Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 13

Lead again
This was the consensus version of the disputed paragraph in the lead. I'd appreciate it if people would not change it without gaining fresh consensus first:

"The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. More recent academic advocates include the 19th-century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer and the 20th-century German philosopher Arthur Drews. Writers such as George Albert Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty have re-popularized the idea in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. he philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank, a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it."

SlimVirgin talk  contribs 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is pointless. After the long discussion about the Martin sentence, Akilleus making a good suggestion, and people agreeing to it, Ari is now changing it to the nicely worded: "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University believes believes [sic] that while anyone arguing against the historicity of Jesus it [sic] may be seen as a crank, it is taken for granted and a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it."  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The writing apart, the point is, Ari, that this is not exactly what Martin said. The "taking for granted" part of the sentence is an important part of what he said, even if you personally disagree with him. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I know Martin's mistakenly believes that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted. My issue is with the fact that his argument is being presented in the lead as an assumption on related scholarship. That is the problem with using non-experts to undercut the scholarly debate. As I suggested earlier, if you want the "scholarly dissenting voice" use a scholarly dissenting voice such as Price. I believe this is a legitimate objection, and I have been making it for quite a while.
 * Another way to say it - Graham Stanton as an expert is making a consensus statement on what mainstream scholars believe. Martin's is presented in the same fashion, yet that isn't what he is doing. --Ari (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)And on the lovely swipe that it is because I personally disagree with him - although I do disagree with him that is totally irrelevant. A number of RS by relevant scholars disagree with him to the extent of seeing it as indicative of ignorance of historical method. For that reason, we qualify Martin's arguments as his arguments and not representative of a view other than his own. --Ari (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If we're going to stick to exactly what Martin said, it's "Although the historicity of Jesus is so much taken for granted today that one who dares to question this assumption is often thought to be a crank or worse, a strong prima facie case challenging the historicity of Jesus can be constructed." The wording that was in the article before Ari's edits follows Martin's text better, although I note that "crank or worse" has been softened to "may be seen as a crank". Also, if one is concerned about sources being dismissive, Martin's sentence is a problem, because in saying that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted, Martin is rather casually dismissing nearly two centuries of research into the historical Jesus. I suspect that this is part of the problem that Ari sees with the wording--that it may look like Martin's opinion that historicity is taken for granted is being reported as fact. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That is it, Akhilleus. --Ari (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossan's comment
I have looked here after a while. Though I have no further ambitions to actively edit the article (one reason being that I am not a native English speaker, and all this is much time consuming for me), I wanted to make some comments when seeing the current discussion. I close with one concrete particular suggestion.

It seems to me that the position of some editors (including me in the past, you can probably easily find my previous contributions if you wish) is often misinterpreted. I think that no reasonable wiki-editor would try to make the article seem that Jesus of Nazareth nonexistence hypothesis is somehow mainstream or so. The mainstream scholars in their works usually at most mention such a hypothesis in passing, obviously giving it almost no credence, and go on with their work by assuming the (at least basic) historicity of Jesus. This should be surely well reflected in the wiki-article.

If this article should say more, which I think it should, in my opinion the best way would be to summarize the evidence on which the historicity position is based (early Christian literature including the NT epistles and Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus) and then report (in a neutral tone) the arguments used by various `Christ myth proponents' when dealing with this evidence ... Of course, it is not our business to evaluate whether the arguments are `valid' or so, we should just seriously report them. In some sense there is a tendency for doing so; I think that e.g. Akhilleus (with whom I would probably much differ in personal evaluation of the historical probability of the nonexistence hypothesis) has also suggested several times that the `CMT should speak for itself'.

One technical problem is that there are many sorts of `JoN nonhistoricity proponents' (not accurately called CMT proponents), similarly as there are many sorts of `JoN historicity proponents'. And, of course, there are works promoting nonhistoricity, which can be obviously labeled as pseudoscholarship (I myself read such a text written in Soviet times), similarly as there are works promoting historicity which can be labeled so. In my opinion, the wiki-content should concentrate on the arguments, not replacing them with expressions of contempt or so. (I hope that everybody agrees that the quotes like "I know no serious historian who ..." are not scholarly arguments by themselves. Such quotes have any scholarly relevancy only if they are backed with scholarly arguments, so one should primarily concentrate on the arguments as such. Btw, I heared R. Price to say something like "I am already tired to be hearing and reading that I must be wrong because everyone says so".)

