Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New names

So what would potential articles be named? Some suggestions (bad I know but I'm hoping to get the ball rolling).

• Jesus as myth → Jesus as a mythological construct.
• Jesus as myth → Theories of Jesus as mythology
• Jesus as myth → Mythological Jesus
• Jesus as myth → Narratives of Jesus as mythology
• Jesus as myth → Jesus as mythology
• Jesus as myth → insert your better idea here!

I'm taking a stab at what I think the "Jesus Christ as myth" article is supposed to be from what has been written by its proponents here.

• Jesus Christ as myth → Parallels between naratives of Jesus and other mythology.
• Jesus Christ as myth → Syncretism of Jesus narratives and mythology.
• Jesus Christ as myth → Proposed accretion of the Jesus Christ narratives.
• Jesus Christ as myth → Good grief this is hard - someone help me out!

If we went for a split I would see the "Jesus Christ as myth or whatever" article as the parent one with the "Jesus as myth or whatever" as the daughter article. I still don't quite see how they are going to be much different as all that I have read starts off pretty much the same way - (i.e. some of this must be made up or borrowed) but then some of it steps that bit further (i.e. there are too many similarities this must all be cobbled together). However I can see how one article could get too big and would need to split into subtopics. We also need to decide where we would draw the line between the two articles and this should be easy to keep to as we will need to make sure the intro paragraph makes the distinction very clear. I would appreciate suggestions for opening paragraphs for the two articles if this is what we decide to do. I still feel we need to backtrack first before doing any of this. Sophia 08:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We should make the names as clearly distinct as possible. For a long time this article was called Jesus-Myth. No-one seemed to have a problem with that until someone (user:TrumpetPower! I think) objected on the grounds tht this is a Christian term (!). He created another mirror article called something like "Jesus as mythical creation" which was deleted. Of course now Str1977 objects to Jesus-Myth on the opposite grounds - that it implies that it is true that he's a "mere" myth. Personally I'm happy with "Jesus myth hypothesis" or "Jesus myth theory" for the name of the article that discusses the proposition that he was essentailly non-historical. The main problem is the other article. We need to remove some of the material, which overlaps too much with this one, and expand the material on the theorisation of mythemes etc. I think the second one should be something like Mythological aspects of the figure of Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ understood in the light of mythography, but these are incredibly clumsy and prolix. However shorter ones are just too ambiguous. Paul B 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "Jesus-myth hypothesis", but given the history of the article, maybe the title should return to "Jesus myth", and we can see how many people start complaining about POV in the title.

"Jesus Christ as myth" is a definite problem, though, and I think Sophia has illustrated that there's no obvious alternative to the current title. I'd weakly suggest something like "Comparative mythology and the gospels". Whatever it's ultimately called, that article needs a thorough revision to make clear its difference from "Jesus-myth hypothesis". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion: "mythology" is very different from "myth" in most persons' understanding of the word. "Myth" tends to imply something completely made-up, not true, and "mythology" certainly tends to refer to a more in-depth, possibly scholarly, study. So there's one way to divide all this. Jesus-myth means one thing. Jesus Christ as mythology tends to say something else. The use of "jesus Christ" in the comparative mythology slant, assuming that article is kept from the AfD or resurrected in some other form, might help as well, in my opinion. Any additional proposed articles, if implemented, should of course be linked to from here with a brief disambig clause (e.g., "For further parallels drawn in published sources between narratives of Jesus and other mythology, see ________"; "For a more in-depth descriptions of Jesus from a mythological perspective, see __________)" This of course assumes that the validity of such additional articles can gain agreement, which doesn't appear to be a sure bet at this stage in time. If the editors here are able to collectively articulate what the articles are about and why they were so named, the chances of a stable article are, I should think, greatly increased. ... Kenosis 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think mythology is better for the current Jesus Christ as myth one - it also links with the broader Christian mythology article. Much of the stuff that was taken from this article needs to be moved from the other one - not all though, as it still has to refer to the themes of this one. I'm not too happy about the structure either. I think the central arguments should be placed before the listing of parallels. Paul B 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. If the parallels over there in that article are properly cited to reliable sources that've made these analogies, it appears to have much better potential than appeared to be the case at first. ... Kenosis 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title of Jesus Christ as myth to Mythographic perspectives on Jesus, which was a suggestion made in the RfD. It's not ideal, but it is at least a more precise description. Paul B 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Jesus myth hypothesis" (this article) should cover the whole range and history of this particular view. It might include details about the parallels or it might not.

If the parallels are split off to another article, this other article should be termed something like "Paralells between Jesus and mythology".

I opt for retaining the word "hypothesis" in the title as any article is ipso facto on the hypothesis. "Jesus as myth" "Jesus myth" can be made redirects. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More on this: when I say Jesus we could also put Jesus Christ.

Syncretism is no way to go as it already assumes a certain reason for parallels.

"Comparative mythology and the Gospels" is a completely different topic, a) restricting itself to the Gospels, b) broadening itself to the field of comparative mythology (which is much broader than any Jesus myth discussion can ever be).

I am also not sure whehter "Mythographic perspectives" describes properly what the article is about right now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for making the change was simply to emphasise that they are different topics. As I said, the new title is not the best solution. It was just calculated to stop this page degenerating into semi-deranged rantings, get the debate back on track, and clarify once again why the new article was made. The very reason for splitting off in the first place was that numerous - sometimes rather absurd - claims were being added to this article about alleged parallels between Jesus and myths from a variety of cultures around the world. Dab and jbolden wanted this article to concentrate on the rational arguments of recent skeptical writers that Jesus was mythical being, not an historical individual. From what I could gather jbolden is a supporter of this hypothesis. Dab supports the more mainstream secular view that Jesus was a real healer/teacher who got crucified, but not a God-Man. So the idea was that a new article on "Jesus parallels" could be created. This would allow us to discuss all the perceived parallels from a variety of perspectives - without sullying the Dohery/Wells views with a lot of idiosyncratic stuff that is either fringy New Age speculation, Christian theology, Jungianism, Hindutva fantasy (Jesus was a Hindu or Buddhist) or whatever. So the idea is that the synchretism goes in the other article, which will explore all the various reasons why writers might see and interpret parallels. These would include "diabolic imitation" (Justin Martyr etc), Archetypes in the human mind (Jung), Mythemes (structuralism applied to myth/folk culture), Christianity existing on other continents (Mormon interpretations of Quetzelcoatl), a Divine Masterplan (C.S. Lewis) etc. These ideas are associated with a variety of positions which emerge at different points in history. For example the Lewis argument is a Christian response to the Frazerian/Jungian theories about universal myths, but it draws on older theological thinking about providential provision for Christianity. This is of course why this article was cut down in size - in order to concentrate clearly on presenting the Wells/Doherty theory as they and their supporters articulate it. At the moment the new article is clumsily construted because it was initially cobbled together and because improvement has been crippled by the disruptive behaviour of editors - leading to Dab to leave in disgust and jbolden - seemingly - to retreat in shock because of the abuse he has received. Paul B 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this debate to the other article to clarify matters there too. Paul B 09:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Things that really, really need sourcing

"...the day each week officially dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the day of the invincible sun, in turn being renamed Sunday". Primarily for dating purposes. The Germanic precursor to "Sunday" was borrowed as a direct translation in the 3rd Century CE, and dies solis itself may be a literal translation of the Koine "hēmera hēlion". I tried finding a good ref, but didn't find anything good enough.

"...Jesus being more likely to have been born in April or September..." June or July have also been advanced as likely months. The simple fact remains that there is no way to fix the time specificially (If only Matthew or Luke would have used Zodiac signs ;) (I jest, I jest). •Jim62sch• 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation?

Kenosis, can you elaborate what you mean by this edit summary "Moving out the back-door apologietics in the very last edit. The argument is not Freke and Gandy's main thesis, and doen't belong in the "History" section."

• It doesn't matter whether it is their main argument. The argument is put forth and in the version that broke this down to two paragraphs, the reader might be confused to what "had Jesus been a true historical figure, there would not have been such a large number of prominent people who denied his existence" might mean - on its own, without the link to the previous thought this is a rather silly argument. Also, what otheus wrote in the invisible text is reason enough to suppose that the link to the initial quote gets lost.
• The comparison to other figures is in this wording untenable, as it a) endorses the comparison (instead of attributing it, if it is really needed), b) adds really nothing to the initial argument, c) the comparison is fallacious as not one of these other people was ever seen as a divine saviour figure - so the docetist thought would not apply
• It also needs to be clear that the equation of the 2 John quote with the claim of non-historicity is not a fact but a claim by Freke and Gandy (a very far-fetched claim I might add)
• Finally, I object to the bent of the edit summary - calling something "apologetics" is not an argument, just as calling the Jesus Myth hypothesis "loony fringe" isn't. So let's leave such polemics aside and focus on improving the article, shall we? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two versions of the paragraph, presently the last of three in the section entitled "History of the theories". The existing version was:

Proponents argue that, had Jesus been a true historical figure, there would not have been such a large number of prominent people who denied his existence, or an even larger number who defended him. Such controversies never developed over other contemporary religious figures (e.g., John the Baptist, Paul, James the Just, Hillel, Honi the Circledrawer). Scholars of the period, however, believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, the belief that Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

The last of a series of edits by Str1977 today (late yesterday in many time zones) replaced the paragraph with:

Some, including Freke and Gandy, have suggested that the idea that Jesus's existence is legendary is itself as old as the New Testament. They point out that 2 John warns of "many deceivers [who] are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." Proponents identify this with a denial of Jesus as a historical person and argue such doubt could not appear at such an early time had had Jesus existed.Scholars of the period, however, believe that this quoterefer to docetism, the belief that Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a fabrication.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

My impression of the latter version was that it introduced an element of implication that among the "many deceivers ... who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" might be the proponents of the Jesus-myth hypothesis, and it also had a certain ring to it that tended to sound a bit like a sermon. Among the numerous issues discussed by Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, it seems like a more fact-based example could readily have been used, such as one that didn't draw on scripture in a way that so closely associated deceivers with those who didn't "confess that Jesis Christ is come in the flesh". But, I didn't, and still don't, think any specific examples were necessary in this last paragraph, as the section is an overview of the history of the hypothesis. So my edit summary, which was off the cuff, so to speak, was no more literally "off the cuff" than the latter of the two versions above is literally "back-door apologetics". Str1977, I apologize if you felt at all offended by my edit summary. ... Kenosis 00:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To set the record straight, I did not replace the above paragraph with the one below but merged two paragraphs, the first being:

>>Some, including Freke and Gandy, have suggested that the idea that Jesus's existence is legendary is itself as old as the New Testament. They point out that 2 John warns of "many deceivers [who] are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."<<

the second being the paragraph beginning >>Proponents argue that ...<<

The second paragraph currently hangs in the air and is unintelligible if a reader hops from paragraph to paragraph (as they often do).

If it sounds like a sermon, it is not because of me. Also, what I wrote is nothing about an accurate description of the issue. Again, whether this is a side issue in F/G is irrelevant. We cannot let a shaky claim appear as if it was fact.

If the overview section doesn't need any examples, then we can get rid of it. But we cannot retain examples in such a way that obscure the actual, factual situation of these examples.

As for the final bit, I was not offended but don't want the discussion to slide down the road to a state where only one POV is allowed while the other (the mainstream I might add) is criminalized. Imagine how you would feel if the article on Creationism would allow scientific findings only in a very marginal way. Sorry, but I think the parallel to be quite clear.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The second para has been there for a long time. It's one of the oddities of "diff" views that very minor changes like adding or deleting a paragraph break can seem to be a huge change because the whole para is highlighted as if it is a new addition. BTW it is Freke and Gandy themselves who draw attention to this passage, so the reference to deceivers is not an attack on them. The standard view that the "deceivers" are advocates of docetism. Paul B 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the "deceivers" are John's words and according to scholarly consensus and according to tradition he refers to the Docetists and not to proponents of the JMH. It is Freke & Gandy who interpret it that way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see now. Then an additional apology from me to Str1977 is already implicit in this fact pointed about above by Str and PaulB. I'd really like to see that sentence removed from the "history" section, for essentially the same reason I gave above. Frankly it's the first time I've heard it as part of the debate about historicity, and thought that passage refers more to the conceptual and theologcial struggle about whether Jesus was properly regarded as the messiah predicted in the Jewish tradition, or that God come into the flesh as it's often said, the ultimately central Christian concept that "God became man", etc.. The Docetists, even from a purely theological perspective, were only one of a number of issues potentially involved in that passage, which I don't want to get into more than in passing here. And it was virtually a requisite for major leaders of the day to be regarded as sons or daughters or descendants of some god or other. I find it difficult to imagine this passage is such a central part of the Jesus-myth debate that it needs to be included in the "history" section.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying-- I've now had a chance to fully read the current text of that section rather than just scanning it. Any strong objections to removing that sentence, presently stranded as the second paragraph of the section? ... Kenosis 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all right, Kenosis. I now understand what you were up about. Misunderstandings.

The docetists believed that Jesus was the Saviour (not necessarily fully God but still divine or from above) but believed as such he could not have really been a man. So his body must have been something else, not real, fake-human. Still, they believed him to be an actual person doing this and that in a certain time, hence historical. Freke & Gandy misunderstand this issue when they apply the verse in 2 John to any issue about historicity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the quote here. Hope that's OK. Again, I apologize about the misapprehension of Str1977's edit. ... Kenosis 16:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC) ... IMO, after Str1977's last two edits following up on mine, it reads like a reasonable summary of the history. Thanks. ... Kenosis 16:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict:)

There remains a problem, Kenosis:

You removed the first paragraph but retained the rest, which now hangs completely in the air as it refers to the F/G interpretation of 2 John and the docetism issue. I therefore remove it as well but post it here, so that it is readily avaiable for any other employment. Since my issues with some of the wording remains, I also post "my version" of it.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some, including Freke and Gandy, have suggested that the idea that Jesus's existence is legendary is
itself as old as the New Testament. They point out that 2 John warns of "many deceivers [who] are
entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."
Proponents argue that, had Jesus been a true historical figure, there would not have been such a 
large number of prominent people who denied his existence, or an even larger number who defended 
him.
Such controversies never developed over other contemporary religious figures (e.g., John the  Baptist,
Paul, James the Just, Hillel, Honi the Circledrawer). 
Scholars of the period, however, believe that these early passages refer to docetism, the  
belief that Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather 
than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.

My version

Some, including Freke and Gandy, have suggested that the idea that Jesus's existence is legendary is 
itself as old as the New Testament. They point out that 2 John warns of "many deceivers [who] are 
entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." Proponents identify 
this with a denial of Jesus as a historical person and argue such doubt could not appear at such an 
early time had had Jesus existed. 
Scholars of the period, however, believe that this quote refers to docetism, the belief that 
Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that 
Jesus was a fabrication.

Writing this I have reconsidered Kenosis' change to the article and changed it a bit, retaining the gist of the issue - Freke's claim, mentioning of the verse (without a quote) and giving the scholarly view on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the article's starting to flow more coherently. Generally reads better than before with a few summaries the reader can get a handle on things without necessarily reading the whole article. ... Kenosis 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name

We really need to revert to Jesus as myth as this truly reflects the information that the article is derived from. As Jim showed - no-one else calls it a hypothesis and as long as the first paragraph makes clear that this is a minority view then there will be no confusion. Sophia 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. If the other article survives AFD, I think it would be better to call it "Jesus-myth theory", and to have "Jesus as myth" as a disambiguation page (between this article, the other one, and Historicity of Jesus, at least.) The phrase "Jesus as myth" encompasses what the other article is trying to do (talk about elements of the common Christian/gospel/etc presentation of Jesus as being mythical, from various different perspectives), although not as a technical term, so I think that "Jesus as myth" should not exclusively associate itself with one group that use that phrase, when for example C.S. Lewis would describe "Jesus as myth" as being correct - just in a *very* different way - or indeed Bultmann, or even many more conservative Christians who think there are elements of myth in the portrayal but wouldn't completely go with either of those other POV's (like me, for example.) TJ 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't stand that hyphen, it's just plain wrong. Yes, yes, English is a semi-agglutinative language, but it's not German (which is fully agglutinative) and while Jesusmythushypothese might be spiffy in German, Jesus-myth conveys nothing.

Sophia's proposal is less encumbered with nonsense (i.e., theory, hypothesis, argument, conjecture, lemma, etc.) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I object. This article is about the hypothesis that Jesus is a myth. If the title can be fine tuned (without the hyphen), go ahead. But reverting it to "Jesus as myth" will not do, as it is an awkward way to put it and does not conform to the actual content of the article (as TJ has explained above).

"Theory" is out of the question as this hypothesis does not rise to the level of theory. It would be the reverse of calling the "theory of evolution" the "evolution hypothesis".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should we add hypothesis to the title when absolutely no-one else does? [1] If we put it there to make some some point then that is a really good reason not to. Sophia 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As to confusion of the titles between the articles - that has been my point all along. They cover the same ground only some take it a bit further. Sophia 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the claim that Jesus is "mythical" in the sense that he never really existed, or existed in such a minimal form (like maybe Hercules or King Arthur) that the reality his almost not connection with the story as we know it. The other article is about the interpretation of the figure of Jesus as Christ by various different approaches to mythography. Paul B 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The stuff I have read ends up at the "Jesus is a myth" position because they have found so many mythographical aspects to the Jesus narratives. Sophia 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

One can study the mythological aspects of the Jesus narratives without coming to the conclusion that he wasn't historical. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because this article describes a certain something. What is this something called. Would you say "Freke is a proponent of the Jesus as myth" - no ... he's a proponent of the hypothesis. Even below you talk about the "Jesus is a myth" position. Titles must be concise and still proper English. "Jesus as myth" all alone is not. (Leaving completely aside that this article doesn't describe Jesus as myth, as TJ has pointed out.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I won't give an opinion about what to call the article, I do think the hyphen needs to go no matter what route you decide to take. If it switches to "Jesus as myth," it doesn't need anything. However, anything like "Jesus - myth hypothesis" (or any other variant) should be changed to "Jesus (myth hypothesis)" with parentheses. --13² 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The current title wants to say "the hypothesis of Jesus as a myth" or "of the Jesus myth" - it is a hyphen linking the two, not a dash. "Jesus (myth hypothesis)" is nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str1977 (talk • contribs)

I recommend that the discussion continue until participating editors have a clear picture of what the topics are and how the material is distributed across them.

(1) There's historicity, of which this article is arguably a topic fork.

(2) There's the historical study of Jesus, which generally presumes there was actually such a person, but which seeks empirical data and other sources independently of scripture, or at least in addition to the New Testament.

(3) There's the mythological Jesus, who according to this slant might well have been an actual historical person, but who, as Jbolden put it earlier, had mythical cargo attached to him as time progressed which may or may not be consistent with what originally was the reality of his life, added as the early Church grew, and which might have been drawn in some way from other myths available at the time to be heaped upon the founder of one's religion.

(4) There's straightforward comparative mythology, which is what the newly created article appears to be focusing upon.

(5) There's the slant used, for instance, in The Jesus Mysteries and The Jesus Puzzle, in the basic tradition of Bruno Bauer, which on the basis of comparative mythology and other historical issues argues essentially that Jesus never really existed at all, or that if he did, the mythical cargo is so different from the reality that for all reasonable purposes the scriptural stories have no basis in fact.

(6) There's also a hypothesis floating around in recent years (can't source it for you right now) that Jesus may be a composite of some of the many competing messiahs that appear to have been active prior to the virtually total destruction of Israel by the Roman Empire.

