Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

This article has major problems

First off, and most importantly, the article was very, very, off the scale a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, in that it tried to stack opinions into the lead itself.

Second, the cites/references in the lead that supposedly supported the idea that scholars and historians as a whoile reject the theory were not written as references but as lists of quotes of single authors stating their own personal opinions.

Third, upon removing these bogus citations, other citations throughout the article lost there references, because whomever originally made the tags put them together incorrectly. A reference to a specific quote in one location cannot be a reference used for a person or book in general in later references. If someone wants to go back in and restore those in the proper places, great, but be aware that citations are only for others stating opinions and not for trying to prove what "historians" say (especially as most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources).

Fourth, it's very clear that we have people looking for rationalizations to put their own opinions into the article and to remove opinions they do not like, which violates the core foundation of how WIkipedia is supposed to work. Someone removed a whole sentence because he claimed to object to the use of the word "notes" in it and recommended "argues" or some other variant... fine, "notes" is a POV-loaded word. The problem is that the person did not just change it to "argues" but removed the entire section... and also left a number of other sections in the article in which authors he/she agreed with were said to "note" certain things that were only those authors opinions and should also have been "argues" or "claims" in order to be fair and consistent.

WP:NPOV policy is absolute and must be followed. It shouldn't matter if editors or disagree or agree with a theory, the article still needs to be written to reflect the topic fairly. Putting the claim that scholars and historians all oppose it into the lead and even the proponents section is not only inaccurate but a clumsy attempt to push views onto the article every chance the editors had. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is a very old, and tiresome, argument. This article is about a fringe theory; there are quotes from several different scholars that illustrate that this theory is not accepted within academia. The statements you've edited out may well be "personal opinions", but they are the opinions of authoritative scholars, found in reliable sources. If you think that scholars dispute that the JM hypothesis is a fringe theory, find some scholars that say so (and I mean biblical scholars and ancient historians who have published their opinions in peer-reviewed journal articles or other reliable sources, not people who have to start their own journals to get their ideas published, or self-publish on the internet). Your statement that "most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources" mischaracterizes the sources you're removing; Grant, Van Voorst, Burridge/Gould, etc. all hold (or held) academic positions.

As for your last paragraph, I agree that NPOV must be followed, and I agree that some editors are editing according to whether they agree or disagree with the theory that's the subject of this article. Unfortunately, what I see is that people who agree with the JM theory are constantly arguing that the theory is a mainstream part of the academic discussion about the historical Jesus, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Most fringe theories get no discussion in academic literature; for this subject, we're lucky enough to have statements such as that of Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145: "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." Since we have authoritative statements that the JM theory isn't accepted in academia, I can only conclude that when an editor removes such statements, they're motivated by their personal opinions. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus.

Secondly, there are a number of citations in this article that show pretty conclusively that JM theory is a very marginal view among scholars, and therefore that deserves to go in the lead. I suggest you read WP:Undue if you're in any doubt about this. The references we cite come from Christians, atheists, and even the most prominent JM proponent.

Thirdly, please WP:AGF, and don't assume that my commitment to WP:NPOV is any less than yours, simply because I am religious. If any person ever thinks they're unbiased, that only shows they have an unusually low self-awareness. TJ (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this particular quote from Doherty belongs in the article. Doherty is notable as a proponent of the JM theory, and the article should therefore refer to him and explain why he thinks Jesus isn't historical (something which the article does a poor job of at present). On the other hand, I don't think that Doherty is an authoritative or reliable source on why the theory is rejected in academia.

What's more, the imputation that scholars are unwilling to accept the JM theory because they're apologists, is wrong; as has been noted many times on this talk page, Michael Grant does not profess to be a Christian, and rejects the JM theory on the grounds that it mishandles historical evidence. For him, it's a question of historical method, not religious belief; and if you look at the work of the other scholars quoted on this issue, they're saying things that are similar to Grant. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Doherty does belong BUT the link to "http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/" that keeps getting used as a reference is a frameset and the actual content comes from jesuspuzzle.humanist.net or someplace else and I can't verify all of that which is quoted that he says.

We must remember that questioning the authenticity of Jesus is tantamount to blasphemy and it is only on the 6th May 2008 (i.e. just a week or so ago) that even in the UK the last of the blasphemy laws in the UK were abolished. Any debate in any country on the authenticity of Jesus prior to the abolition of blasphemy laws in that country is inherently a biased debate. Same applies to debate on Islam in Muslim countries: does anyone here honestly think that a debate could take place in say Saudi Arabia on a critical point about Islam and expect that to be neutral ? Same applies to Western thought and "Jesus".

Given that inherent bias (forced by law) I think that any published source that posits the obverse is more than acceptable here (given the difficulty in publication) but please at least give us a good link to where to verify that what was said was true. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. the Stalinist censoring of anti-historicist views (even, now, from this talk page itself! -- see the previous version for what has not been allowed to be expressed), I have to declare that what was deleted of Doherty's statement was not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is when someone claims that Professor Yaffle's condemnation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis can be ignored because he beats his wife at home. What Doherty is saying is quite different: he is saying that Professor Yaffle's condemnation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis needs to be considered in the light of the fact that Yaffle and his friends exist as part of an academically institutionalised faith community whose very basis would not survive the discovery of Jesus' historical non-existence -- and that as a result, for them the Hypothesis is a literally unthinkable proposition.

Seriously: nothing deomstrates the essentially religious nature of objections to the JMH than the way fact and logic and definition are twisted to tilt the playing field. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No. You spent four paragraphs ranting on how those who disagree with the quote are Stalinist, and trying to censor any claim that doesn't agree with them. Doherty's claim, while not as extreme as to claim wife-beating, is indeed an ad hominem - instead of attacking the arguments of his opponents, he is attacking them - trying to throw out their arguments due to personal qualities. It may try to disguise itself as questions about credibility, but not only is it blatantly false, but it is still an ad hominem. You, again, are engaging in the very same ad hominem attack. Please cease the personal attacks, or I will have to give you a PA warning.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooh! I'm scared! But for the benefit of future readers, here is the supposedly 'ad hominem' and 'blatantly false' statement by Doherty:

"An important factor ... has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se."

'Blatantly false'?? You have got to be joking!! Pfistermeister (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1) You have failed to explain what the quote does for the article besides trying to say "Well, they're just theists, so why listen to them?" As I said before, the reasoning for keeping the quote would also allow us to find and add quotes along the lines of "it must be considered that only atheists and those with a grudge against Christianity support this theory" - and I doubt that you would so whole-heartedly support such a quote, hmm?

2) Then where is this majority of scholars that are not historians?

• Richard Burridge, Graham Gould, Van Voorst, Graham Stanton, R.T. France are heads of theology departments. I can not find whether they were taught in a divinity school, though.
• Michael Grant is an atheist and a full-fledged historian.
• James Frazer studied myth and religion in general.

An excerpt from online, detailing some of those who oppose the hypothesis:

"Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

Again, the fact is is that the complaint isn't relevant. The mainstream historian position, which would hardly be mostly Christian, supports the claim that Jesus was a historical person. All that quote does is try to attack the speaker's instead of the evidence, and it would be blatantly dishonest to try to include it. Provide all the arguments for the claim that you want - but this isn't one of them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough we do know quite a bit about John the Baptist from Josephus (in response to the "know very little about any Jew pre 70CE). As for the picture woven in the gospels - what about all the "gospels" that didn't make it. You have the classic blinkered view that the bible is somehow special and not the political work of a council trying to secure its power base. Your only interest in this subject seems to be to annihilate it - not the basis of an interesting informative article.

So I ask you - what do you personally know of this subject? How many of the books on this page have you actually read? This article is being stamped to death for fear that it may do the devil's work and somehow present the Jesus Myth as a rational (all be it very small) line of academic enquiry. Two years on from my involvement in this article and I have seen no real progress as wave after wave of uniformed editors turn up who "just know this is wrong". Sophia 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What? First off, I'm just providing quotes to show that the dissenters are not all the products of Christian programs. I'm not saying I personally agree with them all. Furthermore, I've reverted many changes intended to remove pro-myth lines from the article. I'm not so obsessed with wiki as to believe it to be a front on the last crusade. As stated multiple times, the reason I disagree with including that specific quote (that the dissenters are all biased), is because it provides nothing but an ad hominem attack. And again, I would like to ask you group of editors to stop resorting to personal attacks. It does nothing to help your case, only aggravates any aggressive behavior that actually exists, and can get you blocked if done persistently.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think would improve this article? Sophia 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to cut back as much as possible on quotes that do nothing but attack the debaters, and we need to include as much of the actual arguments from both sides as possible. The section just listing that the opponents dislike the theory needs to be rewritten to focus on their actual critiques, and less on the character attacks.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So how would this article differ from the historicity of Jesus? What you describe is pretty much what goes on there. Sophia 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then I could support a merge decision. I honestly can't think of why they would be separate in the first place, besides size concerns.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out before this is an area that really needs an expert on historical anthropology involved as there are anthropological issues involved that need to be addressed to truly evaluate the documents available. Based on what I read under the late Fred Plogg at NMSU for my masters most old school historians don't know how to anthropologically evaluate documents and most old school anthropologists barely know how to properly use historical documents. The problem is historical anthropology is insanely new--perhaps not even 30 years old. In fact very idea of the urban legend which is what is really at the heart of the JM is itself only 30 some years old. Scopes shows just how fast these stories can spread and for some believed. The 19th and 20th centuries are filled with urban legends like Spring Heeled Jack, that c1800 there really was a revenge crazed barber named Sweeney Todd, John Frum, and the biggest of the 20th centuries urban legends: the Bermuda Triangle.

The biggest problem on the pro historical Jesus side is this 'we think this way now so the Roman's must have thought this way' mentality. That is something for an anthropologist to determine as most historians are ill suited to the task. Questions about how the Roman's viewed history (did they use it as a political tool, for example) and their willingness to believe supernatural stories must be answered. Very little of that is actually addressed on the pro historical Jesus side--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, I don't think we need an anthropologist here; maybe more of a couple's therapist.  :-) the difficulty with this article (and a lot of articles like it) is that it starts to tweak at some very deeply held beliefs on both sides. Christians will naturally find the idea that Jesus is a mythological amalgam offensive, and non-Christians can't help but think that the full story of Jesus has large elements of mythology in it (because they have no other accounting for miraculous events except mythology). I think if everyone keeps in mind that the issue is not going to be (and is not supposed to be) solved in Wikipedia, and that all we need to do is report the theory and its status in the world, things will go a little smoother.

that being said, I'm going to put up a Proposed Merge banner with this page and Historicity_of_Jesus, with a link to this page for discussion. let's see what people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While a merger would get rid of the excluded middle nonsense that keeps cropping up in this article I worry that the result would not only one insanely long article but the periodic mayhem that this article suffers from would get transferred along with the merger.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Request for comment: Are the references in this article stating that the Jesus Myth theory is a minority in scholarly circles sufficient for the purpose for which they are used? Note: I believe this RFC is worded in such a way as to not address the actual concerns under dispute. Whether this hypothesis is a minority opinion or not is NOT at issue. See comments below.

• Yes - There are about seven good references for this in the article. Most of the references are from scholars with notable academic credentials (Burridge, Gould, Grant), at least one is an atheist (Grant), and they even include a quote from a prominent JM proponent (Doherty). The only one who doesn't have a PhD is Doherty, and almost all the others have or have had teaching positions (only one if I recall at a religious institutions, though I may been be wrong), have been published in peer reviewed journals, etc. TJ (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• More than sufficient. This isn't the first time this has been discussed, either--there's endless wrangling about this in the archives. But, as I say above, it's often difficult to establish something is a fringe theory precisely because academic sources usually ignore fringe sources. In this case, we've got several prominent scholars who have looked at this and said that there's no validity to the theory and that most scholars find it implausible, unrespectable, absurd, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Probably - I didn't read through everything, but got the gist of it. This is the hypothesis that Jesus was entirely a mythical character, with no historical person attached (greater degree), and the hypothesis that the narrative of Jesus, a real person, was augmented with mythology borrowed from other cultures -- for example Buddhism (lesser degree). I would think either way it's fringe to varying degrees. Completely mythical is definitely fringe because most scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus sans-story. The Jesus narrative being based on other cultures has more support, but still fringe, because it's not the generally accepted account. One has to argue that other cultures influenced the early Christians. The necessity of persuading or argument on the part of scholars is a good duck test for the fringe label. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for that, it's interesting. It's not clear, though, what you thought about the strength of the sources themselves, rather than your opinion of the subject matter. Anyone who has studied early Christian history knows that Jesus' existence is always assumed (even someone, like myself, who studied it primarily under non-Christians, insofar as I was aware of their beliefs.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologyJohn (talk • contribs)

Concerning the sourcing, you don't have to be a theology scholar to apply the "principle of least astonishment". You go to the Jesus article and see that weight is first given to the orthodox mythology, then to the historical views of Jesus as a historical figure (and in the linked off article Historical Jesus it's similarly weighted to orthodox views). In none of these sections/articles is the alternate mythology (story borrowed from other cultures) or the non-historical Jesus given much weight. Upon encountering this article, it can thus be assumed that it is a fringe view, regardless of what sources are actually listed here. It's a process that doesn't require evaluating the sources directly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Problematic sources. I have noticed that some of those references were from Christian theologians, and at least one other seemed to have a close Christian affiliation. To me it seems rather unlikely that such scholars would support the Jesus myth hypothesis (rather it seems they would be predisposed to oppose it), so there would be a stronger argument if the sources were not ministers or priests. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - several of the scholars have christian affiliation, although I'm not aware that any are a theologian in the sense of a scholar of Christian doctrines, rather than a Christian scholar of the historical texts of Christianity from a historical-critical point of view (perhaps van-voorst, I don't know much about the guy). I don't see this as a problem, though. While it's true that religious people are generally biased to believe their religion, they are normally capable of being aware that people disagree with them. If the Jesus myth theory were held by even a reasonably-sized minority of scholars, I can't see that many professional scholars wouldn't be aware of them. If they've devoted their lives to studying the subject, including reading enormous quantities of their works, and attending many academic conferences with fellow scholars, and yet aren't aware of any notable numbers of scholarly mythicists, one can draw only two conclusions: that there aren't any notable number of scholarly mythicists, or they are insane. Ordinary bias doesn't explain it.

Furthermore, I think it's a fairly biased assumption (one which I'm not sure you're making, but without which your criticism seems not to make sense) to assume that religious scholars are biased in a way that non-religious scholars are. Anyone who understands christianity (or pretty much any religion) in any more than a superficial way, would realise that it's a system of thought that has enormous implications for how someone should live their life. It should lead to some kind of emotional response, otherwise you don't understand either Christianity or your emotions. If you're a Christian, to challenge christianity is to challenge the person around which you orient your life. If you're not a christian, to proclaim Christianity is to challenge the things around which you orient your life.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, I think it's a fairly moot point, seeing as there are non-Christians cited. These include the atheist Michael Grant, and the prominent JM proponent Earl Doherty. TJ (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue the point here, but I did think about this seriously. There is an RfC, and I commented; but I did not necessarily expect agreement, or applause. Certainly, I am sorry if I offended you, or anyone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I didn't take any offense from your comment, and also did not mean to give any. My language was evidently too strong if it could be interpreted in that way, and I'm sorry for that error.

I think that, because I'm someone who likes playing with words, I often use stronger language than I actually mean, simply because I enjoy using language in that way. In any case, I didn't mean to indicate any kind of anger or disapproval against you, only disagreement - and we all disagree with people all the time.

I did request comment on the subject, and I'm grateful for any one doing so (particularly if they come from outside of the normal kind of people who visit this page, which is generally very emotionally committed to the subject, from one side or the other - and if they stick around, become more so in response to the things the other side do), and would be a complete jerk if I only wanted comment that agreed with me. TJ (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The REAL issue

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the theory is a minority theory, so as such asking that question in an RFC is at best a waste of time and at worst totally misleading as it could be used to try to justify unrelated edits. Let me track down the SPECIFIC statements I most objected to first, which I will include below, and then I will give further thoughts on NPOV in general. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFC wasn't actually entered primarily in response to you, there's been a lengthy discussion involving several people (and indeed comes up a lot) and I've been feeling for a few weeks that it would be wise to try to get some outside comment in, because the people who turn up on this article tend to have strong opinions and feelings about the subject already, one way or the other. I just needed a bit of spare time to have the time to do so, and it was largely unrelated that your edits happened at the same time.

I look forward to discussing these specific statements that you disagree with - hopefully will have some time tonight, but I have a few chores so might have to wait up to even a few days if not - alas, life is busy, and today is my only full day off. TJ (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's about me or not is immaterial. I don't know of anyone who argues that this hypothesis is a majority view, and that's what the RFC was worded as. RFCs need to be worded in an objective and need to cover the actual topic under dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to break this down:

Scholarly discussion OPPOSES

This line was removed: "However, modern scholarly discussion and support opposes the hypothesis." This line is way over the top POV-pushing in my mind. Saying that something is a minority opinion is one thing, saying that scholars as a whole oppose it is way beyond pointing out relative weights to taking a full side. Merely quoting a number of authors claiming that the field as a whole rejects it suggests that those people are somehow allowed to talk for the entire field, and that anyone who says otherwise isn't a scholar. That's completely unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed that edit myself, so I don't have much gripe with you disagreeing with that wording. TJ (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"RESOLVED"

"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 completely made-up myth." Again, this is nothing more than going beyond saying it's a minority view to taking a specific side. It also claims that ALL scholars and historians believe this, which is certainly not true. The people who have the other view are also historians and scholars. DreamGuy (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If there's any significant following of the JM theory in the scholarly community, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. Name ten scholars (ie people with PhD's and proper research posts at accredited universited) who affirm the Jesus Myth theory.

I have been following this page for two years, and at best I've heard of two (Price and Pagels). And neither of them are clear proponents, either - Price feels the burden of proof is on jesus' historicity but doesn't strongly propose it in the same way as Doherty, Freke, etc, and I've never heard any evidence - beyond assertion - that Pagels holds to the Jesus myth (and indeed have read her saying things that are quite difficult to square with that.)TJ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson - from The Messiah Myth "the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding" (something like that - I don't have the book handy but can find it). I have mentioned this one more than a few times. Sophia 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I evidently forgot that one. You haven't been around much lately, so you probably haven't mentioned it since then.

Given that, I guess it's plausible that there might be a couple of others from a while ago that I've forgotten. TJ (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion about Thompson earlier, somewhere in this section in the archives, and no one provided any definite evidence that Thompson thinks Jesus wasn't historical. The quote "the historical Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding", as far as I can tell, is not from Thompson's book, but from this review on someone's blog. I haven't read Thompson's book, but my impression is that The Messiah Myth doesn't argue against Jesus' historicity. On p. 16, (the full text of the book can be found at [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0465085776/ref=sib_dp_pt# Amazon]) Thompson says: "The purpose of this book is not historical reconstruction. Nor is it centered in the problems of the historical Jesus. It is about the influence of the ancient Near Eastern figure of the king in biblical literature, and this has much to do with how figures such as Jesus are created." Thompson's argument is that the biblical figures of David and Jesus are shaped by literary tropes that are shared throughout Near Eastern literature, as far back as 3rd millenium BCE Egyptian texts. One could argue that, if the Gospels are based in shared literary/mythical tropes, there's no historical figure behind them--but it doesn't look like Thompson takes that step. One could also argue that the Gospel writers took a historical Jesus and portrayed his career in terms of the traditional Messiah figure--but I don't think Thompson says that either. As far as I can tell, he's not interested in whether Jesus was historical or not, but he is very critical of methods used by members of the Jesus Seminar to reconstruct the historical Jesus.

So, I don't think it's correct to say that Thompson is a proponent of the JM--at least, not from what I've seen so far. If Thompson does say somewhere that there's no historical Jesus, I'd be happy to be corrected. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From the blurb on the inside cover: "Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed". As per usual too much opinion here and not enough reading of the sources. Sophia 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That's not at all fair - Akhilleus explicitly stated that he was only saying that he hadn't heard anything conclusive, and was happy to be corrected. He wasn't dogmatically stating anything about something he hadn't read, he was just stating what he at that point believed.

Equally, you frequently state a length your opinions on various subjects, without similar qualifiers. TJ (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your attempt at distraction from the point is referring to. If you are implying I have not read Christian authors to counter my obvious bias then I'm afraid you are wrong. Not as many as you I'm sure as I found them samey and based on inconsistent arguments that were frequently just appeals to authority (the basis of the disputes here not surprisingly). One thing I do try to do is only argue from my own knowledge base and am genuinely sorry if I have not done this. The point in question here is whether Thompson throws his hat in with the Jesus Myth lot - the answer has to be he considers the Jesus of the Christian faith to be based on older myths and prophecy fulfillment from the OT and other Jewish sources. We split enough hairs here (and good grief no one can doubt his scholastic credentials in the area) that I'm sure he will get thrown out so the Conservapedia "no reputable sane person would ever dare think this" mantra can continue. Give it a month or two and I'm sure he will be forgotten again. Sophia 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I stated, in response to Akhilleus IN THE EXACT SAME DIFF, that I agreed with you about Thompson. My only issue with that post was that you were being unfair on Akhilleus. Please do not Assume Bad Faith against me like this ("your attempt at distraction from the point is referring to"), especially when it's BLATANTLY untrue.

I have no idea, nor do I care, how many Christian or non-Christian books you have read. I wasn't intending to insult you by that comment at all, I was merely defending Akhilleus's right to have opinions. TJ (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A Dilbert cartoon comes to mind.....but I won't. Sophia 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The blurb? Come on. That doesn't show that you've read the text either. Give me something from inside the text. "the Jesus of the gospels never existed" could easily mean that there was a historical Jesus, but the Gospels don't tell us anything reliable. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it would show that early christianity doesn't say anything reliable. I don't think anyone is disputing that there were first century people called Jesus - what's at stake is whether any of them is who Jesus is based upon in any significant way. TJ (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While Akhilleus is right that dust jackets are useless (many times they are written by people who don't know the book's constants) the book is available through Google book in limited preview format. "The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified. Even though a historical Jesus might be essential to the origins to early Christianity, such a need is not obviously shared by the gospels." (Thompson, The Messiah Myth pg 8) Thompson represents that part of the JM idea the scholars have not even touched: that while there might have been a historical Jesus the Gospels tell us little perhaps nothing about this man. Mead held this view in his Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? and Alvar Ellegard does the same thing in his Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ using the (unknown to Mead in 1903) Dead Sea Scroll's even earlier Teacher of Righteousness. It is one thing to say Jesus never existed in any shape way or for as Doherty does and a totally different thing to to say he has been so mythologized we can't tell much if anything about the true historical man these accounts are based on as Mead, Ellegard, and Thompson do; the second position is a lot harder to ridicule or dismiss. Especially when you have some 200 scholars of the Jesus Seminar throwing out about 82% of the sayings attributed to Jesus as not being actually from him. So far not one scholar has been put forth to show the middle of the road version of the JM is fringe; if anything the Jesus Seminar would indicate that version is pretty mainstream. Remember I said there many months ago was no excluded middle in this theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the emotion and money/power involved, scholars have to be exceptionally brave, or stupid, to step outside the accepted norms - just look at what happened to John M. Allegro. His work was never judged on its merits but by the offense it caused. On a lighter note I remember The Life of Brian being banned from my local cinema for the same reason.

