This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Christianity: Saints B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Mid-importance). Jewish history B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

battle standards, considered minor deities... Would you say that a Greek Orthodox icon is "considered a minor deity"? Josephus' discussion of Pilate is worth looking at and finding a juicy quote to bring here. Why doesn't somebody do that, instead of making up stuff? Wetman 03:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Making up stuff"‽ Go read Tacitus' Histories, book 3.10, where the Roman battle standards are called bellorum deos. Or read Dio Cassius' Roman History, book 40.18, where he talks about shrines set up to house the eagles. No-One Jones (talk) 03:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great! But don't tell me! Put it in the article... if you know that that is the act that infuriated Jerusalem's orthodox Jews: shrines set up to house the eagles. I still say there's a good quote in Josephus that's actually about this situation. Could be relevant. Carry on! Wetman 04:19, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pilate did a number of things to infuriate the locals, but I think the relevant passage from Josephus is this one (Antiquities, 18.55):

So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images. . .

The stuff about the eagles being minor deities was just a snippet of relevant information; ordinary graven images would have been infuriating, but graven images of Roman gods would have been cause for a riot. --No-One Jones (talk) 04:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How's the text now? I inserted the other Josephus text: we were busy at the same time. Should additional details from Ant. 18.55 be included in the article itself? Wetman 05:01, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"A bizarre tradition has it that he was born in the Scottish village of Fortingall, site of a Roman camp. The legend claims he was the son of a visiting Roman and a local woman." I have moved this text here, because legends are recorded, if they are to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Where is this alleged legend recorded? --Wetman 15:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First this article says that Claudia is a saint in the Coptix Orthodox Church, and then it says she's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Which is it? (Could someone have elided the two Churches?) Or is she considered a saint in both Churches? Spontaneous generation 8:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the article (beyond the historicity of Pilate issue above), I've noticed some areas that definitely need improvement:

• 1) No assessment is given of whether the portrayal of Pilate in the Gospels is thought by historians to represent historical reality (my brief reading on the subject indicates that it is generally not);
• 2) there seems to be quite a bit of POV in various parts of the article (use of words like "alleged" before the Gospel's biases, strange archaicized phrases such as "Whatever it be that some modern critics want to deduce from those differences")
• 3) as a specific example of some strange writing, the section on Pilate's questioning of Jesus parries various translations against each other without referring to the original Greek: "Pilate's main question to Jesus was whether he considered himself to be the King of the Jews in an attempt to assess him as a potential political threat. Mark in the NIV translation states: "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "It is as you say", Jesus replied. However, quite a number of other translations render Jesus' reply as variations of the phrase: "Thou sayest it." (King James Version, Mark 15:2); "So you say". (Good News Bible, Mark 15:2). Whatever degree of confirmation modern interpreters would derive from this answer of Jesus," The Greek is "sy legeis" (in Luke anyway, can't find my Greek NT), which is probably more relevant than how it is translated in three different versions;
• 4) the article use the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Greek in some references to the original statements by Pilate in the Gospels in other places;
• 5) no mention is given of what exactly Tacitus or any other non-Jewish historian has to say about Pilate;
• 6) coins were minted by Pontius Pilate in Judaea, but these find no mention in the article;

Now I intend to try to rectify a few of these things, but anyone who is more knowledgeable about Rome/Roman Judaea in the first century or Biblical historiography in general is more than welcome to help.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"sy legeis" More accurately, "σὺ λέγεις". See: http://users.sch.gr/aiasgr/Kainh_Diathikh/Kata_Mathaion_Euaggelio/Kata_Mathaion_Euaggelio_kef.27.htm

"σὺ" translates to "you", "The person addressed". The Modern Greek equivalent is "εσύ" See: https://glosbe.com/el/en/συ and https://www.wordreference.com/gren/συ and https://www.wordreference.com/gren/εσύ

"λέγεις" 2nd person, singular present form of the verb "λέγω". See here for other grammatic forms of the same verb: https://moderngreekverbs.com/lego.html and http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=le%2Fgeis&la=greek&prior=ti/ and http://sphinx.metameat.net/sphinx.php?paradigm=-x!zp-p_9

