Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Inflammatory language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure why you think "atheist" is a derogatory term when people self identify as such, and proudly might I add. The sources explain them as that, not me. I shortened it too to accommodate and make it neutral following the sources, but you deleted even that [1]. I never did it individually like you are saying (I prefer just names and leaving it at that for individuals). Do you recommend other terms? The consensus is made up of "Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance", per Larry Hurtado and Ehrman and other scholars by the way. With this much diversity, inclusion, and unity on the matter, they do not have a particular agenda. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard Historical Criteria

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

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

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

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

The source does not specify the criteria being assumed by the IP. It just says standard historical criteria and authenticity. Authenticity is a common historical tool - Garraghan and Delangez “A Guide to Historical Method” p.174 onwards details “Criteria of authenticity” and even uses ancient sources including the Roman and Christian sources as examples. Also Howell “From Reliable Sources: Introduction to Historical Methods” discusses criteria of authenticity under “Additional technical tools” p.56 onwards. All of this is part of source criticism and is used often in ancient sources. It is kind of inevitable to authenticate sources either way. Here is a university library mentioning authenticity of sources for proper historical research. [2]. Hope this helps. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the interesting opinion of James F. McGrath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"nobody seriously questions any of it"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judea or Palestine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That simple, huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, indeed, thanks.

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

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

Awkward wording – protected edit request 28 December

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

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

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