Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

Key Points
This has come up enough times I am making a special section on it. This part will remain here.

Understanding the Article
"This article is NOT about the Jesus myth theory or the Christ myth theory, but about the quality of the evidence (both for and against) presented regarding his existence. The debate will come up for context but this article is NOT on the debate.  In fact, as the Christ Myth article shows its very definition varies so wildly that some versions would be considered historical Jesus positions. (The Jesus myth theory article is on the debate itself.)" I am getting really tired of people not actually reading the article and wasting our time with things which are addressed elsewhere.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield Phoenix Press's double blind Peer review
Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt is cited so much because his book is actually double-blind (neither reviewer nor author know who the other party is) peer reviewed, is the most recent work of such quality on the matter, and covers both sides of the issue. Carrier certainly meets criteria and per ) his blog statements the process his book went through also meets --BruceGrubb (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bruce, you know damn well there's no evidence that the book was double-blind peer-reviewed, nor is there any evidence that the book was looked over by relevant scholars (who weren't specifically picked by Carrier) prior to publication. Stop claiming it is. Friedman (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying Carrier is lying which is ad hominem. More over as related elsewhere the list of possible reviewer can used as who not to send the work to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've said this before, but since you seem incapable of remembering (or going over to the Richard Carrier talk page), I'll repeat it here: the only evidence we have for his book being peer-reviewed is thus:
 * ▪Carrier himself (https://web.archive.org/web/20160114000113/http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090), who has noted that he sent it to a number of friends for review before publication;
 * ▪the publisher's website itself ("Manuscripts offered by the author will always be sent for evaluation to a series editor or a reader for the Press."), which says nothing about peer-review, only mentioning what is essentially a copy-editor and proof-reader; and
 * ▪an email received from the publisher to an inquirer on the Staight Dope message board (https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-peer-review-work-for-books-in-the-academic-discipline-of-history/694719/24?page=2) saying "We can assure anyone who asks that all our books are peer reviewed before being accepted. But we cannot undertake to describe the process just to any person who asks us to do so—life is too short."
 * Considering his clear conflict of interest, there's no reason we should rely on Carrier's statements when we have no other sources to back up his claims. Further, absolutely nowhere have I seen any claims of the peer-review being double-blinded. Just because you, Bruce, added that to Wikipedia does not make it true. Friedman (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Compare Historical Jesus Theories (for some weird reason the current version of the chart won't load not sure why) shows the range of historical Jesuses there are out there. Also there is Raphael Lataster's Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (2019) which is by Brill (All Brill publications are subject to external, single or double-blind peer review.) so its reliability is on much firmer ground.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We weren't talking about Lataster. We were talking about how there's not enough evidence to back up Carrier's claims that his book was peer-reviewed by scholars he didn't pick, or your claims that it was double-blind peer-reviewed. I'd like your response to that, considering Carrier is the one overwhelmingly cited in the article. Friedman (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes we are: "Carrier has even defended his views in front of the famed Society of Biblical Literature. Collectively, he and I have published numerous relevant peer-reviewed journal articles and books, with more to come, and have won the support of other academics, including bona fide New Testament scholars. This is no longer ‘just a fringe theory’. (Questioning the Historicity of Jesus Brill p. 10). "I have been working on this topic for nearly a decade now, overlapping with that other ‘rare but properly qualified’ ahistoricist scholar, Richard Carrier." Questioning Jesus’ Historicity article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nice. But the fact that one sympathetic nutter supports another nutter isn't proof of anything. You still haven't given any solid evidence that Carrier's 2014 book, specifically, was peer-reviewed. Or are you still pushing double-blinded peer-review? Friedman (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, it was peer reviewed by Raphael Lataster, but there are 2 problems. Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, which was why RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Cold War took so long. Second of all, even if it was (it probably was), is he reliable? I think Carrier should have it peer reviewed by people who aren't, y'know, his friends. Also at this point, it might be better to take it to your talk pages, as it really does nothing except bloat the talk page which, Archive #20 is already over 95,000 bytes at this point, so when this is archived it will need to be in Archive #21. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nvm, it can actually hold a few more kilobytes of content in Archive #20. Andrew5 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to keep any conversation between Bruce and I regarding Carrier's reliability (especially with regards to his claims of peer-review) on the talk page for Carrier's article, but Bruce keeps bringing it up elsewhere.
 * As for the Wikipedia claim, I would make sure that those edits weren't actually made by Bruce himself. He has a bad habit of citing things that he inserted on Wikipedia (sometimes without a source) as evidence for his position. Often he does it anonymously, but it's usually apparent when it's him. Friedman (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe a discussion could take place at Help talk:References over his reliability there. Andrew5 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You think so? I really like the idea, but I just wanna confirm you think it's a good idea before I do it, seeing as you've been here longer than me. Friedman (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, pretty much anyone over me could do that. It could work, but it would have to be as a whole, like saying non peer reviewed journals cannot be cited in general. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow. I'm not really grasping your last message there. Friedman (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In Killing Crankery with Bayesian Reasoning: The Kooky & Illogical Postflaviana Review Carrier clarified