I'll state again that I do not claim this is an academically widespread view - it is a minority interest that has captured a lot of popular attention. What bugs me is the fight by some to include extreme quotes from Christian theologians who question the sanity of those who challenge the status quo - not based on the arguments - just trying to destroy the reputation of any individual who dares to "go there". The drive here seems to be to make this article echo how Conservapedia treats this subject [1]. Over the last two years I have never seen this article move forward, the same fights keep going round and round. Sophia 09:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John M. Allegro's work claimed that Christianity was the descendant of a fertility cult based on the use of amanita muscaria. In The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, Allegro said: “This is the basic origin of the stories of the New Testament. They were a literary device to spread the rites of mushroom worship to the faithful…" I think this idea got as much attention from the scholarly establishment as it deserved. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

His "Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christan Myth" is a better read and does pull up the problems with the crossover with the Nazarenes and Essenes who get swept under the carpet in the normal Christian history of the region. Sophia 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From the description on Allegro's website it looks like Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth might be worth covering in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you haven't read it - you would find his views on communion rather hard to swallow. Sophia 20:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to YOU to decide what a "significant following" is, and neither is it up to people who oppose it to declare it either. Frankly, from looking at the sources already on the article it seems significant enough to me. But, more importantly, scholarly disputes are not "resolved", they are based upon the evidence, and evidence in history can and does change, and for anything with limited evidence it's all going to come down to a judgment call. We know what *your* judgment is, but NPOV policy isn;t about that. Insisting that it is resolved is not only POV-pushing, it's downright naive. DreamGuy (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

...and neither is it up to you to declare schism where it is not shown to exist. NPOV policy specifically adds that fringe views with no mainstream academic support should not be treated as if they were on equal footing with the accepted view. You were specifically challenged to prove that professional historians and scholars throw in with the myth theory - quibbling about philosophies of academia is not relevant.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The people who have the other view are also historians and scholars." I don't think so. With the notable exception of Robert M. Price, the proponents of the JM theory don't hold academic positions in religious studies or ancient history, which is what I think the label "scholar" is supposed to denote. Price isn't exactly a proponent of the JM theory--rather, he claims to be an agnostic about Jesus' historicty. JM proponets usually say that Jesus is definitely ahistorical. Another person who's not currently listed in the "recent proponents" section (but probably should be) is G. A. Wells, who is a scholar--but of German. Not of biblical studies or ancient history. In other words, Wells is as much an expert on 1st century Palestine as someone who's spent their scholarly career writing about Shakespeare is an expert on Presocratic philosophy. My point here is that the authors who espouse the JM hypothesis almost always come from outside the academic fields of biblical studies (and ancient history). I don't see why anyone disputes this, especially since a frequent argument from proponents of the JM theory is that academia is deeply biased against the JM theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think so." That simply isn't so. I've looked at the list of authors cited in the pro-theory articles, and some I recognize as scholars and historians in fields that give them just as much right and ability to give an informed commentary on the topic as a bunch of Bible scholars. Hell, more so... most of the Bible scholars became Bible scholars in the first place for religious reasons. Biblical archeologists, for example, are first and foremost trying to prove the Bible and not to provide objective archeological research that might undermine their own beliefs. Topics in fields of history and religious studies and mythology can approach the topic in a LESS biased and more informed way. And, while I admit that some people would disagree with this argument, NPOV policy is very clear on this. Editors don't get to pick and choose which authors, researchers, scholars and so forth THEY consider to be knowledgeable (especially not when it so clearly is being done to advance one side of an argument). This article cannot take a side, and to directly state or imply in the article itself (as compared to quotes) that the Jesus myth proponents are not scholars or historians is a massive and undeniable violation of the very foundation of NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you name some of these authors you recognize as being scholars and historians. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We went over this back in December of 2007 when john k stated "we have yet to name any currently living academic who has actually written a peer-reviewed book or article to make the argument that there was no historical Jesus- we seem to be stuck with people who died more than 100 years ago and non-academics like Doherty and Wells." I promptly pointed out that Doherty had published in the Fall 1997 issue of Journal of Higher Criticism a peer reviewed publication. I also mentioned Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) better known for his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden) with Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology) with The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) with The Pagan Christ are in the Jesus Myth camp. We have been down this road before and it is really annoying to have to go down it again. At least somebody had enough sense to get rid of the flawed Grant reference that was in the lead--it was very misleading having Grant just quote two other author who credentials we didn't know from Adam without anything cited on how he came to agree with them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

historians versus religious leaders

The follow line was removed. The person who removed it had previously removed it claiming that "notes" (as the verb used to be instead of the "argues" in the present version) was too loaded of a word but that "argues" would be preferable. I can't see any possible reason to object to it: "and argues that "An important factor ... has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se.""

Certainly this view is a view that is sourced, and directly relates to the question of reliability of sources. Including this person's views is not taking a side but merely presenting his side. Removing it would unfairly underrepresent this side, and hugely so if the sections arguing that scholars and historians reject/oppose/refute remain. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've reponded to this above, I'll simply copy paste what I've said there.

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On why I continuously removed it - because it serves nothing to the article, and isn't about the theory. It's a blatant ad hominem attack, designed to discredit the position of adhering to Jesus' historicity. I could provide quote's from prominent historian's (maybe not one's with a clear record of npov, but then, neither is this quote) declaring something along the lines of "what do they know? They're just atheists." And I can bet that the line wouldn't last two seconds in the article. That we have quotes from atheists as prominent refs on this page should show the lie to the claim, at the least.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"respectable"

"Richard Burridge and Graham Gould stated that they did not know of any "respectable" scholars that held the view today." -- This lines seems especially inflammatory, consisting of nothing but a major personal attack/poisoning of the well. Certainly the scholars who disagree think they are respectable, and might believe that Burridge and Gould are not worthy of respect. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just citing what some people said, per WP:NPOV - the word "respectable" is quoted precisely to enable people like you to interpret it in that way! TJ (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV policy doesn't say that just citing what some people say automatically means a statement is neutral. How such statements are presented, how many, where, in what context, etc. makes a lot of difference (this is the basis behind WP:UNDUE weight and other aspects within the NPOV policy). This statement in a list of reasons to oppose the theory sounds like an endorsement of the claim. If it's paired (in the same section, not split up) with a proponent of the theory pointing out that most of the people most strongly opposed to the hypothesis are theologians then both sides get their say in context. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had a reliable source for that quote, and it was referenced accordingly, I might well agree with you! TJ (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a quote, and it seemed like a reliable source for the opinion, and it was referenced... yet you yourself removed it. You can't pick and choose who you consider reliable solely to suit your own agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I did already insert his response there, actually - the bit about interests both secular and religious (thereby confirming that a lot of non-religious people disagree) campaigning against it - I think it's balanced already, and I'm not sure I see the point of citing everything he's ever said on the subject. TJ (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would add here that with the section above, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to - arguing for both sides of the coin, so long as they agree with you. I believe that the intent of the word in their quotes is to apply to professional historians and scholars, with PhD's and recognized in their field as such, instead of crank's or mere students.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead of addressing the arguments they direct their comments to the "respectability" of the persons putting them forward. Is that an ad hominem attack I wonder? Hmmmmmmm...... Sophia 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be considered such, though to be fair it does have the uniqueness of having numbers to back itself up. Happy? I don't believe I ever zealously argued for those quotes to stay in, anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By the standards the late Carl Sagan put for in his book Demon Haunted World there is plenty of baloney on both sides go around but a good hunk is in the Pro historical Jesus side. Weasel words such as those quoted by Grant abound. The one thing Carl Sagan warned against which is at the heart of this issue is appeal to authority. I have mentioned before how simply on the merit of his impressive credentials Lavoisier was able to ram his flawed caloric theory down the throat of science and the few who were able through experimentation were able to show Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory were dismissed simply because their credentials weren't as good as Lavoisier. In his series Day the Universe Changed James Burke correctly pointed out how when a sea change is just about to occur in a scientific view of how the world works or view on a historical event 'you see some scientists clutching to the old theories like grim death'--216.234.222.130 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"states"/"notes" versus "argues"/"claims" and other loaded words

As mentioned above, one editor had claimed that "states" implies that they are stating a fact and that "argues" is more accurate. I think any rule we pick on what word is used where has to be applied fairly. An editor cannot complain about one source (especially one he disagrees with) using "states" while another source (especially one he agrees with) can use it without complaint. For example, "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." Here "states" goes with the first part, but "stating" that a religious movement would have been utterly discredited if blah blah blah presumes that this person has the ability to state what would or would not had to have happened under certain circunstances. It's only an opinion, an argument used in debate, not a statement of fact. Any wording here has to apply fairly and evenly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I made no such claim about "states", in fact wikipedia policy RECOMMENDS states, I made that comment about 'notes'. Please don't falsely accuse me of hypocrisy. Please Assume good faith. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. If we apply "states" fairly it shouldn't matter. That's the important part. I think "states" sounds more like advancing a fact than an argument. "Argues" is nice and nuetral. But whatever we decide upon it should be applied FAIRLY. By pointing out POV problems I am not suggesting you did so intentionally. People can make edits in good faith but still end up pushing a POV. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am applying states entirely fairly - if you read my edit summary when removing the part including "notes", I actually SUGGESTED "states" as an alternative to "notes". You really need a variety of words (states, argues, believes, writes etc), none of which imply that a scholar is right or wrong, but which prevent constantly using the same words again and again! TJ (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think states actually does imply that a fact is being stated, or it has that connotation anyway, but certainly not as strongly as "notes". I think anything that is an opinion advanced as an argument should be "argued" "claims" "believes" etc. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to that view (on states), and actually I am somewhat sympathetic to it, but wikipedia policies disagree with us. :)

I really don't like claims, though - it implies the opposite. (And needs to be removed from this article, along with many others.) TJ (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that people like Robert L. Wilken in his The Christians as the Romans Saw Them says the exact opposite thing as France: "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society." (pg xiv) The real fun thing here is Robert L. Wilken is a Fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology as well as a Professor of the History of Christianity at University of Virginia. Clearly the positions are not compatible. This highlights another problem with the way the Pro Historical Jesus side is presented--as if all the scholars are in agreement regarding the supporting "evidence". The reality is they differ on the quality of that evidence. For example, Van Voorst says there is enough to use Thallus while France states "we do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus' crucifixion, or whether this was Africanus' interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus." (France, R.T. The Evidence for Jesus, p. 24). While the most extreme this shows there is some bias in the 'refuting' evidence presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actively discussed on the Internet

The line "The theory is actively discussed on the internet, both on websites and on Usenet. However," seems calculated to try to belittle the theory. Books have been written about it, and articles, and so forth, but the implication (pushed into the lead of all places) was that these are all just jabberers online and real people oppose it. The fact that people discuss things on the Internet should be assumed for anything notable enough to get an article. It doesn;t belong here, especially not as an excuse to toss in an "however." DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and I may not), that line was inserted by a JM proponent. TJ (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so. I can see a supporter thinking that online support somehow helps his case. "Calculated" was a poor choice. Wither it was intentional or not, I think the end result belittles it. Certainly we don't say that evolution is much discussed on the internet, or so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I put that in, and it comes straight out of Van Voorst. I'm sorry it comes across as an attempt to belittle people; Van Voorst is commenting on the fact that there's no serious interest in the JM idea in academia, but there's active discussion of the idea in other fora, especially online. He's pointing out a disconnect between the way scholars and amateurs deal with the idea, which I think is an interesting aspect of this topic--the fact that lots of people are interested in this idea despite the fact that you won't find it taught in school. Someone I read, I think it might be Van Voorst, mentions that he often gets asked about the JM hypothesis when he gives public lectures--and he finds it strange.

If people don't think this belongs in the lead, that's fine with me, but I think some variation of the "no scholarly interest/active amateur interest" contrast should be stated somewhere in the article, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't seem condescending.

I should mention that the Van Voorst reference just has a page number. But he didn't write just one book so which book does this quote come from? Without a book it might as well be a citation needed there because there is no way to know WHERE the thing came from. I should also mention Robert, E. Van Voorst's PHD is in Theological Seminary; his very degree depends assuming that the Jesus of the Bible is a historical person. That he currently teaches for a University with tight ties to the Reformed Church in America doesn't help as that mean his very teaching position is dependent on supporting the idea of a historical Jesus. Also some his statements make NO logical sense. Take this little gem for example:

"What can be gained from Thallus? Some fog of uncertainty still surrounds Thallus's statement: its extreme brevity, its third-hand citation, and the identity and date of the author. While this fog prevents us from claiming certainty, a tradition about Jesus' death is probably present. Like Christian tradition as found in the Synoptic Gospels, Thallus accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus." (Van Voorst, Robert E., (2000) _Jesus Outside the New Testament_, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 23).

Ok the first part admits that Thallus is third hand and yet later Van Voorst says "Thallus accepts..." How the sam hill can anyone say Thallus accepts anything?!? You have Eusebius in the 4th century supposedly telling us what Sextus Julius Africanus in the 3rd century supposedly said quoting Thallus of the 2nd. That Eusebius also is the first to quote the Testimonium Flavianum in the early 4th century should send up a red flag faster than 25 car pile up at Indianapolis Speedway and yet Van Voorst goes happily along as if nothing is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

hammering a message home

The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can;t be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is a problem. The lead needs to state that the JM hypothesis is not widely accepted in academia, and there can be a longer section in the body that deals with the (relatively few) scholarly responses to specific authors (e.g., Van Voorst's criticism of Price). But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What cites actually support

The article opens with the claim that support is limited... which is fine, right now it is. But the cites don't support that claim, the cites just site what a bunch of religious authors claim, and of course the religious authors are going to make that claim. In order to say something is actually limited, minority, etc., it would have to be something entirely agreed upon -- so that the opposing view also says it -- are supported in some meaningful source documenting overall opinion of a field instead of individuals in it. See a bunch of footnotes of people bashing an opposing view doesn't cut it. If you can find a proponent of the view documented somewhere as admitting to be in the minority, which should be too hard, source that, and then save all the true-believers' statements for the criticism section. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have that - Doherty! It is in the scholarly response section.

Anyway, I think all the people cited there are scholars, and not all are religious. TJ (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's immaterial whether they're religious or not. Grant, Van Voorst, Stanton, and the others who are cited hold academic positions (or held, since some are dead). They're perfect examples of reliable sources on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if they quote people like Otto Betz (Protestant theologian) and Roderic Dunkerley (all Wikipedia has about this guy is a list of the books he wrote and that "This article about an English writer, poet or playwright is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."; nothing about him being a scholar or even when he died-I hardly think he is 120 years old)? I have heard of standing on the shoulders of giants but here it looks like Grant is standing on midgets and slapping his substantial credentials on the works of two other authors that may not be worthy of them. Scholarly it looks insanely sloppy and unworthy of Grant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be immaterial whether they are religious or not for the purposes of citing them as experts on *their own conclusions*, but declaring that any position is a consensus etc. requires EVIDENCE of consensus, not just some people who have agenda to push claiming that there is one. Furthermore, the fact that these people come from a highly Christian apologist mindset absolutely makes a huge difference in whether their claims are objective or merely reflecting their religious beliefs, so the reliable source already included earlier making his argument that these people are operating out of a mindset of advancing their religion over advancing history is certainly a point that that side is capable of making and should not be hidden because *you* think that the religion of the person claiming it is irrelevant. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this argument that religious scholars are so biased by their religious convictions that they can't treat the theory objectively is actually an argument in favor of treating the JM hypothesis as a fringe theory. If biblical scholars are so biased, there's no way they can accept the theory, therefore it has no place in biblical studies, and therefore it's fringe--it's entirely outside the relevant academic community.

Of course, the argument that these scholars are excessively biased by their religious convictions is wrong. First of all, there's no necessary connection between studying Christianity and being a Christian. One can go to, for example, Harvard Divinity School without being a Christian, or a member of any faith. There's no necessary connection between teaching in a religious studies department and being a Christian, or a member of any faith at all. It is unwarranted to assume that everyone who rejects the JM theory is a "theologian" or an "apologist". These are academic scholars of religion. Some of them may well be Christian, but you can't assume that just from what they study--and even when they are Christians, the people we've cited are writing as historians of religion, not as theologians.

When we turn to the specific set of people cited in the article, we know that at least one of them--Michael Grant--said he was an atheist. Grant wasn't even a religious scholar at all, actually, he was an ancient historian, and that's another problem with this argument. The historicity of Jesus is a topic within ancient history as well as religious studies, so the statement that "these people come from a highly Christian apologist mindset" is flat wrong--Grant is coming from a different field of study entirely.

The biggest problem with the argument is that it assumes that people of a particular religious faith are incapable of rationally evaluating statements about that faith's history. We could make the same statement about proponents of the JM theory--they're atheists, therefore we can't trust what they say about the historicity of Jesus, because their beliefs (or lack thereof) have made them so biased against Christianity that they're operating out of a mindset of destroying religion over advancing history. But that's a bad argument, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This counter example is flawed because it relies on the excluded middle fallacy. Most religions have enough skeletons in their closets that an atheist who want to discredit most them would have a wealth of material to work with without even touching on the religion's supposed founder. Then there is always the option of 'the founder was delusional' or 'he was a nobody that was elevated via all these already existing fantastic tales and events being attributed to him'; why give yourself the added headache of trying to say the founder never existed at all? Never mind that the JMers are a nice mixture of atheists, deists, and at least one self claimed former fundamental Christian. Another thing I notice is that there don't seem to be any Asian views present or sighted by either side; is that because both sides prefer to ignored any scholarship or there is not much to be had from that quarter?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant as a source

I have a problem with using Grant as a source. From his whole body of work, he basically devotes a couple paragraphs to the subject, essentially to let his readers know that nobody important takes the subject seriously. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But remember what we're using him as a source for. He's one example of scholars who say that the JM theory isn't taken seriously in academia. If he's right, why would he devote more than a few paragraphs to the theory? He's already paid more attention to it than most scholars who write about Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that Grant comes off as a very poor example. The majority of the quote is actually Grant quoting two other authors: Otto Betz ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from 1968 and Dunkerley from 1957 ("again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars") with him throwing in things like 'In recent years' (Recent?! Last time I checked 20 years was considered a generation!) and 'or at any rate very few' (Basically Grant hasn't even bothered to check in the 20 years since Dunkerley wrote this and so doesn't know) around the Dunkerley quote. If anything Grant would seem to to support Doherty's position that that no body even thinks there is enough merit the Jesus never existed part of JM to even check to see if perhaps it might have some validity. I find it amusing to see Akhilleus still defending a quote that he knows to be partly in error.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant may be a reliable source for a number of topics, but having mentioned some personal opinions in a minor way on this topic does not make him either a reliable or notable source on this topic. Furthermore, his claim that the entire field rejects the topic *might* be relevant for whether he and many others at the time he said it think on the topic, but it in no way *proves* that there *is* a consensus, so the wording has to be very precise on these things. Quoting five authors trying to speak for an entire field only proves their opinions, not the opinions of the entire field, and certainly not for "scholars" and "historians" in general, which would include the people supporting the Jesus myth hypothesis. The whole slant of this article right now isn't trying to cover the topic objectively, it's try to savage the idea. And we can certainly see that intent in the comments of posters here on the talk page and in edit comments. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The statements of academics in a given field are certainly reliable sources for the state of the field. If you disagree with the source, or believe it to be incorrect, then produce a reliable source to the contrary. --Haemo (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if there was actually an attempt by the supposed "academics" to shows why the Jesus myth is flawed then to use weasel words or quotes for other other authors whose research seems to be minimal at best.--216.31.14.232 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the sources in this article are fine, but I think the article as a whole has gotten a little bent out of shape. it seems to me that ideally the article should be a discussion of the Jesus Myth itself - its historical roots, variations of its basic beliefs, evidence that is used in its support, and etc. The fact that it is a minority (or fringe, or discredited) belief should be mentioned in the lead and discussed briefly in the body, but only to a limited extent. as it stands now the 'discrediting' portion is starting to overwhelm the discussion of the topic (particularly with the repeated use of the same quotations near the end of the article). it feels like the article is being shaded to make sure everyone knows that these theories are passé; but I don't think that should be the purpose of the article.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually many of the sources are anything but 'fine' because they are being used to slant the neutrality of the article. Grant's quote of two other authors is a prime example. To see if Grant's arguments actually have merit you have to go to these earlier authors and see what they say and how good their research was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunn quote

The Dun quote looks dodgy and I want to look it up but there isn't enough info there - how do I find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.29 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any quote by Dunn. I do see a sentence that is cited to Dunn (2003)--this is in footnote 63--and Dunn (2003) is listed in the "Books arguing for a historical Jesus" section as Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Christianity in the Making Vol 1: Jesus Remembered. Wm B Eerdmans Pub Co. That's the source you want to be looking at, I think, unless I've missed something. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly response

The "Scholarly response" section of this article is a quote farm, and should be deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add wiki-links for the scholars quoted in "Scholarly response", but can't find much. Is the Michael Grant who is cited this Michael Grant (author)? If so, I note that he is called a "classicist and numismatist", indicating that his specialty is not theology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's an ancient historian, as has been said many times on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Is Michael Grant (author) his article? If so there is nothing there that says that he is an historian, or that he is particularly ancient either (rather he seems to be dead). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's his article. "Ancient historian" means someone who works on the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Grant is indeed dead, so perhaps I should have said that he was an ancient historian. If his article doesn't say that he was one, it should--actually, a quote in the beginning says that he was a classical historian, which is the same thing as an ancient historian. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. To me "ancient historian" just means a very old historian. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm in favor of removing this section for the time being. (I'm actually in favor of removing most of the article, and starting over from scratch.) Where scholars have commented on the specific aspects of the theory, that can be integrated into the article--for instance, there are quite a few discussions of Arthur Drews in the secondary literature, and there are a handful of discussions of Wells' ideas. Citing those in the article is a good way of illustrating the scholarly consensus on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to keep the section, and maintain its effectiveness, while reducing the dependence on direct quotes. But if you want to do it differently, that should be OK too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

It seems that Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, also subscribed to a version of Jesus myth hypothesis.

