Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Pseudo-X

Eugene and Bill. Although nearly all historians accept that Jesus existed, a handful of scholars do not... according to reliable sources. If I ignore your protestations, it is not that I concede the point. On the contrary. I will respond when I see one good argument for this being classed pseudohistory. I am using the OED for "pseudo-". Should I be using something else, Bill? Anthony (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a typical dictionary definition is fine with me. I was only wondering if there was a wiki "approved" definition of pseudo history and pseudo scholarship? If not, which is what I suspect to be the case, then how is pseudo history/scholarship used in other articles? Maybe we can use those (if they exist) as a guide. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One good argument?! What about the argument that we have three different reliable sources, written by three different professors at major universities, which label this pseudoscholarship/pseudo-history? Isn't a Wikipedia article supposed to be written in accordance with reliable sources? Eugene (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you have three reliable sources in FAQ 2 saying there are some scholars who reject the historicity of Jesus. And three reliable sources here who fling pseudohistory at their opponents. Anthony (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Which three reliable sources in FAQ 2 say there are "some scholars" who reject the historicity of Jesus? Eugene (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No answer? Eugene (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the scholarly arguments of your reliable sources, Eugene? No answer? And what precisely do they label pseudoscholarship, and on which grounds? Does it include the works by Wells, Doherty, Price? Jelamkorj (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The scholarly arguments against the CMT are already included in this article under the "Against the theory" section: multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, non-Christian attestation, the failure of attempted pagan parallels, and serious methodological problems with the CMT (arguments from silence, fundamental ignorance of mystery cults, etc). "What do they label pseudoscholarship"? Well, look at the sources:

• "Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus."

Michael James McClymond (professor at Saint Louis University), Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 23

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan (professor at Temple University), The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9

• And, finally, "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."

Emil Brunner (late professor at the University of Zurich), The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164

As for the grounds upon which these scholars have made these pronouncements, again, see the "Against the theory" section of this very article.

As for how the scholarly mainstream views men like Price, I think Price can tell us that himself through a rather tongue in cheek quote: "The following piece of straight-faced pseudo-scholarship (the only kind I'm good at!) first appeared in Nyctalops #17." (The Azathoth Cycle: Tales of the Blind Idiot God, Chaosium, 1995, p. 223) Now, of course, Price doesn't think that he's only produced pseudoscholarship, but this statement indicates that he's aware of how the mainstream views his work--much as when he sarcastically referred to Christ myth theorists as "cranks". (The Historical Jesus: Five Views, InterVarsity, 2009, p. 80)

When it comes to Doherty, James F. McGrath has said "Rich, for about as long as you have been asking for peer reviewed refutations of Doherty, I've been asking you what Doherty himself has published in a peer reviewed venue, which might then have been responded to. I have pointed out that peer reviewed journals do not waste their time on pseudoscholarship and thus asked you to provide even a single legitimate piece of scholarly published work by Doherty." ("Mythicist Misunderstanding", Exploring Our Matrix).

G. A. Wells doesn't fair much better. First, remember that he's abandoned the theory in its pure form. But even so, back when he was promoting it, as serious a non-Christian as Morton Smith remarked, "When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels." (Jesus in History and Myth, Prometheus, 1986, p. 48)

But as I've said before, including something about the theory being pseudoscholarship (whether as a part of the lead or as a cat tag) doesn't just depend on scholars using that exact phrase. It can also be justified on the really ugly denialist comparisons other scholars have made about CMT. Even further, it can be justified on the basis of the thundering condemnations of the CMT made by people like Rudolf Bultmann, Paul L. Maier, and Bart Ehrman that attribute the CMT to insanity, stupidity, and greed respectively. As I've said in the RfC, this is a slam dunk. So I'll ask again, Anthony, which three reliable sources in the FAQ indicate that there's some respectable minority of scholars advancing this thesis?Eugene (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up, Eugene. You have vividly demonstrated to me how all these "reliable sources", the scholars from major university as you say, are far, very far, from reasoning which I know from my working in science close to mathematics. To be honest, I now find myself inclining to call your sources pseudoscholars; on the other hand, I have found Doherty's texts as solid scholarship ... So I have realized that I am probably a stupid man of shallowest intellect etc. etc., and thus I should refrain from trying to engage here. Jelamkorj (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. Eugene,

"Which three reliable sources in FAQ 2 say there are "some scholars" who reject the historicity of Jesus?":

• If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

• Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

• [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988, p. 218

• In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few...

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

As for your "pseudoscience" quotes above, they're just petulant insults.

As for "(the only kind I'm good at!)", the only thing it shows is Wells is aware he has been called that. It is by no means an admission it is the mainstream view.

As for James F. McGrath, he is equating "pseudoscience" with not published in peer-reviewed journals. Where does that definition come from? It is just another insult.

As for"G. A. Wells doesn't fair much better. First, remember that he's abandoned the theory in its pure form." All you have shown me in this regard is him saying you can't call him an unqualified mythicist, that he is now a mythicist of a certain variety - one that allows Q possible historicity. And Morton Smith, of all people, is just throwing insults.

I respect Wikipedia and I want this to be a good article as much as you do. The trouble is you don't get what that is. I'd like you to understand the problem is your tone. I know you take this apocalyptically seriously. I don't. It's just counting angels on the head of a pin. Now the MMR-vaccine-causes-autism theory, that killed children and left tens of thousands of children exposed to illnesses they should have been spared. Look at the measured tone of that article. Spot the difference?

And if I don't answer you in 7 minutes it is because I have other things to do. Anthony (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the article on JFK assassination cover-up and conspiracy theories for a model. There is no mention at all in that article of any criticism of any of the theories. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm grateful for the response, Anthony. I think your line of argument fails for a number of reasons though.

As I suspected, you weren't able to produce any sources (let along three) from the FAQ that made the positive statement that a few scholars support the CMT. Rather, you produced a number of sources which were arguing the exact opposite point and which qualified their statements for caution's sake. The two are not the same.

It seems that no matter how many sources I produce which call the CMT pseudoscholarship you'll just dismiss it with a wave of your hand as nothing more than "insults". I'm curious, what would a source need to say in order to label the CMT pseudoscholarship whilst not prompting you to in turn label such a comment an insult? Is it even possible? Or have you just made up your mind that any source calling the CMT pseudoscholarship must be un-serious and therefore no matter how many sources I produce you just won't budge on this issue? Ditto for the mainstream view of Price. Ditto for the mainstream view of Wells. (A small item, McGrath's arguement isn't that Doherty's never had a peer reviewed publication and therefore his stuff is pseduoscholarship; it's that Doherty's stuff is pseudoscholarship and therefore he's never had a peer reviewed publication. Again, the two are not the same.)

Also, as I've said elsewhere, your attempted comparison to the MMR vaccine controversy (or the JFK conspiracy theory, Barrett) article is irrelevant. That article hasn't achieved GA status, let alone FA status, so I don't see how it can be used as a guide here. On the other hand, intelligent design has achieved FA status and therefore can give us some direction on what a FA article detailing a fringe theory should looks like. And when compared against that article's "tone", the Christ myth theory article seems far more reasonable, gentle even.

Finally, you didn't respond to my question about your claimed 3 sources for a full 48 hours, not a mere 7 minutes. (You were even active on this talk page in the interim.) Once again, the two are not the same. Eugene (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Eugene. I was addressing other issues, addressing other pages, doing things in the real world. Not paying attention to you. Anthony (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What was that about tone? Eugene (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you? Wasn't that your complaint? Anthony (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your first second paragraph. You are saying black is white. What am I meant to say? Anthony (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the second fourth, I was showing you a neutral article. Anthony (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying black is white? What on earth are you referring to? And, once more, the "neutral article" isn't FA and therefore carries no weight as an examples, whereas intelligent design is FA so it does. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I said "first" and "second" when I should have said "second" and "fourth". Anthony (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand; you weren't able to produce any sources (let alone three) from the FAQ that made the positive statement that "a few scholars" support the CMT. Rather, you produced a number of sources which were arguing the exact opposite point--that scholars don't support this theory--and which qualified their statements for caution's sake. The two are not the same. I stand by that. Could you please address the arguments? Eugene (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very useful to your point of view to interpret these authors as not meaning what they say. I know you'll understand that I can't accept your twist, though.

• Stanton says not all historians accept that Jesus existed.
• Wells Grant says a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus.
• Gasque thinks he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

Intelligent design looks like a good article, I like it's tone. What does it have to do with the polemic you're trying to concoct here? If CMT were pseudohistory - without any scholarly support and employing deceptive and fraudulent methods - the term should be employed here. But 3 reliable sources allow there is some scholarly support and it seems to me the proponents are simply distributing the weight of probability differently from their opponents (and you and me). Anthony (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design is indeed helpful here. That FA article uses the word "pseudo"-X (or a variant) something like five times in the lead. I'm only asking for such a phrase to be used once here in this article's lead. Considering that ID enjoys the support of quite a few more academics that the CMT, if ID can be labeled pseudo-X five times in its lead, certainly the CMT can be labeled pseudo-X once.

As for the sources in queston, it is you who is saying that black is white.

• Stanton does not say "not all historians accept that Jesus existed:; he says "Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed."
• Wells does not say "a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus"; he says "the view that there was no historical Jesus... is today almost totally rejected".
• Gasque doe not say "he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine"; he says "it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine".

In every case you have completely reversed the thrust of the statements made to support a notion none of quoted authors are trying to support. As such, you have yet to find a RS (let along three) that makes the positive statement that a respectable minority of scholars support the CMT. So even if this were a good defense against the pseudo-X label (I don't think it is, BTW) your argument still fails. Eugene (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. I wrote Wells, above, when I meant Grant. I really shouldn't edit here when I am tired and rushed.

• Stanton says not all historians accept that Jesus existed: Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

• Grant says a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus: In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few...

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

• Gasque thinks he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era: If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

I understand the above comments were made as part of an effort to explain the fringiness of CMT. But each is careful to allow that there are a few recalcitrant scholars. Of course, I can't name them - I'm not abreast of the field like you. But I read English well and know that "difficult to find more than a handful", "nearly all historians", and "very few" contradicts those authors who say CMT has no scholarly support.

ID is pseudo, it does not use the scientific method. CMT uses standard historical method but assigns probability differently to other historians. This makes CMT fringe, not pseudo. Claims it is pseudo are just more of the ad hominem rife in this "discipline".

Quoting Eugene: "I'm only asking for such a phrase to be used once here in this article's lead." If that gets into the lead, do you intend peppering the text with such insults and including CMT in the Pseudohistory category? Anthony (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to correspond to the body text. Nevertheless, I think that the body text currently expands on the pseudo-X label in the "methodological concerns" section. Given that, I've no intention of adding additional dismissive comments to the body.

As for the cat tag, I think that's a separate issue that, apparently, has a number of policy based issues associated with it. I'd prefer the tag, but the RfC on the matter doesn't provide me with much encouragement.

Also, I think using Gasque in the way you do is a bit much. In the very next paragraph from the one you quote he writes this:

Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ [(i.e. the focus of the article)] on the work of self-appointed "scholars" who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words. In short, Harpur's book tells us more about himself than it does about the origins of Christianity (or Judaism).

That sounds like pseudoscholarship to me. Eugene (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is CMT pseudo-?

(Moved from Historicity of Jesus:)
Eugene, Bill, why don't you just explain the nature of Wells', Doherty's and the rest's fraud? That is, explain what makes their work fake, not actual history. So far, all you've said is they attribute probability differently to their opponents, which makes this fringe, not pseudo. That would be much more useful. Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:UNDUE in this article. The specific problems with the views of men like Wells and Doherty should be detailed in the Christ myth theory article--which they are, in the "against the theory" section. Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But that section you pointed to does not explain the nature of their fraud, why their work is not history. It is just a litany of people who disagree with them. Work. Don't just quote their opponents "It's pseudohistory! It's pseudohistory!" You're happy to believe them. Obviously. I and most open-minded readers am not. Show me the fraudulent, non-historical method. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the CMT article does a poor job of this then add it to Bill's list. Eugene (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already there: 2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. But let's discuss that on that article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(Discussion resumed at Talk:Christ myth theory:)

Below, under New lead section V Eugene said:

Please see the quotes provided above by Wood and Case. Further, as I said above, whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such an identification should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. Further, given that the sentance in question [in the proposed new lead] reads "many of whom [i.e. scholars] regard the Christ Myth Theory as pseudoscholarship.", it isn't necessary for me to convince you that the theory is pseudoscholarship, merely that many scholars regard it as such. Given that lower standard then, do you really still object to this sentence in the lead? Eugene (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You have definitely made the case that a lot of scholars call the theory that Jesus never existed pseudoscholarship or similar. But I am so disgusted by the name-calling rife in this "discipline" that I don't trust your "scholars". And I wouldn't have to, if you can show the pseudoscholarship.

Wood, above, says "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of... the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities." Well, that is the essence of disagreement in this field, opponents assign probabilities differently. And "...and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence." One man's "evidence" is another's "surmise" in this field. "Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretense would be sheer intellectual dishonesty." Here he says (1) they haven't done the work and (2) they are dishonest, while he is hard working and honest. He goes on to assert "you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Does he explain what he means by that. I.e., examples of fraud or poor scientific method applied to this historical inquiry? There are only two or three notable current proponents. Would you be able to do a paragraph or two outlining clear instances of breaches of scientific rigor, where the breach is not simply a difference in attribution of likelihood, for each current proponent? Because I, an average, open-minded Wikipedia reader, require convincing. Anthony (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, before doing this I want to call attention to the fact that you concede that "a lot of scholars call the theory that Jesus never existed pseudoscholarship or similar". Since that's all the proposed sentence for the lead would state, you seem to therefore agree that the sentence in question is factually accurate and can be well referenced. That should be the end of the discussion. But just for fun I'll indulge you further.

You seem to believe that all that sets CMT proponents apart from mainstream scholarship is "simply a difference in attribution of likelihood" based on Wood's comment that "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence". I suppose that, technically, that's true. But you go further than this, you think that since the division can be thus characterized the word "pseduoscholarship" doesn't really apply. But that's clearly nonsense.

Let's take an extreme example: the Hol... uh... I mean, the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovars. We have statements from Serbian military leaders indicating mass murders, we have mass graves, we have photographic evidence, we have first-hand accounts from surviors, etc, etc, etc. It's an open and shut case of ethnic cleansing/genocide. No reasonable, legitimate scholarship done on the matter would come to any other conclusion. But, at the same time, it's possible to construct a competing explanation of the data that is not itself, strictly speaking, impossible.

Let's say that Dr. Bonkers publishes a paper through some ultra-fringy journal on the matter in question. In the paper Bonkers correctly notes that all historical reconstruction is a matter of probability, and Bonkers further states that, in this case, he happens to assign the probabilities differently than the united consensus of his scholarly peers. Bonkers argues that the Serbian officers who made videotaped confessions were really just Albanian Agent provocateurs masquerading as Serbian officials. Those mass graves? Nothing more than the mass disposal of cholera victims. Sure the corpses were riddled with bullets, but that's explicable with reference to the old Eastern European practice of mutilating the dead to prevent them from returning as vampires. The photos? Doctored! Whipped up by Western media outlets hungry for a lead that bleeds. The testimony of survivors? All lies, a coordinated plot intended to drum up support for an independant Kosovarian state.

Each of these things is possible, they're just extremely unlikely; and when taken together, the total probability becomes vanishingly small. But so what? It's not exactly 0%. So Dr. Bonkers (whose doctorate is in chiropracty, by the way, not history) says that his conclusions, while perhaps fringe, are legitimate scholarship.

The historical establishment disagrees. Numerous professors (some of them, admittedly, with pro-Kosovar sympathies) publish books (some through university presses) labeling Bonker's thesis "pseudoscholarship", comparing it to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, and so on.

Now imagine that a handful of plucky go-getters try to write a Wikipedia article on the Kosovar Liquidation myth theory. One group of editors wants to include a sentence in the lead that states "The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among Eastern Europe scholars and modern historians, nearly all whom today accept that war crimes were committed against the Kosovars, and many of whom regard the Kosovar Liquidation myth theory as pseudoscholarship." But another couple editors object. While these editos conceed that scholars have made these sorts of statements, the theory can't legitimately by labeled pseudoscolarship since, after all, the KLMT advocates just assign the probability differently.

In my hypothetical situation--in which I assure you that any seeming similarity to the current situation is purely coincidental ;)--which "side" of the editting discussion should prevail? Would you try to block the inclusion of the sentence into that article given those reasons?

If after all this you still demand personal convincing, I'l try to get paragraphs on the authors you mentioned together. Eugene (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, your Kosovo analogy was brilliant, and I congratulate you on the effort involved. However, the analogy is not an exact match, because:

1. We have statements from Serbian military leaders, but Pontius Pilate is long dead – and he left no mention in his diary etc of “the day I executed the Christianity founder” – and neither did any of his officers or officials;
2. The Serbians left mass graves, but there is no surviving physical evidence for the historical Jesus;
3. There is self-evidently no photographic evidence of Jesus, or anything claiming to be a portrait of the true face of Jesus – the Turin Shroud is probably a photograph, but it's medieval;
4. There are no first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses to Jesus life – the gospels were written many decades later, by non-witnesses based on hearsay, with much additions and glossings, and it's accepted by many scholars that significant portions of the gospel accounts are either heavily “revised” or outright fake.
5. While Kosavar is clearly an open and shut case of ethnic cleansing/genocide, much like the Nazi’s genocided the European Jews, the American settlers genocided the Native Americans and the Australian settlers genocided the Aboriginal Australians (including using atom bombs, can you believe), the existence of Jesus is derived from the “historical method” alone.

While the majority of scholars do accept the historicity of Jesus, the probabilities are thus far more doubtful than in the Kosavar analogy.

Nonetheless, well done indeed.

Wdford (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford. I never intended to imply that the quality of evidence and probabilities against the Christ myth theory is equal to those against my hypothetical Kosovar Liquidation myth theory. As I said above, the KLMT is an extreme example. My point, rather, was that objection to the word "pseudoscholarship" here on the grounds that the CMT is "simply a difference in attribution of likelihood" is impotent. All revisionist history--even the most outrageously pseudoscholarly--could be described as scholarship in which a "difference in attribution of likelihood" is made. Hence Dr. Bonkers: "I know that the historical establishment thinks the likelihood that the bullet wounds in the bodies found in the mass graves were inflicted post-mortem to prevent vampirization is extremely unlikely; I simply disagree, I think the likelihood is much greater--I mean, have my colleagues even read Dracula? That stuff's scary!"

Also, while this isn't immediately relevant, it bears on the "background and definition" section, so I should probably mention it: the notion that "There are no first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses to Jesus life – the gospels were written many decades later, by non-witnesses based on hearsay" is not at all a consensus view of NT scholarship. Many serious scholars believe that The Gospel According to John was written by an eye-witness--either the Apostle or some lesser known figure with the same name. Eugene (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a "no," you're not able to do a paragraph or two outlining clear instances of breaches of scientific rigor, where the breach is not simply a difference in attribution of likelihood, for each current proponent?

Break

I'm against including any mention of "pseudoscholarship" until someone can show me some instances of it for each scholar you are tarring with that brush. It can't be that hard, surely. Anthony (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you're aware that numerous scholars have made this claim and, despite that, despite the fact that the very first sentence of WP:V reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", you are still demanding that I convince you that the CMT is pseudscholarship? Eugene (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or do you want to spend the rest of your life defending this page against its dissatisfied and unimpressed readers? I think it was you who pointed out the majority of non-scholars think historicity is still an open question. These "scholars" have been intemperately flinging these epithets at their opponents since the 2nd century and you expect your readers to just take their word for it without being offered clear examples. You think you don't need to convince them. You're dreaming. Why don't you just knock off a couple of paragraphs enumerating the most blatant methodological errors and frauds of Doherty and Wells? Since it is claimed by so many august worthies that they are no better than skinhead holocaust deniers, there must be dozens of places you can copy and paste the juiciest from. That would shut me up and make this a stable page. Anthony (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, we are dealing here with textual criticism and interpretation. This field requires a high degree of discipline and training. So, there is no magic bullet that is going to convince a casual reader that the various Christ Myth Theories are completely bogus. As one scholar put it:

In the most various departments of science it happens from time to time that assertions are put forth which at once strike the experts in the science as untenable, and yet cannot easily be shown to be so.—"Was Jesus a Historical Character?" / C. Clemen. In American Journal of Theology, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1907), pp. 327-330.

