Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

Strong claims and unclear reasoning
The article at current seems flawed to me in that it makes very strong claims, i.e. that the argument over Jesus historicity has been "settled", but then proceeds to motivate the "settling" of the argument by refering solely to the Criterion of Embarrassment. There is however no consensus within the historical community that the Criterion of Embarrassment is a strong enough tool to prove historical facts about events thousands of years ago, by itself. As such, while the claim that historicity has been settled is sourced with claims from a few scholars who seem to think so, or at least claim so, the article fails to persuasively cover why they think so, referring only to one, quite weak, argument. If the strong claims are to be kept they ought to be complemented with high-quality coverage of the strong and persuasive arguments in favor of the "settled" conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryFBonds (talk • contribs) 11:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I'm afraid to say, with the current language, the article seems unscientific. I'm not denying that Jesus possibly existed, but the burden of proof lies on proving that he did, which requires more critical analysis of the evidence. 2A02:3031:17:25E9:1:1:F038:BD16 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources in Note 1 and Note 2. Experts describe the situation as such in their own words. Even irreligious one like Ehrman, Grant, Casey, etc. Wikipedia goes by what sources say, not random editor POV on the matter. Also see FAQ "Quotes" section for dozens of sources on this and "Q3" on books claiming the opposite in this talk page for your concerns. Actually read the whole FAQ since this has been answered so many times in the talk. Even mythicists like Robert Price, formerly G.A Wells, Michael Martin, etc acknowledge the consensus.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, another thing that stands out is the various appeals to authority and character attacks used in the sources. Quotes such as "No serious scholar thinks he didn't exist". It fails to qualify the uncertainty in the evidence and comes across as unscientific. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My point of view is not to reject the consensus, rather use softer, more scientifically accurate language. I think this point has not been refuted. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether that consensus is accurate is another matter. I'm trying to reach a compromise here. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, an FAQ created by editors that have a clear, strong opinion on the topic, and are unwilling to compromise, isn't a way to resolve the issue. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits diff are unwarranted and suggestive. You changed "agree" in "believe"; it's not a matter of "belief," but of conclusions based on painstakingly textual analysis. You also expanded 'CMT [...] fringe theory' with "among scholars active in the area." This is misplaced; it suggests that there are scholars, or areas of scholarship, where the CMT is taken serious. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  12:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The contrary perspective is not the Christ myth theory. It's whether Jesus existed in a manner consistent with the claims written in the article.
 * Going on evidence from thousands of years ago definitely requires some level of belief. Questions on this matter, given the religious bias, cannot be treated with the same level of certainty, as, say, the existence of climate change.
 * An often used argument by you two is that "wikipedia goes by the sources". The problem is, the overwhelming body of sources used in this article are secondary sources that cite each other, rather than direct primary sources. The cherrypicking concern is not one to be readily swept away by fallacious appeals to authority. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is also such strong langauge to call the CMT a fringe theory. Again, compare with climate science denial. It doesn't matter whether the technical usage of the term may be regarded as correct, more the interpretation by the lay reader. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See the policy WP:SECONDARY. Also there is no CMT scholarship anywhere in academia. A recent extensive scholarly survey of CMT literature by Maurice Casey [in Note 2] "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship...They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications." Indeed, they do not even pop up as an entry in Oxford Reference which covers all the humanities including all historical fields. It is not a view in any fields of scholarship. Here is another scholar who did a survey of the literature . 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.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, appeal to authority. The secondary sources used seem unbiased: wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but those that analyse primary sources. It would be better if the quotes reflect actual scholarly efforts rather than "everybody thinks so...". The latter, in my experience, is a giant red flag in an argument. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:Fringe for how wikipedia works in representing views according to their actual prominence in scholarship. Fringe views do not get equal time with consensus views in wikipedia.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion its not a matter of whether or not the label is correct, more the interpretation of the lay reader. Compare with climate science denial, which is more or less the canonical fringe theory. I think using this label here is a misrepresentation of the facts. I'm happy with softer language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Most facts in Ancient history are based upon scant evidence. There is more reason to doubt that Julius Caesar was killed by Brutus than there is to doubt that Jesus of Nazareth really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that ancient history is a softer science. But with regards to biographical details of Caesar, there are a lot more sources, which are also more objective (coming from historians of the time period). With regards to Jesus, however, the evidence is far less, especially given the obvious bias with regards to biblical literature.
 * I am not saying he didn't exist, in fact, his existence may be more likely than not. But the strong language used in this article makes very bold claims, which don't match the evidence. Fallacious appeals to authority, and character arguments also make this article look unprofessional and unscientific. Which, for the lay reader, is a cause for concern. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a reference, the Historicity of Mohammed article uses much better language. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * &mdash;you might want to read WP:VERECUNDIAM, and then a handbook of logic: appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, especially when we never perform "rational argumentation" but we merely WP:CITE the views of experts.
 * We don't have a problem with atheists. We don't have a problem with Christians. We do have a problem with epistemically irresponsible people. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the fact that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy, the problem is the way the argumentation for the historicity in this article has been carried out. The quotes included from the experts are using appeals to authority. Far better would be quotes that reflect a critical analysis of the evidence. My point isn't to make a dramatic change to this article, more use softer, more scientifically appropriate language. I don't think the logic behind my edit has been refuted. Also, please refrain from character attacks (another fallacy I might add). 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, then gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Till now, nobody else agrees with you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would refer to numerous similar comments above in the talk history. You haven't engaged with my reasoning either. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If we're second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP: perhaps Julius Caesar died by falling upon his own sword, and Brutus was scapegoated. It is unlikely, but is far more likely than Jesus not existing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the latter has far more evidence, without religious bias, and thus not an appropriate comparison. There must be a way of using a softer, more scientific tone in this article. The article on the historicity of Mohammed, for example, discusses the primary sources first, and the ones which are flawed, before stating the conclusion.
 * Again, I'm just trying to make the article reflect the uncertainties associated with the available evidence. Let alone the big claim that he was "baptized". I might add that the fact that the FAQ page exists at all reflects the fact that the main editors of this article do not truly reflect the consensus. I believe some compromises need to be made.
 * I'm not denying the sources. But let's please try to remove the tone from the article that makes his existence seem like an irrefutable fact. Especially considering the page is "historicity of Jesus" and not the biographical page. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not second-guessing mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You can doubt every fact of Ancient history through paying lip service to rationality. It does not work like that around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not denying it, more saying we should reach a compromise to use softer language. Compare with related historicity articles. 2A02:3031:16:F290:1:1:F55E:4EBB (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's like the Shakespeare authorship question&mdash;such question does not really exist among experts in that field.
 * You can adduce no WP:RS that what you're advocating is even remotely a mainstream academic view. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are clearly scolars who subscribe to CMT, e.g. Richard Carrier, and this list of his, iterating 44 different scolars in relevant fields
 * https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420
 * Not questioning that the majority - or consensus, even - view amounts to that Jesus was a historical person. Just highlighting that declaring the question "settled" and then not bothering to properly account for the totality of arguments offered by the consensus majority - only the very weak argument of Criterion of Embarrassment - makes for a poor quality article that makes very strong, firm claims without bothering to properly summarize the substantiating evidence. GaryFBonds (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There most certainly is not "more reason" to doubt Brutus' hand in the murder of Julius Caesar; there is an equal amount of reason to disbelieve both, though if anything there is actually less reason to doubt Brutus' involvement than that of Jesus' existence, insofar as primary sources regarding Caesar's assassination come from mere decades after the fact, while the vast, vast majority of records of Jesus as a real person come from centuries after. What's more is that these records come from contemporary historians, officials in the Roman governing and educational body, etc., whereas basically all "evidence" of Jesus' existence come from religious figures that have a clear bias in recounting his existence at all. The closest one can come to the evidence of Julius Caesar's assassination, in terms of actual records from professional and at least somewhat contemporary sources, is the records of Tacitus. Even there, Tacitus was born a quarter century after Jesus' supposed execution, and he writes from a secular standpoint, more as a prelude to expanding upon Nero's persecution of Christians than anything--something this very article fails to mention, despite mentioning Tacitus as a reliable source. Kyuubi no Bakamaru (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * Its feel that you haven't understood my point at all. My point of view is to not enter an edit war, but to try and reach a consensus with regards to the language used in this article, which is a poor reflection of the actual certainty with which claims can be made. Again, I'm not arguing that he did not exist, more the fact that, if the burden of proof lies with establishing that he did, one needs to examine the evidence critically. The quotes from the scholarly consensus should reflect the critical analysis they have done, rather than them using appeals to authority. Another main reason for this is that this is a historiographical article, not a biographical one.
