Talk:Historicity of Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Virtually all scholars

"Virtually all scholars" is a solid paraphrasing of the sources; "most" is an understatement: "nearly all historians"; "virtually everyone"; "overwhelming body of scholars." And yes, there is consensus to use this phrase; " number of removals" is not an argument to deviate from those sources; why do editors object against sticking to those sources? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Virtually all" is still not a consensus. A consensus is when everyone agrees, and I think you will agree that we are far from achieving a consensus on this point. Cutelyaware (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan. Random wikieditors tend to ignore the sources themselves despite quote after quote by actual scholars stating the position of mainstream scholarship (Note 1 and Note 2). The article should reflect what the sources say, per wikipedia policy, not random wikieditor "opinions" on the matter. The FAQ addresses this too. Cutelyaware, please see the FAQ on the scholarly consensus on the matter and how non-existence theories are WP:FRINGE. The phrase "virtually all" is addressed on Q2 of the FAQ after many discussions through the years and many editors reverting the removal of it. Plus Ehrman specifically uses such a phrase directly, so this is sourced. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources you are talking about generally all source each other, so within their community, they do indeed have a consensus opinion. The problem is that the community of Biblical scholars is nothing like the community of historians. You know this full well because you have yet to tell me why you feel Biblical scholars are the equals of historians, yet don't want them to be referred to as Biblical scholars.

Regarding fringe theories, claiming to be unconvinced by an argument is not itself a theory of any kind. Only the unconvincing argument can be a theory and that is where the burden of evidence lies. Cutelyaware (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Stanton - "Today nearly all historians", Ehrman - "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—", Van Voorst "Biblical scholars and classical historians", etc. See Michael Grant (Roman historian) and Paul Johnson (general historian) too. Other sources also state "scholars" in general. They do not limit it to just "biblical" scholars. Also, see Q3 on the quality of the literature that exists on non-historicity. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's take Ehrman for example since you quoted him. Ehrman has been about as Christian as one can be, dedicating his life to parsing meaning from Biblical text. So when he says "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—", he's talking about Christian researchers like himself who are motivated by their religious beliefs. These are all far from being mainstream historians. I'm sure the stories are similar for the others that you listed. The reason why historians don't refute the claims about the historical Jesus is because there is far too little hard evidence to study for them to be able to successfully publish in scientific journals. Cutelyaware (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "virtually all scholars" is a rigorous statement in the context of the topic, given the propensity for confirmation bias. What evidence, if any, exists for his baptism and crucifixion? A bunch of secondary sources citing each author wouldn't really qualify as rigorous proof, in my opinion. Maybe a softer statement is more appropriate: "The majority of modern scholars believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely that a figure known as Jesus did exist than did not." I believe anything else is a stretch... 2A02:3031:17:25E9:1:1:F038:BD16 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cutelyaware:

• Regarding consensus is when everyone agrees, if you din't know how WP:CONSENSUS works, you're wasting the time of your fellow editors.
• Regarding The sources you are talking about generally all source each other:

• is that so?
• and if so, so what? Scholars refer to each other; that's normal;
• the sources, az in "kind of sources: cheap rhetorics; what other WP:RS have you got in store? Where is the consensus among historians that Jesus as a historical person did not exist? Or even the glimpse of dissent?

• Why are Biblical scholars not the equal of scholars? Sources, please; not your personal biases;
• Ehrman is not Christian; get your facts straight;
• Regarding I'm sure the stories are similar for the others that you listed, what makes you so sure? Did you check, or is it your personal bias which you prefer to leave unchecked?
• Regarding historians don't refute the claims about the historical Jesus: again rhetorics and your personal preferred agenda; why would historians have to "refute" "claims" about a historical Jesus? You a priori suppose that there is something to refute. Ask yourself another question: why are there only a few scholars who bother to engage, "refute," the CMT?

And please write in a clear and unambiguous way. Which consensus are you referring to? Among scholars (I didn't write "consensus" in that line in the lead), or here at this discussion. And what does claiming to be unconvinced by an argument is not itself a theory of any kind. Only the unconvincing argument can be a theory and that is where the burden of evidence lies mean? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your snide comment "what other WP:RS have you got in store?", I'm very offended and insist you cease all personal attacks or I'll report you. Same for "not your personal biases" and "get your facts straight." These are completely unacceptable.

I said "consensus", not WP:CONSENSUS. IE in the dictionary sense which means everyone agrees. Wikipedia has a far more nuanced version of the term specifically because of this sort of fight. WP:CONSENSUS says "The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group." which is pretty much the dictionary definition.

Regarding scholars referring to each other, that's obviously correct. What's not common in the sciences is for entirely separate populations of researchers in one area to pretty much only reference each other, without any cross-over into related fields, with references also being made in the other direction.

"Why are Biblical scholars not the equal of scholars?" If they really were the equivalent of scholars in general, then why do you care so much? Instead you should be proud to call them Biblical scholars, right?

Regarding Ehrman, He's only recently disavowed Christianity. The writings that everyone likes to quote are from when he was a born-again evangelical. But you knew that already, didn't you? That's very disingenuous.

Regarding "what does claiming to be unconvinced by an argument is not itself a theory of any kind. Only the unconvincing argument can be a theory and that is where the burden of evidence lies mean?", it means just what it says. You know it as the "Christ myth theory". That's a straw man tactic to try to frame people unconvinced by the Christ theory as the ones that are promulgating a proposition that they haven't proven.

Let me put it another way: Are you convinced by the "historical Zeus theory"? No? then I demand that you prove your Zeus myth theory. Cutelyaware (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Practice what you preach, will you?

• If they really were the equivalent of scholars in general, then why do you care so much? Instead you should be proud to call them Biblical scholars, right?. And let me note that you are the one who cares so much.
• He's only recently disavowed Christianity. The writings that everyone likes to quote are from when he was a born-again evangelical. But you knew that already, didn't you? That's very disingenuous. is nonsense. Ehrman started to doubt his faith in the 1990s; see Bart Ehrman, Leaving the Faith. His most-referenced publications are from the late 1990s and thereafter. His popular writings, Misquoting Jesus (2007), Jesus, Interrupted (2010), Forged (2011), Did Jesus Exist (2012) are from the 2000s and later. See also the number of reviews for his individual publications at Amazon; Misquoting Jesus 2,770, How Jesus Became God (2014) 2,149, Jesus, Interrupted (2009) 1,822. I don't know what your views are based on, but don't accuse me of being disingenuous when you're incorrect.

Regarding "It just means what it says": still incomprehensible.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there are extremely few non-Christian scholars that have avowed any opinion on the historical existence of Jesus, and, due to problems with bias, the view of Christian scholars on the topic is irrelevant. The phrasing of "virtually all scholars" gives the false impression that there actually are a large number of unbiased scholars that have come to a consensus. There isn't.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Your statement the view of Christian scholars on the topic is irrelevant is jaw-dropping... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I wish I believed I had brought you to a revelation of sorts, but I'm certain you are expressing genuine astonishment. When researching Haile Selassie, how much weight do you give to the conclusions that Rastafarians draw in comparison to those held by the non-Rastafarians?—Kww(talk) 14:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just adding that G.A Well (agnostic and iconic former mythicist) says "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure." See Q5 of FAQ too for diversity of scholars. Easy examples are Grant, Casey, Ehrman (all non-religious) who have written on the matter too. It is not a secret club. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a secret club ... just an extremely small one, which is the point. The lede of this article gives the impression that the historicity of Christ is a topic of avid study with an overwhelming consensus among a large number of historians. In fact, It's barely studied by non-Christians. Once one dismisses the Christian historians, one is left with handfuls of sources. I note that even your hearsay from Well doesn't define "secular scholar". Is a Christian historian working for a secular university a "secular historian"?—Kww(talk) 18:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"In fact, It's barely studied by non-Christians." Jesus is an insignificant itinerant preacher, who left no surviving writings. I don't see why non-Christians would care about a figure with minimal impact. Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a rather odd view point... Whatever one's views of religion and Christianity might be, from an anthropological point of view, the impact of Jesus on human history and the world at large has been enormous. From Roman emperors such as Constantine to the crusades to the powerful popes of the middle ages, the Christian faith has been a powerful driver for significant events. I would expect any historian to be interested in the question of whether he actually existed or not, and it's surprising really that Wikipedia is one of the main online sources actually discussing this point and that we're almost having to rely on WP:SYNTH to get the point across rather than a definitive secondary review by a historian unconnected with theology. I'm not for a minute suggesting we should change anything, as implied by some above - the consensus and sourcing is still fairly unanimous, I just wish there were more of it!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to this list the colonization/christianization of the new world, which also propelled Christianity to the East around Islamic civilization, and the development of western capitalism, which is still the dominant economic system in the world... warshy ^(¥¥) 19:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is part of why it frustrates me that people insist on forcing this article to present a false image of the state of scholarship. You're right ... the impact of Jesus on history is enormous. Enormous enough that I would expect to find Buddhists and atheists drawn to the study of the facts related to that impact. Instead, we get crickets. The cynic in me says that in a world dominated by Christians, they would find it career-limiting to publish the conclusions they reach, but I've never asked for the article to include that sort of inference. I'd just like it to drop the hyperbole and exaggeration. A handful of objective historians have published conclusions on the topic of the article, and the article should report their conclusions while noting the paucity of sources.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: That was a serious question, and quite relevant to this discussion. If you were researching Haile Selassie, how much weight would you give to the conclusions that Rastafarians draw in comparison to those held by the non-Rastafarians?—Kww(talk) 21:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

'facts' according to a theologian

Recently I deleted Dunn's opinion of the relevance of the "universally assent" commanding baptism and crucifixion "to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission". After it reappeared, I just further specified Dunn's function description, changed the present tense to the past tense (because he has been dead for more than 3 years , and I think the past tense is more factual for anything stated in the past anyhow), and removed bits of the qoute that only repeated the preceding note, but...

I suggest we totally delete it for the following reasons:

1: The quoted "what and why of Jesus' mission" is more or less a paraphrased version of "what he did and taught", which according to FAQ 1a A should not be discussed in the article.

2: The statement adds little to the use of Dunn's quote in the preceding note.

3: In context, Dunn merely considers where to start the narrative of his book. His reasoning therefore doesn't even explain anything about methodology (for as far as that may have been its reason for inclusion) and doesn't seem relevant for the Historical Jesus page, let alone here.

4: I'm trying to step over my suspicions concerning risks for confirmation bias when religious people research the historicity of a subjects that they regard as the center of their view of the world. Maybe there are people who identify as Christians who merely believe he existed and that he may have preached or at least inspired some useful ideas, but usually the term implies much more. In Dunn's case, his title "Lightfoot Professor of Divinity" (named after a bishop) identifies a paradigmatic theological consideration of divinity, which makes an extremely poor credential where objective mainstream academic consideration about historical facts is desired.