So I am surely supporting all the editors who try to concentrate on a neutral reporting of the arguments, trying to reflect the reality as objectively as possible. I am sorry that I cannot engage in real editing but at least I can give one particular suggestion at this moment.

In the text we find: ... and Earl Doherty have each been the subject of such critical comments.[115]

Including this Crossan's comment 115 here gives an impression to the reader that Crossan (a credential biblical scholar) has read Doherty's work and, based on that, he has found good arguments to compare Doherty with moonlanding denialists; otherwise the comment has no relevancy here. But if one looks at the context, we find that Crossan was reacting in a time-limited internet discussion in 2000.

(Description The XTalk Seminar on Materials and Methodology in Historical Jesus Research is a moderated, online, three week long forum whose aim is to provides a platform for exchanges between approved Seminar members and John Dominic Crossan, ....)

He was reacting to the question of a participant about a review of Crossan's book written by Doherty. Crossan in his answer to the participant does not address any arguments from the review, he just deduces from the question that Doherty himself probably suscribes to the idea of nonhistoricity, and based on that, Crossan provides his moonlanding story. Crossan's comment can be, in fact, parahrased more generally: if a person X maintains opinion Y, and X is ready to explain everything we present to X in such a way that it agrees with opinion Y, then it has no sense to try to persuade X that Y might not be correct. This is a generally valid observation (for any X and Y) but it is of no value here. One thing is clear: Crossan's comment and its context give no indication that this was based on contemplating the arguments in Doherty's works. Thus the comment should be removed so that the article does not give the false impression mentioned above.

(In fact, I personally think that it would be illustrative to keep this comment, as demonstrating what sort of `arguments' you can also hear from mainstream scholars when they should react to concrete works doubting the historicity of JoN. But this would be a bit unfair to Crossan, who certainly did not speak of moon landing when reacting to Price in the book "Five views ..."; and certainly the original wiki-editor who introduced Crossan's comment here, in good faith of its relevancy I suppose, would not be happy with this usage of the comment.)Jelamkorj (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked and found that Crossan's comment was brought into the text by 01:01, 20 January 2010 Eugeneacurry (talk | contribs)

So I ask directly you, Eugene. You are blaming others about bizarre double-standard etc., so I am especially interested to hear what do you say to the comments I made for Crossan's comment which you introduced. Even when looking at the context, you still find Crossan's comment as a relevant scholarly response do Doherty's work? If this is the case, then we have completely differing view on what the article should be about.

I expect Eugene's response to the above question. The following text is just another comment about a central problem which I perceive in the discussion here. This problem can be demonstrated, e.g., on the interview with Bart Ehrman which is recommended by Bill the Cat 7 above. ((talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010). Bill concentrates on Ehrman's Holocaust denial comments, this is the relevant portion of the interview for Bill. I myself am not impressed by expressions of contempt etc., I look for arguments. Here, in fact, I found the arguments which Ehrman gives in the interview embarrassing. Ehrman says that Paul tells us in his epistles that he met Jesus' disciples and Jesus' relatives; the nonhistoricity hypothesis thus forces the proponents to deny the genuiness of these epistles, etc. In fact, if you look at the Paul's epistles, you would never guess from their text that Paul tells us this. To make a parallel: If Mr. X writes that he met Barack Obama in Washington in April 2010, we surely deduce, on other grounds, that he met the American president. If much later a question arises whether the office of the American president was occupied in April 2010, the writings of Mr. X as such are, of course, of no help to solve this question. But precisely such logical mistake is Ehrman doing. He (implicitly) accepts the traditional equating of Peter, John, James, about whom Paul writes, with the disciples from Gospels, not realizing that Paul's writing do not contain such equating (in fact, even the word `disciples' appears nowhere in the epistles), and thus the epistles can not be used in the way Ehrman does. The Jesus' relatives in reality boil down to `James, the brother of the Lord'; this expression is traditionally equated with `the blood brother of Jesus of Nazareth' (not by the Catholics, of course) but Paul does not tell us this, we have to deduce on other grounds (if they are compelling). Sorry for these details, but I hope it is clear what I wanted to illustrate. We should report primarily about arguments, not expressions of contempt. In this concrete case, we should surely report that Doherty uses Paul's epistles as genuine (similarly as Wells etc.), but he disagrees with the logic which Ehrman demonstrates. (To make it clear: I do not think that Ehrman is irrational, he has just got no impulse so far to look at these concrete things in more detail.)