 * There was a typo in the link I have provided, but I think it's unambiguous enough to find the article I intended. Again, character attacks are a fallacy, I feel that you would do better to use a nicer tone with other editors. 2A02:3032:308:78AA:317B:8347:5C26:FA97 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's more typical that Joshua Jonathan points out a mistake that simply concerns choosing the transliteration "Mohammed" that is preferred in several other languages instead of the English one?
 * Thanks for reminding me to have another look at Quest for the historical Jesus. The large section on Criticism has plenty of useful info like "The historical analysis techniques used by Biblical scholars have been questioned" and "A number of scholars have criticized historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness" (all with reliable sources of course). Your remark "Don't bother about scholarship when you believe something, right?" seems spot on to me, but probably not in the way you meant it. Joortje1 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You should take a better look at that article; what the Criticism-section says is that any "reconstruction" of a historical Jesus is hardly possible. That's why this article says there's 'almost universal consent' about only three facts: he existed, he was baptized, and he was crucified. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. None from that section refer to historicity, so none of it applies here. But also noting that checks and balances are mentioned there too. Just a side note, there are no universal historical methods among historians and their views on objectivity have declined. They recognize this, which is why historical research diversified in the twentieth century across the board (Georg Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge). And why we have various histories on race, gender, politics, and national narratives. But there are basic agreed upon facts in each field, however.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So we state "Standard historical criteria are used", don't describe the currently used methodologies beyond "research on the historical Jesus focuses on what is historically probable, or plausible", and thus merely suggest that the criteria are standard fare in some unspecified scholarly discipline(s) that discern(s) historical facts from myth?
 * Oh wait, we also mention one specific criterion as an argument for 2 'facts' (as far as I could find between all the claims about consensus versus fringe, because why would be bother explaining more about methodologies as long as there is a virtually absolute scholarly consensus?
 * Certainly it's more important to ignore the immense criticism on these criteria (mainly from within the academic discipline itself) because the general scholarly methodologies simply don't apply to historicity, right? And this contributes to the objectivity of the article, right? Joortje1 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so because no matter what methods they employ or what conclusions they come up with on a particular portrait of Jesus, they at least agree that Jesus existed. That is the point. Each discipline has criteria, but it is usually is very broad like use sources. Obviously using sources is pretty standard stuff. Sometimes they use stuff from memory studies too or methods from archeology too. But that does not alter such basics like existence.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't just claim existence, but also that he was baptised and crucified. I was only proposing modifying the language to make it softer, given the burden of proof is on proving these claims. I'm not denying scholarship or doing research. Also, one should be careful when one cites secondary sources not to cherrypick, which may be a concern with this article. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To add a more practical thought: anybody can help make this artcile more objective by editing it, even in very simple ways, and hopefully without as much push-back as we receive when we put a proposal for change or a question on the talk page (unfortunately some active editors seem extremely strict on "we go by what the sources say" and don't appreciate any wp:commonsense editorial judgement, so we'll just have to try what sticks).
 * There are plenty of small adjustments that can put some of the cited claims into perspective, or just make some statements slightly more factual (for instance the profession of the claimants, whether a book is a popular one or a peer-reviewed academic publication for a reputable mainstream publisher, or the date for some sources that are more than just a few decades old, or even a change from present to past tense for at least the deceased authors).
 * Some claims leave out a bit of relevant context, which may therefore stick out to critical readers, so we can check the sources for additional thoughts that may put things back into perspective. Joortje1 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR or WP:SYN. It is the policy that we stick to what the sources say. Also multiple editors have already addressed this to you including you imposing your personal views of scholarship on the article in previous sections here in the talk.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2
Yes, of course, why do you think we wouldn't keep the guidelines in mind? I basically gave the advice to check the verifiability and to WP:MINE the cited sources. WP:RS: “Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process”. And of course there's WP:5P5, especially WP:COMMONSENSE and also WP:CSIOR. Could you maybe consider when your ad infinitum standard replies may go over the fine line between [insert your reason for reply here] and WP:LAWYERING or WP:HEAR, or maybe a bit of WP:OWN? You know I backed up my "personal" views with some RS that may actually deserve some place on the page. But you personally brought up these mainstream peer-reviewed volumes that seem to be even more reputable and much more critical of biblical scholarship: -On the Historicity of Jesus by historian Richard Carrier (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press) -Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers, available to active wikipedians via WikipediaLibrary) (note that wikipedia explicitly calls the academic discipline that Lataster worked in "Objective study of religion", although it has nonetheless been criticised for imposing a theological Christian agenda. Sorry for being slow with reading and processing all that information (between other tasks and distractions), but is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article (despite that Carrier-quote in this thread)? Joortje1 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried doing so. Even a very small edit like "a large consensus of historians believe it is likely that Jesus existed" has been met with stubborn pushback. I can't understand what the issue is, surely there's no certainty in the matter. The common response is often a dubious comparison to some other historical figure. 2A02:3032:300:D1F9:90B7:1DB4:9827:C24C (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding is there any reason why you still haven't used these sources for the article - yes, because it is a fringe-view, rejected by 'virtually all acholars of the topic'. Carrier and Lataster are treated at the CMT-page, to which this page links; Bart Ehrman, among a few others, has been so kind to spend his valuable time at explaining why this is a fringe-view; most scholars won't even bother to do so. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  19:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you quantify how many scholars there are working on the topic, and what "virtually all scholars" means? I believe this should also be critically examined. 2A02:3032:308:857F:8685:98A4:E83E:4254 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See:
 * Christina Petterson, review of OtHoJ for a scholarly review of Carrier: "parallel universe," "the fundamentalist drive of the book."
 * Marko Marina, Historical Jesus and Mythicism: A Critical Evaluation of Richard Carrier’s Theory:
 * Regarding Lataster's book, I can't even find it on Google Scholar. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. Multiple editors besides me such as User:Mathglot, User:Jeppiz, User:desmay have already mentioned to Joortje1 that fringe scholars like Carrier and Lataster are WP:UNDUE per the WP:Fringe guidelines multiple times. It is obvious that the publisher DOES NOT make anyone mainstream. Any more than if David Irving were to get a peer reviewed publication for Holocaust denial, somehow would make his denialist fringe views mainstream or even accepted by the mainstream. Creationists get peer reviewed papers all the time, but are not featured in the Evolution article for example. Nor are holocaust deniers featured in the holocaust article. Mythicist Robert Price describes how scholars view CMT - "as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings." Thanks for those sources too. Marko's source clearly says "Although such theories have long been rejected by scholars regardless of their worldview (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics)" too. Carrier of course has been extensively criticized by historians like Daniel Gullotta 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  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.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. Multiple editors besides me such as User:Mathglot, User:Jeppiz, User:desmay have already mentioned to Joortje1 that fringe scholars like Carrier and Lataster are WP:UNDUE per the WP:Fringe guidelines multiple times. It is obvious that the publisher DOES NOT make anyone mainstream. Any more than if David Irving were to get a peer reviewed publication for Holocaust denial, somehow would make his denialist fringe views mainstream or even accepted by the mainstream. Creationists get peer reviewed papers all the time, but are not featured in the Evolution article for example. Nor are holocaust deniers featured in the holocaust article. Mythicist Robert Price describes how scholars view CMT - "as a discredited piece of lunatic fringe thought alongside Holocaust Denial and skepticism about the Apollo moon landings." Thanks for those sources too. Marko's source clearly says "Although such theories have long been rejected by scholars regardless of their worldview (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics)" too. Carrier of course has been extensively criticized by historians like Daniel Gullotta 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  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.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