5. Nonetheless, I think any notable argument for or against historicity can/should be included on the page, even if the source could indicate some atheistic or some religious bias (as long as that context is clear). But since HoJ is a scholarly subject (as the subheader points out), the academic weight is very important. I have strong doubts whether Dunn's book, for the religious William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, has properly been vetted in mainstream academic circles, so it probably should not be considered a reliable source.

The quote thus only serves to give the opion of one theologian, comes from a primary source with little academic weight, and has little or no relevance to historicity.

What I think is the most interesting about the quote is an aspect that says a lot about the way we should look at much of the claims in this article: Dunn here uses quotation marks around the word 'facts'! Doesn't he thus imply that both baptism and crucifiction may have been claimed to be factual, but should not actually be considered as entirely trustworhthy elements of the narrative, at least not in a historical sense?

Maybe there are good reasons for inclusion that I simply fail to recognise. Can somebody clarify any serious objection to deletion? Joortje1 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Serious? You doubt whether Dunn's book, for the religious William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, has properly been vetted in mainstream academic circles? You think that Dunn (2003), Jesus Remembered, is a primary source with little academic weight? Which planet are you living on? Google scholar gives 917 cites...Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Joortje1, I am surprised you extract all of this commentary from such a simple sentence from Dunn. Dunn is contributing to what other scholars have said (Levine, Crossan, Ehrman, etc). Crucifixion and baptism are not stating anything about what he taught or to did, this is on what happened to him. Dunn is a well established expert on the topic and that is why he is cited here and in relevant articles too. The publisher is academic and he is mainstream. See FAQ Q5 on your concerns of scholars who happen to be Christian. The focus on a scholars title is odd. By such logic, only slave owners can speak about whether or not slaves should be free, because slaves may have confirmation bias.

Such commentary exposes a bias against Christian scholars that does not belong on wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"a bias against Christian scholars" Well, if the scholar has imaginary friends in the sky or hears voices, he/she is not that reliable. Dimadick (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This is what a fundamentalist believer wrote: "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go." That helps you understand how far are mainstream Bible scholars from the POV of an orthodox priest or pastor. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It amazes me how desperately you cling to a completely false impression of Wikipedia policies, Ramos1990. It's a question of bias. No one is proposing dismissing Christians' opinions on toothpaste, or sealing wax, or any of myriads and myriads of topics. There is one topic that they cannot be trusted to be objective on, and even then, no one is proposing that we shouldn't mention their view. To rely on it and present it as representing scholarly consensus is completely inappropriate, though. I repeat the question that Joshua refuses to answer: how much weight should we give a Rastafarian historian when discussing Haile Selassie?—Kww(talk) 03:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

We rely on what the sources say, not Wikipedia editor views. When expert after expert says there is a clear consensus and that the opposing view is fringe, you cannot all of a sudden insert your view above theirs. That would be WP:OR. See Ehrman, Casey, Wells, Grant, etc. They are all non-religious and they say the same thing as everyone else on the matter. None of them state that there is an issue on objectivity on historicity of Jesus either. Ehrman for example says "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." Ramos1990 (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is not "expert after expert" once you take bias into account: there's a handful of objective historians that claim another group of historians are fringe. Despite your protestations, our policies do not require that we accept the output of biased sources at face value. No one is asking that this article promote the Christ Myth theory, only that it stop using hyperbolic terms when describing the situation: all of this "virtually all scholars of antiquity" nonsense makes it appear that there is some large group of objective historians that support Christ's historical existence. I note you duck the obvious parallel question as well: how much weight should we give a Rastafarian historian when discussing Haile Selassie?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Rastafarians in this case are the people who believe there was no historical Jesus; diehard agnostics can be quite dogmatic and one-sided. You're confusing two issues: the question whether there was a historical Jesus, and the question what he was in a religious sense. There's a wide spectrum of beliefs regarding the second question; the first question, answered by critically analyzing the early Christian texts, which is the expertise of precisely those scholars you deem biased, yields the answer 'Yes, there was a historical Jesus, and there is very little we can be certain of'. That's a sobering answer, and quite uncomfortable for conservative Christians. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Your answer implies that you don't grasp the analogy. There's nothing wrong with being a Rastafarian, and being a Rastafarian doesn't imply anything is wrong with their reasoning power, but their belief that Selassie was God in physical form makes them an extremely poor source for things about Selassie. I'm confusing nothing: someone that believes that Christ is somehow the centre of the universe is incapable of objectively analysing data about Christ's existence. Their opinion on the matter has no weight.—Kww(talk) 13:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You doubt that Haile Selassie existed? And yes, you're confusing thing: someone that believes that Christ is somehow the centre of the universe is incapable of objectively analysing data about Christ's existence. We're talking herd about the Jesus of history, not the Christ of faith. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Selassie existed -- but did he display the stigmata of Christ? No reason at all to believe he did, regardless of the protestations of Rastafarians. Yes, someone that believes that Christ is somehow the centre of the universe is incapable of objectively analysing data about Christ's existence. That's an absolutely true statement: to someone that believes Christ is the centre of the universe, pathetically small scraps of evidence are highly convincing. From the insignificant handful of non-Christians that examine those small scraps and come to the same conclusion, it's safe to say that the conclusion is not as strongly warranted as they claim. I don't understand why you think that religious faith doesn't interfere with objectivity. You think it's easy for people to examine evidence and deny the cornerstones of their faith? If it were, there would not be any religious people left.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you start reading Dunn, to get an idea what we're talking about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you stop treating people that argue with you like idiots rather than engaging their position. You start from a completely ludicrous position and then refuse to discuss it. People that treat Christ as a divine figure are far more likely to examine evidence and conclude that he exists than people that do not. What part of that statement do you consider to be untrue?—Kww(talk) 21:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You have hardcore evangelicals who argue there was no historical Jesus (i.e. Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians): there only is the Christ of faith, take it or leave it. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In Maurcie Casey's (agnostic) book on mythicism, he states "the critical scholars among whom I am happy to have spent most of my life, whether Christian, Jewish, or irreligious. These wonderful people were not concerned by 'peer pressure' or the 'constraints of academic tenure'...none of these people had significant connections with fundamentalists or mythicists."3 He and Ehrman also document extensive bias on mythicists (they are not objective historians, mostly amateurs). Ramos1990 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to make this article more objective.

Flawed Language

This article, along with other related articles on the topic, possesses flaws with respect to the strong language used. Having read some of the sources, I am of the belief that the majority of scholars on the topic believe it more likely that Jesus existed than that he did not, based on the available, but limited, primary sources. But the language used in this article make it seem like this is an overwhelming fact, which it quite clearly isn't. If I say, have a bag of pebbles where 70 percent of the pebbles are brown, and 30 percent are white, the fact that I'm more likely to draw a brown pebble doesn't make it a certainty. More efforts should be made including discussions about the relevant primary evidence.

Also, if he existed historically, the claims of him being baptised and crucified have far less evidence: at this point you're more or less restricted to the bible (maybe a few other sources, but fewer). Even if this were the best hypothesis to make, the level of certainty should be clarified.

I'm afraid to say, with the current language, the article seems unscientific. I'm not denying that Jesus possibly existed, but the burden of proof lies on proving that he did, which requires more critical analysis of the evidence. 2A02:3031:17:25E9:1:1:F038:BD16 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at the sources in Note 1 and Note 2. Experts describe the situation as such in their own words. Even irreligious one like Ehrman, Grant, Casey, etc. Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not random editor POV on the matter. Also see FAQ "Quotes" section for dozens of sources on this and "Q3" on books claiming the opposite in this talk page for your concerns. Actually read the whole FAQ since this has been answered so many times in the talk. Even mythicists like Robert Price, formerly G.A Wells, Michael Martin, etc acknowledge the consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, another thing that stands out is the various appeals to authority and character attacks used in the sources. Quotes such as "No serious scholar thinks he didn't exist". It fails to qualify the uncertainty in the evidence and comes across as unscientific. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

My point of view is not to reject the consensus, rather use softer, more scientifically accurate language. I think this point has not been refuted. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether that consensus is accurate is another matter. I'm trying to reach a compromise here. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, an FAQ created by editors that have a clear, strong opinion on the topic, and are unwilling to compromise, isn't a way to resolve the issue. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits diff are unwarranted and suggestive. You changed "agree" in "believe"; it's not a matter of "belief," but of conclusions based on painstakingly textual analysis. You also expanded 'CMT [...] fringe theory' with "among scholars active in the area." This is misplaced; it suggests that there are scholars, or areas of scholarship, where the CMT is taken serious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The contrary perspective is not the Christ myth theory. It's whether Jesus existed in a manner consistent with the claims written in the article.

Going on evidence from thousands of years ago definitely requires some level of belief. Questions on this matter, given the religious bias, cannot be treated with the same level of certainty, as, say, the existence of climate change.

An often used argument by you two is that "wikipedia goes by the sources". The problem is, the overwhelming body of sources used in this article are secondary sources that cite each other, rather than direct primary sources. The cherrypicking concern is not one to be readily swept away by fallacious appeals to authority. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is also such strong langauge to call the CMT a fringe theory. Again, compare with climate science denial. It doesn't matter whether the technical usage of the term may be regarded as correct, more the interpretation by the lay reader. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See the policy WP:SECONDARY. Also there is no CMT scholarship anywhere in academia. A recent extensive scholarly survey of CMT literature by Maurice Casey [in Note 2] "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship...They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications." Indeed, they do not even pop up as an entry in Oxford Reference which covers all the humanities including all historical fields. It is not a view in any fields of scholarship. Here is another scholar who did a survey of the literature [1]. Ehrman says the same thing since he surveyed the literature too in his book on the topic! Van Voorst did too see Note 2. Even mythicists like Price and Martin admit that. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, appeal to authority. The secondary sources used seem unbiased: wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but those that analyse primary sources. It would be better if the quotes reflect actual scholarly efforts rather than "everybody thinks so...". The latter, in my experience, is a giant red flag in an argument. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:Fringe for how wikipedia works in representing views according to their actual prominence in scholarship. Fringe views do not get equal time with consensus views in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion its not a matter of whether or not the label is correct, more the interpretation of the lay reader. Compare with climate science denial, which is more or less the canonical fringe theory. I think using this label here is a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm happy with softer language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Most facts in Ancient history are based upon scant evidence. There is more reason to doubt that Julius Caesar was killed by Brutus than there is to doubt that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ancient history is a softer science. But with regards to biographical details of Caesar, there are a lot more sources, which are also more objective (coming from historians of the time period). With regards to Jesus, however, the evidence is far less, especially given the obvious bias with regards to biblical literature.