H.P. Blavatsky stated that the story of Jesus was invented after the 1st century. Jesus, she says, "is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples, and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. . . . Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac. [2]

It seems to me that writing this article based only on scholarly sources is a mistake. The idea has a much wider grounding, and would the subject would remain notable even without the academically based discussion.

Thomas Paine also seems to have held a version of the Jesus myth hypothesis, which he discusses in The age of Reason,

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground. [3]

I am sure there is much more on this subject than has been included, so far, in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's notable, no one's disputing that. The attention this got in the old days definitely establishes its notability. But whether or not we give it a favourable report in terms of "likely truth" depends on modern academic sources (not 19th century ones), because it is an academic hypothesis. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to "give it a favourable report", or otherwise. It is the job of editors to present what notable discussion has occurred, in its various facets, in as neutral a way as possible. If you feel the necessary to comment on truth (as you see it), you need your own web site; because Wikipadia is not interested in truth, but verifiablity.

Paine's is a fairly standard rationalist/deist position. The first sentence clearly implies that Jesus was a real person (how else could he write "no account of himself, of his birth, parentage"), whose life was built up into an aggrandised myth. Blavatsky is taking the standard Aryanist model of the Jesus myth of the time, derived ultimately from the writings of Ernest Renan and Max Muller, culminating in books like [http://www.amazon.com/ARYAN-SUN-MYTHS-Origin-Religions/dp/1602062226/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_2_txt?pf_rd_p=304485601&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-2&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1564598934&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1CKH8MJWYRWK7C27DK0Q Aryan Sun Myths]. Yes, all this history should be in the article. It should cover the evolution of these ideas in their context, up to the modern day, including orthodox Christian reactions and mainstream scholarly opinion about it. It should not be a list of arguments in an attempt to prove or disprove it. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You will note that in the first paragraph of this article's introduction it says: "There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." Paine's version falls well within that parameter. Also he introduced the idea that the Jesus myth had pagan characteristics -- particularly that the father of Jesus was God (it was common for pagan gods to father children with mortals, a concept foreign to Judaism).

I agree with Paul B that it would make a better article to present all this as history, rather than to get into arguments over story of Jesus being true or false. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to establish truth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition in the lead is quite poor, and I don't think it's a good idea to use it to decide what belongs in this article. The quote: "There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." picks out versions of the theory where the Jesus of the Gospels is based on figures like Jesus ben Pandera (1st century BCE)--this was the argument of John M. Robertson. An editor on this talkpage has mention Alvar Ellegard as another example of this variant of the JMT. Both Robertson and Ellegard deny that Jesus was a historical, 1st century CE person. The central component of the JMT is the argument that Jesus was a historical person. Paine doesn't say that there was no historical Jesus.

There are good scholarly sources on history of the JM hypothesis from its precursors through the first part of the 20th century. One is Van Voorst's book; another is Walter Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950. These are useful sources with which to cover the history of the JMT up to the mid-20th century--and neither mentions Paine nor Blavatsky. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that Van Voorst's book and/or Walter Weaver's book are important enough, you should write articles for them; but I see no reason why the content of this article should be limited by what they have written.

I think there are editors who are trying to impose too narrow limits on the scope of the article to make it easier to maintain their POV. The definition from the lead is excellent, and it gives the basis for an interesting article on the history of the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially when in the body of the article there was this passage: "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" with references that supposedly back this up this statement but in fact only back up the rejection of the completely made-up myth part. Despite this reference in the body of the text putting the "composite of more than one person" in the lead was a struggle until I gave a verbal smack down that basically said 'if it is poorly worded then reword the blasted thing rather than delete it'. KrytenKoro did this with the comment "this is how it should have been reworded, instead of throwing your awful hissy-fit". Calling people on deleting poorly worded passages that shows the theory is more than it really is because they were lazy to reword them is not 'throwing a awful hissy-fit' but is pointing out that the theory is being portrayed in a strawman like manner and the the editors in question seem to be more concerned with their own personal agendas than with FACTS. The FACT is the the JM does contain more than the Jesus never existed idea; one only need to look at "History of the hypothesis" and "Early proponents" for JMer who supported a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

actively discussed on the internet

I've already said above why I think this sentence should remain, but to remind people, I'll just quote myself:

I think I put that in, and it comes straight out of Van Voorst. I'm sorry it comes across as an attempt to belittle people; Van Voorst is commenting on the fact that there's no serious interest in the JM idea in academia, but there's active discussion of the idea in other fora, especially online. He's pointing out a disconnect between the way scholars and amateurs deal with the idea, which I think is an interesting aspect of this topic--the fact that lots of people are interested in this idea despite the fact that you won't find it taught in school. Someone I read, I think it might be Van Voorst, mentions that he often gets asked about the JM hypothesis when he gives public lectures--and he finds it strange.

If people don't think this belongs in the lead, that's fine with me, but I think some variation of the "no scholarly interest/active amateur interest" contrast should be stated somewhere in the article, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't seem condescending.

It looks like I forgot to sign the first time--sorry about that! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that, because Van Voorst wrote it, it belongs in the introduction? If you think it important, find someplace aside from the introduction to put it. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I already said why I think it's important. I think it belongs in the lead because I think the lead sections of articles should place the subject of the article in a wider context--here, the lead should say where the JM hypothesis fits into the history of religious studies, and how it's received in academia and by the public at large. The citation from Van Voorst gives us a way to do that without straying into original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has everything necessary to establish notability without that sentence. The subject could go elsewhere in the, for instance in its own section, but Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. Whatever the case, that sentence does not fit with the rest of the intro, and sticks out like a bandaged toe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The sentence was not about "trivia", but a possible way of establishing that the theory is popular outside of academia. Now the intro contains no mention of the theory's popularity. If people are happy with that, that's fine with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I must pop over to the Resurrection of Jesus article and add that it's popular outside academia - and much discussed on the internet. Sophia 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you say above that the JM is not "an academically widespread view - it is a minority interest that has captured a lot of popular attention"? Do you have a suggestion about how the "popular attention" part of the equation should be phrased? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Popular" is pretty subjective. Maybe we should stick with notable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

new lead

I think this is an improvement in the definition of the theory, but not as good in contextualizing its reception. The lead currently says "though as yet it carries little weight among mainstream historians and scholars" which seems to predict that some day the theory will be accepted--predictions such as this should be avoided.

Also, a bunch of references have disappeared, and this is causing some problems later on in the article--look at footnotes 64 and 65. The footnotes/references to this article are in a state of confusion--the formatting is inconsistent, and the use of refnames causes problems when editors shift material around. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, good points. I'll remove the 'as yet' from the lead, and I'll recover the references. though for consistency, I'll reattach them at later points in the document - having 4 'anti-' references in the lead (compared to one pro/descriptive reference) struck me as unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone fixed the "as yet" part already. I agree that it's undesirable for there to be so many footnotes on that sentence, though not quite for the reason you say.

In fixing the footnotes, I would prefer to avoid using the "refname" syntax entirely. I would much rather see the footnotes formatted such as Price (2005), p. xxx, and have the full bibliographic info in a "bibliography" section separate from the footnotes. This would make it much easier to cite different pages from the same work, and we would avoid the errors caused when the "refname" text is removed.

No matter how the footnotes are handled, the split between pro- and anti- references in the "further reading" and "external links" sectiosn should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, I see. I've re-made three changes for the following reasons:

• I've removed passive voice statements. as a rule, I think saying 'it argues against' is better writing that the equivalent but passive 'it is an argument against.' I think that's generally accepted in grammar circles, but I'll leave it open to debate.
• I've placed descriptions before jargony words. personally, I find it easier to deal with a word like euhemerisation when I've already read its description, than to run into the word and have its description follow. matter of taste, maybe...
• I've reinserted the word similarity. there is no debate, really, about whether a similarity exists - that is a matter of observable (err.. readable) fact. the debate is about whether the similarity is significant or mere coincidence.

I'm going to go rationalize the footnotes as best I can now - we'll see what happens.  :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Euhemerisation is actually misused here, because that's making a mythical figure out of a historical figure. Euhemerus, for instance, argued that Zeus was originally a (mortal) king of Crete, and the myths that he was the king of the gods, etc., were poetic fictions. In contrast, the JM argues that there was no historical Jesus, or in the variants mentioned, that the "real" Jesus was someone who lived much earlier. A "euhemerist" account of Jesus might argue that he was a historical person (a revolutionary, a teacher of wisdom, an apocalyptic prophet) around whom a mass of mythic accounts coalesced after his death. So, I'd like to remove "euhemerisation" from the lead and rephrase, but if you're actively working on the notes I don't want to edit conflict. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro: ok, I take your point on the similarity thing.  :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually wrong, originally, I forgot that support for "parallels" (whether of supernatural cause or true "Jesus-myth" nature) is as in agreement as it is. Sorry.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do no agree with removing Euhemerisation, because many who have supported the Jesus myth hypothesis take exactly that position. It seems to me that Akhilleus is trying to limit this article to the smallest possible parameters. For instance, in the quote I took from Tom Paine, it seems to have been his position there may have been some individual the it started from, but the Biblical account showed many mythological additions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to re-adding Euhemarism myself, so long as it's in proper context. I think the original objection was that the Jesus Myth theory (strictly speaking) implies there was *no* historical figure Jesus, whereas Euhemarism (in general) implies that there *was* a historical figure who was magnified and mythologized by later story-tellers. can someone clarify how loose or strict various versions of the JMT are on this point?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-defined topic with clear lines. The article is about the theory that Jesus never existed as a historical person. This is a very distinct position in the study of the historical Jesus, with a clear line of development from Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews to contemporary proponents like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty. There are good sources such as Van Voorst and Weaver that cover this as a distinct theory.

The problem is that the name of the article, "Jesus myth hypothesis", is an ad hoc term ultimately derived from Arthur Drews' book The Christ Myth. There was a dispute about what the name of the article should be awhile ago--it's in the archives somewhere--and we ended up with what we have now, I think more because people were tired of arguing than because they agreed this was the best title. Van Voorst and Weaver use terms like "denial of Jesus' existence" and "nonhistoricity thesis". Perhaps because of the ambiguity of the word "myth", people want to bring in other authors--like, say, Thomas Paine or James Frazer--who believed that Jesus was historical, but the New Testament accounts of him were influenced/shaped by pagan mythology. But that's not the same thing as saying that the Jesus we see in the Gospels is formed from pagan mythology, therefore there was no real, historical Jesus. (See, e.g. Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, which isn't a great article, but lays out some other senses in which Jesus is "mythical".)

It might be instructive to look at Earl Doherty's website, [4], which asks the question, "Did Jesus Exist?" on its front page, and uses the terms "Jesus mythicism" and "mythicism" to characterize his own position and well as that of G.A. Wells. For Doherty, "mythicism" is the position that Jesus didn't exist. Another webpage worth looking at is Robert Price's "The Quest of the Mythical Jesus" (cited in our article as footnote 20), which describes how he came to embrace the "Christ Myth Theory"--for him, it's clearly the theory that there's no historical Jesus.

So, in response to the accusation that I'm trying to restrict the parameters of the article, I suppose I can only agree--I'm trying to restrict the subject matter of the article to the theory as defined by its proponents and by treatments of the theory in reliable sources, particularly academic sources. I'm always happy to change my mind, so if someone has some sources that say that there are versions of the JMT that don't deny the historicity of Jesus, please bring them forward. Until then, though, I'd say that neither Euhemerization nor Thomas Paine belong in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you are right, you had some concerns about the naming of this article as early as 2007. In Demember 2007 I had this to say:

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

I also pointed out a month later that there is a 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. Frazer who is already in the body of the article seemed to support Euhemerism and then you have Bruno Bauer described as who is presented both as a JMer and one who basically believed in Jesus was a Euhemerism of Philo; ok if JM and 'Jesus being based on a historical person' are mutually exclusive which is it? Bruno Bauer can't be both. Furthermore when you go to Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian paper you find out that the summation does not quite accurately reflect what Russell actually felt (that I did replace-if we are to quote use full sentences rather than just two words). Another problem is how does [Docetism] fit into all this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

interesting... ok, for the time being I will add a line to the first paragraph of the lead that says this article specifically excludes Euhemarism and Docetism as separate theories. I think that will work pro-tem for clarification, and we can adjust things as needed as we discuss further.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Docetism being excluded (it still says that Jesus of the Bible was a historical figure) there is a problem with excluding Euhemarism. Bruno Bauer, Mead with his "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", Alvar Ellegard with his "Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ" proposing the Dead Sea Scroll's even earlier Teacher of Righteousness, and Thomson with his "The Messiah Myth" all basically argue Euhemarism because they all argue there is a "historical" person behind the Jesus stories but the Jesus of the Bible is a myth. Also unless I am missing something here Euhemarism by definition would seem to include "mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons". Based on these examples why is Euhemarism excluded? I would say unless a good argument can be presented Euhemarism should be considered part of the Jesus Myth idea as there are those Jesus Mythers who argue that the Jesus of the Bible is a myth with origins in an earlier living breathing man.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... it seems to me that (at least) we need to deal with both ahistorical and euhemarist positions. I say that because I suspect the RT French quotes are euhemerist in nature, and I think it would make some of the critical perspectives more sensible-sounding if it is made clear that they are not necessarily supporting an a-mythological understanding of Jesus, but rather opposing a strict ahistorical understanding.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is the "non-historical Jesus hypothesis" and Jesus Euhemarism hypothesis tend to get thrown together especially on pro-historical Jesus sites. For example James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel) specifically calls G. R. S. Mead "Christ-myther" in at least two articles at the tektonics.org site. But Mead did NOT disavow a historical Jesus but rather said that Jesus lived far earlier than the Gospels claimed and the stories in the Gospels were effectively Euhemarisms. By putting Mead in the Jesus/Christ Myther camp the Christian Apologists themselves have put the euhemarist position on the table and as part of the Jesus myth hypothesis as a whole.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

lol - well I can see how (from their perspective) that would make sense. if you are a devout Christian, anything that suggests that Christ is not the God-in-Flesh of Christian belief would be objectionable. I'm not agreeing with them, mind you, just saying...

well, no matter. If the article makes a clear presentation of the ahistorical position, separates it nicely from the Euhemerist position and explains why, that will sidestep any effort to combine the two.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sometime the historial Jesus people do go overboard and try to prove every detail of the Gospels requiring them to explain the historical inconsistencies with unrecorded Censuses and as many as three people overseeing the Syrian provence. That said Frederick Engels in 1882 in the May 4-11, 1882 issue of Sozialdemokrat states "Bauer studied this question until his death. His research reached its culminating point in the conclusion that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle." Since Bruno Bauer is stated as probably being "the first scholarly proponent" you cannot separate the Euhemerist and ahistorical positions because the Jesus Myth began with a Euhemerist idea that Jesus was actually Philo, a man who is indeed a historical figure.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "euhemerist" is leading some people down wrong tracks (aside from being difficult to spell). Again, the key point of the JMT is that it denies that Jesus was historical; in other words, the Jesus who was born sometime around 4 BCE and was crucified sometime in the 30s CE never existed as an actual person. There's no necessary contradiction between denying that Jesus was historical and holding a "euhemerist" theory. E.g., if you believe that the Jesus we see in the Gospels is based on a figure who lived ~100 BCE, you are simultaneously denying the historicity of Jesus (the one who got crucified in the 30s) and holding a euhemerist theory.

As for Bauer, at some point in his career he believed that Philo was the true father of Christianity, yes. But he's talking about the philosophical basis for Christianity; he was not saying that the Gosepls are a based on the life of Philo (or Seneca). Just check out the quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that Malcolm posted below. Of course, a part he left out is: "The third volume of the series denied the historicity of Christ. The Christian idea that God and mankind share the same essence appeared as the religious representation of a single empirical individual who assumed the universal power of spirit."

Probably it would be best to avoid the term euhemerist. As Ludwigs2 said it's "jargony" and it seems to be a potential source of confusion. It would be enough to clearly describe the versions of the JMT that are out there--all deny that the gospels are based on a real person who was crucified in the 30s, but some versions argue that the gospels are based on an earlier figure who lived ~100BCE.

I don't really see why the lead mentions Docetism, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If the term euhemerist is confusing then perhaps we should not use it. However some counter arguments still in the article do not even look at the more moderate euhemerist of an earlier figure aspect of the Jesus Myth theory. "Richard Burridge and Graham Gould note that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship" has a reference "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all" However as stated before that certainly is not Mead's position nor is it Ellegard's or Thompson's.--216.31.14.232 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

the problem here involves a belief gap, which is why I think adding euhemerism in some context makes sense. a person with moderate beliefs can easily distinguish between a completely ahistorical perspective and a historical but mytjologized perspective. however, a person with strong christian beliefs is likely to see both euhemerist and ahistorical assertions as a denial of the existence of Jesus-as-God, and won't distinguish between them. likewise, a person with strong a-religious beliefs is likely to see euhemerism as an assertion that Jesus did exist and so really was God. I think the distinction has to be drawn overtly to make sure that everyone is starting from the same perspective.

and I think Docetism was included because some people confuse the theory that Christ was an illusion with the theory that Christ was mythological. however, an illusory Christ would still be historical.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing is the way the article is written now it seems that some level of euhemerism is part of the overall range that composes the Jesus Myth. Also look at how Euhemerisation is defined in this article: the belief that Jesus was a real person whose life was later mythologized. As I said about six months ago Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood where you can get a 'historical' candidate like Riothamus or Sire Johannes d'Eyvile but when you look you realize that the relationship to the mythological character is basically nil because so much has been added. Sire Johannes d'Eyvile (Sir John de Evill) is another issue because he became outlaw under Henry III's reign-long after both King John Lackland and Richard I were dead and gone. Then you have the fact that like Jesus you have variants of the Robin Hood story that put him in different times frames than the 'canonal' stories. Furthermore one has to remember that Christianity was no more monolithic in is beliefs in the 1st century CE then it is now. The Jesus we know was what one particular sect of Christianity in the 4th century thought was valid.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

no disagreement, but my point was that (for a devout Christian) saying that Christ was an embellished historical figure is just as bad as saying that Christ wasn't historical at all. any admission of embellishment risks reducing his miracles to myths

however, I think this would all be cleared up with better quotations and explanations of the actual position of various JMT arguments. the two 'proponents' sections and the 'specific arguments' section, maybe, need some revision to explain exactly where each author stood on the historical reality of jesus, so that there is no longer this confusion about what they are saying. I'm not (at present) qualified to do it, but I can see that it needs to be done. volunteers?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the very term "devout Christian" is misleading because Christianly has such a wide range of beliefs. It is akin to those that try to say Mormonism is not Christian faith because of their beliefs regarding the Trinity and they believe that there are other gods each of who has their own world to look after are polytheistic (they are actually Henotheic) or that Gnostics were not Christians because they believed in two 'gods'. They are (or were) as devout Christian as any fundimentist who takes every word in the KJV of the Bible as the literal truth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Criticism Section

Since we have a criticism section, perhaps we should have a section for responses to criticism.

Also, as DreamGuy pointed out, a number of criticisms suggest that people who support this hypothesis are not 'respectable', and are not 'serious'. I think criticisms should refer to arguments, not to the persons making them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

re: your last point... it is normal in academic circles to distinguish between reputable and disreputable sources (where 'reputable' is usually judged in terms of scholarly achievement and/or evidentiary support). I don't think we can disallow these kinds of statements completely, unless we can differentiate (acceptable) rejection of unscholarly work from (unacceptable) ad-hominem attacks. perhaps if someone can reselect the quotes to give the actual arguments against the JMT, and remove questionably personal or overly-broad statements?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where would the following statement by Robert Van Voorst fall? "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." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 6) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

well, what I would do, personally, is edit out the less-than-proper elements of his quote, like so: "[...] [M]any books and essays in the past two hundred years have [...] denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically [...] relegate[d] them to footnotes, or often ignore[d] them completely." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 6). This captures his substantive point, while eliminating the biased language, that is, of course, assuming (a) that this point is a necessary one to make in context, and (b) that there is not a more analytic passage in that book that could be used instead.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the quote make the point that NT scholars usually find the JMT "weak and bizarre"? Why is this something that should be left out? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying this quote should be used in the article, just trying to make the point that if the general scholarly attitude towards the JMT is one of disdain, disbelief, or disrespect, that's a fact worth reporting. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

except that scholars themselves (invariably) would feel that disdain, disbelief, and disrespect have no real place in an academic debate. I mean, it happens, particularly when there is something personal between two scholars (or sometimes when a scholar finds herself arguing with a belligerently uninformed opponent), but an academic reputation stands on reasoned argument and evidence. too much disdain can mark you as a prima donna (and that, not incidentally, can hurt your chances at getting grant money...). scholars might let it slip out, but they'd never defend it as a valid move in an argument.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs2, you have touched on an important thing. When one looks at the criticism of the nonhistoricity hypothesis in the article, it turns out that these are only claims - but what can only count in academia is scholarly work which would respond to the _arguments_ by Wells, Doherty, Price. I did not find any such work. This does not say that these authors are right but the article should not give an impression that the arguments of their works are somehow "academically annihilated" by a few paragraphs in Grant from 1970s (quoting authors from 1950s) or by a claim of Van Voorst or so.

I wanted to say that I respect Akhilleus for trying to make the article objective: he seems to be afraid that some people who "like the JM theory and find it convincing" (as he phrased it) try to downplay the fact that it is not the mainstream theory. In my opinion, this is not a basic problem.

