Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"... in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John ..." - Gnostic, not Christian view?

Anyone know if this true? I think this is a Gnostic view and not, as far as I know, a 'Christian' one. If so I think this whole section needs to be deleted as you can't argue for a 'parallel' where there isn't one. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following: In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast (a religious epithet written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST) - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John, who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser.' As it is not a parallel! Mercury543210 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this not a parallel? It looks like a parallel to me. Horus is to Christ, as Anubis is to John the Baptist. --Skylights76 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Horus was anointed in the same way that a king was anointed, by Anubis, who served as an intercessor between the gods and man. There is no evidence that John the Baptist was seen as serving in the same capacity, so the comparison collapses there, I think. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are all the "scholars" priests and reverends?

The people in the "scholarly response" section are almost all reverends, pastors or Christian scholars. Doesn't that make for a conflict of interest in their view that the idea of Jesus being a "myth" is completely "refuted," and that they can't think of any "respectable" scholars who hold the view today?

Aren't there many historians and scholars who're also atheists? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Four sources are cited stating that JMers are a minority in scholarly circles today (1 - Burridge and Gould, 2 - Van voorst, 3 - Grant, 4 - Dogherty). Two of them were written by Christians. The other two were written by non-Christians. One was by Grant - an atheist - and Doherty - a JM proponent, who may or may not be an atheist (I don't know if he is a deist or posesses some other kind of belief in a deity), but is certainly NOT a Christian.

As for suggesting that committed Christians are somehow extra conflicted, anyone who has studied the subject in depth has a level of emotional commitment to it. TJ (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon poster... The statement that they make is the type of comment that one uses to silence one's opponents. The fact that there is "a level of emotional commitment" only increases the likelihood that they are speaking emotionally rather than academically. This is also the type of subject where such broad sweeping statements such as this would be found.Balloonman (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

how is Michael Grant a "reverend"? It isn't even necessary to "silence your opponents" when your opponents don't have a case. For some reason, the "scholarly response" section appears to be mostly about proponents claiming that scholarly refutation doesn't convince them (duh, otherwise they'd hardly qualify as "proponents"). As it turns out, there is one (1) academic proponent (Price), if you count the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" as academia. If you do not, we have zero (0) academic proponents: utter WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Evidentialist apologetics requires that the theologian prove Jesus' existence as the entire basis of their religion's legitimacy. Let's be real - that's one of the main reasons there is a distinction between academics and theologians. Theologians start from the assumption/presupposition that Hayzeus existed, academics tend to let the contentious issue slide - this is why a number of academics do not refer to Jesus but "the Jesus event". Burridge and Gould's statement that they don't know of any reputable scholar probably serves to highlight their limited field of theology - not general academic discourse. Phyesalis (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of no distinction between "academics" and "theologians", and would like to see evidence that such a distinction is recognised within academia.

Even if there is one, Burridge (at least - I don't know about Gould) certainly comes down on the "academic" side. People without expertise in the subject can easily overemphasise the overlap between historical-critical NT scholarship and theology - aside from that they're both taught at undergraduate level, there is a significant (though not absolutely all-encompassing) distinction. Burridge is a NT scholar, rather than a theologian. His first job in academia was actually as a classicist or ancient historian (I can't remember which), and was nothing to do with religion at all!

I have to say, I've yet to read someone refer to "the Jesus event", and would like to see some evidence that a) academics use that turn of phrase, and b) that they do it because they don't want to comment on historicity. I'm familiar with the term "the Christ event", but my understanding of it is not that it arises out of a desire to state Jesus did not exist, so much as a desire to not commit on how specific aspects of primitive Christian belief arose (e.g. how they came to have faith in Jesus in a specific way). I am very happy, though, to be proven wrong, if you have any recommended reading.

Lastly, even if many academics are indifferent about historicity, unless that indifference can be significantly cited, it should not be represented in this or any article - WP:Undue and WP:NOR still apply.TJ (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also because, with the mindset of academic society, trying to argue academically that the miracles actually happened would get you laughed out of your career. However, I will also say that theologians wouldn't be very likely to try to be dishonest in their arguments - if they knew they had to be dishonest to make their case, they wouldn't believe, would they?

"Limited field of theology" - do you know of any reputable scholars who support the hypothesis? Even according to the article, only two real scholars defend it, and from what I've seen, not well - Doherty, for example, has at least once claimed that Paul believed in some kind of subheaven where he thought Jesus happened because the culture did, and then when presented with the evidence that the culture did not, he put forth that just Paul did. While he may be a good scholar in other subjects, in this one he is grasping.

But I'll shut up now, sorry for rambling.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was poorly phrased. I meant "limited to their field of theology". It's not a question of honesty - but of presupposition. They assume that Jesus existed and search (through that lens) for proof. They assume that the Gospels are legitimate sources which contain legitimate info. This doesn't make them dishonest. It's all logically consistent with their beliefs, it just doesn't make for good objective inquiry (outside of Christian theology). Phyesalis (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case. I have to say I disagree from my knowledge base - but then I'm sure you'd claim that I'm a christian and therefore biased. I could equally claim that you have some bias against Christianity, which seems more plausible to me, as I know the content of my heart, but not of yours - but I don't want to pretend to know other people's hearts. I find it virtually impossible to believe that someone who cares about any subject enough to be regularly editing an article has no element of emotional commitment to the subject - but I can't claim to know how that person works with that emotional commitment.

However, unless I'm reading you wrong, you're attacking the methods, rather than the conclusions. That's largely irrelevant when it comes to a wikipedia article, as I'm sure you realise. Am I misreading you?

Incidentally, Jesus Myth proponent Doherty himself agrees that the JM is rejected and held in contempt by scholars. He, along with Michael Grant (who I have confirmed through OR was an atheist), can hardly be held to be biased towards Jesus' existence. TJ (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's edit

Bruce added, more than once, a paragraph sourced to http://jdstone.org/, defending it on the basis that it's a ".org site". No. It abjectly fails WP:RS. It could be .va and still be worthless as a source, the site has no identifiable authority, it's a polemical anti-Christian site and if we can't source that content from a much better authority then we're not going o include it period. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And Guy KEEPS GakuseiDon's Pro-Jesus stuff despite it being self-published MyZoo web site. Guy just destroyed his credibility.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, in that case remove GakuseiDon's Pro-Jesus stuff then - anything on those kinds of sites (whether this self-published pro-Jesus site, or jdstone.org, or infidels.org.) Just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.

And please don't make rude and unnecessary comments about other users. TJ (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As per this discussion I have removed the sentence about Hayyim ben Yehoshua's article. This is not a credible source WP:SPS. Mercury543210 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you guys just don't get it. Refuting Missionaries (Better known by the title of its first chapter "Myth of the Historical Jesus" is used by dozens of sites and at least one book (The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold pg 33-34) that claim that the Jesus of the Bible was a myth. Pulling your hat over your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going 'la la la' is not going to make Refuting Missionaries/"Myth of the Historical Jesus" go away. The fact of the matter is that a quick google search showed it to be used by DOZENS of Jesus Myth sites so back in it goes with the caveat that it reliability is questionable. As for rude and unnecessary comments Guy started it by using my name rather the article title so take it up with him.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That it is used in that book may make it mentionable in the article - it is pretty useless as an actual source, though. And that many sites use it, while sad, is not a reason to put it in - these sites are well known for parroting outdated and disproven theories. The discussion over whether the Rabbi is right is not the discussion (though the academic field seems to disbelieve him anyway) - it's whether he is a reliable, verifiable source. And he's not at all. Though mentioning that he's been used as a source by the book, if the book itself is notable enough to mention, is perfectly fine in my opinion.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the "these sites are well known for parroting outdated and disproven theories" claim by Jesus Myth books and sites so that is hardly a good reason (the Creationist/Evolution debate is full of that kind of nonsense on both sites) for rejection of a site especially as there are no citations as to who makes such claims. Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit call these 'Weasel words' and they should put up a red flag faster than a 30 car pile up at the Indianapolis 500. Sadly the pro-Jesus side has some real vocal people who have no sense of logic and whose antics effectively poison the well so to speak. The comment by jcr4runner (the promoter of The Forerunner website) in the "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?" Youtube video is a case in point: "So if was born in Washington D.C. seven years after Eisenhower died and I collected information about him from some of the people who saw him alive, my account would not be accurate?" Good heavens (bad pun I know), unlike Jesus there are mountains of contemporaneous evidence for Eisenhower: the records at West Point, Army records, official and private correspondence about him by both allies and enemies, and let's not forget all the personal papers he left behind. This is all ignoring the coin minted in his honor less then two years after his death. NONE of that exists for Jesus. When the the Pro-Jesus group goes down Non sequitur roads like this they basicly shoot themselves in the foot--with a Thompson machine gun.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For heaven's sake - we prefer academic evidence, not personal websites and Youtube. Thatgoes for all "sides". A source is reliable because it is written by someine with appropriate qualiifications and expertise. That's all. There are millions of websites out there written by people who haven't a clue. Also, try to learn the meaning of non sequitur. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the book cited in any substantial way in "The Christ Conspiracy"? Even if it was, I don't see how it would merit inclusion in this article. On the other hand, an article about Refuting Missionaries might include mention of how it was used in "The Christ Conspiracy". ^^James^^ (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well to be fair the academic evidence on both sides is a mess. Most of it boils down to statements in popular books rather than peer reviewed journals resulting in a he said-she said situation. A related problem is the kind of excluded middle that seems to exist in the debate boiling down to either the Jesus of the Bible existed or he didn't. The problem with that is Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood who in part can linked to a historical people (Riothamus and Sire Johannes d'Eyvile respectively) but so much has been added in that the King Arthur or Robin Hood we know are composite characters with very little (if anything) left of the original historical people. While Refuting Missionaries/The Myth Of The Historical Jesus is not the best example of such a middle area it is by far the most commonly referred and trying to ignore that it is out there is insane and inane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream academic position, insofar as there is one, is that Jesus existed in some form or another - but most NT scholars would hold that there are significant differences between the traditional and/or biblical account, and what really happened. (That's not my position, by the way, I'm much more conservative than that). The thing is, this article isn't about the mainstream opinion. It's about a much smaller opinion, which (if you read the mainstream scholarly response section, or the relevant the links quoted in it) acknowledges that scholarship has basically ignored them. Doherty, for example, states that almost all the worthwhile literature on the subject is on the internet rather than in academic books. So there's not likely to be masses of academic quality literature on either side in the near future, to be honest... unless we start citing things that don't mention this theory (which we do a lot actually, e.g. citing mainstream scholars when they're not responding to the JM theory.)

By the way, sorry to you all for not responding to comments on this page with any more regularity than I do. I keep missing things and not keeping in touch. Sadly, I don't have enough hours in my day to do everything.TJ (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So let's remove everything that's not JM-specific, stick to quality literature, and end up with a short, incisive article. What's wrong with that? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not inane, it's wikipedia policy. I've just glanced at part 2 of this masterpiece, which says that Saint Peter "is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion". Now what Egyptian god was that? Can you find a scholarly source that there was any such Egyptian god? And why would an Egyptian god have a Latin name? As for middle areas - most scholars who are not out and out Fundies do in fact adopt a middle area, and are generally rather evasive when addressing the miracles, preferring to put them in the context of prophetic and apocalypic narrativeS rather than makes statements about whether or not they actually occurred. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is inane because by this kind of brain dead logic you cannot say the Nazis used the Protocols of Zion because the Protocols of Zion was a fiction. As for Petra being Latin that is total nonsense as a quick look at Ancient Egypt: the Light of the World by Gerald Massey pg 860 will show "The word Petra or Petar is Egyptian;..." and right in the very next sentence it clearly states he is Egyptian god.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Brain dead? Really? Perhaps Frankenstein can help you. You really haven't a clue have you? Massey was a Victorian spiritualist, Druid and eccentic whose ideas have absolutely no value today, except that he's just the kind of obsolete and unreliable source used by the likes of Achayra S and regurgitated in your favourite article. He's part of the typical "myth" models of the time influenced by Muller's Sun Myth theory and other comparable ideas, of the kind that fed fin-de-siecle esotericism. Petra is Latin for "rock", taken from Greek. Hence the name of the rock-carved city in Jordan. Paul B (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

More brain dead arguments using the old ad Ad hominem ploy. Considering John Glover Jackson refers to the Egyptian god Patra on pg 144 of Man, God, and Civilizationand the word also appears in Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary as Pet-ra, Petra, Petra-Ba, and Petra-sen (a river) showing without a doubt the word also appears in ancient Egyptian. Then you have Epiphanius Wilson translating Papyrus of nu (British Musuem 10,447 sheet 7) ...'unfastened for me by god Petra and Ernest Alfred Wallis' Hieroglyphic Vocabulary to the Book of the Dead which on page 154 not only says Petra is "the name of a god" but provides the hieroglyphics that represent the name; there is more evidence from 1912 to the present day that Perta is indeed the name of of an Egyptian god. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There may well be an Egyptian god named Petra. However, petra and petros are common Greek nouns, both mean "stone". There's no reason to go grasping for an Egyptian derivation when there's a perfectly good Greek one staring you in the face. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no god called Petra who was "door keeper of heaven". This is pure fantasy designed to connect a word to role of Peter in traditionial Christian imagery. As I understand, 'Pet' is Ancient Egyptian for "offspring". "Pet ra" therefore means "Ra's child", which, I believe, was used as a honorific. Of course this has no etymological connection to the Greek/Latin Petra/Petrus. Our friend is quoting from Massey, Wallis-Budge and other turn-of-the-century writers whose ideas fed the Jesus Myth theory. Other authors include Jesus-myther and proto-Afrocentrist John Glover Jackson, who all have an agenda to promote this fantasy. It might be interesting to include as part of the history of claims that the Jesus story derives from Egyptian myth, which is the central thrust of Massey's book, and therefore the origin of all those Isis+Horus = Mary+Jesus arguments. But, this is all part of the history of myth-theory. Nothing more. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet more Ad hominem attacks with not one shred of proof. Who says Petra never existed? A scholar in a peer reviewed journal or some guy with a milled diploma in a popular book? It makes all the difference in the world.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include this or any other self-published website. Our goal should be to use as much academic literature as possible (difficult for a fringe subject, I know). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when dealing with fringe positions, all sorts of sources are allowed, particularly those that explain the theory itself. The question is - is the belief that J didn't exist a fringe theory? Phyesalis (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

that's not true. "Fringe" is not a binary yes-or-no status. WP:UNDUE says sources will be given screen time in proportion to the prominence of each. That is, the more reliable/academic/serious our most prominent sources, the less the chance of inferior sources to be even mentioned. dab (𒁳) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

""these sites are well known for parroting outdated and disproven theories" " - except that there's a source that in one of the see also's, here. And it's, quite frankly, true - nearly all of these anti-Christian sites have no sources or are grounded in outdated (Acharya S and the 19th century "authorities" she relies on) and disproven (hell, go to [tektonics.org] - it refutes many of these claims, using sources and interpreting them through the context of the culture they were made in, rather then expecting people from thousands of years ago to have the same idioms and style we do) fringe theories. This isn't a critique that is thrown around by unthinking fundies - it's a critique made by the academic scholarship on the matter. I'm not going to fault them academically for not believing in the miracles, but what backing they do have for the "Jesus Myth" is almost completely, well, imaginary.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

this has very little to do with "anti-Christian" ideology. If you are "anti-Christian", you have much more sensible avenues open to you than adhering to crackpot fringe theories. After all, you can be "anti-Islamic" and still accept that Muhammad lived 570-632 CE, or you can be "anti-Scientology" and still accept Hubbard lived 1911-1986. The allegation of an anti-Christian agenda is flawed, because it implies that rejection of the JMH corresponds to a pro-Christian agenda. Which is simply silly, as nobody accepting the historicity of Jesus is under any obligation to accept the gospel as anything other than a random propaganda piece. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Good point about being "anti-christian" dab. But, your point about prominence is abut weight - how much of the sources, not which ones are legitimate. I'd also like to point out the absurdity of refuting one web source with another, particularly when the refuting website is tektonics.org - a self-proclaimed apologetics ministry website - good god - this is reliable source? --Phyesalis (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think tektonics.org was presented as a WP:RS - rather, I think it was presented (by KrytenKoro, not dab, incidentally - I wasn't clear from your reply whether you'd noticed that)

Dab, I don't think I actually agree with you re: "anti-Christian". I'm not going to claim that all JMers are anti-Christian - I tend to think that you have to be cautious about thinking you can see into other peoples souls and motives through the internet/on the basis of a small amount you've read by/about them. Certainly, it's almost always the case that when people try to do that to me, they are wrong (unless they've reached into parts of my subconscious so deep that I haven't got any idea about!)

However, having said I'm not saying anyone in particular is motivated by that, I don't think it's beyond reason that some people with an anti-Christian agenda would hatch onto the JM, biased by a desire to promote that agenda. I do agree, though, that not all people with an anti-Christian agenda would, or do. TJ (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"this has very little to do with "anti-Christian" ideology." - while I'm sure there are plenty of sites supporting the JM hypothesis that are not anti-christian, I was specifically talking about those that were - sites like infidels.org, AmericanAtheists, etc., that were earlier being used as sources for this theory, do not interpret almost any of the evidence from a non-chauvinistic view, and use amateurish, non-sourced interpretation to come to their various conclusions that "1) Christians are idiots" or "2) God must be evil, if he exists". They also very clearly state that they are anti-Christian.