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

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


 * Yep. He focuses on reconstructions with his comment when he says "those who express the most confidence in historical reconstructions or the sharpest disdain", not historicity. On historicity he says "I do not myself take a stand firmly on either side of the question." and also "The whole debate seems a lost cause for both sides".&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ramos1990 It's also the case that one of the central pieces of supporting evidence is the existence of many independent sources feeding into the New Testament. But the existence of such is hypothetical (with no way to prove that these sources actually exist), and also doesn't prove his existence. They would prove the existence of an early Christian community, organised around a legendary figure. My personal opinion is that it was inspired by a real figure; but the real evidence is much more tenuous than Ehrman (and others) makes it out to be. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking specific quotes from that paper out of context, much of it deals rather directly with evidence related to the historicity of Jesus. He deals with issues related to deducing historical facts from the bible, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate, and other flaws (such as, often used, character attacks).
 * He doesn't take a stand either way with regards to the question, because, due to the uncertainty in the evidence, historical agnosticism with respect to the matter is, to him, a more logical position. I'd definitely suggest that this is a relevant piece to this article. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it's ridiculous to make comparisons between the non existence of Jesus and Creationism. 2A02:3032:307:88A5:605F:A196:12C1:604D (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is clear he is not endorsing either side but acknowledges consensus too and the paper is about tolerance and respect for opposing views in the quest for the historical jesus. He says even in the end that it is a waste of time for such questions and that it proves nothing either way. He clearly is against certainty claims on both sides at the end - shoots at both - and merely says that everything is debatable and seems to suggest abandoning historical attempts on historicity. Not a prominent view on the matter in mainstream scholarship or even fringe scholarship either way. Like he observes, both use "certainty" language.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Who is Tom Dykstra? As far as I can see, he's a historian specializing in Russian church history? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On academia his listed specialties are: "Origins of Christianity, Russian History, and Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" [Https://independent.academia.edu/TomDykstra/CurriculumVitae https://independent.academia.edu/TomDykstra/CurriculumVitae]
 * Somehow, to me personally, his 2004 PhD in History (Dissertation: “‘Josephism’ Reconsidered) alone already makes his article a relatively reliable and reputable source for a historical question about the origin of Christianity.
 * I'd imagine a judge who would have to decide whether Ehrman's cited statements hold true would probably rather call on Dykstra as an objective expert, than on any theologian who concentrates on Kingdom of God (Christianity) as a mission for the "historical Jesus", or a certain long deceased classicist who "read classics" at Trinity College in the 1930s (specialising in numismatics) and defended HoJ in 1977 in a popular book as a "historian", or a certain deceased popular historian/journalist who was educated at a Jesuit college and explicitly wrote his biography of J as a "believer". (note: I'm not saying we should delete the currently cited voices)
 * If you look at the mission of the publisher of the article, I do think the criterion of embarassment might convince people who prefer the methodologies of biblical scholars over the more mainstream historical method. Joortje1 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing that it's hard to find publications on HoJ by historians (who actually studied History), I suspect that Dykstra's voice may resemble that of a silent majority. But of course it seems even harder to find sources for that idea. Joortje1 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #1
Mainstream Bible scholars use the name "Palestine". Why? I don't know, but they do. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Your comments that my edits are politically motivated are WP:ASPERSIONS relating to WP:ARBPIA. The fact is that WP:COMMONNAME is Palestine. I know it because I read several books about the historical Jesus, written by mainstream Bible scholars. You see party politics where there is just WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please indicate precisely where I accused your comments, specifically, of being politically motivated. It is quite clear that because, never in the history of this article until December of this year, was the term "in Palestine" included in the article, that there is polemic, reasoning. You are casting aspersions about what I said, which is inappropriate. "Several books" are not a source, please indicate your source that shows a consensus of "mainstream biblical scholars" use the contemporary name, "Palestine" in reference to where Jesus lived and we can move the discussion forward. "I said so" is not a valid citation. Please further indicate why contemporary names should be used for a historical figure in this specific instance, but not in others. Ironcladded (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't write the WP:PAG WP:COMMONNAME, but you and me both are expected to obey it. Bart Ehrman's trade books and his university handbooks usually speak of "Palestine" when referring to Jesus's land. In doubt, count all mentions of "Palestine" or "Palestinian" from User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a recent section on Palestine or Judea above where this was discussed a bit. Many editors seem to revert to Palestine too.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, just in case: those quotations from Bible scholars were not compiled with Palestine in mind, but with the NT gospels being anonymous in mind. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure: I don't follow the endless fights between Israelis and Palestinians and I'm not editing to support either side of the conflict. I understand politics, I don't do politics (for many years). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just cite your sources that "biblical scholars" use the name Palestine to refer to the area where "Jesus of Galilee" is from. Galilee and Jesus are synonymous. The term "Palestine" was never used on this article before December of this year.
 * "Read this book" is not a citation. Provide an actual citation or drop the claim and admit the error. Ironcladded (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying there are other people with the opinion before there is consensus, therefore one opinion is valid, is not how it works here, is it? Ironcladded (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, the opinions of the editors don't decide the matter, WP:RS decide the matter. Just count how many times "Palestine" or "Palestinian" appeared as bycatch for the gospels being anonymous. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have requested your citations that the name Palestine was in use for the Roman area of Judea between the start of the first century and its conclusion, in contravention to historical fact. I have also requested your citation that "biblical scholars" refer to Jesus as being from "Palestine". Asking me to read a random book is not evidence for your statement, show me clear evidence that a consensus of Biblical scholars refer to the area Jesus lived in as Palestine. Thanks. Ironcladded (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hint: "Judea" or "Israel" appear 0 times, meaning inside those 44 quotations from User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. "Galilee" (or "Galilean") appears only once. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I imply you mentioned Judea or Israel? I never said the word Israel. I'm asking you to cite your sources, I thought you were good at winning debates? If that's the case, providing evidence for your definitive claims should be easy. Ironcladded (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many verses from the Bible that mention Judea:

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

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

"When Herod had sought for him, and didn't find him, he examined the guards, and commanded that they should be put to death. He went down from Judea to Caesarea, and stayed there." Shall I continue? Ironcladded (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * According to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, the Bible isn't WP:RS. At User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 I have WP:CITED more than 40 different Bible scholars, including mainstream Bible scholars and traditionalist/fundamentalist Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We have to go with WP:SECONDARY sources like Tgeorgescu has said, not WP:PRIMARY sources. The secondary sources interpret any primary sources with better understanding of context.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Up to and including 02:02, the discussion wasn't about the Bible, but about Bible scholars.
 * They think I'm either an ally or an enemy: I'm neither. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I suggest the Bible is a reliable source. You cited 40 scholars, 5 of whom mentioned Palestine. 1/8. Hardly a consensus. Furthermore, cite me an actual source that the name of the region, relative to its time, was Palestine. Contemporary names are not used for historical figures, these are people using a contemporary name for ease of understanding to modern readings. None of these indicate that the name of the region was "Palestine". This is not good faith debating.
 * "Biblical scholars" using a contemporary name for a region, in a few instances, is not, logically, a statement that Jesus was from a land that was, at the time, called "Palestine". Ironcladded (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, Mainstream Bible scholars use the name "Palestine". I did not say Jesus's land was called Palestine in the 1st century CE. Big difference. I also said that I was simply not looking for "Palestine" when I gathered those quotes. "Palestine" is bycatch.
 * If you're seeking "confirmation", see e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=ehrman+jesus+%22palestine%22&tbm=bks (although, unusual for Google Books, many quotations are not immediately rendered). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If we can mutually admit the name of the area he was from was not Palestine, then why call it Palestine, which is a contemporary term? Would you call Fidel Castro, "Caribbean", or Cuban? The usage of Palestine here is entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, sending me a list of books to read does not support your point. That is not a citation. First prove to me that a large number of biblical scholars use the term in non-contemporaneous ways. Then, cite me a study on the topic or something similar. An amalgamation of 40 books. only 5 of which use the term in a contemporary way, does not prove your point. Ironcladded (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The obvious conclusion: you have no clue about how mainstream Bible scholars write. Many of those 40 books probably say that Jesus was from Palestine (I did not check it, but it is not an unreasonable guess). This is the scholarly jargon for that region. Find better things to do than WP:RGW. Even if your intention is not to disrupt Wikipedia, you come across as disruptive. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Historians refer to events from long before the birth of Amerigo Vespucci as occurring in North America, too. Your proposed avoidance of 'contemporary terms' is simply not a thing. MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "The obvious conclusion: you have no clue about how mainstream Bible scholars write". Personal attacks are not how you debate, and this is not a good faith statement.
 * "Many of those 40 books probably say that Jesus was from Palestine (I did not check it, but it is not an unreasonable guess)." You are making a definitive statement and providing 40 random books that you say "probably" validate what you're saying. Do you not see the issue here? You aren't citing definitive sources that say, definitively, what you are suggesting, because there are none. Ironcladded (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Please tell me on the article about Caesar if he is referred to as "Roman" or "Italian"? Is "Brasidas" a Greek general, or a Spartan one? Is Fidel Castro a Caribbean ruler, or a Cuban one? We could do this all day. I'm not able to understand your comment or your reference.
 * Cite me specific examples of historical figures from specific regions being referred to in contemporary terms, like the examples I gave. Ironcladded (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, another search: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aruml.com+palestine&client=ubuntu-sn . This is of course not "bulletproof evidence", but it shows at least a hint that scholars do commonly use the name "Palestine". tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sending me a list of books you admittedly did not read, in the hope that they "probably" say what you want, is not how you debate. This is becoming incredibly circular and hilariously fanciful. One of your sources even refers to Judea and Samaria, specifically.
 * Adding to an article because you feel that something is "probably" true is entirely inappropriate and that should be transparent to a third-party. Ironcladded (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Forget for a moment about dialectics and debating standards, since this is not Debatepedia. I'm trying to teach you something you completely ignore. There is no good argument which can force you to learn something you don't want to learn. You're moving the goalposts: even if many people are able to perform a study that mainstream Bible scholars commonly use the name "Palestine", there is no incentive to research something all the insiders already know. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My goalposts remain fixed from the initial discussion. I don't see why the emphasis is being placed on Biblical scholars, logically, in the first place, but I'll entertain it. How I entertain it is by asking you for authoritative sources that "Biblical Scholars" say Jesus was from a land called "Palestine". You have been unable and unwilling to do this, outside of a few examples in contemporary usage. We don't call Caesar an "Italian" emperor or Brasidas a "Greek" general. We call them Roman and Spartan, respectively, because that was the name of the region where those individuals were from at the time of their existence. My preference is to call the region what it was called in his time, which is the standard of this website and historical documents. Usage of modern-terms for ancient locations is not, generally, almost ever, done. I see no reason that should change here. Ironcladded (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You ignore both scholarly jargon and the customary WP:RULES of Wikipedia. But please tell us some Bible scholarship books which you did read. Otherwise this feels like arguing with somebody unwilling to learn. Being unwilling to learn is not a token of wisdom, but a symptom of lacking WP:CIR.
 * If you want to know what I have read, I was reading books by Bart Ehrman and citing them inside Wikipedia to the extent of raising eyebrows.
 * Again: you're making sophisticated dialectical arguments, which only tell one thing, namely that you refuse to learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please indicate how I am 'ignoring' "scholarly jargon" or customary rules? Which rules, exactly?
