Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

8.Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus?

Latest comment: 13 years ago52 comments10 people in discussion

Since itsmejudith brought up the idea of discipline specific authority, I think we might as well get this off the list. I think it was Ari who asked the following: Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus? Now, I'm pretty sure that Ari phrased it this way for rhetorical effect, but there's a relevant issue here. Should a non-scholar be presented as a countervailing authority to real scholars? And, perhaps more realistically, should a scholar in a particular field, when speaking outside his area of expertise, be presented as a countervailing authority to scholars in that field?

I think that the obvious answer is "no" and "no": when we have scholarly sources for a particular point, non-scholarly sources have no standing; further, when we have scholarly sources speaking on their area of expertise for a particular point, scholarly sources speaking outside their area of expertise have no standing. So, essentially, there is a hierarchy of authority with non-scholars defering to scholars, and, even among scholars, non-specialists defering to specialists.

Sound reasonable? Eugene (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Now now, Eugene, this is sophistry at its most blatant. On the surface it’s obviously reasonable that non-scholars should defer to scholars, and that non-specialists should defer to specialists. However, the issue here is the determination of a specialist. Take for example the case of the “water erosion debate” in the article Great Sphinx of Giza. Specialist Egyptologists conclude that the Sphinx is 4500 years old, based on calculations which are acknowledged to be uncertain, derived from king lists which are acknowledged to be incomplete, and using assumed reign-lengths which are acknowledged to be largely guesswork. Specialist geologists examine surrounding rocks – i.e. their area of expertise – and conclude that the rocks were weathered by flowing water. Specialist ancient weather boffins determine that there was no such rainfall in that area in that time period, or ever since. Result is gridlock – the conclusions of one set of specialists contradict the conclusions of another set of specialists. Which specialist has “authority” here? The situation is then further clouded by members of both groups who try to “cook” the facts to support their own theory, and those others who similarly stretch the facts to find agreement with the other party’s interpretations, and we end up with a serious lack of clarity on who is actually the specialist here. Then we come to the CMT. We can’t even find clarity on what the CMT actually is. Various “specialists” have different definitions of the CMT itself, and once again the so-called “evidence” is based on texts which are known to have been seriously “cooked” over the millennia to suit various agendas. Who can be considered a “specialist” on the CMT, when we can’t even agree on the definition thereof, or on who coined the label to begin with? Wdford (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wdford's sphinx example is a red herring, I am afraid. In interdisciplinary questions, of course experts from all disciplines involved need to be considered, and if they come to conflicting conclusions, this needs to be left standing as is, as unresolved. Another example would be the Thera eruption. "Christ myth" is not an example of this, since the only kind of people advocating this today are pulp authors writing for the popular mass market. Look at the "21st century" section. The article is aware that "By the 21st century, the non-existence of Jesus had become a dead thesis within academia". Period. The end. It was nice while it lasted, but as of today, it has passed on. It has ceased to be. THIS IS AN EX-THESIS!. The fact that popular books keep being written about it is a facet of geeky pop culture, not of scholarship. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's right, but what is happening is people are riding roughshod over the history of ideas. It was once a thesis in academia, but see above what I found about Bauer, that doesn't support the idea that he held it in a strong form. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Dab the Dogmatic - all he needs is a silly little mustache! The thesis can’t be dead, because people are still writing about it. QED! Some scholars in related fields, who might not be all that objective to begin with, have declared the thesis dead, but that does not make it so. It is, perhaps, an example of wishful thinking. And not all those who write on the subject are pop-geeks, whatever that means. So, sadly, the original question remains – who is a “specialist” in this field, and who is therefore the authority to whom the article should defer? Thanks Dab, but are there any other takers? Wdford (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you try a really stupid attempt at a personal insult. Perhaps you want to come to my user page and deface it with some swastikas? I really think this would help getting this article back on track. Clearly you haven't understood a single word that was said. QED indeed. I guess you think Time Cube is an exciting new hypothesis in physics because "people are still writing about it"? Specialists in this fields, dear Wdford, would be academic historians and biblical scholars. They have discussed this at length a hundred years ago. Just because you only discovered about it much later doesn't make it a "live" hypothesis. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sphinx example was a red herring and silly personal swipes doesn't make it any less so. The thesis is dead as there is no academic peer-reviewed work arguing it. --Ari (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So Dab can dish it out, but he can't take it. Goodness me. I believe the term is "Kafkaesque". And clearly neither Dab not Ari understood a single word that I said. Note that this is an article about what the CMT IS, not about whether the CMT is academically or historically correct. Dab asserts that "specialists in this field ... would be academic historians and biblical scholars." Well, are academic historians all necessarily specialists on the CMT? Since they tend to assert that the CMT is not history, I would doubt that it falls into their field of expertise. Are biblical scholars to be considered specialists on the CMT? Well the CMT holds that the New Testament of the Bible has been so seriously "modified" that what is says about the Jesus character is unreliable, so would a biblical scholar really be a specialist on the CMT? And because a number of “real” scholars agree that the New Testament has been seriously "modified", are the Bible texts even a useful benchmark to begin with? Academic historians and biblical scholars undoubtedly have an axe to grind here, as the CMT undermines their personal comfort zone and meal ticket, but does being opposed to a theory make one a specialist on that theory? Since the people who claim to have created the CMT can't agree on who is a specialist thereon, can those who oppose the CMT really be specialists thereon? Seriously? Wdford (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can "take" a lot more than you can imagine. You barely register on my troll-meter. This is why I invited you to come to my talkpage for further insults. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll raise your personal swipe and incoherent rant an invitation to act civil and make sense. --Ari (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't engage editors in insults, Dab - please take my remark as constructive criticism, and consider carefully your tone next time you visit a talk page to Pronounce the Final Word. And as for Ari – well he has a long history as a pro-Bible POV pusher and edit warrior, so any judgements from him about “incoherent rants” are taken with a bucket of salt. BTW – my question still stands, to all constructive editors – who would be considered to be a “specialist” on the subject of the CMT? Wdford (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet we see you engaging directly in insulting other edits. As I said, talk about being incoherent. To your incoherent (I know, bad form repeating a word) - a specialist for a ancient history would be - wait for it - an ancient historian. We use historical method to know about history. New Testament scholarship utilises ancient historical method, especially (and quite stringently) in historical Jesus studies. I know, you want to rant some more about them being scared of your radical ideas (groovy man!) but an obscure belief about Jesus never stopped NT scholarship from doing what they do (e.g. the whole traditional form critical method that came out of Bultmann's ideas about history and Jesus.) --Ari (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear - the familiar Ari diversion away from the actual question, sliding into the (yawn) familiar Ari groove of "We use historical method to know about history." (Note the use of "we".) No, these ideas are not mine - I merely ask a question. And no, these ideas are not radical, a lot of people have shared them over many decades. And no, nothing will (or should) stop NT scholarship from doing what they do. And no, I am not asking about a specialist for ancient history, I am asking about a specialist on the CMT itself. Can you focus long enough to answer that question without diverting off onto your favourite groove, or do you intend to do what you usually do on sites that question the reliability of the Bible? Wdford (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wdford, I have no doubt that you can make personal attacks but I still don't see how they are relevant to this discussion. The Christ Myth Theory is a claim about history, following? It claims to use historical sources to reconstruct (or deconstruct?) history. They make claims about these sources - their origins, interpretation, etc. This is ancient history. There is no need to appeal to a greater conspiracy theory such as "CMT undermines their personal comfort zone and meal ticket, but does being opposed to a theory make one a specialist on that theory?" When historians deem the hypothesis dead as a scholarly question (as Dab made reference to above, and you angrily objected to) they are talking about a question the reception of the hypothesis in their field of expertise. As this subheading has to do with my original question, you do not need to redefine it for me. --Ari (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ari has at least answered my questions about diversions, and about his tactics going forward. However, my original (and more important) question thus still remains – who is an expert on the CMT? To correct an important misunderstanding – the CMT DOES NOT “use historical sources” – rather it claims that “there are no historical sources” on the subject of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether or not this is factually true is not the point of the article – the point of the article is to explain what the CMT itself actually proposes. I did not “object angrily” to Dab’s pronouncement – I was actually chuckling at the Kafkaesqueness of his comment. The “deadness” or otherwise of the hypothesis in the historians’ field of expertise is not my question – we already have an undue weight of references for scholars proclaiming the “deadness” of the theory. What the article still needs - as per Judith's own concern - is clarity on who do we rely on re explaining the theory itself? Wdford (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jumping past the personal attacks. The CMT advocates do use historical sources and they do make judgements on their origins. That is why they make claims about there being a lack of contemporary sources or that sources were late or that content was an interpolation. If we go by the process of elimination we can say you are no expert in the CMT. And back to what I said at the beginning: scholars in the field of ancient history and NT scholarship are well aware of the historical debates on the issues, so they are still the best place to go. --Ari (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please lay off the ad-hominems - everyone. To clarify, people are, unintentionally, riding roughshod over the history of ideas. Van Voorst is mistaken about Marx's espousal of any version of CMT, and we need to correct that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is extremely well developed by now, a classic case of trolls driving the good editors to produce quality. It is an extremely instructive example of the workings of Wikipedia that the best coverage of the historicity question that the project has produced stems from an entirely troll-driven debate.

The facts have been on the table for a long time, and people are just waving their hands about how to best present them. For the best part of a year this has been about nothing but proponents trying to conjure up an impression of credibility for the hypothesis to the casual reader. For example, the lead is full of contorted phrases about 'proponents' and 'evidence' and 'scholars such as' and 'while' clauses and you need to pay very close attention that the lead is actually saying that the hypothesis has no merit, and you actually need to go 50% into the article body to be told that the hypothesis is dead. This isn't encyclopedic editing, we are just looking at increasingly silly attempts at spin-doctoring.

Ari is right, NT scholarship is perfectly aware of the question, and it is an unexciting, resolved question. As long as we address the question itself, there is no need to turn elsewhere. If we are going to address the ideological hubbub surrounding it, obviously we will need a different kind of sources, but this aspect needs to be kept strictly separate from the scholarly hypothesis itself. --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Dab, not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a troll.

