Talk:Christ myth theory

Lede is too long

@Joshua Jonathan: WP:Lede "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead."

Lede is currently 6 paragraphs.

"the lead section is an introduction ... and a summary of its most important contents."

Lede contains: "... in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty"; Isn't this detail that should be further down in the article?

The lead section should be "well-composed".
It currently introduces the concept in the first paragraph,
then debunks it ("In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus ... denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles") in the 2nd paragraph,
then gives some history ("Mythicism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, ...") in the 3rd,
then gives its arguments ("Proponents broadly argue ...)
then gives a different summary of arguments ("Most mythicists employ a threefold argument ... ) in the 4th paragraph
then in the 5th paragraph goes back to debunking ("Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory ...")
and finally in the 6th goes back to history ("With the rise of the internet ...")

This is good organization?

I attempted to to trim and reorganzie the lede and was reverted by Joshua Jonathan, who told me "Please discuss at talk". -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: thank you for opening a talkpage-thread. Regarding your edits diff:

• "as a rule of thumb" - but not always;
• The lead does summarize the most important points;
• We give two, slightly different definitions, because there is not a single, tightly-knit definition; the second definition is a definition give by one of the most prominent proponents, as cited by one of the best-known Biblical scholars;
• I agree with you that the scholarly rejection of the CMT should be at the end of the lead - as it is. The second paragraph introduces the conclusion of the socalled quests for the historical Jesus, plus the remark "in contrast." But the clear rejection comes at the end. The sentence " however even before this, denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles" was overdone, I think; I've just removed it;
• Paragraph 4 and 5 may be repetitive indeed; good point;
• I've added "While rejected by mainstream scholarship" to the last paragraph, as "popular reception" is a separate topic in the body.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed image

I have removed the image of the resurrection of Jesus. Inclusion of such an image unnecessarily and incorrectly implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected. If an image is required, use one that more accurately reflects the difference between the mythicist view and the secular view. For example, an image depicting Jesus' baptism, ministry or execution, without religious iconography or supernatural imagery, would be more appropriate.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected - serious? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What would be the problem with using a picture that is more in line with the mainstream consensus? It is indeed misleading to use a picture that is not consistent with the secular consensus and instead implying that denying the resurrection is ‘just some mythical view’.—Jeffro77 Talk 10:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have troubles following your arguments. Your invocation of "secular consensus" is unclear to me; why should a picture have to reflect a "secular consensus," and what is this "secular consensus" anyway? I think that most people don't care if th resurrection 'really' happened. I also don't see an "[implication] that denying the resurrection is ‘just some mythical view’." Weé talking here about the question of there was a historical Jesus, which is denied by mythicists. Resurrection, and all the other supernatural elements, are not part of discussion on 'real or not'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You have demonstrated quite well why a picture depicting the resurrection is not necessary. The resurrection isn’t representative of the subject of the article. Presenting the resurrection at the top of the article as something ‘denied by mythicists’ is not an honest or neutral representation of mainstream views about the resurrection. It strains credulity that you don’t understand what the mainstream consensus is about the historicity of Jesus. We both know you’re well aware that the only points of widespread consensus are that Jesus was baptised and executed. So why exactly is it so important to depict the resurrection?—Jeffro77 Talk 11:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is easily resolved. Here are some appropriate neutral images. Which one should we use?

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Wdford (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Of those, the 1, 2, 3 or 5 would be good options for depicting the historical Jesus without unnecessary supernatural elements (don’t need to dwell too much on the interpretation of the dove or God’s approval though they can’t be established as historical).—Jeffro77 Talk 22:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the CMT, all of the story of Jesus is mythological, so I don't see the logic of using a picture of one of the two elements of the life Jesus deemed most likely by mainstream scholarship to be historical, to illustrate the CMT.

The present picture does not "[imply] that denying the resurrection is ‘just some mythical view’"; that's your personal interpretation. The caption of the present picture is quite clear:

The Resurrection of Christ by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1875)—some mythicists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising deity.