I linked tektonics.org because it has links to articles written by students and scholars of the period (I'm not going to claim it's a fully professional source, but it has copies and links to plenty reliable sources) that refute many of the false claims commonly being parroted on the attack sites. That's all - it was meant to be an example of how they had been refuted.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I found tektonics.org's articles full of straw men and non sequitors. For example you get this piece of nonsense: "Needless to say, if a work of Tacitus tells us that Nero opened a refrigerator, took out a burrito, and stuck it in the microwave oven, we have some cause to doubt a second-century author like Tacitus was responsible for that material!" Then they say "he would get governmental terms right" but here is the kicker he doesn't gets the governmental term right in regards to Pontius Pilot--he called him procurator a rather than his correct title of prefect as documented by the famous Pilate Stone/Inscription. Not only do we get an insane straw man on par with jcr4runner's Eisenhower example but they manage to total mess up with their cherry picking. Again when the Pro-Jesus people put insane illogical non sequitor straw men like this they basicly shot their credibility to the four winds--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that old chestnut. The positions of procurator and prefect were commonly combined. So Pilate was probably both. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we see the cherry picking. Let's ignore the straw man elephant in the room (refrigerator, burrito, and microwave open nonsesence) and beat up on the mouse in the corner.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no elephant. The use of the word Procurator is not remotely comparable to a 'refrigerator' or other anachronism. It was the title used in Tacitus' day. We go with what most scholars say, and almost all of them say these passages are authentic. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about two different things. The anachronist nonsence is the elephant while the procurator/prefect situation is on par about talking about Vice-President John Adams and the Naturalization Act. Yes, John Adams was a Vice-President and there was a Naturalization Act but the problem is that Naturalization Act was when John Adams was president not vice-president. The efforts to make Matthew and Luke agree are full of this kind of nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, have you actually looked at the page WP:RS everyone keeps pointing you to? You should. It says you are not to argue biblical exegesis with us. You are to present academic literature where the point you are trying to get mentioned is being made. Comparing the consistency of the gospel with the consistency of records of 19th century US history is nonsense. If you are going to evaluate the consistency of the gospels, you are to compare them to other 1st century sources. And, you are not to do it on Wikipedia talkpages, you are to do it in some academic journal which we will then be able to refer to in turn. Ok? dab (𒁳) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet the self-published Pro-Historical Jesus GakuseiDon stuff is kept in edit after edit after edit. There is a word for that that: hypocrisy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the GakuseiDon references, as I suggested you do so when you raised the point earlier. Calling other users hypocrites is personal abuse and contrary to wikipedia policy. Please decist.

There are many reasons why editors. Chiefly, there are lots of things that are wrong with this article, and editors cannot edit all of them at once. If you cared, you should have removed it yourself, rather than attacking other editors for not doing so. In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and lacking this is no excuse for flagrantly ignoring wikipedia policy by insisting other policy violations go in - and constantly insulting and abusing any editor who disagrees with you. TJ (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not insulting and abusing to call editors on their biased removal of material. Also unlike GakuseiDon Refuting Missionaries IS used in at least one book never mind that is all over the web including several .org sites. Furthermore, the article itself already stated "that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than a composite of more than one person or a completely made-up myth" with no less than three references at the end of the sentance. Yet, the Grant, Burridge, and Van Voorst references quoted only seem to cover the completely made-up myth part. So why was the composite of more than one person there to begin with? It certainly is the middle ground between the Jesus the total made up person and the Biblical Jesus as a historical character but I cannot see how anyone could disprove a composite of more than one person theory. SO why claim that such a position is discounted by the historical evidence?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the Gakuseidon site, Bruce? I don't like being rude, but you are being a quite literal blowhard. Not only is the Gakuseidon actually sourced and written non-"sermonly", but it is not pro-historical. Who's the one engaging in ad-hominem attacks here? You. The Gakuseidon site says, over and over, that research into the Jesus Myth theory "is a valid line of study and [he] supports the endeavor". The site is not anti-myth, it is anti-Flemming, pointing out the many mistakes that Flemming made. I know we're to assume good faith, but I can't at this point, because it's quite clear that you didn't read the site. In fact, with the amount of ridiculous self-congratulating claptrap you keep spewing, I might venture that you've never read anything that didn't immediately stroke your ego. So hopefully you won't finish reading this comment and I won't get in trouble for being rude.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gakuseidon page is a self-published joke. The Early Christianity, Roman Gods, Bad History, and Liberal Christianity links simply say "in progress" and the What's New link barfs a 404 error. As for references Joseph Wheless has references out the wazoo though out his Forgery In Christianity book but that doesn't mean that every thing he talks about is accurate. Also Earl Doherty went into two very long articles about the way Gakuseidon critiqued his work. Never mind that when you do check Gakuseidon's work as he suggest it can be shown that his research was lacking. For instance he says "With that in mind, let's go through that list again, and I will add the names of saviour gods that Flemming later lists that match the criteria." and yet for this list all he can find for Descended into Hell is Dionysusis despite the fact that Balder is clearly listed and Orpheus less so (this list actually is played while the parallels list scroll down and the background changes making it harder to read some names without hitting the pause button a lot). A quick trip to Edith Hamilton's Mythology can show these figures descending into domain of Hel/Tartarus respectively. Richard Carrier on http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-165230.html give a much broader overview of the points in FLeming's movie both good and bad without trying to take on two lists whose relationship to each other is tentative at best. Sadly it is a blog and therefore useless as a reference in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Balder did not "go down into Hell" in any sense that can be equated to Jesus - he was killed on accident, without any intent to rescue, and more importantly, did not come back. Furthermore, he was not a savior god. Merely dying in a legend does not make one at all equatable to the Jesus story, and you're being quite the fool if you truly believe it to be a valid comparison. Orpheus, also, is in no sense a savior-god, beyond that he played the harp to overcome the Psirens - he not only utterly failed his mission into the underworld, but was completely un-divine.

The progress of the entire site is completely irrelevant, even if that part of the site were important to this article. The actual critique, which is the only thing I put in as a reference, provides sources for its assertions. If that's not enough, then fine, I'll make no tantrum about keeping the source in there - but it is ridiculous to the extreme for you to continue to claim that it's a simple "anti-myth site" with the quality of the sad refs you added.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, Balder's death was no accident as is made clear even in the Cliff Notes version. Finding out that the gods had overlooked the mistletoe Loki gives one to a blind god whose throw (guided by Loki) kills Balder. Because he did not die in battle he goes to Hel's domain and the gods ask her how he can be brought back. Hel replies that she will release him provided that everyone and everything living and dead weeps for him. Loki disguised as a giantess refuses and so Hel keeps him. The story has a prophecy that after the gods and giants have destroyed each other in their final battle Balder will be reborn. As for Orpheus being "completely un-divine" there are versions where he is the son of Apollo (making him a demi-god) and his head and lyre acquired magical properties after death throwing that idea out the window. As for "utterly failing" that is true in most Greek/Roman myths--few of the heroes go off to live happily ever after. Heracles chooses to be burned alive rather than suffer the agonies of hydra poison, Jason betrays his wife who in revenge kills their two children and ends his days as a literal deity forsaken wretch, Bellerophon tries to use Pegasus to visit the gods on Olympus and gets blasted by Zeus and spends the rest of his days as a crippled literal deity forsaken wretch, Theseus thought kidnapping Helen wife of a Zeus was a good idea and got trapped in Hades' domain for a while and later he was tricked into killing his own son through a lie, and well you get the idea. The descending into the underworld and coming back out theme shows up with Persephone and Heracles as well so it is not a concept restricted to 'savior' deities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're oblivious, you know that? It was accidental on Baldr's part, which is the part that matters - he did not mean to go down into Niflheim in any way, and it was not on purpose. While Loki set things up to kill him, he didn't directly killed him, and Baldr didn't save anyone by dying. And Orpheus being semi-divine - even if he was semi-divine, he was not a god, and his one act of saving anyone was very detached from his trip to Hades, which, again, he utterly failed. Don't try to quote the mythology to me, you're the one trying to cherry-pick details and twist the meaning. Baldr was hardly a savior god, and any context in which he was one is completely divorced from his death. The same goes for Orpheus, which was the point being made on gakuseidon's page. Have you actually read it and thought about it? For crying out loud, I disagree with a lot of the things on it too, but I don't try to twist the very explicit and plain words to stroke my ego.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has drifted very far from improving the article, and I suggest that it stop, or get back on track. Hopefully something that we can all agree on is that we shouldn't use any self-published websites as sources for the article. Let's try to stick to academic literature, ok? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. We should probably archive this section to get it off the visible page, since by now it's just a long waste of space.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahystorical composite

"It proposes that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels mythologically parallels the mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities, and that this would indicate that the figure of Jesus is an ahistorical construct of various forms of ancient mythology."

There's one major problem with this, I think - that the ancients (and modern scholars) believed that myths, even about deities such as the Norse gods or Hercules, were built up around quite historical people. Hell, the Norse Eddas outright say it (at least, the version I have), and put it in the context of foreign kings overly bragging about what they've done.

Justin Martyr used part of this thought when he compared Jesus to "what you believe about Jupiter and Hercules" - that it was a real person, and went on to clarify that the demons had imitated prophecies about Jesus in the creation of these legends or supermen.

I'll look for sources (the gakuseidon website mentioned it, but I don't know if it cited sources for that bit), but this is generally a book kind of thing (the internet is very unreliable for this kind of thing), and you guys seem to have much better access to book sources than I do. If any of you could get sources for or against this, that would be extremely helpful.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're talking about is euhemerism. Please note that his ideas were not universally accepted and do not represent mainstream approaches or ideas at the time. Phyesalis (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm looking for sources. Thank you for the link, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious sources

Now I just clicked through here from somewhere else, and I'll be off to my destination article in a minute, but not before noting what I think about some of the references here. (Note that reference numbers are as of this version of the article.)

[2] If this quotation were in the body of a Wikipedia article, it would not survive without citations. Otherwise, it's just Grant's opinion. This citation however, is apparently needed to back up scholar's general opinion, not just Grant's.

[3] Statement without other proof than "I do not know any respectable scholar who says that any more". Similar issue to [2].

Without more citations, the article essentially bases the statement "modern scholarly ... very limited" upon the opinions of three people.

[16] What arguments was this based on? Similar applies to Bauer's (presently uncited) hypothesis as well. Also, if [3] would be correct, then Doherty would not be a respectable scholar, and thus [16] would be a dubious source. Or perhaps "not [...] respectable" is just an ad hominem? Be clear, please.

Atwill is unsourced and also: what arguments did he use?

Ah, later on in the specific arguments section Doherty returns, but what of the others?

[18] Should point to the actual sources too. The list below partly does this, but some of the statements there are sourced only in [18] or not at all.

[56] Cited at: "reliable information can be extracted from the Gospels if consistent critical methodology is used". O RLY? Following the source, this critical methodology appears to be a voting system. Science doesn't work that way.

[57] Please give this "much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary" as it would be of great interest and benefit to the reader.

"would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure" - Oh? How? If the historicity of Jesus had been important, surely his followers would have kept a better record? Also, a lot of the deity/saviour figures from those other cults mentioned were not historical as well.

At present this article does not provide a proper view of either side of the debate, nor can it establish which side is more generally held to be true, and by whom. Also, please do not view this list of dubious, incomplete or simply missing sources as exhaustive, as I doubt it is.

On an unrelated note, I have some doubts about having this article and historicity of Jesus as separate articles. Shinobu (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of sources are you suggesting for [2] and [3]? The two quoted are respectable historians - are we supposed to have some kind of exhaustive survey of every biblical historian?

I might be wrong, but I believe that we are just required to cite the findings of historians and scientists, not an exhaustive summary of the data they used to assemble it.

[18] does point to the source - the book named.

[56] - not everybody agrees with the Jesus Seminar's methods. However, that's what they specifically argue, whether they are dishonest or not, and the article accurately reflects that.

[57]...It's a quote describing a scholar's position. Again, are we expected to regurgitate his entire output? The point of that section is to describe the positions of relevant scholars, not to explain their entire methodology.

With the exception of the wording that seems to be ad hominem against Doherty (like you mentioned), the sources appear to be all in order to me.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Biased sources

I think everyone who writes academically on the topic, "did Jesus exist" would be biased, one way or the other. Mainstream historians probably wouldn't be interested. However, there are different degrees of bias.

To illustrate the difference, I use myself as an example (and my opinion has no other reason for being stated here): I am anti-religious despite, or because of, the fact that I was educated at Catholic schools. I have no problem if an unusual human known as Jesus of Nazerth actually lived, which is what I always assumed. I now think (only recently) it is possible that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pilate, never existed. In other words, a skeptical bias, but having no vested interest in one answer to this question. I do admit I would think it amusing if Jesus was a myth.

Contrast that with the bias of Christian scholars quoted here as "destroying the Jesus myth theory" or words to that effect. I can accept that Jesus existed, but I get the impression that these scholars could never accept that Jesus didn't exist.

I don't see how we can get around this problem, but it does seem, as others have noted, that the page is devoted to destroying the Jesus myth theory, rather than presenting it fairly. E4mmacro (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

...there's a difference between Biblical scholars, Biblical historians, and Christian scholars. The ones quoted on this page tend to be the first two - those who study the era. If the main opinion for their group is that the theory is destroyed, then that is appropriate language to use. As comparison - it would be accurate to say that Eratosthenes and those who came after "destroyed" the flat-earth theory. If the theory is a fringe, discredible theory, as most reputable sources tend to indicate, there is no compunction to present it as something with solid backing, because that is simply not how the relevant scholars place it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my unworthy doubts can be expressed by the question: Is it the majority of Biblical Scholars who have actually studied the question who agree there is no chance Jesus didn't exist? Or is it just the majority of Biblical Scholars, most of whom have never questioned it, who accept that the myth theory has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank" but un-named "scholars" (see footnote 2, on main page). Why can't historian Michael Grant give the names of these first rank scholars? If he does llist all these scholars, why aren't these scholars quoted? E4mmacro (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have access to most of the relevant sources, but if you know of a source with discussion and quotes from the relevant scholars, please provide it. Personally, I haven't ever heard of this theory from a source of any repute besides Doherty, and as far as I know it hasn't appeared in any peer-reviewed journals, instead being confined to sensationalism. From my own experience, the theory seems to be confined to...well, wackjobs like Acharya S, with rare if any mention outside of that group, and then it is mostly negative.

Of course, editors are not sources, so any professional sources you can find from reputable scholars would be greatly appreciated.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any scholar who studies the New Testament will be familiar with work on the historical Jesus, even if they work on other aspects of the NT. If biblical scholars by and large do not mention the Jesus myth (and they don't), it's because they're familiar with the vast body of academic work that treats Jesus as a historical figure, and think that the arguments that he was made up are weak and uncompelling. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Doherty claims his article "The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins" appeared in the Journal of Higher Criticism, Fall 1997, published by the Institute for Higher Critical Studies based at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey. He claims it was written at the request of the editors, Darrell J. Doughty and Robert M. Price. That sounds like a serious source to me. Robert M. Price qualifies as a serious Biblical scholar, dosen't he? E4mmacro (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Like to point out that I posted the bit about Doherty publishing in a peer reviewed journel MONTHS ago. I also posted the link to the Index of Back Issues for the Journal of Higher Criticism in a related article showing that what Doughty is saying about where his online work comes from is totally true.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As an example of something that makes me even more suspiscious: The quote from Grant turns out to be Grant quoting others. Here is what Grant says about the myth theory (p200, paperback edition 1977)

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars". In recent years "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" - or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. footnote[R. Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin 1957), p12; O. Betz, What do we know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968), p. 9; cf. H. Hawton, Controversy (Permberton, 1971), pp. 172-82, etc.

Note that Grant does admit that (in 1977) there were a few first-rate scholars who postulate the non-historicity of Jesus; in other words he disagrees with whichever one of Dunkerley, Betz or Hawton he is quoting. I haven't yet read the three books to see what Grant's sources base their opinions on. The only "modern crticial method" that Grant uses himself to disprove the myth theory is to say it is hard to credit that a myth of the death and rebirth of God would come out of Judaism, an opinion which he footnotes to S. Neill, What we know about Jesus (Eerdmans, 1972 ed. p.45. The only other source Grant refers to is G. Stanton in the Times Literary Supplement, 29 August 1975, p977 who critized G. A. Wells's Did Jesus exit? (Pemberton, 1975). None of the sources appears to be a refeered Journal source.

In short, Grant has hardly looked at the question at all, as far as we can know from this book, and the "few serious scholars" who disagree with him (who he admits exist) may be as many as the four anti-mythers he quotes. E4mmacro (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Grant's book is all about the historical Jesus, isn't it? If he wrote an entire book about Jesus as a historical figure, it's apparent that he regards the Jesus Myth as nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Grant thinks. But since he gets his opinion from others, using him may be appeal to false authority. E4mmacro (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Search for Grant's "first-rank scholars"

Grant should be deleted as having nothing useful to say on the subject of the historicity of Jesus. A quote from Grant using the words "annihilated by first-rank scholars", and "again and again" is used many times in the artricle. It turns out these words come from Roderic Dunkerley and that Dunkerly presents no serious arguments of his own but is relying on yet another older opinion. And this older opinion does not claim that multiple "first-rank scholars" have "annihilated" the theory. This is crap scholarship on Grant's part, only excusable because Grant book is not adressing the issue of the historicity of Jesus - it is more like a Jesus fan-zine. Dunkerly says in his introduction

Doubts have been indeed sometimes been raised as to whether Jesus did actually live at all on earth or whether the whole Christian religion is really founded on a myth. The chief exponents of this fantastic notion were J. M. Robertson, Arthur Drews and P. L. Couchard, but their arguments have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rate scholars. It is impossible even to summarise the case aganist them; the point is really only a subsidiary one from the main theme of the present study - it arises only because of the pagan and Jewish witness to the historical Jesus is one element in the answer of Christian scholarship to the myth theorists. It must suffice to quote the words of Sir James Frazer, author of The Golden Bough, who has said: "The doubts which have been cast on the historical reality of Jesus are in my judgement unworthy of serious attention". (Roderic Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels, Whitefairs Press, London, 1957, p. 12)

A number of points arise from this:

Dunkerly is outdated. He doesn't know of Wells and Doherty and others mentioned in the article as mythicists. He doesn't know the modern arguments, and what they say about the non-Christian witnesses.

He doesn't list the multiple "first-rate scholars" who have "annihilated" the theory, or even give a proper footnote to some sources. His excuse that it would be peripheral to his book to summarize the argument doesn't excuse him from giving sources where the argument can be found. The proper (scholarly) assumption to make is that Dunkerly doesn't know any sources.