Secondly, you don’t actually “need to pay very close attention that the lead is actually saying that the hypothesis has no merit” – the lead states quite clearly that “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 pseudo-scholarship.”

Thirdly, do we really need to exclude from this article the “ideological hubbub”, or should the article not explain that hubbub too in the interests of completeness and balance?

Lastly, Ari has suggested that we should rely on “scholars in the field of ancient history and NT scholarship” to objectively explain what the CMT actually proposes. This is like relying on the Spanish Inquisition to objectively explain the hypothesis of the Cathars. It doesn’t get more Kafkaesque than that, yes?

Wdford (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We'd rely on scholars of medieval history, especially those who specialize in medieval France and theology. Not Kafkaesque at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Could everyone who has commented in this section please go up to the New FAQ #1 Proposal section and cast a vote. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this has proven so controversial. I thought my suggestion would be self-evidently acceptable. On a point where all we have is a non-scholar (say, a pop author), that's the source we use. When we have a non-scholar and a scholar, and they disagree, we use the scholarly source. When we have two scholarly sources, one a specialist in the area in question and one not, and they disagree, we use the specialist source. How is this problematic? It seems entirely reasonable and would address itsmejudith's concerns: If we find a source by a specialist on Marxist intellectual history that explicitly contradicts the Bauer --> Marx --> Marxism CMT connection made by at least four different scholarly (but non-specialist) sources, we'll defer to the specialist.

It looks like Wdford is the only one disagreeing and on some pretty goofy grounds (the old canard about the definition, etc); if everyone else agrees with my proposal, we ca still consider that consensus. So what say ye? Eugene (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

More sophistry by Eugene. Actually, Wdford is disagreeing on the grounds that using the Spanish Inquisition as reliable sources to explain the Cathar Heresy is contrary to WP:Reliable. We have lots of comments in the article already by the Inquisition, but we need more comments from the Cathars. However, we need first to be able to recognise a genuine Cathar, as there has been some confusion about this, and our efforts keep being swamped out by supporters of the Inquisitors who claim the Inquisitors are perfectly reliable sources for this purpose. Wdford (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a consensus. Let's move forward with it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You won't find a specialist on Marx who contradicts his espousal of CMT because they are not aware that it is something that needs to be addressed. Mainstream view is among other places at [1]. This is also a good source for the fact that the Soviets positively decided to promote Drews' beliefs (as distinct from inheriting a generalised atheism from Marxism). Another book on Marxism and religion that nowhere states that Marx adopted Bauer's view of a non-historical Jesus. The classical Marxist critiques of religion: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky By Delos Banning McKown. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This article already cite's Thrower's book in the "Soviet adoption" section. Also, I note that Thrower writes concerning Marx's beliefs: "One should not, however, under-estimate the influence of Bauer, to whom Marx was extremely close during his student years in Berlin and for two or three years afterward. Given this general statement which makes Marx's adoption of Bauer's CMT plausible, and given the four RSes that explicitly refer to the such an adoption, a Wikipedia editor's vague argument from silence concerning other sources (inherently OR) won't cut it. We'd need an explicit contradition from a specialist to undermine the presumptively accurate information.