(Sorry that I will use a personal digression which might hopefully help to clarify this point. I myself would not say that I like the theory: I was a heart-felt Christian and encountering Doherty's arguments lead me to my own reading of the early Christian literature, and I really found this theory very convincing. You can imagine that such claims like that of Van Voorst, Grant etc., and similar personal reactions by doctors of theology in my country who I contacted, could not help. I asked in vain for scholarly arguments, not just for claims that the theory is not accepted in academia - I wanted to learn why, where are the supposed methodological flaws of Doherty and Price (their thorough and solid works I have studied) ...)

Trying to summarize: It is clear that the wiki-article cannot argue if the theory is true or not. (In fact, also here we should be more precise with the terminology. In historical research we only deal with probabilities. The right question would be if a concrete theory is feasible and has a good probability when we take all our knowledge into account. Then we can also compare various theories etc. E.g. R. Price makes this explicitly clear.) The wiki-article should report that this is not the mainstream theory but it should be precise when dealing with a "nonacademicity". In particular, it should not pretend that there exist scholarly works which "refute" Doherty's and Price's arguments.

I apologize that I will not read (and thus not participate in) this discussion in near future. I just felt a positive impuls from Ludwigs2's comments, and I tried to clarify the thinking of people like me to Akhilleus and others. Best regards.Jelamkorj (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If what you said about Akhilleus is true - that he is afraid that some people will "like the JM theory and find it convincing" - I have to point out that that is not something that can influence editing in a wikipedia article. I think it's perfectly appropriate for the article to point out that this is a fringe theory without a lot of supporters in mainstream scholarly circles (for instance, I think the Graham Stanton is a near perfect quote for this article), but trying to shade the article so that it is less convincing seems like a clear violation of NPOV to me. please don't take this as criticism; I understand the concern, I'm just looking for fair and balanced. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, that's not quite what Jalamkorj was saying. What he said was that I seem to believe some editors who favor the JMT theory "try to downplay the fact that it is not the mainstream theory." He's referring to a quote in /Archive_13, where I said that "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) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

gotcha, and really, the comment cuts both ways, so no worries.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add I don't think the theory has ever been claimed to be mainstream so I have no idea where Akhilleus is getting this idea from.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Disagree entirely with merger. WP:UNDUE would be used to make this subject effectively go away. Job done some might say but this is a notable enough topic for it's own article. Sophia 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with SOPHIA on this one. There are upwards of 20 books on this topic, at least 1 movie and about 100s of articles. It unquestionably deserves its own page. jbolden1517^Talk 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This topic is notable on its own, and if we properly document its history, the article will be lengthy. I note that there's already a section in the Historicity of Jesus article that refers to this article, in accordance with WP:SS. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

oppose. This is a main article which is summarised in the Historicity article, as is normal practice. It's a subtantial topic in its own right. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merger. This is merely an attempt to marginalise and 'hide' a subject that is 'uncomfortable' for many. The evidence (or lack of) for Jesus' historicity is clearly a substantial subject and should not be obscured by merger in to a 'side-branch'. If anything, the Jesus myth hypothesis should be merged with this one. MonoApe (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

'Oppose Its a no-brainer - Didn't even need to be discussed, both pages are huge as it stands. I have removed the tag. Chendy (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure that size is the issue here (since there is considerable overlap) but since the consensus seems to be 'oppose' I think that's the way to go. I've removed the tag from 'Historicity of Jesus' as well--Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Grant a suitable source? WP:RS

I wasn't aware that Michael Grant was a Christian. I wasn't aware that GA Wells is a Christian. I would need to see evidence that Graham Stanton is a Christian. Earl Doherty is certainly not a Christian, and he acknowledges that support for the historicity of Jesus is widespread within both secular and religious circles. That statement of his is in the article. If you're not contesting the statement, then what's the problem? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Grant makes a passing reference to the subject in the 70's and suddenly he's being held up as a leading opponent of the theory. Give me a break. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone holding him up as a 'leading opponent of the theory'. I certainly wasn't. I simply pointed out that he wasn't a Christian. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't be used as a source for the article. He wrote a paragraph in the 70's. ^^James^^ (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you objecting because he only wrote a paragraph, or because he wrote it in the 70s? If the latter, is his work currently published, and is it still recognised in the academic community? --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only person who's bothered to read Grant's book. It's a bit more than a paragraph. Why would brevity disqualify him as a source, anyway? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Grant doesn't seem very familiar with the arguments. For example, his dismissal of the similarities between pagan religions and chrisitianity: "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit." Unless we're talking about Hellenized Jews, which is what the Jesus mythers ARE talking about. Hasn't Grant read their books? We don't know. He barely wrote more than a paragraph about it. Surely we can come up with sources that demonstrate knowledge of the subject. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source which challenges Grant's knowledge of the arguments, please provide it. So far you haven't demonstrated your case. You're simply expressing your personal opinion. I note you haven't provided any evidence that it was easy for 'Hellenized Jews' to fabricate the myth of dying and reborn mythhical gods. Exactly what would have to do with a Messianic sect in Judea which developed out of local Judaism is anyone's guess. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Grant doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the subject to begin with. So why is he being used as a source for the article? Second, from what I've read, Jesus mythers do not claim that early Christianity was a "Messianic sect in Judea which developed out of local Judaism". Grant does not seem to be aware of this, and neither do you. Of course, we know next to nothing about what Grant knows because he wrote next to nothing on the subject. ^^James^^ (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Grant's comments are mainly directed at G. A. Wells (e.g., Grant, Jesus p. 234 n. 12). Wells, at least in the 1970s, thought that belief in a dying Messiah originated as a synthesis of the Jewish "suffering Messiah" and Pagan "dying god" motifs, aided by ideas from Qumran about the Teacher of Righteousness (The Jesus of the Early Christians pp. 313–315). Neither Wells nor Grant says explicitly that this had to have happened in Judaea itself (although Wells considered the presence of mystery cults in Judaea as relevant to his argument; see p. 238 n. 1, p. 246). Grant p. 97 quotes pp. 77 and 313–314 of this book by Wells in relation to Messianism, so has clearly read the relevant sections. Grant's disassociation of Judaism from dying gods is relevant as a reaction to Wells's work.

The problem is that the structure of the article, with its ahistorical compilation of "specific arguments" on particular topics, effectively attributes to nonhistorical-Jesus theorists a composite argument not held by any individual, and then implies that critics have responded to that composite argument which never existed outside Wikipedia. This isn't fair on the pro- or anti-myth authors, and many of the arguments on this Talk page could be avoided if the article were restructured to discuss the views of specific authors in chronological sequence. That would allow an adequate summary of Wells's viewpoint, followed by a few sentences about noteworthy critical reactions. EALacey (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A chronological approach would be better, and I think there's even a consensus for this. However, given that I had to have a two-day argument just to change one sentence in the lead that demonstrably misused a word, I'm not too eager to embark on major changes to the structure of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone like to start a sandbox on such a version? If no one else wants to, I could do it, but I would only be able to reorganize what is already here, since I don't have access to most of the books in question.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've written an offline draft of sections on Volney, Dupuis and Bruno Bauer, and was making a start on the early 20th-century authors. (There are good secondary sources on all of these.) I can upload what I've done to a sandbox if that would be a useful start. EALacey (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

EALacey, I would love to see that in a sandbox--I think we'd make more progress that way instead of the futile discussions on this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis, and please edit freely. Are sandboxes allowed outside userspace (e.g., Jesus myth hypothesis/Draft)? I should stress that putting this on my userspace for now doesn't mean that I intend to take responsibility for (or "own") an entire rewrite. EALacey (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say I like this. It get rid of a lot of the nonsense that currently plagues the current article and focuses on the actual history of the Jesus myth idea rather than wasting huge amounts of space on arguments.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see no evidence that 'Grant doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the subject to begin with'. You keep saying this without providing any evidence for it. Yes I am fully aware that some Jesus mythers do not claim that early Christianity was a "Messianic sect in Judea which developed out of local Judaism. That shows how unfamiliar with the subject they are. Can you provide any evidence that their view is anything but a fringe view? Where is the academic consensus that early Christianity was the fabrication of Hellenized Jews in the outer provinces? Perhaps you should work in trying to get the number of WP:RELIABLE modern sources defending the Jesus Myth up to half a dozen. How about that for a challenge? --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. If Grant has demonstrated knowledge of the Jesus myth, please provide evidence of it. It is not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. Second, the subject we are talking about is the Jesus myth, not mainstream Christian bible studies. Grants comment demonstrates ignorance of the subject. I don't have to provide an academic consensus, since this article is not about that. This article is about a minority view, and we have to portray it accurately and deal with it on it's own terms. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote from Grant demonstrates knowledge of the Jesus myth. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove a positive. I am asking for positive evidence that 'Grant's comment demonstrates ignorance of the subject'. The academic consensus is relevant, since the academic consensus does not believe that early Christianity was the fabrication of Hellenized Jews in the outer provinces, from bits and pieces of Egyptian, Mithraic, and Greek mythology. According to you, rejecting such an origin (as Grant does), 'demonstrates ignorance of the subject'. You are therefore claiming that the scholarly consensus demonstrates 'ignorance of the subject'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) James, have you read the Grant piece you're complaining about? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. He hasn't demonstrated any familiarity at all with Grant's work. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the best Grant can do as far quoting authors who dismiss the Jesus Myth is two relatively obscure authors from nearly half a century ago shows that his research is clearly lacking. Why doesn't he cite the recent scholarly articles that show the Jesus myth has no validity? The answer is either a) no such articles exist, or 2) he was too lazy to go and find such articles.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer

The article seems to have Bruno Bauer's view completely wrong. Below is a statement from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an excellent source) [5]

Bauer likened the present crisis to the end of the classical world in Roman imperialism. His studies in the 1850's located the origins of Christianity in the second century A.D., concluding that the first gospel was written under Hadrian (117-138 AD), though slightly predated by some of the Pauline epistles. Bauer traced the evolution of Christian ideas from Hellenism and Stoicism, deriving the logos doctrine of John's gospel from Philo and neo-Platonic sources. As in Herr Dr. Hengstenberg, he denied that Christianity had emerged directly from Judaism. More than in his early work, though, he now stressed the revolutionary power of the early Christian religion, as a source of liberation for the excluded and impoverished elements of the Roman Empire. His final book described Christianity as the socialist culmination of Greek and Roman history. Responding to this argument in his very positive obituary of Bauer, Friedrich Engels acknowledged the importance of Bauer's late work for the socialist critique of religion (Sozialdemokrat, 1882). In 1908, Karl Kautsky's book, The Origins of Christianity, applied Bauer's thesis.

The presentation of Bauer needs to be re-thought. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that a better presentation of Bauer's--and everyone else's--views needs to be made. Unfortunately, Bauer's work seems not to have been translated into English, so unless someone who's fluent in German steps up to the plate, we'll have to rely upon secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Bauer's theories can be better presented, which is why it is all the more puzzling that you have cut out entirely the summary of them! What Engels says is not contradicted by what the quotation says, which also refers to Philo as the source. It's just a matter of when one places the concept of 'origin'. Paul B (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have it completely wrong about Bauer. As the source above says, Bauer thought that much of Early Christianity was formed by Stoic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, and the only importance of Philo in that was as a source of Stoic and Neo-platonic thought -- because so many of the other Hellenistic texts had been lost. It is well know, for instance, that the early Christian philosophers Clement and Origen were strongly influenced by both philosophical traditions. This seems to have been Bauer's point, and not that Christianity was somehow founded by the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo (which would have been an absurd claim). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd, and it's perfectly consistent with what all sources say about Bauer's views. Read the 1911 EB. I can't really make sense of what you are saying here. You seem to forget that this is a quotation from a contemporary of Bauer's. Here's a useful summary [6]. There is also a newish book on Bauer, which I've just looked at and which I've footnoted. Paul B (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul B, this is the paragraph you excerpted in so unfortunate a way:

In his paper Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity, Frederick Engels writes, "Bauer studied this question [the origin of Christianity] until his death. His research reached its culminating point in the conclusion that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about 40 A.D. but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle." Into the Genesis account of creation, Philo interposed Ideas between God and the material creation: God first created his blueprint, as Platonic Forms; then, using them, he created material reality. The Platonic God was synthesised with Yahweh, Reason with Revelation, the Bible providing insights into God's Blueprint (Forms) which were often not attainable through Reason. The Aryan Vedic concept, which was also that of the Greek "heroic" age, is of linear time, in one's personal life, but without the whole of human history being seen as a linear, teleological salvation-history culminating in a utopia. The notion of time as cyclic, both on a cosmic scale and through personal reincarnation was accepted into later Aryan thinking, like the god Shiva, as an influence from the subject non-Aryan population of India. From there it spread to the Pythagoreans, whom Plato followed. With Philo's fusion, the Platonic tradition abandoned the concept of time as cyclic, expressed in its acceptance of reincarnation, for the Judaic (originally Zoroastrian) linear concept of time as "salvation history". The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion says that Philo's contribution to the beginnings of Christian theology led to his being ignored by later Jewish scholars. Augustine continued the synthesis pioneered by Philo.

Clearly what is being said is not that Philos founded a religion now called the Christian religion. (Philo was a religious Jew and had no interest in founding a new religion.) What is said in this paragraph is that Philo, because he tried to reconcile his Jewish religion with Greek philosophy (particularly Stoicism and Neo-Platonism) gave a model for the early Christians to work with. The founding of Christianity was not the work of Philo, he simply gave a means to fuse Jewish thought with Greek pagan philosophy....which, to Bruno Bauer, was the actual nature of Christianity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know perefectly well what the passage says. That's why I linked to it. Nowhere does this article say that Philo "founded" the Christian religion. Engels says that, according to Bauer, Philo was the "father" of it. The argument is that Philo created a link between the Greek concept of logos and Jewish tradition, which was the basis for the ideas that became Christianity. The whole point is that in this version Chrisianity starts essentially as a philosophical, ethical and political ideal that later gets a mythic story about a founder woven into it. I don't believe this, of course, but that's what Bauer argues. He's developing the Hegelian model initiated by Feuerbach and mixing it with Aryanist myth-theory of the time. What I find difficult to understand is that you say you want more information abot Bauer, but all you have done is delete a perfectly accurate quotation. I readded it and added more explanation. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what is said in the article:

...Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who concluded "that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle".

The wording gives the impression that Philo founded the Christian religion, and that needs to be changed. Is that asking for too much? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he was a Hegelian, and the rest is a quotation from Engels, a contemporary. It's not contradicted by any other source. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also when the passage is read in context of the paragraph it is clear that Bruno Bauer didn't think Philo founded Christian religion only that Philo's idea were used in its formation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what the current text in the article says. So what's the problem? --Paul B (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only "problem" is people reading meanings into words that are not there in first place which is easy to do if the sentences they are part of are taken out of context. This is what worries me about some of the supposed references we have in this article. Do they say what is claimed about them or when put back into context do they indicate something else?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the person who's complained for months about the Grant quote without ever bothering to go to the library and read the passage where it came from?----Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, may I remind you were the one who had to be informed that Grant was in fact quoting two other people and even after being told that you continued to defend the quote even though you had been told that fact by Peterdgi. Right before that 24 November 2007 post but below your signature is this statement "Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grant, so I cannot say what page the quote comes from, or who he's quoting." (have no idea who really wrote that). Later on, E4mmacro on 4 February 2008 provides a better quote showing where each part and you, Akhilleus, on 4 February 2008 stated "BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else." If you didn't know that then clearly you hadn't read Grant either. Also given I kept pointing out that part of the Grant quote seemed to come from Betz and you still defended it even though it stated both quotes came from Dunkerley even though you had responded to a post clarifying which quote came from whom was irresponsible. The fact of the matter was Grant didn't reference who the 'first rank scholars' and given no one to date had produced a single name whose these 'first rank scholars' were.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee Bruce, you are the one who added the quotation from Engels in the first place without giving any context whatever to it. Malcolm then insisted that I'd done it ("this is the paragraph you excerpted in so unfortunate a way") and all this after explanatory detail had been added that no one had bothered to read before arguing the toss. This is the most bizarre page I've ever known for conspiracy mentality and contradictory accusations of POV, in which the same action can be seen as POV for or against the JMH; adding criticisms in one section is a POV attack/quotefarm and distributing them is a POV attempt to constantly undermine the theory. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Paul, since you're a "Christian religious nut", everything you've done must be POV. That seems to be the way things work around here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice selective memory there, Paul Barlow, but the quote from Engels was to replace the totally erroneous statement regarding that the "true founder of Christianity was an Alexandrian Jew, Philo". The early passage totally misrepresented Bauer's position by calling Philo the "founder" of Christianity rather than its "father"; the former implies a far more active role for Philo.

As for conspiracy mentality both sides have a good dose of that especially at the more extreme edges the the debate. There were certainly political and social agendas in play as to which books (and which versions of those books) became part of the Bible's canon in both the Old and New Testaments.

The BBC/A&E show "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" showed how these factors can color the view of something even during height of its power. To ignore that some form of editorial process likely went on with the New Testament's books and that certain Church leaders had agendas that would encourage them to exaggerate or even outright lie is insanity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, so no selective memory at all. The previous sentence was not ideal either - but it was derived from Drews' own summary of his precurors, so it actually came from a JMH proponent. The point is that improvements can be simply made without instant resort to fantasies about hidden agendas. As usual, the rest of yo comments simpy meander off topic about irrelevancies to do with "certainly political and social agendas in play as to which books (and which versions of those books) became part of the Bible's canon" and the Spanish Inquisition! Paul B (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were familiar with Binford or Dunnel you would know that what I am doing is similar to what is used in system theory anthropology to draw analogies between certain aspects of events. If you think I meander you should read Binford sometime; the man has great ideas regarding system theory anthropology but could due with a refresher English course mainly the part concerning the introductory paragraph. Back to the main point, 'hidden agenda' is a loaded term. It implies a conscious effort something Miner (1956) and later Cole, Dunnel, Kirch, Wenke, Charlton, Meltzer, Davis, Naroll, Simmons, and Schroder (1960's through 1980's) showed may not be the case. Sometimes as demonstrated by Miner the very model you use will bias your results (taking the Gospels as accurate historical documents would be one such biased model and this one shows up a lot). Cole's paper on Cult Archeology is especially relevant as it contains statements that can be applied to BOTH sides of the Historical Jesus issue even though it focused on other aspects of Cult Archeology and Anthropology then popular (ancient astronauts and seemingly every Old World culture before Columbus discovering the New World). Looking around I stumbled on "The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity" by Professor R. T. France. However the whole paper depends on the Gospels being 1st century eyewitness accounts something the Pro Historical Jesus site Jesus Police has issues with citing an interesting mixture of both Pro Historical Jesus and Jesus Myth authors and putting the Gospels as being authored in the 2nd century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this self-regarding bombastic tosh is getting to much for me. It has long been apparent that you are mostly here to luxuriate in the sound (or rather sight) of your own voice. For all your name dropping you seem to know rather little about the actual history of this theory. Quote from reliable sources, realise that reliablity is not determined by you, but by the status of the source. If you have something useful to add about France do so. But note that other authors that you don't like cannot be rejected because the Great Bruce has decided against them. Comparisons with theories about the discovery of the New World and whatever else that may come into your head may satisfy your own sense of your mental acuity but do nothing and tell us nothing unless those comparisons have been made by reliable sources. Of course France is firmly within standard scholarly norms, as his conclusion clearly asserts: "The four canonical gospels will not answer all the questions we would like to ask about the founder of Christianity; but, sensitively interpreted, they do give us a rounded portrait of a Jesus who is sufficiently integrated into what we know of first-century Jewish culture to carry historical conviction, but at the same time sufficiently remarkable and distinctive to account for the growth of a new and potentially world-wide religious movement out of his life and teaching." Paul B (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, resorting to name calling is not going to change the fact that most of the so called Pro Historical citations are vague quotations with not a lick of real evidence, full of weasel words that wouldn't last 10 seconds in a true peer reviewed article, depend on unproven assumptions, make utterly insane leaps of logic (Van Voorst regarding Thallus: He admits Thallus is third hand but he uses him anyhow), or so insanely out of date as to be laughable. Then you have the extreme edge trying to prove everything in the Gospel as historical all the while violating the key aspect of Occam's razor. Finally you have for lack of a better term the minimalists who in a nut shell say the Gospels are wild exaggerations with a few mythical elements thrown in for good measure. The problem with that view is you are left with the question of how much is historical fact and how much is added from else where or was simply made up. As far as reliability is concerned as I have mentioned before what is really needed in this area is a historical anthropologist. A good hard look at how the Romans viewed history (like how political was it) and how easy they were to accept claims of supernatural powers needs to be done. Any information regarding how oral tradition was handled is also needed for a proper evaluation of the Gospels both canon and otherwise. There is a lot that really needs to be covered before anything can really be said about Jesus as a historical figure it need to be said by anthropologists. Also we really need to clean up the references so that we don't have a cascade of broken ones if the wrong one is removed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

More on scholarly response

The problems with the "Scholarly response" section of the article here [7]. You will notice that Akhilleus was in favor of removing it, and there were no objections. It is a quote farm, and POV too. It had been my hope to save it by improving it, but I have not had the time. There is no justification for leaving it the way it is, so I am removing it. If an editor wants to restore it to the article, after improving it, that is OK with me. (There is also more discussion of that section here [8]) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be perfect but to simply excise it is absurd. Correct it or leave it to others. As for POV, well that's been very heavily discussed and settled in this page. Mercury543210 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been heavily discussed, and although the section is known to be problematic, it remained unchanged. Basically it is a collection of Christian scholars saying they believe in the core story of their religion, and pretty much saying the same thing. I am not interested in claiming one side is right and the other side wrong, but I do object to the effort to portray the sources on one side as "scholarly" and the sources on the other side as "fringe". It is exactly that which is POV. The fair approach would be to refer to scholars on one side as representing the majority, and the other as the minority. Is that asking for too much? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change it to "critical response", then there's not much justification for keeping out any prominent responses, whether they are academically supported or not. If we leave it as "scholarly", it encourages the addition of opinions from reputable scholars from both sides of the argument - if it is too difficult to find those for one side of the argument, that's not POV, that's simply evidence that that side is badly supported.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually such a section would be called "Criticisms", and many articles have such a section. The sources for the criticisms must be qualified sources. On the other hand, Akhilleus said that he thought it would be better to disperse the criticisms to various parts of the article where they best apply (without a separate criticism section), and I think that would be OK too. What is not acceptable is to have a section called scholarly response, as though there are no scholars who support one version or another of the Jesus myth hypothesis. That is POV. But I have no interest in an article in which this subject is protected from criticism, and that is not what I am trying to do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, if you intend to distribute the criticisms as Akhilleus suggested, then why haven't you done so? So far as I can see almost your only edits to this article have been deletions of chunks of referenced text. All you have done is chop out things you don't like by claiming consensus based on one comment, the recommendations of which you have not even followed. It's easy to slash and burn, but more difficult to make real improvements. However, on the centeral issue, this section is about general scholarly attitudes to the central claim of the JMH, not specific criticisms of specific arguments, so as far as I see it can't reasonably be disributed and it is not comparable to "criticisms" sectionsPaul B (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus was going to do that, not me. As far as I am concerned it is OK with a criticism section too; as long as it is called a criticism section, and as long as it is not a quote farm...which it now is. It had been my intention to add more to the article, but do not now have the time to work on an article that is of secondary interest to me, nor do I enjoy the editing environment of this article with Christian religious nuts who are not embarrassed to behave badly in an effort to poison this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider the phrasing "Christian religious nuts". It's not exactly a good way to characterize your fellow editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For your information I am not religious at all. I am certainly not a Christian believer. I am a historian interested in ethno-religious ideas in the 19th and 20th century. I didn't see you adding a single useful word about Bauer's theories, for all your argumentiveness on the talk page. And now apparently it's down to Akhilleus to recover information you just wanted to eliminate ("Akhilleus was going to do that, not me") and distribute it. I see. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think it justified, take it to the administrator's notice board. In any case, I have no doubt that the religious views of some editors are such that they present a WP:CONFLICT, and prevent rational editing, no matter what they say to the contrary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this section as a quote farm. It can use some copyediting to transform it into a few paragraphs that call out prominent authorities and summarize their points and reasoning, instead of a bulleted list of quotes. But the essence of the content, i.e. the names of the scholars, their points, and the citations, should be retained. Bertport (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance:

• Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."