"λέγω" translates to "say", "tell", "to communicate verbally or in writing". See: https://glosbe.com/el/en/λέγω and https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/en-el/λέγω/ and https://lsj.gr/wiki/λέγω

The speaking character in this dialogue, Jesus, responds to Pilate here. "You are saying this", "You are telling this". In other words, the character does not admit to having said whatever Pilate accuses him of. Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermenrich. In my opinion, the article must clearly separate Pilates as a historical person and Pilates as a literature character. Taking into account that all Christian sources were written about 100 after the events they describe (and taking into account that these events had never occurred in reality) it would be silly to expect the description of Pilates in Gospels to have any connection with reality. Moreover, the authors of Gospels, obviously, tried to convey the idea that even Roman officials considered the accusations of Christ laughable, and so the responsibility for Christ death rests on local people of Jerusalem. Therefore, they didn't care about accurate reproduction of a portrait of a person who died a century ago. And, frankly speaking, they couldn't have done that, because I doubt they had more information about Pilates that we do.

In connection to that, the article should be clearly separate Pilates as a historical figure (we know not much about him) and Pilates as a literature character. I mean Gospels, Master and Margarita and our literature sources. That would allow us to get rid of various alleged etc., because Gospels are not more biased than other fiction books: they just describe another reality.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it would make more sense to have a biography section on Pilate, as we do for other historical figures from classical antiquity, rather than the current format, where Pilate is discussed as portrayed in various historical/archaeological sources. Compare the articles for Josephus, Julius Caesar, or pretty much any other figure from the period. The biography could note sources and scholarly theories and disagreements as it went along, rather than spreading the portrayal out among all the various narratives. The current approach seems to be suggesting an equivalence between Philo and Josephus and the Bible to a much greater extent than seems advisable, for one thing.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun work on a rewrite of the article. Those interested in contributing are free to help over at User:Ermenrich/sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comment says "See talk page before editing the next three sections". Anyone knows what I should look at? My current intent is to go through it and cite or remove stuff if I can't find a decent secondary source.

Possible versions of this is that it remains reasonably as-is, it can be made shorter like Otto_Skorzeny#In_fiction or moved to a seperate article like Cultural depictions of Belshazzar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea why that tag is there. If you look over at User:Ermenrich/sandbox I've started work on a portrayal that only talks about works that are mentioned in reliable sources, as Pilate appears in any depiction of the passion and most portrays are not likely to be all that notable.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks magnitudes better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, do not exclude this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite of the article is nearing completion. I'm currently awaiting a (hopeful) inter-library loan of a book on Pilate in the Ethiopian tradition to round-out things some more.

Additionally, if anyone knows good sources for Pilate in: film, literature, post-medieval art, and non-Western European art (for instance, on Orthodox icons), I would love to hear about them. I've searched long and mostly fruitlessly for sources dealing with him in more than one place.

As before, the draft can be found in my sandbox.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have launched the rewrite. The book on Pilate in Ethiopia could take quite a long time to arrive, and its info can probably be added piecemeal to the article. I also should be receiving a few more things that could be used to add to the film, literature, and possibly art sections.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section has six paragraphs, whereas the maximum target is generally four. Perhaps some of these paragraphs can be trimmed and combined? —ADavidB 18:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it later today. Probably the archaeology paragraph can be summarized and placed in the life section, and the "continued importance" paragraph could be appended to the end of the first short paragraph, while the scholarly views section could go with a slightly trimmed "life" pagraph.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How's it look now?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thanks —ADavidB 19:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article has been significantly changed during last month, and these changes are definitely not an improvement. Let me re-iterate:

We should never mix Pilates as a real historical figure with Pilates as he was described in Gospels

Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character. Clearly, the information about real Pilates is very limited, and everything else is just literature. The article must tell that clearly. A good example is this PhD thesis, where a real historical sources are separated from Christian literature.