In order to obtain satisfaction on this question, an interested casual reader has to stop being a casual reader, and make himself something of an expert. Barrett Pashak (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree very much with Barrett's last remark. The problem is that the reading isn't worth doing if we're going to be reverted. Ideally when a specialist article is going to GA or FAC, you have to be able to trust the writers to have bent over backwards to represent all views, including those they strongly disagree with. Then every editor and reviewer doesn't have to read everything for themselves, but can focus on advice about structure, writing, formatting etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think that there is any chance at all of the CMT being presented in anything but a positive light here at Wikipedia. There are just too many social forces at work that support and require it. It is good enough to register some protest of this, and to indicate in the article some sources for opposing viewpoints. We must accept that the CMT is rapidly assuming the status of the default position, and it will not be long before this is true not only in popular culture, but among professionals as well. It is simply asking too much of people that they familiarize themselves sufficiently with this subject so that the CMT appears to them as the absurdity that it is.Barrett Pashak (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has not been presented in a positive light on WP, but in a very negative one. We shouldn't try to present things positively or negatively, but wherever possible should simply write up carefully what the best sources are saying. After reading an article on WP, the reader shouldn't be able to tell which side the Wikipedians who wrote it came down on overall. That's the ideal position. This is why it's so very important that we should be able to trust writers who bring articles to GA or FAC, because we want to feel that they have milked every high-quality source, for and against, and have presented those sources' strongest arguments to the best of their ability, even if they personally disagree with the sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The CMT is presented in a negative light due to the work of a single editor. If he were to stop, or be stopped, the article would drift into becoming the playground of the theory's fans, under the protection of the WP administrative apparatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett Pashak (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The case against pseudo-X

First, there is the concern that Pseudo-X is only mentioned in books by Christian publishers. Maybe New Testament scholars consider this pseudo-scholarship, but having at least one source calling this "pseudo-X" in a University Press or non-Christian publishing house would really help. Consider Louis Jacobs: "Jewish attitudes towards the personality of Jesus, and on how Jews should view Jesus from the point of view of Judaism, vary from the belief that Jesus is not a historical figure at all to the acceptance of Jesus as an ancient Jewish ‘Rabbi’ or profound ethical teacher, a view rejected by all Orthodox Jews and by many Reform Jews." If an eminent Jewish scholar writes this, and then finds it necessary to qualify the other position, it seems that among Jewish scholars this is not as outrageous as it is in Christian academia.

Second, Historical Jesus studies has too many unresolved meta-questions for pseudo-scholarship to be at all meaningful. On the one hand, Bart Ehrman argues that a historian cannot (in his position as a historian) defend the historicity of the resurrection. Thus, on his view, people that eschew methodological naturalism, such as N. T. Wright, would be engaged in pseudo-scholarship. On the other hand, Bloomquist writes that it is precisely such lack of an "imaginative approach that leaves the study of the historical Jesus confined to the ideological and theological pseudo-history of positivism." Accusations of methodological violations are so abundant here that it is hard to take this as anything but rhetoric. In contrast, for intelligent design and holocaust denial, the sources actually explain what the proper method is and how the offending theories violate that method. In Denying History there is an entire chapter about pseudo-history; it isn't merely used as a rhetoric device or insult. Do we have even a paragraph that explain why this theory should be considered pseudo-history?

This was not as succinct as I had hoped :) Vesal (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting approach. First, I'd not give too much weight to Jacobs' quote, he's describing the opinions of Jews as a whole and not Jewish scholars specifically (the article references at least three of those and none of them are supportive of the CMT).

Second while it's technically true that the only books using the phrase "pseudo"-X are from Christian publishers, N. T. Wright has published something just as good, if not better, in a book from OUP:

"A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."

N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48

Like I said, the specific word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear, but come on, could anyone reasonably deny that's what he means? Also, Herbert George Wood's makes a similar statement in his book published through CUP:

"In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xxxiii & 54

Again, the word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear, but it might as well, his meaning is identical.

And third, Nicholas Perrin's book Lost in Transmission goes into serious detail discussing why the CMT is pseudo-scholarship, showing that it simply cannot be maintained unless a person resorts to a sort of historical double standard. As for a paragraph describing why the CMT is pseudoscholarship, I think the "arguments against" section does a pretty good job of that--maybe too good considering all the flack it gets. Eugene (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I find Herbert George Wood's reasoning quite compelling, and if you relied on such sources, I think you'd find much less opposition. N. T. Wright, on the other hand, is just disdainful, and for those of us working within the framework of methodological naturalism, it is really hard to take him seriously as a judge on what is proper method. More importantly, you are yet to produce a non-Christian source that would go so far as to declare this pseudo-X. While this is certainly rejected among Jewish scholars, they do not call it pseudo-history or compare it to holocaust denial, obviously; that kind of characterization comes from decidedly Christian sources. Vesal (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why some people have a bias, and obsession, against "Christian" scholars, but Bart Ehrman is NOT Christian. He is an atheist/agnostic. Also, "methodological naturalism" is irrelevant to this discussion and to this article. We are only talking about the mere historical existence of a normal human being. Vesal, as I've said elsewhere, this is NOT about the divine/miraculous claims of the NT, but some (which I respectfully submit that you are included, since you made a reference to "methodological naturalism") think that accepting the historicity of JoN automatically means that they must also accept every other divine/miraculous NT claim about him. That is NOT the case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with Christian scholars. I get nervous when only Christian scholars are used to make overall categorization on a topic that is supposed to be about history. This is like using books published by Prometheus Press to put the resurrection of Jesus in the pseudo-history category. Vesal (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]The German-Jewish thinker Constantin Brunner in his critique of mythicism identifies it as pseudo-scholarship. He further identifies this kind of pseudo-scholarship as responsible for the rise of antisemitism, and predicts (in 1921) that its outcome will be the massacre of Jews. Barrett Pashak (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This was quite difficult reading, but you seem to be right here. Isn't there also another source that identifies the antisemitic connections. As they seem to be mostly in reaction to Arthur Drews, it should be added to his section. I am not sure you can extend such political motivations to all myth-theorist though. Vesal (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, you've moving the goal posts here. You initially said "Pseudo-X is only mentioned in books by Christian publishers... having at least one source calling this 'pseudo-X' in a University Press or non-Christian publishing house would really help." So I provided you with two examples that are functionally equivalent to what you requested: Wright's comments in a book published through Oxford University Press and Wood's comments in a book published through Cambridge University Press. That should satisfy. But oh no, now that's not good enough, now you want something by a "non-Christian source", by which I assume you mean a non-Christian author. Tisk tisk.

But even with my faith in your fairness here a bit bruised, I'll still oblige you: both Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan have made very ugly denialist comparisons regarding the CMT which clearly indicate they see it as pseudoscholarship, and neither of these scholars are Christians.

• "If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying."

John Dominic Crosson, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000

• "Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?"

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", he Infidel Guy Show, 2008

You wanted non-Christians; there they are. So, at the end of the day, we have several RSes that explictly label the CMT "pseudoscholarship"--using the very word--plus a coulple of comments published by major university presses that say essentially the same thing, plus a couple prominent and scholarly non-Christians also supporting the notion. I really don't think your "case against Pseudo-X" has a leg to stand on... unless you intend to move the goal posts again.

Remember, at this particular point I'm only arguing for the inclusion of some sort of comment in the lead saying that historians and New Testament scholars regard that CMT as pseudoscholarship. I'm not currently advocating for the tag which, it seems, must be non-controversial since it cannot be footnoted. But the lead can be footnoted, and it would be trivially easy to reference such a statement with the 6 or 7 relevant sources.Eugene (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we might have saved some time if you had reminded me earlier. Of course, I don't see any objection to mentioning that a large number of eminent scholars consider this pseudo-scholarship. But you simply have to accept that I do not interpret the sources as so unequivocally equivalent to pseudo-X as you do. Take Ehrman's comparison to holocaust denial: I completely agree with Ehrman there, but I'm not sure all myth-proponent in this article show that kind of disregard for historical evidence as the host of that show did. And I completely agree with Crossan and Wright that arguing with someone, who is sticking to their less plausible explanation when a far more plausible explanation exists, is a complete waste of time. While I personally do consider this a clear case of pseudo-scepticism, I do not want to apply any wide-sweeping labels to something that covers outdated good-faith scholarship and perhaps a respectable position within orthodox Judaism.

Anyway, I guess Anthony asked the critical question above. Will you be satisfied with one mention in the lead that many historians and New Testament scholars consider it pseudo-X? Vesal (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm only advocating for one mention in the lead. (I personally think the five or so "pseudo-X"es in the ID article's lead is a bit over the top; one should be suffient there too.)Eugene (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add Case's university published book to the discussion:

The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question.

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269

Eugene (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Current conclusions on pseudo-history

I thought a bit more about whether you have a point in saying that many of the dismissals above are effectively equivalent to charges of pseudo-scholarship. I always thought of pseudo-scholarship as much worse than merely piss-poor scholarship: either outright bad faith attempts to fabricate knowledge, or complete violations of the accepted methods of a field. On the point of methodology, I think you have made a good case, especially with Wood and Case; perhaps, we are being overly demanding. What do other people think? And is the sentence in lead but no cat, an acceptable compromise to other people like SlimVirgin and BruceGubbs? Vesal (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lead could read:

The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[43] many of whom regard the theory as pseudoscholarship.[new ref]

Or some such thing. Eugene (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can happily live with this sentence. Can we also blue-link pseudoscholarship, to assist the 99.98% of readers who might not have encountered the term before? Wdford (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Eugene (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have any of you checked the Wikipedia entry on pseudoscholarship? It's fun. Vesal (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal: that's funny. I reverted to an older version, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed

Earl Doherty

Here is some material from two scholars, Ben Witherington III (PhD from the University of Durham, England; currently Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland) and Paula Fredriksen (PhD from Princeton University; currently William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University), who have addressed Earl Doherty's work. Witherington's stuff is from a blog artcle he wrote concerning Doherty, Fredriksen's stuff is from private correspondence which Doherty has put online.

Fredriksen on Doherty (organized in categories of pseudoscholarship tactics)

Self-serving redating

Around the year 107, the Christian bishop of Antioch made a last, doleful journey. Under military escort Ignatius travelled by land from Antioch to Rome, where in its brutal arena he was to die a martyr's death. Along the way he wrote to several Christian communities.

These letters are now dated c. 98-100

And yet when we step outside those Gospels [Doherty dates them all to the second century] into the much more rarefied atmosphere of the first century epistles, we encounter a huge puzzle...

I assume that this means "apart from the gospels." Ignatius is generally held to have been writing after some of them had been written.

Anthony's response to these 2 purported examples of Doherty's pseudoscholarship:: I have now spent 7 hours looking for anybody who dates the Ignatius epistles before 100 A.D. and found none but lots of serious scholars who, like Doherty, date them 2nd C. The second example is no example at all - see James's comments below. I am worried this whole list may be a bunch of wild geese put here to waste my free time while Eugene, Bill, and NJMauthor have their way with the article. Anthony (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"...Ignatius the martyr of circa A.D. 110"

Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: a study of an early Christian ... (2006) By Allen Brent (A. prof. History, University of North Queensland, Member of the faculty of Divinity University of Cambridge) Page 98

"Writing between A.D. 108-117, Ignatius can take this structure for certain..."

Antioch and Rome: New Testament cradles of Catholic Christianity By Raymond Edward Brown, John P. Meier (1983) Page 77

"This study exegetes the passage in the second-century letter of the bishop Ignatius of Antioch to his fellow bishop Polycarp in Smyrna."

"Ignatius, Ad Polycarp. 4.3 and the Corporate Manumission of Christian Slaves" By J. Albert Harrill. Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 1, Number 2, (1993) Page 107

"...what the listeners or readers of Ignatius in these cities of Roman Asia (c. 110 C.E.) would think of when Ignatius used these analogies..."

"Christ-Bearers and Fellow-Initiates: Local Cultural Life and Christian Identity in Ignatius' Letters" By Philip A. Harland Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 11, Number 4, (2003) Page 481

I don't understand the second quote/critique. Do I need more information, or is it just because I'm tired/stupid? I'll look at it again tomorrow. Doherty dates the gospels into the 2nd century? and all after Ignatius' epistles? And that contradicts the more mainstream chronology? Is that it? Anthony (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The second quote is not a critique. She is just clarifying that when Doherty writes "when we step outside those Gospels" he means "apart from the Gospels". ^^James^^ (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Anthony, Doherty late dates the gospels well outside of the mainstream chronology, putting most (he thinks maybe all) well after Ignatius wrote his letters. Eugene (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what is indicated above. Doherty responded I had said in the opening part of the first sentence above, "when we step outside those Gospels into...the first century epistles" and she correctly, if reduntantly, inferred, “I assume this means apart from the gospels." Later he writes Why is Ignatius early in the 2nd century the first to mention even the most basic of these? (Of course, outside the Gospels.) This doesn't mesh at all with what you wrote. ^^James^^ (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Does he think his late gospel dates are mainstream, or does he present them as such? If he acknowledges they differ from mainstream, does his argument for them rely on falsified data or flawed logic? Anthony (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Another quote from his site: Those familiar with my writings will know that I do not subscribe to the very radical late dating of the Gospels (post-130 and beyond) held by the likes of Joseph Wheless or the Dutch Radical School of the 19th century, or moderns like Hermann Detering and Acharya S, and even Robert M. Price, but would place Mark in the late first century (the 90s, let's say, as does G. A. Wells, discussed below), with the other three canonicals following within the next few decades. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, the essential problem is that Doherty dates the formation of the Gospels to some time after the epistles. This ignores all evidence that the Gospels as we have them are based on material that predates the epistles. There is no reputable scholar who would endorse Doherty's position here. Barrett Pashak (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a different argument and is not what Fredriksen is saying above. And the Pauline epistles are usually dated before the Gospels. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to lose sight of the fact that Doherty's essential premise--that the formation of the Gospels postdates the epistles--is unanimously rejected by scholars. All contemporary scholars acknowledge the existence of proto-gospels, written and/or oral, prior to the epistles. Barrett Pashak (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The reading I've done suggests that you are simply wrong here. Doherty does not ignore "proto-gospels". Again, the Pauline epistles are usually dated before the Gospels. This is not controversial. Please backup your statements; give us the secondary sources making these critiques of his work. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In Doherty's view, proto-gospel material did not contain anything of a human Christ (see Richard Carrier's review).This is in direct contradiction to all scholarly understanding of the proto-Gospel material (see, for example, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition by Birger Gerhardsson). So, we can safely say that Doherty, contrary to all scholarship, dates the first depiction of the human Christ after the epistles. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's yet another separate critique. Are we at four now? And this claim has nothing to do with "self-serving redating". I'll look into his interpretation of the proto-gospel material later. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier if you could give some indication of where in the 28 page essay Carrier critiques Doherty on the relevant points. The book you linked to does not appear to mention Doherty either. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]The relevant passage from Carrier:

After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth.

Gerhardsson does not mention Doherty. I cite him as representative of the consensus scholarship that the proto-gospel material is concerned with the human Christ, and predates the epistles. Barrett Pashak (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Barrett. Could you provide a secondary source which criticizes Doherty on this count? And can you show me where Doherty argues that the proto-gospel material is not concerned with the human Christ? ^^James^^ (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is this from Doherty:

We are led to conclude that the beginning of the Christian movement was not a response to any human individual at one time and location.

I am not aware of any criticism of Doherty on this point. But this might explain why Doherty is completely ignored by qualified critics: The idea that proto-Gospel accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth do not appear until after the epistles is completely preposterous. Barrett Pashak (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand it sounds preposterous to you. But without secondary sources there is not much reason to discuss it here. And I still don't know what Doherty actually argues. I only have your characterizations. Have you read his treatment of the proto-gospel material? ^^James^^ (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Anachronisms

In all the Christian writers of the first century, in all the devotion they display about Christ and the new faith, not one of them expresses the slightest desire to see the birthplace of Jesus, to visit Nazareth his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he held his Last Supper, the tomb: where he was buried and rose from the dead. These places are never mentioned. Most of all, there is not a hint of pilgrimage to Calvary itself, where humanity's salvation was consummated. How could such a place not have been turned into a shrine?

Pilgrimage is a late third-fourth century phenomenon. This just is not odd.

Is there indeed, in this wide land so recently filled with the presence of the Son of God, any holy place at all, any spot of ground where that presence still lingers, hallowed by the step, touch or word of Jesus of Nazareth? Neither Paul nor any other first century letter writer breathes a whisper of any such thing. Nor do they breathe a word about relics associated with Jesus. Where are his clothes, the things he used in everyday life, the things he touched? Can we believe that items associated with him in his life on earth would not have been preserved, valued, clamored for among believers, just as things like this were produced and prized all through the Middle Ages? Why is it only in the fourth century that pieces of the "true cross" begin to surface?

It has a lot to do with the Constantinian church. This isn't a huge mystery: it's been treated in many studies.

Is it conceivable that Paul would not have wanted to run to the hill of Calvary, to prostrate himself on the sacred ground that bore the blood of his slain Lord?

Yes: he was not a fourth-century, relic-conscious Christian.

Anthony's response to this critique: The erection of shrines and pilgrimage to them was the norm among Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Jews, Persians and Indians in the 1st century. It was normal practice, how you honored your god. Doherty's question is fair. The critic's response is ignorant (or disingenuous) and circular: "There was no pilgrimage in the first two or three hundred years because... it didn't begin until late third-fourth century" and does not answer the question, "Why?" Anthony (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Christian pilgrimage is a development of the 4th century. It's not ignorant or disingenuous to say that; that's what the historical record shows. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Akhilleus, I wasn't making my point clear. It was normal practice across the Mediterranean and at least as far as Sri Lanka, long before the first century and long after, for people to construct shrines to their gods and make pilgrimage to those shrines. That was how people honored their gods (and many still do). It is reasonable for Doherty to ask "Why did it take 300 years for this to happen with the Christians. They were people of the region, of the time?"

I'm not saying it is a strong point, a killer blow to the historical Jesus. Just reasonable. Not a case of faulty reasoning or misrepresenting the facts, which is the quest I am on here. You could save me a lot of time by pointing me to some actual pseudoscholarship if you know of any. (That said, the next lot looks decidedly nonsensical, so this may be it.) Anthony (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Anthony, I think this is a waste of your time. Unless you have demonstrable expertise in this area, your opinion of whether there's pseudoscholarship here doesn't matter; what matters is what the reliable sources say... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence Denial

...Before Ignatius, not a single reference to Pontius Pilate, Jesus' executioner, is to be found.

Is to be found where? I'm not certain of what he's trying to say here. [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all refer to Pontius Pilate and precede the writtings of Ignatius. Also, the Pilate Stone precedes the letters of Ignatius.]

And yet there is a resounding silence in Paul and the other first century writers. We might call it "The Missing Equation." Nowhere does anyone state that this Son of God and Savior, this cosmic Christ they are all talking about, was the man Jesus of Nazareth, recently put to death in Judea.

He's exaggerating the disconnect between Paul and the historical Jesus.

Paul and other early writers, however, seem to speak solely of a divine Christ.

According to Paul, Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the Law," (Gal. 4:4); and he was "son of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3).

In passing, it must be noted that those "words of the Lord" which Paul puts forward as guides to certain practices in his Christian communities (1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14) are not from any record of earthly pronouncements by Jesus.

The no-divorce stuff in 1 Cor 7 resonates immediately w/ instructions in Mt's Sermon on Mount.

What could possibly explain this puzzling, maddening, universal silence?

It's only a "universal" silence if you bracket out the gospels—and there were many more than the four that made it into the canon.

In the epistles, Christ's anticipated Coming at the End-time is never spoken of as a "return" or second Coming.

But that's what the word "parousia" means.

In Paul the impression conveyed is that this will be his first appearance in person on earth.