Mainstream scholarship rejects this comparison with contemporary mythology; 'mainstream secular consensus' seems to refer to the vox populi, which is not what the CMT is contrasted with. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point Joshua Johnathan. Dying-and-rising deity parallel is a common point in CMT as to what Jesus really was. He existed in a mythical realm only, never on earth. CMT is not just denial, but an alternate theory too. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not even a slightly good point. The view that Jesus was not resurrected is a mainstream view—the view, in fact, of all non-Christians. The subset of that view that the resurrection is a standard 'risen deity' motif is also a mainstream view, being the view of all non-Christians sufficiently familiar with the concept, including those who otherwise accept the historicity of Jesus without supernatural elements. (The question of whether Christians borrowed that concept from earlier ancient stories is an irrelevant distraction.) It is quite misleading to weaselly attribute something as the view of "some mythicists" that also overlaps the view of others who aren't mythicists. The image for the article should be specific to the Jesus myth theory, and should not falsely convey that it is a 'fringe view' that Jesus was not resurrected. It will save everyone a lot of time if Joshua Jonathan stops pretending not to understand this.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A more neutral image and caption would be of something that is widely regarded as historical but uniquely denied by mythicists—for example Jesus' baptism. A suitable caption could say something like Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Jeffro77, you're pushing your personal opinions. Please stick to the scope of this article: the fringe CMT, and scholarly views on the historicity of Jesus and the CMT, not your assumptions about 'mainstream views of all non-Christians'. And no, "The question of whether Christians borrowed that concept from earlier ancient stories" is notan irrelevant distraction; it's a central element of the argumentation of the CMT-adepts, famously defended by the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule'. And no one here but you is arguing that "it is a 'fringe view' that Jesus was not resurrected." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop pretending I have suggested something unreasonable. The view that Jesus' resurrection is a myth is not unique to mythicists. I have suggested a completely reasonable alternative that clearly represents the unique position of mythicists as contrasted with the mainstream position that avoids all of this nonsense:

A more neutral image and caption would be of something that is widely regarded as historical but uniquely denied by mythicists—for example Jesus' baptism. A suitable caption could say something like Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed.

It is not clear why you would object to a picture and caption that unambiguously points to the contrast between the mythicist and mainstream positions without misrepresenting either position.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's indeed clear that it's not clear to you... "Stop pretending I have suggested something unreasonable" is not a sign that you understand my objections; it looks more like you want a discussion only on your terms, that is, a non-discussion. And "Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed" is non-informative, a mere duplicate of what's already stated over and over again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox in the lead should provide information that represents a general overview of the article subject. It isn’t supposed to introduce nuanced specifics, and certainly not in a manner that misrepresents the subject by conflating the views of “some mythicists” with that of other non-mythicists.—Jeffro77 Talk 09:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I tweaked the contentious caption slightly to resolve the problem. Wdford (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but such specific detail is still not what images in the infobox in the lead are for. It should be something more generally representative of the article subject. The resurrection simply isn’t representative of the subject as it is not something uniquely denied by mythicists.—Jeffro77 Talk 10:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with you about the non-uniqueness. However the dying and rising deity myth is actually a good example of what CMT is about for some mythicists. So with this wording (which could use a bit more polish), this image could work here. Wdford (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Something that is true for only “some mythicists” is definitionally not representative of the general subject.—Jeffro77 Talk 12:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also link this article to the article Monty Python's Life of Brian? The film is a good example of what other mythicists contend may have happened. Wdford (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Brilliant! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A big part of the problem with an article about the CMT is that different mythicists have different views on what the CMT actually is. Some contend that the entire Christian religion is based completely on a pure myth, originally cooked up deliberately to compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. Others contend that the Christian religion is based on one of the many historical Jewish "messiah-men", onto whose real life and death were slathered many layers of mythical material, so as to deliberately compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. This second position is also held by many mainstream scholars, although some other mainstream scholars with a Christian bent pretend that only the first CMT position exists, which they loudly denounce as "fringe" and "pseudo-scholarship", and other mainstream scholars seem to think the slathering all happened by "accident" and that the resemblance to the rival religions is all just co-incidence. Try finding an image to cover all of that? PS: I was happy with the caption on the original image, and I would be happy to reinstate it, although we can certainly strengthen the caption to make it clear that only SOME mythicists hold the dying-and-rising-god position. Wdford (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