I am going to revert all recent changes and restore the old article structure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ myth theory is a minority opinion. All the reliable sources I have used describe Jesus as a historical person. I have collected a very extensive bibliography on the subject. Just look at the works cited. In fact, the work by Helen Bond you cite above is IN the bibliography. Her opinions on the historicity of Jesus's trial, which she does not in any way question, are taken into account.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted about this about both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all historians agree Jesus was a real person.★Trekker (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to quote from Bond, who you said is the example we should follow:

That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate, the fifth prefect of the imperial Roman province of Judaea, is one of the surest facts of Christianity; it is attested not only by the earliest Christian traditions but alsoby the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44). (p. 1)

Bond does indeed do a source by source examination of various historians, but that is not the way that Jean-Pierre Lémonon, Alexander Demandt, or Paul Maier do it, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should not be able to have a normal biography of Pilate. The paucity of sources is noted, but when the text says the Gospels are sources, I am citing reliable sources. In the section on the crucifixion I note that scholars do not believe the Gospels contains exactly what happened and various explanations for discrepancies between the Gospel accounts and other sources. To revert this entire edit, which has sourced this entire formerly unsourced article and replaced literally all the text, just because you ascribe to the Jesus myth theory, would frankly be an act of vandalism.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does a great job of making clear what historical or biblical sources are used for each statement of fact. Which specific part are you worried about? Urg writer (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I object not to the content itself, but to the way it is presented. How can the "Life" section tell about trial and execution of Jesus? Since a real person cannot interact with an imaginary person (for they can interact either if they both are real or they both are imaginary), the article implies Christ was a real historical person, and, therefore, it represents a minority view (that Christ really existed) as a mainstream view.

This structure looks as ridiculous as the Richard I of England would look if we included the tales of Robin Hood into the "Captivity, ransom and return" section.

The actual story should be as follows:

1. What we know about Pilates from historical sources (their number of sources is very limited, we really know almost nothing about him)

2. What we know about Pilates from Christian literature (we know a lot, but all of that has no relation to a historical figure).

3. How other literature (including the modern one) describes him.

Instead, you mix mythology and real historical facts and completely confuse a reader. By the way the single sentence in Annales (15.44) about Christ is very likely to be a IV century addition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I use information from the gospels, that's because reliable sources do so. Or do you know more than Alexander Demandt, Helen Bond, and Daniel Schwartz, who are each the sources for the use of the gospels in those various areas and each of whom discusses the historical Pontius Pilate, or any of the other scholars who discuss the historical crucifixion in particular?

You may think that the sentence in the Annals is a fabrication, but that is not how a majority of reliable sources describe it. See Tacitus on Christ and any of the authors in the bibliography.

You clearly don't understand the Christ myth theory: the Christ myth theory, which is a minority opinion among scholars, argues that Jesus did not exist. This article follows the mainstream view, which is that did exist and was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar claimed to be descendant of the Godess Venus, and everyone in that time accepted that, historians as well, we don't assume that Caesar was a made up character just because he and other writers belived in "fairy tales". The bible and other religious texts are not just "fiction literature" (you seem to think "literature" in general means fiction. But all writing is literature.)★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be serious. Almost every noble family in Rome or Greece claimed their ancestor was some god. That is just mythology, and noone presents that as a real fact of their biography.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans belived in their Gods just as much as modern people belive in theirs. You seem to confuse the idea that accepting Jesus as a real person also means we have to accept that God was also his father. This is false.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Whereas we must stick with what reliable sources say, we are totally free to chose article's structure that conveys the information in the most optimal way. And you must agree that the current structure of this article breaks all rules of logic. Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus. In addition, since Christianity has deep roots in our culture, and a myth about Pilates is one of the core myths, a lot of sources, which are reliable from other points of view, mention this myth without going into details. However, they have much less weight that specialized sources that analyze the 15.44 fragment specifically.