I am not saying he didn't exist, in fact, his existence may be more likely than not. But the strong language used in this article makes very bold claims, which don't match the evidence. Fallacious appeals to authority, and character arguments also make this article look unprofessional and unscientific. Which, for the lay reader, is a cause for concern. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As a reference, the Historicity of Mohammed article uses much better language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Fallacious appeals to authority"—you might want to read WP:VERECUNDIAM, and then a handbook of logic: appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, especially when we never perform "rational argumentation" but we merely WP:CITE the views of experts.

We don't have a problem with atheists. We don't have a problem with Christians. We do have a problem with epistemically irresponsible people. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, the problem is the way the argumentation for the historicity in this article has been carried out. The quotes included from the experts are using appeals to authority. Far better would be quotes that reflect a critical analysis of the evidence. My point isn't to make a dramatic change to this article, more use softer, more scientifically appropriate language. I don't think the logic behind my edit has been refuted. Also, please refrain from character attacks (another fallacy I might add). 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Till now, nobody else agrees with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would refer to numerous similar comments above in the talk history. You haven't engaged with my reasoning either. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP: perhaps Julius Caesar died by falling upon his own sword, and Brutus was scapegoated. It is unlikely, but is far more likely than Jesus not existing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the latter has far more evidence, without religious bias, and thus not an appropriate comparison. There must be a way of using a softer, more scientific tone in this article. The article on the historicity of Mohammed, for example, discusses the primary sources first, and the ones which are flawed, before stating the conclusion.

Again, I'm just trying to make the article reflect the uncertainties associated with the available evidence. Let alone the big claim that he was "baptized". I might add that the fact that the FAQ page exists at all reflects the fact that the main editors of this article do not truly reflect the consensus. I believe some compromises need to be made.

I'm not denying the sources. But let's please try to remove the tone from the article that makes his existence seem like an irrefutable fact. Especially considering the page is "historicity of Jesus" and not the biographical page. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We're not second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You can doubt every fact of Ancient history through paying lip service to rationality. It does not work like that around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not denying it, more saying we should reach a compromise to use softer language. Compare with related historicity articles. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's like the Shakespeare authorship question—such question does not really exist among experts in that field.

You can adduce no WP:RS that what you're advocating is even remotely a mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Typical that the link for Historicity of Muhammad is incorrect. And if we are to compare articles, take a look at Quest for the historical Jesus - actually, read it. The sole reason that the Historicity of Jesus-article exists is because people keep arguing that there was no historical Jesus, and that that all scholarship on this topic is wrong and biased - augh... Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Its feel that you haven't understood my point at all. My point of view is to not enter an edit war, but to try and reach a consensus with regards to the language used in this article, which is a poor reflection of the actual certainty with which claims can be made. Again, I'm not arguing that he did not exist, more the fact that, if the burden of proof lies with establishing that he did, one needs to examine the evidence critically. The quotes from the scholarly consensus should reflect the critical analysis they have done, rather than them using appeals to authority. Another main reason for this is that this is a historiographical article, not a biographical one.

There was a typo in the link I have provided, but I think it's unambiguous enough to find the article I intended. Again, character attacks are a fallacy, I feel that you would do better to use a nicer tone with other editors. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's more typical that Joshua Jonathan points out a mistake that simply concerns choosing the transliteration "Mohammed" that is preferred in several other languages instead of the English one?

Thanks for reminding me to have another look at Quest for the historical Jesus. The large section on Criticism has plenty of useful info like "The historical analysis techniques used by Biblical scholars have been questioned" and "A number of scholars have criticized historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" (all with reliable sources of course). Your remark "Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right?" seems spot on to me, but probably not in the way you meant it. Joortje1 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You should take a better look at that article; what the Criticism-section says is that any "reconstruction" of a historical Jesus is hardly possible. That's why this article says there's 'almost universal consent' about only three facts: he existed, he was baptized, and he was crucified. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur. None from that section refer to historicity, so none of it applies here. But also noting that checks and balances are mentioned there too. Just a side note, there are no universal historical methods among historians and their views on objectivity have declined. They recognize this, which is why historical research diversified in the twentieth century across the board (Georg Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge). And why we have various histories on race, gender, politics, and national narratives. But there are basic agreed upon facts in each field, however. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

So we state "Standard historical criteria are used", don't describe the currently used methodologies beyond "research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible", and thus merely suggest that the criteria are standard fare in some unspecified scholarly discipline(s) that discern(s) historical facts from myth?

Oh wait, we also mention one specific criterion as an argument for 2 'facts' (as far as I could find between all the claims about consensus versus fringe, because why would be bother explaining more about methodologies as long as there is a virtually absolute scholarly consensus?

Certainly it's more important to ignore the immense criticism on these criteria (mainly from within the academic discipline itself) because the general scholarly methodologies simply don't apply to historicity, right? And this contributes to the objectivity of the article, right? Joortje1 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so because no matter what methods they employ or what conclusions they come up with on a particular portrait of Jesus, they at least agree that Jesus existed. That is the point. Each discipline has criteria, but it is usually is very broad like use sources. Obviously using sources is pretty standard stuff. Sometimes they use stuff from memory studies too or methods from archeology too. But that does not alter such basics like existence. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This article doesn't just claim existence, but also that he was baptised and crucified. I was only proposing modifying the language to make it softer, given the burden of proof is on proving these claims. I'm not denying scholarship or doing research. Also, one should be careful when one cites secondary sources not to cherrypick, which may be a concern with this article. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To add a more practical thought: anybody can help make this artcile more objective by editing it, even in very simple ways, and hopefully without as much push-back as we receive when we put a proposal for change or a question on the talk page (unfortunately some active editors seem extremely strict on "we go by what the sources say" and don't appreciate any wp:commonsense editorial judgement, so we'll just have to try what sticks).

There are plenty of small adjustments that can put some of the cited claims into perspective, or just make some statements slightly more factual (for instance the profession of the claimants, whether a book is a popular one or a peer-reviewed academic publication for a reputable mainstream publisher, or the date for some sources that are more than just a few decades old, or even a change from present to past tense for at least the deceased authors).

Some claims leave out a bit of relevant context, which may therefore stick out to critical readers, so we can check the sources for additional thoughts that may put things back into perspective. Joortje1 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR or WP:SYN. It is the policy that we stick to what the sources say. Also multiple editors have already addressed this to you including you imposing your personal views of scholarship on the article in previous sections here in the talk. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Yes, of course, why do you think we wouldn't keep the guidelines in mind?
I basically gave the advice to check the verifiability and to WP:MINE the cited sources.
WP:RS: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process”. And of course there's WP:5P5, especially WP:COMMONSENSE and also WP:CSIOR.
Could you maybe consider when your ad infinitum standard replies may go over the fine line between [insert your reason for reply here] and WP:LAWYERING or WP:HEAR, or maybe a bit of WP:OWN?
You know I backed up my "personal" views with some RS that may actually deserve some place on the page. But you personally brought up these mainstream peer-reviewed volumes that seem to be even more reputable and much more critical of biblical scholarship:
-On the Historicity of Jesus by historian Richard Carrier (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press)
-Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers, available to active wikipedians via WikipediaLibrary) (note that wikipedia explicitly calls the academic discipline that Lataster worked in "Objective study of religion", although it has nonetheless been criticised for imposing a theological Christian agenda.
Sorry for being slow with reading and processing all that information (between other tasks and distractions), but is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article (despite that Carrier-quote in this thread)? Joortje1 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've tried doing so. Even a very small edit like "a large consensus of historians believe it is likely that Jesus existed" has been met with stubborn pushback. I can't understand what the issue is, surely there's no certainty in the matter. The common response is often a dubious comparison to some other historical figure. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article - yes, because it is a fringe-view, rejected by 'virtually all acholars of the topic'. Carrier and Lataster are treated at the CMT-page, to which this page links; Bart Ehrman, among a few others, has been so kind to spend his valuable time at explaining why this is a fringe-view; most scholars won't even bother to do so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you quantify how many scholars there are working on the topic, and what "virtually all scholars" means? I believe this should also be critically examined. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

See:

• Christina Petterson, review of OtHoJ for a scholarly review of Carrier: "parallel universe," "the fundamentalist drive of the book."
• Marko Marina, Historical Jesus and Mythicism: A Critical Evaluation of Richard Carrier’s Theory:

Carrier was guided by his ideological agenda, not by serious historical work, which is most evident in his readings of Paul’s epistles. In addition, Carrier’s underlying assumption about the development of Jesus’ tradition in the 1st century is completely wrong. His theses are utterly misplaced without any positive evidence in primary sources. Hence, it is no surprise that Carrier hasn’t won any supporters among critical scholars.

Regarding Lataster's book, I can't even find it on Google Scholar. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Multiple editors besides me such as User:Mathglot, User:Jeppiz, User:desmay have already mentioned to Joortje1 that fringe scholars like Carrier and Lataster are WP:UNDUE per the WP:Fringe guidelines multiple times. It is obvious that the publisher DOES NOT make anyone mainstream. Any more than if David Irving were to get a peer reviewed publication for Holocaust denial, somehow would make his denialist fringe views mainstream or even accepted by the mainstream. Creationists get peer reviewed papers all the time, but are not featured in the Evolution article for example. Nor are holocaust deniers featured in the holocaust article. Mythicist Robert Price describes how scholars view CMT - "as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings." Thanks for those sources too. Marko's source clearly says "Although such theories have long been rejected by scholars regardless of their worldview (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics)" too. Carrier of course has been extensively criticized by historians like Daniel Gullotta [2] who document a high level of criticisms from mainstream scholars of every stripe and finds his arguments as unconvincing due to "lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions" and even reaffirms fringe status of mythicism "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." He rightly observes "Scholars, however, may rightly question whether Carrier’s work and those who evangelize it exhibit the necessary level of academic detachment...Whereas mythicists will accuse scholars of the historical Jesus of being apologists for the theology of historic Christianity, mythicists may in turn be accused of being apologists for a kind of dogmatic atheism." Lataster's book was actually originally a self published book co-written with Richard Carrier [3] as Lataster notes in Questioning the Historicity of Jesus in page 24 - further linking him directly with fringe scholars like Carrier. His own views are fringe as he pretty much regurgitates Carrier throughout the book. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Seven references for Lataster; a blockbuster... Review link by Christopher M. Hansen:

...one may be sorely disappointed by the lack of interaction with secondary literature in this book. Most of James D. G. Dunn’s work on Paul goes unreferenced [...] why write a book if you are unable to interact with the current scholarship and research? [...] the shortcomings that would be spotted by nearly any academic familiar with the issues that he engages [...] I cannot recommend this book for much other than rebuttal [...] its lack of interaction with leading scholarship on the issues it covers means that all of its evaluations and conclusions are wholly lacking, as they simply do not account for other prominent arguments and positions. If one is interested, I could only recommend borrowing it from a university library because the volume is certainly not worth the expense of $210.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Was exactly my main problem with this article, and your wording that its clearly a false comparison to equate the contrary view on the matter with creationism or climate denial. The latter theories go against a large body of evidence, whereas here we are relying on a few sources (even fewer unbiased) and a large body of secondary sources that _interpret_ the same sources. There is a clear lack of data and independent analysis, hence the language used is inaccurate, misleading, and portrays a false certainty on the matter.