 * I sought four peer review reports from major professors of New Testament or Early Christianity, and two have returned their reports, approving with revisions, and those revisions have been made. Since two peers is the standard number for academic publications, we can proceed. And Sheffield’s own peer reviewers have approved the text. Two others missed the assigned deadline, but I’m still hoping to get their reports and I’ll do my best to meet any revisions they require as well."

"It’s important to note that clarification: Sheffield-Phoenix selected its own peer reviewers to vet my book, as they do all academic treatises they publish. That’s the entire point of an academic press. This was after I also submitted peer review reports from multiple prominent professors of Biblical studies I had used to pre-vet my manuscript, to ensure it would pass any peer review a publisher engaged. It’s also not uncommon for academic presses to ask the submitter of a manuscript to supply a list of suitable peer reviewers. But whether Sheffield-Phoenix relied on any of the peer reviewers I selected, I won’t have been told."

"Many thanks for your email, we are happy to clarify on this for you, whatever may be the case in the USA, in the UK we are familiar with two kinds of publishers (at least): academic and trade. All academic publishers operate on the same basis, of making publishing decisions on the merits of a proposal as assessed by experts in the field (‘peer review’). This is true for university publishers like Cambridge University Press and non-university publishers like Bloomsbury Academic, Routledge, Macmillan, Blackwell. There is no difference between the groups in the reviewing process. Nor is there any difference in prestige between university presses and independent academic publishers (e.g. some authors may like to be published by Oxford, but no one can say it is a ‘better’ publisher than Macmillan, for example)." - Sheffield Phoenix Press

So the whole Carrier 'sent it to friends' claim not only requires a blatant misreading of what Carrier wrote but of the follow up clarifying the matter. Never mind there is nothing to who Jerry Russell is and posting to Postflaviana which has such off the wall tinfoil nonsense that the guy who lives in his basement in fear of the black helicopters piloted by the gray aliens out of Area 51 on the orders of the still alive Elvis would say would go 'you're kidding, right?' ie taking anything it says is laughable. --BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Historicist vs. Mythicist
It feels like part of the reason this, and similar, articles are so long and verbose is because they refuse to pin down a definition for "historicist" and "mythicist." I really think it would help of we could narrow that down, and I think that's something we can do.

From what I've read, there's two events that virtually all historicists agree both happened and virtually all mythicists agree did not happen (at least, not both): the baptism of Jesus by John, and the crucifixion of Jesus as punishment by the Romans.

The mythicist stance is that Jesus either never physically existed, or was a man who had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity, simply chosen as a figure upon which all these foundational myths were attached to.

Considering that the baptism of Jesus by John and Jesus' later crucifixion by the Romans are crucial parts of the Christian mythology, it seems to me that the two events can serve as a demarcation point. If someone denies that those two events actually happened to Jesus, then they're mythicists; otherwise, they're historicists.

Using this benchmark would clean many things up. Thoughts? Friedman (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that would solve the problem as past "Mythicist" theories have become main stream (David Strauss and Sir James Frazier to mention the most blatant). Regarding the baptism of Jesus by John that is a strange no one outside Christianity mentions it not even Josephus mentions it and he spend a lot of time on John ([18.109] to [18.119]). Rereading it I found something that may be a snag in the reference as is assumes that Antipas' brother Philip had already died (which locks in a date of 34 CE as our minimum). This creates all sorts of problems with the Jesus Narrative.  Heck, someone tried to remove  Lang, Bernhard (2009) International Review of Biblical Studies Brill Academic Pub ISBN 9004172548 p. 380 – "33/34 AD Herod Antipas's marriage to Herodias (and beginning of the ministry of Jesus in a sabbatical year); 35 AD – death of John the Baptist and "born 1st decade BC, Judaea, Palestine, near Jerusalem—died 28–36 AD; feast day June 24"- St. John the Baptist Encyclopædia Britannica online' under the guise of "fringe".