And, by the way, how can Tacitus know anything about Jesus if the earliest Christian source (Book of Revelation), written in 95 AD, tells nothing about his death? Christian mythology formed after Tacitus died, so it is very unlikely he could write it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that no one who is not Christian believes that Jesus was a real person defies all logic. Just look at Historicity of Jesus. The leading historical Jesus scholars such as John Maier and Bart Ehrman are both atheists. Furthermore, the Book of Relevation is one of the last Christian biblical texts to be written. Just read some reliable sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some authors who claim a man whose name was Jesus really existed, however, that man has no relation to Jesus Christ Gospels are talking about (if you say otherwise you are Christian). And, again, really good study demonstrate there were no Jesus and no Christianity during almost whole 1st century.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want us to ignore mainstream widely accepted consensus because........? No reason pretty much. I'm an atheist and I accept Jesus existed, same way I accept Caesar was real, even if I don't belive their devine parenthood.★Trekker (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? That Pilates really ordered to crucify Jesus?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus that Jesus existed.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had he been crucified, and after three days revived?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article nowhere claims he was resurrected, nor do historical Jesus scholars say this. But the crucifixion is accepted as historical fact by the overwhelming consensus of scholars. Crucifixion does not necessarily lead to resurrection as far as I know.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it says he was revived. Stop making nonsense claims.★Trekker (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad you agree that non-theological literature agrees that were no resurrection, and Gospels were incorrect in that aspect. However, if Gospels cannot be trusted regarding resurrection, why should be they treated as a historical source in other aspects?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:RS do.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason we accept all other ancient sources, bcause they're all we have and it was common place back in the day to speak of Gods as if they were real. You will find fantastical tales in any old text.★Trekker (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker, real historians never accept sources, they use them keeping in mind that each of them is lying to some degree. And the major historian's skill is the ability to identify grams of truth in tons of lye.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the consensus that he was executed on Pontius Pilate, as reflected in any of the sources found here, including Helen Bond who you choose to bring up.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I provided a source (out of many) that tells the single sentence from Tacitus was IV century fake. Authenticity of Flavius mention of Jesus is also not confirmed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. Bond says the opposite and she's the only source you've provided. Nor does the scholarly consensus that Jesus existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate depend entirely on Tacitus. Take it up at Tacitus on Christ.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, I reproduce the abstract in full:

Some scholars have argued that Tacitus’ reference to Christ in connection with the burning of Rome under Nero is a 4th century (or later) interpolation. It is here argued that their arguments can be met with no strong rebuttal, and therefore the key sentence in Tacitus referring to Christ should be considered suspect.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read what Ermenrich wrote? Not everything hinghes on freaking Tacitus.★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing this up as if that would change the near universal consensus of modern historians. You're not getting it your way, ok, no one here is going to support your idea.★Trekker (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a reason to speak about "the near universal consensus of modern historians". The numbers mean nothing: if we count the number of people who believe in Christ, we could conclude there is an almost universal consensus among people that Christ was the God. However, we don't write that, don't we? Indeed, a large number of authors, including historians, reproduce the myth about Christ when they write about other subject. Some authors are Christians, so, being historians, they still believe in Christ. However, we are speaking about specialised studies that discuss specifically this issue: "did Jesus Christ really exist, and when Christianity formed?" In Christian tradition, Apocalypse is the last canonical source. According to scientific views, it is the earliest one. Christianity started to form at the end of 1st century, and even some person named Jesus really existed in Judea, all information about him would be completely lost during bloody revolts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know random man on Wikipedia knows better than almost the entire field of experts on one of the most widely discussed subjects of all time. Get this: you're not going to get it your way, no one who's opinion Wikipedia values agrees with you.★Trekker (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only random man on Wikipedia can make a decision about article's structure. "Experts" are just sources that we are free to organize in whatever way to preserve logic. The content must be based on reliable sources, that is true. However, the decision about the structure of an article is made by us, not by "experts".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. We even have a tag that says "needs input from an expert".★Trekker (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that the Book of Revelation is the earliest Christian text just shows how little you know about what WP:RS say about early Christianity. Your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:RS say Jesus exists. That is the consensus view.