These last slants, 4, 5, and 6 are primarily where the title begins to be a potential source of confusion in my estimation. So I would want to pose the question, what is this article actually about? and what are its intended limits? Have I delineated the potential topics more-or-less correctly? If not, how can they be agreed to be effectively delineated so as to result in a stable set of topics? ... Kenosis 18:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From our perspective (ie 2000 years after the event) what is the difference between (3) and (5)? The two are interchangeable in The Jesus Mysteries and Thompsons The Messiah Myth for example. Sophia 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a difference of degrees. 5 is more "severe" than 3. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in 3, Jesus is assumed to be an actual person to which additional mythological cargo got attached as time progressed. In 5, the argument is that Jesus is a fiction, the premise supported by mythological comparisons as well as historical evidence and perhaps also by scripturally based arguments, as e.g. the 2John argument. ... Kenosis 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no absolutely rigid distinction between any positions. Absolute biblical literalists are one extreme, but even many Christians don't take the Gospels absolutely literally. There are an infinite number of conceivable positions on a spectrum. There is a meaningful distinction between 3 and 5, since in position three there is the possibility that a meaningful historical Jesus can be recovered. 3, as articulated by Kenosis, states that the mythos may well be consistent with Jesus's view of himself. Paul B 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone implied that there was a "rigid" distinction. Kenosis' point was that the title of the article needs to be supported by the content. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a agreeing with Kenosis's point and disagreeing with Sophia's criticism of it. Paul B 21:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad, sorry Paul. I'm pleading bbrain-cramp in my defense. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Regarding this edit (in any case it is a hypothesis ... rm "Jesus as myth" from intro as the links do not reference it): the refs don't support "Jesus-myth hypothesis", either -- the title is a type of WP:OR known as synthesis. The only link that refers to it as a "hypothesis" is that which is refuting it as a "bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking". How 'bout dat? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is stretching the term "synthesis" quite a bit. It is a hypothesis and in the absence of any sort of "official" or "common" term for that phenomenon we must write something.

As you yourself said, hypothesis occurs among the links, "Jesus as myth" doesn't. But the actual reason for removing it was that it is linguistically bad: "The Jesus-myth hypothesis, also referred to as ... Jesus as myth refers to the idea that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels is not about a real, historical person, but ..." - But the Jesus myth hypothesis however is not also referred to as Jesus as myth and Jesus as myth does not refer to the idea that ...

For other valid reasons to avoid this wording see above.

"How 'bout dat?" IMHO this is an accurate and very gentle description of the hypothesis. But of course, I willwill not have this article endorse this view. The JMH shall get a fair coverage, just as Creationism should. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The title does not constitute a synthesis as described in the policy. That refers to new theories constructed from existing material. Titles should be as clear as possible. Paul B 21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all. It simply isn't called the Jesus-myth Hypothesis.

Jesus as myth does now.

I didn't find any of the reasons to be compelling.

I have no clue what the last sentence means. Also, what's this "I will have this article endorse this view"? See WP:OWN. Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch. What is it called then? Do you dispute that it's a hypothesis? It is certainly not called "Jesus as myth", even if it now has a link - and actually your link doesn't support the term as though the word combination occurs twice it is not used as a title for the view.

It's your prerogative not to be convinced. But doesn't change the fact that it is not a name for the hypothesis nor that the words describe the contents of the article.

The last sentence means that I did not share your (perceived) disapproval of that one linked article. And I accidently forgot a "not". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly the main usage on the web is "Jesus myth". Thus, the "Jesus-myth hypothesis" is a legitimate title if the consensus is to continue calling it that. I personally would have no objection to "Jesus myth hypothesis" either.

I still would like to see some clarity on what is supposed to be the scope of this article. Do the five or six basic topical approaches I mentioned above apply? or not? or something slightly different? Because if they do apply, then this article appears to be either #3 and #5, or alternately just #5. Some of the problem I have with the article title "Jesus as myth" is the question of what to do with the implications that Jesus' historicity is valid, but that he got myth attached to him as Christianity grew, in which case one ends up with something like "Jesus as man vs. Jesus as myth". So I really think we all should have a handle on this issue of scope of topic that can be readily shared among participants and allow participants to readily answer questions of newcomers as may be necessary. ... Kenosis 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the view that Jesus is either completely a myth or at least practically so.

The (supposed) parallels to acient mythology can either be referred to on another article or included in this article.

This article is not about Jesus = history + myth, so this would relate to the paralles article, if we keep it separate.

The Jesus = history + myth is a (extreme) version of the Historical Jesus wheras the Jesus myth is only a version of it in as much atheism is a version of theism.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So Str is saying that this is the contra hypothesis to Jesus' historicity, correct? ... Kenosis 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It is the negative answer to the question of historicity. It should be mentioned in the article on historicity in brief but really covered here since it is way out of line of scholarly findings and consensus. All of this of course in NPOV fashion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So although one could expect arguments that it's a POV fork, it's presented as a description of a "complete-myth" hypothesis with both sides of the story presented, thereby complying with WP:NPOV? ... Kenosis 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A POV fork is when someone creates an article on a given subject that pushes a particular POV. An article on George Bush that forked off from the main one in order to portray him as a great hero in the "War Against Terror" would be a POV fork, as would one that presented him as an international terrorist and eco-criminal. An NPOV article on Bush's foreign policy or ecological policies that "forked" from the main George Bush article is not a problem. The "forking" of articles when one article would become too long or too rambling and diffuse is precisely what we should be doing. There are numerous "forks" from the main Jesus article. As long as we are clear that they are about a definite issue or sub-topic they are fine. We then have to ensure they are NPOV accounts of that topic. Paul B 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a sub-article of Historicity of Jesus, that article should have a short summary of Jesus myth hypothesis and a link here through {{main}}. This is what Wikipedia calls summary style. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I'm mainly trying to make sure that at least the more frequent participants in this article can agree what it's about. Offhand, it sounds like Str put it succinctly enough that it is the contra view to the dominant scholarly consensus about historicity of Jesus, proponents of which commonly call the story of Jesus "the Jesus myth". There's much too much in it to include in the historicity article, and it can be shown to be a common thread at least from Bruno Bauer in the 19th century, influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and recently popularized by a number of authors including Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. So maybe this stage in time someone can go over to the historicity article and, as Akhilleus advises, provide a short statement of the approach with a link to this article. If someone doesn't, I'll do it a bit later, as I'm just a tad short on time right now. ... Kenosis 23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC) . . . I now note that a main-article link is already provided at Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth . ... Kenosis 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri)If consensus is to keep "hypothesis, I won't argue any more (even though I think it bites as a title). But, can we please get rid of the hyphen?

Kenosis brings up a very good point, on levels he didn't even articulate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you also support a name change to Historical Jesus Hypothesis? Such word games seek to suggest doubt. It's Creationism vs. the Theory of Evolution. POV pushing pure and simple. The suggestion that one line of argument requires a qualifier while another does not. ^^James^^ 10:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The title "Historical Jesus" actually implies that there is a Jesus of history distinct from the Jesus of traditional theology. It's about placing him, his actions and assertions in an historical context. It raises the question of the extent to which such a figure can be recovered. It is not a specific hypothesis. If there is a "POV" there it's a secular one, not a Christian one. The Christian POV is articulated in Christian views of Jesus and God the son. Historicity of Jesus discusses the range of arguments concerning his historicity. "Jesus myth hypothesis", in contrast, is a more focussed examination of the specific theory/hypothesis that he was a mythical being. However the real question concerns clarity in communicating the content. I don't mind "Jesus myth" with or without hypothesis (or even hyphen). The question is whether that clearly and effectively conveys the topic to a reader. Paul B 10:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus discusses a range of ideas concerning his hypothetical historicity... while Jesus as myth "covers a broad range of ideas, but most share the common premise that... [Jesus] never actually lived." ^^James^^ 11:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical Jesus is about exploring Jesus as an historical figure. It only assumes his existence in the same way that the many articles on William Shakespeare assume he wrote the plays attributed to him. It's the provisional acceptance of a normative view. Alternative explanations of Shakespeare are explored in articles called Oxfordian theory and Baconian theory. The use of the word "theory" in these articles has never to my knowledge been objected to, even by proponents of the theories, on the ground that it is "POV pushing" for Shakespeare's authorship. Paul B 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus is not hypothetical or a hypothesis - it is a finding and consensus of scholarship. Fallible of course like all findings of scholarship but still.

The Jesus myth hypothesis is a hypothesis discarded by scholarly consensus.

Suggestin a parity between the two camps would be undue weight and would be akin to putting the scientific theory of Evolution on par with creationism. You may not like this but that is the world out there - the JMH and creationism are discarded by the relevant scientific community.

As for the relationship of a) the Historical Jesus, b) the Jesus Christ of the Christian religion, and c) the actually living and walking Jesus:

(a) is the result of historical scholarship based on the sources - it is a reconstruction by that method just as in the caes of any historical person. As any result of scholarship (a) is subject to debate and revision - hence more there is more than one version of (a) around.

(a) is not identical to (c) since many things are undetectable by that method.

(b) is the focus of Christian belief and of course Christians ipse facto believe (b) and (c) to be identical and also believe that there is no contradiction between (a) and (b).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. That is exactly what I was getting at in my original post. You are adding a qualifier to the very title of an article, despite the fact that the subject is commonly referred to as "Jesus Myth" or "Jesus as Myth". Nobody refers to the subject as the "Jesus Myth Hypothesis". The first line of the article is now funny:

"The Jesus-myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Jesus myth, and Jesus as myth..."

Also referred to as? The phrase coined by wikipedians gets first billing? Who do we think we are? ^^James^^ 21:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they probably refer to it as the Jesus myth theory more often than hypothesis. Hypothesis is probably more accurate, but given that there is an elaborate set of arguments then "theory" is fine too. There are many reasons why the term "theory" is used in article titles (and many more why the ism suffix might be used), but canm be be clear that this is mainly about finding the most effective title and not some point-scoring excercise about parity and non-parity between POVs. Paul B 08:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus (non-historicity theories), if anybody really wants to NPOV. Personally, I think the current title works with or without the hyphen. Obviously, unanimous support for any title is out of the question. ... Kenosis 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No that's not a feasible title as it doesn't reflect the content of the article. Jesus according to the non-historicity hypothesis (it is not a theory and never will be) would result in an empty page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved

There seems to be consensus to get rid of the hyphen so I've moved the page. If I've misjudged consensus, please let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this was still very much under discussion. I suppose the next set of questions will be about the linguistic quirkiness of "Jesus myth hypothesis". Not that I care that much, and I already mentioned I had no objection to it. I sense, though, that it may not be a stable article title unless there's a very clear consensus for it. ... Kenosis 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for moving too quickly. I thought the hyphen was weird but I don't have strong feelings about it. If people want to go back to the hyphenated version that's fine. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For **** sake will people please not move the pages around. We seem to be saying that Historical Jesus is an OK title so this one should be Mythical Jesus if that is the way we are going. As for creationism and evolution we have Creationism and Evolution. Not a "theory" or "hypothesis" is sight despite the disparity of the views and their scolarly acceptance. Sophia 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SOPHIA, this was just the removal of a hyphen. Not a big deal, and easily reversible. I wouldn't favor mythical Jesus at all, we need something that clearly communicates that this article is about a particular hypothesis/theory/idea of the development of early Christianity, as found in the works of Bruno Bauer and more recently in Freke/Gandy etc. Mythical Jesus is so general that it takes in Mythographic aspects of Jesus Christ or whatever that article's being called today. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, "mythical Jesus" is not a feasible title.

"Historical Jesus" is the article which presents the results of attempts of reconstructing Jesus via the historical method.

"Historicity of Jesus" is the article which deals with the issue of whether Jesus is historical or not.

"Jesus myth hypothesis" is the article that covers the minority view that Jesus was not historical but merely mythical.

"Mythical Jesus" would cover what exactly? Jesus according to some myths? Can't be - such myths don't exist! So what shall this mean? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please pardon me for butting into a conversation that I have not that much interest in because I consider it largely irrelevant to the state of the world. But, please note the following formula: Historicity of Jesus + Scripture and other stories – Historical Jesus = Mythological Jesus Or if one prefers, "mythical Jesus". Not that I expect this assertion to result in a stable title. ... Kenosis 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As for "creationism" and "evolution" ... the former is a proper noun clearly referring to the topic, namely the view that ... - the parallel would be "Jesus mythicism" or the like but that's a bit unwieldy - the latter is not solely about the theory of evolution (though this is of course included) but about the phenomenon of evolution found in nature "in biology, evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation." - even creationist accept that much. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Creationists do not accept that a population's traits change at all since we were created in God's image - they tie themselves in all sorts of knots regarding macroevolution and microevolution. I haven't read Bauer but Freke and Gandy start out by looking at all the parallels with other contemporary religions and end up concluding that if there was a "Jesus" he is unrecoverable due to the layers of myth. They do not set out to prove he is a myth - that arrives as the most likely possibility from what they find. If Historical Jesus is the article which presents the results of attempts to reconstruct Jesus via the historical method then Mythical Jesus would be the article which presents the results of attempts to reconstruct Jesus via comparisons with contemporary myths. Sophia 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't really matter to our issue and I can't vouch for all creationists but to my knowledge most accept the idea of microevolution, evolution that doesn't change the species. "Created in God's image" is no creationist but a Judeo-Christian tenet and applies to humans not to all animals.

But your mythical Jesus is then not the topic of this article, which is about the hypothesis that Jesus is a myth. Also, that there is a historical Jesus is scholarly consensus, if you will scientific fact (just as evolution) while the idea that Jesus is mythical is a fringe view of a few scholars going beyond their field. The view needs to be covered in NPOV fashion just like creationism but not any better. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri)"...going beyond their field." ... seems to be a good deal of that at both extremes.

Sophia was not saying that "created in God's image" was a creationist viewpoint, rather it is one that does effect the way that many creationists treat the issue, especially YEC's. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, sorry Sophia but we really can't have a "Mythical Jesus" article when we already have one on "the Jesus Christ of the Christian religion". It's unlikely that anyone could ever separate the myth from the fact. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to come up with a title that is as NPOV as possible yet reflects the subject without recourse to "hypothesis" type add-ons that no one else uses. Sophia 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How is "mythical Jesus" NPOV?

Going beyond their field? I see historians accepting the historicity of Jesus - I see professors of German disputing it ... who is working in their field here? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I said "extremes". Think about it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it? It's not an opinion but an area that some have written about. As you pointed out - we don't have The creationism hypothesis even though it is not accepted in anyway by mainstream scientists. Sophia 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, if by extremes you refer to Jesus myth proponents and creationists, we are agreed.

Sophia, because the word "creationism" already denotes that it is a certain view point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant literalism -- creationism doesn't enter into the equation. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO Literalism is a branch of bible (or other scriptures) exegesis, not of historical research. However, thinking the gospels are very reliable sources for the historical Jesus - one position in the field of Historical Jesus - is not literalism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly as reliable as the story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in Shakespeare studies "Oxfordianism" is a synonym for Oxfordian theory. The "ism" and the "theory" are simply alternatives. "Creationism" would be parallel to "Evolutionism" if both were being treated equally, and indeed the article on Shakespeare would have to be called "Stratfordianism", which, as you can see, it isn't. We do not treat the normative accepted opinion as equal to all alternatives in that way. To do so would lead to madness. We would have to have Tony Blair (human being hypothesis) to grant equivalence to David Eyck's theory that Blair is a member of the Alien Reptilian Bloodline. Obviously there are cases where there is no strong consensus view, in which case alternative arguments can both be labelled the "X theory" and "Y theory" of such and such (an example would be the articles Kurgan hypothesis and Anatolian hypothesis regarding Indo-European language orgins). The use of the word "theory" in this context signals the absence of consensus. In other cases it legitimately signals that a radical or non-mainstream position is being presented - as is the case with Creationism and Oxfordianism. Paul B 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Looking at the history of this article, not completely, but enough to get a reasonable idea, I begin to doubt whether a stable title will be possible. But there are possible titles that don't include "myth". Here are a couple more possibilites, attempting to call the topic what it is, which is the contra view to the dominant scholarly consensus about historicity, visible since the 19th century, somewhat notable in biblical scholarship of the 20th century, and recently popularized in several late-20th century books. A more dispassionate approach than the current one might be Jesus (non-historicity theories) or, say, Non-historicity of Jesus. After all, though "the Jesus myth" is a popular way of asserting non-historicity, only one of the cited books uses this term, at least in the title. ... Kenosis 23:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If there were no real feasible title like "Jesus myth hypothesis" I would opt for the non-historicity bit. However, "Jesus (non-historicity theories)" wouldn't work as this article is not about Jesus but about the hypothesis that Jesus is a mere myth.

As for the hyphen question, I recently came across parallels ("tiny-brain theory) that make me belief that the hyphen was correct. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and Mythicism? Sophia 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythicism sounds like a neologism, and would be too general for an article that is about a specific theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythicism can mean a lot of things so it doesn't work. Jesus-Mythicism with a hyphen would be the parallel to creationism but that reads awfully and is a neologism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, well..I hate to break this news BUT: mythicism is not a neologism, it dates to the mid-19th century. Furthermore, even if it were a neologism (no matter how much WP frowns upon neologisms) such fact would be utterly irrelevant: at one point in time, every word on this page was a neologism. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mythicism in itself is not a neologism. But Jesusmythicism would be. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

However, that's not what Sophia proposed, is it?

Besides, this whole knee-jerk aversion to neologisms cracks me up. Yes, there are some neologisms, like the pseudo-German Jesusmythicism, that should be shot on sight for a variety of linguistic reasons, but good, well-constructed neologisms are what make a language grow and evolve. Besides, to expand on my comment above, at one point in time, every word in every language was a neologism. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is what you wrote. I was replying to you, Jim.

The question is who should create neologisms? We as wikipedians or the real world out there. I think we should just report. If there is no established word around we are in trouble but we should not create "-isms" - "Jesus-myth hypothesis" is better as it is simpler (and note the hyphen, removing it was, as I see it now, a mistake - linguistically it should be there)

Jesusmythicism was not supposed to be real but symbolize possible neologisms.

And don't use your guns on WP. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another problem. This article actually deals with a class of hypotheses or theories with a common conclusion, a school of non-historicity theory. ... Kenosis 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

....and that conclusion is that there are so many parallels with other comparative mythology that the truth about the historicity of Jesus is unrecoverable. Sounds to me like these theories belong in a different article. Sophia 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"the truth is unrecoverable" is a truism valid for all of history. Hell, even the truth about governments now in power is 'unrecoverable'. Just because the political agenda behind the "War against Terror" is unrecoverable doesn't mean that the Iraq war has never taken place. I find this nitpicking about Jesus Christ in particular very obsessive. To my mind, it is just as silly to ask, "is it true that Jesus is 'the Christ'" as it is to ask "is Gautama 'the Buddha'", "is Muhammad 'the Prophet'", or "is Gandalf 'an Istar'". All, to my mind, are titles that only make sense 'in-universe'. Historicity doesn't enter into it: Muhammad is clearly historical, Gandalf is clearly unhistorical, and Jesus and Buddha hover somewhere in between. Discussing what sources we can recover on historical Jesus is an interesting question for historicans, but without more impact on Christianity than the question of the historicity of Johann Georg Faust is to the study of Goethe. dab (𒁳) 10:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether Jesus existed as a person may not be important to the study of the myth, but it's hugely important to those who believe Jesus is God incarnated to die for our sins. ThAtSo 16:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

somehow, it appears, this article now manages to obscure the fact that it covers only a sub-topic (fringy and widely rejected, at that) of the larger, perfectly legitimate study of Jesus Christ as myth regardless of claims (positive or negative) regarding historicity. That Jesus is mythological is perfectly plain and cannot be disputed by anyone aware of the meaning of the term "myth". This is perfectly unrelated to the question of whether there was a historical Jesus. Of course, if you conclude that there was no historical Jesus, you will conclude from this that Jesus is "pure myth". Arguing, conversely, that non-historicity follows from the mythological status is turning things on their head. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes

The Idea of Jesus being a myth first came about in the 19th century is absolutely false. Even Justin Martyr said around 150 ce:

XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST: "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you [PAGANS] believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."

Macrobius, the Roman Scholar explained that many of the popular gods as solar deities or personified aspects of the sun around 400 ce.

Thomas Paine: "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, & I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

And why isn't Acharya S included in this topic. She is one of the top experts in the field of comparative mythology.