The one scholar whom Dunkerly does quote, says the theory is not worthy of consideration, but does not give any reasons in the quote. The proper assumption to make is that he has no reason, and that he hasn't considered the unworthy theory.

I suppose I now have to track down Frazer's quote to see if he gives any reasons, which Dunkerley didn't bother to quote.

I would like to delete all the Grant quotes. If someone wants to replace them with Dunkerly quotes and Frazer quotes, that might be useful, even if they are outdated. E4mmacro (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Without making any assumptions, "peripheral" wave-of-the-hand dismissals are not really useful as sources. Lets focus on sources that seriously address the issues. ^^James^^ (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Grant quote should be deleted. Grant is an example of an ancient historian writing about the historical Jesus. His entire book addresses the question of the historicity of Jesus--well, no, I suppose it doesn't, because for Grant, and any other mainstream ancient historian or scholar of the New Testament, there's no question whether Jesus was historical. That accounts for why Grant, Dunkerly, et al. don't devote too much time to debunking the Jesus myth--the theory is considered too cranky to spend more than a few sentences discussing it. Grant's opinion about the fringyness of the Jesus myth is relevant to this article, and the citation should remain. However, since he's quoting someone else it should either be made clear that he's quoting Dunkerly or Grant's words should be summarized instead of quoted. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pathethic to use a quote saying first-rank scholars have again again and annihilated the theory, by somebody who can't name, or is too lazy to find out, who these first-rank scholars are. If an editor wrote that you would put a "citation needed" tag. Hidding it inside layered quotes should make no difference. Van Voorst gives arguments against the myth, use him. E4mmacro (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes make all the difference. That's what citation is. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote restored as per discussion. Mercury543210 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A quote to put this topic in context is important but I think it has been amply demonstrated that the Grant quote is inappropriate and a search for Grants sources should be made. It is shoddy scholarship to just stick with an unattributed quote when we know there are better out there. Sophia 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of surprised here - the way the Grant quote was summarized (quoting others), it actually seems to lean more towards helping the mythist side. I mean, I understand taking it out of the lead, but from what I understand, Wiki is suposed to summarize the mainstream scholarly position, not analyze it. If better quotes are found, by all means, replace the Grant quote, but it seems like the quote would be helping you more than hurting you.

Also, the quote is attributed, its just that Grant didn't support it himself very well, in that quote.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't make this personal. This should be about a well written article - not about who is on which side. Sophia 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well that's why I didn't understand why it was being removed, since Wikipedia isn't meant to be a peer-review journal or even moderate analysis - its supposed to report what the mainstream sources say, and in scholarly cases like this, what the main academic position is. Even if I personally don't like one of the main proponents of my position being diminished, I don't think there's actually any guideline reason to remove it.

Basically, I agree that we should replace it if possible, but not until then. Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Grant was removed because he fails the NOR test: "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)." Grant's statement is not verifiable (he gives no proof in the form of references) and by the evidence above he seems to be simply parroting Dunkerly who wrote his comments back in 1957. This means that the information is some 20 years older then using Grant implies. It also raises the question about research between 1958 and 1976--did Grant do ANY research on the quality of this or did he blow it off using Dunkerly's some 20 year old informaiton? We don't know because Grant provides no references to back up his claim. Also since Grant is actually quoting Dunkerly he is not the source author. It is like the nonsense Bermuda Triangle authors did where they quoted what previous authors had claimed without checking out if the information was any good. If someone can find something by Grant that references these "first-rank scholars" then by all means us that or Dunkerly if he bother to tell us who his "first-rank scholars" are (if not than he is as useless as Grant.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant: what's the full quote?

We've got a passage from Grant that begins "To sum up..." This suggests that the sentences before this quote are relevant to this article's subject. Perhaps before we go around saying Grant is "crap scholarship" we could see the full context of the statement, hm? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, I'll answer my own question. Grant spends two pages discussing "the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth." I'm not going to reproduce everything, because the passage is lengthy, but here's some of it (and note the use of "Christ-myth theory" and "Christ-myth hypothesis"!):

Some of the lines of thinking to disprove the Christ-myth theory have been somewhat injudicious. For example, the student of history, accustomed to the 'play of the contingent and unforeseen', will remain unimpressed by the argument that the vast subsequent developments of Christianity must have been launched from imposing beginnings, or that mighty religious must necessarily have derived from mighty founders; some, notably Hinduism, have not. More convincing refutations of the Christ-myth hypothesis can be derived from an appeal to method. In the first place, Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit. But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms. That there was a growth of legend round Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly. But there had also been a rapid growth of legend round pagan figures like Alexander the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious. To sum up...

And the quote in the footnote starts there. I don't see how any of this justifies the "crap scholarship" label, and I think that Grant provides us with a good example of what ancient historians think about the Christ-myth idea--it's about as plausible as claiming that Alexander the Great never existed. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not "crap scholarship"? If the argument above is typical of historical reasoning then there is no more to be said. To me it reads as apologetics not scholarship. Not because I have any vested interest but because anyone pulling comparisons to Alexander the Great is getting real desperate. Check out the article on him to see the wealth of information, coin, busts, mosaics etc that together flesh out the details of his life. Contrast this with the Gospels - unique historical documents - written by unknown authors to an unknown audience in a way that is unlike any other type of literature at the time.

I would still like to see Grants' "first rank" scholars quoted directly. Sophia 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Grant doesn't provide any concrete arguments or proofs - merely rhetoric. The scholars should be quoted directly and the prose should be free of weasel words. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think Grant is convincing or not. The passage is being used to show that academic opinion regards the Jesus myth as disproven and unworthy of serious attention. No matter who Grant quotes (or doesn't) and cites (or doesn't), it's clear that his opinion is that the Christ-myth hypothesis is ridiculous. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How can something be disproven if you don't give it serious attention? What you're describing here is an attitude of uncritical dismissal. We all understand that the theory is fringe, but sources used in the article should be sources that have seriously considered the issue. I don't think wave-of-the-hand dismissals are appropriate. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one of the problems here is that not all editors agree that the Christ myth is a fringe theory. If we all agreed on that point, there'd be less arguing on this page. But, as with all fringe theories, the Christ myth receives little attention from mainstream academics; and those who do look at it, as far as I have seen, generally have a "dismissive" attitude, e.g.:

• Werner Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (Nashville, 1972), p. 447, n. 367: "the denial of the existence of Jesus...[is] arbitrary and ill-founded..."
• Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth (New York, 1959) p. 28: "to doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all...was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here."
• I found these quotes from Kümmel and Bornkamm in Van Voorst, p. 6, who says "Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays--by my count, over one hundred--in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely." In a footnote on the same page, Van Voorst notes that "No treatment surveys the history of this problem since ca. 1940, another indication that mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant."

Given the general attitude towards the Christ myth in academia, it's not surprising that when scholars discuss the theory, they don't treat it as seriously as some of the editors here would like. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A few more quotes along the same lines:

Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. Smith and Lantero (New York, 1958), p. 13: "Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community. But how far that community preserved an objectively true picture of him and his message is another question."

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, pp. 143-145: "Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written c. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet...

Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (I think the first ed. was in the '70s), pp. 15-16: "There is said to be a Russian encyclopaedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Chrisitianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously...

But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible...The later development of the argument in this book will show how the methods of historical study applied to the Gospels leave us in no doubt that some knowledge of Jesus is possible and that the existence of such knowledge naturally implies that Jesus really existed."

Obviously, the article shouldn't be turned into a quotefarm; it may not even be worth citing all of these authors in the article. But since the question of the fringiness of this theory seems to come up again and again, it's worth at least collecting these quotes on the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had a longer association with this article you would know that in 2 years of editing it I have always openly acknowledged that this is a small minority view. However as a scientist I cannot help but be amazed at what is taken as "proof" by some in the historical world. We also have had a situation in the past, where all the authors "summing up" this area of scholarship have been either priests or openly committed Christians (I gave up arguing that one so have not done any research on the current crop)- spawning endless discussions about whether a scholar can "bracket their faith".

Thomas L. Thompson states in his book The Messiah Myth that Jesus is an assumption rather than a discovery of scholarship. From what I have read I would agree. You can never prove a negative which is why many scholars will not come out and say they do not think he was a historical figure - who knows what document may be found tomorrow. Unfortunately those with a vested interest in this then take their silence as agreement. Look at the "Further reading" at the end of the article - it is For and Against. That is the problem with this article - not whether it is a minority view or not. Sophia 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

...And what proof does Thompson have? You're kind of using a double standard here. And you're heavily engaging in ad hominem attacks. There are plenty of historians who would be happy to see Jesus proven to be a myth; and plenty of the quotes above imply that Christianity itself is mistaken. However, the mainstream historical position, using normal methods, is that the person Jesus of Nazareth existed, and lead some kind of religious movement. You're stretching a lot to claim that these are all biased Christians padding their beliefs - many of them imply that Jesus was wrong, or that the religion made up the bulk of the supernatural bits.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, she's not. And hold up before brandishing accusations of ad hominem attacks - she hasn't attacked any editor, nor has she made untoward comments about sources. That's pretty loaded language. Maybe we should take a step back. This is an academic discussion, using loaded language to cast aspersions in order to silence discussion is censorship. And "normal methods"? You realize that the end of the first quest concluded that there was no way to tell whether he existed or not, so then liberal theologists created their own method. By "normal methods" Alexander the Great clearly existed, but as for Hayzeus, there's about as much evidence for him as there is for King Arthur and Hercules. --Phyesalis (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"We also have had a situation in the past, where all the authors "summing up" this area of scholarship have been either priests or openly committed Christians (I gave up arguing that one so have not done any research on the current crop)- spawning endless discussions about whether a scholar can "bracket their faith". " Oh, and "Unfortunately those with a vested interest in this then take their silence as agreement."

That seems a lot to me like trying to negate their opinion based on their beliefs. And "silencing discussion"? I'm trying to reply to her comment. I'm sorry if replying has suddenly become a form of censorship.

To be more clear, what I meant by "normal methods" was for somebody of his stature. However, you're probably right about that bit, so I won't push that point. But it does seem that she was asking for the quotes to be seen as circumspect because of the maker's beliefs - and that seems to be textbook ad hominem to me.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thank you for taking the time to explain your point. Might I suggest a shift from "attack" to "argument". "Attack" carries particular connotations on a talkpage and the word itself is loaded. Is the suggestion of WP:COI an ad hominem attack? Not in and of itself. Likewise the discussion of theologians' self-evident conflict of interest - Hayzeus must exist or else... - is completely appropriate for this subject. To (seemingly) take affront over a basic academic discussion is to inject tension that need not exist. And it's not an ad hominem in the sense that no one is arguing that Christian theologians are less capable of making logical arguments because of some inherent quality of being a Christian, the argument is that there is a conflict of interest - an unarguably poor starting point for an academic position. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, "Ad hominem argument". And no, WP:COI doesn't seem to apply, since that policy is about purposefully cherrypicking sources and similar tactics in order to promote the sense that you're beliefs are the only right one - this claim was that all scholars "summing up" the scholarship were openly biased by their beliefs, and the implication that those who come to the "correct belief" were silent, and then manipulated by "those with a vested interest". In all honestly, to me that seems like ad hominem to the point of approaching conspiracy theory. It brought nothing to the discussion, since it is painting with broad strokes against "all the authors 'summing up' this area of scholarship" — it reads like an attempt to negate all the sources we could possibly use in this article. The only part of the comment that steps away from this argument is

"Thomas L. Thompson states in his book The Messiah Myth that Jesus is an assumption rather than a discovery of scholarship."

Which, unless he has some good guns behind him, is not an iota better (and seemingly much worse), than the "fallacy" of the Grant quote that was hypercritically picked apart earlier in the section.

If this dispute is over COI, then state exactly which sources you believe to be susceptible to it, and show how they are painted by it. At most, Grant seems to be guilty of not spending as much time debating a fringe theory as the authors did creating it, and vilifying the majority of scholars who disagree with the mythicist position isn't a very convincing argument.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not saying this is a policy issue - COI is about editors, not sources - I was using it as an analogy (and apparently not a very good one!). Look, it seems maybe we should frame the issue by presenting both positions. --Phyesalis (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to a passage where Thompson denies the historicity of Jesus? I've read the bits of this book that are available on the web (at Google Books) and it's not at all clear to me that his position is in the same neighborhood of Wells, etc. Saying that the Gospels are unreliable sources for reconstructing the historical Jesus is not the same thing as saying the Gospels are unreliable, therefore there was no historical person named Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Thompson is a "mythicist" is irrelevant. His commentary is as valid as Grant's. And seriously, it's awfully convenient that we can now discard any criticism if doesn't come straight out of the mouth of a self-identified "mythicist". Indeed, his criticisms carry greater weight if he isn't. --Phyesalis (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who said Thompson shouldn't be used? I asked if Thompson actually denies the historicity of Jesus. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be described by this article as a supporter of the Christ myth. That doesn't mean he couldn't be used in the article... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. My apologies. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got time to get the book out now but I would say Thompson stands by the quote above. Hence the problem with the article - it is not always a for/against situation. Was a guy named Jesus wandering in Palestine at that time? I expect so, as Josephus mentions 19 of them. Did he found Christianity? Less likely due to the earlier parallels - Thompson focuses on King David as a possible "blueprint". Were the Gospels written in response to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD (a horrific act for the Jews) - one must wonder at the timing (Allegro's view).

Say this is a minority view - say few scholars debate it - all true and needed to put the topic in context. We can't speculate why unless other sources do. But please focus on the topic. This is an academic exercise for me - it bugs me to see a theory dismissed as "not worthy of serious scholarship" by a guy (Grant) who hasn't bothered to do the homework enough to give us the "first rate scholars". Unfortunately - and take this as an ad hominem attack if you will (I cannot help how you choose to read this) - there is too much emotion attached to this subject and the debate on this talk page. I am not trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity - just trying to put together a description of the arguments and research that has been done. If we focus on the subject rather than attempts to quote mine to obliterate it, this article can only improve from it's current poor state. Sophia 07:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to say that we must adopt Grant's view, just that the arguments seemed to be leaning towards removing his quote and all quotes like it, which simply doesn't make sense to me. And while I don't know the exact circumstances of Grant's passage, I wouldn't say merely not mentioning the sources for the sake of easy reading is equal to "not doing his homework". I am fully for describing the research done on the subject, so long as effort is not made to create undue bias. That's all I meant - that it seemed as if the sources denying the theory were being categorically dismissed.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just thought - from reading the below-linked Harpur excerpts, and what I have read of the mythicist material, does anyone on this subject argue with the kind of evidence that's being asked for? Hell, most of the Harpur stuff is bald assertions that don't seem to take contextual culture into play - is this normal for mythicist arguments, or just him?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As an anthropologist I have to say the emic/etic issue is one of those that we have not really gotten a handle on for most historical periods. For example, many papers on the early North American pandemics take the records of the time at face value ignoring cultural aspects of the authors that would have resulted in distortions if not outright fabrications. And you know if cultural factors are not being used regarding the interpretation of 15th and 16 century documents of then odds are they sure are not being used on 1st and 2nd century documents. Furthermore, as in the case of Alvar Ellegard some of the Jesus Myth supporters say that the Jesus of the Bible is mythical but very loosely based on the Teacher of Righteousness described in the Dead Sea Scrolls who lived and died nearly a century before the Jesus of the Bible.--216.31.16.41 (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

More hypercritical picking apart of Grant

Grant's quote still remains in the article, but at least now only in a footnote. I will add one more explicit criticism of Grant to suggest he is not a good scholar on this issue, although obviously a great scholar on other issues. Grant knows that is an exaggeration to say no serious scholar has proposed the non-historicity of Jesus, but that doesn't stop Grant using a quote to say exactly this. We know Grant knows the quote is an exaggeration because he immediately retracts it by saying "at any rate very few". If he was a serious unbiased scholar (on this issuse) he would not use the quote he knows is wrong. His use of the quote clearly leaves the impression, despite Grant's covering himself, that Grant means no serious scholar (the false statement), rather than just a few serious scholars (the correct statement). E4mmacro (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a secondary source for the criticisms of Grant, placing the criticism in the article is original research. It's easy enough to say that Grant quotes another scholar, and I have edited the article to say so. I don't agree at all that you've shown that Grant "is not a good scholar on this issue"; nor would I agree that he's a "great scholar on other issues." The virtue of Grant is that he is a popularizer, and someone to turn to for consensus opinion on a vast range of subjects in ancient history. What he says about the Christ myth is likely to be an excellent picture of the consensus opinion among classicists in 1977; and other evidence we have about the critical reception of Wells, Doherty, etc. tells us that it's likely that very little has changed in the interim. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know my original researchw as confined to the talk page when I was talking to the editors here. What I am saying to editors is: Why would you (the editors) choose to use Grant, when he does the things I mentioned? What don't you, the editors, use a decent source like van Voorst, or use the people Grant quotes. My preferred solution was to delete Grant, making the article better, in my opinion. Someone agreed so I went ahead. Now someone wants him in, so he is in again. BTW, I think the attribution of the second quote 'no serious scholars' to Dunkerley might be wrong. E4mmacro (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

E4mmacro, I had you confused with a different editor who made some edits to the Grant quote. That was a stupid mistake on my part, and I'm sorry. I'd rather not delete the Grant reference, but I think it might be better to use Van Voorst in the lead, and have the Grant reference lower down (it's cited 4 times or so in the article anyway). I'll try to fix the mistaken attribution of the quote to Dunkerly. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you study the subject and are reasonably convinced by the arguments, you are no longer considered "serious" by definition: we are talking about an attitude of dismissal. The problem as I see it, is that there is no evidence that Grant has actually studied the subject in any depth. Some of his statements appear to show a basic ignorance of the mythicist case. It may be that he is simply engaging in populist rhetoric. Or perhaps he has studied the subject thoroughly. We just don't know. From what I've read, I would not consider him a reliable source for the purposes of refutation. I am fine with mentioning that he is one of many scholars who summarily dismiss the idea. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable as well, though I'm curious as to which statements ignore the mythicist case.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article

Here's an interesting article on the recent documentary, The Pagan Christ based on Tom Harpurs work. There are a couple interesting quotes and sources near the end that might come in handy. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

removed sentence from lead

I just removed this sentence from the lead:

Such claims, however, ignore works such as Alvar Ellegard's who in his Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ holds that Jesus is a composite character whose historical origin is the Dead Sea Scroll's Teacher of Righteousness of 100 years earlier effectively putting Jesus on par with King Arthur and Robin Hood.