Again, this article needs more critical scholarship, and literature that reflects the analysis of the primary sources that allow one to deduce the claims, rather than appeals to a majority or authority. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Up to you to provide those sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Ramos1990 is the one who offered the reliable sources you have been criticising above. This was in reply to my quest for some works on the subject by proper historians instead of the publications cited on the page (dominated by popular stuff by biblical scholars and theologians). They indeed seem more reliable when I look at the WP:RS guideline. Joortje1 (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for using academic sources, besides your appreciation of how Ehrman has spent his valuable time (I'm sure he has been sufficiently rewarded; the perpetuation of his views on his blog alone has apparently raised over a million $, he has clearly gained a lot of fans and followers, he clearly did influence the popular opinion on mythicism (which seems to have been his primary motive), and probably the book sales made even more $ than his blog).

Especially Petterson's review is intriguing. She objects to Carrier's methodology, but mainly because she does't understand anything about 'Bayle’s Theorem". Yet in her conclusion, she says that she doesn't disagree with Carrier's views on HoJ per se. She even regards it as pretty basic undergraduate material. If most other theologians and biblical scholars maintain that such stuff is entirely fringe in the academic world, why does she think it's so basic?

I personally doubt whether Carrier's application of Bayesian probability/uncertainty math is very sound, but I haven't looked into it. At least it's an attempt to go beyond assumptions (it seems a more scholarly and definitively a more scientific approach than believing that facts can be based on ancient hearsay documented in late copies of a religious narrative dominated by supernatural aspects, let alone ignoring any counter argument and ridiculing anybody who dares to questions the "clear and certain evidence"). But hey, I'm no expert on Bayesian calculation, why don't we go by what the sources say?

Lataster clearly motivated why he mostly ignored the religious views of theologians like Dunn. I personally don't agree with keeping Christians out of the debate, as long as everybody produces reasonable arguments (not just from faith or from atheistic norms). But I must admit I also have much trouble trying to find convincing arguments in books that mainly discuss divinity, resurrection and the Kingdom of God.

Lataster's survey of some literature on the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" methodologies from outside the field of Biblical studies/theology is a useful secondary source, in addition to all the "demise of authenticity" stuff from within the field. His chapter on Ehrman's popular book is just one of many useful academic secondary sources, pointing out where Ehrman does make sense and where he doesn't. Joortje1 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

One comment, I can almost guarantee any attempt of using Bayesian statistics here seems way out of place... it's a giant red flag. Almost like when you see arguments for free will that use the Godel incompleteness theorem... Is this another form of an appeal to authority fallacy? Or, in this case, a misuse of jargon fallacy? It seems like there's a lot of red flags in the source material on both sides... 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the irony wasn't lost on me (hence my "I'm no expert, why don't we go by what the sources say" remark). I'm truly not capable of judging the math involved, although perhaps a bit better than Petterson (see review cited above). I proposed to ignore Carrier's work, but somebody else rightfully pointed out that it is a recent "mainstream" peer-reviewed publication (yet she clearly doesn't intend to use her knowledge of this work for the article).

Unfortunately most sources on this topic indeed contain huge red flags (hence my talk page Topic question for material by more reliable "scholars of antiquity"). A handful of monographs on HoJ/Mythicism have been published in the last decade or so that are supposedly "academic", apparently kicked off by Ehrman's popular book breaking biblical scholarship's strict taboo/ignorance/silence on addressing the question whether J existed or not.

The only more or less objective publication I have found is historian Tom Dykstra’s 2015 survey of the literature in Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship. Part of his conclusion: "To a degree greater than that in many other academic fields, you have to take pronouncements of fact by biblical scholars with a grain of salt. And those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain toward contrary opinions are precisely the ones to be most wary about." Note that this was published in the Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies and that Dykstra is quite explicit about the "waste of time" in "the drive to answer the unanswerable" that is part of the "character of scholarly writing in the field of biblical studies". Joortje1 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I really found the article by Dykstra very interesting, and perhaps the sources there indicate that the true state of the scholarly consensus is more complicated. Also, interesting to see similar themes with regards to the scholarship play out on this discussion forum... For example, it seems that one major contributor to the idea that it's ridiculous to think otherwise that Jesus existed (along with comparisons to Holocaust denial) is Bart Ehrmann.

Is there any way we can integrate this review paper (and sources therein) into the article? 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok seeing the discussion above, this seems like an uphill battle... 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Tom Dykstra

Dykstra: "I question the value of both the “quest for the historical Jesus” and the opposing quest to prove that Jesus never existed." The question of the historicity of Jesus is another question than the attempts to reconstruct this historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep. He focuses on reconstructions with his comment when he says "those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain", not historicity. On historicity he says "I do not myself take a stand firmly on either side of the question." and also "The whole debate seems a lost cause for both sides". Ramos1990 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 It's also the case that one of the central pieces of supporting evidence is the existence of many independent sources feeding into the New Testament. But the existence of such is hypothetical (with no way to prove that these sources actually exist), and also doesn't prove his existence. They would prove the existence of an early Christian community, organised around a legendary figure. My personal opinion is that it was inspired by a real figure; but the real evidence is much more tenuous than Ehrman (and others) makes it out to be. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're taking specific quotes from that paper out of context, much of it deals rather directly with evidence related to the historicity of Jesus. He deals with issues related to deducing historical facts from the bible, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate, and other flaws (such as, often used, character attacks).

He doesn't take a stand either way with regards to the question, because, due to the uncertainty in the evidence, historical agnosticism with respect to the matter is, to him, a more logical position. I'd definitely suggest that this is a relevant piece to this article. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it's ridiculous to make comparisons between the non existence of Jesus and Creationism. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It is clear he is not endorsing either side but acknowledges consensus too and the paper is about tolerance and respect for opposing views in the quest for the historical jesus. He says even in the end that it is a waste of time for such questions and that it proves nothing either way. He clearly is against certainty claims on both sides at the end - shoots at both - and merely says that everything is debatable and seems to suggest abandoning historical attempts on historicity. Not a prominent view on the matter in mainstream scholarship or even fringe scholarship either way. Like he observes, both use "certainty" language. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Who is Tom Dykstra? As far as I can see, he's a historian specializing in Russian church history? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

On academia his listed specialties are: "Origins of Christianity, Russian History, and Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" [4]https://independent.academia.edu/TomDykstra/CurriculumVitae

Somehow, to me personally, his 2004 PhD in History (Dissertation: “‘Josephism’ Reconsidered) alone already makes his article a relatively reliable and reputable source for a historical question about the origin of Christianity.

I'd imagine a judge who would have to decide whether Ehrman's cited statements hold true would probably rather call on Dykstra as an objective expert, than on any theologian who concentrates on Kingdom of God (Christianity) as a mission for the "historical Jesus", or a certain long deceased classicist who "read classics" at Trinity College in the 1930s (specialising in numismatics) and defended HoJ in 1977 in a popular book as a "historian", or a certain deceased popular historian/journalist who was educated at a Jesuit college and explicitly wrote his biography of J as a "believer". (note: I'm not saying we should delete the currently cited voices)

If you look at the mission of the publisher of the article, I do think the criterion of embarassment might convince people who prefer the methodologies of biblical scholars over the more mainstream historical method. Joortje1 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that it's hard to find publications on HoJ by historians (who actually studied History), I suspect that Dykstra's voice may resemble that of a silent majority. But of course it seems even harder to find sources for that idea. Joortje1 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Article doesn't reflect editor consensus

I would like to point out that there have been many editors (not just myself, seeing old talk pages) that have had concerns with this, and related articles. Attempts at compromise in the language have been consistently overruled by editors who seem to have strong opinions on the matter (see also the FAQ page). I implore future editors to this article to seek a more scientific, objective tone. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

They're overruled because they don't stick to WP:RS, but to their personal opinions. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Those editors ignore the sources, ignore what scholarship actually says, push their own views above experts in the sources, and violate wikipedia policy via WP:SYN and WP:OR by pushing fringe views using such wording. It is usually mythicists and mythicist sympathizers who do this over and over. No one else does. The sources settle the matter, not wikieditor opinions. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It frustrates me that what you refuse to agree to has nothing to do with what most are asking for. I'm not seeing a push for Christ myth prominence or anything of the sort. People are just asking for the hyperbole to be removed -- there are precious few objective historians that have studied this topic and issued an opinion, but the article reads as if there were a massive consensus among a large number.—Kww(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There is. Even mythicists like Richard Carrier admit that - " I responded to these sincere inquiries with the same general reply: the non-existence of Jesus is simply not plausible, as arguments from silence in the matter aren't valid, nor could they ever be sufficient to challenge what is, after all, the near-universal consensus of well-qualified experts." and "The historicity of Jesus Christ is currently the default consensus." not sure what else to say. Sounds very much like Ehrman's "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." Pretty close to verbatim. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they didn't exist, I said "precious few". So few you can count them on your fingers. You would expect more interest in the study of a man whose teachings have had such a profound impact on human history.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And as has been the case for many years on this article, the real issue is the difference between the existence of a human, non-supernatural Jesus, and the existence of a supernatural divine miracle-worker. Modern scholarship is happy to accept that many Jews named Jesus did live in that place at that time, and that at least one of them stirred up enough drama to warrant the attention of the local Roman authorities. However the divine Saviour part is not widely supported in scholarship. A handful of scholars are also religious Christians who do personally support the supernatural divine miracle-worker view, but that is not the general scholarly consensus. The problem is, once again, that a handful of Wikipedia editors are trying to word this article so as to create the impression that the vast majority of modern scholars actually support the historicity of the divine Saviour part as well. Fix that, and all will be resolved. Wdford (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

See my comment above. I feel that there is a reason that many editors want at least the tone of language used in the article changed. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Just stating the obvious: I'm one of the many editors who think the tone of the article is not as academic/encyclopaedic as it should be (see for instance the topic "Style" which was very recently archived by Joshua Jonathan).

Sure, wikipedia is all about the findings of academic experts and about academic consensus. And yes, there is indeed a remarkable amount of absolute consensus claims by biblical scholars and theologians. So, why wouldn't we quote those scholars?

Why do we here receive this "ad infinitum" stream of criticism on style, and NPOV, and why are there so many criticasters who talk about logical fallacies like confirmation bias, wp:cherrypicking, appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" or "all swans are white" (or tomatoes are fruit, or whatever)? Why don’t they just listen to WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

They must surely all be “mythicists” who are “religiophobic” and want to spread dangerous or just plain silly “fringe theories”, or their own baseless opinions, right? Why not support historicism with more claims like "virtually all scholars" (3x) and "Nearly all critical scholars agree" and "almost universal assent"? And why don’t we make even more clear that mythicism is “fringe” (3x) and has "virtually no support"? Maybe there’s still a paragraph or two in the first half of the article that doesn’t have such an enlightening bit?