I repeat: my comment about Ehrman should be taken just as an illustration of my point about the priority of the concentration on arguments. The only concrete suggestion to modify the article is now to remove Crossan's comment. What do you say, Eugene?Jelamkorj (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that this is not a forum for discussing our personal views of the Christ myth of the validity of the arguments scholars make against it--Ehrman included. However, with reference to Crossan, I don't really understand you concern.  The article states, "Beyond these general treatments of the Christ myth theory as a whole, responses connected to specific exponents of the theory have also been offered. Of the theory's more recent advocates, John Allegro,[110] G. A. Wells,[111] Robert Price,[112] Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and D. M. Murdock,[113] and Earl Doherty have each been the subject of such critical comments.[114]"  The Crossan reference is "connected to a specific exponent of the theory" and, I think you would agree, constitutes a "critical comment".  Given that, I don't see why including his quote in footnote 114 is contentious.  If you are concerned that Crossan may not have read Doherty's work, well, do you have a source that says he didn't? A large chunk of Doherty's arguement was pasted into the question Neil Godfrey sent Crossan after all. Eugene (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, first, you seem to have misunderstood me with Ehrman etc. It is certainly clear that here is no forum for discussing our personal views of the validity of various arguments. But our personal views seem to heavily influence what one thinks is appropriate to be included in a serious neutrally written encyclopedia article. I tried to illustrate this on an example. If a scholar mocks an idea (here the nonhistoricity of JoN hypothesis), is it more important for an encyclopedia article to report that this scholar is mocking, or to sketch his/her arguments with a reference to a scholarly work on which this mocking is based? Regarding Crossan, I must say I am not sure if you have looked at this in detail even now. You are writing: "If you are concerned that Crossan may not have read Doherty's work, well, do you have a source that says he didn't? A large chunk of Doherty's arguement was pasted into the question ..." But if one looks at your source in more detail, one finds that Crossan was responding to the question "I was wondering if you would mind replying to one section of his (i.e., Doherty's) review of your book which I reproduce below". Crossan gives us no indication that he bases his response on something else than just this one section of Doherty's review of Crossan's book. It is you, Eugene, who should back up including this casual remark by Crossan, which by itself is no scholarly response to Doherty's work by any standards, with good reasons why this should be included in the encyclopedia article. It is not me who should find sources saying that Crossan did not read Doherty's work. (And again, it is surely not important for encyclopedia who (is said to have) read who's work, important are the arguments they make ...) I can see that, e.g., the two us would probably not find a consensus even on such a minor point, if you really do not see including Crossan's comment as inappropriate. So I can only wish good luck to the editors who discuss more important points with you.Jelamkorj (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Source for Pseudo-history / pseudo-scholarship
I was asked to reconsider my opinion about RFC. I explicitly asked, though, for top-quality sources that use these terms. And I'd appreciate top quality, not merely good source, top academic publishers. The sources I have seen are the following. I'll sign all my comments individually, so other editors can add comments right under each source if they want. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position." (Gerard Stephen Sloyan,The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9)
 * This is published by Fortress Press, the official publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortress Press is the academic imprint of the publishing house. Eugene (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth." (Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164)
 * Lutterworth Press, a Christian media company. Again, a good and respectable publisher, but not exactly a top academic publisher. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Emil Brunner, world-renowned professor at the University of Zurich Eugene (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio." (Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 8 & 23–24)
 * Eerdmans, another respectable but clearly religious publishing house. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The book appears on syllabi at major universities including Boston College, Queen's University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the University of Aberdeen.