This didn't make much sense in context. If Ellegard is important to the history of the Christ myth, it might be good to explain that in the body of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense in the lead because it shows that the Jesus Myth and Jesus existed historically (in some faction) are not mutually exclusive as claimed by Grant and Van Voorst. Also Ellegard is a Dean of Theology and therefore an expert on the matter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, there's two problems here. First, your addition doesn't explain how Ellegard's work is relevant to the question. The previous sentence is "However, modern scholarly discussion and support is very limited." Your addition starts "such claims..." but there are no "claims" in the previous sentence; instead, there's a factual statement that scholars don't discuss the Christ myth.

The second problem is that Ellegard's argument falls outside the scope of this article. The Christ myth is the idea that there was no historical Jesus and the Gospels are fabrications synthesized from earlier myth (usually pagan myth). Theories that say that there was a real Jesus, but the Gospels are so burdened with mythical content that they're useless as information for the actual life of Jesus, are something different. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ellegard was a Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the Univ. of Göteburg--not a dean of Theology. He appears to be a linguist. And his book looks like pure crackpottery. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Jesus Myth covers a wide range. Did Jesus Live 100 B.C. by Mead (already a refence used in the aritcle by the way) like Ellegard holds that the Jesus of Christanity is a myth based on a earlier historical person. Can't have Mead who holds to a similar view as a reference and throw out Ellegard. Furthermore, the crosslinking references for Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ at Amazon.com and other book web sites is 'mythical christ' or 'Christ Myth' so it is considered as part of this whole Jesus Myth concept. As for crackpottery that claim was made of Alfred Wegener when he made his theory. His crackpottery theory of continental drift is now taught in nearly every school in the world as plate techtonics.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When Ellegard is taught in nearly every school in the world, I'll stop calling him a crackpot. As for the range of the Jesus myth, can I just point out that Amazon's classifications aren't authoritative? I'll stick with definitions provided by scholars like Van Voorst, etc. If that means that we need to get rid of Mead, then so be it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying MEAD is also a crackpot? Sure Mead is old as the freaking hills but it shows the idea didn't spring full formed from Ellegard's head as you imply. Also Van Voorst uses some really poor evidence in his argument. I mean what was Van Voorst thinking when he used Thallus?! Even supporters of the historical Jesus know that reference is very shaky. Even to a layman using that comes off as desperation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Ellegard claims that when Paul refers to "the Lord", he is refering to the "Teacher of Righteousness" from the Dead Sea Scrolls, who Paul decided was the Messiah who had appeared to him. i.e. he claims that Paul and Peter, James etc came at the end of a long process of developing ideas about this teacher (who does show some similarities to the standard Jesus), assimilating ideas from mystery religions. In a like manner, Wells thinks Paul/Peter/James had some visions about a person who was sent to earth at some indeterminate time in the past (which at least explains why Paul doesn't think Peter/James have any superior position or superior knowledge or any better claim to fame than his own, and why he calls them apostles rather than disciples). To say these are not myth theories becasue there may have been some person in the distant past on whom they are loosely based, seems extreme - they have a place on this page. Mythicists (as far as I can tell) usually say that Mark invented the Gospel story from his interpretation or mis-interpretation of what Paul wrote: Mark knew from Paul there was a Last Supper, with words supplied, a crucifixation and a resurrection, and he knew from Paul that the Gospel was written or revealed in the old testament. This was all Mark would need, since as Robert M. Price shows (Incredible Shrinking Son of God) every event in Mark's Gospel has its origins in earlier scripture. This may be not be plausible to many, but critics should attack the actual theory, not a straw-man. I don't think it is is claimed that that the Gospels were invented merley to create a myth. Not sure what they say about Q, which seems like a bit of a problem. E4mmacro (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If Ellegard shares intellectual ground with the mythicists, and his work is notable, then it may be worth discussing him in this article--but the place for that is the body of the article, not the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

onsidering the idea partly comes from G. R. S. Mead in his Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? written some 50 years before the Dead Seas were even known to existed and it shows that the Jesus Myth is not limited to the extreme end points of total myth and Biblical Jesus is historical as the lead-in implies. In fact, Mead based his work on the Talmud a document that despite its tertiary (being compiled in the 4th century) and chronological (places Jesus c100 BCE) problems has been used by some Christian apologetics to claim that Jesus existed with Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict being one of the better known examples. Ellegard mearly used the Dead Sea scroll which Mead didn't have access to in 1903 to expand on Mead's idea that the relationship between the the 'historical' and Gospel Jesus is on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur. Not to admit to this point in the lead-in is improper for an encyclopedia as its omission presents a false excluded middle position on the issue (ie the Jesus Myth and historical Jesus positions are mutual exclusive.) As It state with the revised version of the passage:

However, there are those like Mead with Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? and Alvar Ellegard with Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ who hold that the 'historical' Jesus is a composite character and that the historical person on which the myth is based lived and died in the early first century BCE.

Those who remove this like to ignore the fact that later on the article that says "Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity, that is, that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than a composite of more than one person or a completely made-up myth." In short, the article later on stats that a composite of more than one person is part of the Jesus Myth and yet people don't want this in the lead in?! If the composite of more than one person is not part of the Jesus Myth that why is is sited in the body of the article?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you listen? We're not saying that the fact itself is unmentionable in the lead, we're saying that it was so badly put in that it simply made no sense in context. We've said that every time. If you can figure out a way to add it that doesn't sound like it was written by a third-grader, it should be fine - but it was simply nonsensical the way it was worded.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That people can't reword it so it does make sense and would rather delete it to give the FALSE appearance that there is no middle ground between the Jesus Myth and 'historical Jesus' just shows that they are either lazy or don't give a fig about FACTS. Mead in fact makes this interesting comment: "Many Talmud statements that might refer to Jesus are so obscure that it is clear that the story of the Christian gospels was as much a myth to the Jewish people as pagan tales to the Christians." (Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? xiv). Then you have Herb Cutner who in Jesus: God, Man Or Myth uses Mead's Talmud references as part of his own take on the Jesus Myth. Of course there is the annoying fact that as Mead pointed out if the Talmud (compiled in the 4th century CE) does refer to Jesus it puts him in the 1st century BCE an idea supported by Gil Student who like Mead already exists as a reference. Not bringing these middle ground points in the whole debate up especially in the lead in is a disservice.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Mead and Ellegard should be mentioned in the lead, because they don't appear to be prominent in comparison to Bauer, Drews, Wells, and Doherty. For instance, Van Voorst (the only scholar I've found who devotes more than a few paragraphs to the Christ myth) talks about Bauer, Drews, and Wells, but doesn't mention Mead or Ellegard. Those are the people I'd mention in the lead. The folks that BruceGrubb mentions may have a place in this article, but it would be in the body, not in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Description of the theory

Back in August I tried to put together a description of the theory. Since it seems like the crowd changed a little. I'd like to recommend trying to bring in some of the details from May version jbolden1517^Talk 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be loaded with OR judgments, and is extremely confusingly worded. It also has at least one seeming ad-hominem in the lead (all atheists sentences - why does this need to be mentioned?). There may be some useful details in the article that we don't already have, but the lead, at least, is unusable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be details in the main body of the old version that have been lost but the lede does not conform to many policies and is poorly written. Sophia 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this old version an found the lead to nearly totally useless mainly because of its numerous factual inaccuracies. As for OR is concerned the article in its current state has that the idea about Jesus being a "composite of more than one person" has been refuted. But the references cited refute on the idea that Jesus was a total made up myth. They make NO comment on the composite of more than one person. As a resutl I have thrown in a citation need for this claim.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologists making it up

The page says

R.T. France states 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. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.

The idea that everybody should have been interested and would have bothered to prove the non-existence of Jesus (how were they suppsoed to do this?) needs some evidence to back it up. I know it is a quote from a published scholar and therefore meets wiki criteria, but do we have to something when we can show here that it is pure speculation. The following informattion from a serious scholar (one who uses evidence and doesn't say things that contradict the evidence), was deleted by someone who said it was in the wrong place (it probably was the wrong place)

In contrast, historian Richard Carrier does not think that Rome actively opposed Christianity, at least until it was too late to discredit Christianity by proving that Jesus did not exist. He states that "there is no evidence of any actual law against Christianity ... until the mid-2nd or early 3rd century. Prior to that, Christians were rarely prosecuted at all, and even when they were, it was for other generic crimes against Rome, not simply for being 'Christian' ... Membership in illegal associations was already a capitial crime, since any formal association required an approval or a special license ... which sought assurances that the association was not a covertly treasonous movement against the Roman order".[[1]] Carrier refers to Naphtali Lewis & Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, 3rd ed., vol. 2 (1990): § 51-52 (also § 169 and n. 37 in § 68); Timothy Barnes, "Legislation Against the Christians," Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968): pp. 32-50; W. H. C. Frend, "Martyrdom and Political Oppression," The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Esler, vol. 1 (2000): pp. 815-39.

I agree it looks silly to put in stuff that shows the "expert" that was just quoted is making it up, but the answer is to delete the original expert. E4mmacro (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's always fun to see who Wikipedia editors think are "serious scholars".

• R. T. France: former Senior Lecturer at London Bible College and Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University.
• Richard Carrier: graduate student at Columbia University.

Both have published extensively, but it's instructive to examine the venues in which they've published; most of Carrier's print publications about Christianity appear in non-peer-reviewed publications (The Journal of Higher Criticism doesn't exactly qualify as a peer-reviewed journal), and a lot of his publishing is through websites.

You didn't complete the instructive comaparison by telling us where France has extensively published and over how many years. Carrier is young and has few books, and book chapters to his name, and you should be able to see from the quote above that he is a good scholar. If you want an argument from authority you might notice that Carrier speciality is Roman history, and he might have a better idea of what Roman law was, and how Christians were persecuted, than a biblical scholar, who probably heard lots of exaggerated stories about that as a child, like many of us did. E4mmacro (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrier is younger than France and one day he may have lots of academic publications to his name, but the possibility that Carrier might someday publish articles in the Journal of Biblical Literature or that Oxford might publish a monograph by him hardly makes him a "serious scholar". We can only evaluate what Carrier's done so far, and what we can see is that he has very few publications in peer-reviewed venues. In terms of Wikipedia policy and the conventions of scholarship, he is less of an authority than R.T. France, or any biblical scholar with an academic position. And in constructing Wikipedia articles we do pay attention to arguments from authority--I think that Carrier's argument is bunk, but why should you listen to me? I'm just some pseudonymous editor. Instead of basing the article on what we believe to be true, we base it on what authoritative sources say--and R.T. France is a bit more authoritative than Carrier.

Your argument from authority is contradictory. If biblical scholars don't know anything about Roman law except "lots of exaggerated stories", then why should experts in Roman history know anything about the Bible except for exaggerated stories? Actually, why expect that Roman historians know much about Roman law? They're distinct subfields of classical studies. (Never mind that Carrier hasn't established himself as an expert on Roman history, either.) Of course, I am happy to believe than experts in ancient history can do good scholarship on Roman law, and on the Bible (e.g., Michael Grant). I am also happy to believe that New Testament scholars consider it their professional duty to learn something about the historical and cultural environment of early Christianity--the alternative is the rather insulting notion that they simply make stuff up. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The title of this section is also instructive. "Apologists" make things up, but "serious scholars" don't. Are "serious scholars" atheists, or what? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

...it was not deleted, it was commented, and this was done because the section was supposed to be about criticisms, not a back-and-forth between the mythicist and non mythicist editors.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You might notice I gave Carrier's arguments, with his reasons and his evidence. In response is an argument from authority. As to the question "are athetists serious scholars", that was not my point at all. I am sure there are serious committed Christian scholars who wouldn't clutch at straws like this one (prefering to say nothing). My point was "are apologists serious scholars", because France's argument looked non-serious, wishful thinking to me. France may not be an apologist, i.e. someone who knows from faith that the Gospels are correct and tries to marshal arguments to support them, but in this case he presented a weak argument. If I can convince you guys of that, then you might decide to remove it. If this and the histrocity of Jesus page, presented only evidence for the historicity of Jesus that was solid, not based on conjecture, it would have a far bigger impact. E4mmacro (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the context, but it doesn't look like Carrier is responding to France. In fact, on the webpage given as a source, France is not mentioned at all. Plus, all we have in the article is a summary of France's argument, not a direct quote. Have you read France's work for yourself? If not, you should hold off from saying that his work is "non-serious, wishful thinking." In any case, since the quote you give from Carrier has no apparent relationship to France, I don't understand why you're using it. It looks like you've read the summary of France, decided you disagree with it, picked out an unrelated quote from Carrier, and used this to "refute" France. This is not a sound procedure; in fact, it looks like a violation of the no original research policy. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Carrier was not responding to France. I have said what my purpose here is, on this page, but will say it again, since you ask: to suggest to other editors that France may has presented a crappy argument, in which case you might like to delete it, since using crappy arguiments weakens the case. That is, I am indulging in O.R. on this talk page, not in the article (I agree the Carrier thing should have been deleted). If I saw on any wikepage an argument presented which started from the premise "the moon is made of green cheese therefore ..." I would suggest that the premise is wrong and if necessary quote any source at all to show that, regardless of whether the new soruce was responding to the original argument. In this case, the premise (statement of alleged fact) "the Romans actively opposed Christianity" appears to me to be wrong. E4mmacro (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you were saying. I disagree that France's argument is "crappy", at least as far as I can tell from what we see here--I really think it's a bad idea to judge a scholar's argument from a summary that was written by a Wikipedia editor. One problem with your argument is that you seem to think "active opposition" requires that the Romans passed a law forbidding Christianity. That's not the case--ironically enough, Carrier covers this well--the laws forbidding unauthorized associations were sufficient to allow the Romans to persecute Christians when they felt like it. Of course, the application of Roman law was pretty flexible anyway, so I think the question has been wrongly framed--if a Roman governor feels that some group is causing social unrest and needs to be dealt with, he'll do so, without worrying too much about the exact wording of the law.

I wouldn't remove France from this article at all, because he's one of the few academics that has written specifically about this issue in the last few decades--he was actually writing in response to G.A. Wells. However, I think that the way France (and everything else) is presented in this article is wrong. Like User:KrytenKoro says just below, this argument is written as a back-and-forth, but what it should be is a historical treatment of the Christ myth. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points. Carrier says specifically that Christians were rarely prosecuted, and since you say the Romans could have persecuted Christains whenever they felt like it, this rare prosecution seems to be something different from "active opposition". Maybe Carrier is wrong about his facts. Maybe France shows that Christians were frequently prosecuted (for being Christians, as opposed to breaking laws that applied to everybody). We know Christians were convenient scape-goats for Nero, but that Nero was not trying to suppress the religion. France may read Pliny's evidence as "actively prosecuting", whereas others might see it as mild by Roman standards, and I wonder what he sees in Josephus to support his premise. I was judging what was said on wiki, and apologize to France if he has been mis-represented. The answer is to present a better summary of France's argument, by first giving the reasons which he used to establish his premise. E4mmacro (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but it's not supposed to be presented as a back-and-forth, like many controversial subject articles tend towards. It's supposed to be a summary of the sourced, notable positions and information from authorities on the subject. From the quote in question, he explains that there were approaches, so the "were interested" bit is given. I'm not sure this is exactly correct, but it seems to me that wikipedia is supposed to point to what he said, if he is a reliable source, and then the reader can check on that source for where he got his information - I don't think it's reasonable to require that we include coverage of their entire arguments and archaeological evidence, just that we look for sources where they use evidence or convincing arguments, and report those.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Carrier doesn't seem to be the only one who thinks Christians were not actively opposed by the Romans. The wiki page on Pliny says: "Taken together, Pliny's letter and Trajan's response constituted a fairly loose policy toward Christians. Christians were not to be sought out, but punished if brought before a magistrate by a reputable means of accusation (no anonymous charges were permitted) and they were to be given the opportunity to recant. While some persecutions represent a departure from this policy, many historians have concluded that these precedents were nominal for the Empire across time." Maybe someone should go to the Pliny page and correct it, giving France as a reference for "Christians were actively opposed by the Romans". E4mmacro (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/this--Wikipedia articles should report what sources say, not try to prove whether their arguments are true, false, good, bad, sloppy, or anything else. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the argument was patent rubbish? There must be some limit? I have a book at home arguing the Jesuits are always trying to murder the US President and have been plotting against the US non-stop since 1776. Should I shove it in the wiki page on the Jesuits, making no judgment about the worth of this published book? I think France's argument is on the page because somebody (a wiki editor) thinks it is a good argument. i.e. wiki editors should make judgments about what to include. E4mmacro (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It was put on the page presumably because it is the position of an authority on the subject. If one of the foremost experts on Jesuits professionally put forth the above theory as his personal stand on the matter, yes, we would put it in. Wikipedia is verifiable sources, not necessarily the Immutable Word of God. None of us are experts, we have no place to pretend to be more informed on these subjects than those with actual degrees in it.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that "none of us are experts" that doesn't mead we have to take an expert at face value if what they says doesn't make sense. Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is a case in point with his New Chronology; yes he is a professor, yes he is a major topologist, and yes he is a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, but his theory that the ancient past is a fiction invented in the 16th and 17th centuries is clearly rubbish to anyone with a minimal of common sense. Worse the methods he uses are things that even first year college statistics books state are major no-nos. On the flip side of the coin is the age of the Great Sphinx of Giza debate which has experts in two vastly different fields (geology and Egyptology) butting head like rams and yet the Egyptologists want to blow off the idea that perhaps the Sphinx is older than they thought.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

...I specifically said "foremost experts", but whatever. I don't see any part of France's argument that doesn't make sense - as included, it might not have indisputable evidence and backing, but that's not what wikipedia is for. The carrier one, in my opinion, makes less sense, because it seems to argue that there is evidence of the absence of opposition of Christianity from the Romans because few of them were legally prosecuted - which assumes that the Romans would even go so far as to give them trials. Christianity was at the time a mostly lower-class religion anyway - how many of the lower-class generally were able to contest arrests in court? Finally, isn't it silly to disregard the bit where it is shown that Christianity was considered an "illegal association", and prosecuted as such?