Or maybe, just maybe, could there be a bit more to editing than “we go by what the sources say”? Should we maybe consider what it actually means when WP:RS states: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process” (and maybe this is even more important when structuring, summarising and paraphrasing the info)? Maybe, just maybe, we could even make some room to emphasise a few clear and convincing arguments for Jesus's historicity (where are they now)? Joortje1 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You mention that the editors seem to be bringing opinions into this, I would say the opposite. I have no bias, I don't care whether Jesus existed or not. I just believe that the language should reflect the amount of evidence, and there's this a considerable amount of uncertainty involved. Moreover, this is a historiographical article rather than a biographical one, hence this analysis should be included here too (not just in the criticism section of the "quest for the historical Jesus" article). I believe this article also makes some bold claims. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with how Wikipedia works, but will try to help. I hear what you are saying, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. See WP:Forum. Wikipedia is not a place to push your thoughts or analysis on historicity. Nor is Wikipedia a place to debate a topic. It only reports the status of scholarship. For one you are not an expert. Actuals experts have stronger opinions than you if you look at their writings. Dozens of sources are in the FAQ and the article. Both mainstream scholars and fringe scholars use bold language (e.g. Ehrman and Carrier above). Every editor views this topic differently and if we went by what every editor wants, you would have infinite edit wars like you are seeing here in the talk page. Another editor may feel your suggestion is incorrect and that we should do the opposite. To avoid such infinite edit wars, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines such as WP:Fringe to set standards, which editors are bound by. Since you and I are not experts, Wikipedia relies on mainstream reliable sources for its content. The experts get to speak in their own words, not us. This is part of WP:Verifiability policy. You are free to write your views on the topic in your own blog or your own website. But Wikipedia is public and has to be based on mainstream sources to provide a common denominator. Also see policy on original research WP:OR. People have lives and do not have time for infinite edit warring or content disputing. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with how Wikipedia works, but will try to help.

WP:PARAPHRASE: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." Joortje1 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works, Ramos1990. Editors evaluate sources and make editorial decisions based on bias, quantity, and numerous factors before incorporating material into articles. Other editors do not have time for editors that constantly use talk pages to oppose editorial changes to articles and use condescending phrasing to belittle other editors. I hope this helps. —Kww(talk) 15:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention WP:SYN. This one limits how we paraphrase. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 No, you have mentioned wp:syn, plenty of times, also in this thread, often unwarranted.

"Actuals experts have stronger opinions than you if you look at their writings."

Interesting argument. You tend to assume too much about other users, about "experts", and especially about academic norms. And also about how Wikipedia works.

In case my opinion wasn't obviuous from previous replies: I concur with @Kww (who basically explains a bit more about the WP:RS guideline “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process”) Joortje1 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel that in may be the case that part of the reason for this infinite warring is a lack of willingness on your behalf to strive for any compromise (instead making, what I feel is another appeal to an authory by writing an FAQ page). I'm not suggesting to discount the scholarship, more synthesise the more nuanced academic arguments. It is possible to synthesise expert opinions without merely citing sources making appeals to a majority. I'm sure there's many quotes which briefly summarise the existing evidence.

In general, a source saying "everyone agrees it is so" is not enough to make an unbiased factual claim, hence why the tone sounds unencyclopedaic.

Are you sure you're completely happy with the tone used in this article? Or the comparisons you yourself have made to what, in my opinion, constitute real fringe theories like creationism? In my opinion, it doesn't read well at the moment, and is inconsistent with the generally good standards wikipedia has (at least in the physical sciences). Imagine those who are less familiar with science, learning what a fringe theory is based on this article. Isn't this potentially detrimental? 2A02:3032:306:5C5D:81A0:C15F:C49E:899E (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@2A02:3032:306:5C5D:81A0:C15F:C49E:899E Did you also notice the equations of mythicism/"questioning whether Jesus existed" with Holocaust denial (FAQ Quotes, bottom of page)? That's not just illogical bold language, but so insanely insensitive (or am I too biased here, because I have met a holocaust survivor and other people who have lost loved ones due to that historical atrocity?)

I still like to think that it is likely that Jesus actually existed. Before I visited this page, I merely assumed that this was a fact, and after browsing the page I still thought for a while that I just couldn't find the promised "clear and certian evidence" between all the consensus claims and clutter. I can thus assure you that the tone of this article has already been detrimental (if the intention is to convince people). It seems quite likely that people who already have some doubt before they start reading will soon be steered strongly towards ahistoristic opinions by all the poor editorial choices. I don't really mind if they do, but I shudder at the thought of people forming ideas about science and fringe from this article. Joortje1 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Its absolutely ridiculous and appalling to make such false comparisons. Also on the FAQ page is a rejection of the books on the non-historicity theory, where most are rejected based on not "being serious scholars". It seems like the editors of this article are taking an indefensible position, and perhaps cherrypicking sources they regard as "serious".

I'm also of the view that it's likely he existed, or that the legend has some historical basis. But nobody from the other side seems to understand that the language used is an issue. The fall back to "we rely on the expert sources", when potentially cherrypicking these sources, and only quoting appeals to majority and false equivalences from these sources is so unprofessional. Again, WP:COMMONSENSE on the matter would be beneficial. 2A02:3032:30B:FC6C:6BF0:9778:AD68:1C54 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Historical negationism

@Ramos1990: I'm sorry, but for "historical negationism" diff there's no reference, it's not in the note, the term "historical negationism" is not in the FAQ, it's not in this article (WP:LEAD summarizes article], not in the CMT-article, and the CMT not in the Historical negationism article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan. Sorry. References are in the FAQ section Quotes on historicity at the bottom show scholars comparing with holocaust denial. Also I quoted Robert Price saying the same thing and also the moon landing before the blockbuster review you mentioned. Thought this was interesting. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Scholars comparing the CMT with Holocaust-deniers is not the same as saying that CM-theorists "us[e] techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mistranslating texts." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Much of that is what they are criticized of doing aside from fabricating. But it is ok. Conspiracy theory would be more fitting either way. But I think that is covered under fringe. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Maybe you were just demonstrating how bad it can look if you don't follow "what the sources say" and go all wp:synth or wp:or or something? That's ok. I wouldn't have objected, since it indeed seems a rather common sense conclusion about the comparison with holocaust denial by scholars that have been cited somewhere in the article (but it would have been better to cite your sources for such a statement, and if it's in the lead section it indeed asks for some further explanation in the article).

Can you please tell us a little bit more about why a comparison of "questioning Jesus's historicity" with holocaust denial makes sense to you (you even personally offered that comparison as an argument on this talk page, several times, without citations)? Please also enlighten us about what "they" have been fabricating and what makes "conspiracy theory" a good fit here. Joortje1 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus cannot have existed in Palestine, as Palestine didn’t exist yet

WP:NOTFORUM.
“ called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Palestine in the 1st century CE” Syria-Palestina was not established until 132 CE, it was referred to as Judaea. 2601:1C2:700:2700:6161:537A:D1B8:120E (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. You're welcome to publish whatever you want on your blog, or try Medium, or Stackexchange. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Judea or Palestine?

A question prompted by the WP:NOTFORUM fold of the above Topic:

Since Palestine or Judea don't seem to be mentioned in the quotes/citations for the line in the lead section, which name seems more factual: Judea or Palestine?

Wikipedia on Palestine (region): a geographical region in West Asia. Situated in the Southern Levant, it is usually considered to include Israel and the State of Palestine, though some definitions also include parts of northwestern Jordan. Other historical names for the region include Canaan, the Promised Land, the Land of Israel, or the Holy Land.

Wikipedia on State of Palestine: "Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين, romanized: Filasṭīn[d]), officially the State of Palestine (دولة فلسطين, Dawlat Filasṭīn),[e] is a state in the Southern Levant region of West Asia. Founded on 15 November 1988 and officially governed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), it claims the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip as its territory, all of which has been Israeli-occupied territories since the 1967 Six-Day War."

Wikipedia on Judea: "Judea or Judaea (/dʒuːˈdiːə, dʒuːˈdeɪə/; Hebrew: יהודה‎, Modern: Yəhūda, Tiberian: Yehūḏā; Greek: Ἰουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudaea) is a mountainous region of the Levant.Traditionally dominated by the city of Jerusalem, it is now part of Palestine and Israel. The name's usage is historic, having been used in antiquity and still into the present day" (...) The name Judea is a Greek and Roman adaptation of the name "Judah", which originally encompassed the territory of the Israelite tribe of that name and later of the ancient Kingdom of Judah. (..) timeline: "26–36: Pontius Pilate prefect of Roman Judea during the Crucifixion of Jesus"

Looking at context of current news and relatively recent history (see: Israeli–Palestinian conflict), I can imagine that some would say that stating that Jesus lived in Palestine is a polemic statement. Could this maybe amount to using wikipedia as a wp:soapbox?

Looking at the context of the sources for the historicity of Jesus (the primary sources are commonly thought to have been written in Greek in antiquity) I can imagine that many historians would prefer the name "Judea".

Is Galilee a reasonable alternative? Or should we just scrap the region name to avoid any controversy? Joortje1 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

""Judea or Palestine?" That is an easy question: Palestine. We have a detailed Timeline of the name Palestine which specifies that it was the name used by most of the Greek and Roman sources since the 5th century BE, including Herodotus, Aristotle, Polemon of Athens, Agatharchides, Tibullus, Ovid, Philo of Alexandria, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Marcus Valerius Probus, Silius Italicus, Dio Chrysostom, Josephus, Statius, Plutarch, and Achilles Tatius. Meanwhile, Judea was rarely used or mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That simple, huh?

Yet it seems that the Bible usually mentions Judea rather than Palestine. Wasn't Jesus more often mentioned as coming from Galilee? (also check the Jesus page for use of the regional names: count for Palestine = 0)

Historical Jesus page: "Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations" and "he journeyed through Galilee and Judea".

Josephus also described the region as Judea (Palestine isn't even mentioned on his wikipedia page, but Judea and Judaea are).

Bethlehem, Jerusalem and even Nazareth all seem to have been considered to belong to Judaea (Roman province) during the reign of governor Pontius Pilate. Maybe we should thus consider Judaea (not Judea) as the most factual, specific and historically correct region?

(also note that wikipedia describes Nazareth as a "center of Arab and Palestinian nationalism", to once again point out a potentially polemic problem).

