Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Category:Denialism and other categories

I boldly added this page to Category:Denialism, and it lasted almost a day (which is probably longer than I expected), before User:Mmeijeri reverted it with the edit summary "blatant POV". Mmeijeri then boldly removed Category:Bible conspiracy theories and Category:Pseudohistory as well. The thing is, Category:Denialism seems to fit perfectly. Virtually every professional historian agrees that Jesus existed, and the Christ myth theory denies this. How is this not a denial of accepted historical fact? StAnselm (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think denialism is for crackpot theories. Some of the wilder CMT variants may fit that bill (Acharya S.?), but not people like Carrier, Price or Brodie. Also, we don't have publications by those countless professional historians, just remarks in interviews and claims by HJ scholars. I don't really doubt a majority of historians do accept the historicity of Jesus, but for whatever reason they have not published about it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The denialism article says "In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial." Is that just for crackpot theories? Well, I note the phrase is used a lot of climate change denialism. Is that a crackpot theory? I simply don't think that's a helpful phrase to use. No doubt some would call the "Christ myth theory" a crackpot theory. In any case, Wikiquote:Christ myth theory has a section on "Denialist Comparisons". N. T. Wright says that asking him to debate with proponents of the Christ myth theory "is like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese." Anyway, as far as I can tell, there is no member of the history faculty of any major university who has publicly denied Jesus' existence. Richard Carrier is a historian, but doesn't hold a faculty position. (And maybe that's because of his views. And maybe proponents of this position are excluded from the halls of academia. Alas, that has always been a hallmark of denialism.) So it's not just the "majority of scholars" who deny Jesus existed - it is virtually every single one of them. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the Denialism policy page, you'll see that it means things like Young Earth Creationism. Wright's opinion isn't really relevant, he's a former bishop and an apologist. His views may be notable, but he doesn't speak for scholarship. It is true that there are very few if any professional historians who deny the historicity of Jesus. It is equally true that very few professional historians have written about it. The historicity debate is one that takes place in in HJ and CMT circles, not among professional historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by the policy page? Do you mean the category page? StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I checked just now and it looks as if that's the page I meant after all. Maybe I confused it with WP:FRINGE. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the category contains Young Earth creationism, but also Armenian Genocide denial, the official policy of the Turkish government. So it's wrong to say it "means things like Young Earth Creationism.". What it means is "the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of scholarly consensus". StAnselm (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Religion isn't a scientific consensus nor are matters of history, so according to the denialism page, The Christ Myth theory does not qualify. Many scientist may personally believe in Jesus but it can not be proven by means of science, or at least, it hasn't been. This is completely different than Young Earth Creationist and Climate Change deniers that do refuse basic concepts of scientific consensus.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Denialism is not limited to the denial of scientific consensus, but includes all sorts of historical matters as well--denial of the moon landing would be one example. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It usually is limited, though, to denial of things for which there is overwhelming evidence. There's no surviving evidence that Jesus existed, so people can quite reasonably believe whatever they want to about his existence or non-existence without needing a slur-category attached to them. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I was using the quoted definition from Stanselm which seems was specifically limited to scientific denialism. So the general definition from the wikipedia article is "In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth." So to claim that the Christ myth theory is denialism, I believe you'd have to prove that Jesus's historical existence is truth. According to the historical Jesus entry, the only main arguments supporting the existence of Jesus are multiple attestation and criterion of embarrassment and neither of those are actual proof of Jesus's existence and those methods are not sufficient to prove accuracy or reliability. This is contrary to the moon landing example where we have photos and videos of the event. Same with Climate Change. Climate Change isn't true because most scientists assert that it's true. It's true because of the empirical evidence that scientific research has discovered. That being said, less than 33% of the world is Christian, so I doubt many of those other religions accept the existence of Jesus as truth. I'm well aware that some do, but to pretend that it's a truth held by the majority of people is not only an irrelevant claim but it's inaccurate as well. Regardless, calling this article "denialism" violates wikipedia policy regarding OR and POV. Maybe find a reliable secondary source that calls it denialism and we can make a sub-section for it.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I say below, I don't care whether the category denialism is used or not. But there's already a secondary source quoted in this very discussion which calls this denialism. I could find more, if necessary. However, I doubt these sources would be useful, as the kinds of evidence people seem to want are of course going to be lacking here--there are no photos or videos of Jesus, nor an original painting, autograph, or letter. These are not the kinds of evidence that convince a historian of the classical world that someone existed. The sources that convince a historian of the classical world that Jesus existed are primarily the books of the New Testament--in fact, that evidence is so compelling that the question of whether Jesus existed doesn't occur to most classical historians. It's as strange as asking whether Socrates or Scipio Africanus existed. It doesn't have much to do with whether one is a Christian, either--it just has to do with how scholars who study antiquity deal with ancient evidence (much of which is literary, that is, writing). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is completely wrong, but it brilliantly summarises the muddled thinking that stains the article.

In reality, historians deal in evidence. There is no evidence one way or the other regarding Jesus' existence. It is, therefore, not a question which is amenable to historical study. This is why "most" "historians" have not written about it.

It is true that there is a consensus amongst a small number of quasi-historians that Jesus existed, based on their acceptance, contrary to normal academic practice, of the reliability of non-contemporaneous religious texts. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to study the Bible as a historical document but this does not prove Jesus existed, hence why the historical Jesus article doesn't just cite the Bible as proof of a historical Jesus. Your examples are also slightly off and make a false equivalency. See, we know Homer exists or at least, someone known as Homer because he wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. However, historians don't take those books and consider the characters within them to have actually existed without any other evidence. They don't think that Hades or Achilles actually existed. By examining the Bible as a historical document, we know approximately when different books were written and by whom. However, since all of the accounts of Jesus were written about 40 years after his death, the gospels and other text amount to hearsay, which is not evidence of existence. That's why the apologists you want to accept as historians try to use the criterion of embarrassment and the multiple attestation principle to prove their position which is nothing more than speculation and doesn't actually count as evidence. We have no books written by Jesus or even secondary accounts of his existence, just the testimonials of people who knew a guy who knew a guy, that's called hearsay and there's a reason we don't accept that in the court of law and it's not acceptable as evidence.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care whether this category applies to this article, because I think the category system is a poorly thought out kludge and I've seen no real evidence that it helps readers find articles. However, I want to dispute (as I've done before) Martijn's assertion that few professional historians have written about the subject of this article. That's because scholars who study the historical Jesus are professional historians--they study a particular part of the past, using historical methods. (It often seems to go forgotten on this and other pages that deal with the historical Jesus, but the whole idea of a historical Jesus--as opposed to a "Christ of faith"--arises from treating the New Testament as historical documents, and this was first done by 19th century scholars who took the methods established by Leopold von Ranke and others for the study of other fields and applied them to early Christianity.) It's not as if there's some guild controlling the title of "professional historian" who only allows people in history departments to call themselves historians! Although if there were, the frequent cross-listing of courses in early Christianity as history courses would be a sign that history departments think scholars who study early Christianity fit the bill... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the professional quality of the work done by biblical scholars as historians. There is widespread criticism of this, both inside and outside the field. Meier for instance has said they are doing theology and calling it history. It is at best historically informed theology. Which is fine, and sometimes even notable, but let's not call it history. The problem I have is with misrepresenting the opinions of biblical scholars as those of ancient historians in general (Ehrman in particular is guilty of this, but others do it too) and with puffing up the almost nonexistent historical credentials of a fringe group of academics, namely biblical scholars and theologians. This is quite separate from the question of the historicity of Jesus, about which I'm agnostic. Historicity is quite a plausible theory, and people like Price agree. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Denialism category is completely appropriate and should be re-added. I've read the arguments of those opposed and I find them to be weak and in some cases, self-contradictory. In any event, per WP:NOCONSENSUS the article should be restored to the previous version until a stronger consensus emerges. Roccodrift (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What would you like a citation for? In any case, I boldly added the Denialism category, and my addition was reverted, so it's not part of the status quo. On the other hand, anyone is free to revert the deletion of Category:Bible conspiracy theories and Category:Pseudohistory, which were boldly removed. StAnselm (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur on both points. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My statement is clear in context. Rocco said it's denialism but offered no citations. I asked for citations. MilesMoney (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Obviously, we are only going to ever get someone's opinion that it's denialism, because it's a subjective assessment. But that would go for Young Earth creationism, Armenian Genocide denial, and climate change denial as well. The wikiquote page I linked to has a few:

• Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎: "This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today."
• Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee: "Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."

StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

One obvious difference is that in all of these cases the minority point of view is also obviously the one with a religious / ideological axe to grind. In the case of the CMT, it's the other way around. In those other cases there is a large body of neutral, professional literature about the subject, which is not the case for the historicity of Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not even sure why this is an issue. The existence of Jesus is almost universally accepted, far higher than AGW. His existence is verified through many other sources aside from the bible. Do not forget that Jerusalem was under Roman rule at this time, and many Roman historical documents verify his existence. Arzel (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an issue, their is no evidence for the existence of Jesus so the Christ myth theory is not denialism. I've given multiple examples of why this is the case and you haven't refuted any of them. On top of that, if there was all of this evidence you guys are claiming proves the existence of Jesus, then there would be more than the two speculative justifications, criterion of embarrassment and multiple attestation, on the historicity of Jesus and historical Jesus articles. As far as your sources go Stanselm, neither of those are scholarly sources and both are published by Christian organizations making them not reliable when evaluating their historical merit. Find a scholarly source and then, like I said previously, I'm fine with you mentioning it in the "criticism" section, but it's still not sufficient to characterize the entire article by that notion. Thus far the only arguments for why it's denailism are appeals to authority and popularity, neither of which justify the claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

^^This^^ is what denialism looks like, folks. Roccodrift (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

^^This is what assertion without proof looks like. You haven't supplied a single source of evidence for me to deny.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

As has already been discussed, there is a broad consensus among historians that Jesus was a real person and further debate of the bare fact is not only silly and pointless, it's beyond the scope of what we, as editors, are here to do. Roccodrift (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not even a subject that he was real person or not, this is misunderstanding that the page is made for opposing his presence. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very likely that there was a historical Jesus, especially if we allow a broad interpretation of what qualifies (which we should). It looks like the best explanation for the evidence we have today, so long as we're ok with concluding that not everything attributed to Jesus is historical.

Having said that, proving the historicity of someone from two thousand years ago isn't exactly trivial, so comparisons with WWII are glib nonsense. We have living witnesses to the Holocaust; we have tons of physical evidence, from death camps to documents. There is no doubt at all. On the other hand, the evidence for Jesus, while likely sufficient, is about as sparse as you might expect for someone who died long ago and was, during his life, not particularly important. Even the comparison between Jesus and the contemporaneous emperor is glib precisely because the emperor was a VIP during his own life.

So why is it that we can find some sources willing to spout this glib nonsense? That's the issue we need to deal with in order to evaluate reliability. The basic answer is what Scooby said: there is a methodological conflict between historians and theologians. For the latter, the existence of Jesus as God is an article of faith, so the historical Jesus is so obvious to them that even reasonable doubt seems crazy. For the former, it's the conclusion which has the preponderance of evidence, but is still a reasonable target for criticism, especially on the matter of which details fit.

Now, we can't sugar coat any of this. We absolutely must mention that particular experts (even if they are more theologians than historians) call it denialism. We just have to be careful about taking sides and speaking in Wikipedia's voice, especially when it overlaps with BLP. That's why we should probably avoid blunt tools such as categories. MilesMoney (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a useful discussion of the issues, Miles. Yes indeed, this particular matter is clouded by the conflict of interest between history and theology, so extra caution is warranted. But the conflict cuts both ways: just as there are those who want to prove the existence of Jesus for theological reasons, there are also those who want to deny the credibility of scholarship for anti-theological reasons.

As a figure from classical antiquity, the thinness of the hard evidence for Jesus' existence is hardly unique. There are other well-known persons from early history (Homer, Confucius, etc) whose existence is seldom or never questioned, even though the evidence that they actually lived is scant. So, when otherwise reasonable people choose to ignore the findings of learned men in order to suit their own whim... yes, that is denialism. Roccodrift (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

We actually have books written by Homer called the Iliad and the Odyssey and that's direct, historical proof of his existence. Those that support the Christ myth theory explain that there is no actual evidence proving the existence of a historical Jesus. This article is to explain the criticisms of the existence of a historical Jesus and discuss the various issues regarding what some theologians believe counts as proof. This article is littered with attempts of people trying to silence and discredit these criticisms. Instead of actually listing rebuttals or arguments that refute the criticisms skeptics have of Jesus's historicity, they merely make appeals to authority and appeals to popularity. If those who doubted the existence of Jesus behaved the same way, then they'd plaster "myth", "mythology", "fiction" and quote a bunch of people who share their views all over Christianity articles as well as the article on Jesus and the historical Jesus. This article is to educate people about skepticism of the existence of Jesus and instead of just asserting that these views are wrong and quoting people who assert these views are wrong, how about you actually present the counter arguments and rebuttals so a reader can evaluate the logical arguments and actual evidence fairly. Notice how the historians and scholars that don't believe in the historical existence of Jesus don't just say "JESUS NEVER EXISTED...SO THERE". They actually present arguments and rebuttals disputing the attempts of those who assert Jesus existed. That's how you have a discussion, not by committing logical fallacies and claiming you've won. It's not denialism because the existence of Jesus, though largely regarded to be true, is not a proven truth or fact, hence why the valid and logical skepticism exists. This is different than the moon landing or holocaust deniers because we have proof and evidence that proves those events, same with the existence of Homer and the Iliad. We don't have actual proof of Jesus and that's the issue.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying "there is no proof", but what is proof? What proof is there that Homer wrote the Illiad? For that matter, what proof is there that Homer actually lived? The answer is that we have written works, authored by persons judged to be credible, that attest to Homer's existence. This happens to be precisely the same sort of evidence we have for Jesus. Notably, we have Josephus, who is held to be pretty reliable. You are merely employing a favorite trick of denialists, by insisting on a standard of evidence that is not applied to other questions. Roccodrift (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The historicity of Homer is actually an open question. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know what proof is then you can't possibly be sincere in your claims that Jesus existed. There isn't proof that Homer wrote the Iliad but the fact that the Iliad and the Odyssey are both accredited to Homer is enough historical evidence that Homer existed. These are what we call primary sources when referring to the historicity of Homer. It's quite possible that Homer was a pseudonym used by someone else or multiple poets, but regardless, he is credited with writing the poems and is thus a historical figure. Jesus has 0 primary sources credited to him and 0 secondary sources credited to others. Josephus was born after the believed date of Jesus's death so his information regarding Jesus is hearsay. Remember how I referenced the judicial system? It's because hearsay is not reliable evidence which is why it's inadmissible in the court of law. So the evidence for the existence of Homer is completely different for the evidence of Jesus, or I should say, lack of evidence for Jesus. Trying to equate the two is a false equivalency. There is no double standard in what counts as proof for historical figures, you just don't know what proof is, as you've already a admitted. I've already explained how the main "proof" for the existence of Jesus are the criterion of embarrassment and multiple attestation, both of which do not prove accuracy and are not sufficient as evidence. You referencing Josephus and his work is not a proof of Jesus. That's why theologians use Josephus's work as one of the cases of multiple attestation, because they know Josephus and his work alone are not enough to prove the existence of Jesus.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). "Chapter Two". Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8. At the end of the day, I think we can discount Suetonius as too ambiguous to be of much use. Pliny is slightly more useful in showing us that Christians by the early second century knew of Christ and worshipped him as divine. Tacitus is most useful of all, for his reference shows that high-ranking Roman officials of the early second century knew that Jesus had lived and had been executed by the governor of Judea. That, at least, is a start. ... As a result, even though both the mythicists and their opponents like to fight long and hard over the Testimonium of Josephus, in fact it is only marginally relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed.

