Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.


Proposal to make this article more objective.[edit]

Flawed Language[edit]

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

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

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

Look at the sources in Note 1 and Note 2. Experts describe the situation as such in their own words. Even irreligious one like Ehrman, Grant, Casey, etc. Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not random editor POV on the matter. Also see FAQ "Quotes" section for dozens of sources on this and "Q3" on books claiming the opposite in this talk page for your concerns. Actually read the whole FAQ since this has been answered so many times in the talk. Even mythicists like Robert Price, formerly G.A Wells, Michael Martin, etc acknowledge the consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another thing that stands out is the various appeals to authority and character attacks used in the sources. Quotes such as "No serious scholar thinks he didn't exist". It fails to qualify the uncertainty in the evidence and comes across as unscientific. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view is not to reject the consensus, rather use softer, more scientifically accurate language. I think this point has not been refuted. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether that consensus is accurate is another matter. I'm trying to reach a compromise here. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an FAQ created by editors that have a clear, strong opinion on the topic, and are unwilling to compromise, isn't a way to resolve the issue. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits diff are unwarranted and suggestive. You changed "agree" in "believe"; it's not a matter of "belief," but of conclusions based on painstakingly textual analysis. You also expanded 'CMT [...] fringe theory' with "among scholars active in the area." This is misplaced; it suggests that there are scholars, or areas of scholarship, where the CMT is taken serious. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The contrary perspective is not the Christ myth theory. It's whether Jesus existed in a manner consistent with the claims written in the article.
Going on evidence from thousands of years ago definitely requires some level of belief. Questions on this matter, given the religious bias, cannot be treated with the same level of certainty, as, say, the existence of climate change.
An often used argument by you two is that "wikipedia goes by the sources". The problem is, the overwhelming body of sources used in this article are secondary sources that cite each other, rather than direct primary sources. The cherrypicking concern is not one to be readily swept away by fallacious appeals to authority. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also such strong langauge to call the CMT a fringe theory. Again, compare with climate science denial. It doesn't matter whether the technical usage of the term may be regarded as correct, more the interpretation by the lay reader. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See the policy WP:SECONDARY. Also there is no CMT scholarship anywhere in academia. A recent extensive scholarly survey of CMT literature by Maurice Casey [in Note 2] "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship...They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications." Indeed, they do not even pop up as an entry in Oxford Reference which covers all the humanities including all historical fields. It is not a view in any fields of scholarship. Here is another scholar who did a survey of the literature [1]. Ehrman says the same thing since he surveyed the literature too in his book on the topic! Van Voorst did too see Note 2. Even mythicists like Price and Martin admit that. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, appeal to authority. The secondary sources used seem unbiased: wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but those that analyse primary sources. It would be better if the quotes reflect actual scholarly efforts rather than "everybody thinks so...". The latter, in my experience, is a giant red flag in an argument. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Fringe for how wikipedia works in representing views according to their actual prominence in scholarship. Fringe views do not get equal time with consensus views in wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion its not a matter of whether or not the label is correct, more the interpretation of the lay reader. Compare with climate science denial, which is more or less the canonical fringe theory. I think using this label here is a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm happy with softer language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most facts in Ancient history are based upon scant evidence. There is more reason to doubt that Julius Caesar was killed by Brutus than there is to doubt that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ancient history is a softer science. But with regards to biographical details of Caesar, there are a lot more sources, which are also more objective (coming from historians of the time period). With regards to Jesus, however, the evidence is far less, especially given the obvious bias with regards to biblical literature.
I am not saying he didn't exist, in fact, his existence may be more likely than not. But the strong language used in this article makes very bold claims, which don't match the evidence. Fallacious appeals to authority, and character arguments also make this article look unprofessional and unscientific. Which, for the lay reader, is a cause for concern. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reference, the Historicity of Mohammed article uses much better language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fallacious appeals to authority"—you might want to read WP:VERECUNDIAM, and then a handbook of logic: appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, especially when we never perform "rational argumentation" but we merely WP:CITE the views of experts.
We don't have a problem with atheists. We don't have a problem with Christians. We do have a problem with epistemically irresponsible people. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the fact that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, the problem is the way the argumentation for the historicity in this article has been carried out. The quotes included from the experts are using appeals to authority. Far better would be quotes that reflect a critical analysis of the evidence. My point isn't to make a dramatic change to this article, more use softer, more scientifically appropriate language. I don't think the logic behind my edit has been refuted. Also, please refrain from character attacks (another fallacy I might add). 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Till now, nobody else agrees with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer to numerous similar comments above in the talk history. You haven't engaged with my reasoning either. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP: perhaps Julius Caesar died by falling upon his own sword, and Brutus was scapegoated. It is unlikely, but is far more likely than Jesus not existing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the latter has far more evidence, without religious bias, and thus not an appropriate comparison. There must be a way of using a softer, more scientific tone in this article. The article on the historicity of Mohammed, for example, discusses the primary sources first, and the ones which are flawed, before stating the conclusion.
Again, I'm just trying to make the article reflect the uncertainties associated with the available evidence. Let alone the big claim that he was "baptized". I might add that the fact that the FAQ page exists at all reflects the fact that the main editors of this article do not truly reflect the consensus. I believe some compromises need to be made.
I'm not denying the sources. But let's please try to remove the tone from the article that makes his existence seem like an irrefutable fact. Especially considering the page is "historicity of Jesus" and not the biographical page. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You can doubt every fact of Ancient history through paying lip service to rationality. It does not work like that around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not denying it, more saying we should reach a compromise to use softer language. Compare with related historicity articles. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the Shakespeare authorship question—such question does not really exist among experts in that field.
