Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 06:04, 24 December 2022 (→Let's use WP standards: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Resurrection of Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Bible / Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as High-importance). This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Founding myth", revisited

Relatively recently, this article was changed to claim the resurrection is the "foundation myth" of Christianity. A lot of users I hold in the highest esteem, such as as tgeorgescu, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Drmies were involved in the discussion. Even so, I am not convinced by this terminology. Of course we should in no way claim it's a "fact", like the IP above proposes, but the term "foundation myth" also seems to have been introduced by an IP to make a WP:POINT about the Exodus being described as a foundation myth. If I may, that does not seem to a strong reason. My main concern is that the terminology is at odds with most sources, and even with scholarship. While the resurrection is a central belief in Christianity, it is much less clear it is a "foundation myth". I struggle to find this terminology in reliable sources. I hope we all can agree that the current sources (a 1985 book about Christianity as the way to salvation) hardly is a good source. If I am wrong and the term foundation myth is in common use in scholarship, I have no problems with it. Otherwise, I don't think inventing new terminology to please an IP is the right course of action. Let's use the terminology of most sources (which would appear to be "belief" rather than "foundation myth"). Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly worth discussing. And if this is the founding myth of C, what is the Nativity of Jesus and the Crucifixion of Jesus? I don't have a well-founded opinion atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I told the IP that there are abundant WP:RS for the Exodus being a myth, but we cannot say the same about the resurrection being a myth (although it is technically indisputable that most theological claims are simply myths for people belonging to other religions than Christianity, and that for them the Bible is mostly mythology). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Foundation myth" was in at least a few of the sources, and "myth" is likely much more popular than that, "foundation myth" being a bit more technical than just "myth". The last editor completely misunderstood the term "myth" and thought of it like some sort of cussword, and never even got to "foundation". Their edit summary, "Of course no one can verify it, but to call it a myth in the first sentence seems extreme", indicates to which extent they failed to get two important points: verification, and the meaning of the word "myth". There's a ton of sourcing for the resurrection as a myth, just look at Google Books (sorry tgeorgescu), which is what one would expect--"belief" is really misleading in ways, and it seems to disavow the very idea of storytelling, which is such an important aspect of belief systems. Whether enough scholars call it "the" foundation myth, the only one, is another matter, and it seems pretty clear to me that saying "this is THE foundation myth of Christianity" suggests that all Christianities are the same, which they are not--the resurrection might be in competition with Abraham's covenant, etc. Anyway, this needs serious sourcing; what it does not need is knee-jerk drive-by responses. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source that mentions "foundation myth" in relation to Christianity. One quote "In the Gospel of Matthew the story of Jesus becomes the basis for a foundation myth of Christian origins." More by Perrin:. And one more, Perrin-related: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find the term "foundation myth" in Perrin's book, but perhaps that is my search engine again. The second book, Eastman, summarizes what he says as Perrin tells us that Luke, like Matthew, transforms the story of Jesus into a Christian foundation myth: “For Luke the essence of the myth is the fate-laden progress of Jesus to Jerusalem, and of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome.’’. To me that means the entire story and not just the resurrection. Perrin's POV is entirely about the theological development of Both the gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles are didactic history, a history of the past told to instruct the reader in the present. That's Perrin, page 428. These show the term myth being used, which we have all agreed is done, but do not say resurrection is the founding myth. At least that I can find.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 By Perrin's book, do you mean ? At that link, don't you see "Search inside" results on the left side? Odd (I'm logged in at archive.org though, does that matter?). Anyway, it's on pages 68, 74 and 75. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it matters, but I was able to follow your link, so thank you. I looked at those page numbers, and if I read correctly, he says the stories of Jesus comprise the foundation myth, not that the resurrection alone does. The resurrection is just one aspect of the Jesus story. I found Drmies comment the most on point here: Whether enough scholars call it "the" foundation myth, the only one, is another matter, and it seems pretty clear to me that saying "this is THE foundation myth of Christianity" suggests that all Christianities are the same, which they are not--the resurrection might be in competition with Abraham's covenant, etc. Anyway, this needs serious sourcing Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's how I understood Perrin too, he says that the life of Jesus (per NT) is the CFM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and btw: article at Norman Perrin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Another quote from another source: "Sts. Gregory the Illuminator and Nino were the evangelists of Armenia and Georgia respectively in the fourth century and so were intimately tied to each territory's Christian foundation myth. St. Simeon Nemanja was instrumental in the foundation of a structured and eventually autonomous religious hierarchy in Serbia." Goes more off our topic but an interesting use of the term. Btw, "Christian foundation myth" 5 hits on JSTOR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I got none of this! Really good. Do any say the resurrection is the founding myth? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to my limited knowledge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the hits on gbooks (not that many) may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Whatever search engine you are using it is apparently superior to the three I use. I went back and tried again and none of this came up. Not these books or a single JSTOR article. Could you give the JSTOR titles of what you found so I can go look for them that way? I am reading reading the others. Thank you for this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I see 22 hits at , what do you see? Do you get a different result if you do the same search yourself? I know google shows different stuff depending on geography.

If you log in to JSTOR via WP library, don't you get 5 hits when you search "christian foundation myth"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether enough scholars call it "the" foundation myth, the only one, is another matter, and it seems pretty clear to me that saying "this is THE foundation myth of Christianity" suggests that all Christianities are the same, which they are not--the resurrection might be in competition with Abraham's covenant, etc. Anyway, this needs serious sourcing; excellent. Completely agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Perrin, Norman (1984). "Jesus and the Theology of the New Testament". The Journal of Religion. 64 (4): 413–431. ISSN 0022-4189.
2. Eastmond, Antony (2003). ""Local" Saints, Art, and Regional Identity in the Orthodox World after the Fourth Crusade". Speculum. 78 (3): 707–749. ISSN 0038-7134.

Drmies, tgeorgescu, Gråbergs Gråa Sång,Jeppiz I spent a few hours tonight hunting every way I could think of (on Google scholar) to find any scholarly usage of the term 'myth' as applied to Christianity: myth in Christianity, Christianity's foundation myth, origin myth in Christianity, myth and ritual in Christianity, history and myth in Christianity - well, you get the idea. I found one that actually used the term "Christian foundation myth". This is it: "Where do we meet God? Christianity's foundation myth suggests that we meet God with the poor, the outcast, and the homeless on the edge of civilization, where non-human animals are more at home than human ones". The one source I found for "Christian foundation myth" not only has nothing to do with the resurrection, it describes that myth as something altogether different from this article's claims.

For scholars, myth is generally a synonym for "stories". That isn't what's in this article. The term myth is generally understood differently by ordinary people who assume the term myth means fairy tale, make believe, factually false, something without foundation. I suggest that in this sentence According to R. A. Burridge, the majority consensus among biblical scholars is that the genre of the Gospels is a kind of ancient biography and not myth. the writer of this article uses 'myth' in exactly that manner: biography vs. untrue myth. In the very next sentence, the writer immediately reuses the term saying It is the founding myth of Christianity. Do they now use the term as scholars do, as Frankiel the author of the book cited does? How can an ordinary reader tell what is intended? But worse is the fact that it misrepresents what the source says, which is not that the resurrection is the founding myth, but that the gospels are: The writings that describe Jesus’ life and death, his acts and words, thus provide the founding myths of Christianity. These documents are structurally equivalent to the creation myths of other traditions, for they are the pivot around which the religion turns and to which it returns. This myth or set of myths is the fundamental story, containing the meaning of the religion. The stories of Jesus encapsulate the spiritual truth of Christianity. That is what Frankiel actually says on page 57. She doesn't mention the resurrection. That makes their sentence unverified.

Myth has power and value, and myth as a term is also easily misunderstood, so if we are going to use the term, its particular usage would need to be defined and explained - or it just muddies the waters - and worse, conveys a POV. There is really no good reason to advocate for an unverified claim beyond the desire to convey that POV - which should be avoided. Why not just say story? It is a non-controversial word, npov, needs no defining, and has the benefit of being easily and commonly sourced. Even the source referenced uses it.

References

1. ^ Schroeder, S. (2000). "Chapter Eleven Practicing Value". In Between Freedom and Necessity. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004495043_015

Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We all know that from an outside (emic and etic) perspective, it is a myth. But here at Misplaced Pages we have to WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What is it exactly that we all know? Which meaning? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, myths are someone else's religion. Christians believe that Muhammad ascending to heavens on a flying donkey is a myth and Muslims believe that Jesus's resurrection is a myth. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so you are using it to mean something untrue, but that's a personal judgment call. You have every right to think whatever you please, of course, but it's a personal POV, and that has no place on WP. It doesn't matter how much you agree or disagree, the best we can do is offer the differing views in a neutral encyclopedic manner. Let's work towards that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I'm not saying to mean something untrue:

Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."

