Talk:Tacitus on Jesus/Archive 3

Archarya S.

She is not a scholar, but a wannabe. Now, seriously, she advanced a conspiracy theory about Christianity and she expects to pass as a scholar? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. The "conspiracy theory" you speak of would be any theory that denies that jesus was god?Greengrounds (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, you tried to put that same quote into Historicity of Jesus and I removed it. Please discuss changes likely to be contentious on the talk page first.Smeat75 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Archarya S. is a self-published author and a blogger and is not a WP:RS, please read those guidelines, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."Smeat75 (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you followed up on her work you'd see that she provides several references in her work, some often by renowned French historians. No worry, though. Why waste so much time on this contentious issue on one of the very very few jesus references outside of the bible, when your primary source, the epistles and the gospels have themselves proven to be highly plagiarized and forged. But thanks for pointing me in the right direction. More to follow. Funny that you and your kind puts no standard on reviewing sources that reflect your POV, but when the opposite is true, you pull the laziest easiest card: poor sourcing. I could do the same to that whole article, but then we'd have nothing left. Don't worry, there's ways around your censorship and that article on Jesus is going to go through some big changes. There will be growing pains.Greengrounds (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I will quote what I have replied to a religionist POV-pusher at Talk:Gospel of Matthew:

Go ahead with that and you will be reported to WP:ANI for disruptive editing. <snip> Unless you want to comply with the idea that contemporary historians (who live by publish or perish) decide what counts as history, you don't belong editing this article, in fact you would not belong at all editing Wikipedia articles. See WP:ABIAS for details. You should also read Wikipedia:Advocacy: Wikipedia is not the place for promoting your world-view or your religion (this applies to all world-views and all religions).

I have to add: "all world-views and all religions" include atheism, agnosticism and fringe religious faiths. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

All I have to say is "wow" Greengrounds and state agreement to what Tgeorgescu & Smeat75 are saying above. Simply cherrypicking one your statements (the epistles and the gospels have themselves proven to be highly plagiarized and forged) is not only non-NPOV, and thus a violation of Wiki policy, but is also highly biased, fringe, and patently untrue - ON IT'S OWN - let alone the rest of your statement. Nothing in either of their comments is remotely censoring your info, they are simply relating fact and you just need to back up a step and take a deep breath... Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wow is right. You didn't know that half the epistles are accepted as known forgeries? I thought that was common knowledge. Well it is, but not amongst Wikipedia's christian apologetics community. Unfortunatrly for you scholarly opinion is on my side about the epistles lol And the gospels? What does scholarly opinion say about their historicity pray tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are trying to be funny or if this is just coming out naturally... You seem to have a very loose grasp on what the term "common knowledge" means because I've actually read the non-Christian "scholarly opinion" and they disagree with you. You really need to read WP:Fringe before you embarrass yourself further.

I also note that you are speading your "happiness and light" on the Miracles of Jesus page. Good times... Ckruschke (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

If you mean that many of the epistles were probably not written by the people whose names have become attached to them you are, of course, right. That is not remotely the same thing as a forgery. It's true that misattribution and forgery are often confused in popular culture, but we should be displaying slightly less ignorance here. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Gospels were not forged, they were misattributed; Ehrman argues that some epistles were forged, but not all epistles. Whether they correctly reflect the originals is another matter, e.g. Ehrman argues (citing other scholars) that it makes no sense to speak of originals in respect to the Bible manuscripts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

And others please note the use of the word plagiarized to describe the gospels and epistles. "The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century- Plagiarism.Smeat75 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ckruschke (talk) just so we're clear, your going on record in saying that several of the epistles are not forgeries and that scholarly opinion reflects this. Greengrounds (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, have you decided that your original argument has no validity such that you are now parsing side comments by other people in order to find something else to argue about? Because if you have, we can just close out this thread rather than continuing the drama... Ckruschke (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

"No original copies"

Section The passage and its context complains, it seems, that the're no "original copies". What is an "original copy"? Is it a term developed from an oxymoronic composition? (In Swedish there are "originals", and "copies", but not "original copies"). Now, at an ancient time whem there were no printing presses, what is to be regarded as "original copies"? One imaginable meaning is "from the original textually unchanged copy". If that is the intended meaning, is there a better term, or is "original copy" an established term? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I changed that from "original copies" (something is either original or a copy, it cannot be both at once) to "original manuscripts".Smeat75 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Good! Thanks! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian POV problem

This article is not bad now that it includes at least some mention of the reasons to doubt Tacitus' account.