Is it possible you're playing a prank on us and trying to enact the beginning of The Master and the Margarita?--Ermenrich (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, what Berlios was saying is exactly what modern science ways about Christ. In contrast, you are literally taking words fron Woland's mouth.

By the way, if you are using Mattew or Mark as a source, why cannot you use Bulgakov? From the literature point of view, it is written much better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the writing is entirely a matter of opinion and utterly irrelevant. I don't know if you're trying to be funny.★Trekker (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, WP:RS do not agree with Berlioz. Nor do they support using Master and Margarita as a reliable source, obviously.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some sources. Others fully agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not "some" it's the vast majority. And why are you claiming below it doesn't matter if most agree since they're wong anyway but up here you're claiming it maters its only "some"?★Trekker (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Many general sources tell this story, but only few of them analyse it in details. Only these sources are relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that "deal with it specifically" are cited in the article and support the historicity of the crucifixion. Stop making stuff up.--Ermenrich (talk)

The fact that he seems to be arguing that there is no Muhammad denialism make me wonder if he is indeed joking.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version of the article is of a much better quality than the previous version (in terms of sourcing and layout), and it would be a shame for all that effort to be removed. The article does a good job explaining to the readers the limits of our knowledge of Pilate's life, and when the Gospels are referenced readers are told the extent to which scholars consider such sources as accurate or not. This is no different then how we treat other ancient documents--we rely on what the reliable sources say about them. Ltwin (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is not to pile mythology and historical facts together. We must create a logical structure that causes no cognitive dissonance and does not promite religious views in secular Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not our job. Our job is to write from a neutral point of view, as described in the Wikipedia:Five pillars:

"We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

Ltwin (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. We report what reliable sources say. Nothing else.★Trekker (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread WP:NPOV and WP:RS, Paul Siebert. You are clearly blinded by your own opinion that Jesus is a myth and not particularly knowledgeable about what reliable sources say about his historical existence or early Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also doubt Siddhartha Guatama and Muhammed were real? Because Wikipedia treats those article the same we do Christian articles.★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to fundamentally misunderstood the difference between Islam and Christianity. In the former, Muhammed was a human, and he really existed, he was a historical figure, and Hegira was a real historical event, and Muhamed left real descendants, and there is no disputes among Muslims, atheists and historians about his existence. A disagreement starts when we discuss if he really traveled to heavens on Burak's back, and if Koran was inspired by Allah. In contrast, according to Christianity, Jesus was God. And that is a big difference. Christians never agreed Jesus was just a human.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Christians "agree" with it is irrelevant. Historians agree that Jesus was a person.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have misunderstood nothing. And you are wrong, there are people, just the same as you, who whelmingly deny that Muhammad was a person based on nothing else but the fact that they are offended that religions they don't agree with have basis in real events.★Trekker (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I don't deny Mohammed was a real person. Importantly, that fact can be, theoretically, checked. Accordin to historical sources (not only Muslim ones), Mohammad left descendants, so it is possible to analyze their genome and to find a common ancestor. And it is (theoretically) possible to find a piece of original Mohammad's cloth with traces of his blood, and to sequence it and to compare with the gemones of his descendants. That can be theoretically done, and that will not shake Muslim religion (who will not object this genome belongs to Muhammad), and will not convince atheists that Allah really exists.

In contrast, if (let's consider this hypothetical situation) a Shroud of Turin were real, the traces of blood on it belong to Jesus. It will be possible to sequence his genome and find his relatives (according to Gospels, he had siblings). Will the Church acknowledge it? Definitely not, because that would be a fatal blow to Christianity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never once accused you of denying that Muhammad was real.★Trekker (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Muhammad and Gautama were humans who started new religions. The only difference between them and us was that that they discovered some wisdom. We can argue if this wisdom was true or false, and if they really existed, but the very fact of their existence looks logically incontroversial both for atheists and Muslims/Buddhists. That doesn't work for Jesus who was not a human but a god. Therefore, you are either a Christian who believe he was the God, or you are atheist/agnostic, who believe he was a human, which means Gospels are correct only partially. But if they are incorrect regarding resurrection, what is the reason to trust to them in other aspects? Tacitus and Josephus are too unreliable (the info was most likely added later during copying by some Christian monk).