All this is a bit to the side though; how do you feel about my proposal concerning relative authority more generally? Eugene (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Eugene, but reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether or not your sources are "experts" and "reliable". Out of the 72 people that you quote in your FAQ, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. This obviously raises serious questions about their ability to be objective. It is well-established that religious beliefs cloud one's ability to think critically. People who are infected with a particular religion virus are usually not able to see the irrationality of their own belief systems, though they are able to see it in other people's religious beliefs. If we accept your criteria for reliable sources, then Wikipedia has a big problem. If the majority of Koran scholars believe it is accepted fact that the prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse, that does not mean they are the experts and all other viewpoints must be censored, distorted, misrepresented, and abused in a Wikipedia article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this page attract anti-religious bigots? PLH, your opinions are no longer welcome. Go away. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My intent is not to insult or demean anyone. The fact that someone has an irrational belief does not make them a 'bad person'. (For all of us are irrational at times and fall short of the glory of Reason.) The issue here is the reliability of the opinions of sources. It is a legitimate issue. Let's turn the heat down. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You honestly think that the way to "turn down the heat" is to continue to label all religious belief "irrational"? Your wiki-alias is seeming more ironic all the time; StrifeCondescensionDiscord might be more apropos. Eugene (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not asserting that all religious beliefs are irrational. I am just saying that one's religion can have a distorting effect on one's judgment of the reliability of data that supports or undermines one's religion's truth claims. Do you disagree with this assertion? I would like to have a civil discussion about the reliability of the opinions of the sources without resorting to name-calling and extreme hostile reactions. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to have a civil discussion, please start by recognizing that the study of religion is an academic discipline, and the books and articles published by scholars who study religion meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. You could also stop going on about the irrationality of religious beliefs; it's simply not relevant here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not see an answer to my question (Do you disagree with this assertion?) anywhere in that response. I would be interested to hear your opinion, as well as Eugene and Bill's. I do think it is openly hostile, and not in the spirit of Wiki, to say that you will not respond to me in a civil manner unless I start agreeing with you. As for Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, it very specifically notes that Religious_sources are "reliable sources for religious doctrine". However, it does not say they are reliable sources for objective scholarly inquiry into questions that threaten the core belief of that religion. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, it's pretty difficult to have a conversation with you when you repeatedly fail to understand a very basic point: scholarship on religion is not a "religious source". --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response below, in a new section. Thanks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Eugene, I already said what I think about scholarly sources. Of course I will always argue for scholarship. It is important that we write up an article like this from the mainstream of scholarship in the different fields. People were talking earlier about interdisciplinary work. However, I say, consistently I hope, that each article really "belongs" in a discipline. If this article is about a pseudo-scholarly notion, then it should be written up from works by experts on pseudo-scholarly notions. At the moment - and this really is repetition and I'm not going to say it again - it lumps together populist writing of the late C20 and early C21 with antecedents in the C18, C19 and early C20 that were scholarly at the time they were written. This is a synthesis that creates a false effect. It is the essentialist fallacy to assume that there is one "Christ myth theory" that is the same from Volney through to Freke and Gandy. Theologists are genuine scholars; their field of interest is religious belief systems. Whether Jesus existed or not is a concern of theologists, but it is even more the proper concern of ancient historians. More importantly, theologists are not specialists in C18-C21 thought. Evans makes a sweeping statement about Marx in a footnote - it's mistaken. That's not my OR, it's my "source research" that shows me that the standard texts on Marx and religion or Marx and the Young Hegelians say nothing about Marx having a view on Jesus's historicity. Here (p.155, Lobkowicz) is a careful account of Marx's profound differences with Bauer and Feuerbach. Can you see that not only is there no mention of Marx adopting their views on Jesus, but there is an explanation of why Marx would not have wanted to adopt their views on Jesus. Van Voorst is mistaken too - these errors tend to perpetuate themselves. He is writing an overview of non-belief in Jesus's historicity - BTW not a history of a pseudo-scholarly "Christ myth theory" - and he's doing so as a preliminary to his real concern which is with the ancient sources on Jesus. Van Voorst cites Zvi Rosen, not giving a page number, but the fact he wants to cite is not in the Rosen text. Thrower on the Soviet adoption is fine and we could use more of it. Note that in one place he contrasts the Drews-inspired ideas with a "more Marxist" line. More Marxist = less Drews. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your response as support for the general proposal. When you say that Van Voorst is wrong, do you have a source that actually says he's wrong, or is this just your own guess? Eugene (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We can find numerous sources that say that Marx thought that Bauer was wrong to devote himself to the critique of Christianity. That is, in fact, the main thing that Marx thought about the Young Hegelians. A major fact about his life was that he moved away from Hegelian philosophy and devoted himself to the critique of political economy. See any Marx for Beginners type book. The onus to verify is upon those who want to include the material. Van Voorst is not a specialist on C19 thought and he cites Rosen for something that isn't in Rosen's book. WP:REDFLAG says that anything way out of line with what is generally established should be regarded with suspicion. Ergo, the statement stays out. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Has someone read the Rosen books and the other sources Van Voorst cites? I missed that, if it's been stated above (sorry, there's a lot of text on this page). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've searched in it using Google Books limited preview and can't find any reference. I did clarify that before and asked if anyone else wanted to try searching. Sorry that I stated it a bit more strongly than I should have. I also asked if anyone was getting the Scottish Journal of Theology reference - but it is a very minor journal.

The abolition of God: materialistic atheism and Christian religion By Hans Gerhard Koch seems to have a discussion not only of the Bauer-Marx nexus but also of the Drews-Lenin one. But it's only in snippet view. I can see that it says that the only reference the mature Marx made to Jesus was to say that the thing he liked best about him was his love of children. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Itsmejudith, I missed those earlier posts. I'm getting the Rosen and the SJT article, but I'm not sure how soon they'll arrive. You've provided some good reasons to think that Van Voorst is in error here, but I'd like to check these sources in full. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, a few points:

That Marx may have thought Bauer was wrong to devote himself to critiquing Christianity isn't at all the same thing as Marx thinking Bauer was wrong about the historicity of Jesus; these are two separate issues. Thus, all the sources in the world establishing the first issue would do nothing to establish the second.
When you say that "The onus to verify is upon those who want to include the material", I totally agree. (Just imagine what a mess this article would be if this wasn't the case, what with all the POV trolls it attracts.) But given that we have three different sources appearing in the relevant citation supporting the material (plus a few more that aren't cited), in the absence of a direct contradiction by at least equally high-quality sources, I think that burden has been met. That some anonymous Wikipedia editor happens to think that the variety of cited professors are wrong isn't enough; as WP:V says, "verifiability, not truth".
You said, regarding the Rosen text, "I've searched in it using using Google Books limited preview and can't find any reference" to the material in question. In the US, at least, Rosen's book isn't available for limited preview through Google Books, only snippet preview--which is hardly as conducive for verification purposes as you seem to admit. Are you based in another locale that has a genuinely "limited preview" of Rosen's work, or did you mean to say that you checked through Google Book's snippet view?
Koch's work, which you cite, says this: "The only statement of the mature Karl Marx about Christ as far as is known, says that what he, Karl Marx, liked best about the Christ of the Bible was his love of children." This is hardly conclusive; I'd debate that it's even suggestive. What I like best about the Ulysses of the Odyssey is his (eventual) love for his wife. But that doesn't at all mean that I think Ulysses really existed.
You mentioned that a specialist on Marx would be helpful here. While I eagerly await Akhilleus' report on Rosen and the SJT article, I think I've found one online that will serve, at least temporarily. The late Alphonse Mani wrote a monograph on Marx's thought entitled "Man in the Paris and London Manuscripts of Marx". A year later he also wrote an article entitled "Karl Marx' Critique of Religion" which was published in the journal Indian Theological Studies. In that document, Mani writes of Marx that "From B. Bauer he learnt that Jesus never existed."

Given all this (Mani's statement, the five other independant sources--three currently quoted in the article, and the complete lack of any direct contradiction from any source--scholarly or even otherwise), at this point I think that this issue should be allowed to die. Eugene (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mani provides no citations. This shouldn't be allowed to die, no. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just like with explanation, sourcing comes to an end somewhere. So Mani doesn't provide a citation; what if he did? Would the work he cites have to provide a citation to another work? Would that work then have to cite another work? Do we require a chain of citations leading to a hand-written note from Marx himself scrawled on the back of his manuscript for Das Kapital saying "I totally disbelieve that Jesus ever existed and I totally got the idea from Bruno Bauer"? Eugene (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, this has all the earmarks of a completely bogus meme. Dump it. Barrett Pashak (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched the Rosen book in Google snippet view. It came up with only 3 refs to "Jesus". Of these, only one (p. 55) deals with mythicism, and, from what I can see, only deals with Bauer:

Even if the historical Jesus really existed, (something which Bauer once regarded as self-evident and later treated with reservation and eventually with great doubt bordering on denial of the historicity of the figure)

The book is at our university library. I'll try to get hold of it. But for now it looks like Marx is being tied to Bauer on mythicism without any real basis. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not how Google Books works. When a book is only available for snippet preview, every word search will only return a maximum of three results at a time. So just because a search for "Jesus" only returns three results (pp. 30, 33, 55), that doesn't mean that there are only three pages in the book on which that word appears. For example, if you search for both "Jesus" and "myth", you still get only three pages... but they are differet pages: 30, 31, 38. If you search for "Jesus" and "exist", you get pages 33, 49, 56. Eugene (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, yes precisely there would be a reference to a written statement by Marx. Virtually everything he ever wrote is available online and searchable at wwww.marxists.org. He hardly ever mentioned Jesus. He did say a fair bit about religion, and a lot of it was in the context of critiquing Bauer and Feuerbach. Every single sentence of that has been pored over and disagreed about. Young people in Britain are currently struggling to write A Level Philosophy exam answers on The German Ideology, and I think it's also a set text in the French baccalaureate exams. So we need secondary sources to make claims, and there are no shortage of such sources. Great that Akhilleus is getting the Zvi Cohen. Thrower's book is a good source for us. David McLellan is a respected commentator on Marx, has written on Marx and religion, says nothing about Marx's views on the historicity of Jesus. Applying Occam's razor, let's just note that atheists, in general are not much exercised by whether Jesus really lived or not. It is not all that relevant to an atheist perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you said,

Applying Occam's razor, let's just note that atheists, in general are not much exercised by whether Jesus really lived or not. It is not all that relevant to an atheist perspective.

I couldn't agree more. Only militant atheists, or the typical "village atheist", would get "exercised". However, the claim that only certain scholars think that Jesus existed - because they are Christians, or went to religious schools, etc. - has been made over and over again on this page. Therefore, what do you think about including a FAQ like this, so that we don't have to rehash the issue repeatedly?

1: Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV?

Response: While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy.

Do you think that's fair? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree this is part of the problem there are deeper issues that the FAQ currently avoids:

"What separates the Christ Myth Theory from the idea that Jesus existed but the Gospels tell little to nothing about him?"
How does the Christ Myth Theory differ from the idea that King Arthur and Robin Hood are composite characters with a possible historical core?"
If the Christ Myth Theory is the idea Jesus never existed why are theories he may have lived a century earlier sometimes considered part of the theory?"

"I've seen an author call someone who accepts there may have been a first century Jesus a Christ Myth Theorist and am confused regarding the definition."--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

BG, while I appreciate your concerns above, there have been several editors in the past that think scholars who are Christian, or scholars who are not religious but went to religious schools, are not to be trusted. There has been an honest, and successful, effort made to include scholars that are not religious, and the vast majority of such scholars concur with religious scholars. That is all this FAQ is attempting to say.

