Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

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)

There most certainly is not "more reason" to doubt Brutus' hand in the murder of Julius Caesar; there is an equal amount of reason to disbelieve both, though if anything there is actually less reason to doubt Brutus' involvement than that of Jesus' existence, insofar as primary sources regarding Caesar's assassination come from mere decades after the fact, while the vast, vast majority of records of Jesus as a real person come from centuries after. What's more is that these records come from contemporary historians, officials in the Roman governing and educational body, etc., whereas basically all "evidence" of Jesus' existence come from religious figures that have a clear bias in recounting his existence at all. The closest one can come to the evidence of Julius Caesar's assassination, in terms of actual records from professional and at least somewhat contemporary sources, is the records of Tacitus. Even there, Tacitus was born a quarter century after Jesus' supposed execution, and he writes from a secular standpoint, more as a prelude to expanding upon Nero's persecution of Christians than anything--something this very article fails to mention, despite mentioning Tacitus as a reliable source. Kyuubi no Bakamaru (talk) 06:36, 28 December 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)

Sorry, but I'm not that interested in the Christ Myth Theory that you keep bringing up.

I just believe objective information about the question whether Jesus existed or not is more important for this page than merely going by the opinions of a handful of biblical scholars and theologians who label any opposing view as a "fringe theory" comparable to holocaust denial.

At least the statistics that I paraphrased are from trusted survey bureaus (and the UK report was written by a historian of religion) and very notable. In contrast, many of the article's citations are little more than assumptions and biased opinions that lack rigorous research and methodological soundness (more often they seem to express logical fallacies), from a discipline that can hardly be considered mainstream.

The fact that there is a page that describes the Christ Myth Theory in detail, is no reason to exclude all doubt or criticism from the page on "the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed" (I'd expect that other page to especially address the scholarly theories about the Jesus narrative having roots in mythology in more detail).

Judging by FAQ Q1, there would be better reasons to expel anything that suits the Historical Jesus page. In the same vain, there's now an afwul lot of unnecessary detail on the page that better suits the dedicated page Sources for the historicity of Jesus.

Do you have anything to back up your personal view that this page should only include academic views that subscribe to historicism? Joortje1 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How many times have other editors told you about WP:Fringe and WP:Undue? Multiple editors have addressed this to you. It’s why holocaust denialism and moon landing denialism are not featured in the main articles of the holocaust or moon landing. Only you and other mythicists seem to think the way you do - deny scholarship and push conspiracy theories. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2024 (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)

The opinions of a lay audience are "objective information," while the conclusions of scholars are just "the opinions of a handful of biblical scholars and theologians"? If that's the kind of information you want to share with the world, please go to Quora. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Arbitrary header #1

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)

Argument from fallacy. See also WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Arguing from fallacies has been the problem with this entire discussion. Nowhere did I appeal to authority. You are factually incorrect and unwilling to admit it. Ironcladded (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I might not be the brightest mind in logic, but I have learned enough logic to not be afraid of logicians. Or, as Hegel made the point: learning logic does not teach people to think logically. Especially when they think that abstract pontificates about logic replace positive knowledge.

The point being, however: you did not appeal to authority, the rest of us did. Perhaps you should read WP:VERECUNDIAM instead of pontificating about what it might say without reading it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is being regressed off the rails, and you still haven't provided a reason why a contemporary term, Palestine, should be used for the first time ever, on this article, in December of this year. The name of the region was, factually, "Judea". Caesar was not Italian, Brasidas was not Greek, and Jesus did not live in "Palestine", he lived in Judea, which was the name of the Roman province until 132CE. Ironcladded (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. You might want to read that too, instead of pontificating what it means without having read it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of what a Common name is in the context of Wikipedia. You are not explaining to me why the common name is being used to explain where he is from. Why not Earth? Why not the Middle East? Why not the Levant? They're all common names, too. Just abstracted even larger. Jesus was from Judea, period. Your attestation that "Palestine" is more correct is incorrect. Palestine refers to a large geographical region, Judea refers, specifically, to where Jesus was from. The motivations for the use of that term could not be more transparent. Ironcladded (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Palestine at page 8, but perhaps Shaye J. D. Cohen is not Jewish enough or professor enough for your standards.

