Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

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 [1]. 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. [2]. 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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

This article provides absolutely no evidence for its claims and it's sources are clearly biased. This article requires rewriting 2A02:3102:4015:FF11:F53D:68BB:CBD3:61D2 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

Revert

Hi, I reverted your add on public perceptions [3] 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 [4] and similar numbers for the Netherlands [5]) and moon landing (1 in 5 Europeans think it was a hoax [6]) 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)

There clearly hasn't been any need for pages for the "Historicity of the Holocaust" or "Historical moon landing" and similar variations.

If you want to compare this page to similar pages, try looking at for instance: Historicity of the Book of Mormon, Historicity of Muhammad, Historicity of the Iliad, Historicity of King Arthur, Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, William Tell#Historicity debate, Robin Hood#Historicity, Ragnar Lodbrok#Sources and historical accuracy, Laozi#Identity, Till Eulenspiegel#Origin and historicity.

So, why do you keep comparing the page for HoJ with the pages for the Holocaust or the moon landing? (and previously also to Earth's circumference in the light of Modern flat Earth beliefs –a joke I had already heard a comedian make– which didn't help to take your comparisons very serious)

Could you please also finally answer how you can seriously compare doubts about HoJ with holocaust denial, and why you think doubts about HoJ form a conspiracy theory? Joortje1 (talk) 14:23, 3 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)

@Joshua Jonathan How are statistics not objective information if they survey all the relevant viewpoints on a question?

@Ramos1990 How do these statistics push conspiracy theories?

How is this information not relevant to a wikipedia page if the polled question is identical to the question that the page claims as its topic? Joortje1 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Opinions of white old man

As a "lay person" who came upon this wikipedia page after googling "was jesus real?", I agree that this article is clearly biased and it should include information about "Christ Myth Theory". I came here to find out whether Jesus has been scientifically proven as a real person, and what I got was "Everyone knows Jesus was real because they wrote about him in the bible and anyone who doesn't think so is a conspiracy theorist." This article is full of opinions from historians which is not what I came here for. I want to understand the methods we used to determine that Jesus was real. Not the opinions of old white men over the last several centuries. Opinions are subjective, even when they come from educated people.
Thanks for your efforts on this Joortje1 😊 216.122.139.89 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ehrman's argument: in the New Testament are weaved various independent sources about Jesus, so his existence is independently attested (miracles and mythological accretions get discarded by default), Paul saw Jesus's brother, so if Jesus did not exist, his brother would know it, and so on.

According to Video on YouTube, the hypothesis that Jesus has existed is the most compliant with Occam's razor, i.e. it easily explains (for experts) what CMT doesn't.

Wikipedia cannot dodge the consensus of experts. We don't do it for the Big Bang; we don't do it for the theory of evolution; and so on.

You're in the symmetrical position of the Christian fundamentalist who argues that evolution cannot be observed in the lab. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Paul saw Jesus's brother, so if Jesus did not exist, his brother would know it" is indeed as strong as Ehrman's arguments get in his popular 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?. But that and the dubious criterion of multiple attestation argument can hardly be considered academically sound and conclusive theories (they even lack very basic "common sense" logic).

If somebody complains that the page is full of opinions of old white men, why would you want to get on their nerves with a tedious youtube video of an old white guy (deceased in 2019) talking in Dutch for almost 90 minutes?

Occam's razor would suggest a much shorter answer, for instance something like "the story of Jesus may have originated from lies, fantasies, rumours or other misconceptions about a guy who was crucified and was named Jesus (name), meaning "Saviour" – regardless of who started it and how many authors picked up the ideas".