Him being an ally of the Flavian family, a Senator involved in the Flavian era power politics, and likely to have known Clement I, the first documented Pope, of the Flavian family.

There are several articles that may need refactoring. Historicity of Jesus for instance has a lot of sources and reasons to consider the very few Roman sources mentioning Jesus to be suspect. But this article didn't mention them at all. That is a sign of Christian POV.

The specific quotes chosen in the introduction in this article did seem to emphasize how very important and credible it was, but of course mostly Christians would think so, as it seems to provide independent validation of claims made by the Christian faith itself:

• that it existed some 40 years prior to the destruction of the Temple and loss of Jerusalem
• that it was intensely persecuted and in conflict with Roman paganism and Julio-Claudians in particular
• that it was seen as disgusting, shameful, and in conflict with every rule of human living, presumably because pagans were too corrupt to see the merits of Jesus
• that specific figures, notably Pilate, performed certain actions in a specific era, the reign of Tiberius.

The Josephus on Jesus article and other writing on Flavius Josephus and his War of the Jews mention the many curious parallels between that book and the four Gospels, down to turns of language that suggest that the Gospels must have drawn on War of the Jews itself. This is consistent with the general belief that they were authored after 70 AD and used War of the Jews as a reference. The theory of Joseph Atwill in Caesar's Messiah that they were simultaneously authored and Jesus is a construction of the many historical figures named Jesus (listed here by a skeptic [1]) is just one of many explanations for this.

Obviously the Flavians had some influence on an unruly cult: Clement I was of their family. The question is not whether, but how deeply, the influence took.

Flavius Josephus' book was certainly used as a source for the Four Gospels, and in particular to bolster the claims of Jesus' prophecy by making it match the actual events of the war a generation after Jesus he had predicted. Does that mean there were no previous Four Gospels? No, but it does mean we have no evidence of a prewar Gospel existing at all.

One need not accept the Atwill claim that there was *never* an historical Jesus and that the Gospels are satire, to believe that the historicity and predictive power of Jesus were amped up by the systematic rewriting of the Gospels - and perhaps of history.

Introducing all the many credible references from the many doubters would seem to overwhelm the article with a minority view, so simply summarizing the motives and reasoning in one carefully framed end section seems enough.

Finally the title of this article is questionable, as Tacitus had no direct experience of Christ nor the events, and may well have gotten the details from Christian sources himself. Tacitus was writing on Christians, not Christ, and it's not clear he referred to any Roman record in doing so. He states as fact what the Christians and probably most Romans believed, since the only people in Rome who cared enough to discuss Jesus were Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.172.44 (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus touches on why to suspect even if it part of Tacitus isn't a Christian interpolation (which he has written a paper supporting that idea) that Tacitus source was from the Christians: "Tacitus would not have wasted countless hour of his life hunting through obscure archive just to verify a single embarrassing anecdote the Christians themselves were already admitting to. Moveroever, it is very unlikely any such record would have survived in Rome Tacitus to consult, the capitol's libraries having burned to the ground at least twice in the interim, once under Nero, and again under Titus"--216.223.234.97 (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you guys feel this criticim should be included in this article, then why not add it yourself per WP:Bold? Be ready to have it reverted if it does not come from a reliable source.Corkiebuchek (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that an Vigiliae Christianae article and Carrier's Sheffield Phoenix Press book would qualify as reliable sources.