In connection to that, it would not be a violation of the rules of logic to write in the article about some historical person that he met Muhammad (if this person was Arab and he lived in Arabia during Muhammad's time). A man can interact with a man. But it would be totally ridiculous if we write the same about some real Roman and Christ as he was described in Gospels. I cannot understand why this simple idea is so difficult to understand.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can't cite Cicero either. After all, he wrote about noble Romans having decent from Gods.★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make one serious logical mistake: a serious non-religious author can write that some real historical figure claimed having a decent from some god. However, no serious author can write about some historical figure that he was specking with a god who came to him to his room and looked as a humble mortal. That immediately makes his writing a mythology book, not a historical source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who Cicero is?★Trekker (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you reply with a heap of irrelevant nonsense?★Trekker (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that that's not what happens in the gospels, right? And it's irrelevant anyway. WP:RS treat them as documents containing historical information, whether you think they do doesn't matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources treat them as documents containing some historical information. Other sources say otherwise.

In addition, as I already noted, I have no objection to the text itself, I object to the way it is organized. And, whereas the text must strictly stick with what RS say, the decision about the article's structure is made by us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of WP:RS treat them as containing historical information. I don't know what you're reading, but it's clearly very far outside the mainstream.

And I'd say there is a firm consensus that there is nothing wrong with the structure of the article. Jesus existed. He got crucified by Pilate. Deal with it.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that the Old Testament is used by many authors as a source of historical information (despite a fact that there were no Exodus, and excavations revealed no traces of the First Temple). However, I doubt New Testament can be a source of historical data because it tells virtually nothing about life of Judea or Roman empire: it is focused only in Jesus and laymen around him. The same events could have happen in any other province of the Empire. Therefore, I doubt serious historians can find anything useful in Gospels.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: your opinion is irrelevant. You have found no WP:RS to back up your claims. The article is sourced to them. Stop.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You may be interested to read Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses37/2 (2008): 271–292. I've just found that, but it seems this author totally supports what I am saying. I obtained it via this search string, and all previous hits were total garbage. Note, according to the author, Muslim scholars are much less influenced by religious dogmas than Christian ones....--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus not existing is a fringe theory and is considered pseudohistory.★Trekker (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which Jesus? A son of the God, who walked upon the Sea of Galilee, Jesus Christ a man described in the Four Gospels, Jesus from apocryphic sources, or just Jeshua Ha-Nozri, some philosopher from the town of Gamla. Each of them was a totally different person, and they all could not exist simultaneously. And we left Gnostic Christ beyond the scope...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Caesar left no biological children behind to trace to him. That is a poor argument for if people existed or not.★Trekker (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which idea are you trying to demonstrate by that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That your arguments are terrible.★Trekker (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then refute them. Your responces are not a refutation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. Several times. You don't even seem to know that there is debate over if Muhammed was a real person...... How am I even supposed reason with you?★Trekker (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read carefully what I write: as I wrote, it is not important whether Muhammad was a real person or not, the point is that in both scenarios the story where Muhammad's interaction with real historical persons is described look logically non-controversial. And the reason is that Mohammad (no matter if he was a real person of just imaginary) was a human, not a god.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...so you think someone has to be a god in order to be crucified???--Ermenrich (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, not. I am pretty sure Pilates crucified many people, some of them could be philosophers who were telling some odd stories. The problem is that the story about this particular philosopher (Jesus) is known only from Gospels (Josephus and Tacitus didn't tell anything about him, because that information was added later). And, in connection to that, we have a broad spectrum of opinia: some sources (Christian literature and the writings of historians who are standing on Christian positions) say the facts regarding Pilates and Jesus are absolutely correct (and these views are popular among non-historians), other authors believe that Gospels are correct only partially (Jesus was just a human, and resurrection, conversion of water into vine, and other miracles had never taken place), and some sources believe this story was written more than 100 years after alleged Jesus death. And, frankly speaking, how can you tell to which extent Gospels can be trusted? And, by the way, if you believe it is universally accepted that what Gospels say about Pilates is true, you are supposed to demonstrate it with sources. I already provided sources that demonstrate it is not universally accepted, so I expect you either to show that my sources have been refuted or to show they are fringe or obsolete. You haven't done that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? The whole article is full of WP:RS that accept that pilate crucified Jesus. You have provided no sources showing otherwise. Your personal opinion is not important. Stop this nonsense and WP:LETITGO.--Ermenrich (talk)