The gospels may nonetheless have been based on a historical person, but because of all the unbelievable elements, the theological context, the lack of eyewitness reports and of any christian artifact from before the 2nd century, this would actually require a much more elaborate explanation than what Ockham/Aristotle's principle favours. Joortje1 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to the scientific proof provided by a young coloured woman that Jesus didn't exist. Or the scientific proof that scholarship by old white man is, by definition, no more than a trash-heap of opinions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Addentum: my apologies for being Dutch, in addition to being old, white, male, and academically educated. What more can I do wrong? Asking editors to evaluate their racist and bigoted stance? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ehrman's argument about the “various independent sources about Jesus” assumes that the Bible stories are indeed independent of each other, and it assumes that they were real attestations rather than made-up fiction created for ulterior motives long after the 1st Century. We don’t know that Paul really saw Jesus’ brother, only that some person/s once wrote some letters claiming to have been written by an apostle named Paul, who claimed to have once met a person who claimed to have been Jesus’ brother, and that centuries of Church scribes and authorities saw fit to include these particular letters in their Bible, with or without further "corrections", while discarding other letters which may have reported a different story entirely. Neither Tacitus nor Josephus claims to have met Jesus personally, only that there were people around in their time who claimed to be followers of a movement which they claimed had been started by a man claiming to be a divine prophet. Etc Etc. And the stuff from Josephus may well have been "corrected" by subsequent scribes as well.

Occam's razor would also suggest that thunder is actually caused by Zeus stomping around in a temper because somebody ate all his yogurt, and that rain is caused by Isis weeping and that crops fail because people didn’t give enough money to the priests that year. When scholars start using Occam's razor as an explanation, you know they are grasping.

However it is correct that Wikipedia cannot dodge the consensus of experts – regardless of how flimsy is their argument, and how much their logic may have been biased by their personal religious beliefs, the experts are the experts. At least, until fresh information comes to light, which makes the old experts look stupid. (PS: Nobody can prove a negative, regardless of race or gender.) Wdford (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I was not addressing Joshua Jonathan's nor tgeorgescu's apparently shared background. If anything, the Dutch had some interesting history of Radical criticism, with the fine archeological Allard Pierson Museum in Amsterdam continuing to proudly honour the legacy of one of the prominent advocates of CMT (possibly despite rather than because of this advocacy, but still).

I did object to the dubious referral to a YouTube source that quite obviously is the opposite of what the recipient was asking for (including the fact that it's in a language that usually only a small minority of en.wikipedia readers would understand).

Personally, I think we should consider academic arguments regardless of gender/background/age/whatnot (hence the relevance of blind peer review for proper academic publications) but the fact that many if not most of the scholars cited on the page (incl. the FAQ list of quotes) are not just above retiring age but already deceased, says a lot about the validity of citing their consensus claims. Probably more important: very few of the cited scholars have been trained or have published after the "demise of authenticity" crisis in the field. WP:AGE MATTERS

There may actually be many other academic problems with dominance of opinions of "old white men". I just happened to be checking some academic feedback on Maurice Casey's Historical Jesus book. It includes this critique: “he continues the legacy of white, male biblical scholars who blatantly disregard feminist scholars and feminist biblical criticism”

Biblical scholar prof. James Crossley, editor of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus has written a lot more on the undesirable effects of the socio-cultural background on the unrecognised biases of scholars in the field, including Jesus in an Age of Terror (2008/2012 Routledge / Taylor & Francis) and his foreword to 1 of the 2 recent mainstream peer-reviewed monographs on the subject of HoJ:

Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers, available to active wikipedians via WikipediaLibrary). Joortje1 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

By definition, history is about what people did in the past. We do not automatically disregard past scholarship when a recent opinion contradicts it, merely because it is more recent. The recent opinion may be factually wrong, and if new evidence has indeed been discovered, then the entire field (those who are still alive) will recognize this. That does not seem to currently be the case with Biblical research, unless you know something that I haven't seen yet? PS: You made a case about "feminist scholars and feminist biblical criticism". I don't understand why feminist scholars would necessarily hold a different view about Biblical history, and your source doesn't go into any detail at all. Please could you share some examples? Wdford (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, all of the CMT-proponents are white males. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Joshua Jonathan still arguing from the illusion that everybody who is not impressed by this page and its cherrypicked "scholarly" statements must be a mythicist, so that they would somehow only care about the lack of diversity in the "camp" of the "opponents"?