 * "But please tell us some Bible scholarship books which you did read" Sending me a list of books to read is not a validation of your point. This is so logically fallacious it doesn't warrant a response and will be a transparent misdirect to a third party.
 * "Being unwilling to learn is not a token of wisdom, but a symptom of lacking"
 * I'm willing to learn about Biblical scholarship, and nothing that I said can be construed otherwise. Giving me a list of books you didn't read and claiming that they said something with zero citation does not prove your point.
 * You can't address my arguments because you don't have a point. You are making definitive statements on things that you feel, and I quote, are "probably" true, and in contravention to history. I'm sorry history doesn't suit your narrative, but that really is inconsequential as far as the naming of the region Jesus lived in, which was, indisputably, Judea. You have not given me a good reason why Judea should not be used, as this was objectively the name of the region he was from at the time he lived. Let's agree to have a third opinion on the topic because you're arguing from things you want to be true, and I'm arguing from things that are provable to be true. Ironcladded (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You had opinions from and . If you wanted to offer the ultimate proof that all human knowledge is circular: read Martin Heidegger, he made the point about hermeneutic circularity long ago. Your numerous appeals to logic only say that you're unwilling to learn Bible scholarship and unwilling to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk)  04:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are far more coherent opinions on this matter than from Ramos, who oddly, commented on a report you made against me. This is why you added a new revision. We will have to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanics to fix this, because it is clear only one part is willing to have a good faith discussion here. Good day. Ironcladded (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Argument from fallacy. See also WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguing from fallacies has been the problem with this entire discussion. Nowhere did I appeal to authority. You are factually incorrect and unwilling to admit it. Ironcladded (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I might not be the brightest mind in logic, but I have learned enough logic to not be afraid of logicians. Or, as Hegel made the point: learning logic does not teach people to think logically. Especially when they think that abstract pontificates about logic replace positive knowledge.
 * The point being, however: you did not appeal to authority, the rest of us did. Perhaps you should read WP:VERECUNDIAM instead of pontificating about what it might say without reading it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is being regressed off the rails, and you still haven't provided a reason why a contemporary term, Palestine, should be used for the first time ever, on this article, in December of this year. The name of the region was, factually, "Judea". Caesar was not Italian, Brasidas was not Greek, and Jesus did not live in "Palestine", he lived in Judea, which was the name of the Roman province until 132CE. Ironcladded (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. You might want to read that too, instead of pontificating what it means without having read it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of what a Common name is in the context of Wikipedia. You are not explaining to me why the common name is being used to explain where he is from. Why not Earth? Why not the Middle East? Why not the Levant? They're all common names, too. Just abstracted even larger. Jesus was from Judea, period. Your attestation that "Palestine" is more correct is incorrect. Palestine refers to a large geographical region, Judea refers, specifically, to where Jesus was from. The motivations for the use of that term could not be more transparent. Ironcladded (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Cool down, it was reductio ad absurdum. In fact, I have WP:CITED Cohen and Baden several times: I'm not the one who hates them. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would ask if somebody was "Jewish" enough for me? They used a term contemporarily for a discussion in modern discourse, which is not uncommon. You can state your case in dispute resolution rather than continuing to poison the well. Ironcladded (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My point: not only Bible professors who are Christians commonly use the term "Palestine", but Bible professors who are Jewish commonly use it, too. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing the fact that people use the contemporary word, "Palestine", in contemporary times. It is the meaning of the word, after all. Nowhere did I mention that this was a conversation that had to do with being Jewish, Christian, or anything else. Your direct insinuation that I only accept "Jewish" scholars, as if my position is a "Jewish" one, was flagrantly antisemitic and political. I am disputing that most Biblical scholars would say Jesus was from "Palestine" and not "Judea", which is incorrect. If you can admit he is from Judea, there is zero reason to edit the word to "Palestine" for the first time ever, in December 2023 of this year. Make your case in dispute resolution under the appropriate thread rather than replying here and retroactively trying to walk back your comment about whether or not somebody was "jewish enough" for my standards. Ironcladded (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * About WP:BURDEN: you should provide a peer-reviewed study that all the scholars I have cited for my argument use the term politically, instead of scholarly. I'd bet you can't do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I say the scholars used the term "politically"? Nowhere, another non-sequitur. This discussion is nothing but personal attacks, now antisemitic rhetoric, and non-sequiturs coming from you. I said you did, and cited the fact you asked if random authors were "Jewish" enough for me out of thin air. Ironcladded (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But you do want me to provide a peer-reviewed study that the term is not used politically. Or has that changed, meanwhile? tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur. I am asking you to defend your decision to remove the name Judea and supplant it with Palestine, which is a contemporary term for a more geographically broad region. I am not asking you to defend the usage of the term Palestine in contemporary usage, for the 18th time. I have asked you that from the beginning. I am questioning your intent because you decided to ask me if random people were "Jewish" enough for me, insinuating, quite directly, that my argument is predicated on being Jewish. Ironcladded (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But you are insinuating that my edits are "political," and anti-Israel politics is not very far from antisemitism. So the objection that bona fide Jewish scholars use the term is a quite germane objection to your claims.
 * Besides, this discussion is about the usage of the term Palestine in contemporary scholarly usage about 1st century CE. Not about anything else. If you want to discuss anything else, you should avoid this talk page according to WP:NOTAFORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2
Dunn, Jesus remembered, p.257-258: "the usage itself is very old and common among Greco-Roman writers. Herodotus in the fifth century BCE already speaks of 'the Syrians of Palestine'." Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