— from David Strauss

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with Strauss, and I am familiar with Borg. And I am familiar with double-talk. I have not objected to the use of the term myth, as story, nor have I objected to the idea of a foundation myth. I have objected to them being used incorrectly according to the source they cite. That's all that matters here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see so many good comments. As said, my intent is not to dispute that the resurrection could be described as myth, but rather to question whether it is accurate (in line with scholarship) to describe it as Christianity's foundation myth. That would seem to apply as much to various other events, such as the crucifixion, or Pentecost; of course it's not for us to say. Overall, foundation myth is rarely applied to religion. The use for the Exodus, that the IP objected to, refers to it's role for the foundation of the Jewish nation, not to the religion of Judaism. Another common examples of foundation myth would include Romulus and Remus, also referring to a people, the Romans, and not to a religion. This is not say it's not possible to find any references to foundation myths of Christianity, but I do not see it being the common terminology, nor any clear case of the resurrection being that foundation myth, if indeed there is one. Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any room for not concluding you are 100% correct to question whether it is accurate (in line with scholarship) to describe it as Christianity's foundation myth. In my search, The one source I found for "Christian foundation myth" not only has nothing to do with the resurrection, it describes that myth as something altogether different... The source used does not say that resurrection is the foundation myth. That is sufficient all by itself to remove and replace without concern over other issues. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

DefThree I can't say I like dogma much better, but it is better than what was there. Do you have a source that says that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many sources for that, but I don't know whether any would be considered reliable here. DefThree (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We generally like university press, scholarly journals and similar for stuff like this. Mostly not blogs and wikis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

DefThree I agree, I am also sure there are many sources, but if we are going to say something that makes a claim about a group - especially in wiki-voice - we have to be careful to have a source that accurately conveys that claim.

When I started here at WP, I was hounded and harassed and stalked by an editor who has since been banned from WP. He required me to source every statement, no matter how accepted or obvious or established it was, to vet who was saying it to show that their opinions mattered, that their scholarship was worthy of being on WP, that their publishers were among the best academic publishers, and if they didn't measure up - which since I was brand new here, they sometimes didn't - he would call what I had written "garbage" and delete it all. He once blanked an entire article that he didn't like after it had it had been put up for deletion and multiple editors said keep it.

But I learned from him. I learned the highest WP standards. He was abusive, and that's why he's gone, but he sure did teach me to cite everything to good sources. Articles I work on now have every sentence I write sourced, to the best sources. And if I forget to attribute, Gråbergs Gråa Sång will come along and hold my feet to the fire. The standards for writing on religion have become more rigorous as time has passed. That's as it should be. It's a controversial topic here on WP, people have strong opinions, and everyone needs to be respected - our readers and those editors here on WP that disagree.

So, the moral of my long-winded story is: source what you say, no matter that it may be obvious to you or even generally accepted. Source everything you say, and make sure to do so accurately. If you can't find a source that says dogma, it can't stay. I'm sorry if that seems unreasonable or harsh, but my old nemesis still sits - in spirit - on my shoulder and harasses me if I fail at upholding this standard.

So far multiple sources saying "The Jesus story is the Christian foundation myth" have been found. None saying the resurrection is have been found, as it is only one aspect of the Jesus story. There is no way to support keeping it, but we must replace it with a seriously sourced statement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

, me!? Name one time I... Nevermind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Marcus Borg, David Friedrich Strauss:Miracles and Myth.

Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus

This section is an entirely inadequate discussion imo. I am replacing it with what I hope is a more neutral and more thorough sourced discussion of the current state of scholarship. If anyone objects to anything, please come here, with sources, and we will add whatever you have. Please do not start an edit war over this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added the dominant paradigm, according to N.T. Wright. He has an axe to grind against the dominant paradigm, but we are after WP:RS/AC claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Wright say what he means by "subjective experience"? (According to a very popular school of thought, all experience is subjective). And whose experience, anyway? Achar Sva (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The book describes in another section what that means. Briefly, it is opposed to conceiving the resurrection of Jesus as objective historical fact. But, anyway, I was only interested to know that the "dominant paradigm" rejects the resurrection as historical fact. I will let others fill in the details. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about a "paradigm", but who the heck actually believes that the gospels contain information about historical facts? Dimadick (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There are nuggets of historical facts, but these need to be examined critically. Anyway, some Christians are still puzzled by the centuries-old fact that post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism. I mean: the historical method leaves no other option. So, that's Wright's only option: dodge the historical method as far as he can. Proclaiming miracles as real historical facts is not within the purview of historical scholarship. It might well be theological exegesis, but not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. The sentence you add at the end is essentially the same sentence already in the second paragraph: The predominant natural explanation in secular and some liberal Christian scholarship, is that the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are explained as visionary experiences, which gave the impetus to the belief in the exaltation of Jesus, and a resumption of the missionary activity of Jesus' followers. Since your addition is a repetition, perhaps you would consider leaving what's there, or maybe combining your phrasing with what's there - or something that isn't repetition.

I would advise removing Wright. This makes it sound as though Wright agrees with this "dominant paradigm", and that's wrong. Wright unequivocally advocates for the historical reality of the resurrection. I'm afraid you - or perhaps the guy you quote - have misunderstood him.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, Wright has an axe to grind against the dominant paradigm. This wasn't misunderstood. But he nevertheless renders the weight of scholarly opinion as in real academia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: According to James D.G. Dunn, "most biblical scholars believe the weight of historical evidence points in its favor" ; you can check HERE for information. Potatín5 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is quoting Wright as a RS for the current dominant opinion of scholarship, and the quote should definitely stay. It should in fact be the first sentence in the section. Achar Sva (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it and move it so it is up front with the rest, and I will add to it, in a scholarly encyclopedic manner. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Aside from being wrong, the paragraph on methodological naturalism has been present in this article with no one doing anything about it long before I came along. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I'm sorry, my comment here was unclear. It sounds like I am saying methodological naturalism is wrong and I am not. What I do see you as wrong about is Christians not understanding it, and Wright ignoring historical method. Wright is a master historian, philologist and researcher. No review of any of Wright's prolific writings have ever claimed he did poor research. In the book Karkkainen references, Wright spends about 200 pages on the origins and use of a single Greek phrase. That's the kind of work he does. Twenty years teaching at Oxford certainly lend support to his respected status as a scholar.

But I have to say, I did find the sentence on methodological naturalism to be a bit odd and out of place. I left it alone simply because it was already there, but a single sentence on one philosophical approach seems off topic to me. I would be happy to remove it - or you could and I would support that. It isn't really an aspect of historicity - imo.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind. I removed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can't tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he'll increase his eternal agonies. So that's another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.

Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it's crazy; but it's theologically crazy. It's not historically crazy. It's no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they're both theological explanations; they're not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.

Quoted by tgeorgescu. Do you get the point? Jesus has really existed is a historical fact. Jesus was resurrected is a theological belief. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I have no argument with that last statement, which is a good thing since this is no argument. Zulu is neither historical nor theological. That makes Zulu an Ad Hoc fallacy created through a straw man argument. It is a false dilemma fallacy to think one must choose between the historical and the theological. Take a logic class. At least read a book or two on logical reasoning and fallacies before coming back at me with any more of this kind of garbage. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, since this kind of garbage comes from a Bible professor having a named chair at a state university from the US Bible Belt. I mean: it sounds like vexatious in fundie land, but not in mainstream academia.

Let me ask you: for whom the resurrection of Jesus holds true? Does it hold true for Jews? Does it hold true for Muslims? Does it hold true for atheists? Does it hold true for Buddhists? Does it hold true for Hindus? Does it hold true for Taoists? Does it hold true for Shintoists? As a rule of thumb, it only holds true for Christians. So it is not an objective historical fact, it is a subjective theological belief.

I'll give you an example of brilliant logic:

All cats are dogs.

All dogs are blue animals.

Therefore, all cats are blue animals.

Impeccable logically, it just does not say anything about reality.

"The resurrection of Jesus did happen" is the sales pitch of Christianity. But it is a fantasy that it would have been objectively shown to be true.

It is a fantasy of Christian apologetics that the resurrection has been shown to be a historical fact. It's an overblown claim of fideist scholars, but in mainstream history it isn't a fact that Jesus got resurrected, it is only a fact that he died (although Muslim fideists have an axe to grind against that).

The view of the resurrection as provable historical fact does not exist outside of a tiny intellectual ghetto, and our article dedicates a lot of space to defending it against the mainstream paradigm. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't followed this discussion in detail, but I notice apologist tones in the section on "Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus." Habermas is not paraphrased correctly when stating

it is also generally accepted that Jesus’ followers believed they had real experiences of the risen Jesus

whereas habermas states

"The vast majority of scholars agree that certainly thought that they had visual experiences of the risen Jesus."

The "and" is WP:SYNTHESIS. The second line, "Almost a dozen different challenges to the historicity of the resurrection have emerged in current scholarship" is also misleading, implying that the resurrection was a historical fact, which is doubted only by recent scholarship (ignorant people of course, as they are not true believers). Note that Habermas is a Christian apologist, who believes in the historicity of the bodily resurrection; not the best source, I think. I'll go through the rest of the section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: your edits have mostly replicated the info in the next section, on "Physical or spiritual resurrection." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Hello, and of course you amust edit as you wish. I originally had a larger discussion of the sentence you reference here but that discussion was removed by another author. This sentence, with the "and", is what they left. I left it, because it is an acceptable summary of current scholarship. (Your quote of Habermas is not all he says on the subject, so it is not by itself, a fully accurate description of his views.) But I do not normally use him on ideological issues, and only used him here because his article is an over view of current scholarship. When I do feel compelled to use him, as others before me in this article have done, I shore him up with other authors.

I originally did so here, including statements by others such as E. P. Sanders E.P. Sanders writes, "That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact".

Please note the reason the editor who wrote this sentence gives for removal of this content is "There's no need for EP Sanders' personal opinion when we have the general opinion of scholarship". This is the Diff at . The other editor was right in saying that is the general opinion. The debate that follows is over what actually happened and not what they believed happened. The other editor's sentence is accurate as it is stated.