This discussion arose because multiple wikipedians here, just like many scholars, find it quite clear that historical Jesus scholarship is dominated by biased opinions and agendas, rather than by rigorous academic research. That in itself was already a diversion from the dubious deletion of objective statistics about two notable English-speaking nations' public opinions on the subject of this page (WP:PRESERVE is not in favour of hasty deletion and the arguments against inclusion seem more opinionated than backed up by guidelines or by common sense logic)

@Wdford Sorry, I don't have examples about feminist biblical scholarship. I really just happened to be reading that review when others here started to worry about personal backgrounds. I'm all for diversity and I admittedly am a bit of a feminist, but I'd prefer to keep my reading into Jesus limited to the truly historical aspects. Joortje1 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The best argument against "Jesus is a fantasy made up by a Roman conspiracy" is that a conspiracy would have produced a coherent story, while the New Testament isn't coherent.

Jesus was the Son of God since:

• baptism;
• birth;
• eternity past.

When you write a fantasy which you seek to pass for real, you don't make such gross mistakes. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"the New Testament isn't coherent" My impression after reading it was the book collection was both poorly written and poorly edited. Yet it apparently worked as religious propaganda for the Roman era. It must have had some appeal to its intended audience that eludes modern readers. Dimadick (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wdford No new evidence seems to have come to light, but given the subjectivity of the humanities in general and that of Historical Jesus scholarship particularly, that doesn't mean the consensus is clear and stable. I'm actually starting to have strong doubts about the vailidity of the consensus claims. The CMT = fringe claim has always been extremely dubious and should definitely be taken with a grain of salt, as Dykstra said we should do with every biblical scholar's statement of "fact".

As pointed out above WP:AGE MATTERS and most cited sources are over a decade old. Defenders of HoJ may still dominate the dwindling discipline of historical Jesus scholarship, but this is not backed-up with data and we even lack HoJ-advocating publications that have taken the "demise of authenticity" crisis in account.

Just the failure of the Jesus Project and organiser/biblical scholar/historian Hoffman's conclusions demonstrated that there wasn't a consensus on the subject in 2009.

The heavy academic criticism of Ehrman's popular 2012 book once again demonstrated a lack of consensus, as did the high profile Ehrman versus Price debate.

Lataster's 2019 Brill publication would normally have to be regarded as more authorative than the popular books by biblical scholars and theologians cited on the page. Lataster may admit that most biblical scholars oppose ahistoricism, but he explicitly claims that doubts about HoJ are not fringe and he makes a good case of arguing why biblical scholars are not the most reliable experts on this topic in the first place.

Although Carrier's tone is a bit too arrogant for my taste (in what I've read of him), and although his favoured methodology does not really convince me (but maybe I just don't really grasp Bayesian probability math well enough), his overview of peer reviewed work on the subject (2 recent ones doubting HoJ versus 1 very old defending HoJ) must mean something in the light of scholarly consensus versus fringe. His List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously (over 40 experts with "actual and relevant PhDs") seems much more up to date and more impressive than the list of consensus claims in the FAQ here. Joortje1 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Lataster's ancient history professor reviews his work [7]. Most of the the 43 "experts" in Carrier are not mythicists - only 16 (in bold) are. Plus even Carrier calls these 16 biblical scholars and theologians "historians". Ramos1990 (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Does anybody really think a 2014 non-academic review by "public advocate for the Christian Faith" John Dickson suffices to dispel a 2019 academic publication?

In that opinion piece, even Dickson argues that a religion scholar should not be regarded as a historian. His own xmas 2022 statement “the overwhelming consensus of university historians specialising in the Roman and Jewish worlds of the first century” was heavily criticised by Miles Pattenden because it clearly did not actually represent a consensus of historians. It indeed seems safer to assume that the silent majority of historians just don't think it's worthwhile to ask the question of HoJ. The "research" literature is dominated by bible-loving scholars who have managed to get rid of a belief in the supernatural elements of the religious narratives, but still try to cling on to the more plausible aspects (see Lataster 2019 for a peer-reviewed RS backing this up).

Carrier clearly indicates the relevant PhDs of scholars in his list, but why he labels all of them "historians" is beyond me.