 * "A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese." (N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 48)
 * Finally, a top academic publisher. Note though that pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship is not explicitly mentioned, and the discussion seems very informal. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. (Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 32)
 * Thomas Nelson, world's largest Christian publisher. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicholas Perrin - a scholar with relevant credentials; published academic monographs; scholarly journal articles on the state of historical Jesus studies, etc. Ari (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?" (Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008)
 * This is not even in print, but clearly a non-Christian here. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." (Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 168)
 * Westminster John Knox, publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); but this source highlight the problem with outdated versus pseudo-scholarship, calling Bauer well-respected. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark Allan Powell - Well respected academic, chair of SBL Historical Jesus studies. --Ari (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Recommended as "key" by an Oxford Professor and appears on syllabi at universities including the University of Denver and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
 * "One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism." (James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010).
 * Is this a blog? Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blog of James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion and Clarence L. Goodwin Chair of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University. --Ari (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion perfectly illustrates the sort of bizarre double-standard some are trying to apply to this article. Vesal concedes that the categorization as pseduo-X is supported by books printed by "good and respectable" publishers (some of which books are used as actual text books in major universities) and even by non-Christian scholars, but still, that's not good enough. (Nevermind that WP:FRINGE allows for scholarly criticism of fringe theories to be drawn even from "alternative venues".) The sources, apparently, must be published by university presses... and even that doesn't really count if the tone is "informal". Come on; is there another article, in all of Wikipedia, where the bar is set this high, let alone another article on a WP:FRINGE theory? Eugene (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was strictly talking about sources for putting articles into the pseudo-X categories. I absolutely hope that no article on Wikipedia is placed in a pseudo-X category without having a book from a high-quality university press or article in a top journal where that exact term is used. And this is not unfair: these very same scholars have published all over the place; and yet, comparisons to holocaust denial is confined to Christian publishers. Vesal (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why it matters that a publisher, or any quoted scholar for that matter, is a Christian? It seems you are implying a bias, that Christian sources are somehow less trustworthy.  Is that what you are saying?  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When we're writing about an ideology that involves very strong feelings, it's not good when the article is controlled by people who are strict adherents to it, for obvious reasons. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a really ridiculous thing to say to be honest. Academic sources are no longer RS because you suspect they, but not someone writing mock history in The Case Against Christianity is only making a bias claim? --Ari (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course there is bias.  Not even saying that is bad, from their perspective.   But the very idea that Christ may not have existed would not be something that Christian publishing houses or Scholars would accept or take even remotely seriously.   Looking over that list, I do have to ask why it is so heavily leaning towards Christian publishing houses.  Are there not more "neutral" sources that can be used instead?  Otherwise, these sources are heavily titled to one POV, understandably so, mind you, as they are Christian.   How can they not see the very idea that Christ was not an historical person as anything, from their POV, that is, but "pseudo".   Now, if more neutral sources could be found in the same abundance saying that the very idea is fringe or pseudo, then the article would not feel so POV.   Gingervlad (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Thank you (and SV) for being frank about it.  I've asked that question before, but because this page has become so large and cluttered, I never got a response (from what I can remember).  At any rate, that is a problematic position.  I mean, an analogy to what you are saying is that Jews have a bias towards Holocaust history, so peer-reviewed Jewish scholars can not be trusted to write an unbiased history of the Holocaust unless they are also supported by non-Jewish scholars.  The same can be said about peer reviewed scholars writing about the Arab-Israeli Wars, or current relations between Israel and the Palestinians, or current relations between China and Tibet, or the history of Britain and Ireland, or a whole bunch of other topics.


 * Be that as it may, such a position will have to be backed up by reliable sources, but don't bother doing it now.  Since it is a concern for you and SV (and I think others), I just added the sentence Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable? to the "Issue to be addressed" subsection above.  If you can think of any other issue that should be addressed, please feel free to add to it.  You don't have to state your reasons or your position.  I just want to get a list of everyone's concerns so that we can all address them in an orderly manner.  If you can't think of any right now, no problem.  Just add to the list when something comes up.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept your analogy that Jewish historians can't be trusted with the Holocaust. Being a committed Christian is based on faith, not reason. Christians are the first to admit that; indeed, they make a virtue out of it.

Studying the Holocaust or any other period of history for which a lot of material is available is mostly a matter of reason and evidence. Ideology does enter into it, and all history is biased to some degree, of course. But the further back you go, and the more essential that history is to someone's faith (an issue not based on reason at all), the more problematic the issue becomes.