With my experience on this article, I think that militant atheists would be against such a FAQ because it takes away a weapon from their argument. But if we are honest, then I think most of us would agree that this FAQ is neither pro-Christian nor pro-atheist - rather, it is neutral and disinterested. So, what do you think? (By the way, I reformatted your previous question above to make it easier to read. I hope you don't mind.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a "militant atheist" has plenty of targets on the range to shoot at to discredit Christianity you have to ask why would one pick the "Jesus didn't exist" target. There is the easier "The Gospel Jesus didn't exist" target right next to it which is a lot harder to deal with as you are saying the Gospel Jesus is a composite character (ie by definition non historical) that may or may not contain a historical first century teacher. Note how carefully Doherty plays this card in his "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review effectively establishing a very different definition of "modern Jesus mythicists" (ie Christ Myth theorist) then what is used in this article. It certainly doesn't help that as I pointed out back in Archive 22 Wells' himself called Paul's Jesus a "supernatural personage" (twice in fact) and stated that Paul's Jesus and the Q-Jesus "have been fused into one."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The relevant disciplines

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Eugene asked a very good question and sadly things went south. In a effort to get this back on topic here are the general disciplines that I can think of applying here: Historical Anthropology (Ethnology), New Testament archeology, Theology, Mythology, New Testament History, New Testament Literary criticism, and Philosophy. IMHO Egyptology don't really count as the whole Egyptian sun deity connection died a miserable twitching death decades ago.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how philosophy is relevant, nor theology (at least to the central issue; thought it would be relevant to the "uses" section), and ethnology would only seem to be relevant with regard to macro cultural issues--such as the implausibility of 1st century Jews adopting pagan myths wholesale. Eugene (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above re each article belonging to a discipline. If this one is about a superseded notion that is perpetuated in populist writing, then we really need sources that deal with populist writings. Perhaps something about cultural dumbing-down? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that its implausible to suppose that 1st century Jews adopted pagan myths wholesale. However, much more likely is that 3rd century Romans and Greeks and Persians - who already had shed-loads of pagan myths - incorporated them into the new "Christian" doctrines and scriptures, over-writing the original Jewish scriptures, and then burned the original copies. What kind of -ology would that be - fraudulantreligionology? Wdford (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That would be paranoia, so probably psychopathology. Eugene (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that we are discussing belief systems of 1st century Eurasia, New Testament scholars are experts. Thanks to Feuerbach et al. they can take a historical/scientific approach to the life of Jesus and his contemporaries ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the reason is paranoid the process is not. One must remember from the building of the Colosseum on the Roman Empire was in cultural decline. Books from the libraries were used to keep the baths heated long before the Christians came to power. We know that the early Christians weren't above take Pagan holidays and putting a Christian spin on them--after all that is how Jesus wound up with a Dec 25 birthday in the 4st century. That is also the century that one form of Christianity with it version of Jesus became "official" and all others Heresy. The official version of Christianity had the resources to keep its version alive while other versions withered on the vine through a combination of active persecution and neglect so when the Western Empire finally fell apart there was only one 'official' voice.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