Ramos1990 seems rather quick to label anybody who has some doubt about the evidence or the reliability of cited sources a "mythicist" when she wants to reject opposing arguments as "fringe", but as soon as we're looking at the quantity of scholars who argue that the question of HoJ can't be answered or that it is reasonable to doubt, she wants us to reject this because they are "not mythicists".

The article and the dominant editors seem very fond of continuing the false dilemma of HoJ scholarship, by ignoring the abundance of scholars who say that there just isn't sufficient evidence to answer the question.

Even if there are "only 16" bold mythicist experts, that's a whole lot more than the handful of biblical scholars and theologians who have actually called opposing views "fringe". Joortje1 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this article remains its absolutist tone based on a relatively insignificant number of sources. Once the opinions of Christian theologians are discarded, there are precious few sources (and those sources are not 100% clean ... a lot of "former Evangelicals" and "former Catholic priests" and the like). It's kind of telling that there doesn't seem to be a single Hindu or Buddhist historian that has ever considered the question of Christ's historical existence to be both interesting enough to investigate and answered by sufficiently compelling evidence that they published an opinion.

I've tried a few times to rephrase the consensus in a more rational tone, that it's far more likely that Jesus existed than that he did not. Those edits have been reverted in favour of Ehrmann's absolutism ... an absolutism that makes me uneasy about using him as a source at all.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd love this to become a well-sourced article in a proper neutral encyclopedic tone that mostly advocates why it is likely that Jesus did exist, with a decent summary of counter arguments and referance to the CMT page for more indepth info on that particular view.

But somehow the dominant editors seem to believe that the absolutist, hyperbolical and polemical statements will convince readers, rather than increase doubts with all those red flags of informal fallacies. Joortje1 (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It is easy to address the argument that a "conspiracy to commit fraud" would have been more coherent. It is well known that the Bible was compiled by a committee of vested interests, and since when did any committee of vested interests hold a unanimous opinion about anything? The Bible was only compiled a few hundred years after the purported events of the gospels, by which time many competing factions had grown up. These factions were not coherent, and some of their "beliefs" and "teachings" directly contradicted those of the faction next door. Some of these factions were busy burning other factions as heretics. In compiling a single joint "Bible", powerful compromises were required, and we can see the results today. In addition, religious authorities "tweaked" the Bible verses a bit further in the millennia since then as well, to better suit their various vested interests. Very few people could read in the ancient times, so the scribes got away with lots of fraud and "redaction", and got a bit sloppy. Little did they know (or care) that thousands of years later, a literate population with an internet to support them, would critically scrutinize the final product and catch them all out. Wdford (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Back to basics: Wikipedia renders mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You may call it an informal fallacy, yet this is how we do things around here. See WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We are back to basics here, tgeorgescu: if you remove the unacceptably biased sources from the article along with those that make extreme claims that strain all credulity, you aren't left with much in the way of sourcing at all.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

wp:lawyering

The talk pages are intended to discuss how the article could be improved and thus allow to point out what seems wrong with it. wp:commonsense is a healthy aspect of discussing and of editing

Why did Ramos1990 remain silent when tgeorgescu derailed this discussion with a personal theory about some complot that I have not yet come across in the literature, but then object when Kww addresses problems about sources in the article?

She also still owns us explanations for her own many personal opinions about CMT conspiracy theories and equating doubts about HoJ with holocaust denial. Joortje1 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia renders mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP."

Arguably, but:

-how mainstream is Biblical criticism?

