3 ms·
The "historical Jesus" one is the funniest entry to me, it conveniently ommits who his "historical father" is, and pretends multiple sources are talking about t
by mattigames 3y ago
The "historical Jesus" one is the funniest entry to me, it conveniently ommits who his "historical father" is, and pretends multiple sources are talking about the same person even if they don't agree in the most basic details, imagine that with any other Wikipedia bigraphic entry: "The Hitler I'm talking about commited no genocide and didn't believe in eugenics, but let's all pretend we are still talking about the same person, for the sake of peace among the discussers".
- kitchi 3y agoI'm quite puzzled by this comment. A quick glance through the article and there seem to be several references to what appear to be serious academic work. So is the issue with the work of the academics? Or the way Wikipedia has put together the article? I'm not a historian by any definition of the word and in quite curious about this.
- klntsky 3y agoThe funny is in how the religious overtone of the subject collides with the usual science-ish manner of wikipedia editors.