You can adduce no WP:RS that what you're advocating is even remotely a mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There most certainly is not "more reason" to doubt Brutus' hand in the murder of Julius Caesar; there is an equal amount of reason to disbelieve both, though if anything there is actually less reason to doubt Brutus' involvement than that of Jesus' existence, insofar as primary sources regarding Caesar's assassination come from mere decades after the fact, while the vast, vast majority of records of Jesus as a real person come from centuries after. What's more is that these records come from contemporary historians, officials in the Roman governing and educational body, etc., whereas basically all "evidence" of Jesus' existence come from religious figures that have a clear bias in recounting his existence at all. The closest one can come to the evidence of Julius Caesar's assassination, in terms of actual records from professional and at least somewhat contemporary sources, is the records of Tacitus. Even there, Tacitus was born a quarter century after Jesus' supposed execution, and he writes from a secular standpoint, more as a prelude to expanding upon Nero's persecution of Christians than anything--something this very article fails to mention, despite mentioning Tacitus as a reliable source. Kyuubi no Bakamaru (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you site a single source that says Jesus absolutely existed, or that the idea he might not have is “verifiably false” that is not made by a devout Christian? There are many religious scholars who are not Christian. Certainly if such a thing is verifiably false then someone without a vested (religious even) interest would say the same. Food for thought. It’s basically like saying that some guy Carl ate a churro at the San Diego zoo the other day, and any other claim is verifiably false because these five guys who believe in Carl are always talking about it and they all say that they found written accounts of Carl eating a churro. How that seems valid to you is wild to me. Like do you know you’re biased here and you just really want Wikipedia to say your religion is right, or have you deluded yourself to believe that it is in fact historical fact that just happen to match mythos 2600:1007:B0AF:CE83:D9F7:706C:7D6F:B276 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems disingenuous to list Richard Carrier in Note 1, when the quote ascribed to him is a description of his former view, before he had investigated the topic himself. Regardless of how Carrier's views should be treated by this article, it seems wrong to quote him in favor of a view which he himself does not hold. 71.117.171.70 (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Its feel that you haven't understood my point at all. My point of view is to not enter an edit war, but to try and reach a consensus with regards to the language used in this article, which is a poor reflection of the actual certainty with which claims can be made. Again, I'm not arguing that he did not exist, more the fact that, if the burden of proof lies with establishing that he did, one needs to examine the evidence critically. The quotes from the scholarly consensus should reflect the critical analysis they have done, rather than them using appeals to authority. Another main reason for this is that this is a historiographical article, not a biographical one.
There was a typo in the link I have provided, but I think it's unambiguous enough to find the article I intended. Again, character attacks are a fallacy, I feel that you would do better to use a nicer tone with other editors. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's more typical that Joshua Jonathan points out a mistake that simply concerns choosing the transliteration "Mohammed" that is preferred in several other languages instead of the English one?
Thanks for reminding me to have another look at Quest for the historical Jesus. The large section on Criticism has plenty of useful info like "The historical analysis techniques used by Biblical scholars have been questioned" and "A number of scholars have criticized historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" (all with reliable sources of course). Your remark "Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right?" seems spot on to me, but probably not in the way you meant it. Joortje1 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should take a better look at that article; what the Criticism-section says is that any "reconstruction" of a historical Jesus is hardly possible. That's why this article says there's 'almost universal consent' about only three facts: he existed, he was baptized, and he was crucified. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. None from that section refer to historicity, so none of it applies here. But also noting that checks and balances are mentioned there too. Just a side note, there are no universal historical methods among historians and their views on objectivity have declined. They recognize this, which is why historical research diversified in the twentieth century across the board (Georg Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge). And why we have various histories on race, gender, politics, and national narratives. But there are basic agreed upon facts in each field, however. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we state "Standard historical criteria are used", don't describe the currently used methodologies beyond "research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible", and thus merely suggest that the criteria are standard fare in some unspecified scholarly discipline(s) that discern(s) historical facts from myth?
Oh wait, we also mention one specific criterion as an argument for 2 'facts' (as far as I could find between all the claims about consensus versus fringe, because why would be bother explaining more about methodologies as long as there is a virtually absolute scholarly consensus?
Certainly it's more important to ignore the immense criticism on these criteria (mainly from within the academic discipline itself) because the general scholarly methodologies simply don't apply to historicity, right? And this contributes to the objectivity of the article, right? Joortje1 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so because no matter what methods they employ or what conclusions they come up with on a particular portrait of Jesus, they at least agree that Jesus existed. That is the point. Each discipline has criteria, but it is usually is very broad like use sources. Obviously using sources is pretty standard stuff. Sometimes they use stuff from memory studies too or methods from archeology too. But that does not alter such basics like existence. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't just claim existence, but also that he was baptised and crucified. I was only proposing modifying the language to make it softer, given the burden of proof is on proving these claims. I'm not denying scholarship or doing research. Also, one should be careful when one cites secondary sources not to cherrypick, which may be a concern with this article. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add a more practical thought: anybody can help make this artcile more objective by editing it, even in very simple ways, and hopefully without as much push-back as we receive when we put a proposal for change or a question on the talk page (unfortunately some active editors seem extremely strict on "we go by what the sources say" and don't appreciate any wp:commonsense editorial judgement, so we'll just have to try what sticks).
There are plenty of small adjustments that can put some of the cited claims into perspective, or just make some statements slightly more factual (for instance the profession of the claimants, whether a book is a popular one or a peer-reviewed academic publication for a reputable mainstream publisher, or the date for some sources that are more than just a few decades old, or even a change from present to past tense for at least the deceased authors).
Some claims leave out a bit of relevant context, which may therefore stick out to critical readers, so we can check the sources for additional thoughts that may put things back into perspective. Joortje1 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR or WP:SYN. It is the policy that we stick to what the sources say. Also multiple editors have already addressed this to you including you imposing your personal views of scholarship on the article in previous sections here in the talk. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary header #2[edit]