Please refrain from snark and personal commentary on what my personal views might or might not be. That reflects a bias on your part, and aids nothing here. My scholarship is neutral, dependable, accurate, broad and inclusive, and if it is changed, those changes need to be the same.

References

1. Sanders 1993, p. 280. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSanders1993 (help)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Premise 1 is a false premise, therefore your conclusion is false. It is not impeccable logic, it is the kind of example of false reasoning that a freshman would get on the first day of logic class. Your Appeal to authority is yet another logical fallacy. Even professors are capable of errors. This is more garbage and an inappropriate discussion for a WP talk page. These are personal attacks. I am asking you politely to stop what should never have started. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Misplaced Pages is a big appeal to authority, see WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. tgeorgescu Please try and understand that Misplaced Pages is a proper appeal to the authority of scholars in their fields of study. Misplaced Pages does not assume that they are never wrong about anything and everything. Recently, several scholars have been discovered to be neo-nazis. Does their authority prove they're right? No. Not all appeals to authority are legitimate nor are all of them fallacies.

You made an appeal to Ehrman's authority as if his position meant he could never have made the logic errors I claimed, and that is a fallacious appeal to authority because it's an authority no human being has, or ever has had, or ever will have. No one has so much authority they are never wrong.

I spent a year studying this in college to get my degree in philosophy, and then more in grad school, and I can see you don't understand what I am talking about, and I'm sorry for that. It doesn't help that you won't let this go. If you want to talk more, email me, but stop posting this stuff here.

Reading this might help:

This one would also help understand Ehrman's response. Attacking me won't put you in the right here. What's right on WP is what's good for the article and this isn't it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You beg the question that the real existence of Yahweh would be "more proven" than the real existence of Zulu. There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any of these two gods. And of course, the Word of Allah says that Jesus was never resurrected, since Jesus never died. So, okay, Zulu is an ad hoc hypothesis, but Allah isn't.

Ehrman, Bart D. (1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-0-19-983943-8. Retrieved 7 December 2022. I should emphasize that historians do not have to deny the possibility of miracles or deny that miracles have actually happened in the past. Many historians, for example, committed Christians and observant Jews and practicing Muslims, believe that they have in fact happened. When they think or say this, however, they do so not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer.

See also https://www.quora.com/How-do-historians-evaluate-miracles-that-the-church-has-verified

Twelftree, Graham H. (2017). The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives, and Prospects. Cascade Books. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-4982-1828-3. Retrieved 7 December 2022. We have seen that in the game of the critical historian, proving the historicity of nature miracles might not be part of its rules and assumptions. The reasons are quite simple: the supernatural cannot be proven by the historian ...

Note: Twelftree is in the same camp with N.T. Wright. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Begging the question assumes the conclusion; it is a kind of circular reasoning. Since I have neither said nor implied, anywhere on this talk page, nor in this article, anything representing a conclusion about the real existence of Yaweh, I cannot be the one doing any such thing.

Yes, Zulu is an ad hoc fallacy. Thank you for acknowledging that. It is some small progress at any rate.

The Islamic view - which should be better discussed in this article than it is (I also have an undergraduate degree in world religion) - says Jesus didn't die, which is, as a hypothesis, one of the least probable of all the possible explanations - in the view of historical scholars.

I have made no arguments in favor of miracles, not here, or anywhere else. But if you're going to quote Twelftree, do so fully and fairly. He does say nature miracles are difficult to do anything with from a historical perspective, but the healing miracles he judges as about 40% historically provable. To quote Twelftree's conclusion from his very, very, long book: "From a historically critical examination of the gospels, there is good evidence and grounds for saying that the historical Jesus not only performed miracles, but that he was an extraordinarily powerful healer of unparalleled ability and reputation." pages 344-345. That's not me, that's Twelftree. You're the one who brought him up.

I am often unsure what I think about miracles. Though I did read an intriguing article recently: "Perception and Prosopagnosia in Mark 8:22-26" from Brian Glenney and John Noble. It is the only healing that Jesus did twice. By the standards of historical scholarship it is highly probable this event happened just as described. It's quite unsettling really.

There are no camps tgeorgescu. No one is camping, and if we were, we would just be enjoying nature and each other's company. I would offer you a beer by the fire. Perhaps we would discuss how much we don't know about the universe. We could agree that we don't have to agree on any of this, we just have to agree to treat each other with respect. I don't know everything. You don't know everything. We don't know what any of us might think in ten years. It is unnecessary for you to keep trying to win this argument while I just keep trying to avoid getting sucked into it. I am not doing a very good job of that, so I am going to stop participating altogether. It's the only way to end this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman never said "The explanation with the god Zulu is true". He just said that it is an example of a theological explanation. So, it is irrelevant that it is an ad hoc hypothesis, since Ehrman never claimed it would be the true explanation. It is just an example in order to learn the difference between a historical explanation and a theological explanation. Being a straw man argument is also irrelevant. It is just a pedagogical example meant to explain an abstract idea.

Further, if the resurrection was real, then Christianity is true. But the problem with that argument is that historians cannot show which is The True Religion™.

And this never was about my own ideas. It is about what the academic mainstream finds. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Further, if the resurrection was real, then Christianity is true. " That seems to be a non sequitur at best. Even if some guy was resurrected, that would provide no evidence in support of Christian ideology and superstition. Whether Jesus was resurrected has little relevance to the actual history of Christianity. Christian creeds developed independently from his sayings and may be completely different to whatever he believed in. Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Subjective appearances

This is a garbled mess. They have sentences in the wrong places referring to things they don't discuss. There is no explanation of how subjective is used by the scholar referenced. They don't say who the scholars are but describe Habermas as a Christian apologist twice. This section now focuses on one interpretation, which is not even the majority held view right now - that would be grief - which is never mentioned at all. That would allow for a discussion of the medical literature which was also removed along with everything else that actually pertained to historicity. This is not an overview of the scholarship, does not represent the best of WP, and is not good for the encyclopedia. IMO, this is an attempt to present a personal point of view. It cherry picks. Please someone out there be reasonable, neutral and honest about what the scholarship says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Any historian in the sane mind agrees that historians cannot prove miracles. There are no miracles in World War 2, there are no miracles in the Holocaust, there are no miracles in the British Empire, there are no miracles in the Roman Empire, and so on. To put it otherwise, there is no way to know if miracles ever happened.

And Bible scholars who claim that historians can prove miracles make the whole academic field of Bible scholarship look childish and ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because the same people who grant that there are objectively historical miracles in the Bible deny that there are genuine miracles in Islam, Hinduism, and Rabbinical Judaism. They say those are the work of demons. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

According to which source is 'grief the majority view', and on exactly what? Lüdemann mentions 'grief' as the cause of Peter's visionary experience of Jesus after his death. Which, by the way, is mentioned in the article:

In the twenty-first century, modern scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann have proposed that Peter had a visual hallucination of Jesus, due to severe grief and mourning

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather disturbed by Jenhawk's editing - she seems to me to be pushing her own interpretation and distorting what current scholars say. I think she should step back. Achar Sva (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Achar Sva, this is ing and it too needs to stop. Joshua and I are the only ones actually discussing the article. Get back to what's appropriate. I am asking politely yet again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"she seems to me to be pushing her own interpretation and distorting what current scholars say" This wouldn't be the first case where a Misplaced Pages editor's personal beliefs interfere with their objectivity. But I would wait for the sources which Jenhawk has in mind to support his/her proposed changes. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, thank you for actually discussing the article. I wish I had used the reference saying that grief hallucinations were the majority view as now I am having trouble finding it. But that's okay, I don't really care about it specifically, I just want this to represent the broad spectrum of the "dominant paradigm" and to make mention of minority views and the ongoing debate. Thank you for pointing me to Ludeman. I thought he'd been lost.

Your ref is a blog, of course you know that, so you know it's not usable. says "the bereavement hallucination hypothesis shows more promise as a viable alternative to the traditional view." but it doesn't say it is the majority view.

This is a good article but it makes no claims concerning majority views either.

This is the best overview I have found so far

I have looked at over two dozen sources, skipping over anything by Habermas, Craig, Licona and several others, and am having the devil of a time finding good sources that are not specifically religious. I will keep looking for surveys but for right now, please feel free to ignore that particular complaint. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Please stop or I will be forced to take this to Admin. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: About These are personal attacks. Nope, never said above anything about you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: thank you for your efforts; highly appreciated. 'The majority view' probably is that the post-mortem appearances were visions, not actual, physical appearances; the Wiki-article more or less states this, but I don't recall exactly where or how, except for the lead. Ludemann's explanation is one of the explanations fof these visions. His blog is acceptable as a source, as he is a published and respected author. NB: those 'appearances' could also have been a 'felt presence' (compare Geschwind syndrome, and Ramana Maharshi who felt a 'current' when probably haing an epileptic seizure at age sixteen); a lot of people feel the presence of deceased loved ones, and even talk eith them. Add to this the religious expectations of the pending endtime, and indeed the sense of loss, and you've got a powerfull mix of emotions to induce some very powerfull religious experiences. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is plausible, and is indeed the most common current explanation imo, however, there is no corresponding description of a 'felt presence' in any of the Gospels. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: two additional comments:

• To who appeared Jesus first? Peter, or Mary? I'd bet Mary, but Peter took the lead, being a male; Mary, being a woman, had a subordinate position, bout could not be removed from history. Compare Martin luther King's female black secretary, who said to the black gentlemen: 'I'm not going to get you coffee; you do it yourself';
• Paul's interpretations, with the spirit-powered body, and dying with Jesus and rising with Christ, is important for Christian sanctification/theosis and the inner life/contemplation/mysticism: to become like Christ, we have to die to our earthly passions (askese) and arise in/with pneuma, and do God's will on earth: love thy neighbor.