Paul's got all this blood imagery in Romans connected with the crucifixion—that certainly requires a first, earthly, embodied appearance, doesn't it?

Misc. False Disconfirmation

Both Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:9) and the writer of 1 John even attribute such love commands [a central pillar of Jesus message] to God, not Jesus!

? But the Jesus of the Gospels also attributes it to God, since he's quoting Torah when he "says" it.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is anxious to convince his readers that humans can be resurrected from the dead. Why then does he not point to any traditions that Jesus himself had raised several people from the dead? Where is Lazarus?

Paul writes before John writes. The resuscitations of dead people are NOT what Paul is talking about with cosmic transformation in 1 Cor 15.

*Concluding Remark*

[Doherty] seems to be working very hard to create a straw man that he can then begin to knock down.

Witherington on Doherty

The blog article is longish and should probably just be read in its entirety. Here are some of the more pertinent points Witherington makes about Doherty's work:

• [re. Doherty's claim that the Testimonium Flavianum is universally recognized by scholars to be bogus] DOHERTY'S CLAIM THAT IT IS 'UNIVERSALLY' RECOGNIZED IS SIMPLY A CANARD, WHICH SHOWS HE HASN'T BOTHERED TO EVEN READ THE SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXT CRITICISM ON JOSEPHUS' WORK.
• [re. Doherty's claim that Paul and others originally thought Jesus was only a mythical being] THIS MUST BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS-- A BALD FACED ASSERTION WHICH COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE. GAL. 4 IN PAUL'S EARLIEST LETTER WRITTEN IN A.D. 49 OR SO WE HEAR THESE WORDS " BUT WHEN THE TIME HAD FULLY COME, GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF WOMAN, BORN UNDER THE LAW TO REDEEM THOSE UNDER THE LAW." IN ONE OF HIS LATEST LETTERS WE HEAR: "FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS, THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL."

  IN SHORT, DOHERTY SEEMS TO HE CHANNELING THE MISINFORMATION OF THE LATER GNOSTIC GOSPELS, NOT THE EARLIER AND FAR MORE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED CANONICAL ONES. NOT ONLY DOES HE BADLY MISREAD PAUL, HE EQUALLY MISREADS THE CANONICAL GOSPELS ON THESE VERY MATTERS. IT IS PRECISELY THESE SORTS OF REMARKS WHICH SHOW SUCH IGNORANCE OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHICH LEAD NT SCHOLARS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, JEWISH FAITH, AND NO FAITH TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PURE POLEMICS OF DOHERTY--- HE IS NO HISTORIAN AND HE IS NOT EVEN CONVERSANT WITH THE HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE VERY MATTERS HE WANTS TO PONTIFICATE ON.

• [re. Doherty's claim that early Christians thought Jesus died in a heavenly realm at the hands of demons] HERE AGAIN THIS SORT OF ASSERTION BETRAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL'S WRITINGS, AND INDEED OF EARLY JEWISH DEMONOLOGY. IN EARLY JUDAISM DEMONS AND EVIL SPIRITS ARE INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN SPHERE AND IN THE HUMAN REALM, AS WELL AS IN THE HEAVENLIES. IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR MATTER. PAUL CERTAINLY DOES NOT SUGGEST JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. TO THE CONTRARY, PAUL RECITES THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CREED IN 1 COR. 15.1-5 THAT JESUS DIED AND WAS BURIED LIKE ANY OTHER MORTAL, AND THEN WAS SEEN ALIVE ON EARTH AFTER HIS DEATH. SINCE TACITUS AS WELL STRESSES JESUS DIED A MUNDANE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF PILATE, ON THE BASIS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROMAN RECORDS, IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO DISMISS SUCH EVIDENCE, OR PROJECT IT INTO A MERELY SPIRITUAL REALM. FURTHERMORE, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT JESUS SUFFERED AND DIED IN JERUSALEM, NOT IN SOME SPIRITUAL REALM ( SEE E.G. HEB. 13, OR HEB. 7-11). IT DOES REFER TO JESUS GOING TO HEAVEN AFTER HIS DEATH AND ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN. BUT HIS DEATH IS SAID TO BE A SACRIFICE ON EARTH, LIKE THAT OF A PASSOVER SACRIFICE. ONCE AGAIN. DOHERTY HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO INTERACT WITH ANY OF THE EXPERTS ON EITHER PAUL OR HEBREWS, AND CHOOSES TO MAKE UP HIS INTERPRETATIONS AS HE FEELS LED.
• [re. Dohery's veiws on the relationship between mainstram Judaism and Platonism] MOST OF WHAT IS SAID ABOUT HEAVEN AND EARTH AND SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ARISES NOT OUT OF REFLECTION ON THE WORKS OF PLATO BUT OUT OF EARLY JEWISH APOCALYPTIC THINKING WHICH BEGAN IN EXILE BEFORE ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR THE AFFECTS OF HELLENISTIC THINKING ON JEWS. IT IS TOTALLY ANACHRONISTIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. THE SOURCE OF OTHER WORLD AND AFTERLIFE THINKING IN THE NT AND IN MOST EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE IS CLEARLY ENOUGH BOOKS LIKE DANIEL, EZEKIEL, ZECHARIAH AND OTHER JEWISH APOCALYPTIC PROPHETS. THE 'HELLENISTIC' EXPLANATION OF THEIR OTHERWORLDLY THINKING COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EARLIER JEWISH LITERATURE
• [re. Doherty's understanding of the New Testament documents] THIS COULD BE SAID TO BE A FAIR SUMMARY OF GNOSTIC THEOLOGY, THAT GOD WHO IS SPIRIT WHO CAN HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE MATERIAL WORLD, BUT IT BADLY MISREPRESENTS THE THOROUGHLY JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE NT WRITERS WHO NOT ONLY AFFIRM AN INCARNATION OF JESUS THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION ON EARTH BUT STRESS HE WILL RETURN TO EARTH TO BRING IN A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NT REFLECTS THE OT THEOLOGY ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF THE MATERIAL CREATION. THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE STRONG AFFIRMATION OF THE GOODNESS OF CREATION THAN THAT GOD'S SON WOULD TAKE ON A PHYSICAL AND GENUINE HUMAN NATURE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ATTEMPT TO READ A RADICAL SPIRITUAL/MATERIAL DICHOTOMY INTO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA AND ITS FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, AND AGAIN REFLECTS A TOTAL FAILURE TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES AS THEY EXIST.
• [re. Doherty's belief that all the Gospel are exclusively dependant on Mark] I MUST STRESS THAT WE NOW HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ACTS BEING A FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENT. I HAVE SEEN THE FRAGMENTS OF A COPY OF ACTS IN SYDNEY AT MACQUARRIE AND THEY DATE TO NO LATER THAN 125 A.D. IT IS CLEAR AS WELL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, BUT ONE OF MANY LATER COPIES. SO THE ATTEMPT TO LATE DATE ACTS WILL NOT WORK (SEE MY ACTS COMMENTARY). FURTHERMORE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NT SCHOLARS THINK THAT JOHN IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL STORY, INDEED IT CLAIMS TO BE AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (ON THE TRUTH OF WHICH--- SEE MY WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS?). WHAT IS ESPECIALLY ODD ABOUT THIS TENET OF DOHERTY'S IS THAT IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE THREE SYNOPTIC ACCOUNTS. THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST THEY ALL ONLY HAD ONE VERSION OF THE STORY. IT SUGGESTS THEY HAD SEVERAL, AND INDEED THE PROLOGUE IN LK.1.1-4 MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY--- LUKE CONSULTED BOTH EYEWITNESSES AND EARLY PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND INDEED HE ADMITS VARIOUS PERSONS HAD WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE GOSPEL STORY BEFORE HIM, NOT JUST MARK. I WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A REFERENCE TO AT LEAST MARK AND MATTHEW'S ACCOUNTS.

  NOTICE AGAIN THE DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF THE USE OF GLOBALIZING LANGUAGE--- "NOW ALMOST A UNIVERSAL SCHOLARLY CONCLUSION". HE CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT NT SCHOLARS, OR CLASSICS SCHOLARS, OR ANCIENT HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD. SO WHAT SCHOLARS IS HE REFERRING TO. SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THIS SORT OF BRAZEN POLEMIC WHICH DOES NOT DEAL EITHER WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, OR WITH THE CAREFUL SCHOLARSHIP DONE FOR CENTURIES UPON IT.

• [re. Doherty's understanding of Q] I KNOW OF NO Q EXPERT WHO SUGGESTS THAT THE Q COMMUNITY INVENTED A JESUS FOUNDER FIGURE. IN FACT EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL Q SCHOLARS WOULD REJECT THIS ASSERTION AS PURE NONSENSE AND WISHFUL THINKING ON DOHERTY'S PART.
• [re. Doherty's belief that early Christianity was radically diverse] THE ATTEMPT TO PREDICATE THE LATER DIVERSITY FOUND IN THE LATE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH CENTURIES BACK INTO THE FIRST CENTURY JEWISH SECT CALLED CHRISTIANITY IS BOTH BAD HISTORY WRITING AND POOR RESEARCH. IT ONCE AGAIN COMMITS THE SCHOLARLY SIN OF ANACHRONISM-- READING THE TRAITS OF A LATER AGE INTO AN EARLIER PERIOD. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS ABOUT THIS WHOLE APPROACH IS IT IGNORES THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE OF ORTHODOXY AND ORTHOPRAXY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM THE START. THIS IS HARDLY A SURPRISE IN A MOVEMENT FOUNDED BY DEVOUT EARLY JEWS. ALL THE NT BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY SUCH JEWS, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF LUKE-ACTS AND 2 PETER.
• [re. Doherty's explanation of how the mythic Jesus was transformed into the historical Jesus] IGNATIUS I AM SURE WOULD BE TRULY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK OF A HISTORICAL FIGURE NAMED JESUS WHO LIVED AND DIED UNDER PILATE. NO, THIS WAS ALREADY WIDELY KNOWN FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE. NOTICE FOR EXAMPLE PAUL'S WORDS IN 1 TIM. 6.13-- "IN THE SIGHT OF GOD WHO GIVES LIFE TO EVERYTHING, AND OF CHRIST JESUS, WHO WHILE TESTIFYING BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE MADE THE GOOD CONFESSION..."

  MR. DOHERTY UNFORTUNATELY IS A MERE POLEMICIST. HE HAS NOT DONE HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK, HE CLEARLY HAS NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE BROAD RANGE OF NT SCHOLARSHIP, AND OF COURSE HE COMES AT HIS STUDY WITH A STRONG AX TO GRIND.

Conclusion

Both of these scholars point out Doherty's pseudoscholarship. They call attention to his tendentious, self-serving late dating of certain texts, his willful ignorace of Christianity's initial cultural milleu, his denial of certain strands of evidence, and his glaring anachronisms. It's for these reasons that John Dominic Crossan compared Doherty to a moon landing skeptic and even the somewhat sympathetic R. Joseph Hoffmann labeled Doherty's work "qualitatively and academically far inferior to anything so far written on the subject."

G. A. Wells

Voorst on Wells

Robert E. Van Voorst (PhD from Union Theological Seminary, an institution affiliated with the Ivy League Columbia University; currently Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary) has helpfully summarized the many problems associated with Wells' earlier work. He includes a list of seven of these serious issues in both his Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdmans) and the article "The Nonhistoricity hypothesis" he contributed to Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia(ABC-CLIO). Here's a summary of the list:

1. Wells based his argument largely on silence, specifically Paul's relative silence regarding Jesus' life, which is inherently dubious.
2. Wells radically late-dated the synoptic gospels and just assumed that they were written outside Palestine despite their many referenece to that very place.
3. Wells jumped from a belief in development among the gospels to a belief in their non-historicity
4. Wells has no explantion for why early opponents of Christianity didn't mention that Jesus was a myth.
5. Wells employs a contrived skepticism when dismissing the scholarly consensus regarding the value of early non-Christian references to Jesus
6. Wells denied the historical existence of Jesus "not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes"
7. Wells failed to advance a credible susbstitute hypothesis which would "fill in" for a historical Jesus.

Dunn on Wells

James D. G. Dunn (PhD from the University of Cambridge; currently emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham) also notes in The Evidence for Jesus (Westminster John Knox) that #1 (the argument from silence) was Wells' primary justification for his early denial of Jesus. Dunn further commented in Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans) that Wells "displays an unyielding determination to interpret all data in favor of his thesis, whatever the probabilities... such a tendentious treatment is less deserving of the description 'historical' than Jesus."

Conclusion

These serious problems (especially #1, 2, 4, 5 & 6) are enough to label Wells past advocacy pseudoscholarship. They were indeed enough to motivate even as unsympathetic a scholar (unsympathetic to Christianity, that is) as Morton Smith (PhD from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and ThD from Harvard; late emeritus professor of ancient history at Columbia University- him of the gay sorcerer Jesus theory) to say, "When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels."

Wells' response

In reponse to these sorts of criticism (especially Dunn's) Wells came to abandon the Christ myth theory--at least in its unadulterated form--declaring that he now accepted that a historical Jesus stood behind the earliest Christian community and that now "it will not do to call me a mythicist tout court."

Meta-Conclusion

As I've said, WP:V clearly indicates that no one (Anthony presumably included) need be personally convinced of some bit of material for that material to be included in an article. Rather, all that's required is verifiability. Given that it's cleary verifiable that many scholars consider the CMT pseudoscholarship, there's no good reason against indicating as much in the lead, especially considering that WP:FRINGE warns against making a fringe theory seem more mainstream than it is.

Even so, I've taken the time to humor Anthony. Here it is, this is why Wells' old stuff and Doherty's current stuff is psuedoscholarship. You've said that this might help in the future, but I sincerely doubt that. New critics of the page will just demand further proof and further argument. As Johannes Weiss once observed in relation to the Christ myth theory, "It is the most difficult task in the world to prove to nonsense that it is nonsense". But there it is.

So, does anyone still object to including a comment in the lead indicating that scholars consider the CMT pseudoscholarship? Eugene (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, I suggest you save the above information somewhere. I have a feeling that it will need to be put in a FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so no one has objected. Here's the last paragraph of the lead then:

The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, nearly all whom today accept that Jesus existed, and many of whom regard the Christ Myth Theory as pseudoscholarship.

Eugene (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you calling nonsense? ☺

I spent four hours looking for someone who dated Ignatius' epistles before 100 A.D. and failed, but found many who date them after. So the first accusation against Doherty in your list, above, seems baseless. I have asked you to point out the deception, false data or flawed logic in the second point, and am waiting for a reply. I intend honoring the work you put in there, which I genuinely appreciate, (as I do all the effort you're putting in here, by the way) by examining each point. Can you hold off on inserting the above until I've encountered a few examples of pseudoscholarship? Anthony (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no intention of engaging in a point-by-point debate on this material. As I said, WP:V clearly states in its first sentence, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (emphasis original) Given this, that you remain personally unconvinced that the Christ myth theory is pseudoscholarship is totally irrelevant to the way the article should be written. Despite our disagrements regarding this article, I think that SlimVirgin would concur on this point.

You had indicated that you were uncomfortable allowing the word pseduoscholarship into the lead on the basis that the scholars who've applied that epithet to this topic could potentially be using it as nothing more than a slur. I felt that, while somewhat agravating, that was a legitimate concern. So I provided the above material to show that the designation "pseudoscholarip" is not being used as a thoughtless slur in this case, that scholars have actual (non-ideological) reasons for using that word in this case (regardless of whether an editor fells that those reasons are particularly persuasive). That's as far as I'm willing to go. Like this talk page says at the top, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Eugene (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We do have editorial discretion. If a claim is just plain false we are free to ignore it. We don't have to document every aspect of the debate. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's reasonable, Eugene. And that last incarnation of the last paragraph of the lead looked OK to me. Are the footnotes linking to anything I'm going to react against (skinheads, moon-cheese, flat earth)? I'll continue working through the critiques above, looking for clear instances of actual pseudoscholarship, and try inserting a couple. Should I find none, I'm not sure I'll be sanguine about it.

The point is to satisfy skeptical or open-minded readers, not offend them and insult their intelligence by just quoting the scholars' "We don't like it." Until that is done, this will remain a battleground. You'll never satisfy evangelical atheists or other agenda-pushers, of course, but most of your most vehement critics are neutral ideologically. The kinds of people who turned up here to comment are the very kinds of people who come to the article out of curiosity. I'm not sure you've fully absorbed the main lesson from the bulk of community comments over the last 3 weeks, which is "Reasonable people object to the ad hominem, it makes the article unconvincing and works diametrically against your argument."

Do you think there is consensus on the definition? Anthony (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. The quotations don't appear in the footnotes, just Harvard notes directing the reader to the pertinent bibliogaphic entry. Yes, I think that there is consensus on the definition. Bruce no doubt objects, but he always objects, and the second sentence of the lead addresses his concerns. Since you say the "last incarnation of the last paragraph of the lead looked OK to me", I'm going to request an admin insert the new lead. Eugene (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be just as reasonable if I find no pseudoscholarship in that list above. Anthony (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

After a lot of debate, it looks like this new lead has consensus:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person at all, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. Additionally, some proponents of the theory believe that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

The theory emphasizes the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. It gives priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contends that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draws on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods.

The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. Academic such as Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews advocated the theory in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And authors such as G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty have popularized the theory in recent years.

While the hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, many of whom regard the Christ myth theory as pseudoscholarship.

