Talk:Jesus the Magician

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christianity: Jesus Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Charge/Theory

This article contains several uses of the phrase "The charge that Jesus was a magician...". Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but isn't the use of the word "charge" rather loaded language in that to most readers it brings to mind the accusation of a crime? Wouldn't it be more impartial to say something like "The theory that Jesus was a magician..."? I have made such changes, but I'm not interested in forcing the issue if they are changed back as I doubt I will read this page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.69.33 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Crawford?

The quote from Barry Crawford about this book should be removed. I knew Motrton Smith as his student and as a member of the Lionel Trilling award committee on which I served with him in 1980. Barry Crawford would not be fit to carry Morton Smith's satchel. For him him to say that Morton Smith was unaware of modern Gospel resurch is patently FALSE. There was no aspect of modern Gaspel Research, or anything else Biblical, for that matter, of which Morton Smith was unaware. Of the many scholars I have been blessed to study under, and the list is alarming, Morton Smith was the pre-eminent scholar in his field. He was meticulous. No detail went unresearched. Look at his books,book's, credentials. Compare them with Barry Crawford, and you will see how ludicrously misleading the quote you included is, though I realize you had to include something to demonstrate the controversy of this book. 2600:8807:C180:580:FC10:618F:4DE3:FCB6 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]