I'll take a look at the sources you found. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

PS2: the Wiki-article takes a nuanced look at the relevance of the resurrection (experiences); where for (a segment of) contemporary Christians the relevance is in literal bodily resurrection (departing from Paul, it seems), the relevance for Jesus' followers was in the continuation of Jesus' mission': the proclamation of the coming endtime and the Kingdom come, and the forgiving of sins. It's only with Paul that 'died for our sins' takes on a more central meaning, and then, still, Paul's stance was further interpreted - et cetera et cetera. 'Bodily resurrection yes or no' is a simplification, which misses the real relevance. But that's my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

While I had not heard of Geschwind syndrome before, its description does not seem all that promising in explaining what Jesus' followers experienced. Feeling intense religious feelings and having ecstatic experiences would not explain an auditory-visual hallucination that is shared by an entire social group. The article on religious delusion suggests a large number of different causes, such as psychotic depression. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"They have sentences in the wrong places" Who is "they"? Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The editor who wrote the section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Habermas

I can't help it, I just have to make some comments on Habermas & Bergeron (2015), The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter:

• They put the emphasis on 'hallucinations," which is a rhetorical device; most scholar speak about "visionary experiences";
• They sum up clinical investigations of bereavement, and conclude that the vision-theoretics are making assumptions which are not supported by clinical facts; yet they take the Biblical accounts as accurate, factual descriptions of what the disciples experienced:

It is noteworthy that hallucinations are private experiences. Hallucination hypotheses, therefore, are unable to explain the disciples’ simultaneous group encounters with the resurrected Jesus. While some may consider the disciples’ post-crucifixion group encounters with the resurrected Jesus as collective simultaneous hallucinations, such an explanation is far outside mainstream clinical thought. What are the odds that separate individuals in a group could experience simultaneous and identical psychological phenomena mixed with hallucinations? This is a non sequitur. Concordantly, the concept of collective-hallucination is not found in peer reviewed medical and psychological literature.

• They misunderstand the interpretation of Jesus resurrection as first from the dead (dead, not death):

Another matter concerns the first-century Hebrew culture, where many Jews had a concept of resurrection at the end of time, but it was unheard of to imagine a near-term resurrection from death to physical life.61 The disciples, therefore, would not have naturally interpreted bereavement experiences as physical encounters with a resurrected Jesus. The premise that bereavement experiences formed the basis for the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection is indefensible.

That's exactly what the disciples thought: the endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• • Joshua Jonathan They sum up clinical investigations of bereavement, and conclude that the vision-theoretics are making assumptions which are not supported by clinical facts; This is valid and unaffected by whatever they think about Bible texts. People believe both true and false things every day. Believing a false thing does not prove that everything you believe is false. Nor does believing one true thing prove that everything you believe is true. These things are separate ideas, and the validity of one is not dependent on the other. This is actually a logic fallacy. What causes "visions" is pertinent to the claim of visions. If you want to get into discussing the historicity of the Gospel accounts, do that, but do recognize it is a separate issue from a medical assessment of visions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Two observations:

• "yet they take the Biblical accounts as accurate, factual descriptions of what the disciples experienced" They must have missed the point that neither the Gospels nor the Acts are eyewitness account, and that their historicity is in doubt. I often wish that the surviving sources provided more information on the disciples themselves, who seem to be rather shadowy figures in the New Testament.
• "the endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection" More accurately, the group was an apocalyptic cult, and their eschatology may have included beliefs vastly different than the Jewish mainstream. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

These seem to be just your personal opinions; I would like to remark my issues with them:

• The fact that some scholars prefer to use a more euphemistic term ("visionary experiences") to refer to what others would perfectly describe as "hallucinations" does not change anything about the validity of Habermas' arguments in this regard.
• The pre-pauline creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 reports that Jesus appeared to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5), to the Twelve Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5), to five hundred disciples (1 Corinthians 15:6), to James and other disciples (1 Corinthians 15:7), and finally to Paul himself (1 Corinthians 15:8). Since this report is universally considered to be of early date, I think he is justified in regarding this description as accurate.
• Do you know about any NT text which supports your assertion that "the endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection!"? This seems to be just your personal view.

Potatín5 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the 'accuracy' of the pre-Pauline creed: the four Gospels and Cts give five different accounts of the appearance experiences. Apart from that, it iz utterly naive to think that religious texts like the Gospels are historical records of historical events.

Regarding "The endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection," see Ehrman (2014), How Jesus became God, p.99, "the resurrection of the dead had begun," and p.108, "he was the first to be raised, and all others were to be raised soon as well. In that sense his resurrection was the beginning of the general resurrection." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting Habermas's argument. What he simply claims is that many disciples had 'experiences' of seeing Jesus resurrected after his dead (a fact which is reported by the pre-Pauline creed), not about the details of the 'appearance experiences' or the historicity of the Gospels' descriptions.

As of Ehrman's view on the eschatological significance of the resurrection of Jesus, this seems to be just his personal opinion (unless you have any source indicating that this is a consensus view, which I haven't seen yet). In my opinion, I think that when Paul referred to Jesus as "firstborn from the dead", he was not specifying the moment at which the latter resurrections would happen (note: this is probably Habermas' view too). Potatín5 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• James Dunn (2006), The Theology of Pual the Apostle, p.240: "...the resurrection of Jesus was understood by Paul (as those before him) as ushering in a new age, even the last days."
• Paula Fredriksen (2018), When Christians Were Jews, p.86-87: "The Kingdom truly was at hand. Jesus' own resurrection was for them meaningful as the first of a cascade of anticipated Endtime events."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Even Wright: "He believed himself to be living at a new stage in the eschatological timetable: the 'age to come' had already begun, precisely with the Messiah's resurrection" (Wright 2003, p.272). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, that's perfectly okay. It's responsible editing to vet sources. You are mistaken in both these comments, but I understand why. Hardyplants removed the medical research from the article, making it impossible to see that pretty much all the medical literature does in fact use the term hallucination. This misunderstanding will persist for our readers of course.

• Please note that everyone of these medical articles uses the term hallucination.
• Castelnovo, Anna, et al. "Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences: A critical overview of population and clinical studies." Journal of affective disorders 186 (2015): 266-274.;
• Grimby, Agneta. "Bereavement among elderly people: Grief reactions, post‐bereavement hallucinations and quality of life." Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 87.1 (1993): 72-80.;
• Sabucedo, Pablo, Chris Evans, and Jacqueline Hayes. "Perceiving those who are gone: Cultural research on post-bereavement perception or hallucination of the deceased." Transcultural Psychiatry (2020): 1363461520962887.;
• Grimby, Agneta. "Hallucinations following the loss of a spouse: Common and normal events among the elderly." Journal of Clinical Geropsychology (1998).

While Habermas is biased, his terminology reflects the medical literature. It is the historians who came up with the term "visionary experiences" and their various definitions of what that means often do not coincide with any medical description of what and how and why humans actually experience "visions". That is factual. That seems important, and very much like something you would mention if it were someone like Habermas doing it.

Habermas and Bergeron do not take for granted the Biblical accounts as accurate, factual descriptions of what the disciples experienced: It is unnecessary. Their argument doesn't depend on proving or disproving the accuracy of either the resurrection or the historicity of the Gospels. It's the disciple's belief in what they had seen that forms the basis of their argument, and it is factual to say that is generally accepted. As Vermes says, it makes history much more difficult and complicated if one tries to assume the Apostles did not actually believe they had seen the risen Jesus, therefore Vermes takes the genuineness of their belief as a given, while still disagreeing that they were right in that belief. Sanders says basically the same thing - which was also removed. The majority of scholars support that view of the Apostle's faith. That is just true Joshua.

But we had this discussion already and I see that you removed that sourced statement anyway. Perhaps that is too nuanced for most of the people here, since they keep arguing about accuracy, but the scholarship is nuanced in that way. Scholars accept the Apostles believed. Debate centers on valid explanations for that faith if the resurrection did not actually happen.

I think we establish at the beginning of this article that bodily resurrection was a departure from Jewish teachings on resurrection.

Joshua, I genuinely tried to represent both the majority and minority view and accurately represent the state of the ongoing debate. Perhaps I failed, but I don't see that here anymore. In your effort to counter what you see as bias, you might want to consider that an alternate bias has been created.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Potatin: where does the creed state that those apostles and followers saw Jesus? The creed states that Jesus appeared to them. Note that the appearance to Paul was not a visual experience.

@Potat8n & Jenhawks777: a critical discussion of the nature of Bible-texts is missing from Habermas

@Jenhawks777: we're discussing here what Biblical scholars write; they mostly argue about visions, not hallucinations.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to politely overlook your first statement since the definitions of those words - saw and appeared - are self-explanatory.

Ah, I see. It's bias if Habermas changes the term, though he didn't, but it is perfectly okay if "Biblical scholars" - who may not actually define or even know what they are asserting - do so. So much for concerns about accuracy.