"If the passage is authentic. I elsewhere demonstrate (following the argu­ments of scholars before me who have argued the same) that this line is probably an interpolation, and that Tacitus in fact originally described not the Christians being scapegoated for the fire, but followers of the Jew­ish instigator Chrestus first suppressed under Claudius (as reported by Suetonius: see §11). The line about Christ being executed by Pilate was added sometime after the mid-fourth century. Before then, no one, Chris­tian or non-Christian, ever heard of this persecution event under Nero, or of any reference to Christians in Tacitus; this event is not mentioned even when second-century Christians told stories of Nero persecuting Christians! (See Richard Carrier. 'The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus. Annals 15.44', Vigiliae christianae 68 (2014), pp. 1-20.)" -- Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 344--216.223.234.97 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus Problem

There is so little evidence of the existence of Jesus, i.e. the Jesus of the Christian scriptures, that it would have posed a problem for the earliest Christian apologists to this day. After the Council of Nicaea and after the Roman Empire became officially Christian there came an age during which all things pagan were under attack, and suppressed or destroyed with fanaticism. There was from then on not only a powerful urge to, but little to prevent, the alteration of record if not the outright forgery of history. From then through the middle ages relics relating to Christ and his disciples were 'discovered' and venerated. It was incumbent on the Church to produce something tangible for the many, and something credible for the few scholars. Those facts are enough to warrant special scrutiny of any claims of authenticity for any relics, and writings pertaining to Jesus. The honest POV toward such scarce and paltry evidences should be one of careful scrutiny and critical skepticism. When there are many Christian scholars in divinity schools combing the records and interpreting the meager evidence, saying that most scholars "approve" or "find authentic" is unconvincing if the scholars themselves have a vested interest in Christianity. As Peter Finley Dunn said, "Show me where a man gets his vitals, and I'll show you what his politics is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.10.33 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Chrstus not Christus or Chrestus

If you look at the actual manuscript you will see the term Christus or Chrestus (depending on the translater) is actual Chrstus.--2606:A000:7D44:100:20D1:5529:75B4:DBEE (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction

A color reproduction of Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, MS Pluteo 68.2, fol. 38r, is available here: http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWOItV6GI1A4r7GxMMC1#/oro/81. This website allows users to zoom in, making it possible to examine the word "christianos" at a better resolution than in the 116-year-old black and white image shown in the current Wikipedia article. I have not been able to determine if this color image falls under public domain, but perhaps it might be useful at least to include an external link to the bmlonline website. Conceivably some readers would appreciate it. However I don't want to take it upon myself to change the article, so I am leaving it at this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C380:4B0:4502:772C:32CC:9199 (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is no clear consensus for the proposed move at this time, after multiple relistings. It does seem, however, that the primary subject of Tacitus was Christians, with their religious beliefs being secondary to that. It might therefore be worthwhile to propose titling this "Tacitus on Christians". bd2412 T 19:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tacitus on Christ → Tacitus on Jesus – This article was moved from the "on Jesus" title to "on Christ" on the basis that Tacitus only used the latter name. But this is a descriptive title, not about a specific work called "Tacitus on Christ", for example. Neutrality and consistency argue for the proposed title. Compare to Jesus, Josephus on Jesus, and much of what's in Category:Jesus broadly. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Technically, he did not speak about man called Jesus, he spoke of Christ and Christians. Seems a minor difference, yet it matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Tacitus technically does not use the name "Jesus" and he only calls him "Christ," but it is obvious from reading the passage that Jesus is the one he is talking about, since he says (in Church and Brodrib's translation, linked in the first paragraph): "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." It is obvious that this can only be applied to Jesus. Insisting on calling the article "Tacitus on Christ" because he does not actually use the name Jesus is just being nitpicky and I think BDD makes a good case for it being a violation of WP:NPOV, since "Christ" is a descriptive title, not a name. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. In an encyclopedic context "Christ" used as a personal name (or stand-in for one) is synonymous with "Jesus". "Tacitus didn't use 'Jesus'" is a non-argument. He didn't use "Christ" either, but CHRISTUS. We can translate this into English in whatever way best fits the encyclopedic context. Christ redirects to Jesus, and we do not use the the title Christ in place of the name Jesus (nor suffixed to it), per WP:NPOV policy, because the title is a worshippers' honorific, and is not a neutral name. Similarly, we do not refer to Muhammad as the Prophet, Beloved, Hadrat-i, etc., or append PBUH or its expansion after his name, even though Moslems do many of these sorts of things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards opposing, since he talks of Christ. We can then identify that as Jesus, but that's not what he talks about. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • My question is if WP:COMMONNAME would be superseded by other WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support PER NEUTRAL TITLE policies. Christ (messiah) is a title and not the name of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. CookieMonster755✉ 03:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moving articles like this may be intended to be neutral and inclusive, but it's not. This is what the topic is called in scholarly literature, and has been for a long time. If Tacitus himself spoke of "Christus" rather than "Jesus", that's all the more reason to leave it where it is, since the other title would be nonsensical. I have a non-Christian perspective myself, but it doesn't bother me in the least when people refer to "Christ", because that's how he was traditionally referred to in scholarship. It says nothing about the article's point of view as to whether he was the messiah, and since Tacitus certainly didn't think so, it would be hard to infer otherwise from the title of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tacitus had no clue who "Jesus" was, and he instead spoke of "Christus". This is about Tacitus, and what he wrote. If we add "Jesus", we're adding our own views and conclusions into that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Another option or support. I am leaning towards support by the way. It is obvious that Tacitus is talking about Jesus and his followers, but maybe the article can be called "Tacitus on Jesus and Christians" or ""Tacitus on Christ and Christians"? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion of opposing viewpoints