We should therefore focus on the highest-quality mainstream sources we can find for this article. I am less concerned about whether they are Christian or not. My main concern is that we should focus (wherever possible) on academic historians, who have been trained to some degree to put their prejudices to one side, or at least recognize them. By that I mean people with PhDs in history or ancient history working as historians in universities. Other voices can be included, of course, if they're part of the debate, particularly if they're disinterested: personally I place a high value on philosophers because I'm familiar with their approach. But I have a concern about the number of biblical scholars being used here who trained in minor seminaries, and who are emotionally invested. That's why the article has a POV air to it. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, it really doesn't matter at this point whether you accept the analogy or not. I am fully aware of your concerns (and those of others), and they have been noted, which is why I added the question to the "Issues to be addressed" section.  We can discuss them further, in an orderly fashion, at a later time.  In the mean time, if you have any other concerns, please list them in the  "Issues to be addressed" section.  And, once again, I request that ALL editors refrain (which I will also abide by) from making any even remotely potentially contentious edits to the article or to the FAQs.  We all agree, I think, that the article has a long way to go before it can even be considered for FA status, so let's proceed in an orderly and civil manner.   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, I apologize for the emphasis on their religious conviction. The problem is certainly not that Christian sources are less trustworthy. The problem is when you extrapolate from the consensus within New Testament studies to claim this is the consensus view in academia. Right now, I have only seen Biblical scholars go so far as to call this pseudo-history, while secular historians are satisfied to call this refuted and unconvincing. You may do a search on "Historical Jesus pseudo-scholarship" and you will find Biblical scholars, such as L. Gregory Bloomquist, calling "the study of the historical Jesus confined to the ideological and theological pseudo-history of positivism." Shall we put historical Jesus into pseudo-history as well? I actually think the term is used without much thought. While Denying History dedicates an entire chapter to explaining why holocaust-denial is pseudo-history, these scholars are just using it as a derogatory term without ever defining what it means and why it applies. Vesal (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, please don't dismiss my post. I'm concerned that you and Eugene keep referring to the Holocaust. Jewish historians who write about the Holocaust may or may not be observant Jews. Or they may be atheists. Or somewhere in between. And the Holocaust is not a religious issue&mdash;Hitler did not target religious Jews. So the analogy breaks down at several points, and I'm disturbed to see that it keeps being raised by two editors. I'd appreciate if it you could find a closer analogy if you want to use one. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs


 * SV, I assure you that I'm not dismissing any of your posts. I value your input, and all of your comments rightfully need to be addressed.  The only reason I will not discuss your concerns right now is that I want to compile a list of issues that need to be addressed so that they can be dealt with in an orderly fashion by all of us.  Please, list any other concerns you have in the "Issues to be addressed" section.  I'm going to ask an administrator in the next few days to lock the article to prevent further contentious edits and I would appreciate your support on this.  Edits will still be possible, via the admin, but I wish to prevent disagreements from spiraling out of control.  And, personally, I don't care how the article reads until the issues are resolved.  That is, if anyone wants to add a POV edit, do it now.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles are never protected preventatively, so you'll be unlikely to find an admin willing to do that. You seem to find edits contentious only when Eugene doesn't like them, Bill, which is a definition admins are not likely to take seriously. :) Could you reply to my earlier question, please, about the Wells section I expanded? You were offline, but then suddenly came online only to make that revert, then went offline again. Presumably no one asked you to do that, so you must have had your own concerns. Eugene posted a concern that could easily have been dealt with without a full revert, so I'd like to hear your own reasons for the revert, and why you couldn't explain them on talk at the time.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to imply that the article should be preventivly (sp?) protected, per se. What I'm trying to do is to protect the article, temporarily, from contentious edits until we all have a chance to discuss them.  Don't you think that that is a good idea, or do you just want to multiply and obfuscate the various issues?  I think that you want the resolve these issues in a civil and orderly manner, so I request your support on this.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You won't find an admin to do that, because they're not allowed to. And you're using a definition of "contentious" that few would agree with. Could you please reply to my question about the Wells section? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please list your concerns in the "Issues to be addressed" subsection above. I'm not going to argue about it here because it is not relevant right now.  Let's try to tackle these issues in an orderly manner.  Please help me construct a means by which all of our concerns can be addressed.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vesal, there is no need to apologize (although in doing so, you show a sincere desire to discuss the issue further in a civil manner). At this point, I'm only concerned with compiling a list of issues/concerns that all of us need to resolve.  Compiling a list shouldn't take more than one or two weeks - depending on how many of us actually have normal jobs. :) Their their resolutions will probably take quite a bit longer, but that is just part of the fun of editing Wikipedia.  :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, your objection amounts to this:
 * Christian scholars cannot be trusted as mainstream as they cannot "put their prejudices to one side" and are often "emotionally invested".
 * We should use only people with PhDs in ancient history because unlike Biblical scholars working in ancient history they can put their prejudices aside and aren't emotionally invested. Note, the opinion of four ancient historians are listed Talk:Christ_myth_theory. And then you top this off with;
 * Non experts such as philosophers are objective disinterested parties, presumably above relevant scholarship.
 * Umm... --Ari (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ari, you make good points, but let's wait until we have a list of "Issues to be addressed" before we argue the points. Keep your thoughts in mind.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition section and FAQ #1
A caveat in FAQ #1 currently reads, "Several editors have expressed concern that this article does a poor job of defining its scope, specifically distinguishing between the Christ myth theory and biblical minimalism. Discussions are currently underway as to how to address this issue." With the new definition section is place (it's still there after a day two now) does anyone object to removing the caveat from FAQ #1? (the NPOV tag will remain) Eugene (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object. The scope of the article couldn't be any clearer than it is.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I object. We've just started a section that discusses a definition, but throughout the text there are still problems. This article needs a huge amount of work before we can call it neutral, comprehensive and accurate, and the FAQ will eventually reflect that work, though it will need to change substantially. There's therefore no point in asking every few days if you can remove a tag or a qualification from the FAQ, because you're the one slowing the work down. We are taking half a step forward, and two steps back.