Please replace the current lead with this one. Eugene (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in time to make the edit yourself. The protection has expired. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Eugene continues to remove the tag though it's clear that the dispute remains unresolved, and most of the people who've commented believe the article has POV issues. Eugene, you've undone most of the material that was added in an effort to improve things, and you've made the lead worse by removing the dissenting voice and restoring the "pseudo" issue. If you remove the tag again I'm going to request admin assistance. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you summarized what you felt the remaining POV issues were. Eugene asked for this recently and you didn't respond, so he may have concluded that there was no longer an active dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is way too early to remove the tag Eugene. Anthony (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is so, he should have been answered. NJMauthor (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the disputes seem to have driven several of the uninvolved or less involved editors away. That doesn't mean the issues are resolved, simply that people have been worn down. Two key issues for me are, as I said, no dissenting voice in the lead, and the addition of the "pseudo" issue or any other phrase that denigrates the sources (these are not the only issues, but they're the most immediate ones). I've said this many times; if I fail to answer on any given occasion it doesn't mean there's been a resolution. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is the version I added the tag to on April 12 because efforts to improve the article were being undone. This is the current version. The lead still has no modern dissenting voice. There is still a prominent "pseudo" claim. The historical responses section is still entirely negative, but is placed outside arguments and counter-arguments as though it's definitive and neutral. The Price section is almost the same as it was; all the extra details have been removed, though at least now we have a decent image. Those are just some of the issues to be starting with. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to SV's list: the historical responses section needs to be improved, but I tend to agree that it needs to be incorporated into the arguments and counter-arguments section. I would also like to improve the arguments and counter-arguments section so that each argument has the "for and against" in the same paragraph, as it makes more sense than having the counter in a different section entirely. However that can be managed. Please add back the "missing" Price details, with a justification for each, and let's debate the justifications before anybody removes them again. But as far as the lead is concerned, I still don't understand the need for a "modern dissenting voice". The lead currently states what the proponents believe, and that the many detractors reject their assertions. If you want to know who and what, you have ten pages of "history" to wade through. I don't see why you need to mention a particular individual in the lead, either for or against, as the lead summarises all the content of the article. There is nothing wrong with the pseudoscholarship comment, as many people have indeed made that comment, and it does say "many" not "all". We don't need to have a counter to that, as the existence of the Theory alone indicates that some think its a valid Theory based on good evidence - some of which evidence is already summarised in the lead. I think the use of the word "pseudoscholarship" already indicates that the detractors tend to be emotional rather than scientific, which I think is an accurate assessment in many cases, but adding an equally-emotional "voice" in favour of the Theory adds nothing to the lead. Wdford (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, the RfC is very clearly against including the Martin quote and the new lead--with the referene to many scholars considering the theory pseudoscholarship--was agreed to here on the talk page. If that's all you've got, then that isn't much. Eugene (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote stacking and Stealth Canvassing for the RfC

I've recently submitted a complaint to the AN/I concerning vote stacking and stealth canvassing related to this article. Eugene (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been settled. All future RfCs are to be listed at all this article's associated Wikiprojects, which includes Christianity. Eugene (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did SV add this to the Atheism wikiproject? This article doesn't seem to have anything to do with the philosophy of atheism or criticism of religion. 137.22.11.219 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To stack the vote, of course. But it's been settled and I don't think it will work anyway. The RfC concensus is pretty clearly against including Martin's quote in the lead. Eugene (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course to stack the vote. Not to ask for fresh eyes from editors with no religious affiliations. Only to stack the vote. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your concern about those with religious affiliations? Also, are you implying that only those without a religious affiliation can be unbiased? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, this is crossing a major line. I am deeply disturbed by your conduct here. Also, is what 137.22 said true, about you being the one who added back the WPA tag? NJMauthor (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this section is going to help us improve the article much. However, at the risk of adding to a distraction, I would like to comment that the assumption that the members of the Christianity Wikiproject have a religious affiliation is problematic, just like assumptions that scholars who study early Christianity or who hold positions in religious studies departments are themselves religious. You can, you know, be interested in and study things that you don't personally believe. For that matter, there's no reason to assume that members of Wikiproject Atheism are all atheists. I sometimes work on articles about ancient Greek religion; using the assumptions often in play on this talk page, that must mean I sacrifice bulls to Zeus... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What is also quite problematic is the assumption that if one does not consider ad hominem attacks the most effective form of reasoning, one must be a supporter of this theory. Vesal (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me, Vesal. Can I ask you to explain that last statement? (P.S., the assumption that scholars who study Christianity are themselves Christian is an ad hominem argument...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it doesn't make sense indeed. I believe I was tired of the assumptions that if one disagrees that the best way to characterize myth theory is by means of comparisons to holocaust denial, one must be a supporter of the theory with an agenda to present this as a respectable minority position. It was not even really related to anything that you have said or done just the general atmosphere here. And my way of improving that atmosphere was to post the above cryptic message. ;) Vesal (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You do have to admit that comparison of the Christ myth theory to holocaust denial does come off as a desperate strawman because the latter is so well documented with contemporary accounts most written while the events were happening. Jesus has no true contemporary accounts--everything about him was written decades after the events happened more than enough time for what fact there were to get muddled and distorted. Furthermore unlike holocaust deniers Christ myth theorists can point to modern version of what they think might have happened in the form of John Frum cargo cult. To date even with all the technology and information at our disposal we cannot confirm that the John Frum the cult describes ever existed; the best we can do is some native some 10 years later who took up the name John Frum some 10 years later form the appearance of the "real" John Frum. As Peter Worsley in his "The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia" (1968) said "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum".--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, we've told you time and time again that this is not a forum. We know you don't think the gospel accounts are accurate or that Jesus did anything special. It doesn't affect the article, it's not relevant. NJMauthor (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)NJMauthor (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce. Anthony (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On what point, anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He only made the one: Evidence for the holocaust is of a different order of quality and quantity to that for the historical Jesus, so equating arguers against one with arguers against the other is sleazy tar-brushing. Anthony (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you meant a point related to the topic. NJMauthor (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a point on the topic. Using such clear strawmen arguments of comparing the Christ Myth theory to holocaust denialists or Moon hoax theorists is clearly ad hominem as well as non sequitur and much the same can be said for the idea that only atheists believe in the Christ Myth theory. On the other hand it is kind of hard see how anyone could call them themselves "Christian" and also say Jesus never existed in any shape, way, or form; you are left with a "now how does that work?" feeling. Even the less extreme Jesus existed but the Gospel don't really tell us anything meaningful about him or his ministry view is hard to reconcile with what is normally regarded as "Christianity". The religion as we normally understand it would seem to depend on the Gospels providing a meaningful guide on at least what Jesus said even if you hold to the he was simply a man turned into a myth idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harpur writes "I have indeed found for myself, in the course of all the emotional and intellectual wrestling involved in coming to grips with this material, not just a deeper faith but a far more bracing, more intellectually honest, more tuned-into-the-universe-itself kind of belief system than I ever dreamed possible. I see my Christian faith with a transformed vision." ^^James^^ (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"non sequitur and much the same can be said for the idea that only atheists believe in the Christ Myth theory." I agree, Bruce. But as far as I know, SlimVirgin isn't a Christian and supports the Christ Myth Theory, and it looks like she's the one who kept sticking the Atheism tag back, and appealed on the wikiproject page. It seems to me an underhanded attempt to create a false "Atheist vs. Christian" mentality, similar to what proponents of Intelligent Design attempt to do.NJMauthor (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harpur's statement seems to show something more in line with Gnosticism than what the average person would call "Christianity". John Remsburg who is used with gay abandon by the non scholar crowd even though Remsmburg (notable in his own time) felt while there was a historical Jesus nothing meaningful could be gleamed about him from the Gospels (a fact that got eliminated from this article somewhere down the line but remains in his article). Please note that Remsburg's The Christ (now retitled The Christ myth) was published the same year as Drews Die Christusmythe (1909) and neither uses the exact phrases "The Christ myth theory is..." or "The Christ myth theory, namely the belief that..." that Eugene seems to obsess over so by his logic we cannot use either of them to define the Christ myth theory. Heck as I've show with quotes straight from Drews himself, the only times the man actually uses "Christ myth" is either as a reference to his book or the story about Jesus and not in reference to his theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Drews and Remsburg aren't used to source this article's definition either. Think of all the amazing stuff you could do with the time you'd save, Bruce, if you stopped beating this dead horse here. You could join an ultimate frisbee league. Eugene (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you admit that the article's definition violates WP:NPOV ("Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias.") because it doesn't use definitions that conflict with the ones chosen. We'll keep that in mind.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't admit that for a second. We're simply using the defintions that are strongest in terms of quality (published by major university presses) and clarity (make states like "the Christ myth theory is..."). Eugene (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Welsh says otherwise, Eugene. "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" Wells with his mythical Jesus accounted by Paul predating a historical Jesus fits the first part as does Dodd no matter what cleaver little tricks you try to use to claim otherwise and the second part fits the c100 BCE Jesuses of Meed and Ellegard. Also Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic clearly states "thereby refuting the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." Now what does Wells do with the Jesus of Paul? Why have him a "mythological figure who lived in the distant past". Also Boyd clearly lists Wells Jesus Myth as being of the same thought as Drews earlier in the book. The definitions of Dodd, Welsh, and Boyd are all against the Jesus never existed at all nonsense no matter what little tricks you try to use to handwave them away so let's stop the POV pushing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Counter Arguments

Since someone recently brought it up, let's tackle the next issue on the list: Should the scholarly response (recently relabeled "arguments against") be one major section (as it currently is) or should it be distrbuted throughout the article, possibly divvied among the "arguments for"? Eugene (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This was kicked around back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19#The_article_order and Akhilleus and I both agreed that an arguments section per say was a majorly bad idea. Akhilleus main argument back then was "by combining arguments from different authors it creates a version of the "hypothesis" that no single person holds. At points it crosses the line into OR. It encourages a polemical tone, and is likely to degenerate into a repository of pro and con positions." In fact this a good description of the 01:26, August 24, 2005 version of this article which was nearly entirely arguments with perhaps a paragraph of history before it. I felt that as more information on the authors various positions emerged the arguments section would diminish--perhaps into oblivion. The only source who came close to arguing every possible variant of the Christ Myth theory that has been presented was John Remsburg.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The concerns that the arguments section will neccesarily be OR have been addressed through citations from Boyd & Eddy which mention the various arguments used. So, given that the arguements are well sourced and are therefore going to stay, should we try to integrate the counter arguments into this section or simply keep the status quo? Eugene (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

POV?

With the new lead and the excision of Powell's actual quote, does anyone still think that the article has POV problems? Eugene (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

SV, I noticed that you restored the POV tag. What specifically do you object to at this point? Eugene (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, SlimVirgin reinserted the tag on the following basis: (1) lead doesn't include a dissenting voice, (2) a reference to pseudoscholarship appears in the lead, (3) the "historical responses" appears outside the arguments section and so masquerades as some neutral and comprehansive accounting, and (4) Price's section is... something-or-other. These don't seem like sufficient reasons for a NPOV tag.

1. The RfC sided clearly against mentioning Martin in the lead; he now appears in the 20th century's "Other authors" section.
2. Including a reference to pseudoscholarship in the new lead was the the consensus of the editors here with only one giving any reasons against including the material--reasons which he explicitly conceded violated WP:V.
3. The "Historical responses" section has been renamed "Historical rebuttals" to prevent confusion.
4. Price's section includes many new elements which SlimVirgin originally put in: a new picture, a quote about finding a skeleton, his nationality, an allusion to the Jesus Seminar, his disdain for appeals to authority, etc. I simply don't see how this section can be faulted for POV.

Given all this it seems that the tag should come down. I'm not saying that the article is perfect, but the specific issues advanced to justifty the tag have either been resolved or are trivial. If someone objects, please give reasons why, reasons which do not themselves violate policy or seem like little more than sour grapes over a RfC that didn't go your way. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've waited 24 hours and, again, no one has responsed with reasons. On the assumption that SlimVirgin isn't just stonewalling, I'm taking the tag down. Eugene (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

21st century section

The statement "By the 21st century, the non-existence of Jesus had become a dead thesis within academia.[71]" is apparently based on a book written in 1998, The Christ and the Spirit: collected essays of James D.G. Dunn, page 191. Seems problematic and the source of statement in the book is from a 1971 source. I suppose in the grand scheme of things a few years here and there don't matter much but I thought I'd mention it.Sean.hoyland - talk 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's no real problem sourcing a statement that says "By the 21st century" with a work published in 1998. Eugene (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is because you didn't pay attention to the tense of the verb, Eugene. Basics English lesson here--you can't talk about "By the 21st century" in the past tense until the year 2000 (2001 if you want to get technical). Ergo if the 1998 and 1971 sources are saying this they are talking nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Dunn source, published at the close of the 20th century, describe the CMT as a "dead thesis". This clearly means that "By the 21st century" the CMT was a dead thesis. Thanks for the lesson though. Eugene (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So why not just say 'By the end of the 20th century' which is far more accurate?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-Scholarship

Eugene has made a good case to support his assertion that many scholars call arguments in support of CMT "pseudoscholarship." On that basis I have no objection to that appearing in the article. I asked him to also make the case that it is in fact pseudoscholarship. He obliged me with two critiques each for Doherty and Wells, which I am slowly working through. I don't have a lot of spare time right now, but am making headway. If, at the end of this process, I find clear evidence of false data and poor method in both of these authors' work, I shall be happy to (1) insert clear, concise statements of the nature of their pseudoscholarship in the body of the article and (2) have it labeled such in the lead.

If, however (as I have found so far, but it is early days) there is no example of pseudoscholarship in that list, and no one can provide me with it, I shall oppose any mention in the lead, and insert something along the lines of this in the body of the article:

Though many establishment scholars have labeled contemporary proponents as "pseudoscholars," the editors of this article have been unable to find a single instance of falsification or poor historical method in their work.

Anthony (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't that Original Research, Anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point NJM. Hopefully it won't come to that. Hopefully, among that litany of criticisms Eugene has pasted above I shall find instances of false data or poor method underpinning Doherty's or Wells' theses. If I don't, I'll come back to you, Eugene, Bill, Ari and Akhilleus for the pseudoscholarship. You are all so confident that their work is poor scholarship; your confidence must be based on more than faith. It must be based on more than the wish that it were true; more than a willingness to uncritically swallow any insult about those who question your view. You each must have it clear in your minds just what the epithet refers to.

Above, Akhilleus makes the point:

Honestly, Anthony, I think this is a waste of your time. Unless you have demonstrable expertise in this area, your opinion of whether there's pseudoscholarship here doesn't matter; what matters is what the reliable sources say

which means I am not making myself clear. I'll try harder. I am a reader of Wikipedia. That is how I approach you. I have come to this article to find out what is meant by Christ Myth Theory and the merits and demerits of the theory. I found the article riddled, nay infected with sleazy ad hominems about moon-cheese, skinheads, flat earth etc, declarations that "no serious scholar argues this" (a formulation repeated so often it stinks like a political slogan) and "pseudoscholarship" leveled at the proponents, but no explanation of the nature of the flawed method or fabricated facts underpinning their arguments.

Implicit in Akhilleus' statement is: "that a number of scholars call it pseudoscholarship should be enough for readers of this page". It is not; as I am sure it is not for you. I am sure you can list the fabrications and poor method underpinning Wells' and Doherty's arguments that condemn them. I'm sure you didn't just read their opponent's insults and swallow them whole without critically analyzing their reasons. What baffles me is your reluctance to putting the pseudoscholarship on this page, why you are so enthusiastic about reporting their opponents' opinions but so reluctant to explain the clear fraud or flawed method of the proponents.

This wouldn't matter if your strategy were convincing. It is not. Not delineating the pseudoscholarship makes this a sermon from the pulpit. "We, the authorities. scoff at this concept. Proponents are beneath contempt. Trust us, because lots of us say this." Rational readers require rational explanations, not the voice of authority. Anthony (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're addressing here, Anthony, I assume the second half is directed at Akhilleus. As for my opinion, I have my opinion based on my exposure to several of these claims, their sources, and their proponents over the years. I could make several points challenging CMT's methodology, such as the fact that some proponents, such as Gerald Massey, completely ignore the notion of Convergent Cultural Evolution in order to pursue grand unlikely conspiracies. Let me highlight an example of this kind of illogical thinking on a related topic:

1: The Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaten, worshipped the disc of the sun.

2: The Aztecs worshipped the disc of the sun.

3: Therefore, either Akhenaten informed the Aztecs, or the Aztecs informed Akhenaten.

But I can't put my personal conclusions in the article. I know you respect that. Just as I'll respect you not adding OR, even if it "comes to that." Have a nice night, I want you to know that I do appreciate your input and your willingness to study the material before making edits. NJMauthor (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I don't follow up on Gerald Massey. No need for OR NJM. Just go to the textbooks or peer-reviewed history articles that explain the nature of Wells' and Doherty's pseudoscholarship, paste the words in here, shuffle them a bit into a readable paraphrase and post them. Anthony (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. What claim of mine are you addressing, specifically?

To avoid a debate of subject, let me clarify:

You agree that the fact scholars consider CMT work to be pseudoscholarship should remain in the article. You also believe that, for the reader to receive a valid impression of the subject, those methodological concerns should be outlined in the article and sourced.

Is the above position what you hold to? A simple "Nay" or "Yea" will suffice so that we don't go down a bad road. NJMauthor (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You said, "But I can't put my personal conclusions in the article." That's what I was addressing. I don't "hold" to anything. I'm not a believer. My position on everything changes in light of new data, new analysis, reflection.

On the question of the article reporting that some scholars label the theory pseudoscholarship, I'm having doubts. There is more than one theory proposed by more than one author. To accuse all of them of pseudoscholarship without showing it seems wrong and possibly just repeating libel. I read an excellent analysis of David Irving's holocaust theories once, that laid out his lies and slight of hand first, then concluded the man was a fake. This article calls them all fakes in the introduction and for reasons best known only to you guys promoting the slur, makes no effort to show the fraud. You (pl.) think just having a lot of opponents say "I don't like it", "they're crap" makes the case. Clearly it does for believers, but rationalists require more. Anthony (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If mainstream scholars report that it is pseudoscholarship, it must be placed in the article. It is not mudslinging, we are reporting the facts. And the fact stands that they do indeed consider CMT to be pseudoscholarship. I agree with you that it would be very nice to include "peer-reviwed" examinations of why they believe so. However, very few scholarly refutations are produced to refute a specific brand of a fringe, blip-on-the-radar theory like CMT. Regarding Massey, I will use him as an example again in the future, because he was a Christ Myth Theorist with obvious methodological errors, including source-forging.

One thing seriously concerns me. You said that you'd be in favor of introducing a line like "the editors of this article have been unable to find a single instance of falsification or poor historical method in their work." That is blatant original research. It is unacceptable conduct on wikipedia. NJMauthor (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and did so above. That wording would not be appropriate. Anthony (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What Anthony is saying is the same thing I said a long time ago; if the Christ Myth theory has a range and mainstream scholars report criticize a part of that range you can't use that to cover the entire range. On Gerald Massey, his The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ (c1900) in part covers similar ground as seen Mead's later work. Also we need to remember he lived during that Trigger called the Imperial Synthesis period and that period is well known for having (in our eye) some wild theories. Digging around I found a 1888 magazine called Knowledge by Richard A Proctor Volume 11 that on Page 90 that stated that Isis was a virgin goddess. Freethinker, Volume 15, Part 2 (1895) states "The virgin births of Osiris, Horus, Buddha, and other sun and culture heroes, have long been pointed out by men like Dupuis, Higgins, and Bonwick."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what Anthony is saying. Grubb, if I may ask, which CMT theories do you believe that scholars are accusing of pseudoscholarship? Would it be more accurate to say that scholars have critisized several approaches to CMT as being pseudoscholarship? (not to assume that any aren't pseudoscholarship, of course.) Also, do you have a source for the term "Imperial Synthesis period"? I'm not challenging you, I'm genuinely interested in learning more about what period it defines. I'm fairly certain I know what you're referring to.

And what do you make of Eugene's citations above, his extensive list of methodological concerns? Scholarly refutations, Anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm commenting as I go, beneath each critique. I'm up to Evidence denial and am examining Doherty's dating which, as characterized here, seems ridiculous. Will comment in due course. Anthony (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And it is Bruce. Calling people by their surname is impolite and reflects badly on you. Anthony (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no offence. NJMauthor (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The pseudoscholarship challenge applies to those CMT theories that ignore intervening developments since the idea they present was first made. The December 25 date and sun deity connection being the best example; it have been known for a while that the December 25 date was chosen in the 4th century (c334) so that Christ could replace a popular pagan sol deity. We also know from Irenæus writings c180 that the general Christ story (virgin birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection) though perhaps not all the details (Irenæus had Jesus being 50 years old when he died-totally impossible with the timeline as we now know it) in what eventually became our Gospels had been established. So at best the Christ story co opted rather than came from sun deity mythology and it did it relatively late in its history-roughly around the same time the canon of what the Jesus story actually was was official established.

The term "Imperial Synthesis" comes from Bruce Trigger's History of Archaeological Thought (I have the 1989 version in my personal library) and covers roughly c1770 (Edward Long) to c1890 and was eventually replaced by the Culture-historical/Historical Particularism/Boasian school of thought which began in the 1880s. Nearly all the developmental theories formed in this period have since been rejected due to new discoveries or that the original theories were more based on racial or nationalistic grounds (many times to justify suppression of indigenous populations in colonies) than any real data. On a side note I should mention this is why the Vikings landing in North American theory had such a hard time of it in the 1960s and 70s--most of the scientific community saw it as a revival of the old Imperial Synthesis idea that the Native Americans couldn't have produced that they did without outside (read European or European-like) help. If you think about it Erich von Däniken's alien visitor theory is little more than the "Imperial Synthesis" idea in a brand new package only the entire planet Earth is the primitive culture that had to "educated" by the wise outsiders.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this period encapsulate the arguments for "Aryan race" theory notions like Indo-European Linguistics as a racial characteristic, an "Indo-European" origin to all near-eastern monotheism, and the attempted identification of all major ancient civilizations with Indo-European language speakers? NJMauthor (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely as the very term "Aryan race" didn't really exist in English until 1861 when Max Müller produced it. It should be mentioned that John Lubbock's idea that Western civilization would lead to an early paradise while "The most primitive were doomed to vanish as a result of the spread of civilization, since no amount of education could compensate for the thousands of years during which natural selection had failed to adapt them biologically to a more complex and orderly way of life" (Trigger pg 117) was also popular as unilinear evolution and in part led to the Boasian mentality of recording these "doomed" people in detail before civilization's advancement made them go the way of the dodo. In addition Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg in 1862 put forth the idea of Atlantis being a "Golden Age" civilization that became popular with the masses with Donnelly's 1882 Atlantis: The Antediluvian World and since plate tectonics didn't exist as a theory until 1912 the required land bridges (need for the movement of animals and people) made the idea less fringe then one would think. So the classic Aryan race theory could be viewed as a mixture of Bourbourg, Lubbock with a little of Donnelly.