• Graham Stanton writes "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."

• James Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ...", [71], and, 'It would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules or Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events, especially the crucifixion of Jesus, at a particular time and place."

• R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost"

The above, in a relatively short section, is more than enough to qualify the section as a quotefarm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Only France is useful. Michael Grant has been shown to notoriously sloppy using quotes from two previous authors and not supporting their quote with evidence. Doherty has this to say about The Gospels and Jesus: "Graham Stanton's 'case' against Wells' position is little more than a citation of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny (discussed below)—and an appeal to the authority that comes with the majority's acceptance "that Jesus existed."". James Charlesworth uses weasel words with NO supporting evidence to his claims. This renders them as useless as the quote by Grant originally used in the lead in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Scholarly whinge section

Each of the comments referred to particular aspects of the JM so are better in their respective sections. Criticism sections are not of much use to a reader - it is better to balance each topic as it is covered. Sophia 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sophia. You have improved the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sophia, though I prefer to read the pros and cons separately, in this case this does seem to resolve the arguments. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a movement earlier that having the criticisms in those sections (such as "Early proponents") was detrimental to those sections and seen as an attempt to "destroy the argument at each turn and poison the article against it", to grind it into the dust? Is this no longer a problem? What is the position on having anti-myth quotes throughout the article, now?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Each section should be a balanced explanation of the JM case - not quite sure what your point is. If you see this as a green light to "apologetics" it out of existence then I would suggest you stick to Zelda. Sophia 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can't be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status."

...sooo...I don't quite get why you're trying to attack me here again. Earlier arguments had claimed it was POV to have criticism in each section, and now they are claiming it's POV to have all the responses in one section that also happens to end up being only criticism. Again, what is the position on having anti-myth quotes dispersed throughout the article?

However, I would like to say thanks for taking my confusion on the pro-myth side's shifting demands as an attempt to censor you guys. Very good at assuming good faith.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what this argument is about? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. As I said - each section should be balanced. If you don't understand the argument that the editor made above that this is not the same as finding every straw man quote that you can to show it's not "respectable" "accepted" or "academic" in any way, then you are editing the wrong article. If you think my AGF is wearing thin in having to deal with editors who obviously have never read any of the JM books and only appear to have a web search based apologetics "lets stamp this theory into the ground" understanding of the topic then I would have to agree with you. Sophia 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your AGF is "wearing thin"? Right, because you haven't been attacking me nearly this whole time. Bloody hell...my question is is it still in argument to have criticisms of the various positions throughout the article? Not too long ago it was claimed as POV to have any criticism in such places as the Recent Proponents section, as it "has nothing to do with the proponents". Then, pro-myth editors split up the section the criticism had been primarily corralled in, and split it throughout the article. I'm just trying to figure out if we're going to have the "no criticism throughout the article" complaint pop up again, because you guys seem to have greatly changed your mind. All I'm asking you to do is to answer if this is still a complaint, or if the sections are allowed to have arguments from both sides of the debate.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You bring way too much emotion to this page where some more reading would be helpful. Also a "Us vs Them" attitude is counter productive and indicative of the apologetics attitude that causes this article to suffer so much. I have never liked separate criticism sections and have always felt that each section needs to be balanced. The JM authors make points about lack of documents, parallels with older myths etc., and the mainstream view should be presented at the time to allow the reader to see the different sides of the debate. The lead section and "History of the theory" is where the whole area should be put into context within academia (ie this is where it should say it is a minority view). This is NOT the same as putting in every section that it is "rejected" "not respectable" and not a suitable topic for "serious" scholars. Please reread the previous comment that you pasted above. If you still don't understand the difference I suggest you contact me on my talk page so I can try to make it even clearer without clogging up this page. Sophia 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, that's all I was asking - above it had seemed like the consensus was with Akhilleus' "But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section" (which is not specifically about the general "proponents are not respectable" thing), and it had seemed like your edits were the opposite of that. All I was trying to ask is what the situation on that was, and you've answered. Thank you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

it would seem to me that "most scholars are against it" would be in logic what is called 'appeal to authority". It seems to me that if you want to list scholar objections to the theory, you should list the scholar, and at least a summary specifically of his objection... and let's face it. "Nobody believes this", or "most scholars thing Jesus existed"... is not an actual argument, and such a position would therefore not be included. But I for one would like to see a list of scholars that have addressed the theory in a thoughful way. My understanding is that many simply avoid addressing it by saying "Nobody believes this", which is a sort of, as I said, logical falicy, and really does not say anything. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.132.74 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. The fact of the matter is most of the scholars on the pro-historical Jesus side are totally dismissive and don't even try to debate the issue but resort to Ad hominem attacks (the no reputatle/serous scholar nonsense), misrepresent relevant facts (as Burridge and Gould do with Pliny the Younger mentioning Jesus), appeal to authority that is decades out of date (Grant), and assume things that are still debated (the Gospels being 1st century documents which has never been proven).--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have removed some external links that were either blogs, or self published, or dead. WP encourages going light on external links, but if I mistakenly removed something that is acceptable, or missed something that is not, just correct my mistakes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus (background) paragraph reworked

I did some restructuring of this paragraph dealing with the origins of the subject at hand - with the purpose of neutrality in mind. I have read only descriptions and excerpts from the writings of the men involved, so I based my edit mostly on the article as it was, and the references I had at hand. My big concern was not only the POV, but also that this crucial paragraph be easy for the average reader to comprehend. Of note is that I used some different terms - I thought that what was written seemed to be a deliberate placing and emphasis on the "sun" - leading readers to see a correlation with "son" - without any concrete reference or excerpt from work of the men discussed that would give that emphasis any credibility. I also added a cite for references - and if the original wording was based on any existing text, it would be more credible to have some actual quotes with reference to the works from which they were drawn. No agenda whatsoever on my part - just an attempt to smooth the paragraph out and give it more objectivity with less use of potential "word pointing." Dmodlin71 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I confess that I don't really understand what POV you are referring to (pro or anti JMH?). The Sun Myth theory is from Max Muller. The fact that sun sounds like son is only true in English (and to a much lesser extent in other Germanic languages). It's not true in other languages ('fils'; 'soleil' in French for example) or in ancient languages. I will add a citation from Muller shortly, since I have several of his works and books about him here. Paul B (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial clean up attempt

I tried reorganizing some parts of the article so they flow in more logical matter. The Specific arguments of the hypothesis got somewhat of a major overhaul with the New Testament epistles section now listed before the Early non-Christian references to Jesus. This hopefully allowed some streamlining of the article by allowing various points to be grouped together. Also the wording in some areas was changed to more acurately reflect the fact that some Pro historical Jesus scholors have problems with some references. Van Voorst is highly critical of Suetonius saying "Repeating a mistake in his sources is characteristic of Suetonius, who often treats then uncritically and uses them carelessly." (Jesus Outside the New Testament). Claims have been made at some Pro Historical Jesus sites that Benko doesn't hold much credence that "Chestus" was Christ and Steve Mason doubted it as well but these are third hand accounts and not useable in the article. France notes Tacitus could have been simply repeating what he heard and no "serious" scholor takes Josephus at face value anymore.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what "Pro Historical Jesus sites" say? I thought we were trying to get away from internet-based research.

Regarding Suetonius, Van Voorst says "Although Suetonius did view Christ as a historical person capable of fomenting unrest, his glaring mistakes should caution us against placing too much weight on his evidence for Jesus or his significance for early Christianity." (p. 39) Van Voorst also says "The thrust of the sentence is clear: that Claudius took measures against at least some Jews in Rome after continual disturbances. The center of difficulty is the identity of Chrestus. We have seen, first, that the better explanation of this difficulty is that Chrestus is a mistake for Christus. We have shown that this is probable, but to claim certainty is to go beyond the spare and somewhat equivocal evidence." So, it's correct to say that Van Voorst has "problems" with Suetonius as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but at the same time, let's not exaggerate the problems that he sees. He thinks that Suetonius is probable evidence that Christ was historical, but allows that his evidence is not strong. To skip to another piece of non-Christian evidence, Van Voorst says that Tacitus belived that Jesus was historical (p. 53). At this point, it is probably a good idea to note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on expert sources, regardless of whether individual Wikipedia editors believe that those sources are correct.

To translate this into something that has practical consequences for the article, I would say that the sentence "However even some supporters of a historical Jesus admit that each of these references has some problems." is too vague, and in the context of this article loads the dice in favor of the anti-historical position.

Frankly, in lieu of a section that tries to debunk the non-Christian references to Jesus, I would like to see a historical approach that sets out what Bauer, William Smith, Drews, Wells et al. said about these passages. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Who cares what "Pro Historical Jesus sites" say?" If they show that even part of the pro Historical Jesus side questions these passages with references supporting these (so you can go and directly look it up-which iswhy I put out the names of those used) than it shows that it is not just an issue among Jesus mythers something implied when 'critics' is used.

With all respect I think your concern with POV being biased in favor of the anti-historical position is starting to border on paranoia. Mentioning that each of the four most commonly used non-Christian sources has a 'problem' hardly "loads the dice"; it is being truthful about the quality of the sources as evidence. Outright stating that "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." and explaining "Pliny the Younger (61- c. 120) was active Roman governor in Asia Minor in around 111 CE when he wrote to the Emperor Trajan about what he discovered from people being accused of being Christians." (as Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould do in their Jesus Then and Nowon pg 37 is loading the dice. Everything is set up to make the reader think Pliny the Younger wrote something specifically about Jesus when he in fact wrote nothing about Jesus. Makes you wonder what other exaggerations Burridge and Gould engage in. When a source engages in stuff like that you really have to ask if it is a source Wikipedia should be using.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Euhemerization

I've edited the lead so it doesn't use the term Euhemerization, because it was being used incorrectly. Euhemerism is basically a rationalizing interpretation of mythology. For instance, Euhemerus argued that Zeus was originally a mortal man and a king of Crete, who was worshipped as a god by his grateful people. The lead, though, said that "A related idea is that the Jesus of the bible is a Euhemerisation of an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." Mead/Ellegard argue that Jesus is a mythological elaboration on an earlier historical figure--this is the opposite of euhemerization. One could say that Mead/Ellegard themselves euhemerize Jesus by finding his true origin in the Teacher of Righteousness or whoever, but since contributors to this article appear to be confused about the meaning of the term, I think we should use plain language: "A related idea is that the Jesus of the bible is based upon an earlier religious teacher..." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But others such as Freke and Gandy (and possibly Allegro but I would have to check that) argue that Jesus was a mythical figure who was given a cooked up history in the 2nd C - hence Paul's lack of interest in the details of Jesus' life.

I also notice the lead has lost the bit about the lack of non christian evidence being the reason for some thinking he is a myth. This is a very important point raised by many in the field so should be there. Sophia 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus is again putting his own views on what the the Jesus Myth. Several definitions I found on the web: "the theory of the Greek writer Euhemerus (4th cent. ) that the gods of mythology were deified human beings; theory that myths are based on traditional accounts of real people and events" [yourdictionary.com http://www.yourdictionary.com/euhemerism] "Euhemerus also spelled Euemeros, or Evemerus author of a utopian work that was popular in the ancient world; his name was given to the theory that gods are great men worshipped after their death (i.e., Euhemerism)." [Encyclopædia Britannica Online ] "Euhemerism. From Euhemerus ( c. 320 BCE), who argued that the gods developed out of elaborated legends concerned originally with historical people. Applied to Jesus, the question becomes, not cur Deus homo? , but cur homo Deus ? (online passage ends there--anyone have the full text?) (Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions) "The Greeks also contributed Euhemerism, the practice of reducing myths to prosaic explanations, a habit which would live on into the nineteenth century, particularly in biblical exegesis." (Cohen, Thomas V Canadian Journal of History, Dec 1995) Since the last definition come from a peer reviewed journal it has precedence and I am going with that. If Akhilleus has a scholarly Journal article that gives a substantially different definition than Cohan and explains how "gods are great men worshipped after their death" does not apply to the positions of Mead and Ellegard he is free to present it. Otherwise Euhemerism stays in and in the lead in paragraph.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bruce, you seem to be confused on the meaning of euhemerism, despite the fact that you've harvested several definitions from the internet. Let's take Cohen--"the practice of reducing myths to prosaic explanations". So a "euhemerization" would be a "reduction of a myth to a prosaic explanation." Now, the text that you prefer in the lead is "A related idea is that the Jesus of the bible is a Euhemerisation of an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." In what sense is the Jesus of the bible a "reduction of a myth to a prosaic explanation"? It's Mead who's doing the euhemerization here, in that he's taking a mythical character (Jesus) and finding a prosaic explanation (he's based on an earlier historical figure).

This is a pretty good illustration that the term "euhemerization" and its relatives can be confusing; we should probably avoid using it, especially when it's possible to rephrase the material accurately and without the potential for confusing the reader.

There's another reason to avoid using the term. Some people apparently believe that a euhemerizing approach is unique to the JMT. But (as I'm sure I've said before) it's not--the entire quest for the historical Jesus can be called a euhemerist analysis. If you take the divine miracle-worker of the NT and find a (fully human) apocalyptic preacher, social revolutionary, etc. as the historical Jesus, you've found a "prosaic explanation" for a mythical character. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you are doing it backwards. The Jesus of the Bible is the hypothesized myth. The suggestion that the Biblical Jesus is (very loosely) based on the life of a real life teacher that lived somewhere in the first and second centuries is the reduction of the myth to a prosaic explanation; all within Cohn's definition. In note you are confusing Euhemerism with Euhemerization. Euhemerization deals with the process by which the historical person is turned into the myth. If you are up to reading Blavatsky (from 1880's who like Mead held Jesus lived 100BCE) you will find "The suspicion of a conscious and gradual euhemerization of the Christ principle ever since the beginning, grows into a conviction, once that one becomes acquainted with a certain confession contained in book ii. of the "Comment. to Matthew" by Hieronymus." (THEOSOPHY, Vol. 55, No. 6, April, 1967 pgs 170-180); note the italics here are hers not mine. I should mention that quick search of the internet also produced handout "Did Jesus Even Exist?" by Richard Carrier, M.A., M.Phil (Columbia University) which was for his Stanford Presentation on May 30, 2006. Under point 2 (The Evidence Warrants Disbelief) is point A "The Prior Probability of Ahistoricity and 'Euhemerization’ is not Small". Face it, Akhilleus, the more you keep claiming Euhemerization is not part of the JMT the more I find it is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Jesus of the Bible is the hypothesized myth." Yep. "The suggestion that the Biblical Jesus is (very loosely) based on the life of a real life teacher that lived somewhere in the first and second centuries is the reduction of the myth to a prosaic explanation." Yep. What you're saying is that Mead's theory is a euhemerization of the Jesus of the Bible.

But the text that you're putting into the article is "A related idea is that the Jesus of the Bible is a Euhemerisation of an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." This sentence says that the Jesus of the Bible is a "prosaic explanation" of the Teacher of Wisdom. Is that really what you want the article to say? Because that seems like the exact opposite of what you say Mead's idea is.

I get the feeling you're not reading what I'm writing very carefully, because you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I've said, euhemerization is not unique to the JMT, not by a long shot--most lives of Jesus are euhemerizing accounts in that they try to locate a historical person underneath the "myth" of the New Testament. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Carrier piece you mention doesn't show anything about the use of "euhemerization"; there's not even enough detail there to establish how he uses the word. It would be great if you stopped using whatever random document pops up in Google searches, because quite often the stuff you're bringing in here doesn't meet WP:RS. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to reversing what the sentence is saying because you are misreading an adjective clause as a verb. It is akin to saying that the sentence of 'John thought the euthanazion of the dog was cruel.' somehow says that John was what was euthanizied! Just as 'of the dog' tells you what was euthanizied so does 'of an earlier religious teacher' tell you who was Euhemerised because they are adjective clauses modifying the word they come right after. Your example of Mead again shows you have totally confused Euhemerism (the theory) with Euhemerization (the process the theory say operates) because I am saying Mead's theory is a Euhemerism (NOT euhemerization; please note the difference) regarding the Jesus of the Bible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As you're using it, the notion of an "adjective clause" doesn't make sense. Check out the definition of clause. Perhaps you're trying to say that I'm mistaking a passive voice for an active voice?

As you say, both "euthanization" and "euhemerization" refer to processes. But that doesn't support your argument. You can say that "the dog was euthanized", but you can't say that "the dog is a euthanization"--what would that mean?. You can say "Jesus was euhemerized", but you can't say that "Jesus is a euhemerization", because that's equivalent to "Jesus is the process of providing a prosaic explanation for a mythical figure."

In any event, "euhemerization" refers to the analysis carried out by the theorist--in this case, Mead. This should be obvious from the normal method of forming English words, but if you want a citation, look at Diane P. Thompson, The Trojan War: Literature and Legends from the Bronze Age to the Present, p. 9: "...both Dictys and Dares wrote long after the Trojan War, perhaps in the first century CE, or perhaps later. Each dealt with the gods in two ways popular at that time: where possible, eliminate the gods entirely; where the gods had to play a role, present them as historical human beings falsely reported to be gods. This explanation of the ancient gods as human was called euhemerization." (This is even on Google Books, so you can check it without bothering to go to the library.)

It makes perfect sense to say that Mead's theory is a euhemerization of the Jesus of the Bible; it's not good style to say that Mead's theory is "a euhemerism". It's fine to say that his theory is euhemeristic, or euhemerizing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And here's the OED entry for euhemerism, minus the citations:

The method of mythological interpretation which regards myths as traditional accounts of real incidents in human history.

Euhemerus, a Sicilian (c 316 B.C.) was the author of a book called Hiera anagraphe, in which he maintained that the deities of Hellenic mythology were deified men and women, and pretended to cite authentic records of their lives.

So Euhemerist [+ -IST], one who follows the method of Euhemerus; also attrib. (quasi-adj.). Euhemeristic a. [f. prec. + -IC], (a) of persons: Inclined to euhemerism; (b) of things: Of the nature of or resembling euhemerism. Euhemerize v., (a) trans. To subject to euhemeristic interpretation; also, to euhemerize into or out of. (b) intr. To follow the method of Euhemerus. Euhemerized, ppl. a. Euhemerizing vbl. n. (in quot. attrib.).

"Euhemerization" isn't in there, but it's obviously formed from the verb euhemerize, and you'll note that both definitions refer to the process of subjecting something to euhemeristic interpretation. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that looking for Euhemerisation and Euhemerization through Google books also produces authors who use it the same way I do. "Thor, the euhemerization of electricity, handles his peculiar element only when protected by gloves of iron" ("Isis Unveiled: A master-key to the mysteries of ancient and modern science" Theosophy (1919) Page 161 by Helena Blavatsky) "Although the term euhemerization has often been used in Chinese studies to define the process of rationalizing gods into humans, in fact it means the exact opposite. The original term means the rationalization of human hero kings into gods." (Birrell, Anne 1993 Chinese Mythology: An Introduction) So the term is used both ways. Looks like euhemerization has become akin to the term "culture" in my field which must be read in context to see how the author is using it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the problem with using Google Books etc. is that you start thinking that writers like Blavatsky are authoritative sources on the meaning of "euhemerization". Blavatsky is not an authoritative source on anything, except the beliefs of Theosophists.

Fortunately, I don't rely on Google Books; I have actually read physical books about Greek mythology, and thus know who Euhemerus was and what Euhemerist theories are. The OED (which is not on Google Books!) is based on a similar understanding.

What's more, I know that the sense in which "euhemerization" is used in Sinology differs quite drastically from the way it's used in classical studies; see e.g. H.W.F. Saggs, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 25 (1962) p. 196: "D. Bodde's essay on 'Myths of ancient China'...concentrates upon religion in classical China: one learns incidentally that Sinologists perversely employ the term 'euhemerization' in the opposite sense to everyone else" and William Boltz, "Kung Kung and the Flood: Reverse Euhemerism in the Yao Tien," T'oung Pao 67 (1981) p. 141: "The process whereby these early myths were lost is generally referred to as euhemerization, or euhemerism ; though as I shall show here euhemerism more sinico is technically the precise opposite of euhemerism in its proper Greek usage."