 * This is why the use of "fringe" twists my gears. It is too often used a magic remove what I don't agree with hammer.  Fringe doesn't mean wrong as a sun centered solar system, Plate tectonics, and the idea Piltdown man was a hoax were all fake were once "fringe".  How fringe are they now?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Richard Carrier promoting fringe theories is backed by reliable sources, such as in here and in "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt", by Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, pages 310-346. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an ad hominem argument, a known Logical fallacy. Heck, it was part of the Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit in Demon Haunted World.  For the record I think Carrier over plays things and there was somebody (more likely several somebodies) who were the basis of Jesus but that was true of John Frum and exactly what he was is all over the map.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how saying that someone's ideas are nonsense is an ad hominem attack/argument. If you're dismissing someone's ideas on unrelated beliefs or behaviors of theirs (e.g. saying Carrier is wrong because he's been accused multiple times of sexual misconduct), that's an ad hominem. Saying someone's ideas are wrong because they're wrong is not ad hominem.
 * As for the whole argument that prior mythicist arguments have become mainstream, it's fairly irrelevant. Definitions change over time. Arguments are made, evidence emerges. If we're interested in the truth of a claim, outdated stances don't matter, nor does trying to predict future stances. Why does the current batch of scholars believe what they believe? What's their evidence? That's what matters. Friedman (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, resources of the time called them "mythist" at the time and some still refer to those views as "mythist" today. The Jesus Problem: A Restatement of the Myth Theory by  J. M. Robertson was republished in '2017 and yet "[J. M.] Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus perhaps more than one having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.
 * The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.
 * An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death " ; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.
 * Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult ; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.
 * Also why. if records were as good as people claim, did Irenaeus in Against Heresies (c180) say that Jesus was crucified at the age of 46+ and then in Demonstration clearly state "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." Two thirds of that locks Jesus crucifixion between 42-44 CE well after Paul's vision.  A 4 BCE (more likely 6 BC per Matthew's two years and younger) birthday date does indeed result in a 45-47 range for Jesus's age just as Irenaeus said using John as his citation.  Never mind how Herod's date of death in some of these source changes from 4  BCE (based on Josephus) to 1 BCE.
 * Also claiming that Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt isn't double blind peer reviewed when he himself said it was is ad hominem (because you are effectively saying Carrier is intentionally lying). --BruceGrubb (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No Bruce. Lying about evidence relevant to a debate is relevant to the argument and hence pointing it out is not ad hominem argument. Making a truth claim on evidence is not ad hominem argument. If one says you cannot believe X because he beats his wife, that would be an example of ad hominem argument. "You cannot believe X because he is a liar" is not ad hominem. For if the claim "X is a liar" is true, then it is sound to think one cannot believe X. Whereas X beating his wife has nothing to do with truth claims or arguments.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, but is it fallicious? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No more fallicious that saying Jesus was born on December 25, was born of a virgin, or the "star" of Bethlehem actually existed which come up so many times they seem to be go tos.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you agree that my criticism of Carrier wasn't fallacious? Friedman (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Either that or he’s saying that Jesus was born on December 25, of a virgin or the star of Bethelehem actually existed is fallicious. --Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Fellows, in some sense every idea about Jesus except the traditional bible ideas represent minority views. I would dispute that any view different from "we don't really know anything for certain," can be successfully defended. This article cannot be expected to champion a POV other than "There are a variety of opinions about this legendary character, none of which can be verified." I would also add that if scholars were to be unanimous in their evaluations on this subject, I would not change my opinion. Authority is not based upon credentials alone but upon the existence of reliable evidence. All we have are stories. Scholars of this sort play the game of "majority opinion." They can't accept that no matter what they do, no matter what books they read or archaeological sites they visit, there is nothing to be known about Jesus of Nazareth that breaks the blood-brain barrier as scientific knowledge.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily disagreeing, but, to be fair, the same could really be said for any historical figure, and the further back you go, the more tenuous things become. Compared to science, history is a completely different animal. There's a different standard of evidence. If the standard of evidence for history were the same as it is for science... well, it can't be. We have to adjust our standards, otherwise the entire historical field is kaput. Friedman (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't panic. The same cannot be said for historical figures with actual physical evidence for their existence. Every literate historical figure of the last several thousand years has left a literary mark of some kind. It is the narrative characters of the past who created no substantial documentation that are subject to doubt. Shakespeare, for example, is either a real person's name or nom-de-plume of someone with a different name. No one seriously suggests the plays were written by a group of people because the evidence suggests otherwise. There are computer programs that can identify authorship with a high degree of reliability. He is an interesting case because we cannot be certain of who he was historically. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter who Shakespeare was to all but a tiny cohort of scholars. Can more be learned of Shakespeare's life? Possibly. Time has not run out on the chance of new documentary discoveries. The same cannot be said of our topic.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone with a degree in Dramatic Arts, your mention of Shakespeare and theories of the authorship of his plays makes a very appealing analogy. I would argue there is great value to be found in who Shakespeare was (of which there is an abundance of evidence), and we can learn much from his life that influences how we see his plays (but of course, it's the arts, so 'Death of the Author', and so forth). I certainly wouldn't disagree on the lack of popular interest in Shakespeare as a person, but it's a niche topic. Unfortunately, spurious conspiracy theories are often more interesting to the general public than the simple truth that the man we think did something was the one who did something.