To get this back on topic, we need to remember that the Christ Myth theorists of Drews and his predecessors worked from a very different model of the world than we do today largely because many concepts those models were based on have been shown to be in error. When those changes are ignored (as in the Christ-sun deity connection) you have pseudoscholarship.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bauer and Drews' motives

A while back the article made reference to the motives of Bruno Bauer (anti-Semitism) and Arthur Drews (anti-Semitism & idealistic monism) in their respective sections. The information was supported with reliable references. A couple of weeks ago an editor deleted this information in a flurry of attempted rehabilitation. Now, Vestal has re-raised the idea of adding the information. I think it's a good idea, what is the general feeling on this? Eugene (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion. NJMauthor (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I third the motion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You've just added (in red):

Drews wrote that his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus had a mythical character, and there was no reason to suppose that such a figure had ever existed, as such a historical focus conflicted with his philosophical and racial beliefs.

Does Drews say that?

Imputing motives to authors will need to be seriously supported by their own words. Anthony (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) The statement is supported by reliable secondary sources:

• "Two features of the work of Arthur Drews arrested my attention. In the first places it was clear that his historical judgements were determined by his philosophy and not be a straightforward survey of the evidence. To his type of spiritual monism a faith which attaches value to historic events or persons is a kind of idolatry. I failed to see why the question of the historicity of Jesus should be determined in defiance of the principles of rational criticism, merely to bolster up the philosophic prejudices of Arthur Drews."

  Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. xxxii

• "It is no doubt difficult for the reader of the two volumes of The Christ-Myth to believe it, but it is important that we shoud understand that Drews is animated by an earnest and even religious purpose. ... He conceives himself to be engaged in a struggle in behalf of the freedom and independance of the human spirit, and indeed for the very existence of religion. ... Filled with zeal for this high--'mysticism,' we may be permitted, for the purposes of effect, to call it, though of course it is too purely pantheism to be properly called 'mysticism'--he finds Christianity with its emphasis on the separation of man from God, its proclamation or redemption in Another than one's self, its 'historicism' as opposed to his 'idealism', athwart his path. It must be got rid of at all hazards. 'I insist,' he declares 'that belief in the historical reality of Jesus is the chief obstacle to religious progress; and therefore the question of his historicity is not purely historical, but also a philosophic-religious question.'" (emphasis original)

  B. B. Warfield, "book review of The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus by Arthur Drews", The Princeton Theological Review 11 (2), 1913, pp. 297 ff.

• "Drews was neither an historian nor an original researcher, he relies chiefly upon the works of Smith. Drews -- is a philosopher of the Hartmann school. In his capacity as an Hartmannist, he preaches a religion of pure spirit. And he fights against the historicity of Jesus Christ in the name of a religion of spirit, he contends against the religious materialism which he detests. He is prepared to admit the existence of Christ, as the Logos. But for him the Logos never could have been incarnated into a man upon the earth, within earthly history. The religious materialism of Christianity is a legacy inherited from Judaism, it is a Semitic graft, and Drews in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite, struggles against this materialistic Semitic graft for the religious life of Aryanism, expressing itself in its purest guise in India."

  Nikolai Berdyaev, "The Scientific Discipline of Religion and Christian Apologetics", translated by S. Janos, Journal 'Put, 1, 1927

Given that Drews is long-dead and therefore BLP issues don't apply, this should be more than enough to support the in-line text. Eugene (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that thrilled with the text as it stands. First, it merely labels Drews as a racist without explaining why that's important, or what effect it had upon his ideas. Second, the source used to establish Drews' belief that the religious materialism of Christianity was Semitic in origin comes from 1927. I've read a number of more recent sources about Drews that explain his ideas without mentioning antisemitism at all.

So, I'm kind of inclined not to mention antisemitism in the Drews section, but if it is mentioned there, the text needs to explain how this shaped his thought, rather than just using it as a label. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Drews' personal philosophy, a kind of monism (Wood, 1934) or pantheism (Warfield, 1923), was incompatible with the religious materialism implicit in the idea of an historical Jesus. He saw the religious materialism of Christianity as a legacy inherited from Judaism, a Semitic graft.

And if there is to be a mention of his views about race or "religious anti-Semitism" it'll need to be explained just what those terms mean in relation to Drews and, per Akhilleus, how this shaped his thought. Anthony (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how race has anything to do with it. The first attempt at a "Christian" bible (Marcionite Bible) was itself antisemetic and it certainly excepted Jesus was a historial person. Heck, even the most rabid antisemite the modern world knew believed Jesus was a historical person; in fact here are his own words written down in Mein Kampf: "Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties--and this against their own nation."

As I said before there are atheists that hold Jesus existed and Deists that hold that he might as well not existed because nothing in the Gospels holds up to external fact and all kind of kludges are need to even get one of the accounts to fit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For the thousandth time, Bruce, this isn't a forum. I think the information in Drews section is helpful but I don't have any objections to reworking it into a fuller statement such as Anthony offers. Eugene (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Stop using the old forum claim every time you don't understand an argument. To put is a blunt as possible Drews' racial bias (if there were any) has no relevance to his position on this topic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy to understand what you are saying Bruce, it's just entirely irrelevant to the question. To the point at issue: if Drews' supposed 'racial bias' was a motivation for his theories then it would be relevant, but these are not very good sources - they are very old and locked into debates at the time - and none of them says that 'racial bias' or even anti-semitism was a motivation, or at least not racial anti-semitism. Only one mentions it, and that's in a complex sentence that has to be placed in the cultural context of the time. It refers to "relgious anti-semitism", which probably means something very different from what is meant by anti-semitism today. It's the same word, but quite a different concept. He means more or less the same as "anti-Abrahamic": opposition to the idea of a personal God, as opposed to the "Aryan" (ie Hindu-Buddhist) notion of an impersonal divine spirit. The notion is that the Abrahamic ("semitic") model of god as a person - with opinions, preferences etc - is "materialistic". It reduces the divine to human form, while the Aryan model allegedly elevates it to its "its purest guise". The problem is that words like Aryan and anti-Semitic have different connotations for modern readers, since they immediately imply the racial ideologies of Nazism. I don't think we can simply bandy about terms like "anti-semitic" which will be interpreted by the reader to mean "hating Jews", which is not necessarily fair on Drews who is oopposing "semitic" (Judeo-Muslim) thought to "Aryan" (Hindu-Buddhist) thought, a common argument at the time. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul's comment is a nice corrective to the usual low level of discourse around here, in which subtlety and nuance is impossible because some editors don't seem to be able to comprehend more than a sentence at a time. Anyway, it seems that an explanation of what antisemitism means in Drews' thought would require a good amount of space, probably more than should be expended in this article, especially considering that we can give a decent summary of what he was up to without mentioning contentious concepts. It might be worth including in Arthur Drews, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I grasp Paul's argument and concede that he may be on to something. But given Arthur Drews' clear Nazi sympathes and antipathy for the Jews, I'm not sure that one can so neatly separate his distain for what we might call the "Semetic faith cluster" and his distain for the Semites. Given this, and given that we have a source in place, and given that the word "anti-semitism" itself doesn't appear in Drews section as it is, I'd rather keep the material. As it stands, the article refers to Drews' "racial" beliefs and not the far more disreputable "racist" beliefs. Eugene (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So, by "religious antisemitism," the source means "opposed to attributing a human nature to God," but it is okay for this article to use it as (1) proof of Drews' racism and (2) proof that this racism was his motivation? Did I get that right? Anthony (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I'm saying that Paul is reading into the source a bit, speculating essentially. And while I think his speculation may be on to something, even so, it wouldn't undermine a more straight-forward reading of the text. Drews was undeniably an anti-Semite--in the modern sense of the word; his criticism of Neitchze makes that pretty plain and he's often described as an intellectual leader in the "völkisch racism" of the earl thirties leading to the rise of the Nazis. So while Berdyaev's particular comment regarding Drews' anti-semitism may encompass a broad antipathy for the Abrahamic tradition, there's no good reason to suppose that it excludes a more basic and straight-forward racial interpretation. Eugene (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

'If' he was a classic racist, and given the zeitgeist it is perfectly possible, and 'if' it is relevant, you'll need a better source. If you want to make the claim racism was the 'motive' behind his theory, how do you plan on proving that? Anthony (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is getting way too off topic (which is why I didn't want us going down this road in the first place). If Drews reasoning is too complex to explain here I say we leave it out in this article and explain it on the page regarding him with reliable sources.--

BruceGrubb (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, it seems you keep misunderstanding (or ignoring) WP:V. I don't have to "prove" that Drews' scholarship was motivated by racism in some sort of air-tight way; I merely need to be able to support such a statement using reliable sources. Given that the Berdyaev article says Drews argued against the historicity of Jesus specifically "in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite", I think that's enough. I'll try to find other, more modern sources though. Eugene (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the Berdyaev article is the only source you can find that says Drews was motivated by racism, then a more appropriate sentence would read "One single source asserts that Drews may have been motivated by racism" - if we include this assertion at all. It's a bit of a stretch to call a man a racist because one article makes that claim - especially when we have already seen that scholars get emotional about this topic, and resort to childish insults. Wdford (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article currently has Drews refereed as an anti-Semite in the hating Jews mold. Per most of the above I don't see how is really relates to Drews' position that Jesus wasn't a historical person especially as the term as it was used in his time may have a very different meaning than in ours.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The article does not currently refer to Drews as an anti-semite. Eugene (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, yes it does, Eugene. "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism..."--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which article you think you're reading, but this article uses that phrase in connection with Bauer, not Drews. Stop wasting our time, Bruce, please go join that frisbee league. Eugene (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I grant that if the Berdyaev source is all I can find then the comment should stay out of the article. The source is indeed "locked into the debate" and so on. But there are other sources that support Berdyaev. Richard Noll makes essentially the same point in The Jung Cult, sketching out the way that German intellectuals dressed up their racial anti-semitism in a cheap spiritual suit beginning on page 130, and mentioning Drews and his The Christ Myth in that context on page 132. Further, the Berliner Institut für Faschismus-Forschung (a German organization, obviously), quotes Drews as saying essentially what Anothy wanted to hear to justify the inclusion of the racial stuff: "The "Freie Religion" left no doubts about Free-Religious orientation when it published the following in 1934, under the heading "Blood and Soil Religion": "For that religion always grows and blossoms out of the blood relations of the nation's soul is proven by history. And what is right in this respect for the Chinese or for Jews is worthless to the German Volk, a member of the Indo-Germanic family of Voelker and races". The racist Arthur Drews - still published today by the Secretary of State's, Eckhart Pick's, local sect, the Free-Religious Parish of Mainz, and propogated by the WOD, press successor to the 'Freie Religion' - opined: 'Essential and original religion of German blood can persist in the face of other types of sensibilities', Jews and Christians - as alien types - should therefore get out of Germany." Given that the text being considered for inclusion in the article merely refers to Drew's "racial beliefs" and doesn't make any specific claims about racial anti-semitism, this seems more than adequate. Eugene (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The old Arthur Drews (1865 – 1935) Professor der Philosophie an der Technischen Hochschule Karlsruhe, Vortrag von Dr. Bernhard Hoffers, Lehrte, im Geschichtssalon Karlsruhe, 24. April 2003 reference in Drews' article as translated by User talk:Hans Adler reads "For justice' sake [I] should first, after I have made these hints about Drews and Nazism, also say that Drews has spoken out publicly against the enormous rise of antisemitism in the 20s." paints a slightly different pictures of Drews racial views.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read The Jung Cult, or are you relying on this snippet? If you have it, could you please copy the bit that describes the nature of his racism and how it motivated his theory?

This website you cite calls Drews a racist but it is clearly not an RS And its only quote from Drews seems to espouse the feasibility of religions persisting alongside each other: "Essential and original religion of German blood can persist in the face of other types of sensibilities" The "Jews and Christians should get out of Germany" which you attribute to Drews is not in quotes, so I assume those are the words of the author of the web page.

You have not provided sufficient evidence either of the nature of his racism or of it as a motivation for his theory. Anthony (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so here's what we've got:

• Berdyaev, Nikolai (1927), "The Scientific Discipline of Religion and Christian Apologetics", Put' Vol. 6, pp. 50–68

  "The religious materialism of Christianity is a legacy inherited from Judaism, it is a Semitic graft, and Drews in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite, struggles against this materialistic Semitic graft for the religious life of Aryanism, expressing itself in its purest guise in India."

• Noll, Richard (1997) , The Jung Cult: Origins of a Charismatic Movement (Touchstone)

  In the midst of a discussion of volkish racism and its various intellectual advocates, Noll mentions "the volkisch work of Drews" and mentions The Christ Myth by name. (the section, "Jung's Volkisch Sources for Wandlungen", can be read in full here.)

• Kratz, Peter (1999), "The Whole Rosenberg Story Again?", at the Berliner Institut für Faschismus-Forschung und Antifaschistische Aktion

  Kratz, who's published on the relationship between the rise of esoteric religious sects in Germany in the 20s and 30s and the rise of Nazism in mainstream print sources--therefore indicating that his web offerings can stand as a reliable source per WP:IRS, states, "The 'Freie Religion' left no doubts about Free-Religious orientation when it published the following in 1934, under the heading 'Blood and Soil Religion': 'For that religion always grows and blossoms out of the blood relations of the nation's soul is proven by history. And what is right in this respect for the Chinese or for Jews is worthless to the German Volk, 'a member of the Indo-Germanic family of Voelker and races'. The racist Arthur Drews - still published today by the Secretary of State's, Eckhart Pick's , local sect, the Free-Religious Parish of Mainz, and propogated by the WOD, press successor to the 'Freie Religion' - opined: 'Essential and original religion of German blood can persist in the face of other types of sensibilities', Jews and Christians - as alien types - should therefore get out of Germany."

• Langenbach, Christian G. (2007), "Freireligiöse und Nationalsozialismus", Humanismus Aktuell Vol. 20, pp. 43-54 (helpfully translated for us by user:Hans Adler)

  Langenbach writes that Drews "expressed thoughts that correspond to a racial religiosity. For example Drews asserted that Christianity was the expression of a 'sunken time and the mindset of a race foreign to us'. He stressed that 'Christianity [had] absolutely nothing to do with Germanhood' and therefore a 'German Christianity' would represent 'nonsense'."

• Drews, Arthur (1911), Die Christusmythe Vol. 2 (E. Diederichs) (helpfully translated for us by user:Hans Adler)

  All the best for which the Germanic spirit has thought and felt, has fought and suffered, the deepest hunches of its own ancestral religion, which failed to fully unfold in it but were prematurely destroyed by the mission work of the Christian Church, have found their childbirth to light in yonder monistic religion of our great thinkers and poets – and under these circumstances we should be obliged once and for all to obtain our religious property from the orient, and the world-view of a time long gone and a depraved culture should hold us in its spell forever?"

Considering that all I'm shooting for is the addition of the green text ("Drews wrote that his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus had a mythical character and there was no reason to suppose that such a figure had ever existed, as such a historical focus conflicted with his philosophical and racial beliefs.") the above sources should be more than adequate. I'm not trying to add anything about Jew-hating, or that he's a huge racist, I'm just pushing for the inclusion of the phrase "racial beliefs". I'll reinsert the phrase with a couple of references. Eugene (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An IP just removed the material along with it's citations--including the stuff about the philosophical motives. Is 122.105.65.119 someone here or is it just an anonymous drive-by edit that misunderstood the discussion here? Eugene (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Eugene, that was me on a university computer - I forgot to log in. How about:

Drews' personal philosophy, a kind of monism (Wood, 1934) or pantheism (Warfield, 1923), was incompatible with the notion that God walked the earth as a man. He believed that Christianity's material Jesus of Nazareth had been grafted onto an older, purely "other-worldly" Indo-European myth, and so, as a product of the soil of the Middle East, was suitable to Semitic but not Aryan peoples.

Do Eugene's sources support this? It is less ambiguous than Eugene's formulation, but is it an improvement? Anthony (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources in view here are all reproduced above so you can check them as needed. I think that your alternative, when speaking to the racial element at least, goes beyond what we have in some respects and not far enough in others. We don't actually have any sources which state that Drews though Christianity was suitable for Semites in some sort of separate-but-equal way. Rather, Drews refers to the Jewish milleu of Christianty's origin as a "depraved culture". Given Drews' use of words like "blood" and Langenbach's use of the term "racial religiosity", I don't see why just saying "racial beliefs" is controversial. Eugene (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it explains nothing, says nothing, means nothing. It just vaguely associates CMT with race theories. It is lazy inept incompetent "writing." Sorry to be so blunt, but you asked. Say something. Be explicit. Don't just smear innuendo around this article. Anthony (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as one looking for something that explains something, says something, and means something, how about this:

The focus on a historical Jesus conflicted with both Drews' philosophical outlook, a form of monistic pantheism, and his belief that ethnic Germans should observe their ancestral forms of spirituality and not religions derived from a Semitic source--a source which Drews considered "depraved".

This is comprehensive, informative, and helpful. Though I must admit that it doesn't help Drews look any better, if that was your real concern. But if that wasn't a stealth interest, then this should be great. Eugene (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I like that a lot. You still don't get my concerns. I am arguing for a good article, not for the CMT. Things will go much smoother here when you stop equating criticism of your rhetoric with support for CMT. Anthony (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ironic Apologetical Use

I was thinking about adding another section to the article on the ironic apologetical use that Christian theologians have made of the CMT, using it as a club with which to beat the view of Jesus as a purely human moralistic teacher. B. B. Warfield spoke about this in the Princeton Theologial Review relative to the work of Arthur Drews, George W. Richards refers to similar stuff in his book Beyond Fundamentalism and Modernism: The Gospel of God, I think Boyd and Eddy play off it in their book, and I'm pretty confident that I can find more. What do you guys think? Eugene (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed up the above authors but what if we get the straightforward presentation of CMT settled before we start on ironical usage - unless you think it will clarify the straightforward meaning? Anthony (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the "straightforward presentation" is pretty much settled. Eugene (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, go ahead and write up the section, but don't add it into the article for about 24-48 hours, if possible. I would like everyone to catch their breaths before moving on. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Christ myth theory

Not being able to spend as much time here as I'd like, I have lost track of the discussion about what is and isn't CMT. Can someone point me to where that is at, or summarize present consensus/controversy? Anthony (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do you need this answered, Anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's not settled yet? Or can you point me to where the definition was agreed in this discussion? Anthony (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing here. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not "on-going". The attempted education of Crum375 is on-going. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. Anthony (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Eugene, but as Boyd (2007) shows Wells with his historical Q Jesus of Jesus Myth as clearly labeled a part of the "mythic Jesus thesis" crowd with Bauer and Drews with the book later identifying this "mythic Jesus thesis" as the "Christ myth theory"--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wells' newest book complains that Boyd didn't read his 1996 book carefully enough, so you should be careful about this. Boyd is talking about Wells' pre-1996 views; Wells makes it clear that after his change of mind in the 1990s he no longer advocates what Boyd describes as the "mythic-Jesus thesis". See quotes from Wells here and here. The section in which I made these posts is above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory is the position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; Christ Myth Theory is not the position that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but not as the Christ. Christ myth theory is not the position that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but not as the gospels depict him. If someone holds that "Jesus of Nazareth may have existed, but..." and also seperately professes the belief that "Jesus of Nazareth never existed" then the former is not Christ Myth Theory, and the latter is Christ Myth Theory. NJMauthor (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the way some people define it. Others like Dodd say that it includes a obscure by historical person may have been tack on to an already existing myth--which is essentially Wells current position which also fits into Welch's definitions of both "Christ Myth Theory" and historical Jesus.