I noticed that changes were made recently to add recent scholarship that throws the veracity of Tacitus's claim into question. This was quickly deleted for no clear reason, so I reversed the changes. There is no legitimate reason to just delete the opinions of these prominent scholars writing within the last 5 years.

Please sign your comments on talk pages. The "opposing viewpoints" were not deleted, the question is does Richard Carrier's very much minority view belong in the lead? I don't think so, it is discussed under "Authenticity and historical value", which is where it belongs.Smeat75 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Given Carrier's status as a non-mainstream independent scholar (i.e. he holds no academic position), and the fact that this passage has been covered by many experts, does his opinion belong in this article at all? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so User:Akhilleus but if Carrier is removed altogether it is likely to be a never ending struggle to keep his opinion out of the article and I get weary of that kind of arguing. Feel free to revise the article as you wish, I am going to remove Carrier from the lead.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Smeat75 It was not only Carrier's opinion but also the work of Christoper Jones, the (now Emeritus) George Martin Lane Professor of the Classics and of History at Harvard. His articles (two both published in the last few years) have been published in leading journals such as the Journal of Roman Studies. This is not "the minority opinion" but is brand new research, something that should not be deleted from the page in favor of older research done solely by New Testament historians or Theology professors. Not a single one of the sources that are cited in the lead are Classical Philologists (such are Christopher Jones) who should be considered the primary scholars on these works, as they are specially trained to analyze these texts. Nameworthy Ted (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not aware that I deleted anything cited to Christopher Jones. I looked through earlier versions of the article and could not find anything cited to Jones in them. I moved two references from the lead down to the section "Authenticity and historical value".I wonder if you mean the sentence "others have questioned if the passage was a later interpolation(cited to Carrier) or represents "some modernizing or up-dating of the facts" to reflect the Christian world at the time the text was written.(cited to Shaw, Brent (2015). "The Myth of Neronian Persecution". Journal of Roman Studies.) I moved it exactly as it was in the lead to the appropriate section.Smeat75 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

From this intro to a scholarly journal [2] it is clear that your Emeritus professor at Harvard Christopher Jones criticized Brent Shaw for questioning the historicity of the Neronian persecution. Jones held "that the Tacitean account is .... generally credible."Smeat75 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Full discussion of this issue as well as a more recent paper that upholds the Tacitean account at the blog of Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh, Larry Hurtado.Smeat75 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant to post the link to the Hurtado article "Nero, Tacitus, the Fire, and Christians", here it is - [3].