These being said, I recommend reading the whole book before putting forward an original research case that Jesus did not exist. Ehrman states that Jesus' existence is consensually agreed among scholars (consensus isn't unanimity). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's entirely true and it's what Wikipedia should be saying. We absolutely cannot pretend that the Christ myth theory is what the consensus of scholars support, because that would be a huge lie. My only concern is that we not cross the line into Godwin's law by equating skepticism with Holocaust denialism. We should publish the accusations of denialism; we shouldn't call these true in Wikipedia's voice. This is, again, why the category is a bad idea. MilesMoney (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Scooby... you reference Homer's authorship of the Iliad as proof of his existence... then you acknowledge that maybe Homer didn't write it? That's absurd. But not as absurd as the statement that there are zero secondary sources attributed to Jesus. You ARE a denialist, no question about it. Roccodrift (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You've yet to provide a single fact for me to deny and again, this is typical naivety, you're making assertions without providing evidence. Where are the secondary sources? List them. I doubt you even know what a secondary source is based on your last response. Here's an example of secondary evidence used to prove the existence of a historical figure, Plato's writings about the teachings of Socrates is a secondary source for proving the historicity of Socrates. Why? Because Plato studied under Socrates and recorded his teachings. That's an eyewitness account, it's not hearsay. This is what recorded testimony about Jesus lacks and historians and theologians agree on that point, hence why they have to use speculation as the proof of Jesus's existence. So it's certainly not a demonstrable fact with evidence that people deny, the whole point is that the "supposed" evidence isn't sufficient and is purely speculative. As far as Homer is concerned, it's apparent you just struggle with reading comprehension if you think my statement about him is contradictory or absurd. We know Josephus existed because we have books attributed to his authorship the same way the Iliad and numerous other poems are attributed to Homer and thus verify his existence. Though it's possible Homer might have been a pseudonym, it still becomes an historical figure because we have the poems as evidence and we know someone wrote them and scholars have determined that author is Homer. There is no remotely similar evidence for the existence of Jesus when compared to Homer. Regardless, the talk page isn't meant for people to engage in their own original research and debate it. Listing this entire article as "denialsim" is erroneous and violates POV policy. Like I said numerous times before, it's fine to include assertions of denialism in the "criticisms" section with appropriate sources being used. On top of that, for the 3rd time, I'd like to actually see rebuttals to the mythological Jesus arguments instead of just appeals to authority with those authorities just dismissing the idea due to its lack of popularity or absurdity. People should easily be able to read the counter arguments of why the Christ myth theory falls flat and not just 30 different quotes of people saying "It's wrong because I said so."Scoobydunk (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The historicity of Homer is questionable, but since nobody worships him as God, it's not a big deal and doesn't lead to Godwinning. MilesMoney (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I heard you before when you said that and I addressed it. Whether Homer is a fictitious or constructed name he/they are still accredited for writing the Iliad and other epic poems. Those poems are proof of the existence of that writer and we refer to that writer as Homer. The point is, we have proof because there is primary and direct evidence left behind by that author. To parallel this to Jesus it would just compound the issue because once you get past proving that such a person existed, you'd then have to prove that his name was actually Jesus and that it wasn't Frank and people were just calling him Jesus. The historicity of Homer mostly has to do with the real name of the author behind the Iliad, Odyssey, and other poems, however, we know such an author/authors exists because we have direct proof left behind by that author. This is not the same case with the historicity of Jesus. That's all I'm saying. To equate the skepticism of the historicity of Jesus to the historicity of Homer is a false equivalency. I'm not saying that's what you were trying to do, maybe you were trying to point out there are things many people are certain of that still have some valid doubts, but either way, it doesn't refute the points made about Homer and other examples used where actual evidence exists.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The name hardly matters at all. The real issue is whether all of the sayings and stories attributed to Jesus come from a particular historical figure. The Jesus Seminar concluded that some of the sayings did, some didn't, and others were iffy. But they started off with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus and interpreted the evidence in that light. As for the stories, there's the whole synoptic problem, which seems intractable.

So, like I said, it's probably a mistake to say there was no Jesus, but the mistake isn't just in the conclusion, it's in casting the issue simplistically in terms of existence. The real question is where all this stuff came from and what it means.

The point remains that we have to be very careful about claiming that scholarly skepticism, even the most unpopular and religiously offensive sort, is denialism. MilesMoney (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Those issues are not relevant to the Christ myth theory and they are red herrings. Anyone with a basic understanding of reasoning and critical thinking knows that if you make a claim you have to support it with evidence. People are making claims that a historical Jesus existed but they offer no sufficient evidence for his existence and use speculation in the form of the criterion of embarrassment and multiple attestation. Just because belief in the existence of Jesus is "popular" among theologians and historians, doesn't mean it's a "truth" or "fact" and pretending popularity or authority validates a claim to his existence is logically fallacious. Skeptics about the historicity of Jesus are asking for sufficient evidence and aren't getting any. This is different than people in denial who are presented with sufficient evidence but just reject it outright. The skeptics in this article explain the logical fallacies in the historicity of Jesus and how the assertions of historians and theologians aren't sufficient. People in denial, like the flat earthers, are given actual evidence like pictures from space, mathematical calculations, photos of the horizon, the explanation of seasons in different parts of the planet and instead of being able to offer logically valid rebuttals, they speculate fabrication of evidence, which is denial. Pointing out that there is no sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus is not denialism because the existence of Jesus hasn't been proven as a fact. Just an FYI, I haven't been saying that Jesus never existed. It seems you think I'm making the argument, and I'm not because it would be just as erroneous if not more so than the position I'm arguing against.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the policy relevant to CMT is WP:FRINGE. The fringe accuses the mainstream of being in denial, that's funny. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins disagrees with you. John P. Meier says HJ researchers are by and large doing historically informed theology, not proper history. Akenson (a bona fide historian) is scathing about the lack of impartiality and historical rigour among HJ researchers. Perrin blithely accepts there is a risk of bias given that most biblical scholars are religious. Bultmann believed it was impossible to reconstruct anything of the life of Jesus, other than the bare fact that he lived and was crucified. The "third quest" is generally considered an embarrassment. Throughout the history of the field serious critics (Albert Schweitzer being a notable one) have observed that HJ researchers have tended to find mirror images of themselves in the supposedly historical Jesus. HJ research is not a mainstream scientific discipline and does not deserve to be treated as such. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you compare HJ scholars to "proper" historians a lot, you should investigate who and what proper historians are! I doubt many historians at US colleges and universities would say that their discipline is scientific. In fact, I'm not sure you'd find much agreement about what history is and how it should be studied, but I bet you'd find a lot of agreement that scientific objectivity is unattainable, and acknowledgment that interpretations of the past are shaped by the historian's own viewpoint. Nothing you've said, though, changes the fact that HJ scholars are the mainstream in regard to the CMT's fringe, and this does not depend on whether religious studies are "scientific" or not--it only depends on whether HJ scholars like Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes, Dominic Crossan, Amy-Jill Levine, and so on, are considered experts on this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was looking for a word somewhere between scientific and scholarly, one that indicates proper use of the scientific method without claiming the level of objectivity that's possible in the exact sciences. HJ research and CMT proponents are two schools of thought, and Wikipedia should not take sides. Both are amateur historians, and therefore we cannot report their views in the voice of Wikipedia. It's not me saying this, but respected and prominent scholars both inside and outside biblical scholarship and the criticism isn't minor, it's scathing. What we can do is to point out that proponents of the CMT, like HJ proponents, generally do not hold academic positions in the area of history, or even at all, unlike HJ scholars. We can also point out that the issue has seen very little study from real historians. We do at least have two bona fide historians (Grant and Akenson) who have studied the issue, and not a single one who supports the CMT. Nevertheless the HJ guild definitely are not the go-to guys on this topic. To suggest otherwise would be a blatant violation of impartiality. The scholars you mention are certainly notable, and their views ought to be mentioned. They can also probably speak for biblical criticism as a whole. They do not speak for science or scholarship in general. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Though he doesn't have an academic position in history, I still think Richard Carrier is a good proponent for CMT. He had a PhD in ancient history and it just seems his career has leaned more towards his atheistic beliefs than just the academia of ancient history which does not reduce his credibility.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Because he doesn't have an academic position in history, Carrier is by definition not a professional historian (in the sense that Mmeijeri means). Sure, he's trying to bring academic respectability to the CMT, and he knows how the game is played, so when his book comes out, it will probably be a good source for this article. I would guess that he will acknowledge the lack of acceptance of the CMT in scholarship.

Mmeijeri, I don't think you can justify the assertion that HJ scholars are amateur historians. I notice you mention Akenson's criticism a lot, but what evidence is there that his is a widely held opinion? Who else is there who says not only that he believes biblical scholars are amateur historians, but that historians generally regard HJ scholarship as amateur history? To have this article (or any other) declare that HJ scholarship isn't history would be a blatant violation of impartiality unless that can be demonstrated to be a widely held opinion among historians. My guess would be that most historians simply don't care about this, just as most aren't particularly interested in the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree, we certainly shouldn't state that HJ research is by and large the work of amateur historians in the article itself. Similarly we shouldn't make disparaging remarks about CMT proponents. At least we shouldn't make those remarks with the voice of Wikipedia, we can and probably should have attributed quotes about various criticisms between the various sides. I think the correct approach would be to side-step the issue by referring to biblical scholars simply as biblical scholars, or perhaps just scholars. Any other of the apparently very few scholars of antiquity who have studied the matter, like Grant and perhaps Akenson, can be mentioned and properly identified separately. We can still cite individual scholars who claim a wider consensus, with attribution. Perhaps we can even add a statement in WP voice that says that many biblical scholars have said that the consensus extends beyond the field of biblical scholarship, without taking sides on whether they are right or wrong.

As for whether this is a widely held opinion among historians, I don't think it is, but mainly because most historians aren't even interested in the issue as you say. But do note the opinion of Meier, who is a very prominent HJ scholar, who is quite emphatic that people are doing theology and calling it history. While I've regularly cited criticism of HJ research my main point is not to have that criticism included in the article. I do think that would be appropriate, but it's not my main point. My point is that we should not allow HJ research to speak with the voice of Wikipedia or to let it speak for historians or "scholars of antiquity" as Ehrman does. Again, as you say, it seems as if historians by and large aren't interested in the issue, and Ehrman's statement suggests that they are, have studied the issue and agree with his conclusions, which simply isn't the case. We can still quote Ehrman's statement as it is still notable, but only as an attributed quote without implying he does in fact speak for that larger body of scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I should add that nearly all CMT proponents are amateur historians too, Carrier is the only exception I can think of, and he hasn't published his supposedly peer-reviewed work yet. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I found something interesting you might want to read regarding HJ scholars compared to actual historians.

http://vridar.org/2012/01/14/how-historians-work-lessons-for-historical-jesus-scholars/

http://vridar.org/2010/04/24/historical-facts-and-the-very-unfactual-jesus-contrasting-nonbiblical-history-with-historical-jesus-sham-methodology/

"From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods" is the scholarly source Godfrey refers to for defining the rules and criteria for historical research and analysis.[1] He then compares this to the arguments and practices set forth by HJ scholars and explains how they play by their own rules for accepting historical evidence and seemingly ignore the theories and rules other historians practice. As I explained before, the 2 main arguments made by HJ scholars arguing the existence of Jesus are multiple attestation and criteria of embarrassment, NEITHER of which are used by "real" historians for other historical figures. The real impartiality is to pretend that HJ scholars are authorities in the field of history and that an appeal to their authority or popularity is sufficient for proving anything. There are clear guidelines and logical principles/rules historians follow when researching history and it's clear that many/most HJ scholars and historians don't follow those principles. Hence, they have to make up their own evidence, multiple attestation and criteria of embarrassment, to pretend there's sufficient evidence that a historical Jesus existed. Apparently, HJ scholars are the actual fringe group in the realm of history. Now, if we were dealing with a religious, Christian, or Biblical article and the viewpoints of those subject areas, then theologians and HJ scholars might have some credibility, but in terms of history, they simply do not. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Revertion of my BOLD edits by Joshua Jonathan

Hi Joshua, you deleted my BOLD edit because it was unsourced. I added cn tags precisely because of that. I think what I said was fairly uncontroversial, and I think we have seen sources for that, even though I don't have them handy. Unless you think the statement is false, it's more helpful to reinstate my edit, as it is less misleading than the previous version and will invite readers to help find the necessary citations. It seems to me that that's precisely what cn tags are for. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The description of the template on the Template:Citation needed says that "The template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. ... If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." There's nothing suggesting it should be used as an invitation to the reader to go find their own sources for something we as editors believe to be true, but haven't taken the time to source ourselves. EastTN (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think, martijn, that you've got a fair point here, but I also think you could try to find sources inseatd of adding those tags. It's a controversial topic, and personally I always try to provide sources, also if it takes some (or some more) work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do both. I think the citations we already have indicate that most CMT proponents are not biblical scholars, but we could probably dig up Akhilleus newspaper reference about historians and add it. I think there are plenty of citations out there where CMT proponents are criticised for not being biblical scholars or historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmeijeri.. It's annoying if you ask for the citation for something which is just a highlight about whole article body, are you? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

For controversial topics such as this one, I would strongly suggest that a) for new assertions, you find a reliable source before adding the text, and b) when summarizing in the lede information already included in the body of the article, you bring the relevant sources up and footnote your summary. Otherwise, we're asking the reader to take our word for the new information under a) or in the case of b) to search the rest of the article for the support for our summarized conclusions (perhaps after a later edit has deleted that support from the body of the article). EastTN (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

If we're going to quote all the critics in the lead, are we also going to quote all the proponents in the lead? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with quoting a couple of representative proponents in the lede if they have some short summary statements that are helpful to the reader. Having said that, it's not necessary to quote all the proponents - and neither is it necessary to quote all the critics. But your good faith edit didn't address my concern. In many ways Ehrman is a great choice for the lede, because he has a very skeptical approach to the Gospels. If any serious, mainstream scholar were to conclude that Jesus was mythological, one might expect it to be Ehrman - which gives him greater credibility when he summarizes the scholarly consensus on this. Nonetheless, characterizing him as an "American New Testament scholar" may leave readers with the sense that the dispute is between theologians and secular historians, which is not at all the case. For that reason I believe it's important to add at least one classicist or historian to the lede. There are two reasons that this would not be an example of giving undue weight to that view. First, in the line-up of named authorities, the immediately prior paragraph names eight specific proponents of the Christ myth theory - naming two specific critics is in no way stacking the deck. Second, the sources show that the weight of scholarly opinion is not on the side of this theory. The WP:UNDUE guidelines say: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." That means, among other things, that the lede should not imply that the support for this theory is broader or stronger than it really is. EastTN (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi EastTN, thanks for responding. regarding the first problem: "New Testament scholar" could be removed, if that helps. regarding the second point: the criticism-section could 9should) be expanded. It merely repeats that the CMT is not supported by mainstream scholarship. it wold be far more interesting to read why this is so. Is Grant representative? I don't know. What's the "much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary"? That's what I would like to know~, when I try to judge the various conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do think removing "New Testament scholar" would help. We don't it necessary to similarly characterize all of the proponents, which leaves the impression that there's a particular significance to Ehrman's field of study. Expanding the criticism section makes sense to me, and that would be an appropriate place to discuss more detailed evidence. As for representativeness, we're not talking about sources that say they personally don't agree with the theory, we're talking about sources that speak to what other scholars say about the theory. It would be one thing if a single scholar said that the consensus is against the view - or if other scholars described the consensus as being for the Christ myth theory - but when multiple reputable scholars describe the scholarly consensus the same way (and proponents like Price admit that they're in the minority) we should have no qualms about identifying this as the mainstream scholarly view. EastTN (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the lede should mention that there are far more scholars who believe Jesus existed but did not perform miracles. A few of these scholars are mentioned in the article ("miracle" is only mentioned three times in this article), such as the Jesus Seminar which believes: Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.[5][6][7] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.[5][6][7] Would also like to add Jesus Seminar for further reading at the bottom. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding a "see also" link to the Jesus Seminar seems fine to me. Beyond that, you're talking about a fundamentally different view of Jesus than the Christ myth theory. A better place to discuss this might be in the articles on Miracles of Jesus (see the section on "Setting and Interpretations") and Historical Jesus. EastTN (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

An underlying reason for suggesting covering this elsewhere is that the key question with the Christ myth theory is whether Jesus existed; what he actually did or did not do isn't the focus, because if you believe he's a mythological character, the question of "actually did" never arises. Because of that, it seems appropriate to mention that many believe he existed but do not accept his divinity or ability to work miracles, but the miracles or question of divinity are side issues - they shouldn't become the focus of the discussion. EastTN (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd also prefer to be careful with mentioning that most scholars don't believe there were any miracles. It might very soon end up with fighting over arguments pro & contra the CMT. Imagine adding a sentence to the lead "Although the gospels don't contain any reliable historical information on Jesus (see Price), "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" now agrees that Jesus existed." It's a battleground for rhetorics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there may be a neutral way to do this. At the end of the paragraph on "'virtually every competent scholar of antiquity' now agrees that Jesus existed" we can add an additional sentence. It would say something along the lines of "While scholars agree that Jesus existed, there is significant scholarly debate about the details of his life and the extent to which the Gospels can be relied upon as historical sources." That clearly identifies this as a separate issue without whitewashing the extent of the disagreement. EastTN (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Intro

I'm having a problem with "Bladesmulti" removing a factual remark in the intro to the noted article - the part about Jesus myth theory proponents constituting a minority within the academic community. While it's debatable that the academic community holds a monopoly on legitimate knowledge of a topic, its views are noteworthy, just as is the fact that opponents to their views constitute a minority. That a minority viewpoint is is just that doesn't detract from its merit - great intellectual revolutions have been born from what were originally minority views (Copernicus's experience for example).