A critical discussion of the nature of Bible texts is missing from Habermas, yes, because that would be off topic for this particular article. The article from Habermas and Bergeron is about the who, why and what causes "visions". If one claims someone was healed of a broken leg, some evidence of a broken leg should be offered. If one claims the disciples had visions, some parameters of what that means should be included from the field of study that actually knows about visions. That would be psychiatry. That's all that article is. If you desire a critical discussion of Bible texts, Habermas does that in other works, just not this one. It would be irrelevant here.

Joshua, I say again that there is no longer both a majority and minority view and accurate representation of the state of the ongoing debate in this article. Look at the article itself from a critical perspective. There is no longer a section on historicity at all. How does that serve the best interests of our readers or the encyclopedia? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, why do you think scholars find it necessary to come up with alternative explanations for the resurrection? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at your original series of edits; I think I understand what you intended to communicate. Let me note that I think that the 'alternative explanations' are less, or not, relevant, to the theological and soteriological implications of the (belief in) the resurrection; but since those 'discussions' do occupy quite a number of people, almost since the beginning of Christianity, it does have some relevance. Let me also note that the vision-approach is extensively treated in the "Significance"-section. That being said, Wright provides a neat summary of 'objections':

1) that the Jewish context is unclear and therefore not definitive;

2) that Paul believed in spiritual resurrection not bodily resurrection;

3) that early Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection either, and only came to use resurrection language at a secondary stage of belief;

4) that the resurrection stories in the gospels are late inventions;

5) that the early Christians' visions of Jesus were an internal subjective religious experience;

6) that something other than what's in the gospels happened to Jesus body.

With this list in mind:

• The article should open with the section on Biblical accounts;
• Somehow, Wright's list should then be mentioned, whereafter

• follows the section on"Jewish-Hellenistic background;
• then the section on physical or spiritual resurrection;
• then the section on "Significance in Christianity," as this also contains the discussion on early and late High Christology;
• thereafter, a short discussion of the vision-approach, although this is already treated then in the previous section (Habermas could be mentioned here);
• last, the swoon hypothesis etc.

• the section on the Biblical accounts could have a subsection on "Scepticism with regard to the resurrection narratives," stating that early on there was scepticism about those narratives.

I'll give this a try. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The empty tomb scepsis fits naturally into the section on the empty tomb, while the short overview of the vision-approach fits into the subsection on "Foundation of Christian faith." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for such a reasoned response. I support your efforts. I will wait to see what results, but it sounds balanced and fair. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Cor 15:3-11 interpolation?

Maybe for future usage: . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Yes, imo, this theory of interpolation should be mentioned. It is a minority view - Ehrman dates the text to within a couple years of Jesus' death - so it should be identified as such, but should be included. There are multiple arguments against this theory, but none of them need to be mentioned in the article, imo. It is sufficient to mention the theory and say this is a minority view. It's kind of a personal policy of mine to mention everything the scholars do as much as possible.

Normally I would say that when dealing with things that are heavily debated by scholars, write pro/con, pro/con, from majority down to minority views, to be sure everyone is fairly and accurately represented. But in this case there is no heavy debate. The majority view is against a later interpolation, but should still be mentioned.

It isn't always necessary to include a full discussion. When there are simply too many issues, I pick what seems like a representative sample. For example, the "Jesus didn't die" scenario of the empty tomb was already in the historicity section, so I added the minority response, in my usual pro/con. I did not attempt to discuss all the theories and their responses.

I added Wright's summary of 6 challenges, but I did not attempt to include responses to each one there either, just writing one sentence that Wright asserts there are answers to each.

That's just how I go about attempting to ensure neutrality. I'm sure you have your own methods for keeping personal bias in check. But yes, I agree, these views should be included in order to insure a fair representation of what all the many scholars have to say on the entire subject. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm not even sure it should be mentioned, at least not here, since it is such a tiny minority view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's a personal call based on how much detail you want to include. I tend toward more detail if I can summarize it without putting the reader to sleep. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 15#Origins of the creed would be the appropriate place; it even states even skeptical scholars agree that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is not an interpolation, without explaining why it could be an interpolation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate to me. The pro/con combination would make a nice short paragraph. Good research! Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism

Hey Joshua Jonathan! Above you say the section on the Biblical accounts could have a subsection on "Scepticism with regard to the resurrection narratives," stating that early on there was scepticism about those narratives. and I just wanted to let you know that in my opinion that's a perfect idea. I like the pro/con juxtaposition, it will make it easier for readers to follow what is connected with what, and it would be the perfect placement for Wright's list. This is exactly the approach I took in a couple other articles I redid - which proves, of course, that you are quite brilliant... . The subject is controversial enough this kind of construction - traditional view with the skeptical response immediately after - could be continued throughout the entire article. Just wanted you to know I like your ideas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I already added a few lines to the section on the empty tomb. I've also changed theheader of that section, as no author in that section seems to make a case for a purely "spiritual" resurrection. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There are some that do however, we just have to find them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Scholarly accounts" and the structure of the article

It strikes me that, having alerted readers to the dominant scholarly paradigm and its six constituent parts, the same reader will then expect some discussion of these. I suggest that next six sections or subsections of the article should do this. Achar Sva (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if I read him correctly Joshua Jonathan has already suggested an outline - toward the end of this section - that pretty much advocates for what you suggest here. Since my opinion is also that a failure to include the scholarly debate on this topic would be less than our readers and the encyclopedia deserve, one might be led to conclude we have a kind of consensus here. Imagine.

Joshua suggests opening with the "Biblical accounts" section and adding a discussion of Wright's #4 there. I don't think it matters if we follow Wright's exact order, but I do agree that if we mention the list, following through on discussing the different points would be good writing and proper scholarship - in whatever order we choose.

Wright's #1 would be included in the following section on "Jewish-Hellenistic background"; the section on physical or spiritual resurrection would naturally include a discussion of Wright's second point; since the section on "Significance in Christianity," also contains the discussion on early and late High Christology, Wright's #3 might fit better there, but it could also go in with #2; #5 needs its own section, and #6 fits nicely in the empty tomb section.

We must treat all views with respect. We must avoid advocating. We must include both sides and minority views. We must do so in an organized and orderly manner - and Wright gives us a convenient hanger to drape it all on. I agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wright's six points are more or less treated in the article, but I can think we can do without it. It was added as an explication of Wright's admission of the 'subjective stance' as the dominant stance, but it may not be the best intro. So, I've just removed it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought we had reached some consensus here. :-( You're right, it was offered as support to his assertion, but why does that disqualify it for use here as a basic outline? You're right again, that these points are already in the article for the most part, but this organization would make them more easily accessible and I think, understandable. I really do like this pro/con structure using Wright's points. It provides for full and fully neutral coverage of the topic imo. Please reconsider. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The gospels and the post-resurrection appearances

The section of the gospels seems far too long; it would be better to note the post-crucifixion resurrection appearances. The following might be a guide:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Achar Sva (talk • contribs) 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't agree with what? Achar Sva (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree to abridging this section down to a chart. WP is supposed to offer summaries. This comparison might fit in another section, but not this section which is an appropriate summary of the gospel's accounts. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We can't use that table in the article, because it's not sourced (and sourcing it from various bible verses isn't permitted). As you say, we need to summarise the gospel accounts of resurrection appearances. The chart analyses what those accounts are and where they are to found, but it cannot be used in any section of the article. The section should, however, contain the information, since it is summarises the gospels.Achar Sva (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC) I've amended the table slightly to clarify it. Achar Sva (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Loke on the empty tomb

User:Salitado added some views of Andrew Loke on the empty tomb, referring to Craig Evans and L. Eisenberg diff:

However, as pointed out by Andrew Loke, both Craig Evans and L. Eisenberg have argued against the unburied hypothesis by demonstrating, on the basis of Roman practice, "the probability that the Romans would allow a crucified victim to be buried during peace time" as not unlikely; also, an archaeological finding of a crucified first century man's remains with a nail in the heel suggests that his body was removed soon after his death, probably owing to his wealthy and influential background.

References

1. Loke, Andrew (2020). Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach. Routledge. p. 122.

I see multiple problems here:

• Editorializing: "however," "demonstrating"; Loke uses the terms (link) "points out" and "argues";
• Andrew Loke is a Christian apologist; not the best source, and undue in comparison to Ehrman;
• Loke uses Evans (2005, 2014) to argue against Crossan's "unburied hypothesis," and then let's Ehrman (2014) object against Evans; the edits scramble this line of argument;
• Leonard Irwin Eisenberg is a geologist see here, who argues in A New Natural Interpretation of the Empty Tomb that

(1) Jesus survives his short stay on the cross, and (2) is discovered to be barely alive by the few followers who retrieve him. (3) Fearful because they have illegally retrieved a condemned man, they carry out a decoy burial in a tomb. (4) Jesus expires soon after, and is buried quietly in an anonymous grave, but (5) rumor of his survival reaches his followers, as well as the Romans, who (6) open the tomb and find it empty, except for burial linen used in the decoy. (7) To sooth their grief the disciples seize on the rumor of Jesus’ survival and encourage each other to hear the voice and see the image of their master in others. Although the probability of the scenario proposed herein is low, it is surely far larger than the supernatural one. It also is arguably more likely than other non-supernatural hypotheses.

Ergo, irrelevant.