Then again, that's my opinion. I can sit here all day ranting about how I don't like one argument or the other, but the fact is, I have no degree, and there's probably thousands of contextual facts that the scholarly community knows about, but I don't - stuff that possibly doesn't need to be said, since it's already assumed like "gravity points down", etc. The professional opinions of prominent scholars cannot be considered refuted just because we don't like them - only if they are refuted or dismissed by other scholars.

We can take the step, I guess, to remove cranks, because it's kind of why they're considered cranks - they're claims are so absurd on the face that they are dismissed at first, and then ignored. But if we're going to take the trouble to respect and include Doherty's professional opinion (or Carrier's!), then we're really not in the place to dismiss France or Grant.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I have a Masters in Anthropology and Archeology and have presented two professional presentations that was in museum studies; that doesn't make me a scholar as far as Biblical Anthropology and Archeology are concerned. However it 'does' make me enough of a expert to know when someone it trying to bluff their way through an argument. I have seen this in scholarly articles where experts take historical documents and used them just as if they were written by co-specialists forgetting to look at the social structure of the time period in question. The fields best suited to looking at this problem, historical anthropology and anthropological history, are very new. The concepts behind both at best goes back to only the mid 1970's and ideas on methods of study were still being thrashed out clear into the late 1990's.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything we were discussing? Are you sure you didn't post in the wrong section?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevance has to do with that the culture's reaction to Christianity really was not what was claimed decades or even centuries after the events. As noted elsewhere in the talk pages both France and Carrier have made statements that involve historical anthropology and anthropological history despite the fact that strictly speaking neither is an expert in those fields by the standards set forth by Wikipedia though unlike other authors they at least try (even if compared to general work on the whole etic/emic paradigm by Binford, Dunnell, Gould, and other in the 1980's it looks like a general practicer MD tried to do either heart or brain surgery). Related to this is that many historical Jesus supporters don't seem to be satisfied to just show that Jesus existed but then go off and try to prove that every event in the Gospels has historical evidence backing it (This is when you get nonsense like Thallus presented as evidence). Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels" brings a key point to the issue at hand--just how critical was the thinking in the 1st century CE? Similarly the obvious connection between the modern John Frum cult and the idea that Jesus could have been totally manufactured from earlier myths is side stepped by both sides. Entirely fictional histories has been made for John Frum, people carry pictures of people they believe to be John Frum, and supposedly a local islander in the 1950's even took up the name John Frum causing many problems and yet no one piece of proof can be found for the supposed 'real' John Frum (an American GI stationed there in the 1930's). If a nation with all the resources of the 20th century cannot disprove John Frum then what chance would the Roman Empire have in the 1st at disproving Jesus (assuming they even knew where to start)?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well they certainly knew where to start - there was the widespread belief that Jesus was the bastard son of a roman centurion. That seems like a solid attempt to disprove him as a person to me.

....and how does a total lack of evidence mean a failure to disprove John Frum? That seems to point towards disproval to me.

And as I said before, what does this have to do with France's reliability? This is really starting to sound like another hit on Christians (especially the dig at those who actually believe the gospels).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is unless France is evaluating the information in an matter appropriate to historical anthropology then his conclusions about if or if not Christians were persecuted early on is of questionable value. The idea of Jesus being a bastard son of a Roman centurion is a claim made about the Talmud (supposedly Kallah, 1b, 18b) by serveral PRO-Historical Jesus supporters on the net. I went to The Babylonian Talmud site and could not even find a Kallah among the main chapter titles. Even if it is somewhere else we are talking about a 4th century document. Even the claim in Refuting Missionaries regarding Celsus only goes back to the late 2nd century.

As far as John Frum is concerned it shows just how rapidly a urban legend can develop. The point is that the core John Frum story makes predictions--you should find contemporary evidence of an American GI stationed in the area in the 1930's; the same is true of Jesus in the 1st century. Yet of all the possible contemporary people who could have said something the ONLY one we have is Paul and we are not sure if he is even contemporary (ie lived when Jesus lived). Philo who was in the right place, at the right time, and was actually connected via a relative to the House of Herod, says not one word about Jesus. Then you have the 40 other people both contemporary and a century afterword who could have mentioned Jesus and yet of all these possible sources the BEST the Christians can put forth are the writings of a man (Paul) who never met Jesus and tells next to nil about his time on earth, a tampered late 1st century document (Josephus), and three early 2nd century documents one of which only prove the movement exists (oh if the John Frum movement exists then John Frum must have existed; this is where that nonsense leads you), a claim at misspelling (Suetonius), and a document whose author might have loss access to official Roman records (Tacitus). That is the BEST they can provide. Also as Mead, Ellegard, and Hayyim ben Yehoshua all point out there was a century long belief of a messiah (ie Christ) who would liberate the Jews (these were known as Notzrim) so you had plenty of "Christs" for the Romans to choose from in addition to the one Paul was talking about. We have no idea is the "Christians" Pliny the Younger wrote about were followers of Jesus, a recently self-proclaimed savior, or somebody else. Much the same thing could be said about Suetonius even if his "Chrestus" that was a misspelling for "Christus.".

The whole concept behind the Jesus Myth argument can be seen in 19th century America [tall tales]. If someone says John Henry really lived then you would expect evidence to be produced to prove that claim. Conversely if someone said Calamity Jane or Davy Crockett didn't exist a reasonable amount of evidence could be produced to show they did exist though stories were made up about them even during their life times. If you take the Gospel accounts are even closely accurate then you give yourself the headache of explaining how a man with a wildly successful ministry could have been ignored by basically everyone there. Conversely if you say the Gospels are exaggerations then you have the headache of trying to figure out what if anything in them is reliable and what has been made up or possible reflect events from the life of another 'Christ'.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Javascript

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defence (B) (American: defense), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be be reliable

I have to say, this is a riot. Putting a link in the "external links" section to a torrent (already against rules) to a highly discredited quack is okay, but the professional opinions of respected biblical scholars are silly, made-up dismissals that should be deleted?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess this refers to me. I gave my reasons for saying some particular arguments from respected scholars (as summarised by some wiki editor) were silly but I didn't delete them. I suspect the summary of the argument might be bad, and maybe someone could improve it. But I accept that reasons don't matter, only authority, so there is no need for anyone to consider the reasons I gave. I agree the respected scholars' silly arguments (or the silly summaries by a wiki editor) stay. What is a "torrent" in this context, BTW? E4mmacro (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A torrent is a BitTorrent file. Someone linked to a site where you could get a download one of one Acharya S's books; since that was facilitating copyright violation, I removed the link. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had thought you knew what the link was to when you reverted it. Sorry for the aggressive comment, then.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Josephus/Origen

I removed this bit of text from the section on Josephus:

and one in particular is known to conflict with comments made by Origen in Book 1 Chapter 47 of Against Celsus.

This was puzzling in context. If it's worth having in the article, it needs to be expanded so that its meaning is clear to the reader. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's extremely obscure, but what I assume he is getting at is that Origen states that Josephus did not accept that Jesus was "the Christ"; therefore the statement "he was the Christ" in surviving manuscripts of the text "conflicts with comments made by Origen". It seems rather unnecessary, since no-one disputes that Josephus was not a Christian, and the text already points out that this very fact is the reason why most scholars assume that the main passage referring to Jesus has been altered with at minimum the addition of comments "if it is lawful..." and "he was the Christ". Paul B (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the actual quote with the problems in bold: "For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice."

This passage shows the problem is not just that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was christ but how scholars read the "he ought to have said" part. A related problem pointed out by some Jesus Myth supporters is that Origen specifically refers to the 18th book and then talks about Josephus referring to James the Just; the problem being that James the Just reference appears in the 20th book NOT the 18th. Why would Origen suddenly jump to a totally different book of the Antiquities? The answer is logically is he wouldn't and therefore somewhere in the 18th book there was a reference to James the Just. In short Origen shows there are MAJOR problems with the passage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Or a major problem with Origen. A first edition of Antiquities and Wars of the Jews is needed to resolve this problem definitively. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing even faintly illogical about talking about passages in both the 18th and 20th books if they both refer to the same issue. Writers do it all the time. You do not explain what the supposed problem is in the "he ought to have said part". That's just Origen, as a Christian, explaining that the fall ogf Jerusalem was "really" caused by Jewish rejection of Jesus. Paul B (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that nowhere does Josephus blame the fall of Jerusalem on the execution of James, and hardly anyone believes Josephus would say such a thing - doesn't he in fact blame the Zealots? So now we know that Origen had a dud copy of Josephus, which seems to show there were people, probably Christians, willing to rewrite Josephus for propoaganda. E4mmacro (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More likely Origen was simply extrapolating wildly from what Josephus says about James in order to support his Christian argument. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Josephus does not mention the martyrdom of James in his Wars of the Jews, there he attributes the fall of Jerusalem as a consequence to someone else's death - the death of the person responsible for the death of James as mentioned in the Antiquities. Wfgh66 (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "he ought to have said part" is that different scholars read it differently. Some have read it as Origen complaining that Josephsus devotes more space to James the Just than the Jesus while other have read it as Origen implying Josephus didn't talk about Jesus at all. The fact the Josephsus doesn't say the things about James the Just it should say should make one wonder just what has been tampered with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Further compounding things is the fact that the often quoted second passage when put back into context clearly does NOT talk about Jesus bar Joseph (Jesus, son of Joseph) but rather some guy named Jesus bar Damneus (Jesus, son of Damneus) who was made High Priest. Since Jesus bar Joseph was NOT made a High Priest but instead crucified through the actions of the High priests either the "who was called Christ" (or so called Christ depending on the translation) was added or this proves that there were other Jesus "Christs" around in the 1st century. In neither cases does it prove the existence of the Jesus of the Bible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Josh McDowel - an authority?

Is Josh McDowell an authority, a biblical scholar, an historian, or even a PhD student, at a first class secular University? Isn't he an ex-journalist? (And don't tell me everything written by a journalist must be right). Why is he referred to so often? The myth proponents may not be these things, but the article is about them and their theories. The critics should be scholars though. As far as I can see McDowell is very second-hand. Get the originals, rather than relying on McDowell's interpretation of what his sources say? E4mmacro (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Josh McDowell has a Master of Divinity from Biola University and an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Simon Greenleaf School of Law but his degrees don't make him an expert in this field by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. He tends to be referred to so often mainly because he was quickly used by Christian apologists in their claims that Jesus was historical (University of Utah had a presentation regarding his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict when it first came out for instance). The reality is that there is not much in the way of "originals"; all the apologists really have outside of Paul are: Josephus (known from Origen's comments to have been tampered with), Tacitus who could simple repeating what he had heard, Pliny the Younger who only confirms the existence of the 'Christian' moment c110 CE, and a misreading of a sentence of Suetonius who was with Pliny the Younger when he wrote the Chrestus passage. To go any further than these they have to go to mid to late 2nd century at best and tend to be quotes of lost material (Thallas).--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the threshold? I feel uncomfortable about people with degrees from bible colleges being referenced in this article as though they represented mainstream scholarly opinion. Some bible colleges can seem like training centers for Christian activists. For example, the Biola University website says that the school was founded to "to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ".

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to reject soley on that basis. ^^James^^ (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

McDowel doesn't appear to be saying anything that can't be found in better sources. I don't think he needs to be in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the page

Is the the purpose of this article to show the myth-theory in the worst light possible? To prove it wrong? How about explaining the theory? Some one has deleted a Carrier opinion as "unneeded" because (1) Carrier is a Ph D candidate (ok, that could be a plausible reason for deletion if that is all Carrier was) and (2) because Carrier was commenting on a non-schloar's work, i.e. Doherty. Hello - the page is about myth-theory. Doherty is a major current myth theorist. Are only negative comments allowed, but not a positive comment from a published author (Carrier has published in Philosophy and biblical criticism, see his essay the "Spiritual body of Christ" in the mult-author book "The Empty Tomb" if you think Carrier is not a scholar - btw, thinking someone a scholar is different from agreeing with them).

Also, a sentence implying Tacitus most likely got his information from Christians and is not an independent source was deleted for some reason that I don't recall. I thought that was mainstream opinion, that Tacitus was not independent of the Gospel story. I guess I have to find quotes from R. T. France and J. D. Crossan (which should span the field of) to say that. E4mmacro (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this page should be to describe the Jesus myth "hypothesis", as we've termed it. A major problem with the article as currently written is that many of the authors have tried to prove or disprove whether the theory is true. Instead, the page should take a historical approach, describing the development of the theory from its precursor Bruno Bauer to its latest manifestations in Wells, Doherty, et al. (This isn't that different than what Van Voorst does in his book.) The article needs to say that this theory is regarded as highly implausible, indeed outrageous, by mainstream classical and biblical scholarship, but the page need not go into extensive detail about why the theory is thought to be wrong--the reader who wants to know about mainstream arguments for the historicity of Jesus should consult other articles.

Carrier is not a scholar, as we usually employ the term--he doesn't have a Ph.D., and he hasn't published peer-reviewed work on this topic, nor has he published work on this topic with a respected academic press. The way he was being cited in this article--for a positive review of Doherty ([2])--made it seem as if Doherty's work has received praise from mainstream biblical scholarship--and it hasn't. Carrier may well be notable on this topic, but if so, his work should be cited in its own right, rather than to give credibility to Doherty's. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the relevant passage. I would have no objection to positive things being said about non-scholar JMers by non-scholar JMers in this article, if presented as such, and if it had some kind of significance ("JMers like each others work" isn't really that surprising!). However, where presented in the article, it looked like it was an example of mainstream scholarship praising Doherty - which it is not. Thanks to Akhilleus for explaining that - I just felt I'd reiterate your comments as I was the author who removed the said topic. TJ (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need some defense of the statement that Carrier's publications are not academic or in an academic press. There was some discussion about R. T. France, above, and his popular book "The evidence for Jesus" is often used, and is not from a particularly Academic publisher. France's other books are from specialist Christian publishers as far as I can see, which doesn't gaurantee they are academic. Let's be consistent. How are you ranking publishers?

I don't think the sentence implied mainstream opinion thought Doherty's book was good - the article says many times what mainstream opinion is. If you can find mainstream opinion which has actually read Doherty's book and has a comment, please put it in. I agree there is a problem that mainstream opinion probably sees no benefit for itself in wasting time on a fringe theory. But here was one opinion, from someone who has published, and has bothered to read the book. He doesn't say it is necessarily correct - he says it is not total rubbish. The apparent contempt for Carrier amongst some editors seems rather extreme to me. E4mmacro (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "contempt". It's recognition that Carrier hasn't established himself as a professional biblical scholar, either through gaining a Ph.D. and an academic position, or publishing through reputable academic publishing houses like Fortress Press, Princeton, Harvard, etc.

As for R.T. France's books, their status as a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense) is guaranteed by the author's eminent credentials. If Carrier somehow became the principal of Wycliffe Hall and then continued to publish on the internet, his writings would meet Wikipedia's criteria of a reliable source--because his expertise would have been demonstrated and acknowledged. But at the present time I see no reason why Carrier's self-published review of Doherty's book should be used as a source in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Better reread reliable source, Akhilleus, especially the linked page regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability. The best credentials on the planet don't mean squat if the material didn't appear in a peer-reviewed Journal first, it still falls under self-published. Doherty's book fulfills this requirement having first appeared in the peer-reviewed Journal of Higher Criticism while the comments by the likes of France and Grant don't unless someone can provide the peer-reviewed articles their ideas first appeared in (if it isn't peer reviewed you are wasting our time). This is because even the best 'experts' can get it wrong; Einstein's total rejection of Quantum Mechanics ("God does not play dice") to the day he died is a classic case in point. Another example is Lavoisier's caloric theory which replaced Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory simply on the merits of Lavoisier's impressive credentials. Lavoisier was wrong but it took science nearly a century to figure it out. Similarly every expert said that Homer's Troy didn't exist until a total amateur with no degrees in that field named Heinrich Schliemann went out and found it (though being an amateur he did more damage than a trained expert would but no expert would look for a city that didn't exist). Howard Carter never wrote the scholarly paper people expected regarding his most famous discovery and so on. Furthermore, the quote "mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant" can also be read to say that to the larger picture the Jesus being historical question is moot; regardless of his existance the birth and development of Christianity and its effect on history is a given.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to reread the reliable sources policy before you make wholly false staement like "The best credentials on the planet don't mean squat if the material didn't appear in a peer-reviewed Journal". I quote: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The rest of your post is just irrelevant. Einstein's views on QT were published in "peer reviewed journals". Scientists and historians being wrong is unrelated to the issue of whether their views were or were not legitimate at the time. The statement about Schliemann is, by the way, wholly wrong. Hisarlik was established since antiquity as the site of Troy and the view that the war had actually occurred was quite a common one. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what part of has previously been published by reliable third-party publication did you not understand? Stein fit this criteria and yet his counter is removed because it came from infidel.com. Sheesh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what part of "work in the relevant field" you didn't understand. The actual text does not have to have been previously published. The meaning of the sentence is as plain as day. Paul B (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul B but you are cherry picking. The sentence clearly states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The qualifier at the end makes it clear that the "work in the relevant field" has to have been published by reliable third-party publication. If it hasn't then it is basically self published. This brings us back to the problem with this issue on both sides--most of it pro and con is self-published. Grant seems to be quoting somebody else from long ago who is making generalities with no supporting evidence, Van Voorst has his own set of problems as he takes thing like Thallus as good evidence when even France admits it is really poor argument bringing into question just how good Van Voorst is as a source and agood hunk stuff is similarlly flawed.--216.234.222.130 (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the page and get guidance from the editors on the talk page there. I assure you they will say exactly what I have just said. The whole point of the passage is to explain when self-published material is acceptable. If the author is already an established expert on the subject, but then, say, writes something previously unpublished on his/her personal webpage, it may be acceptable, even though it is self-published. If it has already appeared in a peer-reviewed journal then by definition it is not self-published, and so the policy guidline would not be relevant to that particular piece of work. Paul B (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Paul but your spin doctoring fails. Wikipedia:Verifiability itself bolds the "reliable third-party publications" part. Unless one can shows what scholars Grant is using to claim the Jesus myth is refuted his statements are useless.--216.31.16.41 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? Are you trying to argue that Grant is self-published? That doesn't make any sense. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are now making no sense at all. Please try not to jumble up unrelated issues in such a confused way. Grant's views are published in a book, so policy on "self-published" material does not apply. It only applies to writers who are expressing their views on webpages or in other unrefereed contexts. As I say, go to the policy page and ask editors there if you don't believe me. The whole point of the passage to to explain when some exceptions can be be made to the "reliable third party" rule, so there's no point in quoting the rule when the passage is quite explicitly about an exception to the rule. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break 1