All of which is alleviated by my perfectly reasonable suggestion of contrasting an accepted mainstream view about an event such as Jesus being baptised with the consistent mythicist view that Jesus wasn’t a historical person. Simple, accurate, and properly representative of the subject, without misrepresenting other aspects that are not unique to mythicists nor the view of all mythicists.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool. So choose an image, add a caption, and let’s polish it up. Wdford (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. You can grab it from the history if it gets reverted to the image and description that aren’t properly representative of the subject.—Jeffro77 Talk 14:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary or accurate to add “some”. All mythicists necessarily by definition reject the position that Jesus was a specific historical person, irrespective of whether they think he was completely made up or based on a composite of various other people.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "definition" covers the views of Wells, Thompson or Price? Certainly all mythicists agree that the Christ of Faith in the gospel stories is not an accurate historical person, but certainly some of these proponents accept that there may well have been some facts from some historical person/s underneath all the layers of fiction? Wdford (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording is quite specific. Alternative beliefs about ‘some other person/s’ are necessarily not the historical Jesus. The separate concept that Jesus is historical but was not a supernatural ‘Christ of faith’ is a mainstream view and is not mythicism.—Jeffro77 Talk 23:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The sky is blue and the Earth is not flat

*Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

*Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue

The separate concept that Jesus is historical—but was not a supernatural ‘Christ of faith’, the Lord God of Christian devotees—is a mainstream view in scholarship and of virtually everyone who is not a Christ devotee. 2db (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't even have to mention that the sky is blue. The next line already says "The mainstream scholarly consensus [...] holds that there was a historical Jesus." The sentence "and of virtually everyone who is not a Christ devotee." is not a summary of the article, and completely WP:UNDUE here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Not WP:UNDUE here because this article is bizarrely named so as to conflate the Lord God of Christian devotees with historicity. Correctly rename this article! 2db (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Q5 already shows that there is no consensus on the matter. The common agreement between all is that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Evans/Wreight: "No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this." Ehrman "As I have repeatedly emphasized, different scholars come to radically different conclusions about how to understand the life of the historical Jesus...Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large - disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was." Levine ""No single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most, scholars; all methods and their combinations find their critics as well as their advocates." Ramos1990 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And this is how certain editors continue (ad infinitum) to preserve the appearance that mainstream scholarship accepts that the Divine Christ may have been a historical figure. Subtle, but also blatant. Wdford (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The suggested text was indeed unnecessary, as the lead already indicates with a more appropriate tone that only some fairly mundane aspects about Jesus are recognised in the mainstream consensus. However, it is also a fact that this article is poorly named, with a false implication that it is just the view of ‘crazy mythicists’ that Christ (with all the implied supernatural baggage) didn’t exist. This misleading position for the article title is maintained under the guise of ‘oh well, it’s just the common name’, though there is no serious reason it couldn’t be called ‘Jesus myth theory’.—Jeffro77 Talk 04:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Repetition

Adaptations of the following text were pasted no less than three times in different subsections of the article.

As a contemporary of Jesus, Paul is a key source for the historicity of Jesus because the content he records goes further back to the mid 30s AD, very close to the time of the crucifixion, when he converted and documents not only a full outline of Jesus life throughout his works that parallels the Gospels, but also that he personally knew eyewitnesses of Jesus such as his most intimate disciples (Peter and John) and family members (his name="Adams94" /> From Paul's writings alone, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus can found: his descent from Abraham and David, his the betrayal, numerous details surrounding his death and resurrection (e.g. crucifixion, Jewish involvement in putting him to death, burial, resurrection; seen by Peter, James, the twelve and others) along with numerous quotations referring to notable teachings and events found in the Gospels. The existence of very early references by Paul on the life of Jesus are sufficient to establish that Jesus existed and him knowing key eyewitnesses helps further.