Who Was Jesus? http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus.html

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

Acharya S 'myspace' - http://www.myspace.com/acharyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanitarian22 (talk • contribs)

It's because of confused comments like this that the other article was created! Justin martyr and Macrobius are saying something quite different from Doherty, Freke/Gandy et al. Paine's comment grows out of deist thinking of the period (partly influenced by interpretations of Zoroastrianism). It relates to the more familiar idea that the real Jesus can be extracted from the gospels, but that he was later turned into a god-man. As Paine wrote,

That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priesthood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government.

Jefferson had similar views, and even attempted to create a version of Jesus's teachings shorn of mythologising (Jefferson Bible). These traditions are also related to Protestant attacks on Catholicism as a form of Christianity affected by "pagan" ideas. William Blake's musings on Christianity, myth and deism are part of the same debate. It's true that some aspects of the myth model can be traced to such ideas. See Charles Morris's intro to Sarah Titcomb's idiosyncratic book Aryan Sun Myths. Titcomb's account is a precursor of Drews' ideas about the Christ Myth, but Morris is essentially keen on the more traditional deist idea of a rational-liberal Jesus whose message was melded with Indo-European mythology. Paul B 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no confusion. The quotes are all relating to mythology in Christianity relating to Jesus. You omitted my point totally...The Idea of Jesus being a myth first came about in the 19th century is absolutely false. The quote from Justin Martyr says enough itself.

2nd John 7 "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh"

The Catholic Bible dates the 2nd letter of John to 90 A.D. He's very clearly stating that there are many that do not believe in an historical Jesus at all. He name-called those who do not believe, "deceivers" for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanitarian22 (talk • contribs)

The "Catholic Bible", whatever that is, does not specify dates of letters. For the discusson of deceivers, read this article and the one on docetism. Justin Martyr is not saying that Jesus is a "myth" in the sense that he wasn't real. He is saying that what Christians say about Jesus should not be unbelievable to people who don't find it difficult to believe that Juptier had sex with human women who gave birth to real physical people who were demi-gods. Paul B 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know what the Catholic Bible is, then how do you know it doesn't specify dates of letters? Martyr accidentally exposed the fact that there was nothing original about Christianity or Jesus that hadn't already been in Pagan religions. I'm getting the sense that Wikipedia is bias & will always side with Christianity no matter what. The fact remains that the Idea of Jesus being a myth came long before the 19c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanitarian22 (talk • contribs)

It was a joke. The "Catholic bible" is a meaningless concept. Do you mean the Vulgate? Justin Martyr knew perfectly well what he was saying. By the way, he wasn't called "Martyr". It's not a surname. Please sign your posts. Paul B 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather surprisingly, our article on 2 John has no information on dating. I bet it's not as simple a question as Humanitarian22 says, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many different bibles. The Catholic bible is one of them which has a few more books in it. I was referring the Catholic Encyclopedia in the dating of 2nd John, they also use "Martyr" as well. You knew who I was talking about since I just quoted him. I didn't know I needed to "sign" or why it's necessary but I'll give it a try.Humanitarian22 01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Catholic Encyclopedia calls him "Justin" consistently [2]. You appear to be referring to the Apocrypha, which are totally irrelevant to this issue. Of course I knew who you were talking about. Look, what Justin says is certainly relevant to debates about the way Greco-Roman ideas may have affected the growth of Christian theology, and how Christians construed their thought in relation to both Judaic and Grecco-Roman traditions. That's well worth exploring in addition to the the ahistoricity claim, which is why we now have the 'Mythographic perspectives' article. Paul B 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as in Justin "MARTYR" - what is your problem? You may lay-off the derogatory attitude. That is your opinion of the Martyr quote. Meanwhile, lets not omit the debate with Trypho. Trypho questions the very historicity of Jesus:

"But Christ if he is come, and is anywhere, is unknown... But you, having got an idle story by the end, do form yourself an imaginary Christ, and for his sake you foolishly and inconsiderately rush headlong into dangers..."

Again, the Idea that Jesus was only known to be a myth beginning in the 19 century is utterly false. Humanitarian22 06:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Trypho in the dialogue use "Christ" to mean "the Messiah", rather than "Jesus"? The section you quote from chapter 10 reads in full in the Roberts-Donaldson translation: "But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." Since "Jesus ... does not even know Himself" makes little sense, I would understand this to mean "If the Messiah has been born he does not yet recognise himself as Messiah". This fits the usage of "Christ" in, say, chapter 74: "You, however, asserted that [Psalm 96] referred to Him who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ." Has any scholarly source we can cite interpreted chapter 10 the way you do? EALacey 08:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's copied from Acharya S. Paul B 10:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

EALacey, exactly Trypho utters the Judaistic belief that the Messiah=Christ is still to appear, hence has not come YET.

I can only affirm what Paul B wrote above.

The Jesus myth hypothesis began in the 19th century when such views on many things were en vogue. But later historical research has trashed most of them.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist, the movie

Possibly because of the easy available of computerized production tools, and the availability of the internet as a distribution channel has created more and more conspiracy theories. One recent example is Zeitgeist, the movie. I just finished watching it. I have to admit, it is pretty amazing. Some elements of truth are in it, but there are some bits of pure nonsense. Presenting in a compelling way, for sure. Contains some material relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. --Filll 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words in intro

Many scholars and historians since then and today refute this theory.

?sbandrews (t) 12:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

how is that weasly? It's factual, and discussed in detail in the article body. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

do we realy need to have it twice :) [3] sbandrews (t) 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Grant

If Michael Grant believes in Jesus, in what way exactly is he an Atheist? sbandrews (t) 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He believes that Jesus was a first century figure who existed. He does not believe that he was God. TJ 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Then he believes in a "historical figure" that was Jesus, but that "the figure of Jesus Christ is a construct of Christian mythology"? sbandrews (t) 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He does not believe that the entire figure of Jesus Christ is a construct of Christian mythology. He does believe that *some* aspects of the Christian presentation of Jesus are untrue; that is not the same thing as saying that the Jesus of the gospels is essentially mythological - and certainly not in the sense in which this article uses it, which is more subtle than simply "untrue". TJ 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Its the semantics I find awkward - to me to believe in Jesus as a historical figure is fine to write for an atheist - but to believe (partly) in Jesus Christ, which is to say Jesus Messiah or Jesus the anointed one, conveys belief to a greater or lesser extent in God, which is fine, but just not very atheistic, making him more of an agnostic or part believer sbandrews (t) 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... perhaps we could reword the article to avoid saying "Jesus Christ", then, to make it clear what the theory itself is proposing. You're quite right that any belief that any figure was referred to as "Jesus Christ" correctly would involve theism, and therefore there's an argument to be made for re-wording the intro (or, I suppose, for very very dramatically altering the content of the article, making Grant's denial of what most of the rest of the article currently describes completely irrelevent.) TJ 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

I could not find anything on Grant claiming he was an avowed atheist, whereas Van Ort lists his pastorialship on his web site biography. Please indicate where you get the information Grant was an atheist. Thank you. --Otheus 10:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, completely missed this comment previously. (I'm trying to take a wikibreak but keep getting drawn back in - grah!)

The main reason I'm confident Grant was an atheist is through testimony from people who knew him. However, that kind of evidence is completely inadmissable on wikipedia, due to WP:OR]. The only source I have found to date is this article (http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm). Doherty took the Grant quote from this site seriously enough to rebut it in his article responding to Price (the author of that article) http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut1.htm - and did so without challenging the notion that he was an atheist.

I'm trying to take a wikibreak, so I probably won't spend much time responding to questions here. 82.36.124.28 11:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Connected to the above conversation - does anyone have any objections to changing the intro, currently:

The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Jesus myth[1][2][3] refers to the idea that the mythological aspects of the narrative of Jesus in the gospels indicate that there was no historical Jesus, and that the figure of Jesus Christ is a construct of Christian mythology, which parallels mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities.

To:

The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Jesus myth[1][2][3] refers to the idea that the mythological aspects of the narrative of Jesus in the gospels indicate that there was no historical Jesus, and that the figure of Jesus is a construct of various forms of ancient mythology, and which has little or no historical basis.

I'll probably replace in 24 hours or so if no-one objects - just felt it might be nice to check beforehand rather than go into the more rough, argumentative, way that changes in this article normally develop. TJ 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

May I quibble with the 'little or no historical basis', I think it will cause edit conflict problems, otherwise the new wording is much improved imo, I suggest,

The Jesus myth hypothesis[1][2][3], also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, refers to the idea that the mythological aspects of the narrative of Jesus in the gospels indicate that the figure of Jesus is a construct of various forms of ancient mythology, and that there was no historical Jesus.

this seems to be in line with this[4] referencesbandrews (t) 08:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

reference question

The first reference of the reference 1 triad [5] is just a website with the title jesusmyth and not an article on the subject, is that appropriate? sbandrews (t) 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

From the first couple of words -the use of the word "Hypothesis" as dominant over "Theory" is NOT NEUTRAL. As a Christian; the historicity of Jesus is troubling -with many parallels to other ancient religions. The only (assumed valid) reference to Jesus outside the Gospels (Josephus) describes him as having a Brother -which contradicts what proponents of "Jesus as Verifiable History" would have us believe.

The use of the dominant word "Hypothesis" is designed to weaken the claims against the Proponents of the Jesus as Myth Theory. Anti Anti Anti 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is under contention, but if that's your only argument for the NPOV tag, please remove the tag: your argument is weak. Outside of the empirical and pure sciences, the terms hypothesis and theory do not have precise meanings. As far as connotation, "hypothesis" may actually be stronger than "theory", due to the latter's use in phrases like crackpot theory and conspiracy theory. How many times do you hear crackpot hypothesis? --Otheus 10:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add that in the humanities "theory" is often used for an approach to studying a subject (e.g., queer theory, reader-response theory), while "hypothesis" often means a factual conjecture based on evidence, which allows new perspectives on the subject (e.g., trifunctional hypothesis, two-source hypothesis). It isn't obvious to me that a "hypothesis" is weaker than a "theory" as the terms are generally used by historians. EALacey 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you would change the meaning of the words "hypothesis" and "theory" just for this one wikipedia entry? As common usage goes -theory is much more suiting than hypothesis.

If you could find several reliable sources using hypothesis over theory then I would say fine. However you are merely asserting that "my argument is weak" without supporting statements is in fact a fallacy. (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html).

BTW my two reliable, published sources just say the word "Jesus Myth" -deliberately avoiding the weasel words "hypothesis" or "theory".

Anti Anti Anti 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the revisions you will see a "one-two punch" with respect to inserting the term "Jesus Myth Hypothesis" into this article. First there was a name change from "Jesus Christ as Myth" to "Jesus-myth Hypothesis" then there was a biased first paragraph replacing older content. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_myth_hypothesis&diff=next&oldid=133578322 . I'm not sure of the significance but perhaps moving the article back would be in order. Astrocloud 04:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's called hypothesis or a theory. However, it's much more accurate to call it a hypothesis, since there is no single theory in anything approaching the scientific sense. Anyway, contrary to your claim Otheus has given several examples of the use of theory in the humanities. See our own theory article or the dictionary [6] to see how it can be used as a synonym for "conjecture" or "speculation" and thus as a weaker term than hypothesis. Paul B 05:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense for the artical to be called, simply, Mythical Jesus. ThAtSo 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I but sense doesn't come into it. This article was split, renamed and messed up by editors who just walked away. Unfortunately it's the second time I've seen this kind of tactic here so it tends to put you off spending a lot of time on it. The article used to be called Jesus as myth and covered all aspects of comparisons with mythology - including the view that Jesus was purely mythical. Now we also have Jesus Christ and comparative mythology as well, those editors that were passionate for the split have vanished leaving two very similar articles with no clear remit for either. My requests for clear article boundaries were never fulfilled (I hadn't got a clue how they intended to define the split boundaries) so I didn't bother with either as I don't have time to play the "try the other article - it doesn't fit here" type of games. Sorry for the rant but this has frustrated me. Sophia 19:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not "vanish", I merely couldn't be bothered to keep directing effort at you while you refuse to listen to sense. My statement at Talk:Jesus Christ and comparative mythology is very clear: it is you who are trying to muddy the issue, and portray the undisputed mythological aspects of Christ as somehow in support of a fringy "Jesus myth" hypothesis. Jesus Christ is of course mythological. That has nothing whatsoever to do with him being either historical or ahistorical: That's a question of historiography, not mythography This article somehow tries to argue that being mythological impliese being ahistorical, which is completely silly to anyone bothering to read up at mythology that the definition of "myth" (outside popular usage) is "significant story". It appears that "Jesus mythers" are people who fail to see a difference between mythography and historiography, I cannot otherwise understand the nonsense going on here. dab (𒁳) 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's anhistorical, and "historiography" is not a word. The rest of your argument is horse-hockey of the first order. And yes, you did walk away -- too much heat in the kitchen I suppose (or is that in a bonfire of vanity?). Sophia raises some excellent points. Basically, this article is shit thanks to the split (a split that made as much sense as intentionally plunging one's hand into a vat of boiling oil). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

dab - I do think that is rather unfair as I have tried to work with this. I have not put the articles back together and have waited for boundaries so that the differences between the articles would be clear - you supported the split so you must know what should go where. The truth is that to state the distinction between the current articles shows it up the for the POV rubbish that it is. Namely one hacks off the faithful and the other is a way of scholastically glossing over the obvious cribs from other myths. Sophia 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

not a very constructive approach, and apparently you still haven't bothered to think about this. What you call "scholastically glossing over" cribs is in fact the article discussing such cribs. While the this article is about some fringe theory regarding historicity. I don't know about "hacking off the faithful", what are you even talking about. Jesus as myth says: here are the various myths that are generally accepted to be related to the Christ myth. While "Jesus myth" talks about some minority view that this somehow translates to "Jesus never lived". One is straightforward mythography, the other is a tall claim rejected by the vast majority of scholars. The whole point is that the fringe topic should not hold the mainstream topic hostage, per WP:UNDUE. Discussing the mythography of Christ, "Jesus mythers" should be left out as unnotable. Since people will insist on discussing the fringe claims, there is a separate article dedicated to that. Surely this is all "pov", but with the appreciable difference that one article treats uncontroversial mainstream comparative mythology, while the other treats a "pov" widely rejected by mainstream. Now what part of this 'distinction' is difficult to understand, or 'rubbish'? I have explained this before. Now you somehow wanted to read it again. I don't know why I have to repost this, you could just go back to where I first pointed this out: you show no appreciation of the issue. Once you begin signalling that you even understand what you are told, and still disagree with one thing or another, then this might begin to adpot the quality of an actual debate. Just reiterating random claims of 'rubbish', 'glossing over' or 'hacking off' isn't arguing. dab (𒁳) 22:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in. Even to a newcomer, it's pretty obvious that Dbachmann is deeply irrational and confused, and that there is no principled basis for splitting off all mention of Jesus being purely mythological, other than bias. The only thing to do at this point is to tear down this artificial wall and create a single, neutral article that covers all aspects. What's the procedure for doing this? 22:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It may seem obvious to you that Dbachmann is "deeply irrational and confused", but it is far from obvious to me. I suggest you come up with an argument against Dbachmann's position, or withdraw what you said. As it happens, I have not yet been convinced by Dbachmann's position (or SOPHIA's), but I try to avoid levelling that kind of language at anyone (although I'm getting really rubbish at not being hypocritical about this these days - I really need to start reading my posts before sending them - sorry. Not a good excuse, but some tough times going on past couple months.) (Nor do I support the words used by SOPHIA or Dbachmann, but they at least have some kind of excuse - the really angry exchanges that went on here a while back.)

Supporting Dbachmann's position is the fact that this article, as it stands, does not cite a single proponent of this theory who has a PhD in a relevent field. There are many thousands of PhD's of relevant fields in the world. If this theory is notable enough to be included in the other article, then I suggest someone prove it - by citing a few scholars (ie people with relevent doctorates who hold relevant teaching/research positions at universities) who support it in this article! TJ 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer was a notable academic in his day. His position now has no significant support in academic circles, but was historically important; and the work of Doherty, Freke, and Gandy has received plenty of attention outside academia. It might be accurate to say that the theory is currently marginal, perhaps even crackpot, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would actually agree that the theory is notable - but not in the way that the average editor of this article wants it to be - if they were re-merged, the theory would quickly outweigh all serious scholarship, I suspect, as that's what happened last time. I agree that there are dead academics who supported the theory, or something like it. My point was not that the theory is non-notable, but that it was unfair insulting dbachmann over it. However, my purpose in coming to this article was to write the following, which I was unable to immediately because of an edit conflict with yoir comment:

Actually, my initial post (which had to be corrected because I was out of order in it) of that section was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I'm going to set up an javascript wikibreak enforcer for the next few weeks, with the idea of probably being away for a month or so, probably setting up another wikibreak enforcer, but it will depend on circumstances in my life. Have been out of order in a number of posts recently, this is overdue. Bye! TJ 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You just shot yourself in the foot by saying that, if the Jesus-as-myth idea weren't automatically excluded, it would take up too much space as compared to so-called "serious scholarship". Thank you for playing. Next time, try to shoot the ball past the the other team's goalie instad of your own. This is officially a farce so we're going to take the article back. The next move is to insert material about Jesus as myth into Jesus Christ and comparative mythology, and there's nothing you can do about it now that you've so thoroughly undermined your case. ThAtSo 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not shoot myself in the foot by saying that if th Jesus-as-myth idea weren't excluded, it would take up too much space as compared to serious scholarship. (By the way, I suggest that if you really want to use the epithet "so-called" to adjust to that, you find a handful of modern figures who have PhD's who take the subject seriously.) I simply pointed out that there are a lot of people who insist on making such elements much more prominent than our |undue weight policies allow. That was, if I recall, how the split arose in the first place - an editor wanted to change this article to include mainstream opinions about the relationship between Jesus and myth, another editor would not permit him, so they split the article as a compromise. Furthermore, I would also like to point out that I have yet to come to a conclusion about whether the . I am merely trying to defend dbachmann from your insults.

I really don't intend to hang around here, but I didn't want my own words being used against dbachmann. 82.36.124.28 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Take the article back"? I'm not a frequent contributor to this article or its talk page, but if there really are several people here so obviously determined to WP:OWN things here and in related articles, perhaps an RfC on the article would be more appropriate than just blatantly trying to ignore policy to get whatever you want. Homestarmy 02:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Homestarmy. 82.36.124.28 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on policy, but I'm pretty sure that creating this POV fork is against it. So I'm going to fix things, just as policy says. ThAtSo 02:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

if you wish to fix things according to policy contrary to what regular contributors wish for you to do, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes - the relevant policy on resolving disputes, before you do so. 82.36.124.28 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a POV fork. There's been AfD discussions about this and the related article Jesus and comparative mythology, and the consensus was to keep the current setup (though the titles of the articles have been changed). I wouldn't recommend "fixing things" without discussing it first. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like it noted that I ranted at the situation we find ourselves in with these two articles - I was not the one to make this personal as I find exchanges of that sort unhelpful.

I also don't think it's unreasonable that those who pushed for the split should have followed through and improved both articles. Yet again we have an entrenched situation - why keep two bad articles where once we had one poor one that also suffered from vested interests? Yet again people talk generally but refuse to commit on specifics. Previously I never received an answer to which articles authors such as Pagels, Thompson and even Freke and Gandy really fitted as most of The Jesus Mysteries is comparative mythology (I mention these specifically as I have them to hand). The best I got last time was "wherever they fit best" which I took as a great way to waste my time bouncing backwards and forwards so left it to see what settled. Currently we have summations of scholarly authority taken directly from the worst of apologetic sites - hardly a balanced treatment of the subject. Obviously a few more months are needed for this to die down before any real work can be done by people who have actually read this stuff.