Please note that Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic lists G A Wells with Bauer and Drews and cites citing "Jesus Myth" (1999) (which per Voorst accepts a historical Q Jesus) on page 24 as part of the "mythic Jesus thesis" and gives a similarly broad view of "Christ-myth theory" on 186: "...the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." and clarifies this in the chapter "The Silence of Paul?" which begins on page 201. Baker Academic identifies itself as "Publisher specializing in scholarly books, reference works, and textbooks for the Christian academy in a variety of disciplines." So here we have a book intended for "the Christian academy" that clearly puts G A Wells Jesus Myth with its historical Q-Jesus with Bauer and Drews as part of the "mythic Jesus thesis" which the book later identifies as the "Christ-myth theory".--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's nice that you recognize this as a definition of the CMT. Here's what Boyd says on pp. 24-25:

Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature (i.e. "legendary" as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch as in common parlance "myth" tends to connote a story that is without any historical foundation, while "legend" tends to connote a fictitious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back off this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of "Jesus agnosticism" emerges.

Note the sentence "this view holds that we have no good grounds for thinking that any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus." I agree with you that this is a good source, and I like the way it presents Price—not as someone who whole-heartedly endorses the theory, but rather is a "Jesus agnostic".

Also, note (as I commented just above) that Wells has responded to Boyd's book, and complained that it doesn't accurately describe his position post-1996, because he no longer denies that there was (some kind of) historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Akhilleus, but the phrase is perhaps entirely not just entirely. This is just more evidence of possible POV pushing.

Sure, Grubb. I've encountered this in article-crafting before. We can include a little section clarifying that a very small minority of CMT writers define the term differently, and some of the varying terms. In fact, we can make it a "main article: Historicity of Jesus" under the subsection heading. But the whole thing should take up a tiny sliver of the article. For sources, though, you seem to be stretching things a bit. Your quote clearly says "...the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past" if the author wishes to alter the definition of CMT after affirming what the mainstream conception of it is, that's fine, it's his choice. But the article has to reflect the fact that the author has not succeeded. NJMauthor (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, Dodd is not saying that a historical Jesus existed. Dodd is saying that some of the actions or sayings of an "obscure" person were added to the "record" of the mythical Jesus, to give it gravitas or credibility or something. That is not at all the same as saying "there was once a real Jesus". We have covered this in the lead quite adequately. The Q-Source is so far unidentified - it could have been the work of a single sage, or it could have been a collection of wisdom accumulated over centuries by a society or pagan cult, or it could have been cribbed from the Egyptians or something else. The fact that a Q-Source existed does not equate to a "historical Jesus", nor is that Dodd's claim. Wdford (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mention what I first presented this source Dodd doesn't give a time frame for the reports of "obscure Jewish Holy man" nor does he say this man did not exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but actually Dodd does not claim that the hypothetical "obscure Jewish Holy man" was Jesus of Nazareth, merely that some of the possible doings and sayings of a hypothetical "obscure Jewish Holy man" may possibly have been ascribed to the mythical Jesus character - irrespective of whether the "obscure Jewish Holy man" in question lived before or after the Jesus-period. Therefore, the proposed wording of the lead already adequately covers views such as those of Dodd. Why do you continue to have a problem with this, Bruce? Wdford (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Background and definition section

As it stands, this section needs a lot of work to be NPOV and so on. But it has the potential to address a recurring complaint leveled against this article: that it does a poor job of indicating that the CMT is opposed to any sort of historical Jesus--even minimalistic purely human reconstructions. I floated a graphic a while back but it ran into objections. Here's my second try.

The Christ myth theory is an alternative explanation of Christian origins to the historical Jesus. The Christ myth theory is to be distinguished even from biblical minimalism, with fundamentalism occupying the extreme maximalist pole of the historical Jesus spectrum.

I think that the text currently in the caption should appear in the article's in-line text instead, but I've included it here to show that the graphic can be well sourced. What do you guys think, would this be helpful in the definition section? Eugene (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No because there are definitions such as Dodd that totally invalidate it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on that Dodd definition, Bruce. Where does Dodd say "The Christ myth theory is..." or "The Christ myth theory, namely the belief that..." ? Eugene (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are again playing word games. Show me where Bromiley expressly and directly states the Christ myth theory is that Jesus himself never existed. It doesn't. All it says is the "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." It says NOTHING about the man not exist in any phrase containing "Christ myth theory". You lose.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bromiley isn't being used to source the definition of the Christ myth theory at any point in the article. So, actually, I win. Eugene (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason Bromiley had been kept out is his definition doesn't agree with the others and only a bunch of handwaving WP:OR garbage to make it proving my point the definition as it stands is full of WP:SYN and WP:OR nonsense. Furthermore I have shown people who accept a historical Jesus being listed with the Christ Myth Theorists. Again your talk page shows possible WP:COI with the definition.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've noted this several times, but I'll repeat myself: Bromiley is the editor of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, but that's no reason to assume that he wrote the entry Bruce cites. What's more, that article's understanding of the Christ myth theory is exactly the same as the one given in our article. "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." is pretty clear! Especially when the Christ myth theory is presented as one of the "doubts that have been cast on the historical life of Jesus", in a section of the article titled, "Did Jesus ever live?" I know that it can sometimes be hard to pay attention to context, but really, it's not so hard to keep in mind the previous sentence or the section title, is it? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And those "old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" involved events that actually happened like the Battle of Troy and discovery if Vinland (Better known as North Amercia) ie not all the stories were made out of total cloth but rather what is historical and what is tall tale had been lost. Richard Dawkins who holds that Jesus likely was a historical person also states "The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (The God Delusion pg 97). How is that any different from Bromiley's story is? The simple matter is it isn't!--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, someone seems to have lost track of the section heading: "Did Jesus ever live?" --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have forgotten that I pointed out that Lucian and Bertrand Russell are also in this section. By your logic since they are here in the "Did Jesus ever live?" section they are clearly part of the Christ Myth theory and therefore it is not defined the way you claim. You lose.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Such sparkling repartee you have going there, Bruce. I think I've pointed out many times that Lucian and Russell aren't being used as examples of the Christ myth theory. Lucian is cited as an early parallel to a claim that some CMT proponents make, and when Russell is mentioned, the article has moved from the CMT to a different subject.

You are, of course, right that I lose--not because your reading of the article is correct (it's not), but because you keep on saying the same things over and over again, as you have for years now. I lose time and brain cells when I respond to it. Sad, really. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you're not being consistent as Lucian and Bertrand Russell are "Did Jesus ever live?" section and no amount of handwaving is going to change that FACT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. I'm going to get the diffs together to submit a complaint regarding Bruce to the ANI for disruptive editting. WP:DISRUPT prohibits Bruce's sort of obstruction on talk pages just like main pages. Would someone like to be the person who submits the report when ready? I don't want to make a nuisance of myself over there. Eugene (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Eugene but if anything it is you and Akhilleus who can be shown to be more in violation WP:DISRUPT than I. The long challenge of anything that challanges the one particular definition used in this article and support of questional sources (Grant) shows this and I have finally gotten tired of this nonsense and brought it to the attention of an another administrator. I take your comment as a personal threat with is not allowed, I noted you called another editors a lier which is not allowed and your possible WP:COI was also duly noted. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I started this thread because the lead definition is imprecise.

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person at all, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community.

"Theory" can mean (1) a proposition or (2) a proposition and the argument in support of the proposition. Some scholars have said CMT is the theory that Jesus never existed, that is, (1) the proposition alone, and this article takes this as the meaning of CMT. There are many CMTs per sense (2), one for each proponent. The lead definition says CMT "is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never existed..." as though there were just one argument. Shouldn't it say "CMT is the proposition" or "CMT is the hypothesis?" Anthony (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with using the word "proposition", "hypothesis", or "assertion" in place of "argument" in the sentence you mention. Eugene (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Anthony (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about replacing "believe" with "argue" in the next sentence?

Additionally, some proponents of the theory believe argue that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

Anthony (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You've mentioned your preference for the word "argue" over "believe" in this context in the past. But as I've said, the word "argue" is already over-used in this article and the word "believe" isn't sub-academic or anything. I'd rather not add another instance of "argue" if we don't have to. If you really just can't stand "believe" consider maybe using "allow": "Additionally, some proponents of the theory believe allow that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity." Eugene (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess 30 instances of "argue" is a bit much. I'm okay with "allow". Anthony (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Some input regarding the RFC.

Hello there! I was browsing through ANI's page on fringe theories when I came across this page. I see that the RFC has been archived already, but it's open for two more days. So I'll just toss my two cents in here.

It seems to me that this article should definitely be listed as pseudo-history. It's pretty much a settled fact that Jesus, as a person, did exist. There are plenty of citations here that show that it's a fringe theory. I just don't know if it can be any clearer. It just seems like this is squarely in the realm of pseudo-history. So, I would support its categorization as pseudo-history. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is fringe has been fairly well settled. Clearly it is. Whether it is pseudo-scholarship, that is, pretended, fabricated, posing as scholarship, is a different question. Fringe doesn't mean pseudo, it means unpopular. Heliocentrism and plate tectonics were fringe for quite a while. Though the theories were plausible and based on honest data and sound method, mainstream scholars simply denied them because they didn't like them. Anthony (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Anthony. Your analogy fails. Heliocentrism and plate tectonics were never refuted or considered "dead theses". The CMT, on the other hand, has been almost universally rejected in the strongest possible terms. And if this doesn't convince you, then nothing will. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the analogy is valid. Aside for the occasional side track that led nowhere Heliocentrism was effectively dead as a valid theory from c270 BCE to 1543 because it was viewed as too ridiculous to even consider. The same is true of Abraham Ortelius whose Continental drift-plate technologist theory of 1587 was worked on some some 300 years later by Wegener and got even more of a hostile reaction. Scheidigger (1953), "Examination of the physics of theories of orogenesis", GSA Bulletin 64: 127—150 rejected Wegener's theory several grounds--all of which did a spectacular crash and burn in Carey, S. W. (1958), "The tectonic approach to continental drift", in Carey, S. W., Continental Drift—A symposium, Univ. of Tasmania, pp. 177—355.

"The remark was made in the course of a symposium on continental drift that exemplified greater diversity of opinions than paleontology can offer. Doctor van der Gracht's dictum becomes amusing when it is noticed that on his particular p. 2 subject the verdict of paleontologists is practically unanimous: almost all agree in opposing his views, which were essentially those of Wegener." [...] "The fact that almost all paleontologists say that paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point and would do so were it not that the adherents of these theories all agree that paleontological data do support them. It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence." [...] "The known past and present distribution of land mammals cannot be explained by the hypothesis of drifting continents. It can be accommodated to that hypothesis only by supplementary hypotheses effectively indistinguishable from those involving stable continents and not really involving or requiring drift. This distribution could be explained in terms of transoceanic continents but it is more consistent with fully stable continents. There appear to be no facts in this field that are more completely or more simply explicable by transoceanic than by stable continents and the supposed evidence of this sort is demonstrably false or misinterpreted. The distribution of mammals definitely supports the hypothesis that continents were essentially stable throughout the whole time involved in mammalian history." G.G. Simpson (1943), "Mammals and the Nature of Continents", American Journal of Science 241:1-31. There it is, straight from the American Journal of Science, the rejection of continental drift you claimed wasn't made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't entirely on topic, but I think it may be helpful. Anthony (and I'm asking Anthony specifically here) you've implied that the only legitimate justification for labeling something "pseudo-X" is falsification of data or self-consciously unsound method. Would you, honestly now, apply this heuristic even-handedly to other fields? The Wikipedia article on intelligent design effectively labels ID pseudo-X several times in the lead. Given that men like Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer, and William Dembski probably aren't just outright lying about data or consciously contriving a faux-method, do you object to that article's lead then? Eugene (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are actually three issues here. First, several agencies as well as individuals have stated intelligent design is not science (U.S. National Academy of Sciences) as well as it being pseudoscience (U.S. National Science Teachers Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science).

Second, intelligent design unlike history goes into the field of physical (hard) sciences which as a general rule of thumb have a higher bar of quality than the social (soft) sciences. Take my own field of anthropology/archaeology for example. A quick read through Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought will show that both fields are very fragmented in terms of concept, theory, and even structurally methodology and yet no one would not call them sciences.

Finally, Intelligent design fails the most important requirement of any true science--it is not testable. The Christ Myth Theory on the other hand works with the idea that so much of the Gospels are mythical that even if there is a man behind them he cannot be found ie the Jesus the canonal Gospels describe didn't exist. It is akin to saying Robin Hood and King Arthur as we know them didn't exist--strictly speaking that is true but it does not exclude the possibility that deep within the legends and mythology there is a "historical" Robin Hood and King Arthur but such a search is ultimately useless.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is waaay off topic. You've spammed quotes and citations from Trigger all over this page, but I bet he's written absolutely nothing that directly applies to the topic of this article. (It would also be nice if people stopped acting like this article is about a scientific topic--history isn't science, people! You can't perform an experiment to determine whether there was a historical Jesus.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This demonstrates the saddest misconception about science which ignores a fundamental difference between physical (hard) and social (soft) sciences which was partly kicked around way back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_18.

Even after Dabney in his 1891 "Is History a Science?" paper Papers of the American Historical Association, Volume 5 spelled out what science was and was it was not and clearly showed that history had moved into the field of science the Encyclopaedia Britannica was still saying history was not a science at least as late as 1910.

"Is history science? The answer is, Yes." Marett, Robert Ranulph (1912) Anthropology pg 14 in the 2008 reprint.

Alves (1968) "Religion and the secondary school" British Council of Churches answer the question "What is science?" with the answer "(A collection of verified or verifiable statements.)" which would seem to include history.

In 1975 Charles Angoff wrote Humanities in the Age of Science (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press) which contained a paper by Mackersen also titled "Is History a Science?" that pointed out "If history is not a science its methods need not be tested against scientific standards of objectivity and evidence. Impressionistic, individualistic methods may be admitted in historical research." and rants on for many more pages lambasting anyone and everyone who thinks history is not a science.

"What is history? Science? Yes, there's no argument. Art? Of course, for the ancient Greeks included Clio among the nine Muses." (Gumilev, Lev Nikolaevich (1988) Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom: The Legend of the Kingdom of Prester John Cambridge University Press pg 325)

A quick search produced Bachelor of science degrees for history at several universities and colleges including University of Maryland University College, MIT, and SUIE

Reimer, Bennett (2009) in Seeking the significance of music education: essays and reflections pg 311 presents the problem as often the old Newtonian definition of science is being used which applies only to physical sciences as they were in Newton's day and tends to fall to pieces when in encounters something like Quantum Physics.

Going through this an other source the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "experiment" to where Natural experiments and Field experiments are excluded. These two are the bread and butter of the social sciences and by their very nature they cannot be repeated again and again in the way controlled experiments can.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the problem is that some editors seem unfamiliar with recent literature that deals with the question of whether history, anthropology, etc. are sciences, and what that would even mean. Instead, they want Google to supply the answers, and they end up making silly arguments based on what one's degree says after graduating with a history major...

There's also a fairly obvious failure to understand WP:FORUM here. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said (and as Bruce seems to have ignored), I'm asking Anthony specifically here. So, Anthony, how do you respond to my question? Eugene (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo means pretended, fake, not really. In science this would legitimately be applied to an unfalsifiable theory, such as ID. As Akhilleus points out, history is a different discipline: the evidence is mostly already before us, so you can't do an experiment and predict the outcome based on your theory. History is about honestly representing the evidence and proposing the most parsimonious explanation. Applied to history, I, and I think most readers would, take pseudo to mean misrepresenting the evidence or proposing implausible explanations. Anthony (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I'll explain why I think it's not just a fringe theory, but also pseudo-history. It seems that the Christ myth theory relies on several pillars that are clearly (at least in my opinion) bad science. One pillar is that all the written evidence that refers to Christ actually existing is some kind of forgery. This seems preposterous to me... you could pick any historical figure who had a similar amount of records existing about him and say "all the evidence against my theory is false. Therefore, this man never existed." The second pillar, textual interdependence, doesn't actually show anything. In fact, this argument seems circular. The fact that the content of the gospels are similar in content and word choice can't possibly be because they were all witnessing and hearing the same thing: it has to be because Jesus never existed and they're just copying off each other. I just have to shake my head in disbelief. The third pillar, the supposed connections to myths, is patently false. The idea that Horus had 12 disciples is entirely unsupported. [[1]] Most of those "facts" are simply fabricated.

That's why I consider this to be clearly pseudo-history. The "theory" only stands up if you completely disregard existing evidence, employ circular reasoning, and invent historical facts (such as the Horus connection). That's why legitimate historians don't buy into this. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Deep Purple Dreams. Are you able to point to where Wells and Doherty rely on data as patently false as Horus' 12 disciples? I'm looking for something clearly fabricated or egregiously misunderstood to support applying "pseudo-" to them. Some advocates are obviously pseudo, but I haven't seen that case made against Wells and Doherty (but I am no expert in this field). A couple for each would be good, if possible. Anthony (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know if Wells or Doherty have relied on the "12 disciples of Horus" myth, but I don't see that as particularly relevant. My criticisms were of the theory as a whole, rather than any particular author. Taking into account all the relevant data, it seems fair to describe the theory itself as pseudoscholarship. It's possible that some authors are further away from the mark than others, but given the weight of the sources, it looks like the overwhelming consensus is that this is squarely in the realm of pseudoscholarship. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I should note one more thing. My personal opinion of the strength or weakness of particular authors is not a productive discussion, in my opinion. In the end, it's not like I'm going to be cited in the article. I think we have to look to reliable sources, which overwhelmingly describe this theory as psuedohistory. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Horus, DM Murdock has done some interesting research in this area:

...the work of Dr. Hornung, in which he produces this wonderful image from the Book of Amduat of Horus heading the 12:

Horus enthroned before the Twelve, Seventh Hour of the Amduat. -(Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife, 48)

In my various books, I include an extensive discussion of the mythical motif of the "Twelve Followers," devoting an entire chapter to it in Christ in Egypt. That the 12 became an astrological theme in religions of the Roman Empire is a proven fact not only with the cults of Mithra and the Egyptian hybrid god Serapis but also with the 12 Tribes of Israel. As I relate in Christ in Egypt (261):

As is the case with other major characteristics of the Egyptian gods that have been associated with Jesus, the claim that Horus had 12 "disciples" cannot be found easily in modern encyclopedias or mainstream books. In reality, the association of the sun god with "the Twelve" constitutes a common motif, based on both the months of the year and the 12-hour divisions of day and night. Indeed, we find the theme of "the Twelve" in a number of other cultures, including the 12 Olympian gods of Greece, as well as those of the Romans, along with the 12 adventures of Gilgamesh, the 12 labors of Hercules and the 12 Tribes of Israel, all of which symbolize the months of the year and/or the zodiacal signs.

In a footnote to this paragraph, I write:

See Exodus 39:9-14: "...they made the breastplate... And they set in it four rows of stones... And the stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve...according to the twelve tribes." As Josephus says (Antiquities, 3.8): "And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning." (Josephus, 75.) Earlier than Josephus, Philo ("On the Life of Moses," 12) had made the same comments regarding Moses: "Then the twelve stones on the breast, which are not like one another in colour, and which are divided into four rows of three stones in each, what else can they be emblems of, except of the circle of the zodiac?" (Philo, 99.)

As we can see, by the first century it was well known that the theme of "the 12" was astrological in nature.

^^James^^ (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Two points so obvious that they shouldn't need to be mentioned: (1) D. M. Murdock isn't a credentialed scholar, hasn't been published in a mainstream anything,and does not hold an academic position; her work is not even close to a reliable source. (2) This isn't a forum. Eugene (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone above was basically accusing her of fabricating evidence. I'm showing that she has not. Now you are saying she has no credentials which is also false. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A Bachelor of Liberal Arts does not a scholar make. Eugene (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a great example of pseudoscholarship. Creating connections where none exist is a common trait of quackery, and this is no exception. There's the claim that Jesus and Horus both had 12 disciples. Simply saying, "Someone, at some point, drew a picture of Horus and 12 people - that proves this to be true" is just silly. For this theory to hold any weight, there needs to be some showing that Horus had 12 disciples as part of the legend. There's nothing to indicate that this is actually an integral part of the Horus myth. It seems like it was just some design someone scrawled on a wall at one point. Jumping to the conclusion that this must mean these 12 were disciples and that it was a part of the Horus myth is just bad scholarship.