-mainstream scholarship is not: popular books heavily criticised in academic circles

-the article ignores the few mainstream peer-reviewed monographs on the subject

-these mainstream academic works suggest that historicism of jesus and the historical jesus quest is mostly based on pseudo-history

-the "demise of authenticity" crisis in the Historical Jesus discipline basically has many from the field acknowleding that it is indeed pseudo-history, with bankrupt methodologies and no reliable results

-the article and its dominant editors tend to cherrypick the strongest claims (often informal fallacies) from their prefered popular books and outdated sources, while dispelling any nuance and any doubt that can be found even in these sources (we can build a very strong claim against HoJ with citations from Ehrman's 2012 popular book alone) Joortje1 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia renders mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP." That settles it. Your disagreements belong in a blog, not wikipedia. Or Quora. You are not a reliable source or an academic on the topic. Neither am I. So we go by mainstream scholarship to avoid endless opinion wars by nonexperts like us. Much of what you disagreed with parallels the complaints in Holocaust denialism. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It is frustrating how stubbornly you cling to the notion that a group of Christian theologians represents mainstream scholarship, Ramos1990. The very problem with this article is that it does not weigh sources appropriately, and your entrenched defence of a bad article is preventing any improvement.—Kww(talk) 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ehrman, Casey, Grant? These are not Christian theologians. Levine, Vermes? These are not Christian theologians. The statements from these on scholarship show that the views are across the board. Even mythicists acknowledge mainstream views. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Your definition of "not a Christian" is laughable -- Vermes served as a Catholic priest, Ehrman spent years as an Evangelical, Grant was ordained as an Episcopal priest. Bring on the Hindus, the Buddhists, the atheists ... the people that should have absolutely no stake in whether Christ was a historic figure. If you can't find them, that's a sign of how weak the sourcing for this article is. Right now, it is based on the views of a whopping two reasonably objective scholars, neither of whom indulge in the extremism of the Ehrman quotes.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not being an expert could be a good reason for you to pipe down a bit? Many "endless opinion wars" could be avoided if you'd think twice before disputing whathever seems to disagree with your opinions, beliefs and dubious sources. A better understanding of academic standards and of the guidelines would make all the difference.

Please, try to read for instance the wp:scholarship guideline more carefully, then have a better look at the available academic literature on this subject, and then try to more carefully read and properly understand the comments and edits you are objecting to.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you and this article really are going by mainstream scholarship; you ignore it and you ignore what the relevant guidelines say.

What I disgree with is the use of unacademic language and unacademic arguments from popular books from a not-so-mainstream type of "experts" (trained in interpreting religious scriptures, rather than in proper historical methodologies), while totally ignoring recent peer-reviewed monographs and other more relaible secondary sources that specifically address this topic, authored by (relatively) "mainstream" historians and a specialised scholar of religion, who survey the literature and heavily criticise exactly those sources and the unsound arguments used in the article.

You propbably meant the opposite, but I can indeed see some parallels between Holocaust denialism and the pseudo-historical popular books on Jesus that I, the wp:scholarship guideline and the most relevant academic literature all disagree with. Joortje1 (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the disputes are not about the historicity of Jesus the normal human teacher and trouble-maker - almost everyone agrees on that, and he is not really notable. The disputes are about the claims that Jesus was a divine being, and a part of God himself. The supernatural aspects of the gospels are not well supported in mainstream scholarship at all. If this was properly reported, these disputes would evaporate. However some editors have fought tenaciously for years to protect their POV. Wdford (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This article specifically addresses the historicity of Jesus (not disputes about his purported divinity), and the mere existence of it already demonstrates that not "almost everyone agrees on that". Most historians (not biblical scholars) who have adressed the question say something like this: "Partly because there is no way to satisfy these queries, 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." Joortje1 (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point about professional historians of Christianity being more concerned with the history of Christianity than the historicity of Jesus. That is perfectly fair. However when considering the historicity of Jesus, the major stumbling point is - are we talking about the historicity of Jesus the human, or Jesus the alleged deity? These two things are not the same issue, and the consensus of mainstream scholars is not the same in both cases. If this article made it properly clear that the consensus of mainstream scholars strongly supports the historicity of Jesus the human, but does NOT support the historicity of Jesus the alleged deity, then it would be more clear, more neutral, and more accurate. However to get to that point, we need to overcome the determined POV pushing by the pro-deity lobby. Wdford (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Historicity of Jesus", as the lead section rightly states, concerns "the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed (as opposed to being a purely mythical figure)".