And BTW the criteria given for the two separate articles above is a classic example of a POV fork. You can see this is problem by the crossover talk threads that go on. Sophia 10:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is plainly a POV fork created to minimize any mention of the idea that Jesus is purely a myth. ThAtSo 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fringy"

The characterization that this article is "fringy" indicates the POV bias. Thus my original complaint that there was a deliberate insertion of the word "Hypothesis" into the article is proven. When these two articles are rolled back I highly suggest the removal of the weasel words hypothesis or theory. (Note the deliberate use of logical "or".) Anti Anti Anti 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fringy" is an appropriate characterization of this theory/hypothesis/idea. It has no significant support within academia. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is not to say that there is not sufficient cause for the content to exist. However, if I remember right, and I think I do, Titus is believed to have destroyed a number of documents when he sacked Jerusalem. That could reasonably be in and of itself sufficient cause for the lack of existing contemporaneous documents which would verify the existence of Jesus. Look at how little documentation survives about Pontius Pilate, of the same era, and he was one of the most important, and probably written-about, people in Jerusalem at that time. And, for that matter, the complete and utter lack of any evidence of even the existence of Pontius Pilate's wife, although being a Roman government official he almost certainly had one. The lack of documentation of all individuals of this era isn't sufficient cause to indicate they never existed, and the same standard should be applied to Jesus. John Carter 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess when people use blanket generalizations like "Fringy" they should be challenged to state exactly what they mean. Furthermore, when you say no significant support within academia -the question arises: Which academics? Certainly catholic theologians would say that Jesus's miracles are historicly factual. (See http://www.cathnews.com/news/408/67.php). Anti Anti Anti 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of proof would lie on the proponent of the theory that there is significant reputable support of the theory within academia, rather than challenging the reliability of the individuals who disagree with it. John Carter 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "Burden of Proof" question but rather a question regarding elucidation. I could easily claim that you are making a broad over-generalization.

ie. There are a lot of words on this page -which part is "fringy"? Anti Anti Anti 17:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't worth having an extensive argument about. The subject of this article is the theory/hypothesis/thesis that Jesus was not a historical person, but a fabrication of the early Christian community. The vast majority of scholars and theologians agree that Jesus was historical (though their ideas of the historical Jesus might differ widely). The idea that J.C. was a fake, however, has been ignored by mainstream scholarship since Arthur Drews' Die Christusmythe caused a big stir in the early 20th century; the theory is now regarded as definitively rejected (see e.g. B. A. Gerrish, "Jesus, Myth, and History: Troeltsch's Stand in the 'Christ-Myth' Debate," The Journal of Religion, 55 (1975) pp. 13-35). Doherty/Freke/Gandy et al. are following in Drews' footsteps, but their work is coming from outside the scholarly community and has received little to no attention within it. That's what "fringy" means: this idea is no longer part of mainstream scholarship. It's certainly worth having an article about, though, because of its historical importance and because it's appeared in several different books lately. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, No. The source you cite "The Journal of Religion" ( http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JR/home.html ) is biased in favor of one side of this discussion. Although it's wonderful to discuss both sides of an issue... There is a great presentation of Jesus as Religious Truth in that section. Furthermore to simply pick and choose what "fringy" source that you use or would have an encyclopedic article use -is also biased. Why go back to the early 20th century when you can critique Earl Doherty's work on the subject? Your assertion that this is fringe does not hold water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Anti Anti Anti (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 August 2007.

Please indicate specifically on what basis you make the charge that the source in question is biased. I see no reason to date supplied which would lead me to think that it does not qualify as at least a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. On what basis do you assert that it is biased? Please specify. John Carter 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to specify. The article is on the Jesus Myth not the Jesus Religion. You are pulling a source more apropriate to be cited in another article. Contribute to the article there not here. Anti Anti Anti 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, personally, given that the word "theory" has multiple meanings, and there is no clear reason given which use of the word is intended here, I believe that the word "Hypothesis", which is less ambiguous, is preferable. I also note that the word "theory" in its scientific usage, specifically the third paragraph of the Theory page, clearly does not qualify here, as it is neither testable nor does it have any particular predictive value. Also, there is no clear evidence that Jesus is a myth, so "Jesus myth" as a title would also be clearly inappropriate, as there is no evidence of the subject being a "myth". If anyone can produce current verifiable evidence contrary to any of the points above, of course, I would welcome seeing it. John Carter 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

By that token we should rename Noah's Ark to Noah's Ark hypothesis. Sophia 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree, because there is no "myth" in the current title of Noah's Ark. The problem here is the presence of the at least ambiguous, and somewhat judgemental, nature of the word "myth" as applied in this particular context. That word does not appear in the title of the Noah's Ark article, so the question is avoided there. John Carter 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So there is a two pronged attack here. First that you want to influence the reader so that they think that "Jesus as Myth" is fringy and then you want to deliberately insert a logical equivocation that "Jesus as Myth" is weaker than a scientific theory ie. that it is similar to a hypothesis. You just admitted your own bias and intention. Anti Anti Anti 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment?

I note that the last post by User:Anti Anti Anti both contains a clear and explicit misstatement of the existing title for presumably rhetorical effect and explicitly fails AGF on the part of others. I also note that there is no explicit guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for this subject. On that basis, I am curious as to whether the rest of you believe that a formal RfC on the title would be appropriate. Comments? John Carter 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - anything to get the title changed or to merge back the two articles to make sense. Anti does have a point that I'm afraid you don't see - a lot of the arguments on this page (and your Noah one is such) are more to do with the sensibilities of some editors rather than treating this subject dispassionately and neutrally. Sophia 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that the continuous harping on the title is silly. I don't give a hoot whether it's called a theory, hypothesis, thesis, argument, position, or whatever. "Christ-myth" actually seems to occur more in the academic literature on this topic, probably because Drew's book was translated into English under the title The Christ Myth. I don't know whether the more recent proponents of a non-historical Jesus use this phrase, or how they refer to their particular versions of the theory. RfCs are almost always useless, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The disadvantage of merging the two articles is that, given the lack of experts in the field who give this argument much if any credence, that most of the content of this page would likely be removed from the joint page on the basis of giving this belief undue weight. That would be problematic, unless a title which avoided potentially judgemental words, like "Myth", could be arrived at. I regret to say that the Myth page gives me no reason to believe that any variation on the title "Jesus myth" would be one that could be agreed upon, because this story has nothing to do with the world's origins, the apparent parameter of the first definition, and the apparent scientific consensus is against the possibility of using the word in the second definition used. If the loaded words could be avoided, somehow, there wouldn't be a problem, like with Noah's ark. Maybe Arguments against the historicity of Jesus might work, but that's kind of verbose. And I know from previous experience that RfC's, when at least one party involved is unwilling to budge, are useless. There is some reason to think that that condition might apply with this article, as well. I personally wouldn't mind the title I proposed above (big surprise there, huh?), as it more closely mirrors the title Historicity of Jesus, and Jesus reality hypothesis is a borderline nonsensical phrase, but that's just one person's opinion. John Carter 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the overlap between Jesus myth hypothesis and Jesus and comparative mythology has been overstated. The "Jesus myth" is a theory or group of theories advanced in a specific and discrete body of texts (Bauer, Drews, etc.), which holds that Jesus was not a historical person, but is a myth created by the early Christian community. Here, "myth" means "false story". While some of the proponents of this theory include what we might call "comparative mythology" in their work (e.g. Drews contended that Jesus was a Frazerian dying-rising god), this theory emerged from the search for the historical Jesus, in which critics discarded the supernatural (i.e., "mythical") aspects of the gospels in an attempt to construct a biography of a human Jesus. Jesus and comparative mythology, on the other hand, covers a broader range of work, which does not take a position on the historicity of Jesus, but compares the gospel narratives (as well as Gnostic and other writings) with bodies of world mythology, including some with no historical connection to the 1st century Near East. One example of something that belongs in Jesus and comparative mythology but not in "Jesus myth hypothesis" is James Frazer's analysis of Jesus in the Golden Bough--Frazer explicitly said that Jesus was historical.

As far as the title, the one common element of treatments of the "Christ myth" idea is that the word "myth" is used, so we shouldn't get away from that. Christ myth would actually be a fine title, I think--one thing we should expect of Wikipedia readers, by the way, is that they're going to read at least the first paragraph of an article, so if we actually explain what the subject of the article is, the title really ought to recede in importance. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reservation I have about the above is the, I think, overwhelming ambiguity of the word "myth" in this case. Personally, if I were thinking of "myths" of Jesus, I would think of the miracles and purported post-resurrection stories, as they are the least clearly documented events and most arguable.

I agree that the subsequent linking of Christian beliefs with non-Judeo-Christian mythology would clearly belong in a separate article, unless a source can be found indicating that the story of Jesus began as an offshoot of some other story, like maybe Attis, Mithras, Horus, or Osiris. I've never seen one such, though, and I don't see any here. And I can see how some of the text of the article suffers from the fact of having to change the title. The last sentence of the first paragraph, for instance, which is clearly POV, as it implicitly assumes the story is a "myth". I assume this is because of the regular changes to the title, and subsequent alterations of the text to reflect it. Most other titles will have the same problem of lack of clarity. Jesus Myth would probably better be used to describe the subsequent legends which have gathered around him. And the ambiguity of the word "theory" is similarly problematic. And I know from experience that if an ambiguous title is used, it's more likely that people will try to change the opening parameters of the article to include something which qualifies under the ambiguous title.

Jesus as myth I think would work, as it is I think a bit clearer and less ambiguous. It also kind of limits the scope of the article to content specifically relating to Jesus, the historical person, as opposed to Myths of Christ or similar, which would not deal about the presumptive historical person of Jesus. And it doesn't include any sort of verb or other term which could be seen as being making an opinion on the veracity of the concept or not.

I talk a lot, don't I? Sorry about the length. John Carter 20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny that - this article was called "Jesus as myth" before all the shifting and splitting began - I have no problems with renaming it back again. Sophia 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to have an RfC, I think it makes sense that we provide a couple of proposals for the title, and accompanying proposals regarding the content requested. Based on what I can see, these appear to be the most popular:

• Jesus myth hypothesis - relating to the idea that Jesus was a myth
• Jesus as myth - similar scope
• Jesus myth thesis - similar scope
• Arguments against the historicity of Jesus - similar scope, personal choice, as it parallels Historicity of Jesus. Of course, it would be best if the article had some other title, for both titles to be changed for parallelism.

There could be other proposals as well. Please add them below. John Carter 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as Myth which it was originally titled is best suited for this subject. People who are familiar with the concept will recognize this. Furthermore the title Neutrally conveys the meaning without predisposing a Point of View.

Contrast this to something like The Jesus Hypothesis which deliberately infuses the commonly used scientific word "hypothesis" into the title. This pretensiously suggests that Christianity is a scientificly debatable (ie "fringy") and that it somehow lost the debate.

Anti Anti Anti 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Jesus as Myth, for much the same reasons. ^^James^^ 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the last sentence of User:Anti Anti Anti above is once again not only failing to assume good faith, but also one that casts unsubstantiated aspersions on the motivations of others. No "pretentious" suggestions about Christianity are involved in the question of the evidence, or lack of same, of the historical Jesus. Also, I believe that given the huge number of notable stories which have arisen about this particular subject, including the Nicolas Notovitch infancy gospel and the huge range of apocryphal books which have been written since the era of Jesus, including the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Eve and many others, that by creating a specific a title as possible for this article, we would allow for more similarly specifically titled articles about all the other kinds of stories about this individual which have arisen over the years. So, as another alternative, maybe

• Jesus as Myth Proposal? John Carter 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case my previous last sentence only illustrated what the title should not be. It is in fact John Carter that is not assuming good faith. Please keep the flaming to a minimum.

Once again Jesus as Myth Proposal weakens the subject and predisposes an opinion that the topic is "fringy". It is not a proposal to be discussed or debated -it is the subject of an encyclopedic article. Anti Anti Anti 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, then, your use of the word "pretentiously" is somehow to be seen as being nonjudgemental and completely objective? :) John Carter 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about Point of View. In my example of what Point of View that we should NOT USE. I would suggest that the Jesus Hypothesis as a title does NOT work because it pushes forth a Point of View implicitly with a presupposition that Jesus is a scientifically debatable topic. Point's of view can be pretentious. From Webster: b) expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature <pretentious language> (see: http://m-w.com/dictionary/pretentious ).

Similarly, we may be talking about a contentious topic like Ufology but in Ufology there is merely topics under Ufology that criticize the basic premises of Ufology. There is no urging there to rename the encyclopedia article "Ufology Hypothesis" or "Ufology Pseudoscience". In fact if someone did that -they would be wrong.

Anti Anti Anti 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that those titles, however, do not use words which, in and of themselves, have potentially prejudicial terms in them. Unfortunately, "myth" is a very inexact and often "loaded" term. Ufology, like Noah's Ark, does not use any separate terms which are often seen, rightly or wrongly, as being at least somewhat inherently prejudicial. "Myth" unfortunately is such a term. Also, regretably, as stated before, there are a number of "myths" about the subject. The title "Jesus as myth" might just as easily be for a list of myths related to Jesus. It is because the proposed title is as unspecific as it is that I believe some additional term or two might be useful. John Carter 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say that the word "myth" is "inexact" I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Perhaps a synonym is in order. Thus I present a compromise:

• Jesus Christ as Superstition

Anti Anti Anti 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. "Myth" has multiple meanings, and there's no way of knowing which is being intended. This is in addition to it's being a potential "loaded" term which some people would object to strenuously. Also, as an aside I would favor using the word "Jesus" alone as Jesus is the current title of the main article regarding the subject. Christ is a separate theological concept, and it in this case doesn't add to the specificity. And, while the suggestion above uses a clearer word, it's still not really clear as to what the "parameters" of the article are. Maybe something like Historical Jesus as Superstition would be a bit clearer? In this case, I'm just looking to avoid having people think that the various other "myths", "legends", or "superstitions" about the subject are relevant to the article. John Carter 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose Superstition... that is a much more loaded term. Something can be a myths and still be true. Superstitions imply something that only a fool would believe. Plus, you have a literary history that many people are familiar with supporting the use of Myth. (Schliermacher, Hick, Campbell, etc.Balloonman 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the baseball relief pitcher named Jesus, then we can have a new understanding of what it means when people say, "Jesus saves!" But now that the moment of brievity is over, I think Jesus as Myth is perfectly acceptable. There may be other people with the name Jesus, but when the name is used in this manner, nobody mistakes it for somebody other than Jesus Christ. "Jesus Christ as Myth" starts adding in some additional POV/issues that I think are circumnavigated with the simple use of Jesus.Balloonman 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth seems perfectly neutral and accurately describes the article. Cap'n Walker 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Request for comment|Jesus myth hypothesis: a question to determine what the specific title of the article should be, and what content should be contained within the article.

Closing RFC as it appears a consensus has been reached.Balloonman 05:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen, there is a question regarding what the scope of this article should be. This question is currently being inflamed by the dispute regarding the title of the article. The majority of the discussion can be at least moderately referenced in the heading above. All comments regarding what the specific scope of content of this article, as well as it's title, are welcome below. The proposals which currently exist, although they aren't to be taken as being the "final list", are:

• Historical Jesus as myth
• Jesus myth hypothesis
• Jesus as myth
• Jesus myth thesis
• Arguments against the historicity of Jesus
• Jesus Christ as Myth
• Jesus as Myth Proposal

Presumably, someone could assemble words from these titles, or add others, into other combinations as well. If you were to do so, however, please indicate why you chose the combination you did.
The other extant question, which I believe is closely tied to the title, is what should kind of issues the article should cover. There are a lot of stories of all kinds about this figure, several of which can't be documented as having existed until well after his death. Should the existing articles deal with any other "myths" associated with Jesus, or only with the scope of the article as it now exists? John Carter 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Including my second suggetion above, the list is:

• Jesus myth hypothesis
• Jesus as myth
• Jesus myth thesis
• Arguments against the historicity of Jesus
• Jesus Christ as Myth
• Jesus as Myth Proposal
• Jesus Christ as Superstition

Anti Anti Anti 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already noted this several times, but it seems to be having no impact on the debate. So I'll say it again: this article is about the idea that Jesus was not a historical figure, and the NT narratives about him are fabrications of the early Christian community. This idea can be traced back to the work of Bruno Bauer, but had its greatest public impact with the publication of Arthur Drews' Die Christusmythe in 1909 (translated into English under the title The Christ Myth. This article is about that, and should not extend to other aspects of mythology and Jesus; we have other articles, such as Christian mythology, Jesus Christ and comparative mythology, and so forth. The "Christ-myth" theory, or whatever you'd like to call it, is a specific and discrete subject; if the scope of the article is extended to the general topic of myth, then this article will become diffuse and confusing. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy when the topics are so discrete but they are not - note this comment on the Jesus talk page [7]. People like Pagels, Thompson, Allegro and Freke and Gandy address all of these aspects. Pagels Thompson and Allegro remain ambivalent (as they are right to as you can never prove a negative - ie Jesus didn't exist) so we will end up having part of one book in one article and part in another. If this article is to just address the historical theories it should go back to being called The Jesus Myth which is what it was when I first edited here as that is the name of G.A. Wells famous book. Sophia 09:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It can't be The Jesus Myth, that's the title of a book; this article is about an idea, and that book is only one of the places where that idea is set forth. You keep bringing up Pagels et al., but I don't understand why. As far as I'm aware, none of them claim Jesus is ahistorical; and the essence of the Christ-myth theory is that Jesus never existed. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm reading your comment right, though, I think we have a point on which we can agree--that this article is about an old theory about the historical Jesus, now disregarded within academia, but revived by Freke/Gandy, and Doherty, and thus enjoying some popularity in the present day. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the article is about the idea of the historical Jesus as a myth. Unfortunately, as I stated before, what an article is about and what it is later changed into being about can be, and often are, separate things entirely. The second question was basically only added to see if there was any real interest in changing the subject of the article, as that does seem to be a reasonable possibility. Also, as stated before, I think the clarity of the subject would be enhanced if we added the word "historical" to the title, like "Historical Jesus as Myth". I realize that there are some who would object to the presence of the word "historical" on the basis that it's presence implies that there actually was a historical Jesus, and I understand that objection. However, I can't right now think of a similar word which would accomplish the same purpose. If anyone else can, I'd love to hear it. John Carter 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth is a reasonable title. ThAtSo 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is ever going to be a perfect title, because Jesus as myth sounds like it covers everything having to do with Jesus and myth. But as I've already said, spending this much time talking about the title is silly, so if other editors are happy with Jesus as myth, I'll support that title. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in from the RfC to toss in my 2 cents. I agree that Jesus as myth is a suitable title for this article. Parsecboy 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My father's gardner is named "Jesus" so "Jesus as Myth" is somewhat ambiguous... Which Jesus? -Jesus Christ. Furthermore to say the "Historical Jesus as Myth" is an oxymoron. The subject deals with more than the historical aspects of Jesus. It also deals with the legends and stories that people hold in faith.Anti Anti Anti 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "Jesus" is not an uncommon name, particularly in certain ethnic groups, so maybe we need Jesus Christ as myth. ThAtSo 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing really wrong with the title Jesus Christ as myth, but let's be serious--no one is going to look at Jesus as myth thinking it's about Jesús Alou or any other person whose first name is Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth works for me. ^^James^^ 09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Jesus's name "Yeshua" was an extremely common name for Hebrew men in the first century. I believe that many of the biblical critics point this out as a reason for Jesus's "Historicity". ie that there is some confusion about who Jesus really was. So again if it's just Jesus as myth -I ask which Jesus? Anti Anti Anti 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's no doubt that there were many people named "Jesus" (or, rather, Yeshua) back then. The question is whether the Jesus character in the Bible is based on any one person who really existed, as opposed to a composite or outright fiction. Keep in mind that this is a separate question from whether there was a real person who did all the magical stuff. It's entirely possible for there to have been a historical Jesus who nonetheless could not walk on water, feed the multitudes or cheat death. ThAtSo 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, given the commonness of the name, it's virtually certain there was. However, the article does not address that question at all, so, in effect, it is a specification which doesn't reflect the existing content of the article. Also, there is, right now, only one article specifically named Jesus without modifiers, given the comparative prominence of that subject. I would assume that any other Jesus, Yeshua, Yeshu, whatever, who might be the subject of a myth would have the article about them named in a way similar to their main article page, as well. Or are you trying to imply that you would like to see content added to the article to the effect that the Jesus of myth might have been a conflation of several people, possibly mythical and/or historical? If you are, I really don't see any existing content in the article which addresses that subject, and think it might better be placed elsewhere. Right now, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I would think the simple "Jesus" would be what is called for here. John Carter 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The main article's name is Jesus, so we should follow the established naming convention (cascading hierarchical inheritance). If AAA, or anyone else, has issues with the ambiguity of the title "Jesus" to refer to the first century religious figure/founder of Christianity, then that should be taken up at Talk:Jesus. I also think if we say "Jesus Christ as myth" that could imply a contrast with "Jesus of Nazareth as historical" (i.e. the position that the religiously anointed savior figure, "Christ", is mythological, but the guy from Nazareth existed, which is probably the dominant position among Jews and other non-Christian/Muslims). I think "Jesus as myth" is adequate. As for the article's scope, part of me feels like we should discuss all the arguments that have to deal with mythological aspects of Jesus in one article, instead of separating out the content/sources based on the final conclusions of the authors. I think we could have a more robust article if we discussed all the arguments in one place, and just had a section dealing with the Jesus mythers. But if this article were created, it would need a name like "Mythological aspects of Jesus" or "Alleged mythological aspects of Jesus" and that just gets messy. Hmm... so maybe having an article just on the Jesus mythers isn't such a bad idea. I'll have to think on it some more regarding the article's scope.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth seems perfectly neutral and accurately describes the article. Cap'n Walker 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After much deliberation -I would accept Jesus as Myth -although not ideal from my perception. Anti Anti Anti

Since we're not quite up to version 1.0, we don't need it to be ideal. We just need to make improvements, bit by bit. It looks to me like a consensus has formed in support of renaming this article to "Jesus as myth". Does anyone disagree? ThAtSo 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Did anyone read enough of the discussion to understand what led to dropping "Jesus as Myth" and settling at the present title? Please see my comments in the section immediately below. I'll drop a note to those participants (some of whom may be away until September) so the ones that are presently around can weigh in if they care to do so. ... Kenosis 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A technical problem

Ok, so we've resolved that this article should be "Jesus as Myth", but we can't use the Move command because there's already an article by that name. In fact, there's also a totally different redirect page named "Jesus as myth", with the little m. One of them redirects here, the other redirects to "Jesus and comparative mythology". What we need is to make "Jesus as Myth" the real article, with "Jesus as myth" and "Jesus myth hypothesis" both redirecting there. Also, all links to the two redirect pages should instead go directly to the real page.

