h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well history today is about impartially for evidence of what happened in the past. Part of that evidence would be things that are written around the time. A few of those things would be the Gospels, but some of them would be other contemporary soucres. Writings and Documents of the time, or even a couple of hundred years later.

As far as I recall there's evidence that a person known as Jesus Christ existed and started a what was initally a small reglion known as Christianity.

Whether or not he is actually the Son of God is a matter for your own personal faith isn't it?

I like the idea of an entry comparing Jesus's portrayal in the different Gospels, I think we should have a separate entry on the Historical Evidence of Jesus's existance.

I have found the book I was referring to it's 'The Unauthorised Version' by Robin Lane Fox. I'll start reading the New Testement bits again and do some extra reading.

That should read 'searching impartially for evidence of what happened in the past'.

I guess I will couch my statement about the historic Jesus a bit. Did Jesus exist? Most probably, in my opinion. But we have to be very careful about using religious texts to say that there is empirical evidence of his existance, or of his location in certain places, which quite conveniently correspond to those in the OT prophecies. We know that the period in which he lived was characterized by lots of folks preaching similar messages. Was he (empirically speaking and not trying to offend the faithful) one man, or an amalgamation of men that were neatly fit into the prophecies of Isaiah, 2 Samuel, etc? I guess I can tone that down, but also don't want to back off too much just in order to not offend some people. The Council of Nicea article could inflame a lot of folks, just saying the Gospels were selected and edited by human beings with a political (or religious) mission (i.e. not divinely inspired). You can find theologins on both sides of the fence on the historical Jesus, and I don't want to try to write to appease all. There'd be nothing left. Anyway, I'll re-think that part and keep plugging away... The last four sections are going to be deleted, and an overall comparison written. I've found its too hard to do them separately without a lot of repetition.

Well, it's pretty clear that the guy as written about in the gospels did not exist (virgin birth, etc, etc), but one thing that struck me about the gospel accounts of the Sermon on the Mount is that they read like notes taken from a speech, not like a script or a lecture, so I am perfectly happy with the idea that *someone* said much of what is attributed to Jesus ben Joseph.

B

I think that the important thing is to present both sides of any argument. If you are writting about the Council of Nicea it's important to say that 'some people believe that the Bible is the work of god and not man'.

Z - I posted before I saw your last postings. Super if you would do a historical Jesus piece! That PBS site I linked to has quite a bit. I think we should also have one on Paul, as well, and how he really took Jesus' teachings and made them more workable for the average guy. And from there go onto the Augustinian post-scriptural analysis and history of the church....Enough for the school lifetime of most theological students, but hey!

Of course you can't take proof from religious texts, but even religious texts reflect the historical epoch from which they come. The Talmud has a lot of dicussion of contemporary politics in it. That's why I mentioned it. You could just rephrase the sentence to say "it is generally accepted that a man called Jesus existed", and discuss everything else separately. Birth, , miracles, are independent of actual existence, in his case.

Whee! Simulpost! If you do all the gospels you can make a university peice out of it. Get a nice shiny badge.

Righty O! I'll start researching! First of all I'll finish reading the book which I've borrowed off Ben and take some notes..

Ugh no - I never planned on doing less than all, but thank God (or whomever) that I don't have the stress of prof deadlines anymore! How long do you mates let things sit as draft on this site before you start making nasties? Oh - but I'd better get writing.

OOh I think LeoAlpha meant an h2g2 University Project (A339059 for more information) It's a way of submitting interlinked entries to the Edited Guide..

Oh! Thanks. I'm rather new here. Looks fun.

I look forward to reading both of these entries, but I won't be able to look at them until I get back from Greece after the 22nd. Hopefully they will be in Peer Review at that stage.

Valiere - I've been here for a while - let me know if you want me to take a look at the entry before you put it in for PR.

I'd love it Z. You can look now, but its pretty rough. I was also maybe going to run it by an old theology prof from years back with whom I still correspond.

Valliere, just to let you know that the h2g2 standard is 43 BC, 1st Century BC, 1st Century AD, 34 AD etc. We don't use BCE and CE.

I believe the date 'bandied about' for the birth of Christ is usually 4 BC rather than 4 AD as you have stated.

I'll be delighted to have a detailed look through this when you are finished it.

Thanks. I've read quite a bit of the guide, but haven't seen everything. I'll change it. That's an old habit. And you're right. It's BC. Oops.

There are guidelines for this stuff - I don't know the exact page, but the link is in my PS.

I'll paste mine in tommorow. This computer has a filter that deletes words it doesn't like, like g1rl, de@th, etc.

Here, the style guide for h2g2:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/plain/SubEditors-Style
Very useful, and makes life easier for your subbie.


I'm afraid my entry will offend from the other end. I just stated right off that there's no historical evidence so everything is coming from religious texts, and then proceeded to state everything as unequivocal fact. Can't wait for PR.

Leo - texts are historical evidence. History, in general, is looked at as the time after a written record, with prehistory everything before. So the texts are historical. However, you might want to say that you are not doing an historical analysis of the figure based on the text, but rather painting a portrait of Moses from what the texts say. That way, you don't have to attempt to "deduce" reality from what was written, but rather just write about what the texts reveal (although it would be interesting to have some framing, such as what we know fairly conclusively about the period in which they were written. That always helps to set a piece of historical text in context. And we do have evidence of the time period, if not the particular man Moses. Thanks for the link. I added it to my PS, and will delve through all the sub-links sometime. Busy reading sources...