 * My preference is to remove the link to the FAQ and move it to Eugene's userspace, because he wrote it and it reflects his point of view. It doesn't reflect the discussions in the talk page archives, which is what FAQs are meant to do. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 20:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to removing the tag either. The FAQ represents the consensus at the time it was written and represents consensus again. NJMauthor (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Even a cursory reading of the archives shows that the FAQ has never represented the consensus, and the same questions continue to be raised, but by different editors with different points of view, which is instructive. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Enemy Attestation
Where does Josephus say he was an enemy of Jesus? If Josephus was not an enemy of jesus, I hardly see how he can be used as an example of "enemy attestation.." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could I identify myself as an enemy of Paul Bunyan (a tree-hugging historian perhaps) but it wouldn′t make Mr. Bunyan more likely to have existed. I should note that this term “enemy attestation” is almost non-existent outside discussions of Jesus, so I′d take it with a grain of salt (trodden under foot, etc). ―AoV² 03:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not the point. Enemy attestation is in fact a real category used by historians. I have no objection to the category because I know that reliable sources use "enemy attestation" as a criteria. My question is, what reliable source actually uses Josephus as an example of enemy atestation? In what way is Josephus an enemy? Unless someone can answer thse questions we have an NOR and perhaps NPOV violation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar and Book searches for "enemy attestation" and "Josephus" yield nothing. Anthony (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean when searching for pages which contain “enemy attestation” but not “jesus” I find almost none. Google Books indexes this term 10 times, yet stunningly each instance is in the context of proclaiming Jesus′ existence. This raises the question whether non-Jesus historians use a different term for this concept, or apologetic media developed this concept independently. Which is it? ―AoV² 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another source request
We say in the lead (unsourced) "The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s" and in the 18th-century section: "The primary forerunners of the nonhistoricity hypothesis are usually identified as two thinkers of the French Enlightenment, Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis." The second is sourced to Schweitzer 2001, p. 355, and Weaver 1999, p. 45.

Could someone post on talk what those sources say that supports this sentence, please? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 02:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Schweitzer, pp. 355-356 : "The great forerunners of the theory that Jesus is a mythical figure are generally considered to be Charles Francois Dupuis (1742-1809) and Constantin Francois Volney (1757-1820). Both advocate the view that the Gospels present a myth of a predominantly astral nature, just as they see all stories about gods as arising ultimately out of events in the natural world and that of the stars." His discussion of Volney and Dupuis continues for about a paragraph and a half after the quote, including an anecdote about Napoleon, and then moves on to D.F. Strauss and Bruno Bauer. Schweitzer's work is a landmark in historical Jesus studies and the chapter is well worth reading as a sympathetic account of writers who think there was no historical Jesus. Make sure you read Bowden's 2001 translation of the 2nd German edition, because it includes a chapter on non-historical theories that is not available in other English translations. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weaver, Walter P. (1999), The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900–1950, p. 45 : "Of course, it is also true that this questioning of the very existence of Jesus as a historical figure was not really new, having gone back as far at least as the eighteenth-century Frenchmen Charles Francois Dupuis and Constantin Francois Volney, and wound its way down through Bruno Bauer and Albert Kalthoff, as Schweitzer has originally described and, in his greatly expanded second edition, had more extensively discussed."