I also suggest that Akhilleus is not the last word or only on interpreting wiki guidelines and policy about sources. I think a case can be made for quoting from the Carrier reviewer of Doherty's book, within the policy and guidelines. I will present this case later, but for now I will remind anyone who has forgotten that another wiki guideline or practice is seeking consensus amongst editors. E4mmacro (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In something like this how can you get consensus amongst editors? Look at the efforts it took to get the documented theory that Jesus was a composite character in to the head of the article even though it was in the body of the text. Look at how Van Voorst and Burridge who are said to refute the idea that Jesus was a composite character even though they do NOT say this; they simply claim that Jesus as an entirely mythical character is not treated as a valid theory. Then look at how counters to 'proof' like Tacitus are REMOVED (I've put it back in AGAIN). How does removing these points maintain the article's neutrality? Answer is it does NOT. It is clear that this article lost its WP:NPOV a long time ago. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. Removing the flaws of the the Tacitus argument VIOLATES this policy pure and simple.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how the histrionics are helpful. The reason for taking out the infidels.org stuff is simple--this site doesn't meet WP:RS. If you think Stein meets the criteria of an expert previously published in reliable third-party publications, perhaps you could provide us with some evidence towards this point? --Akhilleus (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if you have bothered to actually read the article reference you happily snipped you would known the article states "Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying" and this is referenced to "See Wells 1999, pp. 198-200; France 1986, p. 23; and E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1993), p. 49." The France 1986 is of course Evidence for Jesus which is already cited no less then six times. Are you going to say France is unreliable because the quote happens to appear on infidels.org?? Also I noted you didn't even go near the NPOV issue I raised. As I said before this smacks of hypocrisy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

It is in no way POV to exclude claims from sources that have little to no reliability. NPOV only demands that we do not cherry-pick reliable sources - so long as we present them all fairly, and give weight to the one with the most professional support, that is NPOV. It is, in fact, anti-NPOV to include every opinion on the subject, just because it is an opinion. Especially on controversial topics like this, the policy is to remove any claim that is not supported by a reliable source. If you want it in, find a good source for it first.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As to the composite theory - that had nothing to do with POV - it was just crappily inserted, and I had asked you to rewrite it using something resembling English grammar before re-adding.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are you going to say France is unreliable because the quote happens to appear on infidels.org??"

I don't know if he is, but for me - Yes. It needs to either be scholastically-published or self-published - any website can say "this guy says this". No matter what names infidels.org attaches to its quotes, it is, for now, unusable. This is the exact reason that wiki itself is unusable as a reliable source.

If there are references can be checked in the relevant article than infidels.org is NOT unusable but you do have to use care in using it. If it is the best place that one can find an easily navigable intact version something like Joseph Wheless' Forgery in Christianity (the other sites I have found are either personal sites or have really poor navigation--the About.com site case in point for the later) then it is better than nothing. As for Wiki, it is not useable because nearly any Tom, Dick, or Harry can go in and change an article. This is not true of most other web sites.--216.31.16.41 (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"I also suggest that Akhilleus is not the last word or only on interpreting wiki guidelines and policy about sources. I think a case can be made for quoting from the Carrier reviewer of Doherty's book, within the policy and guidelines. I will present this case later, but for now I will remind anyone who has forgotten that another wiki guideline or practice is seeking consensus amongst editors."

In regards to the second highlighted bit - WP:RS is pretty much directly based on WP:V, which is not a guideline. It is a policy which cannot be ignored on wiki. If something blatantly violates WP:V, no guideline "seeking consensus" can overrule that.

And to the first highlighted bit - no, he's not, but no explanation I've seen about WP:RS conflicts with the one he gave.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you agree that Akhellius is not the last word on deciding on wiki guidelines. I didn't make mystelf clear about the consensus. I am not trying to over-ride the reliable source policy. The Carrier quote that was deleted was reliable, verifiable. The issue is "Do Carrier's peer-reviewd and third party published publications make him a scholar in a relvant field?", which may be a matter of opinion, and Akhellius's opinion is not tha last word, as you agree. I say Carrier's publication qualify him, according to wiki guidelines; Akhellius thinks the publications are not up to some standard. It is on that issue that I seek consensus. E4mmacro (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Carrier qualifies as a scholar by wikipedia standards

First we have to show that Carrier is a scholar by wikipedia standards - not that he is the best scholar in the world. If so he might be quoted, what things can be quoted is a second argument. On the scholar question: he has published in 3rd party publications on topics relevant to this page, Journal of Higher Criticism, a journal of biblical criticism established by a University scholar, (as are most journals). He has published chapters in a book edited by others (another third party) "The empty tomb; Jesus beyond the grave", one of Carrier's long chapter "The spiritual Body of Christ", concerns interpreatation of the writings of Paul. One editor of the book is a recognized Biblical scholar - this is peer reviewed puiblication in a relavant area. THus I think it is clear Carrier meets wiki-criteria as a scholar in a relevant field and could be quoted on this page, if he has said something relevant in a valid source. I will leave that second question for later. For now would like to hear arguments saying he doesn't qualify as a scholar in the wiki sense (one thing at a time). E4mmacro (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't spent too much time looking into it, but the "Journal of Higher Criticism" doesn't seem to be much more than the same pap you find in regular internet forums - one of the articles, for example, is someone trying to prove that "God is not in heaven" by creating strawmen and then knocking them down. Plus that, one the main page, it seems to be claiming that the journal was made to stand against neo-conservatism; I can't see how a political party would have anything reasonable to do with research into biblical history. Then again, I might just be seeing the exceptions to the rule.

Being published in a third-party book should make him quotable, so long as the presentation remains honest about his stature in the field - we can't treat him with the same authority as grant or others, I would imagine.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't qualify. The Journal of Higher Criticism is not really an academic journal in the traditional sense--it's not associated with a university or university press, and its editor, Robert Price, doesn't currently hold an academic position. It doesn't appear to employ peer review, and it's barely cited in the scholarly literature, as this Google Scholar search demonstrates. Compare to something like the Journal of Contemporary Religion or the Jewish Quarterly Review. Note also that The Journal of Higher Criticism isn't indexed in Humanities Abstracts and other academic databases.

Carrier's publications in edited collections don't establish his scholarly credentials either--at least, not the ones in his Wikipedia article, which are all published by popular presses, not scholarly (i.e., University presses, or other presses with a reputation for publishing academic books like Eerdmans, Fortress, Brill, etc.). The only book he's published in that pertains to this article is The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave, edited by (surprise!) Robert Price, and published by Prometheus Press, which doesn't appear to have a track record of publishing academic books.

I don't understand why anyone wants to say that Carrier is a scholar. It should be evident at a glance that he's not a university/college professor, which is basically what we mean when we say someone's a scholar.

Can Carrier be cited in this article? He seems to be a notable author on this topic, because he's collaborated with Price, and he's appeared in "The God Who Wasn't There"--so if he's made significant, original contributions, then I don't have a problem with the article mentioning them. What I do have a problem with is using his self-published review of Doherty's book, because it looks like an attempt to say that Doherty's work has credibility in the academic community, when it has none that I can see. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Akhilleus, The Journal of Higher Criticism is associated with a university--Drew University (the same one Richard Price got his degree from). I went to Google scholar search and looked for "The Journal of Higher Criticism" (with the quotes) and found 58 entries compared to the 38 your search above produces. Also if you look at the home page at Drew University you would have noticed the The Journal of Higher Criticism stopped being published in 2002 so it can not be an IS because it no longer exists. I found an online version of Wilson Humanities Abstracts and tried to look for articles written by Dunnel in American Anthropologist and Journal of Anthropological Research; not only didn't the online version not list anthropology or archeology as subcatagories but it could not find ANY article written by Dunnell. I then threw Style and Function at this thing it could not find the American Antiquity article by Dunnell that has this in the title. Good heavens, this is INSANE. If a humanities database's online version is so poorly set up as to not provide abstracts of articles out of American Anthropologist, Journal of Anthropological Research, and American Antiquity all of which are recognized peer-reviewed publications of the highest order in that humanities field then what freaking good is it?!--216.234.222.130 (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't have time to respond to all of your comments, 216.234, but let me just note that Wilson Humanities Abstracts only cover the humanities--as the page says, the database indexes "periodicals in the areas of archaeology, classical studies, art, performing arts, philosophy, history, music, linguistics, literature, and religion." Anthropology is generally classified as a social science, so if you want to find anthropology articles, something like Wilson Social Sciences Abstracts would probably work. Or other databases that cover social sciences and humanities, like ISI Web of Knowledge. I don't have access to the Wilson databases at the moment, but I checked the ISI database, and found that it indexes American Anthropologist, the Journal of Biblical Literature, the American Journal of Philology, Jewish Quarterly Review. It didn't index the Journal of Higher Criticism; nor did it index Social Text, which is unquestionably an academic journal (maybe not a very good one, though). I'll look in some other databases when I get a chance. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Three problems. Akhilleus. First, Anthropology and Archeology often cross over to each other. "Dilemma of Archaeology" by Dunnell appeared in Journal of Anthropological Research (V 38:1 pg72-84) Then you have the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology where Gould published his famous "Dialogue on the Meaning and use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning" (tried looking for that didn't find it either). Second, the Dunnel article refereed above appeared in American Antiquity which if you had bothered to go to its home page (the link was provided above) would have told you "American Antiquity is one of the principal journals of the Society for American Archaeology." Third, the a link to an online version of the the Wilson Humanities Abstract index was provided. I tried looking for Leonard's "Resource Specialization, Population Growth, and Agricultural Production in the American Southwest" which appeared in BOTH American Antiquity and American Archaeology both of which are Archaeology Journals. DIdn't find it. So on EVERY point it can be PROVEN you are blowing smoke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, your response is over the top, and misinformed to boot. I had assumed that you'd actually searched the databse, but you haven't. The link that you claimed was a version of the Wilson Humanities Abstracts is nothing of the sort--it's a product catalog for a database vendor. If you want to search Wilson Humanities Abstracts, you must get access through a college or university library (or some other institution that has purchased access). As it turns out, some of the journals you mention are in the Humanities Abstracts--American Antiquity, American Archaeology, and the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology are all there. The Journal of Anthropological Research isn't included though--for that, I'd imagine you have to go to the Social Sciences abstracts. And to keep this post marginally on topic, the Journal of Higher Criticism isn't indexed. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

..."Verifiable" in that sense means that a reader can follow the ref tag back and verify that yes, Grant did actually say that, and we're not attributing our own words to him.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

another section break

Even without the J High Crit articles, the book The Empty Tomb is enough to qualify Carrier as a Biblical Scholar for wiki purposes. You can call him a philosopher if you like, if "Biblical Scholar offends". His article in a Philospher magazine (Philosophy and Biology) and his book "Sense and Reason ..." qualifies him as a philosopher, for wiki-purposes. E4mmacro (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Carrier's chapters in The Empty Tomb don't establish him as a biblical scholar for our purposes.

Let's remember why we're having this discussion: you wanted to quote Carrier's self-published review of Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle to the effect that there are "a slew of very strange facts that [Doherty's] theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly." [3]. Now, this is not an article about Doherty or his publications, so why should a book review be quoted here? It doesn't seem relevant, except as a way to insert a statement that praises Doherty's work. But this article shouldn't be about praising (or denigrating) Doherty's work. It should describe his arguments and note where they fit into scholarship in this area. Instead, you want to put in a statement that amounts to "Doherty's book is great!" and attribute it to "historian" Richard Carrier, apparently as a way of making it seem as if a prominent academic thinks that Doherty's work is worth paying attention to. Carrier does seem like a pretty interesting guy, but it's not at all clear why his opinion is worth quoting in a Wikipedia article on this particular topic, especially since his review was self-published, rather than published in a journal, magazine, or newspaper, and when it runs counter to mainstream opinion--academia seems to have completely ignored Doherty (something which he himself complains about). And, in fact, I don't see why this article should quote any reviews of Doherty's book, pro or con--that's material for The Jesus Puzzle, maybe, but not this article.

What would be nice, though, is if Doherty's arguments were described better--from reading this article, as well as the stubby Earl Doherty and The Jesus Puzzle, I can't get a picture of what Doherty thinks and how he differs from other mythicists. Fleshing that out would be a lot more useful for the reader than trying to stick in quotes from book reviews, in my opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Carrier's review does describe Doherty's theory fairly well and why it is different from earleir myth-theories. But if I describe Doherty's theory with no cited source, what will happen then? I actually think Carrier's review is better able to answer your question than I am. Also, I say the Book Empty Tomb qulifies him, you say it doesn't. Who has the last word on interpreting wiki standards? Looks like an impass. E4mmacro (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Is it the word "scholar" you want to protect. It means University/College Professor and must be protected against outsiders? What should we call someone who meets the wiki-standard for a reliable source but is not a Professor. I can think of a Ph D student I know who has published three papers (multi-authored though) in good physics journals (publihsed by the American Association of Physics), but has not submitted his PhD thesis yet. If anyone wanted to call him a scholar I wouldn't object, though he would probably prefer "scientist", I guess. The reason why Carrier might be used is that he and Price seem to be the only wiki-defined "scholars" who have actually read Doherty. Price doesn't cease being a scholar for wiki-purposes when he leaves a University. Carrier is third party published (contra Akhilleus, I still say he qualifies by wiki-standards), not perhaps the best credentialed scholar in the world, but he may be the only one to have read Doherty's book and written a review, pointing out its strengths and weaknesses (that's what scholars do, look at all the angles). I think Carrier's review meets the verifiability criteria - it is on a stable site (infidels.org, anyone can check what he said, it is verifibable). Does the alleged crappiness of Prometheus books, Journal of Higher Criticism and its editor (or former editor) Price disqualify Carrier as a scholar? Not on my reading of the guidelines on sources. (By the way, Amazon quotes a review of The Empty Tomb, which it says comes from "Publisher's Weekly" and from an Elsiver editor, who singles outPrice's and Carrier's contribution for special favorable mention, and says the book is too academic for the general public. Maybe Amazon is fibbing, but this does not seem to agree with some views expressed against Carrier and Price here). Maybe we just need to say in the intro something like "The theory is ignored or dismissed by almost all scholars. Two exceptions are Price and Carrier" with links to their self-published articles. Their self published opinions can be mentioned if they are qualified in the field, as you know (and provided the source is verifiable). That doesn't say that the mainstream accepts it - and I can't imagine anyone who reads this page, can't work out that the mainstream rejects the myth theory. E4mmacro (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The useful google scholar search (thanks to Akhilleus) shows that The Journal of Higher Criticism (JHC) is in fact cited, not completely ignored, even though it has not been around for very long. No one said it was the best Journal in the field, and does it have to be? On the other hand, I notice that the Library at the Univeristy fo Queensland (a secular University, where I can easily check the catalog, which does havd a "Studies in Religion" program), does not subscribe to the JHC, so that is a mark against it. But the same library does have "The Empty Tomb" catalogued under the BT classification. This means either a University librarian specialising in "Religious Studies" thought it worth getting, or some University Professor from the religious Studies department asked for it to be in the library (or maybe it was a Ph D student who asked for it) E4mmacro (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

infidels.org, bede.org, etc. etc.

I think it should be a goal to use as little material from self-published websites as possible--almost everything relating to Jesus has been covered over and over again in print. So, I've gotten rid of a sentence sourced to an article on infidels.org--and, as I've already pointed out, the material comes from a response to a book by McDowell, who doesn't appear in this article (and doesn't need to). In an edit summary SOPHIA pointed out that infidels.org is as much of an RS as bede.org. I suppose that's true, in that neither is a RS. As soon as I can find a source for the Josephus bit, I'm going to take out the cite to bede.org there; if there are other cites to websites, they should be replaced also. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I look the worse it gets - we have direct biblical references - in these circumstances primary sources should not be used. To be honest if we take out all the incorrect references we have little left. I don't mind this as this article is in sore need of a rewrite but I haven't got the time to do a proper job at the moment. Sophia 23:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to deal with this either, but I agree that the article needs a rewrite. Primary sources are ok, actually, but only as long as any interpretation comes from secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct biblical references? Actually we don't. What we really have is the edited versions of oral stories that given quotes by early Church fathers were not "finalized" until the early 3rd century. While it is clear that Joseph Wheless has a major ax to grind his work Forgery In Christianity does put for a major counter to claims made in 2nd through 4th century Christian documents; removing one of the few unabridged copies on the internet (the Google books version is missing pages) just because it is on infidels.org is insane and inane. I will also point out that the Pro Historical Jesus people are sloppy with their data as well. Van Voorst in his Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence uses Thallus as one of the proofs. Gads, Thallus is at best a secondary source if not a tertiary source. Even France admits this source is iffy. Oh wait a minute that reference is used in an article at infidels.org so even though it is quoted and referenced we can't use it per the argument Akhilleus provides above. Sheesh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...please tell me you're not actually believing that Da Vinci Code BS? The most bit of the New Testament was fairly cemented early on - hell, they had definite heresies at that point, that were recognized by everyone else as heresies! They were not "oral stories written down in the 3rd century" - Paul wrote his as letters, even.