And from this discussion of the Shaw article on the freethinker blog Vridar [4] it is clear that Shaw does not question the Tacitus passage's authenticity or the value of the crucial mention of "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus". The article is questioning whether Nero really persecuted Christians.Smeat75 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Chrestiani

The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum identity number CIL VI 24944 has the following:

D. M M. T. DRVSI . PATERES PRIMICINIO3 . QVI VIXIT ANN. XXXXII. DIES VII FAVSTVS. ANTONIAE. DRVSI. IVS EMIT. IVCVNDI. CHRESTIANI. OLL (sic}

That "Chrestiani" poses some problems as the stone's date range is 37 BCE to 37 CE. Worst yet according to Epiphanius in Panarion 29 (4th century CE)the follows of Jesus did "not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but Natzraya" and called Jessaeans for a time. They did not adopt "christian" until sometime in the mid 40s CE. So we have something that indicates that there was something called "Chrestiani" that clearly predated the followers of Jesus calling themselves Chrestian and may predate Jesus himself. This raises issues regarding Tacitus - was he actually talking about this group and conflating it with the group using a very similar name in his own time and connect them to Jesus?--2606:A000:131D:4413:165:C5F3:309C:9428 (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No.Smeat75 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Near contemporary Christian accounts

Has anything scholarly been said why the Christians themselves wrote Apocryphal Acts of Paul (c.160 CE) and The Acts of Peter (late 2nd century CE) neither of which agree with Tacitus? The first has Nero burning Christians for their claim they will "overthrow all kingdoms" ie a response to claims of sedition. The Acts of Peter states that Nero has a vision where he is told 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ' and "Nero, being greatly alarmed because of this vision, kept away form the disciples from the time that Peter departed this Life" (Schneemelcher, Wilhelm) {1992} New Testament Apocrypha Westminster John Knox Press pg 317) but Peter could have died as early as 64 CE, the year of the Great Fire. If the Tacitus account is remotely based on official records why in the name of sanity would the Christians themselves come up with such wildly different accounts one of which portrays themselves as seditionists?--2606:A000:131D:4413:165:C5F3:309C:9428 (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal speculation, not relevant.Smeat75 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Content is Misleading

The content on the this page would cause anyone who visits it to believe there is no dispute whatsoever over the passage in Tacitus. That is just not the case.

Scholars do not agree that "Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source"

There is a lot about this passage that is problematic. Not the least of which a Roman historian got vital facts incorrect. He called Pilate by the wrong title. He used the term "Chirst" for the person about whom he was talking. Both of these are rather major mistakes for such a historian to have made. There there is the fact that there was not a vast population of Christians in Rome who could have been the culprits or the scapegoats.

Neither Josephus nor Pliny the Elder mention any of this and both of them were in Rome at the time.

There is just absolutely no good evidence for this article to read as if it is the last word on the subject. The fact that there is doubt about the veracity and authenticity of the passage in Tacitus really should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxdave (talk • contribs) 03:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The edit you added and I reverted was sourced to a blog by Dorothy Murdock, a fringe author of zero academic credibility whose work the leading authority in the field today, Bart Ehrman, has characterised as "the breathless conspirator's dream". It does not belong here. The issues of "Authenticity and historical value" are discussed in that section of the article.Smeat75 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The reference to Ehrman in the main article seems to be misleading. In "Did Jesus Exist" he says "At the same time, the information is not particularly helpful in establishing that there really lived a man named Jesus. How would Tacitus know what he knew? It is pretty obvious that he had heard of Jesus, but he was writing some eighty-five years after Jesus would have died, and by that time Christians were certainly telling stories of Jesus (the Gospels had been written already, for example), whether the mythicists are wrong or right. It should be clear in any event that Tacitus is basing his comment about Jesus on hearsay rather than, say, detailed historical research." Clhedrick (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Do "most"scholars hold this passage to be genuine?

A line in the article was recently changed from saying "Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic" to "According to van Voorst the passage to be authentic." Could someone with access to the source (I only have a limited preview) confirm whether van Voorst actually says "most scholars"?--Ermenrich (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with the issue - found the page numbers in van Voorst and added Shaw. Re:Richard Carrier - the journal that he's published in is reputable, I don't think we can exclude him from the article, but I've given his opinion much less weight considering it's an outlier. He only has five citations on Google Scholar (including Shaw whom I've added) and none of them actually engage with his quite outlandish argument that there was a Jewish sect called the Chrestians led by a Jew name Chrestus, and none of it had anything to do with "Christus" until it was interpolated by Christians.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)