It indeed calls for a proper differentiation of the different types of scholars when plenty of biblical scholars and especially theologians still discuss whether the miracles, resurrection and divinity should be considered historical (not so long ago, this article actually used to suggest that "scholars of antiquity" hadn't yet made up their mind about these aspects!).

First we would thus have to further define "mainstream" and "scholars" to avoid using wp:weasel words. Those seem to be oft-abused terms, especially when discussing controversial topics with religious aspects (Ehrman's "Scholars of antiquity" was even more problematic, because it suggests historians specialised in the ancient period, while on closer inspections it is hard to find anybody still advocating HoJ who isn't a biblical scholar or theologian).

There would be much less trouble if we'd simply claim something like "most biblical scholars and theologians agree that Jesus existed as Jewish man from 1st century Galilee, on whose life and teachings Christianity was founded." His historicity is the standard assumption underlying the whole "Quest for the Historical Jesus" discipline.

However, given the amount of scholars from this field who since about 15 years have said it is reasonable to doubt HoJ or who even have advocated CMT, it seems no longer up to date to say that they are on the "fringe" (especially in comparison to recent scholarly statements advocating HoJ, let alone to those who still claim that CMT is fringe).

In the case of questions of historicity, we'd of course better look at what professionals trained in the discipline of History say about the question. They are definitely more mainstream than biblical scholars and we can just call them historians, rather than the current ambiguous use of "scholars". Joortje1 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Miles Pattenden admits "I am neither an ancient historian nor (alas) a full Professor." and also "few scholars would deny that there must be some kernel of historicity in Jesus’s figure." And Dickinson responds [8] that Pattenden notes ”the fact that secular specialists, by an overwhelming majority, accept the historical existence of Jesus ". Also states "And so he offered his piece “on behalf” of his colleagues in that discipline. But then he goes on to challenge my claim of a scholarly consensus about the existence of Jesus, not by denying that there is such a consensus, but by noting that sometimes scholars just assume the work of others, such that, over time, a consensus can emerge without anyone thinking much about it...Stranger than this, Pattenden actually agrees with me that Jesus existed. Despite the inferiority of ancient sources over modern ones, he writes, we can arrive at a basic confidence “that a man called Jesus (or Joshua), who became a charismatic teacher, was born around the turn of the millennium in Palestine”. That is also what I said. At no point was I even hinting — as Pattenden seems to imply — that “this historical person was unequivocally equivalent to the biblical Jesus”. So, I am left confused about why exactly Pattenden went to the trouble of critiquing my piece. Apart from his relatively low view of Ancient History itself (“ultimately, I found Antiquity unsatisfying”, he writes), we agree on the main point." Ramos1990 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If this article took the tone of "we can arrive at a basic confidence “that a man called Jesus (or Joshua), who became a charismatic teacher, was born around the turn of the millennium in Palestine” " then we wouldn't have any controversy at all, Ramos1990. That is the message this article should convey ... a "basic confidence", not an unwavering dogmatic certainty that dismisses all others as crackpots.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Even better wording would be: "Today scholars in the field generally agree that a non-divine Jewish man called Jesus (or Jeshua) did live in the Herodian Kingdom of Judea and the subsequent Herodian tetrarchy in the 1st century CE, upon whose life and teachings Christianity was later constructed. There is no scholarly consensus concerning most elements of Jesus's life as described in the Christian and non-Christian sources (including his purported miracles or resurrection). Etc etc". Wdford (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not good chronicling

The purpose of Wikipedia is preservation of information, right? Not to argue for any religions authenticity over others, right? Imagine if any page written about any other religion was written this way. Nearly every paragraph here pretends at legitimacy while asserting a certainty that does not exist outside of Christianity. The primary argument here is that some guy who wasn’t Christian mentioned that he heard of Jesus. So that means the man must with certainty exist? they mods here Christian and simply trying to maintain the artifice of certainty. The historicity of Jesus is a maybe at best, but this page reads as tho to say that doubting his existence is silly. It just doesn’t seem like an unbiased encyclopedia entry 2600:1007:B0AF:CE83:D9F7:706C:7D6F:B276 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 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)

...and we are back to the article stating "Palestine". Badabara (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References