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


 * You are: The area Jesus lived in was known as Judea (by both the Romans and locals) until 132CE, when it was changed to Syria Palestina. No historical figures are referenced by contemporary geography, why should this be any different? Unless there is polemic reasoning, contemporary names for regions should not reference historical figures. According to Dunn, the name "Palestine" was already used by Greece-Roman writers in the 5th century BCE, so your argument fails. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal
We might as well remove "Palestine"; no one doubts he lived there. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  07:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So far all the sources provided by tgeorgescu, Joshua Johnathan, and even the America/Amerigo point by MrOllie do not have an issue using "Palestine". It is not a political claim, but a reference to the region. Philosophical "debating" like Ironcladded keeps on doing, without much secondary sourcing to support what they want to do is getting WP:NOTFORUM. And it looks like Ironcladded is getting quite personal with tgeorgescu and others in questioning intent. WP:BEHAVE Ironcladded. Sources settle the matter, not WP editor opinions on the matter.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet, the apparently less controversial page for Historical Jesus currently mentions "Palestine" exactly 1 time, "Judea" 9 times (7 times in combination with "Galilee"), "Galilee" or "Galilean" 17 times. Of course all these mentions should correspond to the cited sources (I haven't checked).
 * In the quotes now cited for the claim on the HoJ page, only Hurtado mentions a region: Galilee. So, if anybody prefers either to keep "Palestine" or to change it to "Judea", proper reliable sources are needed. Joortje1 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course you can find sources that prefer "Palestine" (for instance Ehrman's popular book), but there's no good reason to go with the more polemic and less correct name.
 * Why a handful of scholars prefer "Palestine" remains unclear to me; I couldn't find any academic clarification in their publications. It seems a very curious choice for scholars who claim to follow the historical evidence in the NT (where do the scriptures mention "Palestine"?). It may indeed not be a political choice (although that's not entirely unlikely); it could for instance be intended to dumb things down for the intended audience of "laymen", or it could very well be nothing more than a lazy unacademic choice of terminology.
 * The Historical Jesus page clearly argues that one of the possibly historical claims about Jesus include: "Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea". Because the synoptic gospels narrate that Jesus was from Galilee and travelled through Judea, mentioning both areas indeed seems fine.
 * For further comments on this topic, see Talk:Historicity of Jesus Joortje1 (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Yeah. So, if we just remove it, issue settled - for the moment. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's worth checking those sources, though: "Jesus lived only in Galilee and Judea:[159]" - Green, Joel B.; McKnight, Scot; Marshall, I. Howard (1992), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. InterVarsity Press. p. 442, which actually says: "Palestine in Jesus' days." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oxford Handbook of Jewish Life in Roman Palestine. &#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it has something to do with the name Syro-Palestinian archaeology.
 * E.g., according to William G. Dever:
 * "''Syro-Palestinian archaeology' is not the same as the 'biblical archaeology'. I regret to say that all who would defend Albright and 'biblical archaeology' on this ground, are sadly out of touch with reality in the field of archaeology.'"
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We cover "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" as an alternative name for Levantine archaeology, whose geographical scope covers the "Hatay Province of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Cyprus." I am aware that Biblical archaeology in the style of William F. Albright is rather outdated, since his conclusions were mostly discredited. But I am not certain how this affects geographical terminology. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, I only stated that the usage is not political. Whether it is the best term is another matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing it may indeed be best for the moment.
 * If anybody wants to change it after that, they should simply add citations for their terminology of choice (or choose Hurtado's Galilee from the current choices). Joortje1 (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it makes sense to use "Judaea" to keep consistent with other wikipedia pages?... Jesus, Nativity of Jesus and Historical Jesus etc... Badabara (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would make sense if Galilee was part of (Roman) Judaea during the (purported) lifetime of Jesus, but apparently it wasn't (check the bluelinked pages).
 * What's more: the disputed terminology for Jesus' homeland is part of a sentence that claims what "scholars in the field" agree upon, so the line should reflect their written opinions. Only "Galilee" is currently backed up in the cited sources.
 * Also: most of the "scholars in the field" are biblical scholars. In general, their main concern is studying and explaining biblical texts, while only a very small minority look at the historical context. Even theologians are now cited as experts on historicity here on wikipedia, while none of today's cited scholars seem to have a degree in the mainstream academic discipline of history. It may thus be difficult to find sources that defend the historicity of Jesus and can also be trusted to use historically correct terminology. Joortje1 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see.
 * One thing to take note of, Mary's annunciation was in Galilee, but we don't know if Jesus set foot there.
 * If the only thing we know scholars agree on is his baptism and crucifixion, why not state those locations? His baptism occurred in the Jordan River in Perea, and his crucifixion happened in Judaea.
 * So:
 * "Today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Perea and Judaea in the 1st century CE..." Badabara (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As detailed on the Ministry of Jesus page, Galilee, Perea and Judea are the geographical regions where Jesus preached according to the NT. Following the Historical Jesus page's claim that only Galilee and Judea are widely thought to be historical, scholars apparently don't agree on the historicity of the Perean episodes (or maybe they just throw this under Judea umbrella?). The gospel of Matthew of course also contains the Flight to Egypt, which is more heavily contested.
 * All in all, plenty of reasons to scrap the contested part and be satisfied with the description "of Nazareth" as a more precise geographical origin (although the more common original Koine Greek wording is also thought to have been used as a title of religious significance rather than a geographical description). Joortje1 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm guessing then scholars put the Jordan river (whether East or West river bank) in Judaea then.
 * Sounds good to me.
 * So then... ""Today scholars in the field agree that a Jewish man called Jesus of Nazareth did exist in Galilee and Judaea in the 1st century CE..." ? Badabara (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * at that time, it was called Judea, so we should list it as such, especially since the article is about the historicity. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...and we are back to the article stating "Palestine". Badabara (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not good chronicling
The purpose of Wikipedia is preservation of information, right? Not to argue for any religions authenticity over others, right? Imagine if any page written about any other religion was written this way. Nearly every paragraph here pretends at legitimacy while asserting a certainty that does not exist outside of Christianity. The primary argument here is that some guy who wasn’t Christian mentioned that he heard of Jesus. So that means the man must with certainty exist? they mods here Christian and simply trying to maintain the artifice of certainty. The historicity of Jesus is a maybe at best, but this page reads as tho to say that doubting his existence is silly. It just doesn’t seem like an unbiased encyclopedia entry 2600:1007:B0AF:CE83:D9F7:706C:7D6F:B276 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Cherry-picked and misrepresented Meggitt source
Justin Meggitt’s More Ingenious than Learned? (2019) is cited on our page. Its main point quite clearly is that doubting/denying HoJ “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome” but that it is “at the very least, a pressing, prior question for those wishing to say anything about the historical Jesus.”

The way this source is abused on our page seems a pretty good example of the wp:cherrypicking approach that may very well have been applied to most of the cited sources. Please read the following argument from Meggitt's article carefully:

“Indeed, the lack of conventional historical training on the part of biblical scholars may well be evident in the failure of any scholar involved in discussing the Christ-myth debate to mention long-established historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as History from Below, Microhistory or Subaltern Studies, approaches that might help us determine what kind of questions can be asked and what kind of answers can reasonably be expected to be given when we scrutinise someone who is depicted as coming from such a non-elite context.

''For example, given that most human beings in antiquity left no sign of their existence, and the poor as individuals are virtually invisible, all we can hope to do is try to establish, in a general sense, the lives that they lived. Why would we expect any non-Christian evidence for the specific existence of someone of the socio-economic status of a figure such as Jesus at all? To deny his existence based on the absence of such evidence, even if that were the case, has problematic implications; you may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world.''”

What our page takes away from Meggitt’s article: ''“Historiographical approaches associated with the study of the poor in the past, such as microhistory, can help assess what type of sources can be reasonably expected in the historical record for individuals like Jesus. For instance, Justin Meggitt argues that since most people in antiquity left no sign of their existence, especially the poor, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christian sources to corroborate the specific existence of someone with Jesus's socio-economic status.”''

We are thus misleading our readers with the suggestion that proper methodologies like microhistory have actually been applied by Meggitt and other biblical scholars/theologians. As purported conclusion we offer the rather common “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument. The notion may be valid because some mythicists indeed all too easily use an argument from silence. However, in Meggit's statement it is merely a simplistic example and not a properly researched acadamic argument (it all too easily overlooks how historians really should be sceptical and actually do express serious suspicions when ancient figures lack evidence, as for instance with Homer, or Romulus). Meggitt’s main point of the section was clearly that HoJ defenders have failed to use accepted historical methodologies if they wanted to counter HoJ denial; he was continuing his call for them to really make some effort in “raising the standard of debate”.