I'll make some appropriate changes to these additons. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How about putting back in my paragraph that included the medical assessment? Including all of this - which is way more than I had and is really not the best discussion as Eisenberg's last sentence indicates he is just as biased as Loke - seems to be going down a rabbit hole imo - why not just put back the three sentence version and leave it at that instead? This isn't a class on theology and its compatibility with the scientific view. This all seems like a digression to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! Looks like the section prefers mainly negative-middle-affirmative positions per paragraph. However, with regard to "Andrew Loke is a Christian apologist....undue in comparison to Ehrman", I disagree. Andrew Loke is a tenured associate professor based in a public university and he has published a monograph with Cambridge University Press (in the SNTSMS series, one of the most well-respected academic peer reviewed series on historical critical studies of the New Testament) criticizing Ehrman (who is an apologist for his worldview); moreover, the present citation is from a book published by Routledge, a leading peer-reviewed academic publisher, not a Christian apologetics press. Solatido 05:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that extended arguments on the empty tomb belong to the Empty tomb page. I've just copied some of the information in this article to Empty tomb#Scepsis about the empty tomb-narrative. It had a similar section before (see here), but that's been removed since then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "apologist": Loke (2020) p.199 (Conclusion): "In this monograph, it has been shown that the case for the resurrection of Jesus has not been disproved; on the contrary, there are good reasons for thinking that the best explanation for (1) , (2) , and (3) is that God has revealed himself through miraculously raising Jesus from the dead, thus vindicating his claims to be divine and confiming the salvific work that he has accomplished on the cross." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"that God has revealed himself" That is a leap in logic. How could a couple of visions and hallucinations be considered evidence for the existence of a deity? Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Jodi Magness, Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James, seems to be much more interesting with regard to the empty tomb. Ehrman esteems her highly ("My colleague Jodi Magness is the real thing"), yet, as Greg Monette notes:

Probably most surprising of all is that he does not once draw from the work of Jodi Magness, one of the world’s leading archaeologists and experts on Jewish burial in the time of Jesus–who Bart Ehrman hired to teach at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Intriguing. See also here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
PS: tombs were used to let a body decay; after a year, the bones were collected in an ossuary. Surely Joseph of Arimathea wouldn't have intended to leave Jesus' body there for a year. Ehrman (if I remember correctly) notes that there was no grave to be visited or worshipped, ergo there was no grave. The alternative, of course, is that Jesus' body was taken out after Pesach and buried in a trench grave, and that the empty tomb tradition developed to explain why the disciples left Jeruzalem. But surely, someone sometime has already proposed this somewhere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is all speculation, again, Joshua, speculation of one type and one pov. Why wouldn't Joseph of Arimethea have intended to leave Jesus in the tomb he is supposed to have given him? In Judaism, it would have been exceedingly odd to have moved a dead body after burial. The women were heading somewhere on Sunday morning, if not the tomb, as it says, where are you contemplating sending them? Of the totality of scholars in this field, how many agree with Ehrman? Are you actually representing the majority view? It's good to include contrary views as long as you represent all the points of view with emphasis on the majority view. It is not neutral when you don't. It is non-neutral to decide for yourself that because other scholars have a belief system you dismiss that you can also fairly dismiss their scholarship from inclusion in this article. Is this article still representing majority view Joshua? It's a fair question that you should be asking yourself at this point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"In the end, Ehrman simply ignores any evidence that proves his theory to be incorrect ... He doesn’t cite any authorities on the subject of Jewish burial practices in antiquity, and appears to have selectively side-stepped any information which might undermine his provocative claim." Greg Monette Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that the Gospel-stories are objective accounts of historical facts? Where do they state that Joseph gave a tomb to Jesus? He put him in a tomb. With what intention? How would your sources know what Joseph's intentions were, if these stories are objective accounts at all? How would you even know that Jesus was put in a tomb? Because a number of stories, which are copied from each other and contradict each other, say so?

Regarding "majority view," Magness states with regard to Hengel's views (a conservative Christian himself, I read), that his take on Jesus' burial is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature."

Monette seems to be wrong. Ehrman read drafts of Magness' article; she explicitly thanks him for providing usefull suggestions. Magness simply states that she believes Joseph of Arimathea put Jesus in a familytomb; she does not explain why she finds it likely that a Sanhedrin-member would put an executed man, condemned by him, in his family-tomb - the place where the bones of his parents and other relatives are resting (imagine, only for a split second: you've got a familygrave, where your parents and grantparents are resting. You are a respected member of your society; therefore, you're a local judge on the local court for religious issues. You condemn a man to death, and hand him ovdr to the Romans; then you put his dead body in your family-grave. What would the neighbours say? Your wife, your cousins? They would be outraged). She also ignores the conclusions of McCane, who she frequently refers to, yet in such a way that she suggests he's actually supporting her. In contrast, Ehrman explains why it is unlikely that a Sanhedrin-member would put the body of an executed criminal into a (his)(family)tomb. He's not ignoring "any evidence that proves his theory to be incorrect" - which, by the way, is that we do not know what happened to Jesus' body. But that point seems to be missed by Ehrman's critics. Instead, they focus, again, on the Gospel-accounts, since this is what they know, and this is what they belief in. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"a Sanhedrin-member would put an executed man, condemned by him" Where did you conclude that Joseph condemned Jesus? The all-too brief narrative about Joseph of Arimathea states: "Joseph of Arimathea was "a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God"; Luke 23:50–56 adds that he "had not consented to their decision and action". "Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman (2014), How Jesus Became God:

Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death"(14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, shall I quote other apologists back in turn? No, because we must not fall into the trap of arguing over what we believe is true. That is pov and not valid for determining what goes into this article. Move past confirmation bias. It's the only way to produce a genuinely neutral text. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved content to under a better suited subsection

Moved subsection "empty tomb" from under "Resurrection of a transformed body" to "Scholarly approaches" as the subject matter contains info on scholarly approaches that suits better the latter subheading than the former. If you think this is erroneous, kindly reason here. Thanks! Solatido 12:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's where it belongs. I am doing nothing while I wait to see if the balanced neutrality that was lauded as superior actually appears. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It belongs a little bit lower, after the background-section; that's a mofe chronological order. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A more chronological order? Based on what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro (scholarly opinions), background, entombment and empty tomb. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In the empty tomb section, there are 5 paragraphs of skepticism, and one of support; the next section has 3 on skepticism and one - again Wright as if he is all there is - in support of the traditional view. You give some pretty good explanations of the arguments of skeptics, and one sentence with a non-specific response from Wright - then reassert visions again. Surely you are not claiming this as a neutral presentation. Put yourself in the other position and evaluate this as if you didn't have a personal opinion to justify. Joshua, what if a Christian came along and wrote something like this from their point of view? Wouldn't you say it was non neutral - justifiably? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wright is not my addition; he's been used to much, surely to push a faith-based pov. There's more nuance, also from Christian authors; the mainstream Christian view, at least in the west, does not seem to be that the resurrection was a concrete, literal event. I can't recall the last time I heard someone defend this position - and I speak a lot of people on religious topics.

The empty tomb, and the nature of the appearances, are most relevant for evangelicals and the like; but the section on the meaning of the resurrection for the early ekklesia is much larger, since this is what matters: how did the early church come to be? Misplaced Pages is a platform for scholarship, not for apologists; we should not give them undue weight. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on scepticism

I do not see any answers to my questions concerning neutrality. On my user page is a short essay on 6 steps that I personally take to neutralize bias. I don't see evidence of such effort here. Do you claim these sections represent your best efforts at neutrality? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"there are 5 paragraphs of skepticism, and one of support; the next section has 3 on skepticism and one - again Wright as if he is all there is - in support of the traditional view." We could extend the text on the skepticism, but I don't see why we devote some much space to the fringe "traditional" view. It has little to no credibility, and little notable support. Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have to be fair: there's more from the (Protestant) sceptics (former believers) then from the (Protestant) believers. But then, what do you call "majority"? What about WP:UNDUE? How many apologists are we going to summarize? How representative are Gary Gabermas and Craig Evans? Habermas is a pseudo-scholar, according to Price. Evans has repeatedly argued for the reliability of the entombment & empty tomb stories; how representative is he? (Ehrman regards him highly!) Some of his writings:

• Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus (2005)
• Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right (2014), in Michael F. Bird et al. How God Became Jesus; Ehrman has responded to thos essay specifically;
• The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices (2016)

I'll read this, with the question in mind: how does Evans explain the likelihood of a Sanhedrin-member placing the body of a convicted person in a tomb? NB: responses from Ehrman. Be also aware what the apologetics are arguing against: Jesus' body not being buried at all (Cossan), or Jesus' body not being entombed, but put in a common grave (Hengel, McCane, Ehrman). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"How many apologists are we going to summarize?" Preferrably none. Since when are apologists reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking? Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Habermas is a pseudo-scholar, according to Price." No surprise there. Gary Habermas is part of the faculty in Liberty University, whose mission statement is "training Champions for Christ". "Liberty University is a conservative Evangelical college which is reflected in its honor code and other policies. The university teaches creationism alongside the science of evolutionary biology." The university has had a history involving nepotism, racism, and sex scandals. Typical of Christian organizations. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dimadick This doesn't present much of an argument for your neutrality does it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Yes please, do be fair. That's all I am actually asking. Robert Price is fringe. Using him to discredit anyone else is anything but fair. He is a biased source. So is Habermas - have I ever said otherwise? But Christian apologists are not the only apologists in this article. By definition, an apologist is someone who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. That is Ehrman - and Price - and others in this article. They offer a defense of a point of view. They do not simply assess historical sources. Yet you keep referencing them as if you don't recognize them as apologists. Dimadick asks How many apologists are we going to summarize?" Preferrably none. and I agree. Neutrality requires removing all the apologists - not just the Christian ones.