I'm sorry to keep opposing opinions or raising difficult questions here; I'd just like the page to be a bit more factual and hopefully a bit less controversial (and I'm genuinely curious about these things). Joortje1 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Roman Judaea, obviously. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Roman Judaea indeed seems most historically correct to me, but I think Jesus has more specifically and more often been referred to as coming from "Galilee", as the gospels did (and as far as I've read the works of cited scholars, they seem not to use the more historically correct term often).

I don't care much about the choice between those 2 options, but I think "Palestine" can better be replaced because of its polemic connotations. Joortje1 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"has more specifically and more often been referred to as coming from "Galilee". Because Galilee was not typically included in the province of Roman Judea, and was under the administration of Herod Antipas for most of Jesus' lifetime. Nazareth was included in Galilee. Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, thanks.

I already vaguely thought something was off about counting Galilee as part of Roman Judaea, but hadn't properly studied the timeline of shifting borders and was especially misled by Pilate's involvement in the narrative.

It thus seems better to go with something like the Historical Jesus page's line "Historical Jesus scholars typically contend that he was a Galilean Jew and living in a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations" (can somebody verify the citation: E.P. Sanders 1993 The Historical Figure of Jesus? There's no page number, and I saw that Sanders actually often mentioned ancient Palestine). Paraphrasing this to include "1st century" would make sense. Joortje1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Inflammatory language

Recently, Joshua Jonathon and Ramos1990 have been edit-warring inflammatory language into the article related to "atheist activists". It doesn't add much, if any, meaningful information: simple Venn diagramming will demonstrate that few, if any, Christians or Muslims take the view that Christ did not exist, leaving atheists and agnostics as the largest group that will split as to his historical existence. Unfortunately, there is a fairly large amount of our readership that views "atheist" as a derogatory term, and all introducing this phrasing into the article does is encourage that group to dismiss their view.

It adds nothing, but further adds to the problems this article has with tone. We don't refer to other groups in this article as "enraged Evangelicals" or "fanatical Christians", although those labels most certainly apply to at least a few of them.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is that you're still stating "Christ didn't exist," when we're not talking here about the Christ of faith, but the Jesus of history? Anyway, we could also add that most Cmt-proponents lack the necessary scholarly qualificatiilons, that their publications are slandered by bonafide scholars, and that they are engaged in pseudo-scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not stating that Christ did not exist, but his existence is the topic of this article. You keep failing to apply elementary logic: people that believe that Christ is a divine figure will, nearly without fail, believe that he exists -- the evidence doesn't really influence that one way or the other. The belief that he exists is a necessary follow-on to the belief that he is divine. It doesn't flow the other way: it's quite possible to believe that he existed but was not divine.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't we at least discuss the language used in the start of the article? What is the problem with "it is likely"? There are critical sources that agree that the evidence is not as overwhelming as one might suggest, and comparisons with things like Holocaust denial are clearly ridiculous. 2A02:3032:307:64A8:7297:9BE4:2915:3501 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ehrman goes further in saying they are “militant”. Gullotta says “dogmatic”. Casey says “fundamentalists” of the atheistic kind. So the current wording of “some” is milder. Ehrman discusses these groups because he goes to them and is aware of the obsession they have. Too many times we hear that historicists are religiously driven here, but when the evidence shows that the mythicists are like Ehrman and others observed, now they want to be obscured? Casey notes that mythicists confuse scholarship on Christian origins with Christian fundamentalism and this seems to bleed into the wider public. Just look at the constant attempts at pushing fringe views here. Agreed with Joshua Jonathan that mythicists do go out of their way to push their views to the public despite them being irrelevant in scholarship for more than a century. They seek the publicity. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Then I take it I'm free to research the background of each of the proponents of Christ as a historical figure and label them as "rabid Christian" or the equivalent? I'm not saying that the people you disagree with aren't atheists -- I'm saying that your insistence on labeling them as such is based on your own distaste for them and a desire to signal that distaste to others, not because the labeling actually improves the article.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you think "atheist" is a derogatory term when people self identify as such, and proudly might I add. The sources explain them as that, not me. I shortened it too to accommodate and make it neutral following the sources, but you deleted even that [5]. I never did it individually like you are saying (I prefer just names and leaving it at that for individuals). Do you recommend other terms? The consensus is made up of "Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance", per Larry Hurtado and Ehrman and other scholars by the way. With this much diversity, inclusion, and unity on the matter, they do not have a particular agenda. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was an ongoing dispute about this passage. I was thinking yesterday of removing the word "activists" because Casey doesn't say this (the article currently attributes the claim to both Casey and Ehrman), but that would leave us with "many mythicists are atheists" which did strike me as kind of an unnecessary comment. I can understand the argument that if prominent scholars make a point of saying that most mythicists are atheists, then we should too; but the thing is, neither of the cited souces do make a point of it. Casey's main claim is that mythicists are not critical thinkers, and he backs up this assertion by showing that many of them are former Christian fundamentalists who have lost their faith and gone to the other extreme; their atheism is a corollary of this argument, but is not the central point of it. Erhman says "virtually all mythicists are either atheists or agnostics", but this is thrown out as a non-controversial premise of his main contention, which is that mythicists have an anti-religious agenda. This is not the same as saying that mythicists are atheists, because most atheists are not anti-religious. So neither author implies that the atheism of their opponents is in itself an important point, and I think therefore that there are no grounds for including this statement in the article, at least without more context than is given here. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually both authors make more than these comments. They wrote whole chapters on this. Ehrman the concluding chapter discusses this and Casey Introduction and also Conclusion chapter. Both are surveys of mythicst literature. Gullotta also writes a few sections on this in his paper, with a case study. Also, Robert Van Voorst does discuss this too. I am ok with using "antireligious agenda" too as that is broader. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if we take a little more effort to properly identify the more notable/dominant/influential promotors of both historicism and mythcism?

The article and some of the relatively active editors often refer to the more or less atheistic/agnostic opinions of NT scholars Ehrman and Maurice Casey, who wrote monographs on the subject. Theologians Robert E. Van Voorst and Dunn are other favourites.

Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster are on the other end of the spectrum with their own academic monographs. Lataster indeed reveals some anti-religious bias in his work. I have not read Carrier's, but some sources indeed point towards a particular agenda.

Are other notable "mythicists" like Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Brodie and G.A. Wells seen as anti-religious? Or even atheists or agnostics? Price is apparently interested enough in the values of Christianity to sometimes describe himself as a Christian atheist. Brodie is still identified as a Dominican priest. I have no info on Wells' (ir)religious background.

I haven't finished reading Ehrman's book yet and have hardly looked at Casey, so I don't know if they say anything substantial about the agendas and biases of the relatively respected scholars Price, Wells and Brodie. Joortje1 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My concern is not with atheist vs anti-religious, although these are not necessarily the same thing. Most atheists are happy to allow other people to believe whatever they want. Some mythicists may well be quite religious, but are not Christian. At least one of them (Price, I think?) enjoys going to church, but does not accept the divinity of Jesus. I personally don't agree with the use of the word "activist". This has negative connotations. Some mythicists may well be militant, whatever that actually means in this context, but it is a ridiculous generalization. Some mythicists accept that a human Jesus lived, but do not accept the fables about divinity and miracles etc. As long as these realities are obscured in this discussion, the problem will continue to continue. Wdford (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"As long as these realities are obscured in this discussion"

Hence my suggestion to more clearly indicate who claims what about whom (and where possible and relevant: why).

Plenty of the cited sources and discussed others even have their own blue-linkable wikipedia pages, several exactly because they have taken a clear stance on this subject. Yet many of these notable identities now remain hidden in notes and quotes outside the main text. Joortje1 (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way: the pejorative term "fringe theory" seems more problematic than one or two biblical scholars saying a myhticist is an "atheistic activist".

Similarly, the use of "mainstream" for scholarship with religious undertones (mostly theology, but also biblical studies) can be misleading, because such scholarship can hardly be called "mainstream" in comparison to academic disciplines like physics and history. The term "mainstream scholarship" has also been contrasted to "faith-based biblical interpretation". or can be interpreted as the representation of scholarship in popular fiction In general, "mainstream" is often pejoratively associated with popularity, standardisation, commercial appeal and a perceived lack of ‘authenticity’.

Once again, we may thus steer doubting and critical readers away from the idea that Jesus existed, which seems to be precisely what editors who promote this type of language do not want. Joortje1 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the books in question, I was only commenting on the cited pages. I don't deny that most mythicists are atheists (I don't assert it either, but it seems like a common-sense assumption), but the question is whether this is relevant. I agree with Joortje1 that specifics would be preferable to generalizations. Detail about individual proponents fits better at Christ myth theory than here, but this article's summary could be more extensive, to avoid the problems caused by oversimplification. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's reasonably close to my logic: it's a no-brainer that most proponents of the Christ myth theory are atheists. Once you exclude Christians and Muslims from a population, atheists and agnostics are pretty much all that is left (statistically, groups such as Jews, Zoroastrians, etc are a tiny percentage of the world's population). That means that stating it adds no information. Combined with words like "activism", it only serves to enflame the portion of our readers that view "atheist" as an insult. This article panders enough to them already.—Kww(talk) 18:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This article has a number of problems with regards to tone, and I believe a number of relevant, important sources are missing. The sources used seem to be cherrypicked, and are ones with a dismissive, disdainful opinion of other literature, and portraying an invalid certainty of the topic. Is it possible to flag some of the major problems with this article?

In addition, as a result of these two editors, I'm unable to make direct changes to this article, even though I always engage in debate here when I make a change... 2A02:3032:307:64A8:7297:9BE4:2915:3501 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Activist" is a neutral word, IMHO. 'Atheist' is a basic term and not derogatory; since multiple sources mention these in regard to mythicism, it should not be an issue if mentioned. The mainstream scholarship is obviously diverse and in unity on such a basic thing. The main issue here is adhering to reliable sources, even if that is supposedly offensive to certain readers. Our responsibility at Wikipedia is to communicate what RS say, not to conform our language to the sensibilities of various groups. Now Joshua Jonathan has edited some of our most comprehensive religion articles, from Hinduism to Christianity and he doesn't have an axe to grind. He has always respected scholarship in religion articles. desmay (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Atheist" is a neutral descriptive word, but it is probably not true of all mythicists, some of whom might merely be non-Christian, so if used at all we need to mention which few scholars actually profess that particular opinion. "Activist" is not a neutral word at all. Furthermore, how many (if any) RS actually used that word? Wdford (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, see some of the above threads with regards to what is chosen as an RS and what is not. My perspective has got nothing to do with conforming to certain groups. 2A02:3032:307:64A8:7297:9BE4:2915:3501 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Standard Historical Criteria

It is stated in the introduction that "standard historical criteria" are used in evaluating historicity. However, many of the approaches used, including the "criterion of embarrassment", the "criterion of multiple attestation", and "criterion of dissimilarity" seem unique to New Testament Studies. Is there any evidence indicating that this is consistent with a general historical standard in evaluating information in sources?