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

I've tried doing so. Even a very small edit like "a large consensus of historians believe it is likely that Jesus existed" has been met with stubborn pushback. I can't understand what the issue is, surely there's no certainty in the matter. The common response is often a dubious comparison to some other historical figure. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article - yes, because it is a fringe-view, rejected by 'virtually all acholars of the topic'. Carrier and Lataster are treated at the CMT-page, to which this page links; Bart Ehrman, among a few others, has been so kind to spend his valuable time at explaining why this is a fringe-view; most scholars won't even bother to do so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quantify how many scholars there are working on the topic, and what "virtually all scholars" means? I believe this should also be critically examined. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See:

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

Regarding Lataster's book, I can't even find it on Google Scholar. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Multiple editors besides me such as User:Mathglot, User:Jeppiz, User:desmay have already mentioned to Joortje1 that fringe scholars like Carrier and Lataster are WP:UNDUE per the WP:Fringe guidelines multiple times. It is obvious that the publisher DOES NOT make anyone mainstream. Any more than if David Irving were to get a peer reviewed publication for Holocaust denial, somehow would make his denialist fringe views mainstream or even accepted by the mainstream. Creationists get peer reviewed papers all the time, but are not featured in the Evolution article for example. Nor are holocaust deniers featured in the holocaust article. Mythicist Robert Price describes how scholars view CMT - "as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings." Thanks for those sources too. Marko's source clearly says "Although such theories have long been rejected by scholars regardless of their worldview (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics)" too. Carrier of course has been extensively criticized by historians like Daniel Gullotta [2] who document a high level of criticisms from mainstream scholars of every stripe and finds his arguments as unconvincing due to "lack of evidence, strained readings, and troublesome assumptions" and even reaffirms fringe status of mythicism "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." He rightly observes "Scholars, however, may rightly question whether Carrier’s work and those who evangelize it exhibit the necessary level of academic detachment...Whereas mythicists will accuse scholars of the historical Jesus of being apologists for the theology of historic Christianity, mythicists may in turn be accused of being apologists for a kind of dogmatic atheism." Lataster's book was actually originally a self published book co-written with Richard Carrier [3] as Lataster notes in Questioning the Historicity of Jesus in page 24 - further linking him directly with fringe scholars like Carrier. His own views are fringe as he pretty much regurgitates Carrier throughout the book. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seven references for Lataster; a blockbuster... Review link by Christopher M. Hansen:

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

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was exactly my main problem with this article, and your wording that its clearly a false comparison to equate the contrary view on the matter with creationism or climate denial. The latter theories go against a large body of evidence, whereas here we are relying on a few sources (even fewer unbiased) and a large body of secondary sources that _interpret_ the same sources. There is a clear lack of data and independent analysis, hence the language used is inaccurate, misleading, and portrays a false certainty on the matter.
Again, this article needs more critical scholarship, and literature that reflects the analysis of the primary sources that allow one to deduce the claims, rather than appeals to a majority or authority. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you to provide those sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ramos1990 is the one who offered the reliable sources you have been criticising above. This was in reply to my quest for some works on the subject by proper historians instead of the publications cited on the page (dominated by popular stuff by biblical scholars and theologians). They indeed seem more reliable when I look at the WP:RS guideline. Joortje1 (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for using academic sources, besides your appreciation of how Ehrman has spent his valuable time (I'm sure he has been sufficiently rewarded; the perpetuation of his views on his blog alone has apparently raised over a million $, he has clearly gained a lot of fans and followers, he clearly did influence the popular opinion on mythicism (which seems to have been his primary motive), and probably the book sales made even more $ than his blog).
Especially Petterson's review is intriguing. She objects to Carrier's methodology, but mainly because she does't understand anything about 'Bayle’s Theorem". Yet in her conclusion, she says that she doesn't disagree with Carrier's views on HoJ per se. She even regards it as pretty basic undergraduate material. If most other theologians and biblical scholars maintain that such stuff is entirely fringe in the academic world, why does she think it's so basic?
I personally doubt whether Carrier's application of Bayesian probability/uncertainty math is very sound, but I haven't looked into it. At least it's an attempt to go beyond assumptions (it seems a more scholarly and definitively a more scientific approach than believing that facts can be based on ancient hearsay documented in late copies of a religious narrative dominated by supernatural aspects, let alone ignoring any counter argument and ridiculing anybody who dares to questions the "clear and certain evidence"). But hey, I'm no expert on Bayesian calculation, why don't we go by what the sources say?
Lataster clearly motivated why he mostly ignored the religious views of theologians like Dunn. I personally don't agree with keeping Christians out of the debate, as long as everybody produces reasonable arguments (not just from faith or from atheistic norms). But I must admit I also have much trouble trying to find convincing arguments in books that mainly discuss divinity, resurrection and the Kingdom of God.
Lataster's survey of some literature on the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" methodologies from outside the field of Biblical studies/theology is a useful secondary source, in addition to all the "demise of authenticity" stuff from within the field. His chapter on Ehrman's popular book is just one of many useful academic secondary sources, pointing out where Ehrman does make sense and where he doesn't. Joortje1 (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One comment, I can almost guarantee any attempt of using Bayesian statistics here seems way out of place... it's a giant red flag. Almost like when you see arguments for free will that use the Godel incompleteness theorem... Is this another form of an appeal to authority fallacy? Or, in this case, a misuse of jargon fallacy? It seems like there's a lot of red flags in the source material on both sides... 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the irony wasn't lost on me (hence my "I'm no expert, why don't we go by what the sources say" remark). I'm truly not capable of judging the math involved, although perhaps a bit better than Petterson (see review cited above). I proposed to ignore Carrier's work, but somebody else rightfully pointed out that it is a recent "mainstream" peer-reviewed publication (yet she clearly doesn't intend to use her knowledge of this work for the article).
Unfortunately most sources on this topic indeed contain huge red flags (hence my talk page Topic question for material by more reliable "scholars of antiquity"). A handful of monographs on HoJ/Mythicism have been published in the last decade or so that are supposedly "academic", apparently kicked off by Ehrman's popular book breaking biblical scholarship's strict taboo/ignorance/silence on addressing the question whether J existed or not.
The only more or less objective publication I have found is historian Tom Dykstra’s 2015 survey of the literature in Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship. Part of his conclusion: "To a degree greater than that in many other academic fields, you have to take pronouncements of fact by biblical scholars with a grain of salt. And those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain toward contrary opinions are precisely the ones to be most wary about." Note that this was published in the Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies and that Dykstra is quite explicit about the "waste of time" in "the drive to answer the unanswerable" that is part of the "character of scholarly writing in the field of biblical studies". Joortje1 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really found the article by Dykstra very interesting, and perhaps the sources there indicate that the true state of the scholarly consensus is more complicated. Also, interesting to see similar themes with regards to the scholarship play out on this discussion forum... For example, it seems that one major contributor to the idea that it's ridiculous to think otherwise that Jesus existed (along with comparisons to Holocaust denial) is Bart Ehrmann.
Is there any way we can integrate this review paper (and sources therein) into the article? 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok seeing the discussion above, this seems like an uphill battle... 2A02:3032:303:F63B:574E:C9E5:584A:641E (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dykstra[edit]