I shouldn't have to point out that "Son" and "Sun" are not homophones in Latin, Greek, or Aramaic, so that falls apart as well. I honestly can't believe that someone could publish a book and not fact-check this. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote above is a great example of pseudo-skepticism. I drew one example from an entire body of work written on the subject to give an example that shows she is not manufacturing evidence (which is what you claimed). And you act as though her entire case rests on this one image. That you equate the image with scrawlings on a wall is telling. Skimming the chapter from her book, she marshals archaeological evidence and writings from numerous authors both ancient and modern to show that Horus/Osiris was oft associated with twelve "followers", and that it was a common and known mythical motif in ancient times.

The "Son" and "Sun" example was never presented as a homophone, but as a play on words. So that argument is a straw man.

I agree with Eugene - this is not a forum. But neither is it a place to make false claims about living authors. So please drop it. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I sense a bit of emotion here and I'd just like to say that I didn't intend to stir anything up. I'm just very skeptical of the methodology used in this book. I'm not making any claims about the author, I'm merely stating that her work is pseudoscholarship. I don't think that this is a crazy idea: the entire theory is considered pseudoscholarship by historians. I just think that the article contents should reflect the work of reputable scholars and not some self-published author. I think it speaks to the accuracy of her work that she had to found her own publishing house [[2]] instead of going to a reputable publisher. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And that's called a non sequitur. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You may believe it's a non sequitur, but it's my understanding of Wikipedia policy that we should adhere to what the academic consensus on a subject is, not to puff up self-published authors who hold fringe opinions. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a non sequitur. Wiki policy has nothing to do with your reasoning. Self-published books are not necessarily inaccurate and vice-versa. Reviewers with integrity take the time to honestly read and study a book before criticizing it publicly. ^^James^^ (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll quote Wikipedia policy for you. From WP:RS: "It's relatively easy to create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable... self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Murdock is clearly not an established expert and for this reason, the citation probably shouldn't appear in the article at all. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said anything about adding stuff to the article? ^^James^^ (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your comment above, Deep Purple Dreams, because I thought you were equating "fringe" with "pseudo". Many scholars say that the arguments in favor of the proposition consist of pseudoscholarship, and that is enough to justify the epithet appearing in the article. As for examples of pseudoscholarship, I think this would be a much more stable article if it included the most obvious instances from the most prominent proponents. Anthony (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I think that it's fringe because it's pseudoscholarship, not that the two are equal in definition. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Spectrum Image created by Eugene

This looks like WP:OR to me. And I don't think it's a very good representation anyway. A better image would have a single continuum with "complete myth" on one side and "literal history" on the other. (Minimalism falls pretty close to "complete myth".) ^^James^^ (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The graphic appears in the article with a caption thusly...

The Christ myth theory is an alternative explanation of Christian origins to the historical Jesus. The Christ myth theory is to be distinguished even from biblical minimalism, with fundamentalism occupying the extreme maximalist pole of the historical Jesus spectrum.

Each statement in the caption is well supported with citations, and the picture itself is merely a graphic representation of the caption. As for your concerns regarding a strict distinction between the CMT and minimalism, take it up with Maurice Goguel:

Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder.

Maurice Goguel, "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118

Eugene (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they must be strictly distinguished precisely because they are so similar to each other. The more I look at your graphic the sillier it looks. Your scale doesn't include mythicists by definition. It's arbitrary. Mythicists only fall outside of your scale because you defined it that way. And it is supposed to tell us something useful? If we must have a scale, it makes far more sense to have "pure myth" on one side and "literal history" on the other. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, calm down a bit. Mythicists don't fall outside the continuum because I define it that way, they fall outside the continuum because Walsh puts the CMT and the historical Jesus continuum into opposition:

[W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory.

George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998) p. 58

It's a matter of relying on the sources, not our own opinions. As for your concern that the graphic doesn't "tell us something useful", I simply disagree. This page has routinely been criticized for making the scope of the CMT less than in-your-face obvious. I think that the graphic helps to make this obvious. Finally, your profered alternative, that we have one single continuum with "pure myth" on one side and "literal history" on the other, would be, as I've said before, unhelpful: there are some who believe that the New Testament is both "pure myth" and "literal history". Rene Girard and C. S. Lewis are notable examples of this group. Eugene (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"they fall outside the continuum because Walsh puts the CMT and the historical Jesus continuum into opposition" - In opposition? You mean like putting them on opposite sides of a spectrum?? ^^James^^ (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I mean, James. Walsh makes it an either/or choice: either the CMT, or a historical Jesus; these two options do not form a continuum themselves. Eugene (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like using Walsh as a source here. It's not that he's wrong about the basic distinction between the CMT and everything else; it's that "the historical Jesus theory" is a term used by him, and only him AFAIK. Most people recognize that there's a huge diversity of opinion about what the historical Jesus was like, and a corresponding number of theories. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another issue with Walsh that I pointed out before is his definition raises a lot of sticky questions. Mead and Ellegard would seem to fit the "historical individual" part even though the Jesuses they talk about are a century too early and we need reliable sources to clarify how they don't fit Welsh's definition. Boyd uses a definition that seems to echo Welsh's but puts Wells post Jesus Legend (1996) in this group by citing Jesus Myth (1999) but Wells challenges this position in his 2009 book so per WP:NPOV we have to at least present the conflict between these two sources as to what Christ Myth Theory means. Gary Habermas in 1996 stated "Wells admits that his position depends on the assertion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus who had lived recently. He suggests that, for Paul, Jesus may have lived long before and attracted no followers until he began, in Paul's own day to make resurrection appearances." (citing Wells older Was Jesus Crucified under Pilate?) but other than the Q-Jesus being historical Wells position on the Jesus of Paul remains unchanged. Is Wells the bridge between Christ Myth Theory and historical Jesus or are Welsh's and Boyd's definitions for lack of a better word "flawed"?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the article already discusses the ideosyncraies of Wells position in some detail; I don't think this is a problem. Akhilleus, Walsh is only used to distinguish between the CMT and views that presuppose a historical Jesus. That there is a variety of historical Jesuses on offer is not excluded by Walsh's words and the article mentions that there are a variety of degrees of belief in traditional picture of Jesus sourced to Marshall; given this, is this really a problem? Eugene (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed way back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19 the ""mythicist" tout court"comment is in response to Holding who seems to throw the "Christ Myth Theorist" label with little rhyme or reason. Here are some recent examples of Holding's nonsense: "The most stunning example of this, from Dawkins, is his tacit endorsement of what is popularly known as the ‘Christ myth’–the conception that Jesus did not even exist at all, not even as a person walking the earth (much less as the incarnate Son of God)." Dawkins’ Ironic Hypocrisy. "Remsberg himself seemed equivocal in his commitment to a Christ-myth thesis. He says in his chapter listing these names that it "may be true" that a teacher in Palestine. John Remsberg The Christ (Prometheus Books 1994), 18 but it is clear that his sympathies did lie with mythicists." (Shattering the Christ Myth 2008 pg 94)

When viewed in this light Wells statement could be read as "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" (as Holding defines it) without further explanation or description." If we are to say Wells is not a "Christ Myth Theorist" in the sense we are defining it I would say throw out the comment regarding Holding out and put in the one regarding Boyd noting that Boyd specifically classifies Wells as being in the same group as Drews which he later calls Christ Myth theory while Wells says he doesn't not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble believing my eyes. Just two days ago, when the pressure was on and the admins were watching, Bruce was saying that Wells has given up the CMT ("Wells may not consider himself a part of the "Christ Myth theory" [3]), but now that the "crisis" has passed Bruce is back to saying that that isn't true and that Wells is just nitpicking J. P. Holding's defintion! The tendentious editing never ends. Eugene (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Gregory A. Boyd was a Professor of Theology of an accredited University that he still adjuncts at, and his comment regarding Wells appeared in a book put out by a "Publisher specializing in scholarly books, reference works, and textbooks for the Christian academy in a variety of disciplines" while Holding at best has a Master in Library Science (pointed out in the archive link) and his work is self-published. Pointing out that Wells correction of a scholar's grouping him with the like of Drews while referring to Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend as examples in what is later refereed as the Christ Myth Theory in a scholarly publication carries more weight than his challenge of a self-published non expert that can be demonstrated is way too free with the term is hardly "tendentious editing".--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Well's section already includes citations in which Wells corrects both Holding and Boyd and Eddy regarding his current position. Eugene (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem I am having is reconciling Boyd's statement of "thereby refuting the Christ Myth Theory that Paul thought of Jesus as a mythological figure who lived in the distance past" (a key part of Wells theory from what I have read of Jesus Myth and reiterated to some degree in Can we trust the New Testament?) with Wells saying that he moved 'Jesus did exist but that reports about him are so saturated by myth that very little can be said of him with any confidence' in 1996 which better fits Boyd's second definition. Is Boyd only giving us a part of the Christ Myth Theory and if so how critical is it to putting someone in the "Christ Myth Theory"?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Boyd and Eddy are only recounting part of the CMT. As for how critical this is, I think that we've already covered this: to be in this article an author must deny the existence of the historical Jesus and be mentioned by at least three scholarly sources for such. Wells is included in this article because of his previous, unambiguous stance and his section is quite clear about how he's revised his views in later years. Eugene (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I had been away for a while and didn't know there had been a consensus saying that to be included there had to be three scholarly sources stating that person was a Christ myth theorist. For future reference could you provide a link to the relevant archive for any new comers?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the discussion, and it's since been added to the list here. Eugene (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly Boyd is reiterating Remsburg's four categories but in reverse older (ie from mythic-Jesus/Christ Myth Theory to Gospels are a totally historical account). On a side note it seems that chapter one of The Christ was originally titled "Christ's Real existence impossible" which just adds to the confusion.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Last [Who?] tag

There's only one [Who?] tag left in the article and it appears in the section on Volney and Dupuis. Does any one have access to the Solmsen article? If not, given the date of the issue in view and the non-controversial nature of the information cited, I think we should just delete the tag. Eugene (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Solmsen mentions that the date of Jesus' birth wasn't fixed as December 25 until 354 on pp. 278-79 of the article cited. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Solmsen mention who the first critics were who mentioned this over against the work of Volney and Dupuis? Eugene (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum

This [page] is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. There are reams of material giving various editors' opinions on why Earl Doherty is wrong. Looks like irrelevant OR to me. E4mmacro (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they're trying to figure out if Doherty is pseudoscholarship or not. That shouldn't be based on editors' opinions, but the opinions of reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Lots of RSs call anybody who argues this a pseudoscholar, so I guess that means the article should too. Only... it looks to me like the arguments of Doherty and Price may be being labeled pseudoscholarship based on the patently pseudo arguments of others. So I asked to be shown an example of their pseudoscholarship. That's what this is about. I'm slowly chasing up leads provided by Eugene. Anthony (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, Darrell L. Bock also reviewed Doherty's work in a series of blog posts that you may find helpful. Since you say that you now agree that the article should call the CMT pseudoscholarship, I'll not press further. Eugene (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A direct link to the series: [4] Anthony (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article may mention some authors call proponents of the theory pseudoscholars. I also agree with James: if that slur is to be reported, then the proponents' response to the charge should be given equal prominence. Anthony (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the proponents are "pseudoscholars"; following the lead of FA intelligent design, this article indicates that the theory itself is seen as pseudoscholarship. Also, as I've already mentioned. the purpose of this material in the lead is not to chronicle bickering; it's to inform the reader of the level of academic acceptence the CMT enjoys, per WP:FRINGE. No snide remarks from mythicists are neccesary and I note that none from ID advocates appear in that article's lead. Eugene (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead 2nd paragraph

Poor expression. Using "The theory..." (which we define as an hypothesis) here is illogical. This paragraph addresses the common arguments in support of the hypothesis. I propose replacing "The theory..." with "Arguments in support of the theory..." or "Proponents..." as e.g.,

The theory Proponents emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. It gives They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contends contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draws draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods.

Anthony (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Critics have complained that a focus on the proponents and not the thesis itself in the lead is ad hominem. That's stupid, but I rather limit the amount of stupid objections leveled at this article. Eugene (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am addressing the clarity of expression, trying to improve the quality of communication. Presently it is muddled. "Theory" in "the Christ myth theory" is the hypothesis (proposition) that Jesus never existed. To then use "The theory" in the second paragraph to mean something else (the arguments in support) is extremely poor expression. You are muddling meanings. It is classic poor rhetoric. That is stupid.

You defend this poor expression by saying clear expression will make the lead appear ad hominem. If you are worried that saying "the supporting arguments are the product of pseudoscholarship" will appear ad hominem (which it does, and is, therefore, rhetorical suicide), the solution is to change what the lead says, not make its meaning vague by using confused language.

Whatever. Do you have a problem with replacing "The theory" with "Arguments in support of the hypothesis." It is impersonal. That would make it:

Arguments in support of the hypothesis emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods.

Anthony (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Eugene (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Anthony (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it sounds awkward. Arguments contend something? Arguments give priority to something? After two peer reviews and two FAC, no one has taken issue with this. So I'd rather just leave it as is. Eugene (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. "The argument contends." Because it is more precise and concise, "Proponents" is preferable to "Arguments in support of the hypothesis" and both are preferable to the vague and muddled "The theory". You oppose the change on the ground that "stupid" people might object to the article saying what the proponents' common argument is. I see no value of any kind in that contention. You oppose it on the ground that, until now, no editor has made this criticism of your writing. I see no value in that contention. Anthony (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait. So the phrase "the argument contends" is okay because it appears in 25 books published by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge Universities [5], but "scholars believe" is prohibitted despite appearing in 732 such books? [6] Where's the consistency here? Eugene (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Antony is making more sense here than Eugene. "Proponents" sounds like the correct word. E4mmacro (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I have a brief comment from other editors on this point please? Anthony (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the flow of Anthony's wording above. I would be happy with either "proponents" or "arguments", but if I had to choose I would go with "arguments". Wdford (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship I

The point is not whether we think Doherty is pseudo-scholarship. The article claims that the following authros "regard the myth theory as pseudo-scholarship". McClymond 2004, pp. 23-24; Sloyan 1995, p. 9; Brunner 2002, p. 164; Wood 1934, pp. xxxiii & 54; Case 1912, pp. 76-77; Wright 2004, p. 48

Is that true? Or do these authors "merely" think the theory is wrong or based on minority datings of documents, or a collection of minority opinions about certain things. There is a difference? The fact that Witherton goes to such lengths to show Doherty is wrong suggests he takes the challeneg fairly seriously. E4mmacro (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

McClymond calls it "pseudoscholarship" and compares it to holocaust denial, Sloyan calls it "pseudoscholarship", Brunner calls it "pseudohistory", Wood calls it "obscurantism", Case is more complex but equally negative, and Wright compares it to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese. Full quotations can be found at FAQ #2. Eugene (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene, except the link seems broken. E4mmacro (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How about listing a few reasons? The first thing I notcied about this page was the possibly (at first glance) ad hominem statement about pseudoscholarship (I mean scholars could just say the theory is wrong, whereas the term used looks like they are angry about it. Afterall why not just ignore it?). Anyway, why can't the introduction say "For reasons explained below, most scholars regard the CMT as pseudoscholarship"? Then at the end of the article it says something like "Mainstream scholars have advanced the following reasons for considering various forms of the CMT as pseudoscholarship" with a list, some quotes and references. E4mmacro (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed Eugene's link above, E4mmacro. Take a look when you get a chance. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead includes the word "pseudoscholarship" because WP:FRINGE states articles on fringe theories must make clear a given theory's level of acceptance among experts; "pseudoscholarship" does this. The body of the article already includes a number of arguments against the CMT. This section spells out some of the reasons why the scholars consider it pseudoscholarship. Eugene (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. I am merely suggesting how the statement in the introduction may appear, and that it would look better if it mentioned, however briefly, some reason at the same time. I understand we want readers to know expert opinion says this is a fringe theory. I am suggesting that the bald statement, with no reason attached, will give the wrong impression to some readers, i.e. that some editors here are pushing their own barrow (it has been known to happen on wiki, hasn't it?). E4mmacro (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that if a detailed refutation was placed in the lead that would cause more readers to assume the article has bias problems, not less. Eugene (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, people come on the Intelligent Design page every once and a while with similar concerns that are quickly dismissed.NJMauthor (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

E4mmacro is criticizing your rhetoric and the two of you are just flicking him/her off. I agree with User:E4mmacro, "pseudoscholarship" in the lead is jarring and seems very partisan; and I agree with Eugene that including satisfactory explanation would take too long for the lead. The question is, Does the lead with "pseudoscholarship" undermine the article's persuasiveness? I believe that it does. I believe most open-minded readers would, from that point on, assume the authors of the article are biased, which does immeasurable harm to the article's credibility/persuasiveness/rhetorical power. Are you here to educate or alienate? Anthony (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been settled, rehashing it over and over isn't helpful. I suppose that I should also mention that calling the theory psuedoscholarship isn't an ad hominem argument. Eugene (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is settled. What is being labeled pseudoscholarship here, the proposition that Jesus never existed or the various arguments put forward in support of that proposition? Anthony (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the work of a specific author can be accused of pseudoscholarship because of a, b and c, but not the general theory itself. If we are going to use "pseudoscholarship" we may have to qualify the term a bit. And I think we have to be careful because it's one thing to critique an authors work and determine that it's pseudoscholarship and it's another to use the word lazily as a dismissive pejorative. Insults are not encyclopedic. I prefer real, meaningful criticisms. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it's pretty well settled that the Christ myth theory is pseudoscholarship and this should be included in the lead. We can't, as editors, analyze every single author and decide for ourselves if their work is pseudoscholarship or not. We have to report what the reliable sources say, and it seems like the reliable sources are overwhelmingly in favor of calling CMT "pseudoscholarship". Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pseudoscholarship" seems a very strange term, rather than fringe theory or wrong theory or discredited theory. Most of the scholars in the Eugene's list seem to have worse terms: "holcaust denial" is frequent or "moon theory conspiracy". A few say "pseudoscholarship" which to me seems to suggest something that actually looks like scholarship, something that it is a little difficult to distinguish at first from real scholarship. E4mmacro (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with having it in the lead is the effect it has on the persuasive power of the article. It taints the article with an appearance of bias from the word go. It is a pejorative term, used to discredit authors, and every reader knows this, but not one clear breach of historiographical method has been presented for Wells, Doherty or Price. I understand that, to remain within Wikipedia guidelines, the article can parrot the insult without offering a single example from these three most prominent proponents, but if it is to be a convincing article, one which readers believe, "pseudoscholarship" should be removed from the lead or clearly supported in the text with examples. Without such, you are preaching to the converted and alienating the rest. How about listing a few examples? Anthony (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, the question really isn't if it's a pejorative term. Rather, is the term accurate/verifiable? Yes, it is. And examples of why this is the case are listed under the Scholarly reception section. In short, the CMT "...can only be advocated in defiance of the available evidence." Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If Scholarly reception had shown instances of false, fake, pretended, scholarship, some examples of departure from standard historiographical conventions on the part of the most prominent contemporary advocates, I wouldn't be here. 02:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)