A think the quote provided is not good enough, since it may be referring to these criteria which are already standard in Biblical scholarship.2A02:3032:307:64A8:7297:9BE4:2915:3501 (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, what is the evidence that the growth of the internet led to the increase in mythicist views? 2A02:3032:307:64A8:7297:9BE4:2915:3501 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to describe the "criterion of embarrassment", the "criterion of multiple attestation", and the "criterion of dissimilarity" as "standard historical criteria". They are unique to this field of study.—Kww(talk) 06:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The source does not specify the criteria being assumed by the IP. It just says standard historical criteria and authenticity. Authenticity is a common historical tool - Garraghan and Delangez “A Guide to Historical Method” p.174 onwards details “Criteria of authenticity” and even uses ancient sources including the Roman and Christian sources as examples. Also Howell “From Reliable Sources: Introduction to Historical Methods” discusses criteria of authenticity under “Additional technical tools” p.56 onwards. All of this is part of source criticism and is used often in ancient sources. It is kind of inevitable to authenticate sources either way. Here is a university library mentioning authenticity of sources for proper historical research. [6]. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The lede links to quest for the historical Jesus, which details the various techniques the IP is quoting -- but you knew that, as you seem to have been removing material from it that questions the credentials of these "Biblical scholars" that use these questionable criteria.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 The lead section should summarise the article, so the claim about "standard historical criteria" requires further explanation in the artcile.

If the cited source does not specify the "criteria" and "authenticity", that basically means it is a useless source. It could very well only serve the author to make a (baseless) claim that proper historical methodologies have been used to support a personal POV. Similarly, the claim about growth of popular mythicism due to internet is not backed up in the sources. It's not even a hypothesis; it's just an assumption.

Somehow, in several online search engines, the specific combination of the words "standard historical criteria" mainly leads to defences of religious opinions being true to historical fact (partly due to the influence of the article quoting those words, but even if such results are filtered out, hardly any serious discussion of historical methodologies pop up).

Of course historian guidebooks write about criteria and authenticity, but Ehrman and many others in the field seem to have chosen the criteria that Kww mentions, rather than those of Garraghan, or whatever else influenced the historical method of mainstream historians.

If you do have useful sources that clearly describe the authentication methodologies of historical Jesus research, can you please use them in the article?

The only clear argument for HoJ in the article, as far as I can recognise any, is based on the idea that both J's baptism and crucifixion must be true because of the "criterion of embarrassment" (alright, maybe that's 2 arguments, for those who think the criterion makes sense). Joortje1 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the interesting opinion of James F. McGrath.

About halfway the page McGrath gets triggered by a quote of American New Testament scholar and historian of Early Christianity Dale Allison: "Until we become literal time travelers, all attempts to find the historical Jesus will be steered by instinct and intuition. Appeals to shared criteria may, we can pray, assist us in being self-critical, but when all is said and done we look for the historical Jesus with our imaginations—and there too is where we find him, if we find him at all."

McGrath believes historical Jesus scholars have been pioneers when it comes to (purportedly objective) "criteria of authenticity" and claims: "it doesn’t seem to me that the issues Allison and others raise are fatal for the historical Jesus enterprise, but are fatal for the misguided and futile quest for certainty that “fact fundamentalists” have brought with them into the discussion. When we recognize that our best guesses are still that, we will not have abandoned historical Jesus studies, but will have finally caught up to where mainstream historical study finds itself."

Note that he not only acknowledges huge differences in methodologies, but also that biblical scholarhip is outside the mainstream. Joortje1 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Immediately after that he states “But the best guesses of the majority of scholars are not to be treated as mere hunches, and it is important to emphasize that the recognition of subjectivity must not be allowed to dissolve into a pandering to a popular form of postmodernism that suggests that because we all have presuppositions, and there is always uncertainty, anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s. The truth is that an expert’s best guess will always be far superior to that of someone not as profoundly familiar with the time period or sources in question. And when the experts fail to agree, a simple explanation is at hand – we do not have the information we need to exclude certain possibilities. But not having the evidence we need to attain consensus in one area doesn’t mean that we cannot reach consensus about others, however few in number they might be.".

This is not saying anything new. Multiple historical sources say the same thing which is why modern historiography is different than 50 years ago (Georg Iggers Historiography in the twentieth century). And it is not abnormal. Studies on the ancient world have the same problem. Reconstructions of Socrates for instance. Furthermore historian manuals like Historians Fallacies do state that specific canons of proof are not widely observed or agreed upon. Which is why we have so many histories of the same person or event that differ. National histories and textbooks differ in their portraits. Of course all of this commentary pertains to reconstructions of Jesus which are a different question. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

But it certainly implies that any historian that asserts that the existence of Jesus is an absolutely established fact is an unreliable source: such a claim is outlandish. The best historians can establish is that is more likely that he existed than not.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 It seems like you often forget about the main gist of questions and concerns of others and just want to oppose what to you may look like fringe opinions or unjustified criticism on the article.

In this case: you mainly quote an argument from authority/ad populum. That is indeed not saying anything new, and more importantly, it says very little about the topic at hand.

The fact remains that the article doesn't clearly explain how the cited "experts" on historicity come to their conclusion. Despite the lead section's promise of information about "standard historical criteria", the reader gets little more than a not-so-standard "criterion of embarassment" (the article forgets to mention the others, but the attentive wikipedians above apparently know how to follow bluelinks and check some sources).

Assuming that you're not just wp:gaming by sowing distracting statements, please try to read better what others are concerned about. Don't you want to help to make the article a bit more convincing and factual? It seems like it shouldn't be a problem for you to explain something about the methodologies in the article. Joortje1 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I know that reddit is often an even less reliable source than Wikipedia, but I found the following post, from an apparent historian, very informative. I encourage editors of this article to read it: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/159l0p3/historicity_of_jesus/ 2A02:3032:305:3BEC:8842:B66A:35D5:8443 (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source at all. However what this guy is saying, is all correct - nobody seriously questions any of it. Also, none of it is new - these sentiments have all been incorporated in these wiki-articles since long ago. The area where the wiki-articles are most defective, is in the attempt to obscure the FACT that the Jesus of the Bible - who certainly existed in some form - was a mere human, and in no way supernatural or divine. This is reported somewhat in passing, but not as clearly as it should be done. A huge amount of effort has been expended over many years to maintain this ambiguity. Wdford (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wdford: I do remember there was some dubious divinity stuff when I first visited the page a few months ago, but it's not as obvious to me anymore. Can you still point out some of that?

"nobody seriously questions any of it"

As soon as an academic has credentials outside biblical studies or theology, as far as I could find any commenting on the subject, they tend to say the question whether Jesus existed or not can't be answered with any certainty (or they otherwise implicate that it's not unreasonable to question historicity claims, also see my reply below). Joortje1 (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Good to read an opinion of a historian (presumably) who defends historicity of Jesus. Most proper historians seem to say something like "there's not enough evidence to decide whether Jesus existed or not".

Apart from a handful of individual sources, I have found one such historian who claims to speak on behalf of "colleagues in Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, and Religious History ([his] own discipline)" (in response to yet another absolute scholarly consensus claim).

Miles Pattenden: "professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose."

He also states quite clearly that the premise of the discussion is usually presented as a false dilemma (which is one of the many logical fallacies that occur in the article and in many of the cited sources).

This explains why there are relatively few sources by historians. I've come across some more academic sources that quite clearly suggest that historians prefer not to bother with religious topics, but I'm not sure how useful these are. I'd also rather not use too many attacks on religiousness and on biblical scholarship as a means to get across that the answer to the question is not as clear-cut as it may seem.

I'm still gathering sources and reading into some of the rather boring stuff, but if anybody already wants to use something like this Pattenden source (or Dykstra, or any other of the sources I cited), please run with it! Joortje1 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hi, I reverted your add on public perceptions [7] because such information, if used, belongs in the Christ myth article since there is a section like that already there. For one the, article is on the academic question, not public perceptions of fringe views. Looking at other historical articles like the Holocaust or Moon landing article they do not feature such type of information at all. There are studies that there is a significant public denial of the holocaust (1 in 5 think it is a hoax in US [8] and similar numbers for the Netherlands [9]) and moon landing (1 in 5 Europeans think it was a hoax [10]) by the public but those are not mixed or even featured into those main articles. Fringe material belong in the pages for fringe views, if anywhere at all, not the main article. Certainly not its own section either. Its obvious that the public is not very good with historical topics in general, so it does not reflect much on the question of historicity. Ramos1990 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

50,000,000 Elvis-fans can't be wrong, can they? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's the spirit! I didn't get around to it before, but I'd like to sincerely thank you for adjusting the "virtually all Elvis fans are right" type of statements! Much better indeed.

However, I think it goes a bit too far to throw out statistics on the subject simply because the majority of UK/Australia believes in HoJ (it's probably much more in less secularised countires, like the USA).Maybe we need more countries, but I simply knew these surveys because of news reports and acadamic responses. Anyhow, these seem to be rather neutral and reliable data, rather than an argumentum ad populum.

The UK surveys may be from an evangelical initiative, but the research is done by a generally trusted agency and the official 2022 report was written by a Dr. in Church History. Maybe we should specify the context to avoid doubt? Joortje1 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It may be the case that public perceptions are irrelevant to this article, but again your tone comparing the negation of the existence of Jesus with other serious fringe theories is a deeply problematic false comparison. I'm not sure both of you are aware of the problems associated with doing so, when the actual evidence is far more lacking in this circumstance.

This is also why I'm against the usage of the term "fringe". You both wish to justify its usage on a technicality, then, by being able to get away with usage of the same word, seem to believe it is now okay to compare these theories to things such as creationism or Holocaust denial. 2A02:3032:30A:B3E9:4708:30A8:3A39:3512 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Public perceptions are probably extremely relevant to this page: wp:notability of subjects is the basis for the existence of each wikipedia page.

If virtually all scholars currently agree on the historicity of X (X=any topic), a page for it would only seem notable if:

A: there was a time when many of the scholars didn’t support the historicity of X

B: there is a significant number of non-scholarly people who have doubts or just don’t believe in the historicity of X.

For A, we’d probably need to give an overview of historical development of the question; the changing views and the development of the consensus (that's actually already done on the CMT and QftHJ pages).

For B, it makes sense to provide more information about public opinions, on a page that concentrates on the scholarly view (and to proof the public wrong by addressing common misunderstandings)

Therefore, the current wp:lead section rightfully claims that CMT “has gained popular attention”. This prompted me to start a new section to try and flesh out the underdeveloped aspect of the page.

Besides the obvious inclusion of neutral statistics that I started with, the section would be the proper place to further address the role of the internet and popular mythicist books (I suppose there is some proper academic analysis in the sources, but I haven't checked yet).