Joshua, you and the others responding here keep evaluating these theories and what you think is true or not, writing that into the article using apologists that agree with you as support. This article has become a soapbox for your views. That is not WP policy and you know that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not new to Misplaced Pages. We never use "neutral sources", per the policy that biased or opinionated sources are both allowed and necessary. But our job as editors requires us to keep in mind the policy on Fringe theories. Any idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in their particular field is defined as "fringe", and should not be given prominence in an article. Saying "x idea" was supported by professor Smith or archaeologist Jones is never enough for inclusion in an article. First, we have to determine the background and qualifications of these people, and the support which these ideas have in their field. We even cite examples of "scholarly" journals which should be avoided, including fundamentalist publications by the Creation Research Society. That a pseudo-scholar like Habermas supports biblical literalism should invalidate him as a source. And anyone working for Liberty University is tainted by association with the former president of that university, Jerry Falwell Jr.. Dimadick (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Reading Evans now (2016, see above; a blog post), in which he writes "Josephus also states that those executed by crucifixion were 'buried before sunset' what we have here is fully consistent with what we see in the Gospels: The Romans crucify Jesus and two other men and the Jews bury them" - after sunset... Not what I call "fully consistent." In the same post Evsnz writes "the remains of most of those crucified were from the lower classes and so would not have been placed in ossuaries." This begs the question why this would not have happened with Jesus. Evans ignores the Bible-texts, and evades the questions which are answered by the authors he opposes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Evans refers to Josephus; so does Casey, but to quite different quotes, about criminals buried at night here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan This is just more evaluation of what you think truth is, and that has no place and no value here. Do you really think you are qualified to determine anything about "truth" beyond a personal belief? Do you really think you have studied enough to evaluate a PhD's work in their own fields? Have you read the original texts, in Greek, do you understand the difficulties of translation and the nuances of Aramaic influences and Hebrew ones? Do you know the historical documents, their philology, graphology, and archaeology, and are you up on all the recent studies on oral history that contribute to understanding these writings as ancient documents? Do you really think your analytical skills, logical reasoning, and your understanding of causation, context and argumentation are up to more than just another personal opinion based on someone else's work?

We read the people who do these things. We don't do them.

We don't evaluate the truth of their work. We publish what they say, and what others say about the quality of their work, but we don't publish our own evaluations.

We can sit here and write back and forth evaluating what we think of Evans and Habermas, and what we think of Ehrman and Price. We can bring references that argue with one and against another and it all has no value at all. It's a complete waste of time. None of it has any place on WP.

All of this, the totality of your responses here, all prove what I have said: this article has become a soapbox for personal opinion of what you personally think is true. It is not neutral. You can never claim true neutrality until you are willing to give equal space to critics. It isn't scholarly. It's apologetic. It isn't a good article. It's one of the worst things I've run across on WP and I spend all my time redoing badly done articles. This one just keeps getting worse. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Biased sources are allowed as long as they share your bias? Any idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in their particular field is defined as "fringe", and should not be given prominence in an article. I agree 100%. Please do follow that. There are several of those being put forth in this article.

Yes, do vet the authors here. Habermas got his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Michigan State University after getting his master's from the University of Detroit. He is no pseudo-scholar. Yes, he works at Liberty now, and no I don't like them either, but the whole idea of being "tainted by association" is Victorian. Associating with straight people doesn't prove I am straight; associating with LGBTQ doesn't prove I'm gay. Habermas has specialized in cataloging trends among scholars who study topics pertaining to the historical Jesus and New Testament studies. He is not a biblical literalist. He does support a literal resurrection. He doesn't think that because he believes in literal interpretation, he thinks it because he genuinely thinks the history supports it. I can have no more than a personal opinion on whether or not he is right - nor can you.

But I am happy to exclude him from this article completely, just because you object, in an effort to establish good faith. I would like to see a good faith gesture in response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm qualified to evaluate the value of Evans assertions. I don't need a PhD to understand that Josephus is writing about burials before sunset, whereas Mark and Matthew clearly state that Joseph went to Pilatus after sunset. I also don't need a PhD to understand that Evans is selectively qouting Josephus, when Casey quotes other passages from josephus:

The general situation was sufficient for Josephus to comment on the end of a biblical thief, 'And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night thr dishonourable burial proper to the condemned' (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God, 'let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonourably and secretly (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).'

We're having this discussion because the tomb-narratives are widely doubted by scholars. That may be "controversial" for Evangelicals, but it is a widely held scholarly opinion, as acknowledged by Magness. It's not a new discussion either; Brown, writing in 1973, already refers to authors who argue that Jesus was buried in a common grave (unfortunately, he does not give sources), so Hengel obviously wasn't new or oroginal in his assertions.

From the few things I've read now, I see the following views emerge:

• The Gospel-stories are problematic, and

• Jesus was buried in a common grave;
• Jesus was entombed by Joseph/a servant of Joseph/the Sanhedrin/the Jerusalem Jewish community in a tomb reserved for criminals;
• Jesus' body was left on the cross to rot away; his bodily remains were thrown at a yunkyard;
• We don't know what happened to Jesus' body (Ehrman);

• The Gospel-stories are in line with archaeological and textual evidence, and Jesus was entombed by Josephus, either in a new tomb, his familytomb (Magness), or a tomb for criminals.

Basically, most of these options are mentioned in the article. I think that Evans can be mentioned, but with care and in context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may "often train as historians", but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that not all of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. Mojowiha (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well tgeorgescu I don't know who Mojowiha is, and I don't know why he should be referenced as any kind of an authority, but allow me to reference a book from an actual PhD: ...sometimes the historian is rightly suspicious of sources. But this suspicion must be balanced by suspicion of the historian towards their own biases. A source may see things wrongly because of bias, but it is also possible that a source sees things rightly, but the historian may be blocked from realizing this because of their own bias. Assuming that anyone with faith is unable to set biases aside - while also assuming that secular people are automatically more unbiased - demonstrates bias. Men are not automatically more unbiased than women just because there is such a thing as a feminist perspective. Whites are not inherently more unbiased than blacks or native Americans just because blacks and native Americans have a perspective white's don't. I personally have 6 practices for neutralizing bias that have become habits. I have written them out on my user page. I am not seeing evidence of the same kind of commitment from anything that has been written here so far. I see POV being reinforced by more POV.

In his book, Marsden argues against Christian scholars using anything but the standards of argument and evidence used by everyone with a variety of viewpoints. Otherwise, he says social location - religion, gender, ethnicity - will affect perspective. First, he says, it's important to acknowledge that these social standings will not impact everything, but there are at least three ways in which a Christian perspective may impact conclusions. There is no Christian mathematics or Jewish photosynthesis, but when it comes to interpreting significance, a Christian perspective will matter. For example, there is no Catholic economics, but there is a Catholic view of economic justice. Second, Christian views are not unique and are often shared by others. Third there are many types of Christians. I, for example, am not an evangelical. The above polemic does not apply to me. Nor does it apply to many Christian historians.

References

1. Wells, Ronald, ed. History and the Christian historian. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998.page 50

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what Mark 15:42 says is that it was evening, and the problem here is that you are giving that a modern definition. In Greek, it is the genitive feminine singular form of the adjective opsias. It means afternoon, or late in the day, as in after 3. In the Second Commonwealth when the calendar became a lunar-solar, the year began with the autumn and the day began with the sunset... in the tannaitic literature the evening precedes the day. If it had already been after dark, it would have been the next day, the Sabbath and the start of Passover, and they would have been required to go home and rest. Mark says it was preparation day for the Sabbath. Matthew 27:57 uses the same Greek adjective. Luke 23:54 says it was Preparation (Paraskeuēs) Day - the day before the Sabbath. That means they all say it was before sunset.

Your statement that Mark and Matthew clearly state that Joseph went to Pilatus after sunset is simply wrong. It demonstrates the lack of qualification. But even if you were fully qualified, it is not WP policy for you to write what you think is "truth".

If Josephus is correct in his picture of all first century crucifixions as criminal/political, which seems likely, it is not evidence of what was done with Jesus' body. Provincial officials had choices. Many bodies were left to rot on their crosses. Animals no doubt ate them. However, there are no texts from the ancient world stating that the crucified were ever buried in shallow graves. There are texts that mention mass graves, but they contain no indication of carelessness in their burial that would lead to those bodies being dug up by animals. There is no mention of an open pit in any Roman text. It is an extremely unlikely scenario considering Jewish sensibilities of the time. There are a number of texts showing the bodies of the dead were buried by family or friends. The archaeological evidence from Yehohanan proves that crucified men were occasionally buried. Those texts show that the narrative of Joseph of Arimethaea's burial of Jesus would be perfectly comprehensible to a Greco-Roman reader of the gospels and historically credible.

Is any of this mentioned in the article?