I guess I know what the final result should look like, but I don't really know how to get there. I admit I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if there's some obvious answer that I just don't know yet. How do we do it? ThAtSo 07:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the capitalization of myth? Wikipedia policy says use small letters for common nouns in titles. --Bejnar 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be lower case. You only capitalize it if it is part of a formal name or a pronoun being used in place of God. As this is neither, the lowercase 'm' is appropriate.Balloonman 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then it should be "Jesus as myth". Regardless, there's still the same technical problem. ThAtSo 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have two options: 1) get an admin to move it for you, or 2) do a cut and paste move, in which case anyone can do it but you'll lose the history. ornis (t) 08:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I just noticed this discussion. Editors just went over this whole thing a couple months ago. The reason for the present title is that there are at least three basic topics involved. "Jesus as Myth" confuses the content of this article with that of Jesus and comparative mythology. Significantly, when a definition for "Jesus as myth" was attempted repeatedly, it became obvious to most editors that the title "Jesus as myth" was fatally flawed and needed to be changed to actually describe the content. I'm not saying the title must necessarily stay as it is. But, as it stands presently, Historicity of Jesus covers historical inquiry into facts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus myth hypothesis covers the hypotheses that either totally dispute the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, or which think Jesus of Nazareth is actually a composite of mutliple persons, or which in some other way assert that there is no meaningful resemblance between the facts and the stories that have come down to the present day. Jesus and comparative mythology covers the mythological aspects that are argued by a number of authors to have become attached to Jesus the person, but without necessarily disputing the historicity of Jesus. To a significant degree, both Historicity of Jesus and Jesus and comparative mythology run into the issue of "Jesus as a historical man" vs. "Jesus as myth", and also head-on into additional assertions within Christianity of "Jesus as divine" or "Jesus as Christ", etc. (Thus, perhaps there's room for one or more additional articles covering the issues from some other slant -- but that's not my main point here).

It is still summer at the moment and a lot of people who would otherwise participate are simply not involved right now. I'd suggest waiting a couple weeks before moving right back into the same contentious quagmire this article went through before. ... Kenosis 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Kenosis had left a message on my talk page asking me to comment since I was one of the people involved in the fork of this article. This article and Jesus_and_comparative_mythology used to be one article. The original intent was that comparative mythography would handle material that did not require a historical position (i.e. things that Christians and atheists agree on) while Jesus myth hypothesis would be a detailed discussion of a historical theory about the development of Christianity (that early Christianity was not a religion centered around a historical figure). May 29 gives you an idea of where this article was going. After that point a bunch of people came over from much more heated discussions and the tone changed drastically from cooperative to highly combative. The current version of the article appears to be list of factoids regarding historical issues not really tied together which was the version that seemed to have strong community support in late May. In terms of article naming Kenosis is correct, Jesus as myth confuses 3 different groups of authors. The current title doesn't have the same complications. Incidentally I actually think Jesus as myth should point to the comparative mythology article and the header to this article should point there as well. The messages from the deletion review and on on both boards during late may will explain the details for anyone interested.

I'm not paying much attention to wikipedia so if you want more input leave me a message and I'll pop back over. jbolden1517^Talk 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jbolden1517, thanks for weighing back into the discussion (which had indeed become quite contentious for awhile there). Taking a bit of liberty here, I'm going to change Jesus as myth so it instead redirects to mythographic perspectives on Jesus and see where it goes from there. I'll add a note about the article presently titled Jesus myth hypothesis in some kind of disambiguation, for now at least. ... Kenosis 04:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) OK, done for now, here. Please feel free to adapt or format as necessary. ... Kenosis 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mythographic perspectives on Jesus is now a redirect and I disagree with your change. "Jesus and myths" should redirect there but "Jesus as myth" rightly belongs here otherwise this split makes even less sense. I've pretty much given up as I have gotten fed up with people jumping to defend things as they stand without improving this article at all. It looks as if all the stuff regarded as POV has been left here and now even the redirects are changing to make sure it gets lost. To top it all this article's name is OR. Nowhere else is the "Jesus is a myth" idea followed by the word "theory" or "hypothesis". Another way to make sure it doesn't hit too high in searches no doubt. Sorry to rant but I have books in on the shelves that I would love to reference but there is no point at the moment. Sophia 15:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take a moment to look at Jesus_as_myth before necessarily objecting. This is simple enough, I should think-- it already links to the three presently existing main articles regarding historicity/mythology/complete-myth-hypotheses of Jesus of Nazareth. To which, I suppose, someone may wish to add Jesus Christ and perhaps other articles. But the two or three articles that were the topic of argument a couple months ago are presently referenced. If one notices a double redirect, that's simple enough to fix without even a talk-page note. Offhand, I would also suggest simply doing the same sort of disambiguation for all similar titles, particularly since the lay of the land appears to be prone to shifting in response to significant differences of opinion about how to define these topics. ... Kenosis 17:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

POV problems with all this article name messing about

• "mythographic perspectives on Jesus" 1,470 ghits (note that "mythographic" isn't even a real word)
• "Jesus and comparative mythology" 685 ghits
• "Jesus myth hypothesis" 1,220 ghits - note the first few incidences (other than wikipedia) seem to indicate it a term used on Christian sites.
• "Jesus myth" 63,700 ghits. I've looked through the first 100 or so links and the vast majority of them deal with the historicity question straight out. Accrued mythology is discussed but as a justification of questioning the historicity of Jesus.
• "Jesus as myth" 5,390 ghits. Again most non wiki echoes deal with the surrounding myths to question the historicity of Jesus.

I really don't see where the confusion is and would like to see some justification for rationale behind the "3 confused groups".

On a final note the pre split article did not have strong support. We all admitted it was a poor article but were having great trouble improving it as it constantly gets hijacked by editors with little knowledge of the subject but a huge conviction that it is wrong. Sophia 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to a change in title, so long as the new title accurately reflects the content. I want to voice my support, though, for the present "tripartite" delegation of historicity, mythological aspects, and this article, in addition to Jesus Christ from a scriptural and theological standpoint. ... Kenosis 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"This article"???? Sounds like the leftovers at a party. Sophia 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sophia frankly that's your fault. There was a lot of content that ended up getting killed in late May early June. About 2/3rds of Well's theory was covered, and then had Pearson, Berger and Doherty relative to Wells. (note they all agree they are in the Wells school so this isn't OR). We also had the start of a historical development. That's a solid article on the topic. The reason the article died is that you have consistently insisted on rejecting treating these authors the way Wikipedia treats most minority theories, as a simply a historical summary. jbolden1517^Talk 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the section above, this ought be fairly straightforward. Sophia's search that returned 63,700 hits for "Jesus myth" would appear to indicate that the current title is appropriate. Recall that the word "hypothesis" was added because of definitional quirks that resulted from the phrase "Jesus myth" when used as a title. If there's a case to be made for another title to reflect the content involving hypotheses that Jesus is a complete myth in any meaningful historical sense, I'm all ears, and I would imagine other users would also be willing to listen. ... Kenosis 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the original splitters discussed in much detail which article got which title. During the deletion debate we left this up in the air. jbolden1517^Talk 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now don't that say it all? If this is to be the Wells' school article then title should be "The Jesus Myth" as that is the title of his book. Freke and Gandy, Thompson, Allegro and Pagels would have no place in such an article so they would then need to move elsewhere. Sophia 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I do recall that part, where the split occurred seemingly overnight (poof!). Why would Freke and Gandy, along with Pagels and these others, not have a place in this article? Not that I'd necessarily object, but why split the other skeptics of historicity off from Wells? ... Kenosis 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would Pagels have a place in this article? Has she ever doubted that there was a historical Jesus? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. My reponse was hasty in drawing on what Sophia had said. Theorists of the "Jesus myth" and other such approaches including the composite-of-multiple-persons idea would draw on Pagels, but that would be about as relevant as it would get, I should think. The others Sophia mentioned, Thompson, Allegro, I'm not familiar with. ... Kenosis 06:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pagels explores the parallels between older myths in the same way that the others I mentioned do. She, like Allegro and Thompson, don't come down definitively one way or another on the historicity as you can never prove a negative (i.e. Jesus did not exist). If we are sticking to the Wells' school then they are not of that group - they cross boundaries with the comparative mythology crowd as Freke and Gandy do. Sophia 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Sophia. As I said, I'm not familiar with Allegro and Thompson. So, we can reasonably agree these three basic topic can remain as, very roughly: (1) historicity. (2) historicity plus-or-minus mythology, (3) non-historicity, presently Jesus myth hypothesis but not necessarily the permanent title of this aritcle? Plus Jesus Christ, of course, with the possiblity of other potentially notable and appropriate topic forks remaining open? ... Kenosis 07:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed sieve

I've removed the following paragraph from the article. It has more problems with it than a sieve has holes. The highlighted "problems" should speak for themselves.

The worship of Mithras was widespread in much of the Roman Empire from the mid-2nd century CE,^{[though not questionable, this was ref'd twice (WP:COATs), as if those refs supported what follows]} and mainstream^[not] historians^{who?} regard it as possible that many Christian practices derived originally from Mithraism through a process known as christianization, including 25th December being Jesus' birth-date,^[1]Template deprecated: {{NCite|date=August 2007}}^{[source is based on a discredited hypothesis]} and Sunday being the dedicated day of worship.^{[Another WP:COAT ref as if Sunday being a day of worship is actually questioned by anyone.]} Mithras was a solar deity, and so was seen as being born^{[we don't know anything about Mithraic beliefs]} just after the winter solstice,^{[that is not a fact]} and the day each week officially^{[false. the cult was not officially recognized]} dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the day of the invincible sun,^[false] in English later becoming the word Sunday.^{[Sunday comes from "Seventh day"]} Parallels between Mithras and the birth-narrative of Luke are also proposed by some advocates of the Jesus myth, since Mithras, as a sun god,^[perhaps] was born^{[we know nothing about mithraic beliefs]} under the zodiac sign that at that time was known as the stable of Augeas, though these latter parallels are not so supported in the academic community.^{[they haven't even bothered to acknowledge them]} It is however, agreed^[false] that according to inscriptions at the Seleucid temple at Kangavar^{[not Seleucid, not a temple, and has no inscriptions]} in western Iran which is dated around 200 B.C.E.,^[false] contains passage that state its dedication to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras".^[false]

The one actual (but not based on a valid source) reference being: Martindale, Cyril (1908). "Christmas". Catholic Encyclopaedia. New York. Retrieved 2007-03-18.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link). The dependency being Franz Cumont.
Incidentally, the same sort of stuff is alluded to at another WP article. Also called Jesus myth something or the other. -- Fullstop 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While the section is certainly problematic, your critique is no less flawed and inaccurate. For example, Sunday actually derive from "day of the sun".[8] Saturday was the seventh day. The claim that Sunday means "seventh day" is decidedly dubious and originates in highly biased circles trying a little too hard to dispute higher criticism & justify a Sunday sabbath (in my experience). Vassyana 10:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

point taken. It would have been sufficient to flag that with a '?'.

My other remarks remain valid. -- Fullstop 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Most of your critique is similarly flawed. Even Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions the veneration of Sunday and Mithras' birthday (12/25). I have reintroduced the material, with a reference, sans original research (or rather just following the source cited). Vassyana 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Vassyana's replacement paragraph is certainly an improvement, but both versions leave it unclear how the material relates to the "Jesus as myth" topic. Connections between Mithraic and Christian ritual are interesting and encyclopedic, but not really about "Jesus", and perhaps more suited to a section of the Mithraism article. The Parallels with Mediterranean mystery religions section begins by noting that Freke, Gandy, etc. link "the Gospel stories of Jesus" with mystery religions, and it's probably parallels to these narratives that the section should focus on. EALacey 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

An additional point: if we are going to discuss Mithraic ritual, I think we need to alter the wording of "practices such as baptism, confirmation and communion", which as it stands implies that Mithraits and Christians observed several identical practices. Writing "practices similar to..." would be an improvement, but detail on the nature of the similarities should really be added if this section stays. EALacey 20:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I edited the section along those lines, but Vassyana reverted because what that currently says is apparently what the source says. It's not a reference work I have to hand, so I can't look it up, but I suppose it's plausible that it does suggest or imply that they had virtually identical practises, particularly if it's the kind of work that isn't always carefully precise about these kinds of things. I've looked up mithraism in a few standard reference works on NT studies/early christian history, but haven't found anything worthwhile so far, although I'll keep looking (I've recently moved and still haven't unpacked all my books). I am confident, though, that I'll find another source sooner or later which can be more precisely quoted. In the meantime, I'll make the sentence attributable to a specific person (and I would ask Vassyana to quote exactly what the source says, if he can), since in that simplistic form I'm pretty sure it isn't anything like a consensus among scholars (and if you agree, when your degree was in that kind of thing, then I'm pretty sure you're right). TJ 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

@Vassyana:

My critique is not flawed, which is a position I could defend if you actually said something to respond to.

Perhaps this is also a good time to tell you that your source is not the best thing on the block. For instance...

>>"Mithraism ... it was a vigorous competitor of Christianity;" It wasn't, another theory long rejected.

>>"Mithras originated in Zoroastrianism" It didn't, someone still citing Cumont?

>>"for the god of light" Not. Someone thinking about Mazda light bulbs?

>>"The faithful received immortality through his intercession" Who made this up?

Actually, these things could have been checked on Wikipedia itself. Not that that is a reliable source of course, but some of these issues are specifically addressed, and they might at least have cautioned you that your source was a product of the 19th century. Anyhow...

---

The 12/25 stuff is the product of bad science. There are traces of Mithraic ritual in Christianity, but 12/25 is not one of them. Read on...

As you (correctly) note "Mithras gained astrological associations [...snipped invalid bit...] from Babylonian influences." The astrological associations (probably, but perhaps not Babylonian) are *the* primary (and only) characteristic of the Mysteries of Mithras that we can be sure about. However, what your source (or source's sources') failed to note is that December 21st is the day of the Winter Solstice, the eve of the day after which the days grow longer, and that - in addition to the Mithraic cult where it may have been significant as a day of rebirth - this day is celebrated in *numerous* cultures.

The artifice of connecting specifically Mithras with specifically Christ is provoked by the idea that Mithras and Christ are connected, rather than - as it should be - one piece in an evidence chain indicating that they are connected. This is the sort of "parallelomania" Sandmel referred to. Its. simply. bad. science. There are dozens if not hundreds of mid-winter festivals, why specifically should the one (not attested mind you) from Mitras be the template?

This 12/25 idea, like some of the other points I have noted above, is attributable to Cumont, who/which is neither supported by the archaeological/literary evidence (which is *very* sparse), nor does it reflect current (oh, like 1970s+) academic opinion. Its the same sort of outdated stuff that is evident in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1905-1914) or Encyclopedia Britannica (1911?) article on Mithras, but it should not be propagated or promoted, irrespective of whether these are "reliable" source or not. On this point - as is any other source that rehashes Cumont - they aren't.

Roman religion, whatever it was, was a mass of syncretic beliefs, from all cultures, from all continents. The end product was purely Roman, with or without an oriental touch, but still purely Roman. Each of the many hundreds of cults absorbed not only the ideas from the original concepts, but took on new characteristics in Rome from all the other cults as well. To suppose continuity (like Cumont's Zoroastrianism hypothesis) or that specifically the cult of Mithras influenced a Roman Christianity is to ignore the cultural framework. Its like saying the Hamburger or Hotdog come from Germany. These are products of American culture regardless of where the individual ingredients came from.

-- Fullstop 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this debate. These are widely repeated claims, even found in Encyclopaedia Brittanica. We cannot use our own opinion on the topic. We must report the information found in reliable sources. Vassyana 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

TheologyJohn, the reason I returned it to the way it was originally written is because that is how the reference reads. It simply states they had those practices. It does not clarify if they were the same or simply similar. You are probably correct, but we cannot make that interpretation. I'll dig for a reference that clarifies the claim, one way or the other. Vassyana 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not Mithraism is an appropriate discussion, depends I suppose on which interpretation of the subject we're working with. Are we working with purely the person of Jesus? Or, are we working with the broader concept, which uses the approach that a mythological Jesus and the (supposed) pagan origins of Christianity cannot be separately considered? Part of the editing conflicts may be differing understandings of the scope of this article. Just some thoughts Vassyana 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To pick up on the 21st being the Solstice point; in earlier years (can't find the exact time but we're talking 1,000 ish) the solstice would have fallen on the 25th of December due to precession (the earths axis rotates in a slow circle like you see when spinning a top). And Vassyana is right - we cannot put words in a sources mouth but it looks like this needs to be clarified. I don't have anything I would consider a RS on the Mithraism stuff. Sophia 07:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph (now two paragraphs) based on some modern works on Roman religion, trying to cover the same material while indicating the nature of the relevant evidence. This material should still be better integrated into the article; since the "Parallels" section begins by citing Freke and Gandy (to whose work I don't have access), we could note any conclusions they draw about Jesus from Mithraic-Christian parallels. EALacey 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Vassyana, we must say what the sources say - it was simply that I judged that the source was probably being a little more precise than the current wording was - and I was evidently completely wrong. (Unfortunately, at present I can't afford to pay for access to the local university library, which is somewhat irritating in cases like these.)

Good work, EALacey, on updating the information on Mithraism. It reminds me why I think your contributions around here are so brilliant! :)

One thing I was wondering though... the section, as you now have it, ends with . While I suppose discussing mainstream approaches as background is useful (esp. if there is a consensus or near-consensus among scholars - re mithraism and Christianity I don't know very much about these questions), I do wonder whether it's really right to give more space to those who deny the significance of many of the parallels, compared to the mythicists themselves, given that it is supposed to be in a section entitled 'specific arguments of the theory'. So I agree that we should note Freke and Gandy (or other figures) - but that should be more than simply noting them in passing.