Or at first page of chapter 6, but perhaps Joel S. Baden is not Jewish enough or professor enough for your standards. And Candida Moss does not know what she is talking about, according to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what being Jewish means relative to this discussion and your comment was flagrantly antisemitic. Not once did I mention being Jewish, and not once did I say or otherwise remotely imply that only "Jewish" sources were relevant. I simply said that there is no argument, from a historical perspective, for the use of "Palestine" over "Judea". Will be reporting you for the comment as well Ironcladded (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Cool down, it was reductio ad absurdum. In fact, I have WP:CITED Cohen and Baden several times: I'm not the one who hates them. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you would ask if somebody was "Jewish" enough for me? They used a term contemporarily for a discussion in modern discourse, which is not uncommon. You can state your case in dispute resolution rather than continuing to poison the well. Ironcladded (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

My point: not only Bible professors who are Christians commonly use the term "Palestine", but Bible professors who are Jewish commonly use it, too. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the fact that people use the contemporary word, "Palestine", in contemporary times. It is the meaning of the word, after all. Nowhere did I mention that this was a conversation that had to do with being Jewish, Christian, or anything else. Your direct insinuation that I only accept "Jewish" scholars, as if my position is a "Jewish" one, was flagrantly antisemitic and political. I am disputing that most Biblical scholars would say Jesus was from "Palestine" and not "Judea", which is incorrect. If you can admit he is from Judea, there is zero reason to edit the word to "Palestine" for the first time ever, in December 2023 of this year. Make your case in dispute resolution under the appropriate thread rather than replying here and retroactively trying to walk back your comment about whether or not somebody was "jewish enough" for my standards. Ironcladded (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

About WP:BURDEN: you should provide a peer-reviewed study that all the scholars I have cited for my argument use the term politically, instead of scholarly. I'd bet you can't do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say the scholars used the term "politically"? Nowhere, another non-sequitur. This discussion is nothing but personal attacks, now antisemitic rhetoric, and non-sequiturs coming from you. I said you did, and cited the fact you asked if random authors were "Jewish" enough for me out of thin air. Ironcladded (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

But you do want me to provide a peer-reviewed study that the term is not used politically. Or has that changed, meanwhile? tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. I am asking you to defend your decision to remove the name Judea and supplant it with Palestine, which is a contemporary term for a more geographically broad region. I am not asking you to defend the usage of the term Palestine in contemporary usage, for the 18th time. I have asked you that from the beginning. I am questioning your intent because you decided to ask me if random people were "Jewish" enough for me, insinuating, quite directly, that my argument is predicated on being Jewish. Ironcladded (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

But you are insinuating that my edits are "political," and anti-Israel politics is not very far from antisemitism. So the objection that bona fide Jewish scholars use the term is a quite germane objection to your claims.

Besides, this discussion is about the usage of the term Palestine in contemporary scholarly usage about 1st century CE. Not about anything else. If you want to discuss anything else, you should avoid this talk page according to WP:NOTAFORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Dunn, Jesus remembered, p.257-258: "the usage itself is very old and common among Greco-Roman writers. Herodotus in the fifth century BCE already speaks of 'the Syrians of Palestine'." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about the historicity of the term Palestine. We are arguing about whether the term should be used here, when the Roman name for the province was Judea until 132CE. Good day. Ironcladded (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You are: 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. According to Dunn, the name "Palestine" was already used by Greece-Roman writers in the 5th century BCE, so your argument fails. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

We might as well remove "Palestine"; no one doubts he lived there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So far all the sources provided by tgeorgescu, Joshua Johnathan, and even the America/Amerigo point by MrOllie do not have an issue using "Palestine". It is not a political claim, but a reference to the region. Philosophical "debating" like Ironcladded keeps on doing, without much secondary sourcing to support what they want to do is getting WP:NOTFORUM. And it looks like Ironcladded is getting quite personal with tgeorgescu and others in questioning intent. WP:BEHAVE Ironcladded. Sources settle the matter, not WP editor opinions on the matter. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

And yet, the apparently less controversial page for Historical Jesus currently mentions "Palestine" exactly 1 time, "Judea" 9 times (7 times in combination with "Galilee"), "Galilee" or "Galilean" 17 times. Of course all these mentions should correspond to the cited sources (I haven't checked).

In the quotes now cited for the claim on the HoJ page, only Hurtado mentions a region: Galilee. So, if anybody prefers either to keep "Palestine" or to change it to "Judea", proper reliable sources are needed. Joortje1 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can find sources that prefer "Palestine" (for instance Ehrman's popular book), but there's no good reason to go with the more polemic and less correct name.

Why a handful of scholars prefer "Palestine" remains unclear to me; I couldn't find any academic clarification in their publications. It seems a very curious choice for scholars who claim to follow the historical evidence in the NT (where do the scriptures mention "Palestine"?). It may indeed not be a political choice (although that's not entirely unlikely); it could for instance be intended to dumb things down for the intended audience of "laymen", or it could very well be nothing more than a lazy unacademic choice of terminology.