^[1] --Ari (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)I put out Philosophy mainly because Philo via the Resmburg list (or some variant of it) has been presented, Theology because it is "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth", and Historical Anthropology (Ethnology) for far broader reason than simply how easily 1st century Jews would adopt pagan ideas- like how skeptical was the average 1st century Roman citizen aka Richard Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)". One thing we must remember is that the Christan message that became canon was aimed at Gentiles and Jews alike and it if in appealing to the Gentiles that the pagan stuff would have been brought in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The core of the Christian faith regarding the resurrection of Jesus was quite contrary to Graeco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife; the physicality of it was viewed as primitive. More importantly, take note of wp:or and WP:SYN --Ari (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Although the core of the Christian faith regarding the resurrection of Jesus was quite contrary to Jewish beliefs and doctrines as well. We should also take note of the fact that the date of Christmas is based on pagan input, the name "Easter" is a pagan fertility goddess, Easter eggs and Easter bunnies are pagan fertility symbols, "patron saints" simply replaced pagan deities (patron saint of farmers replaces god of the harvest etc), the Madonna and Child image is a direct copy of the Isis with Horus image, Catholic bishops carry the same staff that Egyptian priest-kings carried and I presume many others also exist. Do we have a wikipedia article on all the pagan symbolism and ritual that has been absorbed into Christianity? Wdford (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was a divergence - many Jews at the time believed in a physical resurrection, they just didn't expect it to happen to an individual before a general resurrection. That said, the early Christians were Jewish and their beliefs developed within that matrix, so to state that it wasn't Jewish is kinda...meaningless. But I digress - albeit, not as far as you have. For example, you should look up the word Pesach/Pascha before talking about Easter having pagan origins. I also like the one about the staffs - Jewish rabbis carried staffs, Greco-Roman cynics carried staffs, Jesus charged his disciples to take no staff, etc. But you cracked the code - Christianity is practically a copy-paste of Egyptian priest-kings. --Ari (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah so - you know you are on to something when Ari resorts to misquoting, diversion and sarcasm. For the record, I never said Easter had "pagan origins", merely that the name and fertility symbols currently associated with Easter had pagan origins - which is not disputed. Not really the same thing, is it Ari? I never said Christianity is a copy-paste of Egyptian priest-kings - that is just Ari resorting to extreme misquoting in order to divert attention from the real point, namely that much pagan symbolism has been absorbed into modern Chistianity. And Ari has inadvertently confirmed one of my points - many religions carried staffs, Jesus told Christians not to carry staffs, yet Catholic bishops carry staffs today as per the pagans but in contravention of Jesus own instruction. Hmmmmm. Wdford (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack noted and ignored. I don't quite see how it was a misquote as we were talking about the earliest resurrection tradition. This was anything but Pagan, yet you go ahead and make some forced connections anyway. So what is the point? The earliest Christians and their contemporaries had never heard of the English word Easter or its Germanic root, yet you find this relevant to explaining the CMT or pagan influence on earliest Christianity? The same goes for your erroneous claim that "Catholic bishops carry the same staff that Egyptian priest-kings carried." What is the point, what has it got to do with the historical Jesus or CMT? Is it anything but an erroneous polemic? --Ari (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually we weren't talking about the earliest resurrection tradition, we were talking about the extent to which pagan mythology has influenced Christian mythology - and I never limited that influence only to the earliest Christians either. Egyptian priest-kings carried the shepherds-crook as part of their regalia - as do bishops today - there is nothing erroneous about that at all. The fact that modern Christianity incorporates pagan mythology indicates that modern Christianity is partly mythical - which directly addresses the issue of which disciplines are relevant to the article. Wdford (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we were. You see, what does some late Germanic word have to do with Jesus or the CMT? A word that has nothing to do with the resurrection, historicity of Jesus or anything but poorly conceived polemics. And again, how is your claim that Bishops carry the same staff as Egyptian kings relevant or even accurate. Frankly, there are thousands of cultural specific examples of people carrying staffs. So, I still see no relevance to this article other than some unverified, factually questionable assertions by an editor. Hence the reason I suggested BruceGrubb reacquaint himself with OR and Synth before going on. --Ari (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Ari, we were not talking about the resurrection – you introduced that word all by yourself. We were talking about the impact of MYTHOLOGY on the Christ MYTH Theory. And what does this particular Germanic MYTH have to do with the Christ MYTH Theory? Well, in the context that the CMT regards Christianity as being based on MYTH, and the indisputable fact that Christians today do incorporate this particular Germanic MYTH into their religious terminology and practices, it seems to be very relevant to this thread on the subject of which specialist disciplines should be considered reliable sources. Exactly when the Germanic MYTH got adopted into the Christian MYTH is irrelevant – since we were talking about MYTHOLOGY generally and not just the resurrection myth, as you now attempt to assert. To assist you with your concern about the factual accuracy of my comment re the adoption of Egyptian crooks by Catholic clergy, see the examples attached. ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] Wdford (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For people talking about mythology, BruceGrubb and I had a strange complete silence on it. I'm not going to bother with the image thing (seriously?). You simply don't understand myth if you think that English speakers using the word Easter means that they are incorporating Germanic myth into anything. How is a word disassociated by many years and an entire cultural shift incorporation of myth? How is a word completely foreign to Jesus and the early Christians relevant to CMT? It's rhetorical so you don't need to bother. I personally don't care for your ill-informed attempts at forcefully causing fights that have nothing to do with the discussion. But if you must, go for your life here and stick to something relevant on this talk page. --Ari (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) I don't see how Ari can say "The core of the Christian faith regarding the resurrection of Jesus was quite contrary to Graeco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife; the physicality of it was viewed as primitive." as my copy of Mythology(1942) by Edith Hamilton provided many examples of things that could be viewed as precursors to much of the Jesus story including the resurrection. The concept of Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell might as well been lifted lock, stock, and barrel from Hades' Elysium, the Asphodel Meadows, and Tartarus. Hamilton talks about how some Elysium souls could elect to return to the physical world (reincarnation or resurrection?), the story of Asclepius who was killed by Zeus via thunderbolt for bringing a man back from the dead, and the sad story of Orpheus--all of which in some form or another involve someone returning from the realm of the dead tot he realm of the living. Outside of Hamilton you variants of the Sisyphus where he handcuffs Hades rather than Death in his dog kennel preventing anyone form dying--so it is not like the details in the myths are always consistent and Hamilton explained this was due to regional differences and when local beliefs were incorporated into the larger Greek-Roman mythos (this used to explain why Zeus is so unfaithful to his wife--the other women were part of the local mythology with the local supreme deity being replaced with Zeus). It is kind of interesting that in Alcestis_(play) 438 BCE you have Heracles bringing a woman back from the dead who must wait three days in silence before she formally became part of the living again. We also need to realize that a lot of Christ Myth Theory involves tradition that is not in the Gospels or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter such the December 25 birthday or the three kings (only Matthew mentions magi and he never states how many there were). An interesting Pro Historical Jesus site is [Jesus Police] because it sometimes uses citations by Christ Mythers to show some traditions about Jesus are incorrect.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I can say it quite easily, with scholarly consensus backing me. That isn't to say that I am not sure that you can jump into some original research and deal with something other than what I said. --Ari (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What "scholarly consensus"? Stephen J. Bedard's "Hellenistic Influence on the Idea of Resurrection in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature" Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism abstract states "It is common to encounter the assertion regarding ancient concepts of the afterlife that a bodily resurrection is a Jewish view and a bodiless spirit existence is a Greek view. However, an examination of resurrection texts within Jewish apocalyptic literature reveals much in common with Greek ideas of an afterlife. Jewish resurrection texts that describe an angelic transformation are remarkably similar to the Greek concept of apotheosis where a hero is transformed into a god at death. It is possible that apotheosis traditions played a significant role in the articulation of the Jewish belief in a bodily resurrection."