I'm not against countering unacademic use of the argument of silence, but I suggest that we use another source for that (I believe Ehrman 2012 says more about it, possibly even with citations of proper academic research, at least it would be in line with the main gist of the book). Let's use Meggitt's relatively nuanced and objectively voiced Cambridge University Press article to incorporate its main points at a due place on our page. Joortje1 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, if proper historical methodologies like microhistory have actually been applied to the origins of Christianity, conclusions haven’t exactly been favouring the traditional assumptions of “critical” scholarship that the Gospels would reflect oral gospel traditions from poor Galilean Jews (and/or later apostles). Instead, relatively recent reputable peer-reviewed research indicates an origin with a cultural elite firmly rooted within literary Greco-Roman traditions (see Robyn Walsh ‘’The Origins of Early Christian Literature” 2021). This actually contests many of the arguments that have been expressed by defenders of HoJ like Ehrman and Casey (in rather unacademic pop-market publications). It seems like Walsh's work has been received pretty well and that her conclusions are getting a lot of traction. Joortje1 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no; Walsh' work has received attention, but not much support; but that's been discussed before. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joshua Jonathan And where can we find that previous discussion about Walsh's study? I found nothing in the archives (no relevant search results for author nor book title). Joortje1 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gospel. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The main point of Meggit "To deny his existence based on the absence of such evidence, even if that were the case, has problematic implications; you may as well deny the existence of pretty much everyone in the ancient world." And criticizes mythicists after that by continuing "Indeed, the attempt by mythicists to dismiss the Christian sources could be construed, however unintentionally, as exemplifying what E. P. Thompson called ‘the enormous condescension of posterity’ in action, functionally seeking to erase a collection of data, extremely rare in the Roman Empire, that depicts the lives and interactions of non-elite actors and seems to have originated from them too." Clearly he is not a mythicicst and starts off the paper with "Virtually no scholar working in the field of New Testament studies or early Christian history doubts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth". He is just saying that the question has a place, not that there is a shift in scholarship. Walsh is not a mythicist either. Mythicists do not use historical methods in general they use literary methods or philosophy for their arguments. Often anit-historical methods too like Meggit says "functionally seeking to erase a collection of data, extremely rare in the Roman Empire, that depicts the lives and interactions of non-elite actors and seems to have originated from them too."&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * “Clearly he is not a mythicicst” (sic) “Walsh is not a mythicist either.” Did anybody suggest they were? What’s the use of trying to label them in that black-or-white manner? Joortje1 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ramos1990 Yep, JM is nuanced and objective enough to include criticism for both sides of the debate, so you can of course cherrypick what fits your POV; for instance the familiar "Virtually no scholar" dogma that he used in the intro. As is rather standard practice in mainstream academic essays, Meggitt here seems to identify the problematic stance for which would like to see a “shift in scholarship”.
 * Usually we can find the most important points in a section called “Conclusion”, in this case for instance: “[The question of the historicity of Jesus] should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” See how that contrasts the common view that he described in the intro.
 * I also quoted a part of the definitive/final point of the essay: “taking this question seriously may, at the very least, prove beneficial in raising the standard of debate and the wider understanding – in fact, even self-understanding – of what New Testament scholars do and how they do it.”
 * What you identify as “main point” and your other quotes are in a segment that starts with the words “For example”. What do you think that means? Can you please explain how you arrive at the conclusions in your answer? Or are you just wp:gaming? Joortje1 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Meggitt in the conclusion and in the intro affirms that the debate does not really exist among researchers. Most just ignore it because of the long history of failure of mythicism. He reflects in the conclusion that a limited number of specialists have even engaged in it in recent years and that it is not taken seriously. He thinks it should be taken seriously, but clearly he admits it is not. He does note on mythicists that the "consensus of experts is a very serious matter and weighs heavily against the plausibility of their position" either way. Indeed. &#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's play that game and go into the "Authority" segment where you got that last quote from:
 * JM first describes the common stance of his colleagues that he finds "perfectly understandable", but doesn't seem to like: biblical scholars' argument from authority and invocation of consensus. Then indeed: "Although some mythicists are adamant that ‘truth is not a democracy’ or complain about the ‘fallacy of consensus’, others, such as Carrier, are aware that this consensus of experts is a very serious matter and weighs heavily against the plausibility of their position."
 * However, Meggitt's concluding thought on that consensus: "it is not apparent what members of the ‘guild’ of biblical scholars have in common, other than a shared object of study and competence in a few requisite languages, and therefore what value an alleged consensus among them really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter." (emphasis mine)
 * In the end he also points out that many "carry out their scholarship in confessional contexts" and therefore don't even have the freedom to express their personal ideas.
 * This all sounds like much of the criticism we regularly see here on the talk pages, doesn't it? Joortje1 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Most scholars do not argue from authority, they merely describe the status in their fields of research. And since mythicists have been debunked for more then 2 centuries, I don't blame them. Most researchers do not dispute or debate basics that are established. Meggitt is very different than what you are saying because for one he acknowledges a universal consensus exists by experts and specialists from all sorts of backgrounds and that mythicism has no real chance to succeed vs so many experts. He even makes an argument from microhistory for historicity, is clearly not a mythicist, and does heavily criticize mythicists (attempting to erase history, outlandish/conspiracy nature of much of their writings, how they rarely establish a cause for their theories, etc). He favors open dialogue on a dead question for sure, but most scholars are beyond that at this point. And when you read the mythicist literature it is easy to see why they are continually dismissed. They always fail to explain the origin of Christianity.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ramos1990, thank you for your well-informed and balanced rrsponses. Reading through this thread again, I notice a few points:
 * The rhetorical and aggressive choice of words by Joortje01: cherrypicking, misleading, wp:gaming;
 * The outrage over a perceived misrepresentation of Meggitt, where the summary is actually quite accurate;
 * The cherrypicking and misunderstanding of bits and pieces of one source.
 * All in all, it's a meritless continuation of the personal crusade against the conclusions of textual critical research with regard to the historicity of Jesus. And WP:GAMING is a gross suggestion without merit, close to warranting a warning. Interestingly, WP:GAMING says:
 * WP:BOOMERANG and WP:TENDENTIOUS seems to be more relevant here. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow thought wp:gaming also covered what I perceive as Ramos1990 raising new issues rather than addressing the main point (and thus getting us in long strings of discussions that hardly ever get resolved), but that label indeed seems misplaced.
 * Additional apologies if I do get a bit one-sided in my sceptical approach towards the cited sources, but I think there’s good editorial reasons for the criticism that I and plenty others have expressed here. The page just seems a bit too uncritical of the arguments of biblical scholars and theologians found in trade books, features too little peer-reviewed material, and is too dismissive of any doubt about HoJ (including the few considerations of the question by qualified historians and the few peer-reviewed volumes on the subject). I think I offered plenty of wp:rs to justify such skepticism, with a relatively high standard of wp:scholarship.
 * You may disagree with me, Meggitt and the dozens of PhD scholars who express doubts about HoJ (usually with serious consideration of available sources and without denying the possibility), but I think it is rather hard to deny that Meggit’s essay is mainly a call for Historical Jesus scholars to regard the question of HoJ as vital to their studies and to come up with better arguments, preferably from “conventional historical” research. Like Meggitt and many others, I’d love to see more and better academic argumentation for HoJ (the reason for me to visit our page the first time was an expectation to find good evidence). I haven’t checked all our page’s citations yet, but many of them disappoint me. This one seemed very promising and actually is rather helpful, but it doesn’t provide the historical research that I expected from what you apparently think of as a rather accurate summary. Am I being too sensitive, too harsh, too tendentious even, if I then see this as a misleading and cherrypicked representation of Meggitt's essay? Joortje1 (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "I’d love to see more and better academic argumentation for HoJ" But is there actual academic research on the topic? Whether one itinerant preacher and charlatan was active in Judea, among the many charlatans of his kind, does not seem to be a vital topic for Roman history. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick: I think you're right (except I'd avoid needlessly offending people by calling him a "charlatan", also from a historian's viewpoint it's probably better to consider him one of many Judaic messiah figures, imagined or not)