These have been reduced to including the information just the once, in the appropriate subsections. I have also reduced the verbosity and the presentation of hearsay as if it were 'biographical information'. For example, saying Jesus' lineage was 'through Abraham' is irrelevant because all Jews are supposedly descended from Abraham (whose historicity is contested as best). Also, including Jesus' purported resurrection (for which there is no mainstream consensus) which is based on hearsay and religious superstition in Paul's letters should not be presented as 'biographical information'.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Jeffro77 Talk 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

These sources cited actually state that these are biographical information from a contemporary, not hearsay. They focus on how Paul saw Jesus from his own letters and also in relation the gospels, not how you or modern people or modern scholars view Jesus. Furthermore, Ehrman writes and emphasizes the early interactions of Paul with Jesus brother and important disciples that go back to at least 36 AD, to show that Paul's information on Jesus definitely preceded the writing of his letters. The sections this was added in were relating to Paul. So I will restore some of this, per the sources, that merely talk about how Paul saw Jesus. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Paul never met Jesus, so any information about Jesus from Paul is hearsay by definition. Also, all Jews are supposedly descended from Abraham, and all people are 'born of women'. Don't restore tediously mundane aspects just because are significant to a particular religious belief.--Jeffro77 Talk 05:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Again. This is from Paul's views, not our modern views. Anachronism is the word. And Paul's interactions with eyewitnesses is emphasized by Ehrman against mythicists, who flat out deny there is any early source attesting to Jesus. Also, Paul considering him being born of a woman and being related to people like David and Abraham ground him as a person who was clearly believed to have existed. That is the point that scholars make when they mention such mundane content (e.g. Tuckett mentions "Paul clearly implies that Jesus existed as a human being ('born of a woman' Gal 4.4), was born a Jew ('born under the Law' Gal 4.4; cf. Rom 1.3) and had brothers (1 Cor 9.5; Gal 1.19)..."). Considering that we are dealing with mythicists, who deny Jesus was ever on earth or that no sources link him to earth, such common sense you think exists, is not common to them. Read the mythicist section below in the article right now is says "Robert Price says that Paul does not refer to Jesus' earthly life". They deny mundane. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of the mythicist view, the mainstream view is that Jesus existed as a normal person. It remains redundant in the mainstream view that Jesus was 'born of a woman', and it remains redundant from a Jewish traditional perspective that Jesus was 'descdended from Abraham' (which is not the mainstream view because the historicity of Abraham is 'in doubt' (at best)).--Jeffro77 Talk 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened on the road to Damascus then? ViolanteMD 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems you're asking that question to imply that Paul did meet Jesus. But the two inconsistent stories in Galatians and Acts about Paul's 'conversion' are not regarded as fact in the mainstream view, so the question isn't relevant. Maybe it was only ever a story. Maybe Paul had some kind of episode that he interpreted as seeing Jesus (consistent with an epileptic temporal lobe seisure). But it is not necessary to speculate, and the absence of knowing exactly what did happen (if anything) is not evidence that there is some 'supernatural' explanation (argument from ignorance).--Jeffro77 Talk 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What inconsistencies are you referring to? Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, what do you mean Paul's conversion isn't regarded as a "mainstream view"? Even among scholars and historians (who do not represent most believers) there are differences of opinion about this topic.

Dismissing Paul's account entirely requires explaining away a significant amount of historical evidence, including his dramatic change in behavior and the early church's acceptance of him after his period of persecuting Christians.

Belief in Paul's account isn't ignorance. Many well-educated people, including scholars, find his testimony credible based on historical and textual analysis. ViolanteMD 12:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In depth analysis of Paul's 'road to Damascus' story is out of scope at this page. But as an example (which I'm kindly providing without any obligation to discuss further), Acts and Galatians are inconsistent about where Paul went immediately after his supposed vision of Jesus.