I'm away for the weekend, and in any case trying to minimise my wiki involvement at the minute - this part simply looked interesting and non-flameable enough for me to feel like it was worth making an exception. So I may well not be around to respond to responses. TJ 10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't trying to write an argument against parallels with Christianity; the qualifications I added ("may have", etc.) are in line with the references, but if they sound too dismissive anyone is welcome to reword them. I agree that we need more discussion of what "Jesus-as-myth" proponents make of this topic, and that critiques should not be treated at disproportionate length. EALacey 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done EALacey. That is good solid stuff. I've however removed the following two sentences:

Its god Mithras was an ancient Persian Zoroastrian deity, but the initiatory form of his cult is not found outside the Roman Empire. How much Roman Mithraism owes to Zoroastrianism or other Oriental influences is therefore debated.

• The first clause of the first sentence is flat out false (this is again the Cumontism). The second clause is incorrect insofar as it sounds as if some other (non-initatory) form of the cult could be found elsewhere. Mithras is *only* attested in the Roman Empire. The *name* Mithras derives from Mithra, but they are not the same entity, nor is the one a continuation of the other.
• The second sentence is correct but is not relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. It could also be misunderstood to say Christianity incorporates Zoroastrian rituals through Mithraism. ;)

Again, well done.

-- Fullstop 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ps: "Grape-imagery in Mithraea has been taken to show that wine was also consumed by Mithraists." should be rephrased to show relevance to the eucharist.

pps: Have you considered switching to Harvard citation format? Like this or this.

I'd say that whether Mithra and Mithras are the "same" entity beyond their undoubted differences is largely a matter of definition. I don't think what I wrote was more inaccurate than R. Beck's entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary beginning, "Mithras, an ancient Indo-Iranian god adopted in the Roman empire as the principal deity of a mystery cult which flourished in the 2nd and 3rd cents. AD." But I acknowledge that this could be seen as oversimplifying, and the topic isn't very relevant unless anyone's argued that Iranian Mithra was an influence on Jesus, so I won't add the material back. The wine-Eucharist link does need to be made more clearer, but Turcan doesn't make the connection explicitly; if a Jesus-as-myth author argues that the Christian Eucharist came from Mithraism, that's what we ought to be citing. EALacey 13:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

D'accord on all points. Again, What specifically is Turcan implying with the Grape-imagery thing then? I mean, why does he mention it at all? After all, the general Roman consumption of wine is not per-se a religious thing. Is he "leading" the reader?

Incidentally (and not related to this article), your choice of Beck and Turcan was ... interesting. :) They have radically different approaches to Mithraic studies: while Beck stresses the importance of hard data, Turcan is quite content to interpret iconography by itself. (NB: Beck doesn't discount iconography, he simply says its subjective and interpretation should be supportable by hard data at some point).

To quote a vieled dig by Beck, (The Mysteries of Mithras: A New Account of Their Genesis, JRS 88, 1998, p. 116-117): "[the prioritization of] hard data such as epigraphical or archaeological evidence ... is not an approach with which, I think, Cumont or his principal successors in the European continental traditions (Vermaseren, Bianchi, Turcan, Merkelbach) would be entirely happy."

I love it when academics take snipes at each other. Sooo subtle. (like also the one quote you delegated to a footnote)

-- Fullstop 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, and I don't know how much that is, there is already a "discussion" going on as to what the particular scope of this article should be. Some parties seem to be implying that it should be limited to the possibility of Jesus (the allegedly historical figure) being other than historical, specifically the Bruno Bauer-based theory (couldn't find a synonym of "theory" starting with a "b", blast it) and some thinking it should include the work of Pagels and others. Personally, I could see this content maybe (stress, maybe) fitting into an article on, perhaps, Mythological influences on Christianity, which probably has enough potential content for a fairly long article. I'm not sure whether the others would agree to expanding beyond the Bruno Bauer-based proposal, though. I expect this page to get a bit more attention once classes get settled in a week or two, and that might be the best time to discuss what content this article will deal with. John Carter 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is a matter of a Bauer-school focus or a Pagels et al focus, the latter should decidedly "win" without much debate. NPOV requires we present relatively current knowledge (and current review of historical claims) in proportion to their prominence for the topic. NPOV is a m:Foundation issue, so that point isn't overly flexible. For example, a computing article wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) rely on references even from the 80s, except when mentioned in recent sources, when providing a historical context (which should still rely on recent sources for a description and analysis of that context), or for an article specifically dealing 1980s computing. If this article were the "Jesus myth theory in the 19th century", Bauer would be an appropriate focus. However, since the article by default is about current thinking on the subject, Bauer should only be used insofar as modern reliable sources recount his, or his theory's, historical importance. (By the by, perhaps "belief" as rough synonym? :-P) Vassyana 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked this a few times already: what work of Pagels are we talking about, and why does anyone think that she fits into this article? Does she doubt the historicity of Jesus? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's referenced above that she may say that the Jesus we now have might be a synthesis of one or more living and/or mythological figures. Presumably, that's what's being referred to. John Carter 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

But, to repeat myself, which book are we talking about? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing Beyond Belief:The Secret Gospel of Thomas, from her article, and maybe some of the remarks in 'The Gnostic Gospels, considering some Gnostics doubted the factuality of Jesus. John Carter 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF sourcing???

So it's very interesting how so many points refuting this idea go to books, or texts that really can't be reached via internet. Meaning you'd have to be lucky enough to be at the library to check the accuracy of these points. How can this so easily be accepted as believable because of "my source! my source is there!"??

Anyone else seeing this potential isssue?Aceholiday 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Actually, technically, we prefer published sources, as printed matter doesn't disappear as quickly as some webpages do. However, we do have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check unit if you think some of the sources might not exist, and I regret I have to say that in some cases (although not necessarily this one) some of these sources themselves might not be the most reliable. Are then any particular areas you are questioning? I'm not sure whether anyone would count me as being a fair and accurate party, although I try to be, and I could check on those I can find in some of the local college libraries here. No guarantees on how fast, though. John Carter 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your open minded and intelligent response. I had doubted the ability of the internet and wikipedia to come up with a solution to that problem, which you just proved otherwise, as I wasn't aware of the fact and check sheet. I was trying to check some of the sourcing for some of these comments, only to find them to be not easily accessible via interweb. Thanks for the info on the wikiproject. Aceholiday 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Section "Historical references to Jesus are debunked"

This section reads very awkwardly, as if it were snuck while no one was watching. At the very least, it is out of place. Adding to my skepticism about its providence is the fact that "jesus" is lower-case, and the quasi-referencing used for the citation. Thoughts? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note the profoundly inappropriate inclusion of the cited reference, which is to only a web page. I think this section could be probably extremely easily deleted on the basis of inadequate referencing. John Carter 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. It takes too much effort to work out what it means to be useful there, and is a single sentence that could more appropriately be fitted into the following paragraph, if it can be shown that any notable Jesus-mythers argue something like that. And stuck in with at least some respect for grammar and clarity. TJ 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossan Methodology section

The following section does not refer to Jesus-mythers using the argument:

Some historians argue that scholarship lacks any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As J. D. Crossan, a well respected scholar of early Christianity, comments, "I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata".[50] While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that the Paul described in Acts, or even Napoleon, did not exist, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe it does call into question the results of historical inquiry into Jesus of Nazareth.

Initially it did, without stating who (it mentions Crossan, but he is NOT a JMer) before a number of edits by myself and Paul Barlow. If it isn't used by them, it should be removed as either WP:OR in relation to this page - it's an original argument when used to support the JM theory - or irrelevant. Does anyone know of any JMer's who use this argument? TJ 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Josephus inventing Jesus?

Is there anything to be said about the guy who advertised in the back of many U.S. magazines during the 1980's, claiming to have proof that Josephus invented Jesus? AnonMoos 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. The usual argument is that Josephus' references to Jesus (or at least, those that seem particularly fawning) are a later Christian interpolation. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Under "Mainstream Scholarly reception," there are two seemingly contradictory arguments against the Jesus-myth hypothesis. One claims that "Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure." Yet another says that from a Roman point of view, the life of Jesus was "not a major event." The former relies on the assumption that the Romans would care greatly about Jesus's existence. The latter relies on the assumption that they did not care at all. IGlowInTheDark 7:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right about the first point, which is not cited to any opponent of the JMH. Still, it's true that some Romans did care - particularly when Christianity finally started to become powerful, and there is no recorded case of ancient anti-Christian polemicists saying J did not exist. Paul B 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved criticism into "Mainstream scholarly reception"

I've moved a criticism by R.T. France into the criticism section (titled "Mainstream scholarly reception"), and integrated the syntax of the sentence accordingly. I wonder if this section might not instead be titled something like, say, "Mainstream scholarly criticisms of the hypothesis" or something to that effect? ... Kenosis 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I named it "mainstream scholarly reception" is that I'm in general against criticism sections in wikipedia articles - it enables people to simply look up the side of the case they wish to hear, and not the other side.

In an ordinary article, I would prefer critical comments to be integrated into the main body of the text - however, in this article, that is simply unworkable, as it very easily degenerates into an incomprehensible string of OR claim-counterclaim-countercounterclaim's, as POV-pushers from both sides try to out-do each other, as has happened in the past.

I therefore felt a section on "what the mainstream have said about the theory" is a better way of doing it, because it means that people who come to it aren't simply looking up things to support their case - they're wanting to find out the mainstream POV in the subject. If someone wants to criticise/support the theory, it will therefore make it a little harder for them to look up the subject, and a little harder for them to criticise the theory without actually learning about it a bit more broadly.

By having a "mainstream scholarly reception" section, we also open the door for positive comments to come through, if any surface. What the mainstream scholarly POV on the question is should be a more interesting question for someone who is looking at it from an open-minded perspective, rather than simply to disprove it. For example, it means that the section won't just contain any old rubbish from a fairly ignorant apologist, or whatever - people cited in that section have to have scholarly credentials. If at some point it is felt that it is worth putting in such comments (although I suspect this will not happen), a "response of Christian apologists" section could be added.

So that's reasons both why I wouldn't like it to contain the word "criticism", and why I would like it to specify "mainstream scholarship" - I realise that you weren't questioning the latter. TJ 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps "reception" is a bit too subtle for some readers-- sounds a bit like a parade or awards dinner with the red carpet rolled out. Personally I don't mind it. ... Kenosis 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a strong issue for me, but I feel "criticism" is more encylopedic than "reception". I suggest a straw poll.

Straw Poll

Suggestions:

1. Criticism
2. Mainstream scholarly reception
3. Scholarly criticism
4. Mainstream scholarly response
5. Other: Please add to this list if you don't see one you like

• Criticism (changed from Scholarly criticism): the term is more precise than either "criticism" or "mainstream scholarly reception". As "theory" as a precise meaning when combined with "scientific", "criticism" has a precise meaning when combined with "scholarly". Per Phyesalis. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Criticism" or "criticisms". As argued in my previous post (down below), "Scholarly" is redundant given the scholastic nature of the article and general wikipedia article expectations. We're not likely to be citing criticisms made by cartoonists, children, or fictional characters, but those of scholars. Also, "scholarly criticism" implies that the work of people like Bruno Bauer is not scholarly. "Mainstream scholarly reception" is biased and inaccurate. Regardless of what the article now states, there is indeed a significant amount of current legitimate scholarship which questions the aims, assumptions and methodologies of those who argue for the pro-historical Jesus. "Criticism", IMO, is a the simplest, most cogent and neutral way to introduce the opposing point of view. Phyesalis 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. I've changed my "vote" accordingly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to Phyesalis, Earl Doherty, a major proponent of the Jesus-myth, states that:

Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt.[9]

I find it quite difficult to regard this article as biased against the theory for referring to the position as mainstream scholarship when the most prominent enemies of the position do so themselves. Any claim would have to demonstrate that there were more than a handful of bona fide scholars who promote the theory - that is, people with PhD's in NT studies, early christian history, etc, and who have university research or research and teaching positions in those subjects. Off the top of my head, I can think of two, maybe three, proponents. I have been around this article for getting on for a year, and have read many people claim that lots of scholars support the theory, but very few names have been mentioned - while I've read a number of bona fide scholarly sources state that JMism is a minority. Half a degree, which I finished studying for only a year ago, was in critical approaches to the history of the New Testament period, earnt at a secular university, and I was never taught anything on the subject, nor suggested to look into it, nor did I ever come across it in quite extensive reading on the subject. I would therefore require strong evidence to suggest that JMers are anything but a small minority. Your last statement, that (paraphrasing) lots of scholars question the ideas of those who argue for a historical Jesus, is true in that lots of scholars do question the methodologies etc of other scholars who come to the same conclusion on the question of whether Jesus was historic, but either for different reasons, or to different conclusions about the nature/extent of that historicity.

I also find your statement that scholarly "is redundant given the scholastic nature of the article" to be difficult to maintain, since the article does refer to writers like Freke, Gandy, and Doherty - people who lack any PhD or university teaching post. TJ 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that as the mess with the Iowa professor shows there may be concerted efforts to 'kill' such research. In this day of TAs doing many courses a 'teaching post' doesn't really mean anything as the professor rarely if ever really teaches! Then you have people like [Kent Hovind] who shoot down the idea that PhD means anything (if it is not from an accreditation university or collage it doesn't mean squat.) Nevermind that this is what Carl Sagan in his Baloney Detection Kit the dreaded argument from authority- a logical fallacy.

Furthermore the final nail in this nonsense is the fact the original form of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle was published in a peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of Higher Criticism of Drew University) Similarly Freke and Gandy were praised by the then editor of Journal of Higher Criticism, Richard M. Price who is another Jesus Myth supporter (not to mention a Phd and teaching professor). By contrast the quotes from Grant and Voorst come from popular books NOT peer-reviewed journals, but if we are to use such sources then Richard M. Price's Deconstructing Jesus: and Pre-Nicene New Testament take precedence as they are the more recently published works. This is ignoring the popular books by Alvar Ellegard a former DEAN that support the Jesus Myth.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem the references are unevenly edited. For example GakuseiDon's site is self published and yet when I put in things like Hayyim ben Yehoshua's Refuting Missionaries it is yanked using criteria that would get GakuseiDon's reference yanked and yet the people who removed these reference KEEP GakuseiDon. There is a word for that: hyprocrocy. If you keep GakuseiDon's self published pro-Jesus POV than Hayyim ben Yehoshua's Refuting Missionaries is fair game.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Mainstream Scholarly Response - I don't like criticism in wikipedia articles, both for the reasons I've mentioned above, and for reasoning contained within WP:CRITICISM. "Mainstream scholarly" provide adequate additional qualifiers to explain who is responding. It is not POV, as Doherty himself has agreed with the statement that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [10] - as a major proponent of the Jesus-Myth, he is unlikely to be biased.

(Having said that, an additional qualifier of "modern" might well be useful if sources can be provided that the theory was "mainstream" in the past - which I doubt.)TJ 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, allow me to be upfront and state that, although I am an atheist, I do not subscribe to the Jesus myth hypothesis (I believe that Jesus existed and was a hoopy frood). Secondly, I'd like to point out that WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Now to address the actual points in that essay: (a) as far as I can tell, this section has not acted as a troll magnet, but hosts a lot of good, scholarly information. (b) the section argument isn't valid as we're talking about what to name the section and not whether to have a section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TJ. First, I hate the notion of a "hypothesis" as it adds to the polarizing nature of this debate. What this article is lacking is a healthy dose of academic skepticism. "Mainstream" anything also creates polarization. The issue, despite what a number of authors gunning for publication may write, is not so cut and dry. There are not two "camps", but a spectrum with those certain that he did or did not exist firmly anchoring its extremes. Is it possible that you have the Doherty quote a bit out of context? The paragraph in its entirety reads

"After a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles “the noisy side current” of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as “weak and bizarre” by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

My understanding is that the most prevalent secular academic position is that it's pretty much impossible to prove one way or the other and that for the sake of academic discourse, most theological and anthropological discussions assume his existence. Assume, not accept as proven, two very different positions. My understanding of the quote is that most mainstream scholars find the question of his existence as unimportant because the reality of his existence has little bearing on subsequent theological, cultural and historical developments. It is the debate itself, not either of the positions, that is unimportant. Unimportant, not proven true or false.

After reading WP:Criticism, I agree with Ben that there is no significant argument against "Criticism" that outweighs it's neutrality and simplicity, given the civil and productive history of the article. Also,to suggest a mainstream dismissal of the position seems more like criticism of the subject, instead of criticism of the legs of the argument. WP:Criticism states that "No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location. For example, criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts." Phyesalis 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most prevalent academic position is that Jesus was a historical person; the quote from Doherty is plain testimony to this fact, and it's apparent to anyone who reads scholarly writing on the Historical Jesus.

As for WP:Criticism, it's an essay, and one I don't particuarly like. I hate sections entitled "criticism"; it smacks of lazy writing, and I don't agree that it's neutral--I think it's a way for editors to segregate negative information into a single section, rather than writing a truly balanced article. I prefer the title "scholarly reception", or simply "reception"; but I suspect the true answer to the question is to intergrate the material in this section into the rest of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no complaint about it being integrated into the body of the article (assuming it's done well, of course), changing the name has no impact on whether it's "a way for editors to segregate negative information into a single section" or "lazy writing". I don't really have strong feelings about this (though I'm always willing to argue about things), and I also feel I should point out that my knowledge of history might be better than average, but that's a pretty low bar. (I.e., I don't even come close to being an expert.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Akhilleus. I agree, the criticism section is poorly written and terribly argued. I would be fine with integrating actual counter-arguments as long as we stay away from POV statements about what the majority of any academic group thinks. I have several problems with the assertion of "mainstream" or scholarly response which you haven't addressed.

• Asserting what the majority of any academic field in the social sciences think on a given subject, particularly such a contentious subject as Jesus, without using a reliable source is lazy. Even if you are quoting a small handful scholars who profess to know what the majority of scholars think, you're still quoting hearsay, anecdotal evidence at best. Their statements, unless backed up by some kind of comprehensive analysis, are unverifiable. They are opinion, unencyclopedic and frowned upon in academic writing.
• And while we're on the subject of Lazy, lazy is attacking the subject, an ad hominem of sorts, instead of the legs of the argument. It clearly counts as criticism of the subject, which is generally frowned upon in WP, also a form of lazy thinking/writing.
• Lazy is epitomized by the sentence "Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by most scholars." That is opinion until supported by some facts. Why are they not considered compelling evidence? What counter-arguments are available? That statement is laughable. Which scholars, how many? There is nothing quantifiable to provide a reader with some insight as to where one might begin ascertaining the veracity of such claims.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting you're to blame for the section's sad state. Now that you mention it, the section is so empty of encyclopedic content, I think we should cut it from the article, paste it on the talk page for reference and see if we can't find some useful, encyclopedic knowledge with which we might begin to reintegrate points into the body of the article, since this is your preference for the criticism section? What do you all think? Phyesalis 04:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, there are something like four sources in the article that say the Jesus myth has no support in mainstream scholarship If you don't find that convincing, there's not much point in discussing it further. Suffice it to say that Earl Doherty will not be replacing John Dominic Crossan on very many college reading lists.