I think that, to satisfy Anthony, something along these lines should be added to the "methodological concerns" section. But the lead is fine without a detailed explanation. Eugene (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is as I stated it. The proponents of the CMT ignore evidence, and they seek to replace evidence with mythological parallels that are contrived and ultimately meaningless because what we actually know about what JoN is being compared to is almost nothing. And since they cannot prove their contentions using normal historical methodology, their speculative claims are pseudo-scholarship. I mean, anyone can make any sort of claim that they want, but they cannot show that it is plausible based on the historical methodology that is used in determining the facts of any other historical figure. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even by the standards of the Historical method much of the "evidence" for a historical Jesus outside the canonal Gospels is in sorry shape as pointed out in Scott Oser's Historicity Of Jesus FAQ (1994) (and he didn't point out the Josephus-Hegesippus problem with the death of James the Just). Sure the CMT has attracted its share of extremists but then so has the historical Jesus where every part of the Gospel account must be historical. The more moderates (who have dropped the whole sun deity connection as it has been effectively discredited by later research) seem to be more of an Occam's razor of Boyd's position number two.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While "pseudoscholarship" remains in the lead, can we have a link from it to a footnote quoting the scholars using the actual term, or "pseudohistory"? I understand footnotes and citations are not obligatory in the lead, but neither are they proscribed. I believe it is important to satisfy open-minded and CMT believers from the outset that what we say is sourced. Anthony (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a footnote already appears with citations from a variety of sources, including those that explicitly use the terms "pseudoscholarship" and "pseudohistory". Eugene (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The present supertext links to a bunch of citations. I was thinking of actual " quotes, using "pseudo-". Anthony (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes used to have copious quotations; but when you and several others made it clear that you absolutely wouldn't stand some of them, I removed them all rather than just a few to avoid violating WP:CENSOR. If you want them back then I think they'll all have to come back, holocaust denial comparisons and all. I think it might be better to just leave it the way it is currently. Eugene (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to insults as long as they're traded. I'm sure we can find a mythicist who has an opinion on the antagonism directed their way. Lets include that for balance. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the material in the lead is not to chronicle bickering; it's to inform the reader of the level of academic acceptence the CMT enjoys, per WP:FRINGE. No snide remarks from mythicists are neccesary and I note that none from ID advocates appear in that article's lead. Eugene (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing that supports the academic level of acceptance. The current citation leads to a Michael J. McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth. This book has a Amazon Sales rank of 795,198, which is several orders of magnitude lower than all of the Christ Myth Theories that are mentioned in the article. Also, publishing a single book which refers to the term "pseudoscholarship" is clearly POV pushing. A proper reference will have a scientific poll of academics, preferably published in peer reviewed journals. Otherwise, it is simply anyone's guess what the academic consensus is, regardless of opinionated authors on this subject. Some honesty would also be appreciated, that is a theory widely attacked by theists and Christian apologists. Chudogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

See FAQ #s 2 & 3. Eugene (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene. I realize this has been discussed ad-nauseum on here. I just wish to point out that a brief comparison shows that the authors promoting Christ Myth Theories are several orders of magnitude higher in book sales than the authors listed as deriding them as fringe. Thus far, I see no evidence in the article or in the discussion of any attempt by anyone to make a quantitative analysis on these opinions. The only quantitative results I can make from a casual comparison is that these authors are, in fact, much more widely read and distributed than their critics. While a list of sources in the Faq is persuasive, it does not contain any sort of scientific authority by an means. Chudogg (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct in your assessment regarding book sales. I could be wrong of course, but more importantly, the book sales of those who promote the CMT vs. those who reject it doesn't really mean anything. One of the biggest problems I have seen on this page is the obvious lack of understanding among many people regarding this topic (and I mean that respectfully for those editors on the CMT side of hte issue; i.e., I'm simply saying a "lack of knowledge", not stupidity). In fact, the reason I even came to this page about six months ago is because I had an argument with a Christian friend of mine who insisted that there was no proof for JC's mere existence. At any rate, what does "scientific authority" mean in your comment above? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill is obviously correct: whatever sort of retail success the Christ myth theorists' books may enjoy, that has no bearing on the legitimacy of their thesis. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code sold literally tens of millions of copies; Bart Ehrman's Oxford Univerity published Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code sold substantially less. But no reasonable person would venture, on those grounds, to say that Brown's fantasies must therefore be "onto something" and that Ehrman's bit of debunking is just sour grapes.

As for "quantitative analysis", the article already contains a section on the CMT's prevalence in the general population. Eugene (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, by having a scientific authority there should be some attempts to quantify the opinion of both biblical scholars and perhaps general historians. The current academic citations are merely a general list of authors and historians who have cited the theory has "fringe". I appreciate the inclusion of secular historians as well to weight biases. But i fear this may be the result of "cherry picking" to weight the authorship to one side. There appears to be around 50 or so citations form authors anywhere in the 20th century. While the research is probably pretty exhaustive, could it validly be counter-balanced by a list of 50 or so authors of likewise scholarship published anywhere in the 19th or 20th century? Would 100 authors make the historicity of Jesus be a "fringe" theory?

This is irrespective of legitimacy of the argument. The issue is whether this is "fringe" or "pseudo-history", and Wikipedia should do the best job of making use of notability. The public opinion poll does satisfy this requirement and I have no issue with it. However, I do admit I am unsure of any similar undertaking has been achieved of the academic opinion and to gauge consensus. What I'm saying is, I don't think a single author making this statement makes it notable. I don't think a plurality of authors makes it notable. Perhaps if there was an editorial statement by an academic journal or an entire Biblical Scholarship Foundation. One author making the statement in a non-reviewed book publishing doesn't put his or her academic credentials on the line for such a statement.

For the record, I do believe in a historical Jesus that would become to be represented in the Christian Gospel accounts. I believe in Jesus ben Stada, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Gamala, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Gamalie, and virtually of any of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Jesus's who would be crucified during the Jewish Revolt. The question is whether the Christian Gospels accounts have any valid historicity.Chudogg (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the citations in question aren't simply recounting the opinion of a single author (I.e. "I think this is bunk.") but the general view of many scholars (I.e. "Most of us think this is bunk"). I recommend you re-read FAQ #2 to see this. As for a peer-reviewed journal, we have that:

"The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church."

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

Eugene (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That Evans quote says it is not mainstream, i.e., it is fringe. In this thread we are discussing the applicability of the term "pseudo-scholarship" not "fringe". Anthony (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to inserting Eugene's version for now?

I propose we adopt E4mmacro's suggestion and use "unworthy of a response" in place of "pseudoscholarship" as it accurately reflects the source and, indeed, is affirmed by Wells. Anthony (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to replacing "pseudoscholarship" with "unworthy of a response". I imagine that Bill does too and I'm virtually certain that Ari89 does as well. That enough to forestall claims of consensus. Eugene (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, and we'll discuss that. Are there any objections to replacing the present version with Eugene's

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudoscholarship."

? Anthony (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I object to that. My reasons where given above. I don't think you can show from the literature that "most" scholars would use this term, the meaning of which is unclear to many readers, I would say. E4mmacro (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to insert it now, because I see it as clearer language than the present form, and then continue with discussing your replacement of "pseudoscholarship" with "unworthy of a response." Inclusion of Eugene's new version in no way indicates agreement that most scholars would use "pseudoscholarship". You have argued well that no case has been made to support that. I would just like to get the clearer expression up there while we discuss your point. Anthony (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with Eugene's replacement above. One minor point, however. I think pseudoscholarship should be hyphenated like this: "pseudo-scholarship". Also, I would object to dropping the phrase and using "unworthy of a response" because that is just begging the question - that is, why do the vast majority of scholars consider it unworthy of a response? Answer: because it's pseudo-scholarship. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. Ok, by me. We can talk about pseudoscholarship as a seperate issue. E4mmacro (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, I find the explanation "because it is pseudo-scholarship" no explanation at all either. E4mmacro (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It does off as a variant of the Begging the question ie it is "unworthy of a response" 'because it is pseudo-scholarship'. I can see why the sun deity connection can be seen as pseudo-scholarship but not the rest of the ideas.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead 4th paragraph

What definition of pseudoscholarship does this paragraph employ? Anthony (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to ask James McClymond & Gerard Stephen Sloyan if you want the specific definition they had in mind. It's our job to report what scholarship says, not to define their terms for them. Eugene (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Not if the term they use is without meaning. What does it mean, Eugene? Point me to the definition. Anthony (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. Would McClymond and Sloyan use the word if they thought it was meaningless? What do you think it means, Anthony? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Me? I'm not arguing to include it. I am making sure we know what it means. I'll give it a shot.

Pseudo- is a prefix, from Greek pseudes ‘false’, pseudos ‘falsehood’.

• Cambridge not real; pretended.
• OED false, not genuine; resembling or imitating.
• Websters being apparently rather than actually as stated; sham, spurious.

Scholarship

• Cambridge serious, detailed study
• OED academic achievement; learning of a high level.
• Webster the character, qualities, activity, or attainments of a scholar : learning.

So, I guess pseudoscholarship means something that is claimed to be or looks like - but isn't - serious, detailed study or a high level of learning. Have I got that right? Anthony (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to do an end-run around WP:V won't work, Anthony. Eugene (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that last contribution means or implies about my motives. Please explain. (We don't use "end run" in Australia - I believe it derives from gridiron?) Anthony (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) On second thoughts, don't bother. Let's just discuss the content of the article. It is pointless us discussing the inclusion of the word if we are not agreed on its meaning. Can we agree that my above sentence is what pseudoscholarship means for the purpose of this discussion? Anthony (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article, per WP:FRINGE, has a responsibility to clearly report on the level of acceptance this theory enjoys within the relevant academic community. The article currently does this through the inclusion of a comment to the effect that many biblical scholars and classical historians regard this a pseudoscholarship--a comment which, in keeping with WP:V, is supported by numerous scholarly sources. That's it; game over. Whether Anthonyhcole happens to think the sources are being mean, or sloppy, or narrow is irrelvant, per WP:NOR. Eugene (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, whether you approve or not, the inclusion of this term is going to be discussed. Since you believe there is nothing to discuss, can I suggest you sit this one out?

Eugene's right, though. My definition is OR. What if we just go with all of them

• pretended or not really serious, detailed study
• false, not genuine or imitating learning of a high level.
• sham, spurious, apparently rather than actually the character, qualities, activity, or attainments of a scholar
  

The lead says

While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, many of whom regard the Christ myth theory as pseudoscholarship.

This is meaningless, or at best worthlessly vague. The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus never existed. A proposition cannot be pseudoscholarship. What are you trying to communicate here with "...regard the [proposition] as pseudoscholarship? An argument can be based on pseudoscholarship, but a proposition is just a proposition. Anthony (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this:

While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, many of whom regard the methods and arguments used to support the Christ myth theory as pseudo-scholarship.

How does that sound? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship is an attribute of a person, so what about:

While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, some of whom regard the arguments supporting the Christ myth theory as pseudohistory or the product of pseudo-scholarship.

Anthony (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12] The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]"

Apparently theories themselves can be pseudoscholarship. I think that the fourth paragraph should remain "as is". The sources that appear in the citation favor the status quo as they generally refer to the theory itself and not it's arguments. For example, take the McClymond reference:

Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message.

When McClymond uses the actually word "pseudoscholarship" he doesn't append it to specific arguments used by CMT proponents but to their "message", the theory itself. Eugene (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using an example of pseudoscience to make a point about pseudoscholarship? They are very different things. One refers to an epistemological method, the other to a human attribute. It is comparing apples with trade unionism.

McClymond is using the term correctly: "Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of [pretended learning] on Jesus that finds its way into print." You have him saying the proposition is pseudoscholarship.

Other than the fact that you didn't write every word of it, what exactly is your problem with my formulation of the 4th paragraph? Anthony (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're implying category differences where they don't really exist. Pseudoscience is the pseudo-X of some specific disciplines, pseudoscholarship is just a more general concept that can encompass the former but which can also be applied to other disciplines. When you say that one refers to method while the other refers to "a human attribute", I'm not really sure what you mean.

As to your question, I oppose your proffered reformulation on a few different grounds. First (and most seriously) you seek to change the current "many of whom" think it's pseudo-X to the weaker "some of whom" think it's pseudo-X. Given that McClymond actually says that "most scholars" feel this way, "many" is already somewhat watered-down; going with "some" is just another step away from what the sources actually say. Secondly, I think that the use of both pseudohistory and pseudo-scholarship in a single sentence as you have them is bulky and awkward prose. And third (and, admittedly, least importantly) I'd just prefer the label pseudoscholarship applied to the theory itself and not it's supporting arguments for stylisitic reasons. Eugene (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pseudoscholarship" means pseudo+scholarship. Scholarship is learning, a human attribute, according to OED, Webster's and Cambridge. Where do you get your definition from?

"Many" is a weasel word.

I agree the pseudohistory and pseudoscholarship sentence is ungainly. Let's drop "pseudohistory", and use "most".

The McClymond quote addresses the arguments for Jesus' non-existence.

While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard arguments supporting the Christ myth theory as works of pseudo-scholarship.

Anthony (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship can refer to a person's erudition, I suppose, but it can also refer to publications—see [7] and [8] for examples. I would say that it's more usual to see "scholarship" used to mean academic publications and the opinions contained in those publications, than to refer to an individual's knowledge and competence as "scholarship." So I find Anthony's insistence that scholarship is a "human attribute" odd, and don't find anything wrong with the sentence "While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, many of whom regard the Christ myth theory as pseudoscholarship", at least as far as the use of "pseudoscholarship" is concerned. This isn't to say that a better sentence couldn't be constructed—for instance, I don't think the word "pseudoscholarship" has to be used at all, especially since it may not be very meaningful to many readers of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I don't think that wiki articles should be written as if they are being targeted to 3rd graders. If you are concerned that someone doesn't really understand the word, then all that means is that it may need to be explained, perhaps in a footnote or, better yet, in the body of the article. Therefore, I too see nothing wrong with keeping it in the lead. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a slightly shorter version of Anthony's sentence: I could live with that. Eugene (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that in Eugene's list of quotes (his FAQ page) the word "pseudoscholalship" does not appear in most of the quotes. Furthermore, the quotes taken from books, rather than press interviews or web pages, seem generally more polite (I am assuming pseudoscholarship is meant to be an insult), which is the way it should be when a scholar commits his or herself in serious scholarship. What is so wrong with eliminating the last phrase? E4mmacro (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said that most of the quotes I've brought together in my FAQ label this pseudoscholarship. To try to include such a statement on such a basis would be OR. Rather McClymond's quote states that "most" scholars see it this way. Eugene (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise McClymond's statement of what most scholars think over-rides what most scholars themselves are prepared to put in writing in their serious publications. E4mmacro (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on Eugene's quote I see that McClymond makes it clear that he [McClymond] thinks there is a "good deal of pseudoscholarship" assosciated with the CMT. What McClymond says about others is that most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as "unworthy of response". He goes further to say most scholars regard the arguments "on a par with" Holcaust denial and moon-landing conspiracies. I think we can all see the first claim "unworthy of response" is true and Doherty and Wells seem to agree with that assessment. The holcaust and moon-landing characterisations seems to be more than most scholars are prepared to say in print. So why not replace "pseudo-scholarship" with "unworthy of resposne", or as Akhilleus suggests, drop 'pseudoscholarship'? Afterall, "essentially without support amongst biblical scholars and classical historians" by itself seems to cover the situation. E4mmacro (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of simply dropping "pseudoscholarship", E4mmacro, because I don't think that would give an accurate picture of how the CMT is viewed in academia. "unworthy of response" probably captures the reactions of a lot of scholars—as in, "why should I bother to deal with this nonsense?" But there's also the reaction recorded by G.A. Wells at the beginning of a 1986 article: "It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed." (G.A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman, Prometheus Books, 1986, p. 27.) If you think, as you wrote above, that a scholar committed to serious scholarship should refrain from insults, the amount of scorn tossed at the CMT is surely remarkable. (Incidentally, whether that's what scholars should do, I'm pretty sure that in practice they often toss insults at other people's work...) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to comment on what scholars should do (be civil or not). I was pointing out what they actually do and say in their serious scholarship. I have no objection to using Wells' quote about the scorn tossed at CMT or McClymond's "unworthy of a response" as characterising the attitude of most scholars. What seems wrong is using McClymond's term "psedoscholarship" as the term used by most scholars, when even McClymond does not say most scholars use that term. E4mmacro (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

E4mmacro, "pseudo-scholarship" is NOT meant as an ad hominem. It is simply the conclusion of most scholars based on the evaluation of the historical methodology of the CMT proponents. I mean, if their methodology is applied to any other ancient historical figure, then it would be much easier to see how vacuous the methodology of the CMT proponents truly is.

Of course, that would never be done, since those who would make such an attempt would be dismissed not only on a scholarly level, but also on a popular level very quickly and, consequently, they would lose out on lecture fees, and even quicker on book sales. But as long as they limit themselves to Jesus, then they are relatively safe, since most layme automatically assume that to acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus as a mere man means that they must also accept the divine, or superhuman, claims. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim that if the CMT methodology was applied to "any other" ancient historical figure that is would show how "vacuous the methodology" is so easily disproved that is is not funny. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Socrates are three ancient historical figures that come to mind that deep six this nonsense--all there have truly contemporary evidence of their existence. Better comparisons would be to Apollonius of Tyana and Sun Tzu whose historical existence is on the far iffy side.

By contrast Paul is the only demonstratively contemporary account we have and he give us so few historical details that if it wasn't for the canonal Gospels we would have no real history for Jesus. Boyd doesn't really make it clear is how do you separate what he calls "Jesus agnosticism" (Price) which he said could be put into the Christ Myth Theory from the ideas of Barton Mack and Rudolf Bultmann (it is plausible that Jesus existed but nothing can really be determined about his life) when the Christ Myth Theory seems to be nothing more than Occam's razor--if you can't determine anything about Jesus' life why not save yourself the step and say there is nothing there in the first place? Logically the position makes perfect sense--outside of the Gospels the only details we have is Josephus (known to been tampered with and unclear as to what the original text actually said) and Tacitus (who uses the wrong title for Pontius Pilate suggesting he may have only been reporting a belief of Christians rather than historical fact). The fact some pro historical Jesus supporters try to present Suetonius, Thallus, and Pliny the Younger as "evidence" allows "Christ Myth Theorists" to point the pseudohistory and pseudoscholarship finger right back at the pro historical Jesus group.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Classic. The CMT isn't pseudoscholarship—the mainstream position is! Seriously, how is this not a violation of WP:FORUM? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I feel your pain. BG's comments just go to show how uninformed the general public is to the mere, simple existence of JoN. I honestly don't know how to answer BG without seeming to violate wikipedia civility, so I won't even try. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As is common here the actual point I was raising was lost. Bill the Cat 7 presented a statement that was so hyperbole that it amounted to a "no strawman needed" argument and how that was not a violation of WP:Forum I have no idea. The issue of exactly where the break between Price's "Jesus agnosticism" and the Jesus existed but next to nothing is know about him position without encountering Occam's Razor was similarly avoided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Akhilleus: "Scholarship can refer to a person's erudition, I suppose..." No need to suppose. It does. "...it's more usual to see "scholarship" used to mean academic publications and the opinions contained in those publications..."
• Bill: "I don't think that wiki articles should be written as if they are being targeted to 3rd graders. If you are concerned that someone doesn't really understand the word, then all that means is that it may need to be explained." Agreed definitions are a prerequisite to rational debate. Before we can legitimately use a word in an explanation (or, indeed, explain the meaning of the word to others) we should settle its meaning here.
• Eugene's suggested

  "While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudoscholarship"

  is an improvement on the present form. Its usage conforms more closely to the actual meaning of the term. I oppose linking to pseudoscholarship as that is OR, and it is unlikely McClymond had the Wikipedia page in mind when he employed the term. For now, let's insert it, and continue arguing over linking to Pseudoscholarship, and over whether to use the term at all.
• E4mmacro: "So why not replace "pseudo-scholarship" with "unworthy of response?" Indeed. Akhilleus' Wells quote "It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed" supports this.
• Bill: "...pseudo-scholarship" is NOT meant as an ad hominem..." You are equating "pseudoscholarship" with "pseudohistory". "Pseudohistory" addresses the quality of the argument, while "pseudoscholarship addresses the learning of the author.
• Bruce: Nicely put. I've got a question on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs) 03:40, 21 May 2010

It's probably not worthwhile to respond to this, but I'm a bit annoyed at seeing my talk page post snarkily responded to with a {{Citation needed}} tag from a person who apparently does not read much scholarship in the humanities and who has not bothered to read the links in my original post, which link to pages that use "scholarship" in the sense of "scholarly publications." Here's another page that uses scholarship in just this sense: "From June 2002, this site also preserves the reviews of Bryn Mawr Electronic Resources Review, which published reviews of non-print classical scholarship." Search Google Scholar for "recent scholarship" and you'll find many examples of "scholarship" used in the sense of "scholarly publications", or the ideas and opinions contained therein.

The most common meaning of "scholarship", of course, refers to financial assistance given to students... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)