That proponents of "Jesus myth theory" represent a minority of scholars of this topic is easily verified - the evidence follows in the same paragraph. Because it's debatable that the substantiation of such a remark even belongs in the introduction to said article, rather than removing the paragraph entirely I added the transitional phrase "For what it's worth,", on account of the fact that agreement within a mutually-admiring, mutually-interested coterie of subjective academicians hardly establishes a belief as fact. On the contrary, evidence does that - evidence which is apparently lacking to disprove Jesus myth theory, leaving the debate open, with intelligent observers in free societies free to make up their own minds.

If you'd prefer it I can relocate or even entirely remove the paragraph about what the group of antithetical academicians believe: after all, this is an article about Jesus myth theory, not what a group of opposing academicians believe. I can tolerate such remarks in an article on the noted topic on account of the fact that the proponents of said theory represent a minority view - that's what my remark emphasizes, while marking the transition between, remarks about the theory vs. its opponents. BLZebubba (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's correct to me now, since you re-worded it. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "For what it's worth" is that it violates WP:editorial. The problem with the entire sentence you added is that it incorrectly makes a conclusion not supported by any evidence. That's probably why the other editor asked you to source the material. If you notice, nearly all of the quotes use qualifiers like "respectable", "serious", and "competent" to try and disregard a theory by means of ad hominem. For example, "Proponents of the Christ Myth Theory are not 'competent', therefore their arguments hold no merit." However, these are merely assertions made by various theologians and the article doesn't give any clinical study, polling, or research data to verify those claims. So we can only represent those claims as the opinions of those who've offered them but they do not become fact and we must not phrase it as such.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing is that I am doubting if Ehrman agreed that Jesus existed in 2011, yet he prints a book in 2012 asking "Did jesus existed?". Bladesmulti (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Titles are written by editors to sell books, not by the authors of those books. In his book (which I haven't read) he may have written "Yes, he did exist". BLZebubba (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, you make my argument for me - I couldn't have said it better myself: for precisely the reasons you state, the "For what it's worth" language is needed.

The original author of the "Bart Ehrman says" paragraph wrote it as if the opinions of the majority of the coterie of biblical scholars - some of whom he delineates - settles the matter when it does not; it's just the opinion held by the largest number of members of their group. It's not necessarily the best-researched and most intellectually honest opinion, in a very subjective field to boot. That's why it needs to be set off with "For what it's worth" language - so the general reader won't mistake the collective opinion of the quoted authors as a conclusive, authoritative determination, which the original author of this paragraph seems to want to present it as. BLZebubba (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not the editor's job to use language and/or phrasing that instills doubt or undermines what secondary sources say about any given subject. See [WP:Editorial] for why this violates NPOV and possibly OR. Secondly, your contribution doesn't set out to achieve what you think it achieves. It only further denigrates the opinions held by skeptics by claiming they are the minority view. If your intention was to lessen or give appropriate context to the opinions of Ehrman and the like, you ended up doing the opposite by presenting their opinions as facts, which they are not. Also, when a citation or source is asked for, especially when discussing it on the talk page, you need to actually provide the quote and the page from the source so we can check it for validity. Just tagging a source at the end of the sentence is about as useful as me tagging "the internet" and telling those who want to verify it "good luck". With that said, I did search both books for "minority". In Ehrman's book he just asserts that it's a view held by a notable minority but this isn't evidence that they actually are the minority or that their opinions should be disregarded because of it. In Funk's book he mentions "minority" about 6 times, none of them referring to mythicists or their opinions in general. He speaks about people at specific seminar's or sub-groups of people who don't specifically believe in Paul or some other particular parts of the Bible. Unlike Ehrman, he doesn't refer to skeptics as a whole within the realm of historical/scholarly opinion and he certainly doesn't provide the polls, research data, or survey that would prove such a claim.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"It only further denigrates the opinions held by skeptics by claiming they are the minority view." - Scoobydunk

The original text supplies remarks the author of which tries to pass off as invalidating the views of "Jesus Myth Theorists". Rather than removing that language entirely for being unsubstantiated, I have tried to take a neutral path and put those remarks into context, which the original author failed to do. My remarks adjust the text to make it clear that, while it's reasonable to assert that Jesus myth theorists are not a majority of biblical scholars, the asserted opinions of those who allege themselves to be with the majority of Biblical scholarship don't really address the issue of the validity of "Jesus Myth Theory" simply because they claim to be a majority. My language doesn't denigrate Jesus myth theorists; it simply makes clear that the fact that they allegedly constitute a minority of biblical scholars is not particularly relevant to the validity of their points.

Frankly, since the original text author can't legitimately substantiate his remark that "A strong consensus thus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory", and that that consensus makes a hill of beans of difference as to the ultimate validity of Jesus myth theorists views, all of that language should be removed, but since that looks to be a longer struggle, I instead supplied the "For what it's worth" language - which needs to stay for objectivity reasons if the "minority of scholars ..." language is to remain.BLZebubba (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy & pseudohistory category tags

Akhilleus reverted my Bold deletion of these tags, so now I'd like to Discuss why I think these tags are inappropriate. While there may be crazy variants of the CMT, I fail to see why the work of Price, Brodie, Ellegard, Carrier and Wells qualifies as pseudohistory or conspiracy theory. These are all serious scholars. If there is a separate category for views that have very little support but are still legitimate attempts at scholarly discussion, then such a tag could be added. The present tags however are a blatant violation of NPOV. Also, let us not forget that by and large HJ research is pseudohistory, namely theology passed off as history, albeit historically informed theology. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC) @Bloodofox: Thanks, but I think Akhilleus has a right to expect discussion before his reversion is undone. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the Bible conspiracy theories cat is completely appropriate and should be restored, but there isn't enough justification to retain the Pseudohistory cat. Roccodrift (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that both are justified for some of the wilder variants, but neither for the work of serious proponents like the ones I mentioned. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Bible conspiracy theories cat, the strength of the scholarship isn't at issue. In fact, stronger scholarship actually strengthens the case to keep this article in the category, because if these historians are saying that Jesus didn't exist, therefore by implication they are also saying the New Testament is a fraud. That places the entire concept of the article squarely into Bible conspiracy theories. It's an appropriate cat. Roccodrift (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not just or even mainly the strength of the scholarship. The bible conspiracy article in its definition speaks of "deception created to suppress some secret, ancient truth.". This would appear to apply to Acharya S., but not to the scholars I mentioned. As far as I know, none of these is suggesting some group invented the whole collection of stories. The suggestion appears to be that some group of preachers eclectically chose and adapted stories from various religious groups of the time. It is widely acknowledged among believers in the historicity of Jesus that the Jesus of the gospels is full of accretions onto a historical core. There is no fundamental difference between the kinds of "conspiracies" that are proposed by CMT proponents and those accepted by HJ scholarship. Also, the phenomenon of priestcraft is well known. The category is wholly inappropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If we allow that Jesus didn't exist, how could there not have been a deception? That's the core question and the only question that matters. Everything else you're trying to insert into this is just sophistry. Roccodrift (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Rudeness objection. You are supposed to assume good faith in your fellow wikipedians. Doing otherwise is a ticket to banville. As for your substantive point: if we allow that the miracle stories didn't happen (as many HJ scholars do), how could there not have been deception? There is no fundamental difference. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If the early Christian communities that passed on the miracle stories really believed Jesus walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. I don't think that's deception--it's just believing in the impossible. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see any of the folks Mmeijeri mentioned as serious scholars of the New Testament. None of them have a position at an accredited university or other institution of higher learning--Price comes the closest to having an academic career, but his position is at an unaccredited seminary (Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary), and any time scholars do mention him (e.g. the responses in The Historical Jesus: Five Views) it's clear that he is, to put it politely, regarded as an eccentric. So even the more serious attempts at the CMT come from outside established circles of NT scholarship--and if anyone wants to complain that of course the scholarly establishment can't or won't consider the CMT because it's too dangerous to their interests, please realize that this simply reinforces my point, that this is an outsider theory. That's a classic mark of pseudoscholarship, when outsiders propose a radical theory that fails to convince professional scholars.

Another reason for regarding the CMT as a crank theory is that proponents themselves acknowledge that it is considered as such, e.g. Robert Price writes: "When, long a go, I first learned that some theorized that Jesus had never existed as an historical figure, I dismissed the notion as mere crankism, as most still do." (I think the essay from which this quote is drawn appears on Price's website, but it's on p. 17 in The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems.) In 1986, G. A. Wells wrote "It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed." (That's p. 27 of Jesus in Myth and History, edited by R. Joseph Hoffman.) This quote is, of course, from before Wells modified his views to agree that there is a historical Jesus, of sorts. When proponents acknowledge that their ideas are seen as a crank theory, and we have examples of experts calling it a crank theory, that justifies a category that reflects the label. We even have examples of scholars who say that this theory is pseudohistorical.

As I commented above I can't attach too much importance to a category, because I don't think they're very useful to Wikipedia readers. I think it's much more important that the article notes that proponents of the theory come from outside the usual circles of NT scholarship, and (briefly) describes how the CMT is received in academia. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly some of the people I mentioned do come from outside the usual circles of NT scholarship, though not Price and especially not Brodie. But that's not the point, the people we should be looking for is actual historians not the pseudohistorians who write HJ literature. And for whatever reason they do not in general study the issue. We do have some evidence they generally believe in the historicity of Jesus, but with very few exceptions the question has not seen serious study by respectable historians. So disagreeing with NT scholarship does not make one a "crank", and that is precisely why I object to the labels. There is much reason to be suspicious of the scientific character of HJ scholarship as practiced by NT scholars. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote the credibility of a group of scholars that sorely lacks it in the wider scientific community. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's depressingly regular on Wikipedia for editors to say that they disagree with or dislike a field of academic study, and that therefore they're going to disregard scholarship in that area. But that's not what Wikipedia policy tells us to do. People like Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey are certainly respectable scholars, and really, anyone who's employed at an accredited college or university--no matter what subject they study--deserves that label unless there's weighty evidence to the contrary--if nothing else, WP:BLP asks for that courtesy. And before you (once again) mention that you've found some people who criticize HJ scholarship as disguised theology, so what? Name any field or subfield of history or any other social science and I'm sure you can find criticism that says the results of that field are illegitimate, irredeemably corrupted by bias, etc. See, for instance, Whig history. This is Postmodernism 101, really--the idea that objectivity is impossible, all assertions are shaped by unconscious biases, etc. None of this should alter the fact that historical Jesus scholars are the experts in this subject, they are actual historians, and they are the kind of sources that Wikipedia articles ought to be based on, and their views are the mainstream perspective that according to WP:FRINGE should be represented in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, this certainly does go to the heart of our disagreements. Note that I don't believe that we should disregard people like Ehrman, just that we shouldn't take sides in this debate, shouldn't promote the field of HJ studies, shouldn't misrepresent the level of support from real historians, and shouldn't disparage rival theories as the work of cranks. At the same time we should note that the CMT has very little academic support, that it has scathing disapproval from HJ researchers and the various biases and potential lack of scientific credentials on both sides.

I do strongly disagree we should treat HJ researchers as actual historians, given the very strong evidence to the contrary. To do otherwise would be a blatant violation of NPOV. What we can do is to tell readers what the opinion of mainstream *biblical scholars* is without pretending they are bona fide historians or implying they automatically aren't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course the myth theorists aren't mainstream and shouldn't be treated as such. The question is whether they're fringe denialists. MilesMoney (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about fringe. Does it merely mean "having very little academic support", in which case it would be accurate, or does it carry a connotation of "work of cranks", "pseudoscience", "not to be taken seriously"? For some of the wilder theories both would be appropriate, but not for the serious scholars I mentioned earlier. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's it from me for tonight, I think I'll take some time to let the various remarks made by others sink in and to give others an opportunity to do the talking. Good night and see you all soon. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe would mean stuff like Rupert Sheldrake or Creationism. They're pretending to be a legitimate part of the field but are widely regarded as not only wrong but garbage. MilesMoney (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Not fringe or pseudohistory; fringe would be "Da Vinci Code" pseudohistory would be parts of the Old Testament.Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with MilesMoney, Raquel, and others. It is certainly a minority perspective, and this should be noted. But it is not fringe. Historians who holds this view employ accepted historical methodologies, have their research facilitated by elite universities, and are discussed with respect by their peers. Steeletrap (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought MilesMoney was supporting the idea that the myth theorists were fringe? In any case, the "historians" who hold this view don't have their research facilitated by elite universities: Richard Carrier doesn't have an academic position at all, Robert Price has a position at an unaccredited theological seminary, G. A. Wells was a professor of German, so his university was not supporting his research into this area, and in any case he has changed his position. And while mythicists may discuss each others' work with respect, NT scholars don't show much respect for them--as the proponents of the CMT acknowledge! --Akhilleus (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My competence is very limited in this subject and history generally. I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I got the impression that it was mainstream dissent from the accepted view from The God Delusion, a fun book but by no means a serious work of philosophy or history. Reading the Ehrman source led me to quickly revert my reversion of the tag; I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Steeletrap (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're wrong. It's definitely not mainstream, but I'm not convinced that it's fringe, either. There is such a thing as a minority view. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's such a thing as a minority view. But, in your view, how can you tell the difference between a fringe view and a minority view? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Legitimacy. A fringe view is illegitimate because it rejects the methodology of the field.

If you scroll up, you'll find a comment I made about some over-the-top claims that equate myth theory with Holocaust denial. If they weren't hysterical, they'd be the sort of thing that would show it's fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is partly the methodology. Rational researchers form an hypothesis and test it against evidence. Conspiracists select evidence that supports their theory, regardless of its veracity. When the evidence rules out an hypothesis, conspiracists continue to support it, claiming that the elites have falsified it. Since there is no independent evidence that Jesus existed, that he did not exist remains a possibility. Also, a conspiracy theory is not a theory that a conspiracy existed. Conspiracies do exist. Rather it is an irrational belief that conspiracies exist. The theory that the 9/11 attacks were an al Qaeda conspiracy for example is not a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree, only I would say that it's the methodology that allows denialists to selectively ignore inconvenient evidence. The hallmark of denialism is in denying what's been proven by refusing to accept what's evident.