Argument from popularity is fallacious. And it is also dishonest to conflate Paul's conversion with the 'road to Damascus' story of Paul's conversion. And nor did I say I 'dismiss the account entirely'. Paul was opposed to Christianity, and then changed his position. There are similar 'testimonials' from people of various denominations today who were previously violently opposed. It is unremarkable and not evidence of any supernatural experience.

I will not discuss this tangent further.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss and provide context. You're right that an in-depth analysis of Paul's conversion story is beyond the scope of this article but I think we can improve the article by addressing a few points around NPOV. I don't think you can categorize over a billion people as "ignorant" because you don't agree with them. ViolanteMD 12:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You should immediately retract the lie that I called Christians "ignorant". An argument from ignorance is a specific type of fallacious reasoning, not an accusation that people are 'ignorant'.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of "argument from ignorance" as a logical fallacy. I apologize for my misinterpretation.

I'm not sure this fallacy actual applies here though. The argument from ignorance fallacy seems to imply that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa. In this debate, both sides are making positive claims based on their interpretation of evidence, not arguing from a lack of evidence. Christ myth proponents aren't simply saying Jesus didn't exist because His existence hasn't been proven. They're questioning the reliability and sufficiency of available data.

What do I do to make it right, strike it through? ViolanteMD 12:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I was quite clear in my original statement about what I specifically classified as an argument from ignorance: "the absence of knowing exactly what did happen (if anything) is not evidence that there is some 'supernatural' explanation".

You can strike out comments by putting <s> and </s> tags around the text. I am going to bed and will not reply further.--Jeffro77 Talk 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the 'argument from ignorance' and how to use strikethrough. I've corrected my earlier misinterpretation. However, I still have concerns about characterizing the beliefs of a billion people as a logical fallacy, and I still don't believe it applies in this context. ViolanteMD 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Please go back and re-read what I actually said until you understand that I did not 'characterize the beliefs of a billion people as a logical fallacy', which is itself a fallacy of composition because not all Christians (with over 30,000 denominations) have exactly the same beliefs.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV is clear, this is a claim and as such we should only say it once. It does to matter how many people believe it, what matters is what experts think. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I was about to leave a comment about reviewing this article for NPOV but we should probably land on what "expert" means in this context. ViolanteMD 12:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

OK per wp:sps anyone who is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So to me that would be theologians and Biblical scholars mainly with some specialist historians. ViolanteMD 12:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As long as they are " published by reliable, independent publications" (so no church publications) maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about disqualification of "church publications" but duly noted that sources from those bodies will be critiqued to a higher standard than those from academic bodies. ViolanteMD 12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"independent publications", I.E. not part of the body of which they speak (after all they are talking about opinions held by their church). Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

How then do we handle groups that are closely aligned with or drive by the people they represent or advocate for? I rely pretty heavily on WPATH on the LGBT side of things and NAMI on the mentally ill side of things for example. ViolanteMD 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Attribution, we do not say it is a fact, we say it is an opinion. We also say it once, not repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation! ViolanteMD 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Islam 1.907 billion adherents, is everything they believe true?

Hinduism 1.152 billion adherents, is everything they believe true?

Having over a billion believers does not mean anything. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples. I don't think "true" or "false" is relevant to describing a belief structure in a wikipedia article. The article either accurately describes what the belief is or it doesn't.

I agree that the number of adherents doesn't determine factual accuracy. My point was that it's odd to label anything as "mainstream" if it doesn't reflect the belief of the group itself. I'll work on reading through the article carefully when I have free time though and improving NPOV. I know I can count on the careful review of any edits I make. Thanks for the discussion! ViolanteMD 14:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are thinking about this article in terms of mythicism versus Christian belief. However, the correct contrast is mythisicm versus mainstream scholarship. It is not the purpose of this article to attempt to defend Christian interpretations.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References