Lehtipuu (2007) "The Afterlife Imagery in Luke's Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus" Brill in chapter 5 points out the numerous problems with forming a reliable picture of how Greco-Roman changed over time--the lack of being able to determine dates for much of what we have. Sure Homer's afterlife of c850 BCE is a dismal place but contrast that with Virgil's (c19 BCE at the latest) as Hamilton does in the "Gods of the Waters" chapter. In fact, Hamilton expressly states "The later poets define the world of the dead more and more clearly as the place where the wicked are punished and the good rewarded." So from Homer to Virgil you have a change in the Greco-Roman view of the afterlife but there are few if any sign posts to tell you when things changed. Gary Amirault in "The Early Christian View of the Savior" shows by quoting Christian scholar after Christian scholar showing the various pagan idea coming into Christianity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I know that the criteria for inclusion in the body text is three scholarly references. I've included a couple of sites in the "External links" section whose authors don't qualify on that standard. Since they aren't in the body text and since Doherty, Humphreys, and Kane's site are probably the most heavily trafficed mythicist sites I thought it was okay. The article says that the CMT is largely an internet phenomenon now, after all. Any objections? Eugene (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene, the additional links are helpful. I hope no one minds that I restored the links to the article by Dan Barker and the movie The God That Wasn't There. I think these can be helpful to the reader since they are both arguably prominent current advocates of some version of CMT. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Barker and TGWWT links improve the article. Whereas the Doherty, Humphreys, Kane, and Holding link all connect to substantive sites with many pages and sub-pages of information and argument (generally well organized), Barker's is just a single lack-luster page and TGWWT is like more than an ad, hardly an "advocacy site". I'd prefer to remove these links. Barker is already mentioned in the article's body text (and wikilinked) in connection with the Freedom from Religion Foundation and also in the external links in connection with a debate. Likewise TGWWT is also mentioned and wiki-linked in the article's body text. So it isn't like I'm trying to suppress any thing, I just don't think that these specific links add to the over-all quality of the article. Eugene (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eugene. I agree that the movie link is more of a promotional page than an advocacy page. It does contribute to the article to the extent that it documents a current advocate of the theory in "popular culture", but I see your point about it not really being an advocacy site in the same sense as the others. I do like the link to the one page article by Dan Barker, simply because it shows a current advocate of the CMT very succinctly explaining his views and his justification for them. I do think the design of the page is, unfortunately, a bit ugly, but the content is completely relevant and helpful to the reader who wants to explore further, if they can read the article without getting a headache. ;^) PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, given so many non scholarly Christ Myther's use Resmburg's The Christ do you think that a link to it would be prudent?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I understand your reasoning, but imagine other articles doing this sort of thing: an article on Christian cults linking to Jim Jones, not because his was a Christian cult, but because it wasn't and no reliable sources says that it was, just in case someone was confused and wanted more information. This strikes me as unnecessary. Eugene (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad example as there are reliable sources that either call or imply People's Temple under Jim Jones was a "Christian Cult" which I found with just 5 minutes of searching:

Allitt, Patrick (2005) Religion in America Since 1945: A History Columbia University Press --"The most explosive Christian cult of the 1970s, which amply justified such parental fears, was the People's Temple,..." (pg 137)

Sanders, Randolph K. (1997) "Christian Counseling Ethics: A Handbook for Therapists, Pastors, & Counselors" IVP Academic pg 207 (about two pages of stuff)

Dawson, Lorne L. (2009) Cults and new religious movements Wiley-Blackwell states "This group began as an emotionally extreme but culturally traditional Christian sect, then evolved into a cult..."

Don't ever say "no reliable sources say" because odds are someone somewhere there is one that say just that. Heck I have seen articles supporting homeopathy in Lancet (K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," September 20, 1997, 350:834-843)--for the record later articles in Lancet showed there were flaws in this study so they did correct their earlier gaff but the fact remains a flawed study did get past the peer review panel.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Religious and Theological Scholarship

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion

I am adding a new section to address the question of the reliability of religious and theological sources. I have included this dialogue from earlier on the page in a compressed FAQ format to provide context (and not eat up too much 'real estate').

1:Copy of discussion from another area of this page...