Denialism is always fringe, but as you said, those who are skeptical of a historical Jesus are not holding a belief directly contradicted by the evidence. There's enough evidence to suggest that they're probably wrong, but not so much that skepticism requires denial of the evidence.

As for religious bias, it's not exactly equal. Atheism in no way requires that Jesus was a myth, but Christianity generally requires the existence of at least a historical Jesus. As such, we'd expect more extremism from the theistic side, and that's precisely what we find in some of those ridiculous denialism accusations. MilesMoney (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we are having same scene we just had here at Christian Terrorism. Anyways TFD, can you list the points that you oppose from this page? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested in avoiding smug simplifications. MilesMoney (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My first dose of the CMT came from Will Durant's "Caesar and Christ" it's worth repeating here (Not fringe, conspiracy, pseudohistory.):

DID Christ exist? Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human sorrow, imagination, and hope- a myth comparable to the legends of Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras? Early in the eighteenth century the circle of Bolingbroke, shocking even Voltaire, privately discussed the possibility that Jesus had never lived. Volney propounded the same doubt in his Ruins of Empire in 1791. Napoleon, meeting the German scholar Wieland in 1808, asked him no petty question of politics or war, but did he believe in the historicity of Christ? `Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow, did "Jesus christ" came from "Zeus" "Krishna"? It is notable? Read these [2], [3]. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No it didn't. Please can we stick to reliable sources. See Christ (or wiktionary:Χριστός) and Jesus (name). Also, speculative scholarship from the 18th-19th century tells us nothing about what is fringe now. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow, this reply was also meant for the Raquel? Because I didn't mentioned the sources from 18th-19th century. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the second part responds to Raquel. It's also perhaps worth noting that the etiquette of Wikipedia talk pages is that comments can be replied to by any editor. That's because we are not supposed to be having personal chats, but discussing issues relating to the content of the article. Paul B (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Caesar & Christ was written in 1944, that was only the opening paragraph. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

One that quoted 18th-19th century scholarship. If you actually intended to be using Durant as a source, then you were being deeply disingenuous, since he clearly rejects CMT. Paul B (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

In law it is very common to argue that the evidence does not fit the conclusions. Durant's conclusions do not fit the evidence he presented. It would be shocking for his Christian readers if Durant summed up the evidence as he presented it. I haven't been able to find any interview where someone asks him if he believed in the historicity of Christ but I did find the following quote (and also this essay, which critiques his conclusion):

History has justified the Church in the belief that the masses of mankind desire a religion rich in miracle, mystery, and myth. Some minor modifications have been allowed in ritual, in ecclesiastical costume, and in episcopal authority; but the Church dares not alter the doctrines that reason smiles at, for such changes would offend and disillusion the millions whose hope have been tied to inspiring and consolatory imaginations. DOCTRINES THAT REASON SMILES AT Selection 3: Chapter VII; Religion and History; Page 45 Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow, you said that Voltaire regarded in his private discussion that Christ never existed, you should really present source. These days I am having the readings about Voltaire, and he regarded that those who claim that Christ never existed are "more ingenious than learned." See[4]. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right Bladesmulti, I was quoting from Durant's book,check the quotation above, the idea that Christ didn't exist "shocked" Voltaire. Here's another source for your quote, "more ingenious than learned". Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"Almost universal assent"

Could we or should we also make a note that at least his early followers genuinely believed that he had been risen from the dead? It's pretty universal in all the textbooks I've read, including Ehrman, Bartlet, etc.

23haveblue (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We can add a note that nearly all biblical scholars say so. CMT proponents deny it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Define "early followers" please? The Bible says Paul etc believed this, but apart from the Bible, who of the "early" followers wrote that they believed this? Please give references? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That JC was risen from the dead was what the Apostles preached, and insisted on. So, I'm not really sure what your point is? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

CMT proponents also believe there were no apostles, as they must because any would-be apostle would know there was no JC if the CMT is true. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - not sure if you are kidding or just trying to be difficult, but the quotes of the early church fathers on the resurrection are overwhelming. I found dozens of websites that quote church fathers (Augustine, Didymus, Ambrose, Iraneus, Ignatius, etc, etc) on their belief in the resurrection. Many of their Wiki pages also quote them on their views of it. Here's the best pages I found - http://www.cogwriter.com/resurrection.htm and http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/church-fathers-and-resurrection.html). Hope that helps. Ckruschke (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I imagine he means the apostles. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what he means - assumed the Apostles were included in his "Paul etc" statement... Ckruschke (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

It is difficult to know what the early followers believed. The NT was written long afterwards. I would not consider Augustine an early follower. He converted in the year of our Lord 387. That would be like calling someone living today an early follower of the Pilgrim fathers. (2014-387=1627) TFD (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. My point here is as follows: The New Testament speaks confidently of the resurrection, but the gospels were not written by the apostles whose names they bear, the gospels contradict each other on the core details of the nativity, passion, resurrection and ascension, some of the letters of the NT are known to be fake, Paul never knew Jesus and Paul's teachings are known to have disagreed with the Jerusalem disciples who had known Jesus personally. The claims of the NT are thus on thin ice. Add to this also the fact that many other gospels – some of which disagreed profoundly with the canonical texts – were discarded by the canon-editors and suppressed.

Then comes a long break, of multiple generations, until the early “Church Fathers” whom you name. These men would certainly not have seen Jesus or his disciples in person, and were acting on anecdotal evidence. During that multi-generational interval the early Christian believers lived in very close proximity to the adherents of the other “mythological” resurrecting gods of the day, whose beliefs include close parallels with the Christian teachings. We have no way of knowing how much myth was added to the tales of Jesus to "compete" with the rival religions of the day, but we see for example a story of the dead arising and going into town, which story is not recorded in all the gospels, never mind secular sources of the time. Add to this also the fact that other “Fathers” disagreed with aspects of the orthodox canon, and were suppressed as heretics as a result.

Consequently, the beliefs of the “contemporaries of Jesus” are unknown to us other than through the NT, whose reliability is deeply suspect on such issues. The “early followers”, being those who lived dozens of decades later, did not have reliable evidence on which to base their beliefs, and thus acted on (and helped to compose) the NT stories that were then in circulation - which stories had been mythologized to an unknown extent in the interim. Wdford (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You say "to an unknown extent." We cannot know to what extent the story was true or made up. TFD (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

True, certainly. However we do know that certain details are doubtful, because the gospels contradict each other. I'm not talking about where Gospel A says Matthew had cheese and tomato on his sandwich but Gospel B only says he had cheese. I'm talking about where Gospel A says an angel told Joseph to flee to Egypt to escape the murderous King Herod, but Gospel B says they went to the Temple in Jerusalem and presented Jesus to God in the temple - virtually right under Herod's balcony. Luke 24 says the Risen Lord ascended into heaven at Bethany near Jerusalem, in front of all his disciples, but the other gospels don't even mention the ascension at all - surely this would have been worth mentioning if it really happened? Matthew says Jesus met them in Galilee, but makes no mention of ascension. And of course there is Matthew 27, which says tombs opened and dead people rose up and went into town, but no other gospel mentions this, nor any other NT text that I am aware of, nor any Roman record - although that would surely have made the front page? So although we don't know for certain what is true, we can be sure that much of it is myth, including some of the core details that are central to the practice of modern Christianity. Wdford (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the central tenant's of Christianity. I would find it incredulous for an early follower to not believe that he rose from the dead. This, along with the miracles, are what would have had people following him in the first place. This devotion of faith is what created the religion in the first place. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - it appears you are dramatically overblowing the differences to make some point which is fine, but not really credible. Jesus was obviously an infant when he was presented at the Temple and "no" scholar believes that the Three Wisemen (or whatever the actual number was) came to Mary & Joseph at his birth so Herod would be looking for Jesus - why? The Gospel accounts state that he had no idea what he was looking for until the Wisemen came. Also he didn't order the death's of all children until (arguably) 2 yrs after the Star's first appearance (Jesus' birth). Referring to your point about Gospel "omissions", how many times have you see newspapers print descriptions of the same event and they differ slightly (or even dramatically) from writer to writer? Why is this a fault of the NT writers that they also do the same? I think the Gospels would be LESS credible if they were all lock-step duplicates of eachother. Finally, both you and TFD keep speaking of how LONG the NT was written after Jesus' death, but with even non-Christian scholars pegging the initial writings at maybe 30 yrs after his death (and that's the skeptics timeline), the evidence simply doesn't support that. Pretty concrete Biblical tradition holds that the gospel writers interviewed the first-hand witnesses - and of course the Bible was divinely inspired so the Holy Spirit would have guided their pens (which I know you don't agree with, but I'll say it anyway) so again how is this a problem? The writers interviewed the witnesses. Is Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation a bunch of made up crapola simply because he interviewed the men 50+ years after WWII? Maybe I'm having trouble following your point since I disagree with your (and now TFD's) base arguments... Sorry.

So I'm not sure we are still discussing 23haveblue's original question - we seem to be chasing rabbit holes...Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

We do not know that the author of Mark, the first gospel, interviewed witnesses, and it was written in AD 70, almost 40 years after Jesus's death, and we do not know that it has not been altered since. How accurate the account was is speculation. TFD (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The point here is about “myth” – were the NT stories real, or were they mythical? You appear to concede that the entire episode of the Three Wise Men following the Star and Herod’s fear of Jesus the King are pure myth – am I correct? Nowhere outside the NT is there any record of Herod murdering babies on a large scale – more myth? And to continue, I am not “overblowing” small discrepancies – these are HUGE discrepancies. One account says they fled to Egypt for years, another says they went to Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem and then went calmly home to Nazareth. One account says Jesus ascended bodily into heaven – a cornerstone of the religion – but the others are completely silent on this momentous event. One account says the dead arose and went into town, but the others are silent on this momentous event as well. Only two of the four gospels bother to mention the supposedly-virgin birth, but they give two stories that contradict in virtually everything except the parents’ names. When a close friend/relative dies and then comes back to life and appears to his friends/relatives, you would expect that such a momentous event would be recorded properly, yet the gospel accounts of these appearances are again substantially different. This goes beyond faulty memories to the realm of blatant propaganda – what is politely called “myth-making”. If the Holy Spirit really was guiding their pens, the Holy Spirit did a terrible job. Where newspapers print dramatically different versions - whether through incompetence or deliberate propaganda - their credibility is lost, so too the NT. And we are only considering the discrepancies between the four “official” gospels – the many other gospels differ even further. Of course the tradition is that the writers interviewed eye-witnesses, but the tradition is also that the gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John, which is now known to be incorrect, so those traditions are clearly faulty. In those days a lifespan was not often longer than 40 years, so to find an eye-witness who was a comprehending adult at the time of Jesus’ ministry and who was still a reliable reporter 30 years later would be a stretch – and it’s a further stretch to assume the gospels were recorded even that early. The truth is that these stories passed through many different routes through time, and that they were much-amended over those many years, so that by the era of the “Church Fathers” the truth had long since been submerged under layers of myth. The many fundamental contradictions make this obvious. However believers will continue to believe. Wdford (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WDford, you said, Nowhere outside the NT is there any record of Herod murdering babies on a large scale – more myth? Why is it so difficult to believe that Herod would murder 20 or 30 children in a backwater village in Judea? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not difficult to believe - after all the CIA murders dozens of children in Pakistani backwaters every month with their drone strikes. However my point was that a) there is no record of this atrocity, although Herod's atrocities were quite well recorded by authors such as Josephus, and b) the Gospel of Luke makes no mention of this either, recording instead that the Holy Family calmly went into Jerusalem, and then went calmly back to Nazareth, without any sojourns in Egypt along the way, or seemingly any fear of the authorities. This level of discrepancy raises serious doubts about the credibility of the NT stories. Wdford (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think by now we can all predict our answers for various questions/comments so maybe we should agree to disagree (rather than continue to expose the distance we'd have to bridge) and close the thread as no decision can be made. On this page, 23haveblue's original request is kind of a minor issue. Ckruschke (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wdford, the Christ myth theory is that Jesus did not exist at all, not that some of the stories about him are fictional (not "mythical", which is the term you used). Indeed, historians reject much of the NT account, if for no other reason than miracles are considered a priori false. The existence of miracles and inconsistencies with known history may lead some historians to conjecture that Jesus himself never existed. This discussion thread however does not appear to have anything to do with improving this article, and it is probably best to abandon it. TFD (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is there still a neutrality tag on this article?

I have not looked at this article or WP for a couple of months, what exactly is still in dispute?Smeat75 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, no idea! One person want half of the opinions/writings to be removed. That's why. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not why. I think I was the person who last reinserted the tag. The article has improved, but I think it still defers to biblical scholarship (not the same as theology! at least in theory) as the "voice of science". I'm not in favour of removing material, we should add material instead and maintain a neutral point of view. It's problematic that the lede is mostly based on the views of those who are opposed to the CMT, even if they do make up the vast majority of scholars. Hence a neutrality tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead has the final paragraph, one out of three, clarifying that the CMT has no academic standing, that is not "mostly based on the views of those who are opposed".Smeat75 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the size of that final paragraph, I was referring to the sources used in the other paragraphs. Most of these oppose the CMT, and many of them are clergymen. Again, not a reason to remove them, but it's not exactly balanced. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version does manage to give the impression that "The gospels are true!" I think that the lead would be more accurate and more neutral if we added to the last paragraph the clarification that "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[4] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[5][6][7]". This makes it perfectly clear that while Jesus did exist in some form, the consensus is that most of what is said about him is indeed myth. I think that would be the best way to handle it. Wdford (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the "most scholars of antiquity" as an attributed quote, since it is a POV held by Ehrman (and no doubt others), and should not be stated in Wikipedia voice. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is everyone happy to remove the neutrality tag now please? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I haven't seen any edit to make me change my mind since my post immediately above yours. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article says clearly that these guys are biblical scholars - but who else is going to write on this topic? If you can find an RS that says "The consensus among current non-biblical history scholars is that Jesus never existed in any form" then please add it in. Apart from that, what more do you propose to change please? Wdford (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter, but let me explain where I'm coming from. I'm a fence-sitter on the CMT.

I'm personally convinced Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the miracles didn't happen and he certainly didn't rise from the dead. He may well have lived and taught, may have been crucified and his early followers may well have believed he rose from the dead. It's also possible they merely believed he would one day return, and that the resurrection appearances are later embellishments as some scholars have suggested. But it's also possible that Christianity arose as a syncretism of Jewish religion and philosophy, pagan mystery religions and Greco-Roman philosophy. Price argues that the whole apostolic succession was probably invented to give the proto-orthodox church a unique selling point in the struggle for market share. I think that's possible too, especially if you study Price's arguments.

I hope this helps people avoid thinking I may be biased towards the CMT or have anything against Christianity, though I no doubt have other biases of my own.

What bothers me is this: the article tends to represent the consensus opinion of biblical scholars as the consensus of science/scholarship in general. I'm bothered by the fact that biblical scholars tend to haughtily dismiss the CMT without serious arguments. The CMT may well be false, but it is ruled out of court rather than being evaluated on its merits. There's also a tendency to portray CMT proponents as fringe nutcases and to pretend HJ research is the work of historians. In actual fact there are very few bona fide historians who have studied the matter and HJ researchers tend to practise theology masquerading as history. We have serious sources to that effect.