 * In general, few historians seem to have interest in religion and many consider religion as problematic, as antithetical to rational thought (see: Kathryn Lofton Why Religion Is Hard For Historians (and How It Can Be Easier)) (I'm not defending a prejudice here, just read the essay)
 * Historian Miles Pattenden: “professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.” He confuses the matter a bit by writing that few scholars would deny “some kernel of historicity in Jesus’s figure” (and by going into the ontological question). Without researching the question it certainly remains undenied or just an assumption, and “kernel” + “figure” may not mean much more than: there were 1st century messiah-figure preachers/rabbi/sect leaders, plenty were named Yeshua.
 * Historian Tom Dykstra: “any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing.” He cites biblical scholar Philip R. Davies also stating that the question is unanswerable. There are plenty others from that field saying the same (for instance R. Joseph Hoffmann, after his attempt to find answers with many scholars in the failed Jesus Project, see end of that last page) Joortje1 (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What we do have that probably should be considered academic research since it's peer-reviewed:
 * -The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention that Jesus Never Lived Shirley Jackson Case, (University of Chicago Press 1912; 2nd ed. 1923) (WP:AGE MATTERS, but who knows)
 * -On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (2014 Sheffield Phoenix Press) by historian Richard Carrier
 * -Questioning the Historicity of Jesus by religion scholar Raphael Lataster (2019 Brill Publishers)
 * You can hardly mention Carrier without some Christians or (devotee of) biblical scholars screaming "fringe!". Lataster seems to mostly get ignored, deemed insignificant, or just labelled "fringe" or "religiophobic". Yet when I check the wp:fringe guidelines and wp:scholarship, these seem to say that peer-reviewed monographs with reputable academic publishers are the ones we should be looking at, rather than trade/pop-market publications.
 * As far as I've read it, Lataster hardly looks into the historical aspects, but focuses on the problems with Historical Jesus scholarship (and ends up favouring Carrier’s thesis).
 * Of course Carrier and Lataster are not without bias, but both seem to account for it in their work (I believe that's the solution that Kathryn Lofton suggested in the essay linked in my previous comment, but I may have to read it again). Joortje1 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course Carrier and Lataster are not without bias, but both seem to account for it in their work (I believe that's the solution that Kathryn Lofton suggested in the essay linked in my previous comment, but I may have to read it again). Joortje1 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A purely mythical figure
Users and : I'm not even entirely getting what this disagreement in the WP:LEADSENTENCE is about. Is it about whether to link myth (or just part of it, as in mythical ) or is it about what the terms myth (or mythical) mean, or some combination, or something else? Can you please lay it out here, so others can weigh in? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Joefromrandb seems to think that myth(ical) here refers to fictional, not-true, false, which is obviously not the case here. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, Joe I'm sure will weigh in and say what he thinks it means; but what do you believe it means? Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The line does need work. When so many editors continually misunderstand its meaning, I can only imagine the confusion our readers experience.  Marcus Markup (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This "disagreement" is part of a decades-long effort to word this article so as to make it look like scholars generally agree that a supernatural divine Jesus indeed walked the earth, raising the dead etc. If the many affected Jesus articles would clearly state that scholars believe a human non-divine Jesus lived around that time, there would be no issue anymore. Despite years of efforts, the line "A distinction is made by scholars between 'the Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith'" is still buried as best they can manage. Certain editors have spent years scratching up sources which allow them to include sentences such as "outside the reach of the historical methods" so as to allow the impression that Jesus was indeed a god on earth. This confusion would be easy to fix, if only we could get past the POV-pushing. Wdford (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The editors who contributed most to these articles are not trying "to make it look like scholars generally agree that a supernatural divine Jesus indeed walked the earth, raising the dead etc." I don't know what this perception is based on, but it's a completely incorrect assessment.
 * Regarding mythical: I've changed the phrase to "mythological." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  12:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Our article's line "the historicity of supernatural elements like his purported miracles and the resurrection are deemed to be outside the reach of the historical methods" and much in note 3 can all too easily be interpreted as supporting a belief in miracles (some of it explicitly supports it or acknowledges that this is not uncommon in the field). This is not entirely wp:npov nor encyclopedically voiced (no matter if it can be found in some scholars' writings; many of our article's citations lead to unresearched/unacademic opinions and assumptions, mostly in trade/pop-market publications).
 * Several of our article's arguments are sourced from the works of theologians and Christian scholars, including evangelicals, who tend to firmly believe in divinity and miracles (without any indication that they have been able to leave their religious bias out of their work).
 * Despite the wp:scholarship guidelines, the rigorously researched academic arguments from the few peer-reviewed monographs on the subject are willingly ignored, as are the widely acknowledged problems with bias and lack of methodology in Historical Jesus research.
 * It really shouldn't be hard to figure out why people suspect the dominant editors of POV-pushing, which is a recurrent point of criticism that many wikipedians have expressed on this talk page. Joortje1 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if I don't see that much wording in the article attempting to promote the historicity of divinity and miracles, I do also suspect that one or more editors have indeed been working from that perspective and made it show a bit (probably all in good faith - pun unintended). I suppose Wdford just sees it bubbling up from under the surface (or lurking just below it) a bit more than I do (see my reply to Joshua Jonathan for where I did recognised it). Joortje1 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"Outside the reach of the historical methods" - I read that as a not so covert comment that miracles belong to the realm of belief, and have no existence in the empirical, rational world; ergo, that while people may have believed (or still believe) that he performed miracles, that that belief is precisely that: belief. The Jesus left after stripping-off the mythological layers is a person of flesh and blood, of whom we know close to nothing. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "to make it look like scholars generally agree that a supernatural divine Jesus indeed walked the earth, raising the dead etc" That type of "scholars" is not worth much, their opinions do not matter. Apologists are only good for preaching nonsense to their choir. Dimadick (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, what to do about the defence of supernatural beliefs in our article?
 * Our note 3, providing citations for a statement in the lead section (!), quotes "Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture" Markus Bockmuehl claiming that neglecting and downplaying the question of the resurrection "ranks alongside dogmatic denial and naive credulity in guaranteeing the avoidance of historical truth".
 * Ehrman's "historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles" could be forgiven if only it were true that he and other defenders of HoJ were indeed capable of "taking the position of the historian" rather than "taking the position of the believer". He may identify as atheistic or agnostic, but it shows in his 2012 popular book why his training as a biblical scholar left him so "uneducated" and why he thinks he is "self-taught in almost all the areas that I’m really interested in". Whatever he taught himself, he was happy to draw his conclusions from the "criteria of authenticity" that have basically been declared bankrupt, even within the dubious field that spawned them and is heavily dominated by protestant Christians.
 * The quote of Beilby & Eddy also demonstrates that it is not uncommon in the field to defend the "historicity of miracles".
 * Can Wdford point out more problematic lines?
 * I do think it's relevant to make clear within our article that this is really what plenty of scholars in the field believe, but it is voiced here as if our encyclopedia takes this position serious. Joortje1 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I wonder how you can read in Ehrman's blog that he's declared the criteria "bankrupt"? Wishfull thinking? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I clearly didn't claim that Ehrman himself declared the criteria bankrupt, just after I stated that he was happy to apply them. Nonetheless, he was fully aware that "the criteria are problematic and coming under attack". The demise of authenticity crisis was undeniable at this point.
 * This biblical studies populariser obviously didn't call his own field "dubious" either (so I should just have ended the bluelink earlier), but I'll back that idea up with a quote from Maurice Casey:
 * “the overall result of such bias is to make the description of New Testament Studies as an academic field a dubious one” The quote follows quite soon after "This field of study, however, is largely inhabited and controlled by Protestant Christians” (so that covers the other part of my statement) and he even gives a figure of 90%. Note that the remaining 10% would have to include Catholics and probably a bunch of other people who tend to believe in the divinity of Christ. Joortje1 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I re-ordered the existing paragraphs of the lede slightly, to make is less POV. Let's see how long that lasts? Wdford (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With your and JJ’s changes I think the lead looks rather good now; at least, I’m no longer confused. And the lead narrative does seem to flow better and provide a good summary of the body. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)