Within classics euhemerization (and related terms) has a very well understood and stable meaning; quite unlike anthropology, where many technical terms are constantly under question, and could mean something quite different depending on who you're reading. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Josh McDowell used the OED in the very early versions of his Evidence That Demands a Verdict and the film that went with it (saw it in the last 1980's at University of Utah) because it had a definition of science that excluded all the social (or soft) sciences doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence about its definitions. The fact that other other use it the same way I did shows the terrm can be used both ways.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

breakdown

ok, let me try to break down the disagreement here. in strictly logical terms, we have the following possibilities

1. Jesus was a historical man, who was god
2. Jesus was a historical man, who was later mythologized into being a god
3. some prior historical person existed (call him mr. X), and Jesus is a mythical, god-like figure based more or less loosely on mr. X
4. Jesus is a mythical compilation of several historical persons
5. Jesus is a mythical expression of divine truth and love ("mythical" does not necessarily mean false) --Timtak (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Jesus is a pure mythological fabrication, with no historical basis

the question is, which of these constitutes an euhemerization? clearly the first and last are not, and by definition the second one is. but what about the other two? ideas and cites? if we can't figure out how this term should be correctly applied, then it would probably be a good idea to drop it entirely. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the third option probably counts as a Euhemerization as well, as that is basically what Euhemerus said of Zeus, and four is more or less a variation on that. However, I really do not believe that the word should be used. We have to remember that wikipedia is aimed at a general reader. I like to think I know a fair amount about mythology and religion, and the word is one with which I am at best marginally familiar. I think it would make most sense, if that concept is to be included in the lead, which makes sense to me, to not use that word but rather use a phrase which more clearly states the same thing. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

True but we have to be truthful to the reader. Currently the whole Jesus Myth article is slanted toward that either Jesus existed or he didn't with the middle ground that Mead, Ellegard, and Blavatsky actually covered which was the Biblical Jesus didn't exist but there was a man who lived either in the 1st or 2nd century BCE who was the basis for the Biblical Jesus left swaying in the wind.

I would also say the lead in is deceptive as all get out. It says "The hypothesis was first proposed by historian and theologian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century" and yet in the body of the text it states "Two early proponents of the idea that Jesus was a mythical character were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis, radical French Enlightenment thinkers who published books in the 1790s that argued Christ was based upon a combination of Persian and Babylonian mythology." Well if Volney and Dupuis were putting this out in 1790 then Bauer in the 19th century could not have been the first could he?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

something like this? "A related idea is that the stories of Jesus in the Bible are a reference to or compilation of the lives of earlier religious teacher(s), with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." could even throw in a "(see Euhemerization)" note, if that would satisfy people... --Ludwigs2 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this suggestion is that Mead and Ellegard (apparently) contend that the Jesus of the NT is an elaboration upon whatever earlier historical figure they think is the basis--that is, mythological content has been added. So it's not accurate to say that the stories are a reference or a compilation. Obviously, I think that my text--"A related hypothesis is that the Jesus of the bible is based upon an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as the 2nd century BCE."--is a good alternative. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Or we could modify something that Bruce wrote up above, along the lines of: "A related hypothesis is that the Biblical Jesus is based on the life of a religious teacher that lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

the only issue there is that actually touches on the 'mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons' that is on the lead. Mead spend a lot of time on showing evidence for a Jesus like person c100 BC but little on how that Jesus became the Jesus of the Bible so I would prefer to keep it sort of separate but it doesn't seem to flow well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, how about "A related hypothesis claims that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE." that 'stories' thing is a useful tool for separating the actual person from his historical footprint. --Ludwigs2 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good progress (you're right about the "stories" thing), but this text doesn't account for the elaboration that (allegedly) happens in the formation of the Gospel stories. BTW, we need to ask whether Mead and Ellegard are notable and whether they should be included in this article; no evidence has been provided for these points other than BruceGrubb's assertion that these authors are important. In the few secondary sources I've found on this subject (websites dont' count), Van Voorst and Weaver don't mention Mead (Ellegard is too recent for them to cover); and I suppose we should include Schweitzer, who devotes a lot of coverage to Bauer, Drews, and other authors who fall within the ambit of this article, but doesn't mention Mead. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Mead and Ellegard ARE important (as opposed to notable-Mendel certainly wasn't notable until more than 40 years after he wrote his "Experiments on Plant Hybridization" paper and had been dead for 20 years) because they show that the Jesus Myth question is NOT the excluded middle of either Jesus existed or He did not that is is often presented. In fact, I have previously cited at least one pro Historical Jesus supporter who puts Mead in the Jesus Myth camp.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus - I think your first point is easy enough to clear up - just tweak the phrase a bit like this: "A related hypothesis claims that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE." with respect to the notabilty issue, I see this phrase as a necessary disambiguation comment rather than a point of factual interest in the article. some people are going to be confused (some people like us - lol) as to how far the JMH actually extends, philosophically speaking, and so statements that place it in context should be used just for that purpose. that's how I see it, anyway... --Ludwigs2 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

docetism

Why is this mentioned at all? The lead states that the JMT is a modern theory (19th century and later); there's not much chance of confusing it with an ancient heresy. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the article on docetism does mention the Qur'an among "Texts including docetism" so the concept is hardly "ancient heresy".--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Christianity, it's an ancient heresy. The Qur'an isn't exactly a modern text, either. I see no reason to mention Docetism in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible isn't exactly a modern text either. The point is that the idea of Docetism does show up in some modern ideas and not those of just scholars.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this was just intended as disambiguation. I mean, when you are asking whether Jesus was a historical being, the possibility that he was a non-corporeal projection kind of throws peanut butter on the popcorn. can a non-corporeal projection really be considered 'historical'? --Ludwigs2 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's intended as disambiguation, but I don't see why it's necessary. I ask again: the article makes it plain that we're dealing with a theory that took definitive shape in the 19th century. Why would anyone confuse that with a heresy whose heyday was the 2nd century? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it all depends on what you call 'historical'. The reports of Spring Heeled Jack are certainly historical but it is uncertain if that term can be applied to Spring Heeled Jack himself. Even if Jesus had been a non-corporeal projection you still run into many of the same problems the Pro-Jesus Myth side has with a living breathing Jesus c4 BC-c29 CE: if the Gospels are even remotely accurate why didn't anyone during this period record his ministry which according to Bishop Irenaeus c180 CE supposedly lasted between 10 to 20 years. Then you have all the people on what is known as the Remsberg List which lists over 40 possible people who could have noted Jesus but didn't. The issue of why the over 20 year gap between Jesus dying and the first formal Gospel and why Paul doesn't seem to cite any really definable events from Jesus life on earth and on and on it goes. Typing this about the only relevance that I see Docetism having is the idea the crusifiction was an illusion and I think I agree with Akhilleus; it just doesn't seem to fit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

well, let me suggest to solutions, if there's anyone who really thinks the line should remain. (1) move it to a footnote as a minor disclaimer. (2) remove it, but add one of those disambiguation lines at the top of the article - you know... for related topics, see Docetism, Euhemerization, ... --Ludwigs2 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is almost no doubt that Spring Heeled Jack was a real person, but that the reports of his actions produced widespread panic, many copycats and hysterical exaggerations. That's essentially the same as the mainstream view of Jesus. Why on earth you think that a minor preacher should be mentioned by lots of authors is a mystery. The evidence we have for most Jewish messainc claimants of the period is miniscule. See the tiny amount of evidence we have about Theudas and Judas of Galilee. This is simply normal given that only a tiny proportion of texts survive from the era. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

True, a tiny proportion of texts survive from the era. But then you hit the reasons WHY so few texts survive; neglect, cultural disintegration, and most importantly the Christians themselves. The destruction of what remained of the Library of Alexandria in 391 and 415 by Christian zealots shows that there were those who feared what others wrote and would go to any lengths to see those views destroyed. As for a "mainstream" view on Jesus, other that he existed I really don't see that there is one; every scholar seems to have their own view on what is reliable and what is not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you have any reliable sources which prove that the Library of Alexandria was destroyed in 391 and 415 by 'Christian zealots'? You seem to claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them. Do you have any reliable evidence for this claim? --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not (I suppose a quick visit to Wikipedia's article on the Library of Alexander was disappointing). That's very illuminating. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The 415 date comes from Carl Sagan in his book Cosmos. The 391 date is based on the order by Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to destroy all pagan temples and is referenced in Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Easy to find if you bother to look.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's it? That's all you have? Carl Sagan is not an authority on the subject, and on this matter he is flat out wrong. Gibbon's anti-Christian bias is well known, and his error well documented. The fact that you cited Sagan first shows me that you haven't even read Gibbon yourself, you just read Sagan's throwaway reference to Gibbon in Sagan's work (which you clearly did not read critically). For more on this fascinating subject, you can read either the Wikipedia article, or Bede's. Both will demonstrate that the Library suffered destruction at the hands of Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC, and later at the hands of the pagan emperor Aurelian in the 3rd century AD, before anything happened to it at the hands of Christians. Clearly you were completely ignorant of this. The decree of Theophilus ordered the destruction of pagan temples, not the Library of Alexandria. I note that you've provided no evidence for your previous spectacular claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Bruce, I'd say it's you who hasn't bothered to look: Carl Sagan isn't a great source for ancient history. Gibbon, while a great stylist and an interesting read, has been superseded on many points, and current classical scholars are far less certain when the library burned. Of course, even if the library was burned by Christians in 391 or 415 or whatever, that wouldn't have exactly wiped out all classical texts... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan, you do know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for articles (and why using it to support anything is questionable at best), right? Furthermore you do know that Bebe's is a self published site of questionable quality? The statement "The first misconception is that the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge about the world." ("Do Science and Chrisitianity Conflict?") and the examples that follow to support the point are oversimplistic. The examples given in "Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth" are similarly simplistic as are the ones in "Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed". The comparison with Hannibal is another one of those half-truth examples ignoring the fact there is archeological evidence (coins and the like) that shows Hannibal existed; none of this exists for Jesus. The majority of the site is full of nonsense like that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Grubb, I'm well aware that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles, and nor can self published material (that's 'Bede', not 'Babe' by the way). I am not using them for either. Your petty (and inaccurate), attacks on Bede's site are simply an attempt to run away from the issue, which was your completely false claims regarding the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, which don't even belong here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I see you are resorting to strawmen to salvage this. Who are these "current classical scholars"? Furthermore remember that both the Christians and the Arabs had a vested interest in what documents survived and which became either kindling or mold food. The 20th century has shown us efforts to totally rewrite history by oppressive governments so why why not something similar back then? We know the eagerness with which the Donation of Constantine (a 12th century forgery claiming to be written in the 4th) was accepted by the Church but it wasn't until the 15th that actual serious research into it was done. The Acts of Pilate (4th) and its supposed letter from Pilate to Emperor Claudius is another example. Basically if the fox is not in the hen house he is certainly guarding it--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A text book example of a logical fallacy. Just because X has happened at various times in the past, and just because it is possible that X could have happened at a given time in the past, does not mean that X did happen at that given time in the past. If you had any evidence to support your previous claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them, you would have presented it by now. You don't. There isn't any. And this Talk page is not the place for this discussion. Stay with the topic please, which is discussion of the content of this Wikipedia article. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More like a text book example of ignorance of basic historical fact. The fact is that those who were in the best position to salvage ancient text had a vested interest in what survived. This was not a one time event but over centuries. We know that throughout its history Christianity were not above making claims, creating documents, and ignoring/destroying others to support their claims. Take a look at Bishop Irenaeus' claims c180 CE about the age of Jesus in his Against Heresies, Book 2 chapter 24 paragraph 5 to see what I mean. Even with the little we know Bishop Irenaeus is clearly talking nonsense and yet certainly one would have expected some sort of rebuttal by leaders in the various groups he said were heresies, but no such works are known to us. In fact compared to those who refute them counter arguments are next to nil. If Argument from Silence is not a good argument to challenging the existence of Jesus then it is not a good argument against such documents existing and being destroyed by either active effort or passive neglect. Besides Bishop Irenaeus admits that certain heresies were written down and yet some of those don't exist either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's not a text book example of 'ignorance of basic historical fact'. I'm properly educated on this subject, whereas you are not. By the way, you are continuing to violate WP:SOAP. If you had any evidence to support your previous claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them, you would have presented it by now. You don't. There isn't any. And this Talk page is not the place for your soapbox rants. You've missed completely the fact that for the first three centuries of Christianity those in the position to control information were the pagan Romans. The early Christian community had no way of controlling the documents to which you refer. The pagan Romans were in the best position to salvage ancient texts, and had a vested interest in what survived. And we actually know that they took steps to destroy Christian material, with Diocletian famously attempting to destroy all Christian Scriptures (which is the major reason why so few early New Testament manuscripts survive today). There are many reasons why the works of alleged heretics didn't survive, just as there are many reasons why the majority of Greek scientific works didn't even make it to the Roman era. The primary reason why the works of alleged heretics tended not to survive was that the groups died out and no one else was interested in preserving their works. The terrific irony is that we only know of many of these heretical groups because those Christian groups which survived preserved their writings in the form of rebuttals, and thus ensured that the beliefs of these obscure heretical groups were kept on record for century after century, to this day. If they had really been interested in obliterating the beliefs of these groups, they wouldn't have written them out in detail and preserved them century after century. And if they had been in a position to destroy the writings of these groups, there wouldn't have been any reason to write rebuttals. So we're left with you making a claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, just like your spurious claim regarding the Library of Alexandria. I'm not the one making an argument from silence by the way. I'm not saying that the fact that there's no evidence proves that your case is wrong (Occam's Razor can be used to prove that your case is wrong), I'm saying that the fact that there's no evidence means you cannot assert that it is right. When you have such evidence, you can take it to a discussion forum and have your rant there. This is not the place for such soapboxing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan, it is not soapboxing to point out a variant of the old tenant 'winners write history' is in play her. I have already cites out Gibbons and Sagan while neither you or Akhilleus have produced any actual names to support your claims. All we have gotten from you is Wikipedia and Bebe both of which are useless and even less from Akhilleus. Mostafa El-Abbadi and Omnia Fathallah in "What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?" shows a complex pattern of civil unrest, active destruction, and neglect over centuries while totally shooting the medieval story the Christians dreamed up to place the destruction of the Library on the shoulders of the Arabs. Furthermore none of this addresses the death of Hypatia and total decline of in 415 as documented by Thomas Little Heath, Thomas Lewis (1721) in "The History Of Hypatia", Elbert Hubbard in "Little Journeys to the Homes of the Great, Vol. X, Great Teachers" (who stated "The followers of Hypatia were necessarily few in numbers. They were thinkers - and to think is a task. To believe is easy. The Bishop promised his followers a paradise of ease and rest. He also threatened disbelievers with the pains of hell. A promise on this side - a threat on that!"), Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian in "The Martyrdom of Hypatia (or The Death of the Classical World)", and even the Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Whatever the precise motivation for the murder, the departure soon afterward of many scholars marked the beginning of the decline of Alexandria as a major centre of ancient learning."). My position is based on working going back nearly three centuries which you have only self-published stuff. As for the Diocletian decrees these were during the period when the Roman Empire was fragmented and so were not uniform enforced across the Empire. Flavius Valerius Constantius for example basically ignored these edicts and for the most part left Christians under his rule alone. If his name looks familiar it should; his son was Constantine.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Grubb, let me explain to you what WP:SOAP means. It means (among other things), that this Talk page is not the appropriate place for you to air your personal prejudices, nor to debate the issue in the main article. The content may be debated, not the issue. You have consistently engaged other editors in arguments over the truth claims of the theory in the main article. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You should know this. You have been told this more than once. In light of the breathtaking ignorance of your recent comments, you should not even be contributing this article. I will explain this in detail on your Talk page. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan, claiming WP:SOAP does not make it true especially as I have not seen one reputable refutation of Sagan, Gibbon, Mostafa El-Abbadi, Omnia Fathallah, Thomas Little Heath, Thomas Lewis, or Elbert Hubbard nor a challenge to the quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also you claimed on my talk page "You didn't even cite him directly, you simply cited Sagan citing Gibbon." Uh, Taiwan, you did read the part in Cosmos where Sagan make reference to Hypatia's death (c415 CE)? Considering that Gibbion has the Library being destroyed in 391 how can Sagan be quoting Gibbon if he is giving us a 415 CE date?! The logical holes in this shows it is YOU who is WP:SOAP as obviously Sagan cannot be getting his 415 date from Gibbon! The Bibliotheca Alexandrina itself give the 391 as the date for the demise of the Library as a public institution with Hypatia "becoming the first martyr to science". While parts of the Library were destroyed before the Christianscame to power (c47 BCE and 272 CE) its final destruction rightly or wrongly seems to have been put on the Christian's front doorstep including the modern revival of the institution itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> The reason docetism is here is that the lede did not always confine this subject to the 19th C.[9]. Sophia 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S up for deletion

While not universally respected, I do think she is notable. Feel free to comment here [10]. I must admit, I am a bit bewildered by the process. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Earl Doherty is now up for deletion also. As I've said, I am bewildered, as people are suggesting that popular writers need to have numerous academic journals reference their works before they can be considered notable. Doesn't matter how many books you sell, how many radio appearances you've appeared on (they're not WP:RS)... Published book reviews by other notables in your own field apparently don't count either. What the heck? ^^James^^ (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, James, "published book reviews" count. Self-published book reviews generally don't, though, and as far as I can see reviews of Acharya S and Doherty appear on self-published websites; this seems to be the case for Doherty as well, except for one review in the American Atheist. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"As far as you can see"? Funny at 19:31 that same day you stated "The review also appeared in the print edition: vol. 39, no. 1 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 43-45" Ie you yourself found a printed review backing up the self-published website some 15 minutes before posting to here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just one review, Bruce, and it's of Doherty, not of Acharya S. If it will make you happy, I will modify my statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since then several other reviews have been produced for Doherty and I supplied four books before you posed this anyhow. Furthermore ^^James^^ produced two book reviews (one by Doherty and another by Price) on 10:36, 28 June 2008. The original version of the Price review took a grand total of 10 seconds to find through google. Another review by Mike Licona was found by expanding the search for the Price article. One can not see far if one stays in the valley;its best to get up on a mountain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last post was confusing because you're talking about both Doherty and Acharya S, without indicating that you're switching between the two. Yeah, you found some material about Doherty in a couple of books, but those books only mention him in passing (not "significant coverage"), and one book is self-published, and another is a work of fiction.

The other stuff you mention--a review by Doherty, a review by Price, and a response by Mike Licona--is about Acharya S. You seem to have forgotten is the difference between self-published material and third-party publications, which is what I was talking about in my response to James above. Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and are not generally useful for establishing notability. Mike Licona's website, www.risen-jesus.com, is self-published. Ditto for the Doherty review. Price's review of The Christ Conspiracy, as far as I can tell, was published on his website, not in another venue, and if that's the case it's also self-published. Under some conditions, self-published material by experts in the subject can be used as sources, but the current version of the page says that the review has been withdrawn from the site pending revision, so I don't think it's a great source for establishing notability. If your websearching skills have lead you to reviews of Acharya S' work that appeared in third-party publications (in other words, not on self-published websites) then by all means mention them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources regards content within an article while notability has slightly different criteria. General notability guidelines are good for topics but have problems when applied to living persons. In fact the bar on living persons is so high (much of it for practical reasons) that unless they are are par to the President of the US or PM of the UK it is a wonder anything can be written about them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The Notability guideline for people says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In other words, both guidelines specify that the subject must receive coverage in reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet the Chick Tracks article whose 90 some references are all self-published is not up for deletion but The Jesus Puzzle is. Why are these policies being applied inconstantly?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably because most of the editors responsible for the Chick tracts (not 'Tracks'), article are atheists, whereas many who want to see 'Acharya S' go are Christians. The fact is, many atheists find them entertaining, which is why the article exists. And to be fair, it has already been noted more than once in the Chick tracts article that the content isn't up to WP standard:

• 'If someone who was very strict about WP policies were to notice this article, he or she might say that all of the examples should be removed since they don't come from secondary sources. I think this is a worthwhile article myself, even if not WP standard. Steve Dufour 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)'
• 'Are there no independent sources for this content? Guy (Help!) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)'
• 'Actually they look like original research, even if they aren't, we should be using reliable sourcing. Benjiboi 05:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)'

Besides, this is Wikipedia, consistently inconsistent! --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Humphreys

I'm assuming Kenneth Humphreys is a notable source (though I can't find reference to any of his works in my collection of scholarly works on the debate concerning the historicity of Jesus, not even by the atheists), but I'm concerned that this reference to his work was published by a less than reputable source, and may even constitute vanity publishing:

'Kenneth Humphreys. Jesus Never Existed. Historical Review Press (December 2005). ISBN 0906879140.'