In my view the solution is to do what we always do in such cases: identify the major points of view, represent them in a neutral tone of voice, indicate the relevant levels of support, and the criticisms back and forth between adherents of the various points of view. I'll try to add some balancing material. All I'm saying is that I think we're not there yet. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think that the reasons modern Biblical scholars reject at least the idea of Jesus as a myth is that in the field of history in general the epistles of Paul modern scholars actually think were written by Paul, allegedly a contemporary of sorts of Jesus who may have encountered him directly, at a distance, is considered sufficient to establish both historical existence and, to a degree, at least some contemporary thinking on the subject. Now, regarding matters like miracles, divinity, and such, well, those are kinda outside of the historians' field, and historians tend to not deal with such issues as being outside their field. Personally, as someone who is kind of a committed believer, I have to say my own belief in something I acknowledge I have no direct first-hand evidence of means, well, little if anything for what our content should reflect. I guess, and I acknowledge I might be wrong because I haven't researched it thoroughly, the questions regarding why the modern academic community doesn't give much credit to some of the interesting, if not particularly well supported by direct evidence, ideas of some scholars like Price is that their conjectures don't seem to have much by way of direct evidence to support them. A few other similar cases, and Saint Barbara comes to mind here, have been ultimately found to be historically baseless because pretty much everything about them, including all of the wilder and less wild assertions, is basically unsupported by any sort of contemporary historical evidence. Jesus's existence has some degree of support of the kind historians generally seek out, and his three-year career as a preacher does as well. Miracles, and resurrection, those are other matters entirely. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is there still a neutrality tag on this article?

I have not looked at this article or WP for a couple of months, what exactly is still in dispute?Smeat75 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, no idea! One person want half of the opinions/writings to be removed. That's why. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not why. I think I was the person who last reinserted the tag. The article has improved, but I think it still defers to biblical scholarship (not the same as theology! at least in theory) as the "voice of science". I'm not in favour of removing material, we should add material instead and maintain a neutral point of view. It's problematic that the lede is mostly based on the views of those who are opposed to the CMT, even if they do make up the vast majority of scholars. Hence a neutrality tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead has the final paragraph, one out of three, clarifying that the CMT has no academic standing, that is not "mostly based on the views of those who are opposed".Smeat75 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the size of that final paragraph, I was referring to the sources used in the other paragraphs. Most of these oppose the CMT, and many of them are clergymen. Again, not a reason to remove them, but it's not exactly balanced. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version does manage to give the impression that "The gospels are true!" I think that the lead would be more accurate and more neutral if we added to the last paragraph the clarification that "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[4] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[5][6][7]". This makes it perfectly clear that while Jesus did exist in some form, the consensus is that most of what is said about him is indeed myth. I think that would be the best way to handle it. Wdford (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the "most scholars of antiquity" as an attributed quote, since it is a POV held by Ehrman (and no doubt others), and should not be stated in Wikipedia voice. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is everyone happy to remove the neutrality tag now please? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I haven't seen any edit to make me change my mind since my post immediately above yours. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article says clearly that these guys are biblical scholars - but who else is going to write on this topic? If you can find an RS that says "The consensus among current non-biblical history scholars is that Jesus never existed in any form" then please add it in. Apart from that, what more do you propose to change please? Wdford (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter, but let me explain where I'm coming from. I'm a fence-sitter on the CMT.

I'm personally convinced Jesus wasn't the Son of God, the miracles didn't happen and he certainly didn't rise from the dead. He may well have lived and taught, may have been crucified and his early followers may well have believed he rose from the dead. It's also possible they merely believed he would one day return, and that the resurrection appearances are later embellishments as some scholars have suggested. But it's also possible that Christianity arose as a syncretism of Jewish religion and philosophy, pagan mystery religions and Greco-Roman philosophy. Price argues that the whole apostolic succession was probably invented to give the proto-orthodox church a unique selling point in the struggle for market share. I think that's possible too, especially if you study Price's arguments.

I hope this helps people avoid thinking I may be biased towards the CMT or have anything against Christianity, though I no doubt have other biases of my own.

What bothers me is this: the article tends to represent the consensus opinion of biblical scholars as the consensus of science/scholarship in general. I'm bothered by the fact that biblical scholars tend to haughtily dismiss the CMT without serious arguments. The CMT may well be false, but it is ruled out of court rather than being evaluated on its merits. There's also a tendency to portray CMT proponents as fringe nutcases and to pretend HJ research is the work of historians. In actual fact there are very few bona fide historians who have studied the matter and HJ researchers tend to practise theology masquerading as history. We have serious sources to that effect.

In my view the solution is to do what we always do in such cases: identify the major points of view, represent them in a neutral tone of voice, indicate the relevant levels of support, and the criticisms back and forth between adherents of the various points of view. I'll try to add some balancing material. All I'm saying is that I think we're not there yet. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to think that the reasons modern Biblical scholars reject at least the idea of Jesus as a myth is that in the field of history in general the epistles of Paul modern scholars actually think were written by Paul, allegedly a contemporary of sorts of Jesus who may have encountered him directly, at a distance, is considered sufficient to establish both historical existence and, to a degree, at least some contemporary thinking on the subject. Now, regarding matters like miracles, divinity, and such, well, those are kinda outside of the historians' field, and historians tend to not deal with such issues as being outside their field. Personally, as someone who is kind of a committed believer, I have to say my own belief in something I acknowledge I have no direct first-hand evidence of means, well, little if anything for what our content should reflect. I guess, and I acknowledge I might be wrong because I haven't researched it thoroughly, the questions regarding why the modern academic community doesn't give much credit to some of the interesting, if not particularly well supported by direct evidence, ideas of some scholars like Price is that their conjectures don't seem to have much by way of direct evidence to support them. A few other similar cases, and Saint Barbara comes to mind here, have been ultimately found to be historically baseless because pretty much everything about them, including all of the wilder and less wild assertions, is basically unsupported by any sort of contemporary historical evidence. Jesus's existence has some degree of support of the kind historians generally seek out, and his three-year career as a preacher does as well. Miracles, and resurrection, those are other matters entirely. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede getting very large

Wdford has been trimming the lede, which is a good thing. It might be useful to salvage some of the stuff that was deleted by moving it to a separate section in the main body of the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If the lede needs trimming, then start with this part:

Critics of the theory, including Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists who believe that the gospels are reliable records of a historical Jesus, maintain that the proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.

I don't know who put this in but it makes it sound that only biased people (Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists) are the ones who are critical of this almost universally rejected theory. It is NOT only such people who "maintain" that the theory is only held by a tiny minority. It is a FACT that that it is almost universally rejected, and frequently rejected in the harshest terms. The militant atheist/agnostics never cease to amaze me in their attempts to legitimize this fringe theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the intro is long, and that I contributed to the problem with the new words about critics, but there is also an argument that there is a lot of repetition in that paragraph, and at least some should be moved to the criticism section at the bottom. This is, after all, an article about CMT, as there are already any number of wiki articles on the historicity of Jesus. Starting the third paragraph in an introduction with the statement "Proponents constitute a tiny minority," while I concede is true, is simply jarring to a reader, as it would be equally jarring to give CMT such prominence in a wiki article on the historical Jesus. Although footnoted, I felt that statement needed attribution of who says so. My solution noted that critics "included" fundamentalists, literalists and apologists (not that they are the only ones) and then offered links to explain those terms. Radath (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

After my previous post, I was inspired by Bill the Cat's model for consensus on his user page, so as he suggested, I am proposing a new paragraph about biblical scholarship that flows better within the page and is which is shorter with fewer repetitive quotes. I really think the baptism and crucifixion sentence is just too detailed for the introduction and would be better in the criticism section. Ironically, a quick reading of that sentence may support that Jesus lived (since most scholars agree), but to me it gives credence to CMT (if scholars can agree on only two events in all the gospels, perhaps none of it is true). In the spirit of NPOV, I re-inserted Ehrman's religious agnosticism which I believe gives him more credibility for the atheists and agnostics likely to read this article. I'm interested in all your thoughts and will not implement any of these suggestions before Thursday noon UTC:

Current: Proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship. Even though a strong consensus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory, scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. For example, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Proposed: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived These scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. For example, although New Testament expert and skeptical agnostic Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed,, he also believes that Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Radath (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A big problem that plagues this article is that some editors understand the “Christ myth theory” to mean that Jesus did not exist at all, and they then happily shoot that down with “almost all scholars agree”. This usually results in wording that reads as if the gospel fables are all true. Other editors then argue that this is bunk, and bring their own hordes of sources that profess that the gospel stories are fictional/mythical. In order to avoid this constant argument, the largely-successful compromise has been to state openly in the lead that a Jesus-type person probably did exist, but that most of what the gospels say about him is untrue, and that all we can believe with any confidence is that Jesus was baptised and later crucified. I would also suggest we delete the two quotes from the lead. I would also prefer that we don’t wikilink the baptism and the crucifixion to the Bible stories, as although we have some confidence that these events took place, the gospel records thereof are full of extra detail which is surely false – e.g. the tombs opened and the dead rose up etc. I agree with the intention of the proposal above, but would suggest that we reword it to read instead:

Proposal 2: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Wdford (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add back a wikilink to the historical criticism article. Is classical biblical scholarship a commonly used term? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but I suspect the issue is based on the "Christian scholars vs secular scholars" debate. Personally I have no objection to your suggestion. Wdford (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account.

I propose the following rewrite of the entire lead section:

Proposal 3:The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community.

The idea was developed and popularised in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. Bauer's argument was that the New Testament is of no historical value, that the failure of ancient non-Christian writers of the 1st century to mention Jesus shows that he did not exist, and that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical in its beginnings. In recent years there has been more widespread debate on the subject. New Testament scholar Tom Harpur (a former Anglican priest) believes in a spiritual Christ, but believes that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and New Atheism activist Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ Myth Theory, that "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history," and that "the evidence (Jesus) existed is surprisingly shaky." Others argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Please share your suggestions? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this, Wdford. I will be proposing a few suggestions to your version later tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal. I admit it is a little longer than Wdford's, but I've tried to include useful summaries (including internal wikilinks where possible) and NPOV. Since there are a number of new ideas, I will wait until Friday noon UTC before posting to allow time to make improvements: Radath (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory and that "reputable biblical scholars do not regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history." Although Dawkins wrote in 2006 that "Jesus probably existed," he added in 2012 "the evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky." New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived. Many scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic who has written about the questionable accuracy and authorships of the gospels, states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies offers an arguably more balanced approach. Like many scholars, he question the historicity of the gospels and tends to believe there was a real Jesus, but makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and that there is room for scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Still much too long. Do we need to mention all these individuals by name in the lede? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting quotes in the lead. If we must mention them by name at all then surely we can summarize this by saying that opinions vary from xx who says the gospels are inerrant, through yy who says Jesus lived but wasn't as per the Bible, to zz who said Jesus never lived in the flesh, to ab who says the whole thing is a big fraud by the church? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account. Radath (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's work from this:

Proposal 5: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although many scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical. New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory, that reputable biblical scholars do not regard the Bible as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and that the evidence that Jesus existed is “surprisingly shaky." New Testament scholar and agnostic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states that virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus existed, but he personally believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies believes there was a real Jesus, but questions the historicity of the gospels and makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth.

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the stuff from "the only two events" onwards can be moved to the body of the text. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A shortened version without names or quotes for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 6: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and almost all scholars of antiquity that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain theologians and scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Made a slight copy edit to the last proposal above, but otherwise support it, although the first paragraph might be longer, if someone could figure out what exactly what might be included in an expanded first paragraph. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by John Carter, I made the first paragraph slightly longer by adding back a partial sentence from Wdford's version (in recent years...). The revived text contains internal links to the 21st century authors and documentaries so readers don't have to slog through the early writings. I also added a couple of commas, added a link to atheists and slightly changed the wording in the last sentence. Any other suggestions? Radath (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the "almost all scholars of antiquity" remark, as I believe it to be propaganda coming from the HJ research side. But since this there's already a POV tag and since we're dealing with a separate problem (length of the lede) here, for now it's fine. I'd avoid the use of the word theologians here, biblical scholars is generally more appropriate. The words are not synonymous. Anyway, I think the latest proposal is good enough to go into the article. We can always tweak it from there. There's no need to have a prior discussion on talk for every little change, because otherwise we'll soon be dealing with an overly long section discussing how to compress an overly long lede... Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated version below: Thanks for your comments, Martijn. I was paraphrasing Ehrman (current wording on page = New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed). I can also remove the word "theologian" but was referring to Philip R. Davies and assumed he was. Should I post to the main page or wait for further suggestions? Radath (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 7: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

A few final tweaks:

Proposal 8: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ. However New Testament experts differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I like prop 8. Upload it. Good work, by the way. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the statement or how the sources support it, "that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ". The sources are saying that there is a consensus among the relevant scholars that Jesus existed, not that he "may" have been the inspiration for Christ, whatever that means. If the concern is that people will misinterpret the attributed claim that "Jesus existed" with the claim that "Jesus existed and the Gospels accurately reflect his life", it should simply be stated that the scholarly consensus is also that the Gospels do not accurately reflect his life. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few reservations about #8. While I like the idea of a longer first paragraph, I think the existing statement that this is only about the question of the historical existence of Jesus to be maybe an overstatement. At least some of the sources seem to indicate that they think a Jesus may have existed, but that the "Christ" elements of the story as we have it today are "mythic". That particular position doesn't seem to get the same degree of attention in this draft. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A few more final tweaks - cleaned up even further:

Proposal 9: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Bible did not exist, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus never existed in any sense. However, there is a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus existed, although they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. I wouldn't try to change it (except for maybe a comma after "However"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in brevity, but I think it has been stripped a litte too much. I will weigh in later this evening. I promised not to upload until 12:00 Friday UTC so I hope you extend me the same courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For the last four days, I have been proposing and re-proposing changes to the introduction, and have incorporated every suggestion from Wdford, Martijn Meijeri, John Carter, and others (removing names, removing quotes, incorporating words desired by CMT opponents, etc) even when I didn't agree. By the time we got to proposal 7, I think we had reached a nice compromise and NPOV, with special features such as direct internal links to contemporary authors and documentaries in sentence 2, as well as a concluding sentence suggesting further research and debate. By the end of proposal 6, Martijn was even suggesting it was good enough to post. So here is proposal 10 which is similar to 7, but it points out that CMT is controversial and also addresses the concern by Atethnekos that I did not adequately describe Hitchens's view in paragraph 2. Can I post? Radath (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 10: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. '

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

We need to clarify a bit further that the argument is not about "A Jesus" but rather is about "The Gospel Jesus". I therefore propose the following compromise:

Proposal 11: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

I'm not sure who wrote Proposal 11 as it was unsigned, but I agree that I can better explain the first school of thought shared by Dawkins, Hitchens, Thompson and others (maybe even Ehrman) that the Gospels are inaccurate, inconsistent, based on myths and essentially not true, but they cannot say with certainty that there was not a man named Jesus whose life was mythologized many decades after his death. As well, for the sake of brevity and NPOV, I can compromise further and shorten the sentence about further research and debate. Now we are past the time I said I would post, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 12: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Now we are past the time I said I would post a couple days ago, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. :) John Carter (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted Proposal 11 - sorry for missing out the signature. I am happy with Proposal 12 - it seems everything important has been covered. Wdford (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the new intro which is considerably shorter than the old version (-1435). Thanks to everyone who contributed and compromised. I'm always amazed when text that is "written by committee" turns out so clear. Radath (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a similar note, if someone has some time, they could clean up the footnotes which are quite inconsistent. As well, we could make the top of the page shorter by removing the dispute tag (this page is the result of much compromise from both sides) and the note about comparative mythology (which contradicts the previous sentence which includes a link to Christianty and comparative mythology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tags would generally require the consensus of the person who placed them, and I don't know who that was or whether they are still active. However, I would myself also support the removal of the tags at this time, to help establish some degree of consensus for the removal of the tag. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I was the last person to reinsert the tag, and I've removed it because of the recent changes. If someone feels the article is still biased (or has now become biased), he/she is free to reinsert the tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the POV tag, Martijn. That is great news. Do you know if we can also remove the note "Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology" or is it important. Radath (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand the difference - is there really any value in having this note? Wdford (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think it has something to do with merely ahistorical vs being derived from pagan myths. Price does believe the latter, I'm not sure about other CMT proponents. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then clarify this distinction in the Price sub-section, rather than in the heading? Wdford (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So we can remove the note? Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, but what's the point of "including some atheists" before "believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine"? It would seem more remarkable that some atheists "concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it that way as I read recently (perhaps from Ehrman) that most atheists (including Dawkins and Hitchens) concede that Jesus may have lived, and saying "some" was true and safer. Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the definition anymore: "is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed". This seems to be saying that mythicism is just denying that the gospels are true. That's just the standard view of historians, not mythicism. Mythicists are saying that all the accounts about Jesus fail to refer to any person at all, because that person never existed. And then again: "Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths." Pretty much every historian except for some fundamentalists who don't employ an actual historical method believe that some biblical accounts are based on myths (in the sense of "legends" or "fictions"); that's not mythicism, just the mainstream. -Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Athenekos has a point. I think most historians of all sort tend to say that miracles of all sorts lie outside their area of expertise, and tend to leave questions regarding them to others, like scientists, theologians, and others, although some would propose ways in which purported miracles could occur in a more natural way. I think, and I hope others correct me if I'm wrong, the essential points of the purported history which are generally counted as "mythic" are those which relate to Jesus's possibly establishing a church, seeing himself as divinely directed, and certainly the idea that he was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead, among others. The "Jesus myth theory," that the individual himself never existed in a way even remotely resembling the religious accounts, is somewhat of a separate matter, but probably best included in this article anyway. Maybe it would be useful to somewhere in the lead indicate exactly which aspects are most frequently described as "mythic" in this sense. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The current definition (... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community) has been in the first sentence for very a long time. Now that Athenekos has pointed it out, defined that way, I suppose someone could call Ehrman and most mainstream scholars "mythicists" which is obviously not the case. The definition on the Jesus in comparative mythology page (The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the historical existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.) is clearer, isn't all that different, and has two footnotes (Theissen and Van Voorst). That article focuses on Strauss (who incidentally believed that Jesus lived, but created an uproar simply by suggesting that Jesus really didn't perform miracles) calling him "the founder of Christ myth theory". Is it possible that CMT originally referred anyone who questioned the historical accuracy of the gosepels (what were once fringe theories are now mainstream)? There is arguably a clearer definition in the Tom Harpur article (Christ myth theory, the idea that Jesus did not exist but is a fictional or mythological figure). We might want to adapt ours to simply say ( ...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure in history) which is something that Hitchens would say but Ehrman wouldn't. Radath (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean it's something to consider. But has it been the sentence for a long time? When did it change? I just went back a few months and sampled, and everything had just "...proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community." or thereabout e.g. [5] [6] [7] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a reasonable question there, and I wish I knew how to answer it, other than, perhaps, repeating something I think Akhilleus said earlier , Ehrman(?) was at that time expected to have a new book on this topic out shortly, and as a form of neutral overview whatever definition(s) it uses might be the best to go by. Anyone know if that book is out yet, or what it says? John Carter (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The only book that Ehrman has on mythicism is Did Jesus Exist? (2012); I don't believe he has any plans to write another. Ehrman defines mythicism in there as: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." (p. 12, Harper ebook version) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Akhilleos referred to the recent book by Ehrman and the forthcoming book by Casey in archive 43, when there was discussion about the relationship of Jesus to various preexisting mythic traditions. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue of the definition is what has plagued this article since forever. There is a clear distinction between "Jesus the Jewish teacher and trouble-maker" vs "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame". Many scholars and wiki-editors alike hold the simple view that "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame" was a myth/fable/fiction/lie/whatever, and therefore the Christ Myth Theory is actually the current mainstream scholarly consensus. However other authors and wiki-editors hold instead that the Christ Myth Theory actually states that "nobody named Jesus ever lived in any form ever", and therefore by their definition the Christ Myth Theory is fringe. Whichever group controls the definition on the day, the other side will determinedly put in their conflicting views, and thus they have argued past each other for years. The solution seems to be for Wikipedia to avoid taking a stance on the matter of the definition, as there is no consensus here from reliable sources, and instead to cover all the bases equally and fairly. So we now have a lead section that says "most scholars agree that there was a real guy named Jesus who was executed for some reason, but the Jesus of Nazareth as per the gospels is not considered to be a true story." It seems to be working so far. Wdford (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summery of the problems the definition has had over the years. A long time ago in this article's history there was an effort to present seemingly every idea that had been called Christ myth or one of it many synonyms in the last 100 years. The result as one might expect was a totally dysfunctional lede and an even more dysfunctional article.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine leaving it as it is. The casual reader won't notice any ambiguity until they get to the second paragraph where they will get a sample of the range of ideas referenced in the Jesus in comparative mythology definition. Radath (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, there didn't' seem to be concerns about removing the line at the top (Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology). I have removed as it appears to be an opinion without citations that contradicts the previous note about Jesus in comparative mythology. If anyone feels strongly it should be there, they can undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede getting very large

Wdford has been trimming the lede, which is a good thing. It might be useful to salvage some of the stuff that was deleted by moving it to a separate section in the main body of the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If the lede needs trimming, then start with this part:

Critics of the theory, including Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists who believe that the gospels are reliable records of a historical Jesus, maintain that the proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.

I don't know who put this in but it makes it sound that only biased people (Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists) are the ones who are critical of this almost universally rejected theory. It is NOT only such people who "maintain" that the theory is only held by a tiny minority. It is a FACT that that it is almost universally rejected, and frequently rejected in the harshest terms. The militant atheist/agnostics never cease to amaze me in their attempts to legitimize this fringe theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the intro is long, and that I contributed to the problem with the new words about critics, but there is also an argument that there is a lot of repetition in that paragraph, and at least some should be moved to the criticism section at the bottom. This is, after all, an article about CMT, as there are already any number of wiki articles on the historicity of Jesus. Starting the third paragraph in an introduction with the statement "Proponents constitute a tiny minority," while I concede is true, is simply jarring to a reader, as it would be equally jarring to give CMT such prominence in a wiki article on the historical Jesus. Although footnoted, I felt that statement needed attribution of who says so. My solution noted that critics "included" fundamentalists, literalists and apologists (not that they are the only ones) and then offered links to explain those terms. Radath (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

After my previous post, I was inspired by Bill the Cat's model for consensus on his user page, so as he suggested, I am proposing a new paragraph about biblical scholarship that flows better within the page and is which is shorter with fewer repetitive quotes. I really think the baptism and crucifixion sentence is just too detailed for the introduction and would be better in the criticism section. Ironically, a quick reading of that sentence may support that Jesus lived (since most scholars agree), but to me it gives credence to CMT (if scholars can agree on only two events in all the gospels, perhaps none of it is true). In the spirit of NPOV, I re-inserted Ehrman's religious agnosticism which I believe gives him more credibility for the atheists and agnostics likely to read this article. I'm interested in all your thoughts and will not implement any of these suggestions before Thursday noon UTC:

Current: Proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship. Even though a strong consensus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory, scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. For example, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Proposed: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived These scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. For example, although New Testament expert and skeptical agnostic Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed,, he also believes that Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Radath (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A big problem that plagues this article is that some editors understand the “Christ myth theory” to mean that Jesus did not exist at all, and they then happily shoot that down with “almost all scholars agree”. This usually results in wording that reads as if the gospel fables are all true. Other editors then argue that this is bunk, and bring their own hordes of sources that profess that the gospel stories are fictional/mythical. In order to avoid this constant argument, the largely-successful compromise has been to state openly in the lead that a Jesus-type person probably did exist, but that most of what the gospels say about him is untrue, and that all we can believe with any confidence is that Jesus was baptised and later crucified. I would also suggest we delete the two quotes from the lead. I would also prefer that we don’t wikilink the baptism and the crucifixion to the Bible stories, as although we have some confidence that these events took place, the gospel records thereof are full of extra detail which is surely false – e.g. the tombs opened and the dead rose up etc. I agree with the intention of the proposal above, but would suggest that we reword it to read instead:

Proposal 2: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Wdford (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add back a wikilink to the historical criticism article. Is classical biblical scholarship a commonly used term? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but I suspect the issue is based on the "Christian scholars vs secular scholars" debate. Personally I have no objection to your suggestion. Wdford (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account.

I propose the following rewrite of the entire lead section:

Proposal 3:The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community.

The idea was developed and popularised in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. Bauer's argument was that the New Testament is of no historical value, that the failure of ancient non-Christian writers of the 1st century to mention Jesus shows that he did not exist, and that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical in its beginnings. In recent years there has been more widespread debate on the subject. New Testament scholar Tom Harpur (a former Anglican priest) believes in a spiritual Christ, but believes that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and New Atheism activist Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ Myth Theory, that "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history," and that "the evidence (Jesus) existed is surprisingly shaky." Others argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Please share your suggestions? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this, Wdford. I will be proposing a few suggestions to your version later tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal. I admit it is a little longer than Wdford's, but I've tried to include useful summaries (including internal wikilinks where possible) and NPOV. Since there are a number of new ideas, I will wait until Friday noon UTC before posting to allow time to make improvements: Radath (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory and that "reputable biblical scholars do not regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history." Although Dawkins wrote in 2006 that "Jesus probably existed," he added in 2012 "the evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky." New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived. Many scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic who has written about the questionable accuracy and authorships of the gospels, states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies offers an arguably more balanced approach. Like many scholars, he question the historicity of the gospels and tends to believe there was a real Jesus, but makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and that there is room for scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Still much too long. Do we need to mention all these individuals by name in the lede? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting quotes in the lead. If we must mention them by name at all then surely we can summarize this by saying that opinions vary from xx who says the gospels are inerrant, through yy who says Jesus lived but wasn't as per the Bible, to zz who said Jesus never lived in the flesh, to ab who says the whole thing is a big fraud by the church? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account. Radath (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's work from this:

Proposal 5: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although many scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical. New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory, that reputable biblical scholars do not regard the Bible as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and that the evidence that Jesus existed is “surprisingly shaky." New Testament scholar and agnostic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states that virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus existed, but he personally believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies believes there was a real Jesus, but questions the historicity of the gospels and makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth.

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the stuff from "the only two events" onwards can be moved to the body of the text. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A shortened version without names or quotes for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 6: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and almost all scholars of antiquity that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain theologians and scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Made a slight copy edit to the last proposal above, but otherwise support it, although the first paragraph might be longer, if someone could figure out what exactly what might be included in an expanded first paragraph. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by John Carter, I made the first paragraph slightly longer by adding back a partial sentence from Wdford's version (in recent years...). The revived text contains internal links to the 21st century authors and documentaries so readers don't have to slog through the early writings. I also added a couple of commas, added a link to atheists and slightly changed the wording in the last sentence. Any other suggestions? Radath (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the "almost all scholars of antiquity" remark, as I believe it to be propaganda coming from the HJ research side. But since this there's already a POV tag and since we're dealing with a separate problem (length of the lede) here, for now it's fine. I'd avoid the use of the word theologians here, biblical scholars is generally more appropriate. The words are not synonymous. Anyway, I think the latest proposal is good enough to go into the article. We can always tweak it from there. There's no need to have a prior discussion on talk for every little change, because otherwise we'll soon be dealing with an overly long section discussing how to compress an overly long lede... Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated version below: Thanks for your comments, Martijn. I was paraphrasing Ehrman (current wording on page = New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed). I can also remove the word "theologian" but was referring to Philip R. Davies and assumed he was. Should I post to the main page or wait for further suggestions? Radath (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 7: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

A few final tweaks:

Proposal 8: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ. However New Testament experts differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I like prop 8. Upload it. Good work, by the way. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the statement or how the sources support it, "that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ". The sources are saying that there is a consensus among the relevant scholars that Jesus existed, not that he "may" have been the inspiration for Christ, whatever that means. If the concern is that people will misinterpret the attributed claim that "Jesus existed" with the claim that "Jesus existed and the Gospels accurately reflect his life", it should simply be stated that the scholarly consensus is also that the Gospels do not accurately reflect his life. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few reservations about #8. While I like the idea of a longer first paragraph, I think the existing statement that this is only about the question of the historical existence of Jesus to be maybe an overstatement. At least some of the sources seem to indicate that they think a Jesus may have existed, but that the "Christ" elements of the story as we have it today are "mythic". That particular position doesn't seem to get the same degree of attention in this draft. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A few more final tweaks - cleaned up even further:

Proposal 9: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Bible did not exist, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus never existed in any sense. However, there is a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus existed, although they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. I wouldn't try to change it (except for maybe a comma after "However"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in brevity, but I think it has been stripped a litte too much. I will weigh in later this evening. I promised not to upload until 12:00 Friday UTC so I hope you extend me the same courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For the last four days, I have been proposing and re-proposing changes to the introduction, and have incorporated every suggestion from Wdford, Martijn Meijeri, John Carter, and others (removing names, removing quotes, incorporating words desired by CMT opponents, etc) even when I didn't agree. By the time we got to proposal 7, I think we had reached a nice compromise and NPOV, with special features such as direct internal links to contemporary authors and documentaries in sentence 2, as well as a concluding sentence suggesting further research and debate. By the end of proposal 6, Martijn was even suggesting it was good enough to post. So here is proposal 10 which is similar to 7, but it points out that CMT is controversial and also addresses the concern by Atethnekos that I did not adequately describe Hitchens's view in paragraph 2. Can I post? Radath (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 10: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. '

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

We need to clarify a bit further that the argument is not about "A Jesus" but rather is about "The Gospel Jesus". I therefore propose the following compromise:

Proposal 11: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

I'm not sure who wrote Proposal 11 as it was unsigned, but I agree that I can better explain the first school of thought shared by Dawkins, Hitchens, Thompson and others (maybe even Ehrman) that the Gospels are inaccurate, inconsistent, based on myths and essentially not true, but they cannot say with certainty that there was not a man named Jesus whose life was mythologized many decades after his death. As well, for the sake of brevity and NPOV, I can compromise further and shorten the sentence about further research and debate. Now we are past the time I said I would post, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 12: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Now we are past the time I said I would post a couple days ago, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. :) John Carter (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted Proposal 11 - sorry for missing out the signature. I am happy with Proposal 12 - it seems everything important has been covered. Wdford (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the new intro which is considerably shorter than the old version (-1435). Thanks to everyone who contributed and compromised. I'm always amazed when text that is "written by committee" turns out so clear. Radath (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a similar note, if someone has some time, they could clean up the footnotes which are quite inconsistent. As well, we could make the top of the page shorter by removing the dispute tag (this page is the result of much compromise from both sides) and the note about comparative mythology (which contradicts the previous sentence which includes a link to Christianty and comparative mythology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tags would generally require the consensus of the person who placed them, and I don't know who that was or whether they are still active. However, I would myself also support the removal of the tags at this time, to help establish some degree of consensus for the removal of the tag. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I was the last person to reinsert the tag, and I've removed it because of the recent changes. If someone feels the article is still biased (or has now become biased), he/she is free to reinsert the tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the POV tag, Martijn. That is great news. Do you know if we can also remove the note "Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology" or is it important. Radath (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand the difference - is there really any value in having this note? Wdford (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think it has something to do with merely ahistorical vs being derived from pagan myths. Price does believe the latter, I'm not sure about other CMT proponents. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then clarify this distinction in the Price sub-section, rather than in the heading? Wdford (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So we can remove the note? Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, but what's the point of "including some atheists" before "believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine"? It would seem more remarkable that some atheists "concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it that way as I read recently (perhaps from Ehrman) that most atheists (including Dawkins and Hitchens) concede that Jesus may have lived, and saying "some" was true and safer. Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the definition anymore: "is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed". This seems to be saying that mythicism is just denying that the gospels are true. That's just the standard view of historians, not mythicism. Mythicists are saying that all the accounts about Jesus fail to refer to any person at all, because that person never existed. And then again: "Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths." Pretty much every historian except for some fundamentalists who don't employ an actual historical method believe that some biblical accounts are based on myths (in the sense of "legends" or "fictions"); that's not mythicism, just the mainstream. -Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Athenekos has a point. I think most historians of all sort tend to say that miracles of all sorts lie outside their area of expertise, and tend to leave questions regarding them to others, like scientists, theologians, and others, although some would propose ways in which purported miracles could occur in a more natural way. I think, and I hope others correct me if I'm wrong, the essential points of the purported history which are generally counted as "mythic" are those which relate to Jesus's possibly establishing a church, seeing himself as divinely directed, and certainly the idea that he was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead, among others. The "Jesus myth theory," that the individual himself never existed in a way even remotely resembling the religious accounts, is somewhat of a separate matter, but probably best included in this article anyway. Maybe it would be useful to somewhere in the lead indicate exactly which aspects are most frequently described as "mythic" in this sense. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The current definition (... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community) has been in the first sentence for very a long time. Now that Athenekos has pointed it out, defined that way, I suppose someone could call Ehrman and most mainstream scholars "mythicists" which is obviously not the case. The definition on the Jesus in comparative mythology page (The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the historical existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.) is clearer, isn't all that different, and has two footnotes (Theissen and Van Voorst). That article focuses on Strauss (who incidentally believed that Jesus lived, but created an uproar simply by suggesting that Jesus really didn't perform miracles) calling him "the founder of Christ myth theory". Is it possible that CMT originally referred anyone who questioned the historical accuracy of the gosepels (what were once fringe theories are now mainstream)? There is arguably a clearer definition in the Tom Harpur article (Christ myth theory, the idea that Jesus did not exist but is a fictional or mythological figure). We might want to adapt ours to simply say ( ...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure in history) which is something that Hitchens would say but Ehrman wouldn't. Radath (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean it's something to consider. But has it been the sentence for a long time? When did it change? I just went back a few months and sampled, and everything had just "...proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community." or thereabout e.g. [8] [9] [10] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a reasonable question there, and I wish I knew how to answer it, other than, perhaps, repeating something I think Akhilleus said earlier , Ehrman(?) was at that time expected to have a new book on this topic out shortly, and as a form of neutral overview whatever definition(s) it uses might be the best to go by. Anyone know if that book is out yet, or what it says? John Carter (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The only book that Ehrman has on mythicism is Did Jesus Exist? (2012); I don't believe he has any plans to write another. Ehrman defines mythicism in there as: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." (p. 12, Harper ebook version) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Akhilleos referred to the recent book by Ehrman and the forthcoming book by Casey in archive 43, when there was discussion about the relationship of Jesus to various preexisting mythic traditions. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue of the definition is what has plagued this article since forever. There is a clear distinction between "Jesus the Jewish teacher and trouble-maker" vs "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame". Many scholars and wiki-editors alike hold the simple view that "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame" was a myth/fable/fiction/lie/whatever, and therefore the Christ Myth Theory is actually the current mainstream scholarly consensus. However other authors and wiki-editors hold instead that the Christ Myth Theory actually states that "nobody named Jesus ever lived in any form ever", and therefore by their definition the Christ Myth Theory is fringe. Whichever group controls the definition on the day, the other side will determinedly put in their conflicting views, and thus they have argued past each other for years. The solution seems to be for Wikipedia to avoid taking a stance on the matter of the definition, as there is no consensus here from reliable sources, and instead to cover all the bases equally and fairly. So we now have a lead section that says "most scholars agree that there was a real guy named Jesus who was executed for some reason, but the Jesus of Nazareth as per the gospels is not considered to be a true story." It seems to be working so far. Wdford (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summery of the problems the definition has had over the years. A long time ago in this article's history there was an effort to present seemingly every idea that had been called Christ myth or one of it many synonyms in the last 100 years. The result as one might expect was a totally dysfunctional lede and an even more dysfunctional article.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine leaving it as it is. The casual reader won't notice any ambiguity until they get to the second paragraph where they will get a sample of the range of ideas referenced in the Jesus in comparative mythology definition. Radath (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, there didn't' seem to be concerns about removing the line at the top (Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology). I have removed as it appears to be an opinion without citations that contradicts the previous note about Jesus in comparative mythology. If anyone feels strongly it should be there, they can undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page is working

Hey guys, I've been quiet in the past couple of weeks, not because of a lack of interest, but because somehow we've managed to reach a constructive cooperation here. The talk page appears to be working as it's supposed to. Kudos to all involved and keep up the good work! Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Marttijn. Respectful debate and compromise leads to better content. Radath (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page is working

Hey guys, I've been quiet in the past couple of weeks, not because of a lack of interest, but because somehow we've managed to reach a constructive cooperation here. The talk page appears to be working as it's supposed to. Kudos to all involved and keep up the good work! Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Marttijn. Respectful debate and compromise leads to better content. Radath (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new "Key arguments" section

Since I started contributing to the article on January 24, I have made approximately 80 out of the last 100 edits, including new sections on Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Alvin Boyd Kuhn (none of whom were even mentioned in the article), Tom Harpur, Thomas L. Thompson, David Strauss (who were all just briefly mentioned in other sections) and the list of Documentaries. I worked and compromised with many of you in the creation of the new intro paragraphs, and elsewhere I have created supplementary information with new wiki articles on The Pagan Christ, Alvin Boyd Kuhn and K.L. Noll. Now I am suggesting this article needs a short summary of the three-point argument using NPOV so readers do not have to dig lthrough the 25 sub-sections on various authors. We can also shorten the lede introduction by removing the three arguments in the opening paragraph. Here is my proposal that I hope to post by noon UTC tomorrow for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

KEY ARGUMENTS PROPOSAL 1: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their criticisms are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown individuals with their own agendas. They say the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:'

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) is inconsistent with his other writings, may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus in Greco-Roman, Jewish and Islamic sources than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

I welcome all your suggestions and edits on this fine Sunday, but I think we should keep this summary brief. Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Point 3 is a good summation but there are a few hiccups such as the whole pagan origin of Virgin birth on December 25 date; modern scholarship has shown that the date was a very late comer (4th century) to the Jesus story in an effort to compete with the pagan Sol Invictus holiday. Before that there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian and Hippolytus favored March 25; Clement favored May 20, some were pointing to January 6 (ironically the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement). One of the calmer theories is that "virgin birth" was that time's equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth--never meant to be taken literally but as an short hand for "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" which would fit with why Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great were said to be born of virgins.

Also it doesn't address people like Remsburg who said Jesus most likely existed but most (if not all) of the Gospels story came from older myths.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken, but this brief summary is not meant to address every point or to convince scholars of CMT. It's written for the average reader who may not have heard any of these arguments (including points on which most scholars agree) and who might even assume that traditions like December 25th appear in the Bible. Radath (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good section, and my compliments. My only real reservation is to the section title "Summary". "History of the theory", "Development of the theory," something like that. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, John Carter. How about "Key Arguments" or "Main Arguments". That will make it easy if we want to create an internal wiki link from the introduction or one of the other sections. Radath (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Both are good. although "Key" might be preferable to "Main", as "Main" could be argued to mean "Most Frequent," and it might be that some of the worse or less effective arguments are most frequently used. If they are, there might be disputes about the amount of weight to give them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "Key". Done. Radath (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree and support, although we would need to include lots of references to avoid accusation of WP:OR. BTW I have encountered in my reading an explanation that "virgin births" were not all that unusual in those days. Apparently it simply meant that the mother was unmarried at the time of the birth, meaning the child was illegitimate and the mother (most likely a young girl) had probably been raped. Apparently the word translated here as "virgin" actually just means "unmarried" (maiden), and that to denote a girl who was actually a virgin in the sexual sense they used a completely different word. Interesting, yes? Wdford (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to wait for overall reaction before adding citations. I can provide basic references for a good part (mostly from Harpur's Pagan Christ) and will add those in tonight. with plans to post in the morning. For some statements (especially the myth critics sentences), I will likely add "citation needed", and perhaps you and other contributors can add more references where neede as I will be away for a few days. Radath (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the updated version with footnotes. I realize that it could use more citations, but I'm hoping others can contribute their wealth of knowledge.

KEY ARGUMENTS PROPOSAL 2: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their counter-arguments are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas. They often argue the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

Anyone have any suggestions or further footnotes? Radath (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As there were no negative comments, I posted the new section. Additional citations welcome. I hope that people don't start making this section too long as it is meant to be a brief summary. Radath (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014

Radath - Do you have other sources to back up especially the first sentence of the 3rd para? Harpur's book which espouses connections to either Horus or Osirus are based on the ramblings of the fool Gerald Massey who has been 100% discredited. Since I don't have access to it I'm wondering what Harpur says which other god/holy man was born from a virgin on Dec 25th and was announced by a star in the east with three wise men and was crucified and resurrected (Osiris doesn't count on this last one as he was essentially turned into a pieced together zombie - which is not even close to being bodily resurrected). I agree with the first part of the 2nd sentence of that para because the Catholic Church obviously co-opted several pagan holidays to use as Christian celebration days (although this really has nothing to do with whether Jesus was an actual person or not). However, the 2nd part does not make sense to me. Where in the NT does it say that Jesus was Joshua? Simply because they have similar names? The final sentence is fine.

I'm really not asking you defend the source or trying to create an argument, but you rely heavily on Harpur and if he is going to lean on Massey's ridiculous "scholarship" this leads me to question the whole source. Alot of them are from a Christian perspective, but the reviews/criticsms of this book are many and stinging. Ckruschke (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your comments, Ckruschke Unfortunately I've loaned out my copy of The Pagan Christ. Until I get it back, I have changed the wording to make sure its clear that Horus et. al are "claims". As for the second sentence, even the previous version did not say that any of these figures had ALL these traits (even though that might be suggested in the movies Religulous and Zeitgeist). I have also placed "citation needed" tags until I (or one of you) have time to do the research. Here is the newest live version:

Final Paragraph Proposal 3 Myth proponents claim that many stories of Jesus are at least partially similar to certain myths about sun gods and other pagan leaders such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddha, Krishna and others. Some mythological writings about these figures pre-date Jesus by up to 4000 years and can include themes such as virgin birth, December 25th birth, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell, or resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah and Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

As I noted earlier in the week, this section is simply meant as a quick NPOV summary of what is said elsewhere on the page. Even if Harpur cited Kuhn, Kuhn cited Massey, and Massey is proven wrong, the fact they all had those beliefs is still attributable in the context of beliefs. I even noted in the final sentence that critics argue that these claims are without historical basis. With that said, there are other scholars like Thomas L. Thompson, Siegfried Morenz and Erik Hornung who note the similarities between Christianity and ancient Egyptian religions. As for Yeshua, the Joshua wiki page suggests a connection with Jesus beyond their shared name. I think its safe to assume that Christ myth proponents will not agree on every point or get every fact right, and neither will the scholars or myth opponents. -Radath (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've devoted a lot of time to improving this article over the last few weeks. Anyone want to volunteer to research the proper citations, especially for the last paragraph in the new section? Radath (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Radath - Thank you for your response, good-natured collaboration, and willingness to make adjustments in your own work. I completely understand the reason for the section and support it - I wish more pages had up-front summations of the germain points (as often times, ledes are sorely lacking). Also realize its also designed to be an all-encompasing, non-NPOV tone. I just have major issues with Massey's work in general and some of his assertions (Dec 25th, virgin birth, crucifixion, etc) specifically as I've never found corroborating evidence for these assertions OUTSIDE of authors who are clearly citing Massey. I'm not bagging on Massey simply because I'm a Christian - I bagging on Massey because his scholarship is akin to outright fantasy. If he was a Christian author who made up "facts" like this SUPPORTING the Bible, he'd be laughed out of the room. Appreciate your work - just trying to give you another perspective that hopefully helps. Feel free to send me a message on my Talk page if you'd like help. Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your kind words, Ckruschke. I think it best when we work together to make this the best article we can, no matter which side of the debate we sit, and to always avoid attacks. With that said, did you mean to say that the new key arguments section has a "non-POV tone"? As I generally do, I tried my best to ensure a neutral tone. For example, I presented the three arguments as assertions rather than facts, and at the end of each of the three short paragraphs, I included a sentence which summarized the criticism against that argument (even though I could also argue flaws in those counter-arguments). By the way, I've started to gather citations for the third argument about pagan myths, but its a big task to go through each of the authors over the last 250 years to decide who said what. It would be really helpful if someone could let me know of a book that sums up all (or most) of the statements which require citations, including an example of a myth critic for the final sentence. Radath (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops - I meant to say "Also realize its also designed to be an all-encompasing, NPOV tone." Sorry for the confusion.

I know of no source book corroborating or even summing up the Jesus myth points that you've flagged. Which is part of my point - it appears to me that many of the arguments/points that Massey makes were created in Massey's mind. Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Carl Jung linked Jesus with Osiris – see [[11]]. Robert Price apparently made the pagan comparison as well – see [[12]] For some other sources see perhaps [13] , [14] , [15] , [16]. Wdford (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess I should disclose that I've been corresponding with Tom Harpur the last few weeks. Initially I contacted him to discuss the use of his photo and to ensure the accuracy of things I have written about him. He has been very gracious with his time, and has suggested some additions including the new section on Jacob Alexander which he asked me to post. I asked him about the references for paragraph 3, and this was his response:

I could suggest that for the first one (list of deities), you could include: William Benjamin Smith (Der Vorchristliche Jesus – The Pre-Christian Jesus), Northrop Frye (The Great Code), Martin Luther King (The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity) and Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth, or any of his books). For the second one (list of similarities), you could use Jacob Alexander (Atman – A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans), and Joseph Warschauer (The Historical Life of Jesus). As well, see the bibliography in Freke and Gandy's book (The Jesus Mysteries). For the third, since this is a position of the critics I don't have a citation.The Jews profess to avoid anything pagan, but in actual fact they did not.

As I don't have the time to read all those books, I have instead found some citations of authors who I know to have made specific claims (e.g., Massey= Horus, Buddha=Borg, Mithras and others=Drew). For the list of similarities, these claims and more were made by Graves. I have removed the reference to Jews in the last sentence as Harpur suggested, but I'm assuming that Ehrman must have made this claim that all the pagan similarities are inaccurate or coincidental if someone who has read his books can add a reference. Radath (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As well as specifically corroboration of any of the themes (virgin birth, December 25th birth, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell, or resurrection) beyond what appears to be the single source of Massey. If all these themes have a root in Massey's "scholarship", this statement should be flagged as dubious or removed.

Considering Harpur leans on Massey's work in Pagan Christ, maybe he has a source for this info - other than Massey - or reasoning for why Massey's work is legit? Thanks for continuing to work this Radath. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well I actually quoted Graves (who I know made this conclusion about Jesus-like similarities), not Massey. As I mentioned above, Harpur suggested Alexander and Warschauer (as well as Freke/Gandy's references) could probably be used for that citation, but I don't have the time right now to find and read these books. As well, I assume that Thompson (who would have relied on his own research and probably has more credibility than all others put together) may have made similar assertions in "The Christ Myth" in 2005 when he concluded the Gospels are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature, so I will need to see if I can order that book. Until I (or another contributor) can conclusively give credence to that statement about similarities, I am happy to put back the "citation needed" tag. However, I think it is too early to discuss removing it as I only present it as something that some proponents claim (and many myth proponents have claimed this, rightly or wrongly), and I ensure NPOV two sentences later when I wrote "Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis." Still waiting for a citation for that statement though. As always, I am open to all suggestions. Radath (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. These analogies between Christianity and pagan myths are not new. I have heard from various sources that Justin Martyr in the second century blamed the devil for placing similar stories about Jesus in preceding myths like Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius (see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm) and he is often quoted as writing to be born of a virgin mother, without any human mixture, and to be crucified, and dead, and to have risen again and ascended into heaven, we say no more than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.