As for the computer program (neat article, by the way), it can't really say anything definitive about the person who wrote the work, only what traits a certain work may share with another work.

As for the connection between historical existence and extant writings, it certainly provides stronger historical evidence for the existence of certain persons, but again, it says nothing definitive about the person who wrote them (and without them, I suppose we run into a sort of watered-down variation of the Socratic problem). I think your analogy about the blood-brain barrier was quite apt, as there is indeed a barrier between the standards of evidence for history and science. The methods used may overlap (e.g. carbon dating), but in general, there's no way that the standards of evidence we require of the hard sciences could ever be satisfied for past historical events.

Don't remember where I was going with this. Regardless, I believe we're on the same page with the ultimate fate of this article. You were the one who proposed eventual deletion, yes? I've said it before and I'll say it again, everything in this article can either be deleted, added to the Jesus article, or added to the Jesus myth theory article.Friedman (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is the thing: the article is like a basket of loose threads. When you pick up in one section it leads to a knot that goes nowhere. You want to eliminate the article entirely, but our interested users want an article with the current title, so we cannot transfer content to the other Jesus articles and vaporize this one. On the bright side, redundancy is excusable. On the darker side, this article needs to be replaced with one that does a number of epistemic clarifications. I would say that modern opinion should be preferred over older, pre-20th century opinion. That should clear out many of the gothic cobwebs. Firstly because the older classes of archaeologists would tend to be inhabited by believers, making majority views less significant to the skeptic; and secondly, because any allegedly good work that the older authors may have done is likely to be accounted for by more recent writers. The article is bogged down with vague terms like "historical," and "ahistorical" as if they provided some clarifying notation, when we find that scholars do not agree on the meaning of these terms. Instead, we should name the most prominent scholars, state what their claims are, and if possible, state how popular each such scholar's POV is among those working in the field. This article takes 20-25 thousand words to accomplish nothing. If you feel up to the task, I would be obliged if you were to attempt a rewrite. Bruce Grubb is also welcome to attempt the project. We should not claim any given POV, e.g., Carrier's theory, is accepted by X% of scholars if we cannot prove it. It is a vanity to establish a dominant theory because any realistic form of verification would likely prove to be contingent upon speculation. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with that idea was partially tried with "Critics of the historicity of Jesus" and that got moved to Essay space.  As Frazier and Wells shows the terms "mythist" have (and still are) thrown around with gay abandon.  More over this is rationalwiki and the reality is old material is being republished as if it was new.  For example,  Albert Schweitzer's 1913 The Quest of the Historical Jesus didn't get translated into English until 2001,  Remsburg's "The Christ" got republished as The Christ Myth in 2007 and other material has gotten similar treatment.  Ironically it was Remsburg who spelled out the problem:
 * "A Historical myth is "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. " It is that last part that keeps tripping everyone up.
 * James M. Hanson's 2005 "Was Jesus a Buddhist?" Buddhist-Christian Studies' University of Hawai'i Press pp. 75-89 (anonymous peer review) just shows the issue. If Jesus did actually teach a form of Buddhist which was turned into Christianity by Paul and others than that would be an "nonhistorial" by Ehrman's criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You quote and defer to Remsburg as if his definition is the authoritative one, but I highly doubt it is taken as authoritatively as you suggest.
 * I'm certainly not opposed to having a section about the hazy definitions of "historical" vs. "mythical", but I generally see the current article's obsession over defining the two words as a sort of red herring. It really doesn't need to take up as much as it does.