Please, if you want to add claims to the article, find a reputable scholar, in the relevant field, who has written on the subject at least at some point in an academic journal, and directly source their quotes. But guidelines strictly forbid sourcing from personal websites, not to mention ones pretty much made to attack a topic.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro, you are reading things into my comments that simply are not there. I said NOTHING about the Gospels being written in the 3rd century only about them being finalized in the 3rd century (ie stabilizing down to the versions we know today). It is akin to the version of Tolkin's Hobbit we read today--it is NOT the same one he wrote in 1932 but rather a version that was edited in 1966 (there was an intermediate version in 1951).

Bishop Irenaeus c185 wrote more about and quoted more of the gospels than any Christian before him but some of his quotes do not match the Gospels as we know them. Also he makes statements that are impossible reading our gospels: "Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years (1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify"- Against Heresies, Book 2 chapter 24 paragraph 5. Christian even sum up this part of Irenaeus as "The Thirty Aeons Are Not Typified By The Fact That Christ Was Baptized In His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer In The Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died." Even if you take the earlier 9 BCE eclipse as the time of Jesus birth you hit brick wall time as Pontius Pilate stopped ruling the Iudaea province c36 CE. If we can trust Irenaeus reading of the Gospels then he is clearly reading different ones from what we have because there is no way Jesus could have been over 50 years old when he died if he was born somewhere between 9 and 4 BCE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...you talked about them being "oral histories that were finalized", with the finalized in quotes. Sorry if I misinterpreted that.

As for that quote...in context, he bases it on extra-biblical tradition and John 8:57. It helps to read things in their whole, especially when they nearly give you page numbers.

....soooo, no, it's not at all clear that he had a different Bible than we do, since he based his argument on a quote you can still find in our bible. Plus, again in context, Iraneus argues that Jesus was in his forties and below fifty - easily reached by 36+9.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, KrytenKoro, just WHAT part of "More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died" did you not understand? It is right there in the text on an Pro Historical Jesus site. If that is not what Irenaeus mean then why did later Christians sum it up that way? Also later on Iraneus states "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period." Furthermore the 9 BCE is of a earlier eclipse but is not generally accepted as the right one--that honor belongs to the eclipse of 4 BCE. This idea mainly comes from this quote of Luke Iraneus give us: "(for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism)." Luke also does give us a relatively good time stamp for this event: the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar or c28 CE. For Jesus to have been 30 years old he would have had to have been born around 4 BCE NOT 9 BCE. To get Jesus to a MINIMUM of 40 years of age (assuming 32 at c28) takes us to 38 CE or AFTER Pontius Pilate stopped ruling. Also since there no year zero in the Christian calendar you can't just add the years ie from 1 BC to 1 AD is ONE YEAR not two.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

....and if you read the entire passage, not just the title, Iraneaus was actually arguing that Jesus was in his forties. From 1st year AD to end of 36 AD is 36 years. He could also have been in his thirties at c28, if born at CE 9 (9+27=36, 9+28=37). Or, you can add (4+36)=40 - if he was 39, or extremely close to 40, I can see them using the "not yet fifty" quote (are they really going to be keeping track of how many days Jesus is old?).

There were also eclipses in 5BCE that are actually more logical than the 4BCE (though I've seen arguments for 1BCE), and the language of the time is one that often used slight hyperbole for emphasis, but that's not even the point of this discussion, is it?

You claimed Iraneus must have had a different gospel than we did. However, the gospel quote he relies on as his "Gospel source" is still in the Bible. So what's the problem?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it, KrytenKoro. The key phrase is "Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period." Last time I checked 45 was midway between 40 and 50 so for the "not far from this latter period" to be accurate then Jesus would have to have been 46 at a minimum and we are talking on a scale of years not freaking days.

The difference in the Gospels Iraneus used is self evident in the claims he makes. The Luke we have talks about a census of Quirinius/Cyrenius which history shows occurred c6 CE. We can show that Quirinius was "governor" of Crete-Cyrene from c14 BCE to c6 BCE when he was made "governor" of the Pamphylia-Galatia province which he ruled until he replaced Herod Archelaus in c6 CE. We also know that from c7 BCE to the death of Herod Quinctilius Varus oversaw Syria. Clearly Quirinius could NOT have been over seeing an island in the Mediterranean and a Libyan city and then trying to run Syria as well so that knocks out everything from c14 BCE to c6 BCE. As for c6 BCE to 6 CE Quirinius would have had to go through either the Cappadocia province to the north or the Lycia and Cilcia provinces to the south to even reach the Syria province but if Quinctilius Varus was already overseeing the place from c7 BCE to when ever Herod the Great died why would he?

Since this passage would support the idea that Jesus was only in his 30s when he died and Iraneus is trying to refute this idea AND quotes from Luke ergo the Luke he had did not have this passage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

....have you ever read a bible? The only quote he draws on from scripture is one that is still there.

He has his own interpretations of what was meant when they used that phrase - it's really, really stretching to try and claim that this solidly claims Jesus is 46 or more, and so far, that's all you've done - stretch, when the whole solution to the problem is "It's still in the bible."Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro, there are time I wonder if you think logic is water give the way you fail to understand the simplest of syllogistic logic paradigms. "Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period." The first part establishes that Iraneus clearly fest Jesus was at least 40 and the second shows he felt Jesus was past the mid range of 40 to 50 would would be past 45. Iraneus is the earliest prolific quotes of not only the Gospels but several other books int he NT. That said there are contradictions with the NT was we have it. "The other eighteen Æons are made manifest in this way: that the Lord, [according to them,] conversed with His disciples for eighteen months" as pointed out in the notes contradicts our version of Acts I. He also states "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." The problem is that Jewish leaders had gone through the trouble of translating the Jewish Bible into Greek c100 BCE because so why write in a language that had a much narrower audience. As far reading the Bible if you had bothered to follows the link regarding my long Usenet slapdown of Sheff you would have seen many quotes from the Bible showing that he like you don't know what they are talking about, though I must say you at least come up with new idea while all Sheff could do was quote a nonsense challenge and make wild off the wall claims again, again, and again like some kind of brain damaged parrot.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

...okay, let's go over this joke of a debate one more time:

1. You claim that Iraneus had a different gospel than we did, because he bases his argument on quotes from the gospel "that are no longer in it."
2. The specific quote that he mentions in the gospel is still in our present-day gospel.

So question - how the hell does that indicate that he had a different gospel.

I've read Iraneus's argument - while I believe that he doesn't quite mean what you say he does, or the other possibility, that he may be wrong, it's not relevant to the point actually in discussion, which I keep trying to tell you - that the quote is still in our bible. I don't give a damn what Iraneus said about Jesus' age, because I don't see what it has to do with either my beliefs or the arguments for/against the Jesus Myth. You keep trying to rope me into some debate about the validity of Iraneus and the Christian Gospels, and I just don't care - the question that started this conversation is whether we have the same Gospels as Iraneus, and nothing you have said seems to disagree with that in any way.

But fine, let's examine Iraneus' claim one more time - he's talking about an off the cuff idiom, and the most he says about it is that "Jesus was past forty, and not far from fifty". Even this much he bases off his own interpretation of what people meant who he had never meant, and had one or two lines in all of the Gospels.

First off, as I've said before, he bases what he says not only on the Gospels, but on participants in it he's actually met and talked to. Unless he specifically points out a claim as being based on scripture, and gives the verse, there's no grounds to claim that he had a different gospel.

Second off, the idiom he is discussing doesn't necessarily have the meaning he gives to it. Seeing as his "exact" interpretation, according to you, conflicts with not only the Gospels, but the dates that historians have worked out, isn't it much easier to believe he made a mistake? He never met Jesus himself, and he didn't write the Gospels. He's not an apostle or pope - even Christians don't believe he was infallible.

And for the last point, along the lines of your earlier trying to claim credentials in the field to, I assume, intimidate me through authority - I don't care how you "smacked-down" some guy on Usenet. I don't give a damn. Unless this "smack-down" was published and reviewed by your academic peers, I could not possibly care less about it.

If you want to spend your time debating other faceless peons about the "validity of Christianity", do it on a forum with somebody who cares about what you want to say. I've heard it before, I've answered any problems it raises to myself, and I don't see what it has to do with Wikipedia.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. - isn't it ironic that the Wikipedia spell-checker sees Wikipedia as a misspelling?)

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan." Now throwing out the nonsense Wheless gives us about the Trajan remark referring to Jesus when in context it seems to refer to John look at what Iraneus is actually saying. He states that BOTH the Gospel and the Elders testify that Jesus was between 40 and 50 years of age. One must also note that 'Gospel' in this context simply means the 'good news' or 'glad tidings' of redemption NOT Gospel as we normally use the term because in context he quotes from two GospelS (plural): Luke AND John. If you try to shoehorn the modern definition on the term then since he uses gospel (singular) then the Luke (or John) he uses can't be ours because those passages do not occur together in either version.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

...This is the quote Iraneaus credits to Luke:

"Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old"

This is the actual line, as currently translated:

"When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," (Luke 3:23)

To John:

"For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did,"

"All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made."

Current translations:

"A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick." (John 6:2)

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3)

To Paul:

"As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter."

And not specifically credited:

"To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution"

"makes His sun to rise upon the good and upon the evil, and sends rain upon the just and unjust."

"drink with the sound of the harp and psaltery, but do not regard the works of the Lord."

"to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution."

"Go thy way, thy son liveth."

"He came to Bethany six days before the passover,"

"the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,"

"Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"

(Last few not found matching sources for lack of time - class beckons)

Those are the only gospel quotes Irenaeus claims, and at most they demonstrate slightly differing translations between Greek to Latin to English, and Greek to English.

By the way, this bit:

"even as the Gospel and all the elders testify"

Is specifically said to be what John has said IN PERSON, not in Gospel. Remember, Irenaeus had more than just Scripture to quote from - he knew people. This doesn't mean he was right or wrong, but it does mean that he wasn't quoting this from Scripture, as you appear to be claiming.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Essay review

I'd like to know if the following contain any citations or quotes that can be used in this article: [4][5][6][7]

1 - definitely not. It is a forum post by a kid who admits in the first that it is specifically to attack Christianity. He uses cherry-picking arguments, strawmen, and ad hominem.

2 - seems to be the same.

3 - even worse.

4 - taking quotes out of context, and the worst kind of logic. Iraneaus is talking about why there being four gospels is a perfect - why God chose to have four gospels, not using that as a proof "why other gospels are bunk". Its written like poetry, not an accusation of heresy (yes, its in a book arguing against certain heresies, but it is not a specific argument). Its more like "God saw the light, and it was good." His argument basically amounts to "this guy says numbers are important, that must be his entire argument, everything he's ever said must be bunk."

Not only are they not presented as reliable sources, but I honestly wouldn't trust them with, well, anything.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

External sites

When linking to content on external sites, please be careful to verify that the site you link has the right to host the material presented. Not all web sites are entirely scrupulous about this, and other sites assume that if something is available on the web then it's fair game to host a copy. Where possible, we should cite the original (book, magazine, whatever). Citations to treeware are perfectly acceptable. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The jesuspuzzle is Doherty's own website. Paul B (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The no problem, sorry for the confusion. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Specific criticisms ?

I wanted to share the following experience with my first attempt to contribute to the article. I did something which should be completely innocent and relevant. The article finished with the section "Specific criticisms", the final paragraph being: "R.T France disagrees with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. He argues that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus's life in Paul's letters,[20] such as that Jesus "who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David" (Romans 1:3, TNIV)." I hope that everybody agrees that in such a context one should cite the concerned text (which is the heart of an argument) as faithfully as possible. That's why I added "- literally "who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh" (YLT) [TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA SARKA in Greek]." Akhilleus decided that "this contrib doesn't make much sense" and reverted this immediately. After my second attempt he reverted with the comment "no need to supply translation/text here, especially when it's transcribed text IN ALL CAPS". I agree with the objection against ALL CAPS and I offer "tou genomenou ek spermatos dauid kata sarka" or non-transliterated "του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα" (WHNU) if we wish. By I do object, Akhilleus, against your reverting. Why is it important to give the text as faithfully as possible? Because it touches on an important point in the mythical-historical dispute. I will not try to summarize this here, I only point to the fact that no words like "earthly life" are in the text of Paul. I know that I cannot dare to criticize the reported France's arguments in the article, since I am no reliable source and my original research does not count, but I try at least to give the wiki-reader a better chance to evaluate France's arguments by himself/herself. Who can here object against providing the original text of Paul? Akhilleus, please, explain your arguments if you still want to remove Paul's text. Thank you.

This also leads me to a comment about the section "Specific criticisms" as the whole. It says "The points below highlight some criticisms of various arguments for an a historical Jesus". These are all types of arguments which were thoroughly answered by Doherty. It is clear already from chronological point of view that these arguments do not react to Doherty nor Price. There exists no source which would really refute Doherty's and/or Prices's arguments, and I think this should be made clear also in this section. But I am not trying to do this now; at the moment I just hope that Akhilleus will let Paul speak for himself. (In fact, it would be telling to cite the whole Romans 1:1-4 "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God -- 2which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings -- 3concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;" in this context, but OK, I understand that I would be probably told that this is too much in the main article ...)Jelamkorj (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't care at all for the article's present structure. I've said several times that this article should be a description of what Bauer, Drews, Wells, Doherty et al. say; instead, what we've got is an article that is argumentative, and tries to prove or disprove certain positions (and does so badly). So I don't think the "specific criticisms" section should even exist; whatever there is that's worthwhile in that section (is there anything worthwhile?) should be integrated into other sections of the article.

Your contribution exemplifies the tendency for this article to be argumentative rather than descriptive. Have you read France? I doubt it, no one here seems to have done so. So, what translation of Romans 1:3 does he use? Is it the one that was first quoted ("who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David") or something else?

Why supply a second, "more literal" translation, and the transliterated Greek text? Because you want "to point to the fact that no words like 'earthly life' are in the text of Paul." In other words, you're making a commentary on (what you assume to be) France's argument, in particular, his use of what you feel to be a flawed argument. In spite of your statement that you cannot "criticize the reported France's arguments in the article, since I am no reliable source and my original research does not count," you're criticizing France's (reported) argument--and that's original research. That's the reason why I'm taking out your addition, again.

If you're familiar with Doherty's arguments, then I urge you to put a more complete description of them in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This does read like a commentary on the comment - nothing wrong with that, but it should be sourced (and, for flow, would probably be better in a footnote). And, by the way: France "argued that arguments..."? Surely there's a better way to phrase that. Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I agree with you that it is questionable if such "specific criticisms" section should even exist here. It also sounds reasonable to me when you say 'this article should be a description of what Bauer, Drews, Wells, Doherty et al. say; instead, what we've got is an article that is argumentative, and tries to prove or disprove certain positions (and does so badly)'. But I can see from the previous discussions that an improvement seems difficult to achieve. At the moment, I will not try to follow your suggestion 'If you're familiar with Doherty's arguments, then I urge you to put a more complete description of them in the article'. An important thing is that a link remains to Doherty's page where he himself provides also a short summary of his arguments, reacts to criticism, surveys the alleged `refutations of Christ-myth theory' etc. You are right, Akhilleus, that I have not read France. I have just read all the available early Christian literature for myself and made my personal opinion about this subject but this is not important here. I am simply sad when seeing so many misinterpretations and invalid arguments in this area, though I understand that this is a very emotional area and historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is surely not a neutral academic subject. But I had no intention to put any "original research" of mine in the article, which is the latest reason you gave for reverting my change. Sorry, but it seems like you did not notice that I expressed reservations about France's arguments in the discussion, not in the article. I just wanted to make precise the quote from Paul - this is an original research? I know from my own experience how already New Testament translations of some key phrases differ from Greek original because the translators have chosen an interpretation which is consistent with the traditional picture -- and then other (or even the same) people use such translations as arguments. I do not suspect that France does not know the Greek "kata sarka" and builds on an "earthly life" translation. He is surely aware of "kata sarka" behind, unlike the usual wiki-reader. I do not know if the editor who has put (Romans 1:3, TNIV) in the article copied this from France's book, or it is just his/her initiative. Anyway, I find it imprecise and misleading to give such a translation in this context of the wiki-article. But it would be foolish of me to fight with you, Akhilleus, when you are so sure that a precise citing of Paul in this context means putting original research in.

An addition (sorry for the joke). I admit that it is amusing for me to think more about Akhilleus' suggestion that I could try to complete a description of Doherty's arguments in the article. I would try to illustrate the problem for the wiki-reader by way of examples like the following: Dear wiki-reader, look at Romans 1:1-4 "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the good news of God -- 2which He announced before through His prophets in holy writings -- 3concerning His Son, (who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;..." The mainstream scholarship follows the traditional view and maintains that the author of this text is speaking of a very recent man (called Jesus of Nazareth in the later literary works called Gospels), a recent Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. [Last paragraph is taken from `historicity of jesus']. A very fringe minority of scholars say that we should also seriously consider another possibility -- that Paul says what he seems to say, namely that he gets his good news about God's Son from the holy scripture, and that he feels entitled to be an apostle bringing this good news ... We should then study the early Christian literature and evaluate the relative probabilities of these possibilities ....

OK, sorry for this joke. I know that a text of this sort would not survive "ten seconds" in the wiki article. But this is the sort of how I would try to start to explain Doherty's ideas to an interested person.Jelamkorj (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Right now, we have more pro-myth links than con-myth ones. From what I understand of the Undue Bias guidelines, they're supposed to either be equal, or in some sort of proportioning due to how valid they are seen as by academia. Does anyone have any further explanation on this from the guideline pages?