Ehrman's discovery of the popular books and websites on CMT is what prompted him to write his popular book. which seems to have been an important factor in the revival of the academic debate (and probably furthered the public discussion as well). Joortje1 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We have a page on the Christ myth theory, don't we? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

CMT has been fringe for more than 200 years. There never was a time when scholarship shifted away from historicity since CMT never gained much appeal. If it had traction it would not have disappeared like it did over a century ago. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Oh, indeed. So, if that's the notable article on the subject (also supported by its size), what exactly is notable about the HoJ page? Joortje1 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Mainstream Bible scholars use the name "Palestine". Why? I don't know, but they do. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The area Jesus lived in was known as Judea (by both the Romans and locals) until 132CE, when it was changed to Syria Palestina. No historical figures are referenced by contemporary geography, why should this be any different? Unless there is polemic reasoning, contemporary names for regions should not reference historical figures. The map included in the article is a map of Judea in the first century, which details where Jesus lived. Recent additions to this article were not made until December of this year, 2 months after a bitter and divisive war started. People are attempting to edit tangential topics to have their viewpoints out in front, and this is not a political forum. Ironcladded (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your comments that my edits are politically motivated are WP:ASPERSIONS relating to WP:ARBPIA. The fact is that WP:COMMONNAME is Palestine. I know it because I read several books about the historical Jesus, written by mainstream Bible scholars. You see party politics where there is just WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please indicate precisely where I accused your comments, specifically, of being politically motivated. It is quite clear that because, never in the history of this article until December of this year, was the term "in Palestine" included in the article, that there is polemic, reasoning. You are casting aspersions about what I said, which is inappropriate. "Several books" are not a source, please indicate your source that shows a consensus of "mainstream biblical scholars" use the contemporary name, "Palestine" in reference to where Jesus lived and we can move the discussion forward. "I said so" is not a valid citation. Please further indicate why contemporary names should be used for a historical figure in this specific instance, but not in others. Ironcladded (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the WP:PAG WP:COMMONNAME, but you and me both are expected to obey it. Bart Ehrman's trade books and his university handbooks usually speak of "Palestine" when referring to Jesus's land. In doubt, count all mentions of "Palestine" or "Palestinian" from User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There was a recent section on Palestine or Judea above where this was discussed a bit. Many editors seem to revert to Palestine too. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, just in case: those quotations from Bible scholars were not compiled with Palestine in mind, but with the NT gospels being anonymous in mind. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be sure: I don't follow the endless fights between Israelis and Palestinians and I'm not editing to support either side of the conflict. I understand politics, I don't do politics (for many years). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Just cite your sources that "biblical scholars" use the name Palestine to refer to the area where "Jesus of Galilee" is from. Galilee and Jesus are synonymous. The term "Palestine" was never used on this article before December of this year.

"Read this book" is not a citation. Provide an actual citation or drop the claim and admit the error. Ironcladded (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying there are other people with the opinion before there is consensus, therefore one opinion is valid, is not how it works here, is it? Ironcladded (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

In any case, the opinions of the editors don't decide the matter, WP:RS decide the matter. Just count how many times "Palestine" or "Palestinian" appeared as bycatch for the gospels being anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have requested your citations that the name Palestine was in use for the Roman area of Judea between the start of the first century and its conclusion, in contravention to historical fact. I have also requested your citation that "biblical scholars" refer to Jesus as being from "Palestine". Asking me to read a random book is not evidence for your statement, show me clear evidence that a consensus of Biblical scholars refer to the area Jesus lived in as Palestine. Thanks. Ironcladded (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hint: "Judea" or "Israel" appear 0 times, meaning inside those 44 quotations from User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. "Galilee" (or "Galilean") appears only once. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did I imply you mentioned Judea or Israel? I never said the word Israel. I'm asking you to cite your sources, I thought you were good at winning debates? If that's the case, providing evidence for your definitive claims should be easy. Ironcladded (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many verses from the Bible that mention Judea:

"but declared first to them of Damascus, at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance."

"He was also one of the captives, which Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon carried from Jerusalem with Jeconiah king of Judea; and this was his dream:"

"When Herod had sought for him, and didn't find him, he examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death. He went down from Judea to Caesarea, and stayed there."

Shall I continue?

Ironcladded (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, the Bible isn't WP:RS. At User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 I have WP:CITED more than 40 different Bible scholars, including mainstream Bible scholars and traditionalist/fundamentalist Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We have to go with WP:SECONDARY sources like Tgeorgescu has said, not WP:PRIMARY sources. The secondary sources interpret any primary sources with better understanding of context. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Up to and including 02:02, the discussion wasn't about the Bible, but about Bible scholars.

They think I'm either an ally or an enemy: I'm neither. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere did I suggest the Bible is a reliable source. You cited 40 scholars, 5 of whom mentioned Palestine. 1/8. Hardly a consensus. Furthermore, cite me an actual source that the name of the region, relative to its time, was Palestine. Contemporary names are not used for historical figures, these are people using a contemporary name for ease of understanding to modern readings. None of these indicate that the name of the region was "Palestine". This is not good faith debating.

"Biblical scholars" using a contemporary name for a region, in a few instances, is not, logically, a statement that Jesus was from a land that was, at the time, called "Palestine". Ironcladded (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, Mainstream Bible scholars use the name "Palestine". I did not say Jesus's land was called Palestine in the 1st century CE. Big difference. I also said that I was simply not looking for "Palestine" when I gathered those quotes. "Palestine" is bycatch.

If you're seeking "confirmation", see e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=ehrman+jesus+%22palestine%22&tbm=bks (although, unusual for Google Books, many quotations are not immediately rendered). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If we can mutually admit the name of the area he was from was not Palestine, then why call it Palestine, which is a contemporary term? Would you call Fidel Castro, "Caribbean", or Cuban? The usage of Palestine here is entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, sending me a list of books to read does not support your point. That is not a citation. First prove to me that a large number of biblical scholars use the term in non-contemporaneous ways. Then, cite me a study on the topic or something similar. An amalgamation of 40 books. only 5 of which use the term in a contemporary way, does not prove your point. Ironcladded (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The obvious conclusion: you have no clue about how mainstream Bible scholars write. Many of those 40 books probably say that Jesus was from Palestine (I did not check it, but it is not an unreasonable guess). This is the scholarly jargon for that region. Find better things to do than WP:RGW. Even if your intention is not to disrupt Wikipedia, you come across as disruptive. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Historians refer to events from long before the birth of Amerigo Vespucci as occurring in North America, too. Your proposed avoidance of 'contemporary terms' is simply not a thing. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"The obvious conclusion: you have no clue about how mainstream Bible scholars write". Personal attacks are not how you debate, and this is not a good faith statement.

"Many of those 40 books probably say that Jesus was from Palestine (I did not check it, but it is not an unreasonable guess)." You are making a definitive statement and providing 40 random books that you say "probably" validate what you're saying. Do you not see the issue here? You aren't citing definitive sources that say, definitively, what you are suggesting, because there are none. Ironcladded (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Please tell me on the article about Caesar if he is referred to as "Roman" or "Italian"? Is "Brasidas" a Greek general, or a Spartan one? Is Fidel Castro a Caribbean ruler, or a Cuban one? We could do this all day. I'm not able to understand your comment or your reference.

Cite me specific examples of historical figures from specific regions being referred to in contemporary terms, like the examples I gave. Ironcladded (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Or, another search: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aruml.com+palestine&client=ubuntu-sn . This is of course not "bulletproof evidence", but it shows at least a hint that scholars do commonly use the name "Palestine". tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sending me a list of books you admittedly did not read, in the hope that they "probably" say what you want, is not how you debate. This is becoming incredibly circular and hilariously fanciful. One of your sources even refers to Judea and Samaria, specifically.

Adding to an article because you feel that something is "probably" true is entirely inappropriate and that should be transparent to a third-party. Ironcladded (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Forget for a moment about dialectics and debating standards, since this is not Debatepedia. I'm trying to teach you something you completely ignore. There is no good argument which can force you to learn something you don't want to learn. You're moving the goalposts: even if many people are able to perform a study that mainstream Bible scholars commonly use the name "Palestine", there is no incentive to research something all the insiders already know. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

My goalposts remain fixed from the initial discussion. I don't see why the emphasis is being placed on Biblical scholars, logically, in the first place, but I'll entertain it. How I entertain it is by asking you for authoritative sources that "Biblical Scholars" say Jesus was from a land called "Palestine". You have been unable and unwilling to do this, outside of a few examples in contemporary usage. We don't call Caesar an "Italian" emperor or Brasidas a "Greek" general. We call them Roman and Spartan, respectively, because that was the name of the region where those individuals were from at the time of their existence. My preference is to call the region what it was called in his time, which is the standard of this website and historical documents. Usage of modern-terms for ancient locations is not, generally, almost ever, done. I see no reason that should change here. Ironcladded (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You ignore both scholarly jargon and the customary WP:RULES of Wikipedia. But please tell us some Bible scholarship books which you did read. Otherwise this feels like arguing with somebody unwilling to learn. Being unwilling to learn is not a token of wisdom, but a symptom of lacking WP:CIR.

If you want to know what I have read, I was reading books by Bart Ehrman and citing them inside Wikipedia to the extent of raising eyebrows.

Again: you're making sophisticated dialectical arguments, which only tell one thing, namely that you refuse to learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please indicate how I am 'ignoring' "scholarly jargon" or customary rules? Which rules, exactly?

"But please tell us some Bible scholarship books which you did read" Sending me a list of books to read is not a validation of your point. This is so logically fallacious it doesn't warrant a response and will be a transparent misdirect to a third party.

"Being unwilling to learn is not a token of wisdom, but a symptom of lacking"

I'm willing to learn about Biblical scholarship, and nothing that I said can be construed otherwise. Giving me a list of books you didn't read and claiming that they said something with zero citation does not prove your point.

You can't address my arguments because you don't have a point. You are making definitive statements on things that you feel, and I quote, are "probably" true, and in contravention to history. I'm sorry history doesn't suit your narrative, but that really is inconsequential as far as the naming of the region Jesus lived in, which was, indisputably, Judea. You have not given me a good reason why Judea should not be used, as this was objectively the name of the region he was from at the time he lived. Let's agree to have a third opinion on the topic because you're arguing from things you want to be true, and I'm arguing from things that are provable to be true. Ironcladded (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You had opinions from MrOllie and ramos1990. If you wanted to offer the ultimate proof that all human knowledge is circular: read Martin Heidegger, he made the point about hermeneutic circularity long ago. Your numerous appeals to logic only say that you're unwilling to learn Bible scholarship and unwilling to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There are far more coherent opinions on this matter than from Ramos, who oddly, commented on a report you made against me. This is why you added a new revision. We will have to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanics to fix this, because it is clear only one part is willing to have a good faith discussion here. Good day. Ironcladded (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)