 * Come to think of it, I'm not really sure why it's that important at all in terms of the article. If people's views are accurately presented here, does it matter? Should we be the ones deciding who is in what camp? Calling someone who believes that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood man who, after baptism by John the Baptist, became an itinerant preacher who was eventually crucified by the Romans a mythicist just because they don't believe that all the supernatural miracles actually happened seems dishonest if no one else in the field calls them a mythicist.
 * As a side note, there are certain people who clearly fall into one category or another. I'm sure there are a few "scholars" who believe the Bible is a true story of everything Jesus-related (miracles not necessary; essentially, a belief in the literalness of something like the Jefferson Bible), and they would clearly be part of the historical camp. On the other hand, you have people like Carrier, who believes that Jesus was understood in early Christianity to be an angelic figure, and any belief in an actual flesh-and-blood Jesus came much later. He would clearly be a mythicist. Friedman (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , as for your offer, I'm definitely working on cleaning up the page. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as I'd like to do so, but I am working on it. However, I'm also not sure where exactly to do it. I'd like an area to do a lot of major cuts and rearrangements for later presenting to more people, but I obviously can't just mess with the main article in that way. I brought it up in the Technical Support thread, but the best suggestion they had was to use my userspace. Is there some way to private a draft, or make it unavailable for public viewing? Friedman (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also use RationalWiki: Drafts or Essay space. For drafts you should use a slightly different title. If you use the essay form, others are expected to leave your text as is. And Bruce, the fact that an idea was tried and not finished is not our problem here. We aim to finish, if possible.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I quote Remsburg because he keeps it simple but something akin to his definition is used elsewhere. Myth in History, History in Myth (2006) Brill points out "The  underlying  assumption  is  that  the  dichotomy  between  history  and  myth  is  a  complex  one  that  is  oft en crudely  drawn,  and  while  no  single  alternative  emerges  from  these  pages,  the  mutual  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  historians  need  to  be  more  careful,  more  refined,  and  more  balanced  in  their  treatment  of  historical myths."  Remsburg also points out "Strauss in his work (Leben Jesu), one of the masterpieces of Freethought literature, endeavors to prove, and proves to the satisfaction of a majority of his readers, that Jesus Christ is a historical myth. (...) A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. "
 * Heck the father of history held that myths had some "historical" basis behind them to the point saying Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was elevated to god status long after his death. Troy is the prime example of a historical myth (at one time it was said to have never existed) and some have argued the story is actually a mythic telling of the Bronze Age collapse.  The claim that people of the middle age believed the Earth was Flat is a historical myth but on a different level than the historical myth Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round even through the two historical myths go hand and glove with each other.  The idea the ancients knew of Antarctica is a modern historical myth (the reality is they thought the Northern continents had to be balanced by a southern one) - yes they put a continent on the South Pole but it was due to belief not that knew anything was actually there.  Just as people of the early 19th century said there was a planet between Mercury and the Sun.
 * Also John Frum is the best real world analogy to what may have happened and the Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177 article shows just how complex the issue is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Friedman (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling has no relevance
There have been attempts to add Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling, a known fictional character, to this. The article is bloated enough without adding non relevant stuff to it. At best, the only relevance would as an example of made up history presented as fact ala Forgotten Silver, Zelig, or Dragon's World - A Fantasy Made Real and that is really tin foil hat time that makes the idea (I can't even call it a theory) that Romans invented Jesus look sane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)