References

1. Zeitlin, Solomon. “The Beginning of the Jewish Day during the Second Commonwealth.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 36, no. 4, 1946, pp. 403–14. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1452137. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022.
2. Cook, J. (2011). Crucifixion and Burial. New Testament Studies, 57(2), 193-213. doi:10.1017/S0028688510000214. page 213

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"The archaeological evidence from Yehohanan..." What is this. Never heard of such a place?? Thank you, warshy 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a place, a person that was crucified and afterwards buried in a tomb. ; ; Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"This begs the question why this would not have happened with Jesus." Why do you assume that Jesus was part of the lower class? While the gospels do not describe his economic status, his genealogy describes him as a member of the Davidic line, which seemed to have been part of the upper classes. His father Joseph is described as a Tektōn in the Gospels, an artisan or craftsman of some type. Dimadick (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You'd suggest that Jesus'family had the means to afford a burial tomb? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not assume Jesus was poor, but growing up in Nazareth implies it. Nazareth was very small and exceedingly poor. Even if, as a descendent of David, he might have been considered "upper class" at one time, by the first century the only royalty recognized was the Hasmonean dynasty established by the Romans. Yes, Jesus' father was probably a stone mason or a carpenter, but they were not well off generally, and then Joseph disappears from the record, indicating he probably died, leaving his family economically challenged. But this has nothing to do with whether or not Joseph of Arimethaea offered his tomb. Economic status would not have been a factor in that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me; I was unaware of this peculiarity of the use of the term "evening" in the Bible. Obviously Bible-translations can't be taken on face-value, as I did here, though it doesn't take a PhD-research to find this out.

The Josephus-before-sunset argument is used by quite a lot of authors, as is Yehohanan. It could be mentioned as such: "A number of authors argue, contra Crossan ...." (and other authors; this idea seems to go back to at least 1847). Likewise the option that Jesus was put in a common tomb for criminals; the option that the burial/entombment and the empty tomb stories are two independent narratives, which developed over time, apart from the appearance-to-Peter tradition; and Ehrman's conclusion that we simply don't know what happened to Jesus' body. In condensed form; an extensive treatment is better suited for Burial and empty tomb of Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, translation of anything from any language to another is always filled with difficulties, but that is not a peculiarity of the Bible. It is a peculiarity of language. In this case, though, it isn't translation so much as how the Jewish people created their calendars that's caused this issue for you. That the Jewish people of the first century had a lunar calendar where the day began at sunset isn't really an 'argument' people use. It's a simple fact.

I agree about not having an extensive treatment, and I think that means cutting your five paragraphs down and adding in some discussion of actual evidence. Maybe reference someone who is not an apologist for your pov. Reference those "real historians". Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's use WP standards

I have appealed to good faith editing on this talk page repeatedly. I have endeavored not to engage, and to engage, and three times we have simply ground to a halt. This article is not neutral. It has become a soapbox for one point of view. It does not meet WP standards.

Entombment and empty tomb Burial

1. Early on, the stories about the empty tomb were met with scepcis. is a half truth. The other half should be mentioned for neutrality, or this statement should be removed.
2. Already in the first century AD, critics of the early Christian community asserted that Jesus had not really died on the cross. Other suggestions are that the body was stolen from the grave, or was lost due to naturally causes. First, none of this is cited. I do agree the theories mentioned should be included as critiques of the traditional view, but for neutrality, it should include two sentences with the critique of the critique. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints ... the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. This has not been done here.
3. Critical scholars have argued that there are historical discrepancies in the stories of the burial and the empty tomb. This is a rabbit hole that would be a digression in this article, which I guess you know, since it isn't explained. But WP says don't raise a topic then fail to explain it. That's a good way to confuse the reader.
4. Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death This reference has no page number, making this uncheckable, and I think it is not a fully accurate summary of what is a view which is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature. which also has no page number. This is full of which should be removed according to summary style.
5. John Dominic Crossan famously stated that Jesus' body was thrown into a shallow grave and eaten by dogs, the bones scattered. Puffery and no critique. There should at least be a nod to historical evidence somewhere, since there are no Roman texts supporting this.
6. The entire next paragraph is Ehrman. Presenting this requires that how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. They aren't.
7. British New Testament scholar Maurice Casey took a middle position on the matter: he argues that Jesus was indeed buried by Joseph of Arimathea, but in a tomb for criminals owned by the Sanhedrin. He therefore rejects the empty tomb narrative as legendary. A middle position on what? Only one position has been presented. This also has no page number.
8. A number of Christian authors have rejected the criticisms, taking the Gospel-accounts to be historically reliable. Raymond E. Brown, writing in 1973,... This has contentious labels - other writers are not characterized by their beliefs: ; it contains editorializing saying that their position is based on their belief in the gospel accounts rather than historical evidence: ; no dates are referenced for any other writer, so this stands out, as if it is an attempt to convey doubt: Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz This is so off the wall it almost doesn't deserve answering. Where did I suggest any such thing as a compromise between academia and religion? I have done nothing but argue continuously for a better representation of the academics. I have asked repeatedly that all of the most reliable sources be represented accurately according to WP policies. Are you assuming that all Christian academics, and anything published by a Christian publishing house, are by definition unreliable sources that deserve to be excluded? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bibles, both the Hebrew one and the Greek one, are, in my view, largely a collection of religious myths. However, these two collections of religious myths have been also fundamental for the development of Western civilization. They have been in fact so fundamental, that they have been considered factual historical truth for most of the history of this Western civilization. Up to the so-called modern Enlightenment period (roughly from the second half of the 17th century and up to the great French Revolution of 1789), no one ever dared to even start to question the historical truth of these religious narratives or myths. Misplaced Pages tries to continue in the digital age the rationalistic traditions of the Encyclopedists of the Enlightenment period, who did question the historical truth of these myths. By the second half of the 20th century, Western thought and philosophy got close to almost completely denying there was any historical truth in them. These are the sources that open this article. However, this rationalistic turn of civilization never struck any deep roots in the popular minds of the countries in the Western world. The majority of the populations in these countries, including in the United States, are still fundamentally religious. They are still brought up to think that the Bible they read and study in their own native language is the absolute, final truth in the world. As such, by and large they are still definitely believed to contain the the factual historical truth of the ancient periods in which they were collected and put together. And so, the thin veneer of rationalism achieved by Western civilization by the second half of the 20th century is about to be wiped out by a new wave of religious fundamentalism. This current discussion here is just one of the harbingers of this new wave that is surging and is about to overwhelm Western civilization as we know it, I feel. warshy 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's neutrality is often misunderstood as giving equal validity to mainstream and fringe views Quoted from WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I don't mean to be rude, but I don't care what your personal views are. They shouldn't matter to a WP article, and an article's talk page is a really inappropriate place to be discussing them. I only care if you can't keep your beliefs out of a Misplaced Pages article. I am not a fundamentalist, and this sad romanticized fairy tale of the threat to rationalism posed by religious faith is really only a threat to the neutrality of this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

To reply to some of your specific points instead of arguing about methodology:

• • • "The other half should be mentioned for neutrality" For anything to be mentioned, there should be sources about it. Do you have anything specific in mind?
    • "it should include two sentences with the critique of the critique" I am far from certain that the article should present different viewpoints in the style of a debate. But if you can source different arguments, go ahead with the changes.
    • "There should at least be a nod to historical evidence somewhere, since there are no Roman texts supporting this." Sure, as long as you can find a modern source analyzing the burial practices of this era.
    • "This has contentious labels - other writers are not characterized by their beliefs" If you want to argue about policy, keep in mind that the policy on biased or opinionated sources requires us to use these "contentious" labels.: "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." In other words, sources with a pro-Christian bias should be identified in the text. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

    • Thank you for a reasoned response. Yes, of course there should be sources. I am off-line for about a week due to RL, but I will come back with those edits.
    • Assuming you can establish a Christian bias, then I agree. Some are, some aren't. That should mean that secular apologists are also described accordingly, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Response by JJ:

• 1: what is "the other half" which is not mentioned? Note that we have a long section with a summary of the Bible-stories, without critical remarks; these are provided later.
• 2: no, it's not sourced; it's a simple summary, with links. Do you doubt the existence of these 'theories'? The "critique of the critique" can be found at the respective articles.
• 3: this sentence introduces the criticisms, which are the explainrd.
• 4: Hengel's argument is probably indeed summarized inadequately, and may need improvement; a pagenumber could be added, but since it is a direct quote, it is easy verifiable.
• 5: "famously" is not puffery; his remarks have made an impression, to which many authors have responded. This is a summary, and work in progress.
• 6: Ehrman possibly occupies too much space.
• 7: "Middle position" is unclear indeed; it could be removed.
• 8: when a person is writing in defense of his faith, it is relevant to know this. Though I must say thatCraig Evans does not seem to offer anything that's not also mentioned by other scholars. 1973 is mentioned for Brown because he refers to theories on Jesus being buried in a common grave, which means that Crossan's statements were not novel. That part has to be elaborated; Petra Dijkhuizen mentions a number of sources, the earliest being from 1847. That Brown s responding to such theories was not mentioned in the original sentence. And he seems to have changed his mind on this, arguing for a common grave in the 1980s or 1990s. This is also not mentioned.

The basic point still is that the stories (plural) of the entombment of Jesus raise questions, and that his entombment, or burial, was not a honourable burial with the normal mourning procedures and rituals, but a disgracefull one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Skinner, Andrew C. "Two Crucified Men: Insights into the Death of Jesus of Nazareth." Bountiful harvest (2011): 369-394.
2. Nicklas, Tobias. "Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity." (2004): 158-160.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• High-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• B-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• High-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Death articles
• High-importance Death articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• Top-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Top-importance Mythology articles