Leaving Gospels beyond the scope, we have just Tacitus and Josephus. No other source say about crucifixion. I provided a source that questions Tacitus, and it seems I provided a source saying that the fragment from Josephus is an earlier addition. I also provided a source that demonstrates that the authors who study "historicity" of Jesus are more affected by the Christian dogma than their colleagues who study Mohammad. You haven't provided any evidence saying these sources are unreliable or fringe. Listen, Christian literature is so abundant, and the number of Christians among historians is so high that it is not a big problem to find tons of sources that reproduce the same myth. However, the fact that many people believe in Christ doesn't make their view on Christianity a mainstream scholarly view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except you're wrong, about all of that. A human being being described as a God or as someone who interacted with a God does not affect the reliability of if they existed or not. Did you know Julius Caesar became a God after his death and a supernatural being in Norse mythology? Tons of historical figures became Gods in religions, this is not a hard concept to understand.....★Trekker (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe you are speaking seriously. Let me ask you something. Consider two statements:

1. "He was proclaimed to be the God by his compatriots."
2. "He became the God"

Now answer the following questions:

1. Do you see a difference between these two statements?
2. If you see the statement #2 in a history book, can you really trust to other facts described in this book?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

. Can we please keep new responses at the bottom of the thread so this is not so hard to read?

Paul Siebert, you are trying to dispute the historicy of Jesus and the crucifixion based on WP:original research, which you now very well is not allowed. WP:RS say both are historical. Your attempts to discredit the sources as Christian are not convincing. You dont have to like it, but you need to let this go.--Ermenrich (talk)

Good idea.

Original research imply addition of some text to the article's main space. In contrast, I am not proposing to change it significantly, I propose to restore the old article's structure, which has nothing in common with original research. By the way, I agree that the new version of the article looks better, and it is more readable. The problem is that it contradicts to elementary logic and implicitly promotes a Christian concept of Jesus.

I already provided sources that say scholars that study Jesus are significantly influenced by a Christian dogma. By the way, Bond you are refering to is just a PhD thesis (PhD in theology, by the way). I am not sure an opinion of a theologist has much weight when we discuss if Jesus really existed: for any theologist, this is an indisputable fact. In addition, she never analyzed this issue, she just says that in the introduction. I've just asked a question on WP:RSN about that.

In addition, Bond doesn't examine the question about authenticity of Tacitus words about Jesus, she just state Tacitus said that (quite understandable for a theologist).

In general, to use PhD thesis in theology as a proof of Jesus existence is a nice step ;). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the final paragraph from Richard Carrier's article:

"For all these reasons in combination I believe we should conclude the suspect line was probably not written by Tacitus, and was most likely interpolated into its present position sometime after the middle of the 4th century a.d. More likely Tacitus was originally speaking of the Chrestians, a violent group of Jews first suppressed under Claudius, and not the Christians, and accordingly did not mention Christ. We should so conclude because alternative explana tions of the evidence require embracing a long series of increasingly improb able assumptions. So the line should be rejected as spurious, or at least held in reasonable suspicion. And this conclusion should now be taken into account when assessing the evidence for Christ and Christianity, and also when trans lating and interpreting Tacitus and the events following the burning of Rome under Nero. The whole passage in Annals 15.44 should instead be considered as possible evidence supplementing Suetonius on the matter of "Chrestus the instigator" and Jewish unrest at Rome."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]