The Historical Jesus page clearly argues that one of the possibly historical claims about Jesus include: "Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea". Because the synoptic gospels narrate that Jesus was from Galilee and travelled through Judea, mentioning both areas indeed seems fine.

For further comments on this topic, see Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Judea or Palestine?" Joortje1 (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The correct wording would probably be to say that "Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea - modern-day Palestine and Israel". However that seems a bit bulky for the lede? Wdford (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. So, if we just remove it, issue settled - for the moment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It's worth checking those sources, though: "Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea:[159]" - Green, Joel B.; McKnight, Scot; Marshall, I. Howard (1992), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. InterVarsity Press. p. 442, which actually says: "Palestine in Jesus' days." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Oxford Handbook of Jewish Life in Roman Palestine. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the name Syro-Palestinian archaeology.

E.g., according to William G. Dever:

"'Syro-Palestinian archaeology' is not the same as the 'biblical archaeology'. I regret to say that all who would defend Albright and 'biblical archaeology' on this ground, are sadly out of touch with reality in the field of archaeology."

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We cover "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" as an alternative name for Levantine archaeology, whose geographical scope covers the "Hatay Province of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Cyprus." I am aware that Biblical archaeology in the style of William F. Albright is rather outdated, since his conclusions were mostly discredited. But I am not certain how this affects geographical terminology. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I only stated that the usage is not political. Whether it is the best term is another matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing it may indeed be best for the moment.

If anybody wants to change it after that, they should simply add citations for their terminology of choice (or choose Hurtado's Galilee from the current choices). Joortje1 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Does it makes sense to use "Judaea" to keep consistent with other wikipedia pages?... Jesus , Nativity of Jesus and Historical Jesus etc... Badabara (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It would make sense if Galilee was part of (Roman) Judaea during the (purported) lifetime of Jesus, but apparently it wasn't (check the bluelinked pages).

What's more: the disputed terminology for Jesus' homeland is part of a sentence that claims what "scholars in the field" agree upon, so the line should reflect their written opinions. Only "Galilee" is currently backed up in the cited sources.

Also: most of the "scholars in the field" are biblical scholars. In general, their main concern is studying and explaining biblical texts, while only a very small minority look at the historical context. Even theologians are now cited as experts on historicity here on wikipedia, while none of today's cited scholars seem to have a degree in the mainstream academic discipline of history. It may thus be difficult to find sources that defend the historicity of Jesus and can also be trusted to use historically correct terminology. Joortje1 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I see.

One thing to take note of, Mary's annunciation was in Galilee, but we don't know if Jesus set foot there.

If the only thing we know scholars agree on is his baptism and crucifixion, why not state those locations? His baptism occurred in the Jordan River in Perea, and his crucifixion happened in Judaea.

So:

"Today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Perea and Judaea in the 1st century CE..." Badabara (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As detailed on the Ministry of Jesus page, Galilee, Perea and Judea are the geographical regions where Jesus preached according to the NT. Following the Historical Jesus page's claim that only Galilee and Judea are widely thought to be historical, scholars apparently don't agree on the historicity of the Perean episodes (or maybe they just throw this under Judea umbrella?). The gospel of Matthew of course also contains the Flight to Egypt, which is more heavily contested.

All in all, plenty of reasons to scrap the contested part and be satisfied with the description "of Nazareth" as a more precise geographical origin (although the more common original Koine Greek wording is also thought to have been used as a title of religious significance rather than a geographical description). Joortje1 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm guessing then scholars put the Jordan river (whether East or West river bank) in Judaea then.

Sounds good to me.

So then... ""Today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Galilee and Judaea in the 1st century CE..." ? Badabara (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

at that time, it was called Judea, so we should list it as such, especially since the article is about the historicity. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Awkward wording – protected edit request 28 December

Please fix awkward wording in Sentence #2 of the lead; past naturally goes before present in this clause:

−

and the idea that [[Christ myth theory|Jesus was a mythical figure]] still is and has been considered a [[fringe theory]] in academic scholarship for more than two centuries,

+

and the idea that [[Christ myth theory|Jesus was a mythical figure]] has been and still is considered a [[fringe theory]] in academic scholarship for more than two centuries,

The proposed wording is about 2000 times more common in running text than the current version. Alternatively, in a slightly different ordering: "has been considered a fringe theory in academic scholarship for more than two centuries, and still is". (Note that all wordings have a potential WP:RELTIME issue with is, but majority views in scholarship about this are very slow to shift, and I don't consider this significant enough to bother with; at best, it's a separate discussion.) Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)