I wouldn't support removing the section. It's not well-written, but each bullet point has citations and draws on actual secondary scholarship (and this answers your question "where one might begin ascertaining the veracity of such claims"--you look at the material cited in the footnotes). Integrating this material into the rest of the article may be the way to go, but the article needs a lot of work before that can happen. The article reads like it's trying to prove (or disprove) that Jesus didn't exist. Instead, it should report on some writers' arguments that Jesus didn't exist. That means talking about the views of individual authors in their own sections, rather than combining all of the arguments of all of the Jesus mythologists into one "Specific arguments of the hypothesis" section, as if all of the writers were doing the same thing. And the article really should concentrate more on Arthur Drews and the responses to his work, because that's when the Jesus myth idea had its greatest scholarly impact. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't care about Earl. I would LOVE to have more Drews. 2nd, I'm with you, I deplore the homogenous treatment this subject has received, as if this is a unified position. Or that this is the place to prove one side or the other. Unfortunately, the crit section reads as if someone is trying to prove an argument by dismissing the subject. However, detractors aren't what this page is about. Most of the crit. section is hollow dismissal, again criticism of the subject itself, not any of the authors' works. It has little material of substantive value. Yes, one of your sources of modern positions is a 1962 journal, real easy for the average Wikipedian to verify the empty statement. Regardless of the number of quotes you have, they're still quotes of opinions, not verifiable info. You cannot verify what the majority of scholars (today) think by citing someone's anecdotal opinion, espcially one from 1962. Not one, not four. Not unless what you are citing happens to be a comprehensive analysis of the field. This is my next suggestion: If the criticism has encyclopedic value and is applicable to a particular author or aspect of argument, let's keep it. If the criticism is general and has no correlative subject (author or aspect of argument), let's get rid of it.Phyesalis 09:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why I said discussion would not be fruitful; I get the impression that if we had 100 sources saying that the Jesus myth was not accepted by mainstream academia, you'd disqualify all of them on the grounds that they're outdated, inaccessible, anecdotal, insubstantial, etc. Meanwhile, anyone with a passing familiarity with New Testament studies knows that an overwhelming number of scholars believe that Jesus was a historical person. This article is incomplete without noting that the Jesus myth is a fringe theory. By the way, you might want to read Van Voorst's book, because it's exactly the kind of "comprehensive analysis of the field" you demand. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis does have a point. Out of date articles and books that have been superseded by later research are useless; otherwise we would using reference to things like Joseph Wheless' 1930 Forgery In Christianity on the pro side. Furthermore John Armstrong (of God vs the Bible fame)in his Skeptic Bible Study video Re: Re: The historical Jesus goes over the logical fallacies that some supporters of the Historical Jesus engage in. As best the claim 'overwhelming number of scholars believe' is at best argument from authority if not what Armstrong calls argumentum ad mare datura (sp) or argument from bull crap ie the kind of nonsense we saw in the now infamous Bermuda Triangle stories where authors just repeated what the previous author has said without any critical evaluation of the source material. At one time an overwhelming number of scholars believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system but no rational person would use them to support such an idea today.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the site, it is written by someone who supports research into the Jesus Myth hypothesis - however, it is a critique of Flemming's poor methods. I have not reverted any removals of those refs, so don't try to claim that I am - I merely added the sources in the first place. If you want, remove them, that's fine with me, but at least they present sources and are written with a somewhat professional critique. The other sources, as I explained, were almost purely sermon-like and lacking any type of backing.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Von Voorst etc.

It seems pretty clear that these general attestions of what the majority of scholars are opinion and unsubstantiated. In WP:NPOV, particular the sections "let the facts speak for themselves" and "Attributing and substantiating biased statements", it makes it pretty clear that these types of statements are frowned upon. And what was the title of Van Voorst's book? I couldn't find it with your quote or anywhere in the cited refs of the article. I also looked up his bibliography and couldn't find anything that was described as a comprehensive analysis of what most biblical scholars think on the subject. It's got nothing to do with I demand, I'm just trying to maintain WP's standards of encyclopedic info. I'm going to remove them again. Please do not revert my edit or reintroduce biased and unsubstantiated dismissals of the article's subject in the intro, the general body or the criticism sections. Phyesalis 10:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of Van Voorst's book was in a footnote, but you removed it, along with his quote. It's remarkable that you feel able to judge the quality and bias of this quote, apparently without knowing anything about the work it came from. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, writing about "the historical Jesus" is rather a cottage industry among New Testament scholars, and presumably all of the enormous multitude of writers who have written such books would qualify as a (very limited) consensus that Jesus was a real historical person - even though these people agree on very little else, and a substantial number of them are not Christians. It is simply not correct to say that the scholarly consensus is to simply assume Jesus' existence. While, obviously, most New Testament scholars/historians of early Christianity do not write about t he historical Jesus, and, as you say, simply "assume" Jesus's existence, this is because this is how scholarship generally works - they aren't writing about the historical Jesus, so why should they weigh in? But this ignores the very large number of scholars who have written very specific reconstructions of their view of the historical Jesus. On the other side, so far as I can tell we have yet to name any currently living academic who has actually written a peer-reviewed book or article to make the argument that there was no historical Jesus - we seem to be stuck with people who died more than 100 years ago and non-academics like Doherty and Wells. john k 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, John Kenney, but Doherty is an academic. The original form of his Jesus Puzzle paper appeared in the Fall 1997 issue of Journal of Higher Criticism a peer reviewed publication. Also such noted scholars as Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) better known for his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden) with Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology) with The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) with The Pagan Christ all basically say the same thing Doherty does--the Jesus of the Bible is not a historical person. So much for "100 years ago and non-academics"--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Van Voorst's book, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus), is as its title and reviews suggest, a review of the evidence, not a statistical or comprehensive analysis of what all scholars in multiple disciplines think on the issue. I thought I might have missed something, but I see that I didn't. It doesn't take any special training to realize that a book described as:

"a comprehensive, rigorously focused survey of the evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as manifested by the written sources other than the New Testament. He has translated all relevant passages into contemporary English and presents the most important issues in their interpretation. After a brief survey of the history and principles of historical Jesus research, he takes up the evidence from Classical writers, Jewish writers, the "sources" of the gospels, and Christian writings after the New Testament." (From Library Journal)

is not a comprehensive study of modern scholarship in the related fields. Please note the bolded phrases as it seems you have confused the two.Phyesalis 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking for an opinion survery that determines whether experts in the field think the subject of this article is a fringe opinion, of course you're not going to get it. But it's unreasonable to ask for such a thing, and ridiculous to assert that Van Voorst is unable to say what the consensus in his field is. I notice that you haven't provided any references that say the Jesus myth is generally accepted among scholars, and somehow I doubt you'll be able to find any. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue I raised about criticism of an article's subject hasn't been addressed. Criticisms such as those generalizations, whether cited or not, still constitute criticism of the idea the jesus is a mythical construct. Cite the arguments, not the opinions. Which scholars, in what disciplines? Were they secular or theological disciplines? These assertions need context. This is not Historicity of Jesus where the biblical scholarship is some privileged discipline, but a page related to comparative mythology. The quotes are still unsubstantiated. The Michael Grant quote is actually him quoting someone else - do you think it's possible to get who he's quoting? It should have attribution. It needs a pg. number, too. Phyesalis 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely the fact that an idea is widely rejected is worth mentioning even if there has been little academic writing to actually refute specific arguments. For instance, there has been very little written by conventional Shakespeare scholars against other Shakespearean authorship candidates, but it would still be perfectly appropriate to say that the vast majority of scholars accept that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the author of the works attributed to him. The status of a scholarly consensus is perfectly appropriate to report on, independently of specific counterarguments. john k 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the fact that a position is neglected or ignored by most scholarship is one of the things that defines a fringe theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is widely rejected by theologians, that's all anyone can say with any confidence - all else is opinion. It is not unreasonable to ask for a survey if Van Voorst's opinion is being championed as a "comprehensive analysis" as claimed. Surely he could describe his methodology in ascertaining the analysis. But that's right, he only goes over the evidence, not theological and secular scholars opinions, and probably has a heavy reliance on US scholarship. Does he mean in the US, does he qualify this at all? And where are the page numbers for these quotes? I don't have a problem with the info's inclusion if it has page numbers and is contextualized as opinion - and maybe some mention of how they came to these conclusions if any is given, if not, that should be included. Phyesalis (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...if you look at the footnotes, I think you'll find that Van Voorst is cited by page number. Again, it's remarkable that you're able to criticize Van Voorst's work without reading it. Apparently, a title and a review are all that you need. I'm a bit puzzled why you're talking about "theologians"--Michael Grant, for one, isn't a theologian, and Van Voorst's book is not by any stretch of the imagination a work of theology. Are you going to start trotting out accusations of religious bias next? And why haven't you found any quotes from scholars that say the Jesus myth is a mainstream part of religious studies? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the switch from Van Voorst to Grant, but it wasn't at all clear (I meant "info" in the general sense of assertions of pro-historical ). If you go back up few exchanges, you'll see that I was asking for the page number/s on Grant. If Grant is quoting someone, as it seems he is, it should be attributed to who he's quoting, and have Grant's context on the quote (I'm not sure it has to have the context, but that would be the academically responsible/encyclopedic thing to do). The page number would help to legitimize it. Regardless, if he is quoting someone, the article can't have the quote attributed to him. Additionally, "religious studies" (or scholars with a theological v. a secular education), is not a privileged field on the question of Jesus as myth, since they start with the assumption that Jesus exists. Burridge and Gould are theologians, van Voorst is a theologian, the only non-theologian quoted (Grant)is a quote from some unnamed person with no page numbers, basically hearsay.

Furthermore, not that I would suggest using this site[[11]] as a reliable reference for the article, but for access and ease it does provide a lengthy, but by no means exhaustive, overview of "scholars'" and other authors' books on the negative estimate. There is a difference between minority and fringe. The principle of my objection is the totalizing aspects of statements like '"no reputable scholar" upholds this position' with no support/context. I acknowledge that within theological disciplines the majority of scholars assert the "positive estimate" of Jesus' historicity. And since the article makes no effort to sort out apologetics from other forms of scholarship, the question of religious bias is legitimate - particularly when compared to the secular tradition of comparative mythology.

But it is important to point out that 1) the Jesus as myth has a school of thought within academic circles "the negative estimate/position" as opposed to the "positive estimate" which suggests that it is not a fringe view 2) it has numerous notably scholarly proponents, and as the issue has a minimum of a 150 yr history it seems unneccesarily (and innaccurately) POV to sum up "modern" (not just US theological) scholarship as an open and shut case - also argues against being a fringe view. One question - how are we defining "modern"?

Akhilleus, I acknowledge that my response to the original use of "lazy" (directed at the article, not at anyone personally) was a bit aggressive, and for that I realize that I have antagonized you to the point of questioning my ability to do basic research. Do I perceive this correctly - you argue that my position is invalidated because I failed to find Van Voorst's analysis of the field's scholarly opinions, when no such book exists? I have read no review of V's book as cited in the ref section that describes it as an analysis of the multiple fields of scholarship pertaining to Jesus' estimated existence. This is not a flaw in my research. Perhaps you could post parts of V's methodology to help satsify the matter. I don't think it's neccesary to drop to the level of ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we should step back and try this in a mutually more civil course. Phyesalis (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pledging to reduce the combativeness here; I'll try to follow suit. I think we need to get away from this business about a "comprehensive analysis of the field"--if I'm understanding you correctly, you want some kind of opinion survey, like a scientific poll or something. But it's highly unlikely that such a thing even exists, and in any case we don't need one to establish how the Jesus myth is regarded in academia.

The first chapter of Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament covers the historical development of the Jesus myth idea, and shows why it's wrong. That's a "comprehensive analysis" of the theory. Van Voorst, as a scholar working in New Testament studies, is well positioned to say whether the Jesus myth is a mainstream idea or one rejected by scholars. Michael Grant, as a ancient historian, is an authority on how one should use ancient literary and historical sources to establish what happened in the past, and is also well positioned to say whether the Jesus myth is a mainstream idea. The same thing goes for the other scholars quoted in the article--we trust them in their area of expertise, and that means that when they say scholars regard the Jesus myth as discredited and not worth paying attention to, they know what they're talking about. If they're wrong, the way to demonstrate it is to find other scholars who say that the theory isn't a fringe view. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grant, so I cannot say what page the quote comes from, or who he's quoting.

The Michael Grant quote is from page 200 of the 1977 edition of Jesus An Historian's Review of the Gospels.

It isn't clear who he is quoting. The footnote reads:

R. Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin 1957), p.12; O. Betz, What Do We Know About Jesus? (SCM, 1968), p.9 ; c.f. H. Hawton, Controversy (Pemberton, 1971), pp. 172-82, etc. Peterdgi (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus, I'm happy to do my part. And thank you Peterdgi for shedding some light on the subject. After working on another page dealing with a well documented refuted fringe scientific theory, I'm beginning to sympathize with you. I'd like to suggest something which might address all of our issues. I'm going to start a new section for ease and clarity. But as far as the Grant quote goes, I'm satisfied with the additional info and think we can find a way to address the issue. Phyesalis (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure compromise

I think a number of people on various sides of the issue have problems with the article as it stands. I'd like to suggest a compromise in the form of a restructure: Intro "This article traces the arguments regarding Jesus Christ's incarnation as it pertains to theories of divinity, historicity and mythology." I. Divinity - (original incarnation issues)

A. Docetism

B. Arian controversy and the resulting Nicene Creed (could be c)

II. Historicity - or issues of reconstruction

A. Enlightenment and Reimarus

B. Liberal theology - positioning the original interest in the historical specifics of Jesus' incarnation as within particular theological context.

i. Bauer, Bultmann, Kasemann.

ii. Modern research (summarize and link to Historicity of Jesus

a. historicity as man

b. h. of divinity/miracles

C. Historians (good place for Grant's quote)

III. Myth (Current incarnation issues)

A. Comparative mythology (summarize and link to Jesus in comparative mythology

B. Jesus myth theories

i. Drews (and so on and so forth)

This allows for all the info currently in the article to remain, gives more specific contexts, follows a chronological progression of ideas, allows for all crit to be naturally embedded in article without creating adversarial tensions while contextualizing criticisms within their respective fields (a nice way to resolve some POV issues), removes the neccesity of having obsequious "crit" section and provides a much more encyclopedic article overall. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, I don't understand where you are going with that summary. This article is about the hypothesis that Jesus was not an historical person. Much of your summary doesn't seem to have much to do with that.

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' body was an illusion that was part of consensus reality at the time, but Docetists taught that he couldn't have been real flesh and blood because he was so special. The only connection I can see to the JMH is that some pronouncements against Docetism are sometimes misinterpreted to indicate doubt about Jesus' historicity.

Arianism is the doctrine that the Son, while pre-existant, was not eternal in the same sense as the Father. The Son started to exist at some point, though not necessarily at a point inside time. This was part of a very major controversy at the time that Christianity was legalized, but it is a more subtle departure from orthodoxy than some popular writers seem to think. I can't even imagine any link to JMH here. 99.225.212.128 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to sign that properly Peterdgi (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, having worked on the abomination that is the Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis page, a fringe theory that has been scientifically refuted and has well-documented consensus on the refutation, we still gave the subject an encyclopedic treatment. Everything up until actual JM theories can be treated in one paragraph each or less, I just used a basic layout (not holding to every little detail). With the exception of Arianism and the Nicene creed (and Bultmann/Kasemann), all the info I proposed is already in the article, it's not actually that radical of a difference in content. Lots of articles have a couple of paragraphs delineating the historical/philosophical developments of a given subject. Some editors seem to forget that Jesus Christ as myth is also covered in this collection of theories (not one monolithic theory). Not just Jesus the Nazarene. The Nicene creed is significant since it does actually tie into some JM theories that assert that JC wasn't considered real until later in early church history. Docetism, regardless of what theologians think, also works in and is already mentioned in the article. Arianism is a little iffy, but all it takes is one or two sentences and it makes a nice transition from Docetism to the Creed. Also it relates to Church codification/censorship and persecution of heretics. And I'm sorry, but if theologians are being used to support academic estimates on historicity, the theologians' work on the historicity of miracles/divinity is valid too. I find it difficult to see how a discussion of the development of JMs could be properly had without clear mention of the developments in Liberal Theology. Phyesalis (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, The case you had with the Abortion - Breast Cancer article is certainly interesting, but it is different from the subject of this article in a very important way. There are specialists in oncology who took the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis seriously, and then showed that it was wrong. But in the case of the JMH there just hasn't been much recently in the way of top flight scholars taking the idea seriously enough to publish a refutation - what we get instead are dismissals of the idea.

I will try an outrageous situation which I think is more nearly parallel:

In The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained, Edwin Johnson claimed that Geoffrey Chaucer never existed and that The Canterbury Tales were a Tudor production of uncertain date. (I am not making this up.) It is fairly easy to find citations of English scholars and historians who are quite confident that Chaucer really did exist and wrote the works normally ascribed to him. It might be possible to find a book that said that no serious scholar had doubts about the historicity of Chaucer. But I do not believe that you could find a single scholar who had ever taken Edwin Johnson seriously enough to write a specific refutation of his claim.

Edwin Johnson's book is at: <http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm>, and he is on the rather odd list of scholars at <http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html>.Peterdgi (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Peterdgi, that's a good analogy. Another one that's been mentioned here is the theory that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else. But I take slight issue with your statement that scholars don't refute the JMH--Van Voorst's book does just that (it only takes him a few pages). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your example is a better parallel. First, Chaucer's not mixed up with myths of divinity (and lived over 1,000 years later). Second, Chaucer actually authored a primary text. Third, more than one person has offered variations on the JC/JN myth scenario. Fourth, there are a number of people who have found the JM idea significant enough to respond to the claim (just like ABC). Fifth, (just like ABC) none of this argues against giving the subject encyclopedic treatment. The first section of my structure provides some historical context of the subject (Jesus), the second section provides historical context for the origins of the arguments (that his divinity or historical person are myths. The third section discusses theological research, the fourth historical. The fifth section gets into the various theories directly. I've even pointed out where the current criticisms could go in different contextualized sections. I guess I'm not understanding the purpose of your comparison. I mentioned ABC as an example of how to treat certain concepts academically.

As far as the summary, I'm not crazy about it either, but it's more inclusive. You don't seem particularly happy with it as it is judging by the discussion under "myth". So perhaps you could improve upon my suggestion or contribute one of your own? Phyesalis (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I have not read Van Voorst; I'm reading Grant right now. But I was thinking in terms of a book length treatment along the lines of The Historicity of Jesus by S. J. Case written in 1912 as a response to Drews. No one seems to have done that sort of book recently.

Phyesalis, my example was deliberately more fringy than the JMH. The point of the analogy was to pick something I was pretty sure that you would find absurd to show how treatment of a fringe idea might not follow the pattern you observed in the case of the ABC hypothesis. While the specific claim about Chaucer may be unique to Edwin Johnson, his general hypothesis that most pre-modern history and literature was concocted by monks has a long history starting with the celebrated classical scholar Jean Hardouin in 1696.

I'm not convinced that there are myths of divinity in the NT, except possibly in 2 Peter which was probably written in the mid 2nd century and postdates the rest of the NT by quite a bit. I am presently persuaded that the dominant conception of Jesus' nature in the NT is Adam christology. So I'm in the rather interesting position of having a rather clear idea what the central myth of the NT is, having what seem to me to be pretty good reasons for believing that this was what was intended by the writers, and finding that the so-called mythicists have a completely alien conception of the central myth. The odd thing is that few of the so-called mythicists actually appear to me to believe the myth that they claim is at the origin of Christianity. (They believe that the early Christians believed such things, but rarely seem to have adopted these beliefs as their own.)

As far as the historians vs theologians question goes - It seems to me that there is actually a pretty good consensus among historians for a very Jewish Jesus, Schweitzer style thoroughgoing eschatology, and some reasonable relationship between the synoptic gospels and history. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus among the modernist theologians except that many seem to think the gospels are further removed from history than most of the historians do. It seems strange to me that Grant, who really does appear to be an atheist or at least agnostic, takes the gospels at far closer to face value than many theologians.