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

Yep. He focuses on reconstructions with his comment when he says "those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain", not historicity. On historicity he says "I do not myself take a stand firmly on either side of the question." and also "The whole debate seems a lost cause for both sides". Ramos1990 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990 It's also the case that one of the central pieces of supporting evidence is the existence of many independent sources feeding into the New Testament. But the existence of such is hypothetical (with no way to prove that these sources actually exist), and also doesn't prove his existence. They would prove the existence of an early Christian community, organised around a legendary figure. My personal opinion is that it was inspired by a real figure; but the real evidence is much more tenuous than Ehrman (and others) makes it out to be. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking specific quotes from that paper out of context, much of it deals rather directly with evidence related to the historicity of Jesus. He deals with issues related to deducing historical facts from the bible, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate, and other flaws (such as, often used, character attacks).
He doesn't take a stand either way with regards to the question, because, due to the uncertainty in the evidence, historical agnosticism with respect to the matter is, to him, a more logical position. I'd definitely suggest that this is a relevant piece to this article. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's ridiculous to make comparisons between the non existence of Jesus and Creationism. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear he is not endorsing either side but acknowledges consensus too and the paper is about tolerance and respect for opposing views in the quest for the historical jesus. He says even in the end that it is a waste of time for such questions and that it proves nothing either way. He clearly is against certainty claims on both sides at the end - shoots at both - and merely says that everything is debatable and seems to suggest abandoning historical attempts on historicity. Not a prominent view on the matter in mainstream scholarship or even fringe scholarship either way. Like he observes, both use "certainty" language. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Tom Dykstra? As far as I can see, he's a historian specializing in Russian church history? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On academia his listed specialties are: "Origins of Christianity, Russian History, and Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" [4]https://independent.academia.edu/TomDykstra/CurriculumVitae
Somehow, to me personally, his 2004 PhD in History (Dissertation: “‘Josephism’ Reconsidered) alone already makes his article a relatively reliable and reputable source for a historical question about the origin of Christianity.
I'd imagine a judge who would have to decide whether Ehrman's cited statements hold true would probably rather call on Dykstra as an objective expert, than on any theologian who concentrates on Kingdom of God (Christianity) as a mission for the "historical Jesus", or a certain long deceased classicist who "read classics" at Trinity College in the 1930s (specialising in numismatics) and defended HoJ in 1977 in a popular book as a "historian", or a certain deceased popular historian/journalist who was educated at a Jesuit college and explicitly wrote his biography of J as a "believer". (note: I'm not saying we should delete the currently cited voices)
If you look at the mission of the publisher of the article, I do think the criterion of embarassment might convince people who prefer the methodologies of biblical scholars over the more mainstream historical method. Joortje1 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that it's hard to find publications on HoJ by historians (who actually studied History), I suspect that Dykstra's voice may resemble that of a silent majority. But of course it seems even harder to find sources for that idea. Joortje1 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Revert[edit]

Hi, I reverted your add on public perceptions [5] 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 [6] and similar numbers for the Netherlands [7]) and moon landing (1 in 5 Europeans think it was a hoax [8]) 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)[reply]

50,000,000 Elvis-fans can't be wrong, can they? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We have a page on the Christ myth theory, don't we? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Opinions of white old man[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ironically, all of the CMT-proponents are white males. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Lataster's ancient history professor reviews his work [9]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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 [10] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Arbitrary header #1[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Arbitrary header #2[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah. So, if we just remove it, issue settled - for the moment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oxford Handbook of Jewish Life in Roman Palestine. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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."[1]

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

References

  1. ^ Davis, 2004, p. 147.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

This is not good chronicling[edit]

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)[reply]