The 'Historical Review Press' is well known (and self-advertised), as a publishing house for revisionist material on every subject from the origins of World War I to the historicity of the Holocaust. Just as quotes from Christian apologists published by Christian publishers should be viewed with skepticism when offered in the context of what should be neutral support for the historicity of Jesus, I would have preferred to see a reference to Humphrey's work from a respected peer-reviewed journal or scholarly source rather than a source which was published by such a blatantly interested and propagandist part (the 'Historical Review Press'). Could someone who knows more about Humphreys than I do provide something like a quote from an article of his in the peer-reviewed scholarly journals in which he regularly publishes? Failing that, has he written any encyclopedia entries, or contributed to any notable anthologies on the subject? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding evidence that Humphreys is a recognized scholar with professional qualifications in this field. Can someone help me out? --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the website for the Historical Review Press? I don't think we should be using this journal as a source; one of its core positions is a denial of the Holocaust, which isn't exactly part of the academic mainstream. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's the site for the 'Historical Review Press'. Call me 'Mr Conservative', but the fact that I can only find Humphrey's work published by this particular firm does not inspire confidence that Humphreys and his work are known and recognized in notable and reliable scholarly publications. Could someone explain what Humphreys is doing here, and list his professional qualifications in this field? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never read him or heard of him and the source sounds poor so I would agree that he should not be used as a ref. Sophia 06:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if there's a little more feedback from some of the other editors, maybe we can take some action, like replacing him with another source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Humphreys did debate Professor Gary Hambermas at Edinburgh University in the debated called "Resurrection - Religious Fiction or Historical Fact?" in 2008 which was funded by the Edinburgh University Christian Union and Edinburgh University Philosophy Society. If Humphreys was some obscure nut with no credentials what-so-ever what was Edinburgh University doing having him speak on this topic when there are "better qualified" people like Robert M. Price, Alvar Ellegard, Frank R. Zindler, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur could have been chosen?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't actually answer my questions. Could someone explain what Humphreys is doing here, and list his professional qualifications in this field? Could someone who knows more about Humphreys than I do provide something like a quote from an article of his in the peer-reviewed scholarly journals in which he regularly publishes? Failing that, has he written any encyclopedia entries, or contributed to any notable anthologies on the subject? Can someone provide any evidence that he is a recognized notable source in this particular field? --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does answer the question because Edinburgh University obviously thought Humphreys had good professional qualifications or was well known otherwise they wouldn't have invited him for the debate in the first place. Also looking for Kenneth Humphreys tends to result in the totally unrelated Kenneth K. Humphreys. I have found out that supposedly the Jesus, the son of Damneus idea goes back as least to the 1930's and an trying to find out who first used it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't answer my questions, because you haven't listed his professional qualifications in this field, you haven't quoted an article of his in the peer-reviewed scholarly journals in which he regularly publishes, you haven't provided any encyclopedia entries or anthology contributions, and you haven't provided any evidence that he is a recognized notable source in this particular field. You've told me that he had a debate with Habermas on a completely different subject at Edinburgh University. That does not answer my questions. When I look at Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, I don't see any mention of Edinburgh University. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I got a surprise. Richard M. Mitchell in his 1893 book The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ makes mention of the Jesus, the son of Damneus idea so this is not not a new idea Humphreys came up with but a very old idea going back over a century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If Mitchell is notable, then by all means include him. Thus far I haven't seen any evidence that Humphreys, and the work in question (the one cited in the article), was certainly not published by a reputable source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a theory

The current version of the article uses hypothesis and theory interchangeably. However, these scientific terms have very different meanings. Theory is listed as a word to avoid when used in place of hypothesis. We should substitute theory with a better term, except perhaps in cases when it is used (typically derogatively) by the cited source. Terjen (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What's your position on the theory of relativity? PiCo (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That it is not a hypothesis but a scientific theory. We shouldn't elevate the Jesus myth to a scientific theory on par with the Theory of relativity. Terjen (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned up most uses of theory in the article, usually substituting with hypothesis, but also in some cases argument or nothing. Terjen (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but this sort of thing isn't science - it's pedantic to insist on words like "theory" having the same meaning here that they do in the sciences. PiCo (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is wholly inappropriate to mechanically change "theory" to "hypothesis" based on a misapplication to historical studies of the use of the two terms in science. In the humanities the term theory (as in critical theory) is typically used to refer to a systematic network of ideas, or to a worked out set of arguments about an historical phenomenon. In this respect the term theory better describes the more worked out models than does "hypothesis". Paul B (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Theory better describes the more worked out models, as in Jesus theory for the ideas presented in the Historicity of Jesus. Terjen (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus myth hypothesis (or theory), is simply a minority view that has an acceptable level of notability. The fact that some editors have such a hard time accepting it for what it is suggests there may be conflicts of interest based on belief. The basis for Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Malcolm, what does your comment have to do with the previous discussion?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is considering the truth of the Jesus myth hypothesis, which is not the job of Wikipedia editors. And the article itself is filled with sources debunking the subject of the article, when all that is really needed is a statement in the introduction that it represents a minority view, with a link to whatever Wikipedia article gives the historic documentation that proves Jesus really existed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is a about the relative merits of the terms "hypothesis" and "theory". It is not "considering the truth of the Jesus myth hypothesis". Did you read beyond the title? Paul B (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scholarly" response

Does anyone else agree that this is a pretty poor showing considering the JM is so clearly annihilated and unrespectable?

• Richard Burridge – Rev Dr Richard Burrage Dean of Kings College [11]

• Graham Gould – Church warden and treasurer [12]

• Robert E. Van Voorst – ordained minister [13]

• Graham Stanton – Divinity faculty Cambridge (the best of the bunch but hardly impartial) [14]

• Michael Grant – scholar but very broad base (the gospels were not his speciality) – can’t find confirmation of the atheist bit. [15]

• R. T. France – Anglican rector

None of these sources can claim to be impartial - there MUST be better ones out there. All these do so far is confirm the accusations that the quotes currently used are not really representative of academia but serve to push a particular POV. Sophia 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving out the fact that all of these men hold or held academic positions. Graham Gould doesn't currently hold a teaching or research position, but was a lecturer in theology and religious studies at King's College London from 1990 to 2003, according to his webpage, and is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Theological Studies, an international academic journal published by Oxford University Press. This is a prestigious journal, and Gould's co-editorship is a sign that he's regarded as an expert in the field.

Robert Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, specializing in the New Testament.

R.T. France, according to his Wikipedia article, "is a New Testament scholar and Anglican Rector." He was also the the Principal of Wycliffe Hall from 1989 to 2005--in other words, he was the academic leader of one of the colleges at Oxford for over a decade and a half.

The people listed above are experts in the fields of theology, religious studies, new testament studies, and ancient history. These are exactly the kinds of sources we're supposed to use in writing Wikipedia articles. They're certainly in an excellent position to judge the question for which they're cited--is the JMT a mainstream part of academic discussion on the historical Jesus, is it a minority position with some support, or is it considered a strange idea which you'll rarely (if ever) see discussed in a college classroom or academic journal?

Obviously some (perhaps all) of the people listed are practicing Christians. I don't see how this impairs their ability to judge what the consensus in the field is. And, as I've already said, if you really believe that Christians are so biased that they can't evaluate the JMT objectively and you believe that the field is dominated by these biased "apologists", then the theory is necessarily fringe--for according to this idea, the field can't allow the theory to be discussed. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possibly a conflict of interest that is involved for some of these sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, not anymore than it's a "conflict of interest" for a climate scientist to say that there's a consensus in his/her field that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case its more like an Exxon executive saying that he does not see any signs of global warming. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a scientist funded by Philip Morris whose studies show that smoking does not cause lung cancer? ^^James^^ (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about, it's a scientist voicing a position respected by the mainstream, and without specific evidence and examples of the bias corrupting their work, you're all engaging in conspiracy-mongering? I mean, you do realize that people who accuse scientists who support evolution or global warming of similar "conflicts of interest" are almost universally ridiculed and ignored, right?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bring science into this. One thing I have learned is that the scientific method and historical methods have no common ground. I would love to see error bars on some of the statements made by historians! We have been told and are given quotes that show that the JM has been "annihilated" and is not "respectable" amongst scholars. The quotes used for this seem old and do not follow through as others have shown. The situation we seem to be getting to (which is one I have suspected for a long time) is that Jesus' historicity is assumed by most scholars and the JM is therefore ignored as an academic dead end. The criticism section is also unduly dominated by RT France which should seem to all editors to be incorrect.

One day I truly hope this article will be what it should - a history of the idea with it's main points outlined, along with criticisms of the ideas and methods used. We need good quotes without the burden of "faith" turning them to emotive words - that does not mean we should not use Christian scholars but we should avoid anything that uses terms such as "annihilated" or "respectable" as these have crossed that line. Sophia 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that science has always had a problem with strutual/cosmological bias coloring the gathering, evaluation, and interpretation of information regardless of the science being social (soft) or physical (hard). I have previously mentioned how Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory was brushed off as crack pottery until the mid 1950's. Gregor Mendel had much the same reception of his Laws of Inheritance and they would not even be seriously looked at by the scientific community until some 50 years after they were first published. Aristotle's cosmology filled with flaws that simple experiments could show to be false held sway for nearly 2,000 years. These biases are even more pronounced in the social sciences like history and anthropology. Of the two only anthropology has actually made the bias problem part of the discipline and then only within the last 30 years. This is why I keep saying a historical anthropologist is really needed here as they are the one profession that has the needed skills to determine the social dynamics of period and region Jesus supposedly lived in and then evaluate what documents exist within that extrapolated framework. What little I have read that does involve some historical anthropology work is very primitive even by the standards of Binford and Dunnel early 1970's works.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to go and read up on scientific method and peer review. The only bias science has is towards reality - which rarely suits the god gang, and that's never more evident than on articles, such as this one. MonoApe (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And you need to read books on how science actually works not the myth of how it works. Anthropology to date is the only science that acknowledges the bias that can be present in researchers and how that bias can effect their observations. The late Fred Plogg recommended reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav to me and it shows the same thing that Burke talked in "Day the Universe Changed" and shown in Minor's "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" published in American Anthropologist 58:3, June 1956. As far as the peer review may I remind you that Doherty is the only one of these guys whose work on Jesus was published in a peer reviewed journal and all the other use popular books.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the RT France quotes are ambiguous, and way too prolific. half of the criticism section is quotes from this source, can someone more familiar with France's writing clean that up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is aboutr ther scholarly response, not about the "Christian response" (which could include the views of Church leaders etc), but which is not what this section is about. If you have scholarly evidence that the JM theory is supported by more than a tiny minority of historians then add it. Please try to improve the aricle by adding good sources and quality information rather than taking the easy way out by switching words to suit a POV in a way which make nonsense of the article. Also, it is clear that the scholars listed here are not all Christians, notably Michael Grant. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grant looks like he is old school historian and his parroting of two earlier author one of whom wrote them some 20 years earlier without much presented as why he agrees with them is hardly "scholarly". Even worse is having the book reprinted 20 years later and having these quotes applied to subsequent research that the original authors had no knowledge of. Calling this sloppy beyond belief is being kind to Grant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shows clearly that any and every legitimate argument and evidence for the proposition is always rounded off with a counter argument, no matter how weak or poorly referenced, from Christian apologists. Many of these 'scholars' are Christians who, by definition, approach the subject with "Jesus existed, let's find the evidence". A lot of it is simply fallacious argument from authority in order to protect the lynchpin of Xian religious belief. Also, some of the sources are decades old and superseded by more recent research. MonoApe (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"This article shows clearly that any and every legitimate argument and evidence for the proposition is always rounded off with a counter argument"... I couldn't help thinking this myself as I read this article. I assumed this article would expound on the myth hypothesis only, rather than present an historicity debate, which I think would belong in the historicity article proper. It was very hard to find real content or learnings from this article and I would rate it less than "B" myself. 68.210.195.30 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)CHC 16:14, 28 August 2008

See Extraterrestrial_hypothesis for an example of how an article on a fringe belief contains arguments against that belief. Barrett Pashak (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Like? You do realize that several of the opponents of this hypothesis are in no way Christian apologists (Grant, for instance), and almost none of those cited are the "fundies" you are accusing? Please stop using fallacious ad hominem attacks, and simply present examples of reliable sources. It's no one's fault but your own if they don't stand up.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the reference I removed and you immediately reinstated. Did you not look at the changes before clicking on 'undo'? Making an assertion regarding "critical methodology" and then linking to a web page at a self-proclaimed Xian apologist website that provides no evidence of the supposed "critical methodology" is nonsense. Conservapedia.com is available for you to make up whatever suits your ideology or delusion. Further, referencing sites such as bede.org.uk and westarinstitute.org (which you reinstated incorrectly as a 404) would make it acceptable to then fill the article with assertions based on anything found at nobeliefs.com or Pharyngula. Try not to live down to your self-proclaimed propensity of being obnoxious and argumentative - these are not traits to be proud of. P.S. Expand your grasp of grammar by reading http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/a-an.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoape (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're chiding someone for being "obnoxious and argumentative", then supplying a link so he can expand his grasp of grammar? I don't think these actions are consistent. Furthermore, in US English, which this article is written in, "history" and "historical" are preceded by "a", not "an".

It's also amusing that you seem to think that the Jesus Seminar is equivalent to nobeliefs.com. (N.b., Pharyngula would be a pretty good source for some topics, but not this one.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm 'chiding', as you put it, this user because he describes himself as being, effectively, anti-social - and proud of it. Did you bother to read his user page? An article which explains my justification of the use of 'an historical' seemed appropriate - rational, evidence-based argument is usually the most productive variety, but maybe that's just me. I notice your counter-argument amounted to "thanks" - and you're an administrator?! Your thoughts on consistency have been noted and given due consideration.

You'll need to explain the humour. Jesus Seminar "was organized to discover and report a scholarly consensus on the historical authenticity of the sayings and events attributed to Jesus in the gospels" - it is the very definition of 'confirmation bias'. It's little different from "the bible says it is the word of god, the word of god is infallible, so the bible must be the word of god". Apart from supposed humour, you offer nothing to explain the difference between one partisan website and another on the opposite side of the argument. MonoApe (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It says it all that nearly 2 months on no one has come up with non partisan sources for the hordes of academics who think JMers are deluded and not respectable. I only just purged this article from refs to bede.org which is nothing more than a fancy apologetics blog and I am surprised to see them back again. Sophia 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly what you want? Clearly you don't believe atheists who hold to the Jesus Myth hypothesis are partisan, so perhaps you're looking for atheists who hold to the Jesus Myth but who also believe it has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus? If so, I understand that there's already a useful quote from Earl Doherty to that effect (it's reference number 18 in the article). --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish scholars? Others who accept the historicity of Jesus but have not based their life on the truth of the resurrection? The quotes we have now are from practicing committed christians. Allowing detractors to make final judgments on a subject and the respectability of its proponents does not make for informative or interesting reading. Sophia 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a few issues here. I understand why you get angry when Christian writers are referenced in this article, but I'm not sure that it's valid to dismiss what Christian scholars say simply on the grounds that they are Christians. You certainly don't dismiss what the atheists say simply on the grounds that they're atheists. If the Christian scholars are wrong to assert that the Jesus Myth theory has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus, it will be extremely easy to falsify this. All you would have to do is find a quote from a reliable reference source which demonstrated otherwise. If you can't find any information which falsifies the claim, then the claim stands. You can't say that the claim must be wrong simply because it was made by Christians. Not only that, but as I have pointed out there's already a useful quote from Earl Doherty which acknowledges that the Jesus Myth theory has been consistently rejected by the majority of scholars (it's reference number 18 in the article). Since no evidence has yet been put forward falsifying the claim, and Doherty is on record as actually acknowledging the claim, there exists both negative and positive evidence substantiating the claim.

Another issue is that quoting scholarly opinion (even the scholarly opinion of Christians), is not 'allowing detractors to make final judgments on an issue and the respectability of its proponents'. No one here is refusing to include any evidence which demonstrates that the opinion under question concerning the scholarly consensus is wrong, so all you have to do is go off and find some. If the opinion is wrong, it will be easily falsified. The only comment I can see which comes close to what you clam is 'I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more', and that is not saying what you imply. It says that the author himself does not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more, it does not make a sweeping judgment on all of the proponents of the Jesus Myth theory. Once again, if the claim under question is wrong then it will be a simple task to falsify it, especially given the extremely general nature of the claim. But to date no evidence has been provided falsifying the claim, and Doherty openly acknowledges it.

If you are going to continue to challenge the claim simply on the basis that no Jewish scholars or 'Others who accept the historicity of Jesus but have not based their life on the truth of the resurrection' have been provided who make it, then I'm going to continue to point out respectfully that this is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, and that the claim thus far has met the actual criteria required. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> First, this is not about whether this is a minority position - it is and the Doherty quote usefully supports this. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Doherty quote note only identifies it as a minority position, it explains why. It's a minority position because it just doesn't find any widespread support from the academic community. The vast majority of works on Jesus accept his historicity as a matter of fact. This is verifiable. If they didn't, it would be easy to falsify the claim under discussion. This fact is not only acknowledged by Doherty, he even hints darkly at some massive conspiracy in order to explain it. He's always good for a laugh. Real tin foil hat stuff. I suppose it puts bread on his table though, and we all have to find our way in life. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"The vast majority of works on Jesus accept his historicity as a matter of fact." - as has been pointed out, that is because the 'vast majority' are theists who approach the topic with the conclusion already established - they just need to find the evidence. It's like establishing that Liverpool_F.C. is the best football club in the world by seeking the opinion of Liverpool fans. The fact that many theologians still use Josephus as a cornerstone of proof of Jesus' historicity speaks volumes about the certainty of his existence.

As Sophia has patiently pointed out, this article is very sub-standard, and yet almost impossible to improve because of knee-jerk revisions (witness my recent attempts) and the inability of Xian apologists to differentiate evidence from opinion. MonoApe (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. The vast majority of scholarly works on Jesus, whether secular or Christian, accept his historicity as a fact. That is not simply seeking the opinions of 'fans', that's including the vast majority of secular commentators. The very fact that this article can only cite a handful of works arguing for the non-historicity of Jesus over the last 100 years is itself significant. And look at who authored those works. The modern writers cited in the article are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, 'who are both popular writers on mysticism', GA Wells (a professor in German), who in 1999 changed his viewpoint and acknowledged the Q Source as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, Earl Doherty (another populist writer with irrelevant academic qualifications), who openly acknowledges he was influenced by Wells (no independent research here), the completely unknown Kenneth Humphreys (published by the highly reputable Historical Review Press), the equally unknown Hermann Detering (who isn't even referenced), and who else? Well that's it. That's all we have. None of these writers are recognized historians, two of them are popular writers (not academics), and none of them regularly publish in peer reviewed literature in the relevant fields (to the best of my knowledge). I have no problems with them being referenced in the article, but let's not pretend that they represent anything but a fringe view which can't even summon up significant support from secular scholarship. Earl Doherty has gone so far off the deep end that he has even claimed that unnamed 'interests', both religious and secular, have 'mounted a campaign' against the view. Why? Because he acknowledges that even secular scholarship with no axe to grind for Christianity won't fall into line with his theory. If the only scholars who objected to this view were Christians, that might be significant. But there's overwhelming objection to this view even among secular scholarship, and Doherty acknowledges it. Why can't you? --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick search through google produced not only Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) but also Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden), Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology), and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto). Are you trying to say these are not scholars? How come it was so easy for me to find them you could not?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I couldn't find them. But what you have stated here helpfully confirms what I have written above. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind explaining just how my statement supports your claim: "The modern writers cited in the article are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, 'who are both popular writers on mysticism', GA Wells (a professor in German), who in 1999 changed his viewpoint and acknowledged the Q Source as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, Earl Doherty (another populist writer with irrelevant academic qualifications), who openly acknowledges he was influenced by Wells (no independent research here), the completely unknown Kenneth Humphreys (published by the highly reputable Historical Review Press), the equally unknown Hermann Detering (who isn't even referenced), and who else? Well that's it." You did NOT mention Alvar Ellegard, Frank R. Zindler or Thomas "Tom" Harpur and implied they wrote nothing on the subject with your "Well that's it" statement. Then I found an anthropological paper that flat out states there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus by someone previously unmentioned. Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Second, I am not angry - after two years on this article the only emotion left is a sense of the futility of any attempts to improve it. Third, why is it unreasonable to expect a spread of scholarly opinion to support a committed christian's pronouncement that this theory is effectively refuted? He obviously has a COI. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to expect a spread of scholarly opinion to support a committed Christian's pronouncement. But there's a difference between a statement made by a committed Christian as a committed Christian, and a statement made by a committed Christian as a professional scholar in a peer reviewed professional work. The quotes supplied all fall into the latter category. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly NONE of these quotes on either side comes from a peer reviewed professional work. However I have found one: "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. Now if there is an article that directly refutes Fischer's statement let's see it; remember like Fischer it must appear in a peer reviewed journal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And forth, you make the classic mistake that atheists only don't believe in the christian god and are therefore just as biased. Christians don't believe in Atlas or Zeus etc -atheists just don't believe in one more god than them. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I didn't make any such argument. But the fact that atheists don't believe in any god means that they have what you define as a conflict of interest whenever they discuss any religious topic. But you don't believe that they have a conflict of interest when they discuss a matter which involves views contrary to their point of view. You think only Christians experience such a conflict of interest. I don't understand why you think that's a valid viewpoint. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very wrong. As an atheist, I have no conflict. I had assumed for a long time that an historical Jesus was well-established. That made no difference to my dismissal of the magical element to the story. On the other side, every Xian has their entire lifetime faith invested in the historicity of this one character. It's little wonder that impartiality and rigorous academic method is lacking from theologians.

After investing some time on the subject, it turns out there is no reliable historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus. If there were a grain of truth to his 'miraculous' existence, there would've been massive contemporary and corroborating evidence - but there isn't. There's simply testimony from decades later, Christian poetry and some heavily interpolated writing, penned decades after the fact. Jesus' existence is simply a massive assumption that is perpetuated by Xian apologists. MonoApe (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an atheist claiming they have no conflict of interest when assessing the truth claims of a religion is an atheist who is very difficult to believe (and that's putting it politely). The very fact that you describe his existence as allegedly 'miraculous' shows that you have a conflict of interest. You believe that his existence is asserted to be miraculous, you don't believe in the miraculous, so you therefore cannot believe he was a historical figure. If you want to provide evidence that 'impartiality and rigorous academic method is lacking' from the pro-historicist sources cited in the article, please go right ahead and do so. I'll remove any you identify as such. The rest of what you wrote was simply personal opinion. It would hold more weight if you were actually qualified in this field, or at least demonstrated knowledge of the relevant data (both historical and scholarly). But you didn't, and this isn't the place for it anyway. If you want to debate the historicity of Jesus please feel free to go elsewhere. This Talk page is not the place for such a discussion. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not assessing the truth claims of a religion - we are assessing the historicity of an individual. Have you not read this article?!! I would actually be quite happy for evidence to exist - it would make the subject more interesting and wouldn't cause the least problem for my view that the supernatural is merely wishful thinking. Proving a certain man existed ~2000 years ago is a long way from turning him in to a god! I'm pretty certain Michael Travesser exists, but he ain't anything other than a delusional man - despite what he and his followers believe.

As for your weak attack on my lack of expertise, it's irrelevant. I'm as capable of sourcing and quoting expert references as the next person. Wikipedia would be a desolate place if your reinvention of policy was implemented and only experts were able to contribute. Your irrationality is beginning to show - 'Jesus historicity' and 'Jesus myth' are very much the same thing. If you don't wish to participate in discussions that trouble you, you will find Conservapedia.com a far more comforting environment. MonoApe (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As to proving a negative - go read Bertram Russell for that one.  Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to prove a negative. I've asked you to supply evidence falsifying a claim which is falsifiable. This should be a simple task if the claim is in fact false. Standard secular reference works would give prominence and heavy weight to the Jesus Myth hypothesis. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This theory is ignored by the mainstream scholarship in general as to do otherwise is career suicide.

