner appear 200 years before hand.
The similarity with mystery religions lead many 2nd century church fathers to accuse the mystery religions of copying. However, the mystery religions in turn accused the christian church of copying pointing out that they had been doing it first (even before christ). This charge was so accurate that the only defence the church made to it was that "the devil, seeing what christianity was going to be, instructed his followers in how to act, so as to presumpt Christ", i.e. the devil predicted what christianity was going to be and sent his followers to do it first. This is clearly a ridiculous argument, but it was all the church fathers were able to produce, clearly showing how much the mystery religions were in fact first. The similarity with the Mithras cult, was, at the time, considered particularly striking. CheeseDreams 19:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have added in an image of the Osiris/Horus/Isis nativity. I would like to point out that although the caption looks like wild extrapolation, it is actually indicated by the heiroglyphs (although the depiction of the image that I have used unfortunately does not make the heiroglyphs clear enough for them to be legible in the article). CheeseDreams 20:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is a link to the talisman in the Berlin museum showing not-Jesus being crucified that I mentioned earlier. The image is probably copyright. CheeseDreams 22:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_1&oldid=1247916074"