I forgot to respond to Ckruschke's question about Tom Harpur and Gerald Massey. Harpur cites 80 published authors in The Pagan Christ, notes that he "checked and rechecked" his sources, and I think we should give him some benefit of doubt due to his background (Rhodes Scholar, Anglican priest, New Testament and theology professor, journalist, best-selling author, etc). He previously responded to Porter and Gasque (the only critics of Massey I have read), and when I asked him about the legitimacy of Massey last week, Harpur responded:

As far as I have ever been able to discern, Gerald Massey has not “been disproven.” Rather, he has been deliberately ignored. He spent many, many months working in the British Museum Assyrian and Egyptology section where he worked closely with the curator, Dr. Samuel Birch and other leading Egyptologists of his day, even learning hieroglyphics. In fact, he was there just at the time the temple of Horus at Edfu was first being excavated. He checked his findings with these collaborators. Enemies tried to suppress his books because at that era the idea of Christianity having any African roots was highly offensive to prevailing prejudices of the day.Radath (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd like to see the source documentation behind Massey's scholarship because I have seen no other sources claiming Horus/Osiris mythology as the basis for Jesus. Since the Egyptian mythology that "anyone" can read lists none of the items that Massey attributes to these figures (Dec 25th birth, virgin birth, crucifixion, bodily resurrection, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, etc). I apologize for continuing to come back to this, but from everything "I've read", neither dieties fit ANY of these specifications. I'm not disparaging Harpur - I'm just having a tough time independently corroborating either his or Massey's findings in this area. That being said, its easy to say "the Church was keeping Massey's findings down" which on the surface seems like a dubious excuse. Also his statement that none of Massey's works have been disproven is answering the wrong question. I'm asking him to PROVE that what Massey is saying has some basis in reality. The fact that he mentions crucifixion alone as a connection between Egyptian dieties and Jesus is laughable considering the entire technique was not even used until the Roman times.

Bottomline is I'm not trying to shanghai the conversation. Just have some questions that I think need to answered to lift the flags on that paragraph. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I understand your skepticism, Ckruschke. I am not an expert myself, but I am doing some research so I can provide some harder evidence from scholars on the connection between Jesus and Horus. Radath (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new "Key arguments" section

Since I started contributing to the article on January 24, I have made approximately 80 out of the last 100 edits, including new sections on Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Alvin Boyd Kuhn (none of whom were even mentioned in the article), Tom Harpur, Thomas L. Thompson, David Strauss (who were all just briefly mentioned in other sections) and the list of Documentaries. I worked and compromised with many of you in the creation of the new intro paragraphs, and elsewhere I have created supplementary information with new wiki articles on The Pagan Christ, Alvin Boyd Kuhn and K.L. Noll. Now I am suggesting this article needs a short summary of the three-point argument using NPOV so readers do not have to dig lthrough the 25 sub-sections on various authors. We can also shorten the lede introduction by removing the three arguments in the opening paragraph. Here is my proposal that I hope to post by noon UTC tomorrow for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

KEY ARGUMENTS PROPOSAL 1: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their criticisms are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown individuals with their own agendas. They say the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:'

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) is inconsistent with his other writings, may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus in Greco-Roman, Jewish and Islamic sources than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

I welcome all your suggestions and edits on this fine Sunday, but I think we should keep this summary brief. Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Point 3 is a good summation but there are a few hiccups such as the whole pagan origin of Virgin birth on December 25 date; modern scholarship has shown that the date was a very late comer (4th century) to the Jesus story in an effort to compete with the pagan Sol Invictus holiday. Before that there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian and Hippolytus favored March 25; Clement favored May 20, some were pointing to January 6 (ironically the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement). One of the calmer theories is that "virgin birth" was that time's equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth--never meant to be taken literally but as an short hand for "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" which would fit with why Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great were said to be born of virgins.

Also it doesn't address people like Remsburg who said Jesus most likely existed but most (if not all) of the Gospels story came from older myths.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken, but this brief summary is not meant to address every point or to convince scholars of CMT. It's written for the average reader who may not have heard any of these arguments (including points on which most scholars agree) and who might even assume that traditions like December 25th appear in the Bible. Radath (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good section, and my compliments. My only real reservation is to the section title "Summary". "History of the theory", "Development of the theory," something like that. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, John Carter. How about "Key Arguments" or "Main Arguments". That will make it easy if we want to create an internal wiki link from the introduction or one of the other sections. Radath (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Both are good. although "Key" might be preferable to "Main", as "Main" could be argued to mean "Most Frequent," and it might be that some of the worse or less effective arguments are most frequently used. If they are, there might be disputes about the amount of weight to give them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "Key". Done. Radath (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree and support, although we would need to include lots of references to avoid accusation of WP:OR. BTW I have encountered in my reading an explanation that "virgin births" were not all that unusual in those days. Apparently it simply meant that the mother was unmarried at the time of the birth, meaning the child was illegitimate and the mother (most likely a young girl) had probably been raped. Apparently the word translated here as "virgin" actually just means "unmarried" (maiden), and that to denote a girl who was actually a virgin in the sexual sense they used a completely different word. Interesting, yes? Wdford (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to wait for overall reaction before adding citations. I can provide basic references for a good part (mostly from Harpur's Pagan Christ) and will add those in tonight. with plans to post in the morning. For some statements (especially the myth critics sentences), I will likely add "citation needed", and perhaps you and other contributors can add more references where neede as I will be away for a few days. Radath (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the updated version with footnotes. I realize that it could use more citations, but I'm hoping others can contribute their wealth of knowledge.

KEY ARGUMENTS PROPOSAL 2: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their counter-arguments are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas. They often argue the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

Anyone have any suggestions or further footnotes? Radath (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As there were no negative comments, I posted the new section. Additional citations welcome. I hope that people don't start making this section too long as it is meant to be a brief summary. Radath (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014

Radath - Do you have other sources to back up especially the first sentence of the 3rd para? Harpur's book which espouses connections to either Horus or Osirus are based on the ramblings of the fool Gerald Massey who has been 100% discredited. Since I don't have access to it I'm wondering what Harpur says which other god/holy man was born from a virgin on Dec 25th and was announced by a star in the east with three wise men and was crucified and resurrected (Osiris doesn't count on this last one as he was essentially turned into a pieced together zombie - which is not even close to being bodily resurrected). I agree with the first part of the 2nd sentence of that para because the Catholic Church obviously co-opted several pagan holidays to use as Christian celebration days (although this really has nothing to do with whether Jesus was an actual person or not). However, the 2nd part does not make sense to me. Where in the NT does it say that Jesus was Joshua? Simply because they have similar names? The final sentence is fine.

I'm really not asking you defend the source or trying to create an argument, but you rely heavily on Harpur and if he is going to lean on Massey's ridiculous "scholarship" this leads me to question the whole source. Alot of them are from a Christian perspective, but the reviews/criticsms of this book are many and stinging. Ckruschke (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your comments, Ckruschke Unfortunately I've loaned out my copy of The Pagan Christ. Until I get it back, I have changed the wording to make sure its clear that Horus et. al are "claims". As for the second sentence, even the previous version did not say that any of these figures had ALL these traits (even though that might be suggested in the movies Religulous and Zeitgeist). I have also placed "citation needed" tags until I (or one of you) have time to do the research. Here is the newest live version:

Final Paragraph Proposal 3 Myth proponents claim that many stories of Jesus are at least partially similar to certain myths about sun gods and other pagan leaders such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddha, Krishna and others. Some mythological writings about these figures pre-date Jesus by up to 4000 years and can include themes such as virgin birth, December 25th birth, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell, or resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah and Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

As I noted earlier in the week, this section is simply meant as a quick NPOV summary of what is said elsewhere on the page. Even if Harpur cited Kuhn, Kuhn cited Massey, and Massey is proven wrong, the fact they all had those beliefs is still attributable in the context of beliefs. I even noted in the final sentence that critics argue that these claims are without historical basis. With that said, there are other scholars like Thomas L. Thompson, Siegfried Morenz and Erik Hornung who note the similarities between Christianity and ancient Egyptian religions. As for Yeshua, the Joshua wiki page suggests a connection with Jesus beyond their shared name. I think its safe to assume that Christ myth proponents will not agree on every point or get every fact right, and neither will the scholars or myth opponents. -Radath (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've devoted a lot of time to improving this article over the last few weeks. Anyone want to volunteer to research the proper citations, especially for the last paragraph in the new section? Radath (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Radath - Thank you for your response, good-natured collaboration, and willingness to make adjustments in your own work. I completely understand the reason for the section and support it - I wish more pages had up-front summations of the germain points (as often times, ledes are sorely lacking). Also realize its also designed to be an all-encompasing, non-NPOV tone. I just have major issues with Massey's work in general and some of his assertions (Dec 25th, virgin birth, crucifixion, etc) specifically as I've never found corroborating evidence for these assertions OUTSIDE of authors who are clearly citing Massey. I'm not bagging on Massey simply because I'm a Christian - I bagging on Massey because his scholarship is akin to outright fantasy. If he was a Christian author who made up "facts" like this SUPPORTING the Bible, he'd be laughed out of the room. Appreciate your work - just trying to give you another perspective that hopefully helps. Feel free to send me a message on my Talk page if you'd like help. Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your kind words, Ckruschke. I think it best when we work together to make this the best article we can, no matter which side of the debate we sit, and to always avoid attacks. With that said, did you mean to say that the new key arguments section has a "non-POV tone"? As I generally do, I tried my best to ensure a neutral tone. For example, I presented the three arguments as assertions rather than facts, and at the end of each of the three short paragraphs, I included a sentence which summarized the criticism against that argument (even though I could also argue flaws in those counter-arguments). By the way, I've started to gather citations for the third argument about pagan myths, but its a big task to go through each of the authors over the last 250 years to decide who said what. It would be really helpful if someone could let me know of a book that sums up all (or most) of the statements which require citations, including an example of a myth critic for the final sentence. Radath (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops - I meant to say "Also realize its also designed to be an all-encompasing, NPOV tone." Sorry for the confusion.

I know of no source book corroborating or even summing up the Jesus myth points that you've flagged. Which is part of my point - it appears to me that many of the arguments/points that Massey makes were created in Massey's mind. Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Carl Jung linked Jesus with Osiris – see [[17]]. Robert Price apparently made the pagan comparison as well – see [[18]] For some other sources see perhaps [19] , [20] , [21] , [22]. Wdford (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess I should disclose that I've been corresponding with Tom Harpur the last few weeks. Initially I contacted him to discuss the use of his photo and to ensure the accuracy of things I have written about him. He has been very gracious with his time, and has suggested some additions including the new section on Jacob Alexander which he asked me to post. I asked him about the references for paragraph 3, and this was his response:

I could suggest that for the first one (list of deities), you could include: William Benjamin Smith (Der Vorchristliche Jesus – The Pre-Christian Jesus), Northrop Frye (The Great Code), Martin Luther King (The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity) and Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth, or any of his books). For the second one (list of similarities), you could use Jacob Alexander (Atman – A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans), and Joseph Warschauer (The Historical Life of Jesus). As well, see the bibliography in Freke and Gandy's book (The Jesus Mysteries). For the third, since this is a position of the critics I don't have a citation.The Jews profess to avoid anything pagan, but in actual fact they did not.

As I don't have the time to read all those books, I have instead found some citations of authors who I know to have made specific claims (e.g., Massey= Horus, Buddha=Borg, Mithras and others=Drew). For the list of similarities, these claims and more were made by Graves. I have removed the reference to Jews in the last sentence as Harpur suggested, but I'm assuming that Ehrman must have made this claim that all the pagan similarities are inaccurate or coincidental if someone who has read his books can add a reference. Radath (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As well as specifically corroboration of any of the themes (virgin birth, December 25th birth, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell, or resurrection) beyond what appears to be the single source of Massey. If all these themes have a root in Massey's "scholarship", this statement should be flagged as dubious or removed.

Considering Harpur leans on Massey's work in Pagan Christ, maybe he has a source for this info - other than Massey - or reasoning for why Massey's work is legit? Thanks for continuing to work this Radath. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well I actually quoted Graves (who I know made this conclusion about Jesus-like similarities), not Massey. As I mentioned above, Harpur suggested Alexander and Warschauer (as well as Freke/Gandy's references) could probably be used for that citation, but I don't have the time right now to find and read these books. As well, I assume that Thompson (who would have relied on his own research and probably has more credibility than all others put together) may have made similar assertions in "The Christ Myth" in 2005 when he concluded the Gospels are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature, so I will need to see if I can order that book. Until I (or another contributor) can conclusively give credence to that statement about similarities, I am happy to put back the "citation needed" tag. However, I think it is too early to discuss removing it as I only present it as something that some proponents claim (and many myth proponents have claimed this, rightly or wrongly), and I ensure NPOV two sentences later when I wrote "Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis." Still waiting for a citation for that statement though. As always, I am open to all suggestions. Radath (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. These analogies between Christianity and pagan myths are not new. I have heard from various sources that Justin Martyr in the second century blamed the devil for placing similar stories about Jesus in preceding myths like Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius (see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm) and he is often quoted as writing to be born of a virgin mother, without any human mixture, and to be crucified, and dead, and to have risen again and ascended into heaven, we say no more than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.

I forgot to respond to Ckruschke's question about Tom Harpur and Gerald Massey. Harpur cites 80 published authors in The Pagan Christ, notes that he "checked and rechecked" his sources, and I think we should give him some benefit of doubt due to his background (Rhodes Scholar, Anglican priest, New Testament and theology professor, journalist, best-selling author, etc). He previously responded to Porter and Gasque (the only critics of Massey I have read), and when I asked him about the legitimacy of Massey last week, Harpur responded:

As far as I have ever been able to discern, Gerald Massey has not “been disproven.” Rather, he has been deliberately ignored. He spent many, many months working in the British Museum Assyrian and Egyptology section where he worked closely with the curator, Dr. Samuel Birch and other leading Egyptologists of his day, even learning hieroglyphics. In fact, he was there just at the time the temple of Horus at Edfu was first being excavated. He checked his findings with these collaborators. Enemies tried to suppress his books because at that era the idea of Christianity having any African roots was highly offensive to prevailing prejudices of the day.Radath (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd like to see the source documentation behind Massey's scholarship because I have seen no other sources claiming Horus/Osiris mythology as the basis for Jesus. Since the Egyptian mythology that "anyone" can read lists none of the items that Massey attributes to these figures (Dec 25th birth, virgin birth, crucifixion, bodily resurrection, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, etc). I apologize for continuing to come back to this, but from everything "I've read", neither dieties fit ANY of these specifications. I'm not disparaging Harpur - I'm just having a tough time independently corroborating either his or Massey's findings in this area. That being said, its easy to say "the Church was keeping Massey's findings down" which on the surface seems like a dubious excuse. Also his statement that none of Massey's works have been disproven is answering the wrong question. I'm asking him to PROVE that what Massey is saying has some basis in reality. The fact that he mentions crucifixion alone as a connection between Egyptian dieties and Jesus is laughable considering the entire technique was not even used until the Roman times.

Bottomline is I'm not trying to shanghai the conversation. Just have some questions that I think need to answered to lift the flags on that paragraph. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I understand your skepticism, Ckruschke. I am not an expert myself, but I am doing some research so I can provide some harder evidence from scholars on the connection between Jesus and Horus. Radath (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)