Really? That's quite a claim. Do please present the evidence for this. It would be well worth having in the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the same thing as supporting the historicity of Jesus. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it isn't. I don't see anyone here arguing that the lack of support for the Jesus Myth hypothesis constitutes evidence for the historicity of Jesus. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As Thomas Thompson says - the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of modern scholarship, not a finding. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And as Jennifer Shaw says, 'oogly moogly!'. Which is as relevant to this topic as anything Thomas Thompson has said. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all the stuff from bede.org should go, and I've said so before; but it matters not whether Wikipedia editors think that scholars are "partisan"--it only matters that they're experts in their field. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is a slight misrepresentation of what Verifiability which when there is a conflict supersedes Reliable sources says. The issue of if an author is an expert in the field comes if the work in question is self published. Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman's claim regarding micro lettering on a certain coin is a case in point. Despite Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman's credentials his claims regarding the coin never appeared in an any archeological journal. John McRay a Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Archaeology Wheaton College Graduate School Wheaton, Illinois has written a book totally supporting Vardaman's claim. But here is the kicker, David Hendlin a specialist in numismatic science disproved this in "Theory of Secret Inscriptions on Coins is Disputed," The Celator 5:3, March 1991, 28-32). Though by the Bermuda Triangle Planet Twilight Zone logic Akhilleus is presenting since David Hendlin is not an expert in archaeology he cannot be used to refute Vardaman's or McRay's claims despite Hendlin having published in a peer reviewws journal like The Celator while Vardaman's claims or anything supporting them has not. Anybody else see the apparent ridiculousness and utter insanity of this position?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> So we end as we began.... Taiwan boi has passionately argued that everyone, whatever their beliefs is happy that Jesus was a real person (except for nasty atheists) so ....... as I said at the very start of this thread, surely we can add some quotes that don't come from committed christians to give balance. Do not refactor this post -thank you. Sophia 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be melodramatic. I have not 'passionately argued that everyone, whatever their beliefs is happy that Jesus was a real person (except for nasty atheists)'. I have simply pointed out that there is overwhelming positive and negative evidence for the claim under question, and I have explained why atheists are those who are most likely to dispute the existence of Jesus (which is a verifiable fact). As Akhilleus has rightly noted, 'it matters not whether Wikipedia editors think that scholars are "partisan"--it only matters that they're experts in their field'. I pointed out that there's a difference between a statement made by a committed Christian as a committed Christian, and a statement made by a committed Christian as a professional scholar in a peer reviewed professional work. The quotes supplied all fall into the latter category. If you were actually arguing against them because they violated Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, that would be different. That would be a valid argument. But they don't. So your only objection to them ('They're Christians, they have a conflict of interest, they must be wrong'), is invalid. Monoape's only objection to them ('Jesus never existed anyway, which is why there's no evidence he did'), is equally invalid. None of this is addressing properly the material in the article.

I am in full agreement with whoever presented the quotes in the form 'Richard Burridge and Graham Gould state that', 'Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that', and 'Graham Stanton writes'. I don't understand how anyone could object to statements presented in such a way. The sentence ending 'it carries little weight among the majority of biblical historians and scholars' has been properly referenced using WP:RS. So what exactly is the problem? --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth and going right back to the beginning of this section quite a few pro-historical Jesus scholars seem to have been missed from the list viz:

James H. Charlesworth; James Dunn (theologian); Daniel B. Wallace;John P. Meier; E. P. Sanders; Gerd Theissen; William Lane Craig; Craig A. Evans; ...

I could also add the following who are not cited in this article Paula Fredriksen, Robert W. Funk, Géza Vermes, Marcus Borg, Larry W. Hurtado; I. Howard Marshall; Helmut Koester, James Tabor, Gerd Ludemann ...

For non-academic's who still support the existence of Jesus try James Cameron, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and ....

The point I'm making is that the hypothesis that Jesus is a myth is, as Taiwan boi observed ' a minority position because it just doesn't find any widespread support from the academic community.' Mercury543210 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PS I think the arguments about objectivity vs subjectivity should be split out from here. Everyone has a POV, accept it and move on.

Mercury, from what I can see a lot of the people in that list are Christians, which is exactly what Sophia is complaining about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sophia is not complaining they are christians, she is asking why we only have christian quotes if there is such a diversity of agreement against the JM. This is the point that keeps getting ignored. Sophia 09:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>I wasn't aware that Michael Grant was a Christian. I wasn't aware that GA Wells is a Christian. I would need to see evidence that Graham Stanton is a Christian. Earl Doherty is certainly not a Christian, and he acknowledges that support for the historicity of Jesus is widespread within both secular and religious circles. That statement of his is in the article. If you're not contesting the statement, then what's the problem? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason for listing those people is not that they are/are not Christians but that all of them have written about the 'historical Jesus'. IF someone is "unhappy" that some of them are Christians then they need to demonstrate that their belief in some way invalidates their scholarship. Mercury543210 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find these posts bizarre. We have been told that virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and yet the quotes in the article are backed up by christians or those with no real expertise in the subject. As to how someones faith can affect their views - go ask the pope to recommend a method of contraception. Sophia 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotes are also backed up by people with relevant expertise who are not Christian (Grant, Wells, Doherty). I also pointed out that there's a difference between a statement made by a committed Christian as a committed Christian, and a statement made by a committed Christian as a professional scholar in a peer reviewed professional work. The quotes supplied all fall into the latter category. If you were actually arguing against them because they violated Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, that would be different. That would be a valid argument. But they don't. So your only objection to them ('They're Christians, they have a conflict of interest, they must be wrong'), is invalid. Monoape's only objection to them ('Jesus never existed anyway, which is why there's no evidence he did'), is equally invalid. None of this is addressing properly the material in the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed the memo that says Christians can't be scholars. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity? Sophia 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Red herring? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuff said. Where are the non christian scholars? Sophia 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Grant and Stanton are already there (I also included Wells). Would you like me to add Robin Lane Fox and Morton Smith? And please note that Doherty is a useful hostile witness to the fact that the scholarly community does actually dismiss the Jesus Myth hypothesis out of hand.

Why would this matter? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Doherty quote says mainstream scholars find this subject "unimportant". I cannot comment on whether the following sentence about a "campaign against it" by both biblical and secular scholars as I don't have access to the book. It's a pretty big stretch from that to say that virtually all historical scholars support the historicity of Jesus. The only ones that are vocal on the subject have an obvious COI. Partisan sniping aside, a definite statement of the status of the historical debate on this subject should be backed by a broad swathe of academia. It will make the article better referenced and these debates would stop. Sophia 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that Doherty's quote says 'virtually all historical scholars support the historicity of Jesus'. What he does say is that mainstream scholarship dismisses the Jesus Myth hypothesis as unimportant (of course he explains this by appeal to a worldwide conspiracy of religious and secular forces, and may as well add 'Space alien ate my Buick!' while he has his tin foil hat on). Surely you're not denying that Doherty is identifying the fact that mainstream scholarship supports the historicity of Jesus? And how can you say that the only ones that are vocal on the subject have an obvious COI? Grant? Martin? Wells? Fox? Stanton? Please identify the 'obvious conflict of interest' which each of these sources has. I agree that a broad swathe of academia would be very good to have in this article. Unfortunately academia supporting the Jesus Myth hypothesis is distressingly underrepresented in this article. Perhaps that's because it hardly exists, or perhaps that's because people haven't looked hard enough. But there has been a broad swathe of academia presented for the historicist case, including four non-Christians. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Doherty does NOT talk about a "worldwide conspiracy of religious and secular forces" but rather the real world conservatism against new ideas that shake the status quo. Look at how long the idea that Vikings came to North America took to be accepted, or how long Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory was brushed off as crack pottery, or how Gregor Mendel's work was basically ignored. James Burke in his Day the Universe Changed described it as 'holding on to the old ideas like grim death'. Look at how long the Aristotle cosmology dominated Western thought even thought the simplest experiments showed it was wrong in so many places; only once the political influence of Christianity was broken did the model finally get dumped (not before the Church killed several people who said otherwise). Look at Steve Bitterman an adjunct professor at Southwestern Community College in Iowa who was fired for saying Adam and Eve was a fairy tale; if they are that sedative on something like that it is no wonder no one wants to touch the Jesus myth theory with a 10 foot pole.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Grubb, let me explain to you what WP:SOAP means. It means (among other things), that this Talk page is not the appropriate place for you to air your personal prejudices, nor to debate the issue in the main article. The content may be debated, not the issue. You have consistently engaged other editors in arguments over the truth claims of the theory in the main article. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You should know this. You have been told this more than once. Doherty says nothing out 'real world conservatism'. He claims instead that unnamed 'interests', both secular and religious, have conspired to prevent his pet theory being accepted within mainstreadm scholarship. I am responding to the rest of this on your Talk page. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Taiwan, but it is you who are WP:SOAPing as I have a peer reviewed journal article that states. "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. Per Wikipedia:PRIMARY this supersedes all the other nonsense unless someone can produce a LATER peer reviewed article or university press book that specifically addresses Fischer's statement.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

<unident> Sophia wrote "Does anyone else agree that this is a pretty poor showing considering the JM is so clearly annihilated and unrespectable?" and listed 6 scholars, whom she felt were not 'objective'. I listed 8 more who were cited in the article but Sophia had not listed (most are "Chritians" (I believe). I then added a further 9 scholars + 3 'popularisers' who had all written books about the historcity of Jesus, at least 9 of whom do NOT (I believe) consider themselves "Christians". I am therefore very puzzled that this discussion carries on. How many non-Christians does it take to "change this particular light bulb"? Mercury543210 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't even matter if they're Christians or not. It only matters whether they're experts in the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Faith affects peoples work - just ask a Catholic doctor to sign the form for an abortion and see what reaction you get. We will never agree on that score so lets focus on the diversity of the scholarship. The list I gave above were the most vocal opponents in the article at the time. I have not had a chance to read through thoroughly recently as real life is so busy. The idea of the sandbox version covering the authors chronologically sounds good as we have such a mix at the moment it is really hard to follow. Each author brings different points to the idea and covering them individually would make that easier. On my shelf I have the Allegro books, Thompson, Freke and Gandy and a couple of others that I will check up on. I can help with those - who has access to the others? Sophia 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? The question we are discussing is whether these writers believe in the existence of a Jesus in history. We are not concerned, in this article, in 'who' this Jesus was. All the writers listed attest to the existence of Jesus. For this article that is enough. The 'who' belongs in other entries. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Majority or minority view?

["reverting unexplained deletions is not an "unbalanced POV", especially as this passage represents the majority view, is very well supported, and is longstanding" ]

I did explain in my edit summery. The point is that all that is needed is an explination that the Jesus myth hypothesis is a minority view among scholars. It is not necessary to kick the theory around -- as the disputed material does. Being a majority does not justify arrogance toward the other editors, or toward the subject of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed text did seem to be quite reliably sourced. Would not failing to "kick the theory around" be giving undue weight to it? Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing alone is not the issue, it's the picking of certain sources to portray a biased view that's the problem. If you think "kicking around" is allowed, you need to go read WP:NPOV pronto. We are here to objectively present information, not let one side completely get to say whatever it wants to, even if it's trying to claim facts that are only mere opinions. Western culture is culturally biased toward supporting Jesus all out of proportion to what the evidence actually says. Mere numerical superiority in no way establishes factual superiority, and the article must be worded to reflect that. (We dont have to even argue that the majority could be wrong, as that's assumed, we just can't let the majority try to pretend to be the only source that could possibly have any value.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your ability to misinterpret is impressive. I was reverting an unexplained deletion by an anonymous editor,[16] which is what my edit summary referred to (in reply to your claim that I was adding an unbalanced POV). You reverted my reversion of the deletion of longstanding material. Please take the trouble to check edit histories before reverting.[17] What on earth this has to do with "arrogance towards other editors" is a mystery. The theory has almost no support in academia, but it is certainly a notable fringe theory. However, it is important that the lede should point out that it is rejected by most scholars. Ther lede should summarise the salient points of the article. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you colour your comment with links (see supplementary notes), so I can immediately follow it? El_C 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added links and further explanation. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a pretty clear difference between the old version of the article which I restored--"The consensus of most biblical scholars and historians is that Jesus was a historical figure, and the hypothesis of Jesus' non-historicity is rarely discussed in current academic literature" and the text put in by Blue Tie and restored by Malcolm Schosha--"There are researchers who state that the Jesus Myth hypothesis has either been answered or is supported by a small number of historians." The first states that the JM hypothesis is a minority view, the second attributes the statement to some researchers. The first version is preferable because the fact that the JM is a minority view should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, instead of being presented as the view of individual scholars--we have clear statements that the consensus of the field is that the JM is a minority view (really, a fringe view). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your comments here quite severely mischaracterizes the content of the edit you made. It wasn't that the version you prefer stated that it's a minority view (which is already stated elsewhere in the article) it went out of it's way to try to portray the criticism as if it were stronger and more factual, and pushed in the critical view in sections completely unrelated to that topic. When talking about the history of the subject, for example, we don't need a paragraph out of nowhere in which some modern author argues strongly that those views are wrong. History is full of changing ideas. The version of the article you are supporting goes beyond saying what the scholars say to outright advocating that position at every opportunity, which is a major violation of NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a severe exaggeration, given that my edit affected two sections of the article. If people think the Doherty quote belongs somewhere else, I don't have a problem with it being in a different section. My main issue with Blue Tie's edits is the sentence I quoted in my post just above. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:COI, and take it to heart. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking particularly of this section:

Close relationships

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area.

I think this is one the most difficult things for any editor to deal with, because it is not at all obvious when our editing is being influenced personal beliefs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I am neither Marx nor Engels, what "personal beliefs" are you referring to? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain but your assumption of bad faith, as stated on this talk page and here [18], makes me disinclined to discuss anything more. Rather than trying to solve the problems of the article and of the polarized editing situation, you give the impression that you want to build a case to take to the administrators noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith, but I fear you may be. You seem to be assuming that I'm a Christian, and this is distorting my editing. Is this a correct interpretation of what you're saying? If so, what evidence do you have of my religious beliefs? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in your religious beliefs...if any. But you frequently seem dug in on you positions in a way that suggests that your mind is made up on the Jesus myth hypothesis. That is a problem. Is there any basis for discussion and compromise? So far I have seen you, and a few other editors, are interested in little else than trying to force into the article the POV that this article is based on nothing but a Fringe Theory. If the problem is not COI, what is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are not interested in Akhilleus's religious beliefs then why did you refer to WP:COI? It is rather difficult to follow your arguments. The fact is that the "Jesus myth" theory is a fringe view. That does not mean that it is being treated in the same way as belief in Crystal Healing by Venusians, just that it is not a view that has any significant scholarly support. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and has been extensively documented on this talk page. People who believe that Jesus existed are no more likely to be devout believers than are people who believe that Mohammed existed. The great majority of secular historians believe he existed, just that was a man of his age. The theory that he is a mythical being is actually far more "religious" than the more banal view that he was a bloke. Paul B (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul, is there any basis for discussion and compromise? Or are you, and Akhilleus, determined to force your assumptions into the article? If compromise is possible, we can go ahead and improve the article. If not, please explain the problem. If the problem with your editorializing the contents of the article is not COI, what is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's documenting what mainstream scholarship says about this idea--i.e., that it is a fringe theory with no significant support. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that when I wanted to include the views of Hyam Maccoby on Jesus [19], that you blocked that. When I wanted to include the views of Tom Paine [20] and of H.P. Blavatsky, that was opposed also. Are you willing to reconsider on any of these sources? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since neither Paine nor Maccoby deny the historicity of Jesus, there's no reason to include them. Blavatsky, in my opinion, is not particularly significant on this topic, and I wouldn't include her either. So I suppose the answer is "no." If it can be demonstrated that any of these writers are important to this topic, I wouldn't be happy to reconsider. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I want to repeat my questions to Paul directly to you also: is there any basis for discussion and compromise? Or are you, and Paul, determined to force your assumptions into the article? If compromise is possible, we can go ahead and improve the article. If not, please explain the problem. If the problem with your editorializing the contents of the article is not COI, what is it? So far I have not received a clear answer from either of you.

By the way, I would like to change the introduction to include views such as Maccoby, because he is a respected scholar who makes clear that the thinks that Jesus as described in the Bible did not exist. That is what we are talking about. Right? Probably there is no reason not to include him even without any change in the introduction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"...he is a respected scholar who makes clear that the thinks that Jesus as described in the Bible did not exist. That is what we are talking about. Right?" Wrong. This article is about the idea that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. There are plenty of scholars who believe that Jesus existed, but not as he is described in the bible--one might say that the quest for the historical Jesus is about finding the "real" Jesus disguised by the mythical/theological elaborations of the Gospels, etc. Many, perhaps most, scholars who are interested in the historical Jesus think that the Gospels are unreliable historical testimony in some respect--and many do not believe that the historical Jesus was a divine personage.

As for your point about COI, it's pretty much a non-starter. It's not "editorializing" to indicate that this idea isn't accepted in academia. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before the Jesus Myth covers a huge range. Remember that Bauer had Philo as the "father" inspiration for the Biblical Jesus and Philo would be a contemporary of the Gospel Jesus; so the idea of someone living during the time the Gospel Jesus supposedly lived inspiring those stories is not out of the range of the Jesus Myth. Furthermore, the more distance between a supposedly historical Jesus and the Gospels the more you create a kind of "based on a true story" nonsense proclaimed about films like The Hills have Eyes; sure it is based on the Sawney Bean story but there is nothing to show that story actually happened or is true. Past a certain point you get the impression of desperation time of finding any guy named Jesus who lived at the "right" time and got himself crucified aroudnt he right time will fit the bill.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what the first paragraph of the introduction:

The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Christ myth or the Jesus myth is an argument against the historicity of Jesus. It holds that there is a lack of historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus of the Bible, with significant mythological parallels between the narrative of Jesus in the gospels and mystery religions or myths of rebirth deities of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism, and that this suggests that the figure of Jesus is a non-historical construct of various forms of ancient mythology or a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons. A related hypothesis claims that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

I do not see any basis for you wanting to exclude Maccoby. In fact the introduction specifically includes the possibility of an historical person, but who is entirely different than the Jesus of the Gospels. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." Like, a century earlier than Jesus is supposed to have lived--the 1st or 2nd century BCE. That's quite different than what Maccoby, and anyone else working on the historical Jesus is doing. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken, and I will include Maccoby when the article is unblocked. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend that. You have a very strange idea of what this article is about. To put it as plainly as I can, this article is about the idea that the historical Jesus (we can call him Jesus of Nazareth if you prefer) did not exist, and there is no historical person behind the stories of the Gospels. The final two sentences of the current lead describe a variation on this idea, that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, but some person who lived at an earlier time--e.g. Jesus ben Pandera or, if we can trust what a certain editor has told us about Alvar Ellegard, the teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you take a look at Robert Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament, he discusses one proponent of this variation of the JM, John M. Robertson. Van Voorst characterizes Robertson's views this way: "the only possible trace of a 'historical Jesus' in Christianity may come from a vague recollection of the Talmud's shadowy figure Jesus ben Pandera, executed under Alexander Janneus (106-79 BCE), but the Jesus of the New Testament never existed." (p. 11) That last clause is important--Robertson shares with Bauer, Drews, Wells, Doherty, etc. the core idea that the historical Jesus never existed.

In contrast, Maccoby believes that there was a historical Jesus, and that we can determine certain facts about him from the New Testament and other literature. He shares this belief with the vast majority of current New Testament scholars, and if you think Maccoby belongs in this article, so do John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Geza Vermes, and so on. But why would we do that? No one would call them proponents of the Jesus myth, and no one (except, perhaps, you) would call Maccoby a proponent either.

So, again, I would not agree to add Maccoby, unless it can somehow be established that he's important to this topic. Please note, Malcolm, you've said a lot about discussion and compromise, but you have never explained why you think Maccoby belongs here. Saying things like "You are quite mistaken" without any explanation isn't a substitute for discussion. If you really believe that Maccoby has something to do with this topic, could you try explaining why you think that? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I would expect that you would oppose such changes because that is consistent with you editing stance on this article. So your opposition does not concern me. What does concern me is the absence of other editors in this discussion who should not be absent, and it is that which has caused me to decide to cease editing this article. (I consider you change in the headings to make it look like COI was the focus of this discussion -- instead if the article itself -- unacceptable. Please do not do that again.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. I created a subsection because it's difficult to edit talk pages when the discussion gets so long. If you don't like the title, change it, instead of having a hissy fit. Are you upset because the title of this section--"Majority or minority view?"--is inaccurate? Because that's not the subject of disucssion either. And, hey, way to not answer any of my arguments, and instead of engaging in actual discussion, dismiss everything I've said as the result of bias, or "COI" as you call it. (Hey, we are talking about COI! The section header wasn't inaccurate after all!) --Akhilleus (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Malcolm, you need to reread the "Close relationships" section some more.

Friedrich was a supporter of Marx, thus he would have trouble editing an article about Marx. Okay. However, the parallel to this situations is not that a Christian would have trouble editing this article - per your arguments, Christians would either be impartial or not close to the subject of this article - the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, Doherty, etc. In fact, if you want to bring up that section as something to review, it would be the atheists editing this article who need to be checking themselves — and that's even before taking into account that this hypothesis is regarded as fringe in the broad stroke of academia.

Seriously, can we stop these back and forth ad hominem's and just focus on specific passages that need to be fixed up? Every time someone tries to bring up COI, they're argument sounds paranoid and ridiculous.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it paranoid and ridiculous to point out that Christians might have a COI issue regarding Jesus being a historical person. Saying 'I am a Christian and say Jesus didn't exist' is on par of a resident of the land of Knights and Knaves saying 'I am a Knave'; it just doesn't make much sense. Part of the problem is you have too many people like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell whose efforts to prove every aspect of the Gospel Jesus story historical reduces the pro-Historical Jesus argument to a near self-characture. It certainly doesn't help the Historical Jesus position when Richard Carrier is sent an article by a reader from an relatively obscure peer reviewed journal (The Celator) that showed Stroble's use of Vardaman as a source was Bermuda Triangle style research at its finest or that any reasonable degree of research by a layman brings into question their claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation. I think all of you who are talking about COI really mean POV. from WP:COI "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." Advancing a belief that a society or organization is POV pushing. The only people who really have a COI in this topic are those who strive to sell books or collect speaking fees on the topic, whichever side they come from. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can see where this is coming from as there is some overlap between Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and NPOV. That said the NPOV of this article is dead and has been dead for YEARS. Part of the problem like many minority views is the article's structure (for example, look at the articles on Creationism and New Chronology for similar structural headaches). Right now User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis looks like the best way to clean this train wreck of an article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)