Further in that vein, do the external links also have to be vetted for reliability? Because I'm sure links from both sides would be dropped if that were so, and I'm not sure if we should insitute that or not.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the external links should be split up into pro- and anti- sections. As far as reliability, external links get a lot more leeway than sources for the article. But if something is pure crap, it shouldn't be listed. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Josephus

"Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the authenticity of the passages in Josephus which mention Jesus". This makes it sound although the passage in Josephus is only disputed by proponants of the Jesus myth when in fact it is more widely disputed as can bee seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus.

Yes, you are right. This is an example of many statements in the article which are imprecise. Technically is the sentence true but it might give a wrong impression to the reader. You have, in fact, touched on the big problem in this area. It is exemplified by the previous sentence "Three early writers are typically cited in support of the actual existence of Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius." If one looks at Suetonius then it is obvious that he can not be used to support the actual existence of Jesus at all. But it is true that he is typically cited as if he could. What should we, wiki-editors do? We can only cite a reliable source that says that Suetonius can not be used for this. This will give an impression that it is a matter of using different methodologies or even a matter of taste among scholars whether Suetonius can or cannot be used for this. (If some scholarly source said that 2+2=5, you can not do an original research and say that 2+2=4, you have to find a source saying this, and leave an impression that this question can not be resolved by contemporary scholarly methodology ... It is an exaggeration, I know, but that is my impression of many points in this area.) In the case of Josephus, the fact of reality is that he can not be used as a reliable evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth but as a wiki-editor you have to report that "several scholars have proposed that the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable" ...

Sorry for another more general comment. Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty have recently done a real work in this area. They elaborated meticulous methodological works, arriving at the Jesus-Myth idea from different angles. They also took all the previous research in the area into account, they do not repeat some old arguments which were questioned and shown unreliable many decades ago. After mentioning Doherty and Price, the introductory paragraph of the article continues "However, modern scholarly discussion and support is very limited." This is technically true but it might give an impression that Doherty and Price probably make blatant methodological mistakes which could be easily demonstrated if some "real scholar" wanted to spend his/her precious time to demonstrate this. Unfortunately, they do not do this. So if a poor wiki-editor wants to show that the theory is "fringe" or so, (s)he has to resort to references and "arguments" like "I do not know any respectable critical scholar ...", or the quotes from Grant 1977 (who, in fact, just quotes other older works), etc. I think the real problem why modern scholarly discussion of this topic is currently very limited is more sociological than related to the reality of the research problem as such. Of course, I would have to find a reliable source if I wanted that this aspect is also reflected in the article. But we would hardly find a "neutral observer" whose observation could be consensually placed in the article. Now I could only offer a quote from R.M. Price himself though it addresses something slightly different: In Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p.22. "... anything is possible, but we must ask what is probable. This is important because of the very widespread tendency of convential Bible students, even of otherwise sophisticated scholars, to weigh arguments for critical positions and then toss them aside as `unproven'. The operative factor here would appear to be a deep-rooted inertia. The controlling presupposition seems to be, `If the traditional view cannot be absolutely debunked beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it still might possibly be true, then we are within our rights to continue to believe it'.Jelamkorj (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit was changed by KrytenKoro stating that;

"I'd rather this be linked to the actual reports, and present their own opinions - not have him pick 87 by his own methods, and interpret them himself"

I agree in principle but the current sentence leads to a false conclusion i.e. that Josephus is accepted by scholars who oppose the Jesus myth hypothesis.

Could anyone provide some references so we can get this sorted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like what you added could be included, but only if buttressed with some explanation of how he chose these, and how he determined that's what they said. I mean, the 1937-1980 just seems like a weird choice, and why only 87 to look over? Is that how many were written about Josephus in total, or just the ones he could acquire, or what? How large is the "overwhelming majority"? Is it 99%, or as little as 52%?

From the Grant discussion, consensus seems to be that we can't just let one guy summarize the entire question without some discussion of how he did so.

If you could get some of the reports he summarized, just as examples, and then see if he has any more depth to his explanation, that would be great.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

However, as it was, the section does say that this criticism is usually accepted by Biblical scholars - it's just that the proponents use this as one of their arguments.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Grant it basically comes down to him quoting from an even earlier author summarizing things in the 1950's. We saw THAT nonsense in the infamous Bermuda Triangle mess and know it to be poor research of the highest order. Furthermore Gould can demonstrated to be misleading his readers: "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." Jesus Then and Now pg 37 The problem is that statement is NOT TRUE! Of these three only Tacitus clearly mentions Jesus. Suetonus may or may not depending on if you read his Chrestus as a misspelling (Gould plays up the misspelled version of Christus) and Pliny does not mention Jesus at all! This demonstrates that we cannot trust Grant's summations making him useless as a reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And this has to do with sourcing the Josephus criticism how?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Grant's summation of other facts can be demonstrated to be at best grossly inaccurate and borderline deceptive that means that anything else he says (including Josephus) is suspect. Again just because a person is a well respected professional doesn't mean that he has his facts right. So far all I have seen regarding quotes Grant are vague statements that wouldn't have last two seconds in a master thesis defense. Also looking up the exact phrase "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" produced books that attributed the quote to some guy named Otto Betz in his What do We Know about Jesus? (1968) so there are things attributed to Grant that may in fact NOT be from Grant himself. Basically it looks more and more you have a Lost Patrol situation where Grant is parroting Otto Betz who is parroting an even earlier statement dating back to at least 1957 from earlier comments. In short, we cannot trust Grant on ANYTHING he says.--216.31.13.104 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this seriously your argument? You found one quote in the entire sum of literature on Jesus that happened to be used by two different authors over a span of forty years, so Grant does this all the time?

I think, instead of using hilariously laughable rationale like that, you should actually "demonstrate them to be grossly inaccurate", instead of just throwing generalities around. I agree that we should never accept any historian's word as the word of God, but you're getting kind of silly with your reaction.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you don't get it. I ALREADY gave such an example of Grant's "grossly inaccurate SUMMATIONS": "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." AGAIN only Tacitus does what Grant claims. Pliny simply refers to the Christian movement which nobody in the Jesus Myth circle claims didn't exist. The Suetonus claim is even worse as Grant uses the deceptive Christus spelling rather than the actual Chrestus one and doesn't even bother to tell the reader this. Your effort to tap dance around facts is astounding.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...."my effort to tap dance around facts"? Excuse me, have I once said anything about Pliny, Tacitus, or Suetonius? No? I believe I was talking about it being ridiculous to throw out everything a historian says because you disagree with one of his claims. You may be right, he may be right - I honestly don't give a damn right now.

Honestly, I don't know why you keep trying to treat this page like a forum. You want to discuss this so bad, go to infidels.org or something. This is not the place.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will keep posting FACTS. The fact is Grant's statement is not his own and we have no idea where he really got it. That make is relevant regardless of your personal delusions on the matter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hell? Why do you insist on employing ad hominem attacks and continuously changing the subject? We are talking about one thing here - sourcing the Josephus criticism. As far as I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with Grant. I'm not "deluding myself" or "tap-dancing around the topic" - I'm merely refusing to let you run away with the discussion for your own personal grievances. If you want to discuss Grant , in his context to the article, go ahead and do so - in a separate section. If you want to discuss him in general, as you've been doing, go to a forum.

However, I will take you up on one point, here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant's Quote

"The fact is Grant's statement is not his own and we have no idea where he really got it."

If we don't know the source, how can we accuse him of plagiarism? Besides, as the quote is written, it is clear he is using somebody else's words - they even use the single quotation marks. It is evident from how it it written that he is not trying to claim the words as his own.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It not Grants words if it is quoted is it? And if it is not referenced then we don't know if it came from Otto Betz (1986), Roderic Dunkerley (1957), or some other person that Berz and Dunkerley themselves may have quote from. That is the problem. Also when people like Charlesworth use weasel words like "No reputable scholar today" (he is basically saying Richard Price not a reputable scholar. Right, pull the other one; it plays Jingle Bells) they are reaffirming Doherty's position of curt dismissal. Furthermore in the book this quote comes from Jesus and Archaeology Charlesworth was the editor and it is a collection of other works by other scholars and appears in the introduction. Clearly this comment is self published and has no place as a reference. While we are on the issue of book title mind telling us which book the Van Voorst pg 7 reference is from?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the full text of the section - I haven't been able to find a copy myself, but from the way the quote's are used, it seems that he is summing up, and went over them earlier.

However, the point is that he is in no way claiming the words to be his, and you're call to throw out everything he says doesn't follow from this.

"Also when people like Charlesworth use weasel words like "No reputable scholar today" (he is basically saying Richard Price not a reputable scholar."

Yes, they are. I was under the impression that Price was only well-known because of the Jesus myth anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your impression of why Price is well-known has no relevance on the matter on of him being a "reputable scholar". Public recognition for achievements is a fickle thing; how many people know of Karl Landsteiner or Charles Drew regarding blood groups? How about Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, Oskar Heil, or Matare and Welker compared to Shockley and Pearson? Even more startling is when tested with the materials available when it was made Lilienfeld's 1925 transistor patent worked. Yet popular history records the transistor was "invented" in 1946; popular history and REAL history sadly are NOT the same thing. For many years Edison was credited with inventing the first electric lightbulb; only recently has then statement been changed to the more historical accurate invented the first commercial feasible incandescent lightbulb. But no such checks were in place when Constantine I came to power and wanted a bible produced. What governed what writings were thought to be valid and which were not was political. Christianity in the 4th century was nearly as varied then as it is now. Yet the mysterious "Gospel by Jesus Chris" Joseph Wheless talks about was not considered as valid. Think about that; a Gospel proporting to be written by Jesus himself was considered so heretical that all we have today is its name. What was in there that so frighted the people putting the Bible together? We will likely never know as the Jesus we know is a political creation of the 4th century. It is that simple.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this probably isn't going to register, but - it's probably not allowed to be debating with you at all about this, and most of these comments should be expunged, but if I am allowed to, I'm still not going to discuss every possible tangent you can come up with. You want to discuss something? Then pick one thing. If you simply want to rant, this is not at all the place.

Seriously, lightbulbs?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, KrytenKoro, you demonstrate you simply don't get it and more over don't even try to get it. The above examples show that public recognition for achievements doesn't not mean squat regarding if that someone is a good scholar or even the person who history "records" as doing the great work in question. Lavoisier's caloric theory was rammed down science's throat simply on the merits of Lavoisier's impressive credentials even though experiments showed Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory made more sense. Since the words are not not Grant's and he provides no support to back up the quote you basically have Lavoisier's caloric theory all over again. I noticed that you have not even touched on the issue of does Grant state WHO he is quoting from in the book?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"In fact, they are not. One referenced writer, Rodney Dunkerley, in his Beyond the Gospels (1957, p.12), devotes a single paragraph to the “fantastic notion” that Jesus did not actually live; its exponents, he says, “have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars,” but since he declares it “impossible to summarize those scholars’ case here,” he is not the source of Grant’s conviction. Nor can that be Oskar Betz, from whose What Do We Know About Jesus? (1968, p.9) Grant takes his second quote. Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

I do not have access to a copy of Grant's book, however, and all mentions on the internet seem to be derived from how doherty chose to write the excerpt. Can you provide the entire excerpt? Or are you relying on how wikipedia phrased it?

And yes, I understood why you tried to bring Lovoisier and lightbulbs into this. I just don't care, since it's not on topic, and is pretty much just another tangent you're trying to drag this into. Also, the personal attacks? Can get you a warning, and if they don't stop, eventually a block from admins. They don't tolerate that crap. If you can't discuss things with a civil attitude, you ought not to be here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This conversation should stop. Michael Grant is a reputable, even famous scholar. No amount of grousing in an online forum is going to change that. Nor, despite all of BruceGrubb's posts, is anything wrong with the quote we're using: Grant uses direct quotes and attributes them to the authors who wrote them. The fact that BruceGrubb happens to disagree with what Grant says is no reason to stop using the quote.

What's more, it looks like BruceGrubb hasn't even read the section of Grant in question. If he had, presumably he would realize that Grant's argument doesn't rely on Dunkerley/Betz/whoever; he spends a few paragraphs discussing flaws in the Jesus myth theory and then concludes with the quote starting "To sum up..." In other words, Grant regards the Jesus myth as "annihilated" because he's looked at it and found it wanting. The quotes from Dunkerley and Betz are rhetorical coloring; if they were absent, the substance of Grant's argument would be no different--it would just be less quotable.

Once again, this conversation should stop. BruceGrubb keeps on repeating the same arguments (for months now) without gaining any traction, and apparently without any regard for Wikipedia's policies on sourcing or personal attacks. It should be clear that there is no consensus to remove Grant's quote, so there's no reason to keep on having the same conversation. I hope that BruceGrubb will simply drop this topic; but if not, there's no reason to respond to what he's saying--in fact, future posts on this topic should probably be removed from the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not personal to point out the flaw in a reference. Also KrytenKoro has admitted "I haven't been able to find a copy myself" and "I do not have access to a copy of Grant's book" and so can't state with certainty where Grant's quote really came from. A search through Google books using the phrase "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" produces three references that the passage being from Otto Betz (McDowell - 1979, Arthur Paterson Lee - 2002, and Dr. C. T. Benedict - 2007) with Michael Martin - 1991 using Grant but then making some reference to Wells as Martin is talking about something else at this point. Sadly Google books does not have any of the text Grant's book available for preview and a search for Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" only produced references to the work not the work itself. But regardless of that KrytenKoro's quote does PROVE part of my point. The reference claims the 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' quote comes from Roderic Dunkerley when everything seems to indicate that it come from Otto Betz. Continuing to support a reference proven to be a question poses some serious problems regarding the support of FACTS in this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you haven't read Grant's book, except for the quotes you've read on the internet? Why are we even having this discussion, if you have no idea what it says? Aren't you guilty of exactly the thing you're accusing Grant of doing--quoting without bothering to do the necessary homework? --Akhilleus (talk)

Have YOU read Grant's book, Akhilleus? If not then how can you defend the defend the reference if you don't know what is says about where Grant got the quotes is true? In short I will put it to you: cite the page reference in Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" that Grant gets the SECOND quote ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from. While you are at it tell us which of the several books Van Voorst wrote the p. 7 reference is to.--216.31.13.104 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant writes a few paragraphs on the subject and it's somehow considered a quotable rebuttle? Why not quote someone who has devoted more than a single page to the topic? It's easy to dismiss something out of hand; it's another to actually study and address the arguments that have been put forth. ^^James^^ (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant's treatment is quite representative of how this theory is treated in academia--actually, no, because most scholars think the theory is so crazy that it's not even worth refuting. When biblical scholars and classical historians mention it, they don't spend much space dealing with it, because they regard it as self-evidently wrong.

It's hard for me to understand why there has to be so much argument over this point--the JM hypothesis is waay outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship, classical history, and anything you'd find inside a college or university classroom. If you like it, and find it convincing, that's fine, but if we're going to craft anything close to an NPOV article, it's also necessary to say that it's not a mainstream theory by any means. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that the scholars think the theory is so crazy that it's not even worth refuting or that that the point is moot and dealing with how Christianity spread after Paul is more important and don't want to get involved in the firestorm even touching on such an idea would generate? Furthermore the Jesus myth theory is not just that Jesus never existed idea but the he is a composite character with a flesh and blood origin that predates the Biblical Jesus by at least half a century; so far NONE of the long references seem to even touch on this version.

If as Grant says there is "much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary" why do we see the same sources of Josephus (it been altered but let's use it anyhow), Tacitus (don't where he got this information but let's use it anyway), Suetonius (he misspelled), Pliny the Younger (If there are Christians then their must have been a Jesus) and when they are have a really bad day Thallus (a 4th century person supposedly quoting a 3rd century person supposedly quoting Thallus) and the Babylonian Talmud (details and time frames are all wrong for any suggested candidate never mind the age of the document) put forth? Also the full quote has problems. If Grant did research why right after the 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' quote does he say "or at any rate very few"? Doesn't he know?! As for consensus Sophia, E4mmacro, Phyesalis, James and my self has all express concerns about using Grant. Even KrytenKoro said "its just that Grant didn't support it himself very well, in that quote" and later "If better quotes are found, by all means, replace the Grant quote" though he thought the quote somehow helps the pro myth side (which I don't see). Furthermore digging through the archives for the above I found that on 4 February 2008 Akhilleus was informed that that Otto Betz was one of the quoted people and he replied "BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else." Not changing a reference you know to be slightly inaccurate is somewhat excusable given the way things go on the talk page but to defend such a reference when you yourself responded to a correction is borderline reckless. While were we are on the issue of sloppy references anyone found out which book the Van Voorst, p. 7. reference is to?--216.31.13.104 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism

Some elements of Jesus' life are similar to that of Buddha's. Such as going out into the wilderness and being tempted by Mara/Satan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity 70.89.165.91 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean that one element, that isn't actually a defining characteristic? There's only so many different things a savior figure can do, and you're bound to find a few common details here and there. The stories would have to be virtually identical for their to be reasonable concern of one being based on the other.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not made up to any degree"

Granted, I worded that poorly. What I was trying to say was that claiming there was a real historical person, at the turn of the millenium, who the figure in the New Testament was based on, doesn't allow for him to be a made up combination of several different stories. Sorry if it sounded like I was claiming that Biblical historians support Bible literalism.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to claim that there was a historical Jesus and say that the figure in the NT is a composite of several myths, stories, figures, what have you. That would make the Gospel narratives a "mythically" inspired elaboration on the career of the actual Jesus, and as such there's no reason why the elaboration couldn't be inspired by other historical figures. I'm sure there's somebody who's claimed something like this. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then to what extent is it a historical Jesus?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro has just discovered the key issue with the composite person version of the Jesus Myth and why claiming that version has been disproved using statements regarding non-historical is OR. Just as if you look hard enough you can find "historical" basis for King Arthur and Robin Hood you can likely find some historical basis for Jesus but in essence you are no longer talking about the people you started with. With Jesus we are not sure how much (if any) of the events outside of what Paul relates supposedly happened or what outside what Paul states Jesus may have said. This means there could have been a Jesus of Nazareth who was made to say things by other historical figures which would make the Biblical Jesus a composite character.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)