As far as improving the article goes, you are probably in a better position than I am to explain what the arguments are, especially since you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking about Drews. If you could add a good clear description of Drews' ideas, without it becoming an argumentative essay, I think that would be great. A clearer explanation of Bruno Bauer would be great too. I only know of Bruno Bauer through reading Schweitzer. I don't think the liberal theologians who do not actually subscribe to JMH really belong here, but they would make a lot of sense at the Historicity of Jesus article because they did have a lot to say about how much of the story is historical or the general impossibility of knowing how much was historical. I think this article should really be confined to the outright denial of historicity, or it won't be clearly distinct from the general historicity article. I will try to think of ways to improve the article. Peterdgi (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

I remvoed the entire section on the Gospel of Barnabas as (a) it was listed as a "specific argument" of the Jesus myth hypothesis which it clearly is not (since it's presupposes the historical existence of Jesus), and (b) even if it were moved to a more appropriate section, it wouldn't be relevant to this Jesus myth hypothesis. At best, it might belong in the See Also section, but even that is dubious. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

well, it simply provides another "less-extreme" variant.

here:

Gospel of Barnabas - variation of the hypothesis

Main article: Gospel of Barnabas#Jesus not God or Son of God

According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification. Though not included in the bible, the gospel suggests the existence of Jesus, but does not support Jesus as the Son of God. Also, this confirm Muslim belief, stating that Jesus is a human and a prophet, a servant of god, but not a deity.

"I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries" ([1]:1)

Jesus also said in regard to the false opinions:

Then Jesus said: "With your words I am not consoled, because where you hope for light darkness shall come; but my consolation is in the coming of the Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me, and his faith shall spread and shall take hold of the whole world, for so has God promised to Abraham our father." ([2]:1)

Suggesting a weak link to the Book of Revelation, without providing clues of the Tribulation, or any other supernatural events.

Iulian28ti 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not less extreme at all, it's diametrically opposed to the hypothesis. I'm an atheist who believes that Jesus existed and that the Jesus myth hypothesis is false. The Jesus myth hypothesis (as the rest of the article points out) is that there was no single person as represented by the Gospels. The Gospel of Barnabas contradicts the hypothesis, it does not support it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

let me present you some keywords to you: -neutrality -contradiction -variation -link snake -accessibility -censorship

Now carefully read and think before you say something!

Neutrality/NPOV -> take into account all available information, present all facts. you editors always seem to jump over that

Contradiction -> it is part of the neutrality. if you present only one fact you cannot be considered neutral.

Variation -> this "contradiction" is a ramification of the theory. it has nothing to do with the rest of the article. a new article could be created, but there is already a section about this very tiny variant. the Section i added is only a brief description.

Link snake -> People want to see the information, not to browse endless links. the page isn't too big so the variation isn't clutter.

Accessibility -> making link snakes is like putting books behind books in a big bookcase, so the reader will easily miss the books in the back

Censorship -> the use of TW simply suggests you are hunting the page, hunting changes made to it.

Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more.

so if you add verifiable information, it's considered vandalism. this is disappointing for a "standard following organization" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read all that carefully, and you made at least one bad assumption (censorship). I do use TW to hunt vandalism, but once it's installed, it's a convenient way of reverting anything. Now, to address your other issues: NPOV, contradiction, and variation all addressed by WP:WEIGHT. To the degree that this hypothesis is to be contradicted (and it already is), the "regular" gospels should be given more weight than this one particular gospel. Even if you don't want to use Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, there are so many other gospels out there, why choose Barnabas? Why not the Gospel of Judas, for example? As for link snake and accessibility, those don't really make sense. If a topic doesn't belong (due to its weight or lack of relevance), then the link snake or accessibility arguments are irrelevant. So, let me ask the one simple question, why is the Gospel of Barnabas more relevant to the Jesus myth hypothesis than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, Judas, the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, the Ebionites, the Egyptians, the Twelve, the Seventy, Cerinthus, Basilides, Marcion, Appelles, Bardesanes, Mani, Peter, Bartholomew, Nicodemus, Thomas, Matthias, Eve, or the few others I've omitted? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

it is irrelevant whether a text is canonical, or called "gospel": the real question is, how is it dated. All these Gnostic and pseudoepigraphical gospels, Judas, Barnabas etc., date to well after AD 200 and thus hold nothing of interest to this question whatsoever. Otoh, any first century text is of prime importance, regardless of its canonicity. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism v. Scholarly criticism

"Mainstream Scholarly response" is inaccurate and heavy POV. I changed it to "Criticism" per request. I see that somebody changed "Criticism" to "Scholarly Criticism" as the original request sugggested. I find the addition of the word scholarly to be redundant and POV, not to mention UW. Also, this thing about the majority of scholars is clearly POV. There are numbers of actual historians and theologians (although not as many in the theo camp)who either support the theory completely or remain skeptical of the prohistorical position/methodology. Donald Akenson (award winning historian) comes to mind. Phyesalis 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think criticism is ambiguous. I think the "scholarly" aspect of "scholarly response" is made clear both by the scholastic nature of the article and the nature of Wikipedia article expectations. Also "response" suggests one unified position, which is generally unheard of in the diversity of scademic discourse. I think "Criticism" is a neutral way to introduce the opposing point of view. I think it should be changed back to "criticism" to avoid the implication that this is not a valid scholarly position. As a compromise, I would accept "Theological Criticisms" if "Criticisms" is found to be too ambiguous. Phyesalis 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Theologocial criticisms" suggest that the criticisms are theologically based and not based on scholarly research. I would prefer "criticism" under the understanding that we're referring to the scholarly type of criticism to "theological criticism". As with my other comment. This might be better discussed in the straw poll section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See the straw poll above where I give my reasoning for preferring "scholarly criticism" to simply "criticism" (it's more precise). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. I will continue my response up there. Phyesalis 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to respond up there. TJ 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fringe?

Akhilleus asked on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Jesus_myth_hypothesis for input from outside parties. My twopence: the subject is controversial, and I do not think that citations from books published by Eerdmans can decide the issue. In the 19th century there was severe doubt among many theologians. The "Radikalkritik" also doubted Paul's existence. Since then two things have happened: some early New Testament snippets have been discovered, and the doubters have left the field. I suspect that the second reason is the most important one for the diminished support of myth hypotheses in academic circles. /Pieter Kuiper 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to the Burridge/Gould quote, but there are also quotes from Michael Grant (a classical historian), Van Voorst, and a quote from Earl Doherty (one of the proponents of the theory), all saying that this theory has no support within academia. That's a good indication that it's a fringe theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The references at the end of the lead (Grant and Burridge/Gould) are produced to say that it is fringe not to believe in an historical Jesus. Well, the Dutch classical historian Henk Versnel says in this interview (where he dismisses Francesco Carotta out of hand) that the consensus is that there is no consensus. That is not completely true, but the scholars who say that every reputable scholar agrees that Jesus existed are very often Christians. /Pieter Kuiper 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the question holds only so much interest for historians with no ideological motivation. So I think the communis opinio is something like "yeah, it's likely, nothing speaks against it, but who knows. now let's talk about something interesting." I mean, the historical Jesus will turn out to have been just some bloke. The "resurrected" Jesus of Christian doctrine holds infinitely more interest than another random wandering rabbi. dab (𒁳) 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: actively making the argument that Jesus did not exist is clearly, at this point, a fringe position. On the other hand, one can express uncertainty on the question, as Dab says, without being on the fringe. So I wouldn't say that "every reputable scholar agrees that Jesus existed." I would rather say "No reputable scholar is willing to make a substantive argument that Jesus did not exist." john k 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

that sums it up perfectly. dab (𒁳) 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't pretend to understand the debate. The evidence of historicity seems compelling to me as a clueless dilettante dabbler in things early medieval, just as it will probably seem feeble to a keen atheist teenage student of science. It depends what kind of proof you expect. Anyway, surely this belongs in Historical Jesus? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, there's enough substance here to justify its own article. And we don't have to decide whether or not the Jesus myth theory is true--all we're discussing here is whether the theory is a major part of the discussion of the historical Jesus, or just a fringy sidecurrent. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

that goes without saying. As it happens, it is a fringy side-current and hence should be presented as such. I fail to see why the "atheist teenage student of science" should tend to embrace it, since the same person probably won't convert to Islam because he thinks Muhammad is historical, or to Scientology because he thinks Ron L. Hubbard really lived. The historicity of Jesus is completely unrelated (orthogonal) to acceptance or rejection of Christian tenets of faith. Things may lie different with the historicity of the actual resurrection of Christ, but this isn't under discussion here. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find Richard Carrier on youtube saying "Probably not" to the question of whether Jesus existed. You can find Robert M Price saying the onus of proof has shifted to the those who believe Jesus existed. I think they are serious scholras. E4mmacro 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are. However, you havve only pointed toward two scholars who contest the point. The consensus view of the remainder of the scholars apparently disagrees with them, possibly strongly. Any argument which has only two major proponents in this field almost certainly qualifies as "fringe". John Carter 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Carrier's a grad student at Columbia who's self-published on the web, or else been published by publications having nothing to do with his field of expertise. I'm not sure he qualifies as part of "academia" for the purposes of this debate. john k 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. My understanding is that this is a secondary article of Jesus and comparative mythology with an emphasis on literary criticism, and that it does not belong in historicity of Jesus which focuses on theologically based biblical scholarship and biblical criticism. A search on Bultmann brings up over 350 references in JSTOR from 2003-1980. Bultmann is not "fringe". His impact is still felt and discussed today. This article's subject, while being a gross conflation of complex positions throughout several disciplines, is notable as the product of the first quest for the historical Jesus, coming out out of new Post-Enlightenment humanist thought on science, history, culture and religion. The skepticism of Jesus' historical existence also marks a significant point at which secular scholarship gains independence from Church influence. The origin of this particular debate was one of the foundational elements in the development of historiography. Phyesalis 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bultmann certainly isn't fringe, but I don't think he has very much to do with the subject of this article. The problem, here, as it has been with many previous disputes in this article, may be with the meaning of "mythology". When Bultmann and other theologians talk about demythologizing the NT, they are talking about mythology as a way of conceptualizing the world--a mode of thought. But when we talk about the "Jesus myth", we're using "myth" in the sense of "false story". Bultmann isn't one of the people who denies Jesus' historicity, as far as I can see. And the people who are claiming that the gospels are fabrications and that Jesus never existed as a real person are definitely in the minority of biblical scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What definition of myth is used here?

It doesn't seem like this article is using the academic definition of "myth". The term "myth" has often been equated to a false story in popular usage, but this is not the academic definition of myth. Myths can be based on real people and therefore even if Jesus lived, it doesn't change the fact that the story of Jesus is mythological. Same with the Illiad......while the Illiad is considered "mythology".....it is still based on events that occured in the past such as the seige of a state referred later on as Troy. The definition of the term "myth" is; "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." None of this definition has anything to do with being a historical figure or not. And the Jesus story fits this definition. Zachorious (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but no one has managed to come up with a better name for the article. If you can come up with a way to say "article about the hypothesis that Jesus was not historical" that works as a title, please post your suggestion. Peterdgi (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Zachorious is right. There are various myths attached to people who we know beyond any doubt existed. George Washington and the cherry tree is a well known example as are the various myths associated with Davy Crocket, Jesse James, Wild Bill Hickok, and many others of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps "non-historical Jesus hypothesis" as an alternative title might better separate this from "The mythologization of Jesus hypothesis" where Jesus is thought to be historical but many of his deeds were embellished on for decades or even centuries after his death.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral

Very odd article. Seems to be almost entirely a criticism of the Jesus Myth. While a criticism section should exist, it seems to be the point of the article. Definitely not NPOV.

I would like to do some major editing. Obviously keeping the criticism, but moving it to a criticism section and adding some more about the supposed point of the article – the Jesus Myth. Any objections?~~shambles07~~ 25 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.116.168 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

---

DEFINATELY not neutral. Suetonius (considering Chrestus is by far likelier to mean Greek by the name then misspelling of christ,) Tacitus, Pliny and Trajan are claimed misleadingly to mention Jesus. They do not. They mention christianity/christians. And no-one in his right mind is questioning the existance of christianity, but that of christ! When I tried to insert mention of this it was removed within an hour. Neutral article hardly would have reason to mention the four worthies at all, much less: "Of the few references (to Christ) outside of Christian documents:..." It is said that: "Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the accuracy of one or more of these sources." but no mention is made (nor allowed by some editors) as to the very simple GROUNDS of this "disputing." Perhaps this is such emotional issue for some that neutral viewing of it is impossible. ---- Janne Harju —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.83 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

...I'm sorry, but it is neutral with regard to the academic position, which is what NPOV is supposed to mean - that we fairly report the mainstream/academic opinion, without biasing the article towards fringe positions. Tacitus explicitly mentions Christ, and the suetonius bit is reported accurately.

I assume this is the complaints for which the article was nominated for POV - since they're quite blatantely refuted by the article itself, I am removing the tag.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

This article isn't about The Jesus Myth. This is criticism of The Jesus Myth. I seem to recall a far stronger page at some point that presented the subject fairly enough. What an appalling page it's become! I think it's time to assemble better writers and rewrite this entirely. 16:07, 13 February 2008

Bruno Bauer

Disclaimer - I only know of Bruno Bauer's work through secondary sources : Schweitzer, Engels and a few reference works. Bauer's works on the gospels do not appear to have been translated into English. Schweitzer devotes a whole chapter to him in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus, so I think I probably have a fair picture.

The article as it now stands seems to tie Bauer strongly into the comparative mythology angle. This does not appear to be true. I haven't seen anything on Bauer showing his ideas on life-death-rebirth deities. Unless someone provides information on Bauer's interest in comparitive mythology, I will try to edit out the suggestion that Bauer has anything to do with the comparitive mythology aspect of the JMH.

Bauer approached the issue from the side of literary criticism. He showed that the other gospels depend on Mark. He decided that Mark was a work of fiction based on many difficulties he found that were involved in taking it as a history. But he based his decision to regard Mark as fiction primarily on his belief that there had been no general Jewish Messianic expectations at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. He argued that if there had been a prevailing messianic expectation among the Jews at the time, then Mark could not be fiction because Mark's Jesus fulfilled these expectations so badly. Bauer could find no evidence outside the New Testament that Jews had been expecting a Messiah before the rise of Christianity.

Bruno Bauer's explanation of the Messianic Secret in Mark is "The earliest Evangelist did not venture openly to carry back into the history the idea that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, because he was aware that in the time of Jesus no general expectation of the Messiah had prevailed among the people. When the disciples in Mark viii, 28 report the opinions of the people concerning Jesus they cannot mention any who hold Him to be the Messiah." (quoted in Schweitzer The Quest for the Historical Jesus chapter 11 p.142)

Albert Schweitzer had a very favorable estimate of Bauer's importance in historical Jesus research. He said, "But the time is past for pronouncing judgment upon Lives of Christ on the ground of the solutions which they offer. For us the great men are not those who solved the problems, but those who discovered them. Bauer's "Criticism of the Gospel History" is worth a good dozen Lives of Jesus, because his work, as we are only now coming to recognise, after half a century, is the ablest and most complete collection of the difficulties of the Life of Jesus which is anywhere to be found." (Quest p. 159)

I'm pretty new at this and I don't think I'm ready to do any major editing yet, but I do think that we should clarify that Bruno Bauer's work is based on literary criticism and seems to have nothing to do with comparative mythology. Peterdgi (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The thing about Bauer, indeed almost all of the Liberal Theology angle, is that it was in response to proto-comparative religion study that identified the presence of myth in the NT. This is one of the primary stimuli behind the various quests. They wanted to root out mythic and/or inauthentic elements (among other things). I'm not saying that Bauer formulated a life-death-rebirth myth typology, but his work and conclusions (that virtually no knowledge is possible) serve as a basis for modern theories. The article wouldn't be complete without covering this era of theological/philosophical/historical development. Please don't remove it. Phyesalis (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer absolutely belongs in the article. But the way the article is currently written suggests that he was interested in the comparitive mythology side, when in fact he was interested in the higher criticism side. The first paragraph of the article stresses the rebirth-deities angle. The second paragraph leads straight into Bruno Bauer. I think a reader might be misled into thinking that Bruno Bauer was interested in rebirth deities. There is no mention of this in what I have read from either Albert Schweitzer or Friedrich Engels.Peterdgi (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read Bauer either, but my impression is similiar to Peterdgi's--Bauer was concerned with "myth" in a way that was common to 19th century Liberal Theology, but that has very little to do with comparative mythology. As I understand it, it's the difference between the supernatural (i.e., "mythical") content of the Gospels and the historical content. I think this points to a larger problem that has plagued discussion on this page for years--there are many different senses of "myth" and "mythology" in play here, not everyone means the same thing by them, and often people are talking past each other because of that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "myth" only appears twice in chapter 11 of Schweitzer's Quest. In both cases it is used in reference to David Strauss and not Bruno Bauer. Bauer doesn't simply separate the supernatural from the realistic content - he decides that it is all fiction. Eventually he came to the position that Paul did not exist either. Oddly enough, there is a proper name for the hypothesis that Paul never existed, it is called Radical Criticism.

I think somehow that there may be some confusion between Bruno Bauer and F. C. Baur. They are completely different people. Bruno Bauer is the one who thought that Jesus was fictional. F. C. Baur didn't think anything of the sort, though he did do some fairly extreme work in higher criticism. Both were Hegelians, both German, both wrote biblical criticism and had similar last names, but they were completely different people.Peterdgi (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Maybe we all need to stop commenting and go read Bauer instead. (First I need to work on my German, though...) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I wasn't sure on that. I wasn't confusing the two. I know he thought there was no historical value in the Gospels as far as attempts to reconstruct, but I'm not sure whether or not he actually doubted his existence. Deciding that the New testament is all fiction is not an explicit denial of historicity. Does anyone have a quote on that? Whether or not Schweitzer used myth in connection with Bauer, he certainly equated Bauer with Strauss since he thinks Bauer is of greater value. Phyesalis (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert M Price quote

I am unhappy about including Price's objections on 2 grounds: 1) they're self-published cf WP:SPS and 2) his conclusion is not that Jesus didn't exist, just that he thinks we can't find the 'real' Jesus in the material available to us. A rather different conclusion I think. Mercury543210 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Price has a spectrum of positions. He has made arguments that the burden of proof is on positivists and that Jesus did not exist. (I am somewhat familiar with his more recent views, but he isn't really one of my interests). As for SPS, I'm not sure, he is a noted scholar who has been published extensively in peer-review journals. It's not like he's just some random guy who set up his own homepage. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not 'familiar' with Price's work, anyone who has a 'spectrum of positions' doesn't come across as very authoritative. Which of his 'positions' are we quoting here? Is it his 'current' position? I still think remove the quote. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the no-Jesus position. As for being able to argue multiple points of an issue as some kind of disqualification - I hardly think so. Actually, not being tied to a particular ideological presupposition is usually the sign of reliable expertise. When I said that Price had a spectrum of positions, it seems as if he has made a series of shifts in his thinking. His spectrum of positions are pretty linear in development. Conversely, how many peer-review articles have authors like Van Voorst and Grant published? I mean let's establish one thing - The van Voorst and the Grant quotes are not published in peer-review material - they are, in effect, popular books, not academic. van Voorst's book was not reviewed in any journal I've been able to find. So before we start casting aspersions on peer-reviewed authors let us consider the weight of the material against it. Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies. I haven't gotten to B&G yet (it's that time of year). This article seems to have a particular pro-evidentialist apologetics bias to it based on materials with undue weight. Phyesalis (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Circular or not

The entry states that most "ideas" covered by the term "share the common premise that the narrative of the Gospels portrays a figure who never actually existed", yet it also suggests they conclude "that there was no historical Jesus". Hence, either the Jesus myth argument is circular, or the entry is misleading... Terjen (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it isn't circular since there are actually subtle, yet relevant, distinctions. One can argue that the Gospels only portray Jesus Christ as they are post-Easter narratives (composed after authors had accepted the divinity of the risen Christ) and therefore do not portray a historical figure. This is a mythical view of JC (this where there is some overlap between comparative religion and more explicit Jesus myth arguments. The idea that Jesus Christ is a myth is a cultural and academic precursor to the idea that Jesus of Nazareth (historical) is a myth. There's a lot of grey area between those two positions. Both are relevant to this page. Phyesalis (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Both are relevant to this page, yes, but this page is actually *about* the latter. That's a significant part, to my mind, of the justification of the split between this and the other article on Jesus and mythology. TJ (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)