 * Listing Dupuis and Volney as early advocates is something done by many sources. Arthur Drews does so in his intro to The Christ-Myth, if I remember right. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Bill
Bill, with respect, you're being somewhat rude in ignoring this question. Last night I expanded the Wells section. You were offline. You suddenly reappeared, reverted the whole section, then went offline again without explanation. I've asked you roughly four times what your objections were. I'm not asking Akhilleus or Eugene (and their points would not have required a revert anyway), I'm asking you. Presumably no one asked you to make that revert for them, so you must have had your own reasons. Could you outline them please? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem anxious to get a response from me (which I take as a complement), but as I've said repeatedly, let's tackle the issues in an orderly manner. We will all have a chance to discuss our concerns and I sincerely want your opinion and support.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an orderly manner. You came online specifically to revert me, then disappeared again. It wasted a lot of my time, expanding the section, seeing the revert, asking why, asking again, trying to work it out for myself. It looked as though someone had asked you to do it, though I'm assuming good faith and that you had your own reasons. I need to hear what they are, or I can't accommodate them. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I came online specifically to revert you? Do you have any way of proving that you can read minds?  If not, then I suggest you take a break from editing.  The stress seems to be causing you to make irrational statements against a person who is trying to edit in good faith.  Sure, we disagree on how to proceed here, but is that a reason to belittle another editor?  What's next?  Are you going to accuse me of anti-semitism, torturing small animals, nuns and orphans, and then top it off with a charge of pedophilia?  Like I said, perhaps you should take some time off.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, SlimVirgin asked you several times for the reasons of your reverts. Is it not better to give the reasons, instead of this tirade you made with an (ironic?) comment that personal attacks must stop? SlimVirgin, I wish you good luck with your efforts to improve this article (though I personally doubt you can succeed).Jelamkorj (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jelamkorj, I did give a reason in the label, which apparently was ignored or simply missed. In any case, her comment that I came specifically to revert her edits was WP:Uncivil, especially since I expressed a sincere desire to work with her (see my first comment above).  At any rate, if she wants to clarify her concerns, she can use my talk page.  I mean, there have been so many edits since the reversion in question, that it doesn't mean anything anymore.  That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguments section
I'm thinking we should weave these arguments into the sections about the different writers. The section as it stands is just repetitive. Does anyone mind if I remove it for now? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 03:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually had a stab at this a few years ago. I think it improved the article and addressed the dangerous "for and against" section so I would support you doing a much better job of it than I managed :o) Sophia ♫  12:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Some observations
To understand what I'm about to say, please be sure you understand straw man, ad hominem and weasel words. I have highlighted in red the bits I have a problem with; and signed each comment in case you'd like to add yours. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Address the argument, not the man. Is the case against so weak it has to resort to this? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In keeping with Bauer's pervasive anti-Semitism he held that Mark was in fact an Italian who had been influenced by Seneca's Stoic philosophy and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine.

There is no enduring Christ myth community any more than there is a Simpsons-watchers community. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ myth community

What is this fruitcake doing here? Is your case so weak? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but nearly all recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well.

You are imputing motives. Ad hominem. Can't you find a sound counter-argument? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Christ myth theorists) also made use of the growing field of Religionsgeschichtliche—the "history of religions"— building on its anti-semitic trajectories which seemed to find sources for many Christian ideas in Greek and Oriental mystery cults rather than in the life of Jesus and Palestinian Judaism.

"In keeping with his theory" is redundant. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In keeping with his theory, Smith also argued against the historical value of non-Christian writers regarding Jesus, particularly Josephus and Tacitus

While absence of evidence does not support the Christ myth theory, it undermines the historical Jesus theory, so of course it will be presented by the Christ myth theorists. They are not only proposing their theory but refuting the historical Jesus theory. Simply saying "Look! They keep pointing to absence of evidence!" in no way implies they hold it up as support for their argument. As described here, this criticism is a straw man. If you want it to stay, you'll have to name the Christ myth theorists who argue that such an absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence; not their critics who make this (possibly) straw man argument, the Christ myth theorists who claim absence = evidence. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ myth theorists often cite the lack of contemporaneous non-Christian sources that mention Jesus, arguing that such an absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence.

I don't understand this. I think the problem is two meaningless words: "Deconstruct" and "relativize". Also, "confused" is redundant. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The few non-Christian sources that do, however, refer to Jesus are routinely deconstructed, with some (such as the remarks of Josephus) being rejected as corrupt and others (such as Tacitus’ passing reference) being relativized as dependent on the confused beliefs of later Christians and thus providing no independent corroboration of their claims.

Apart from "believability", "credibility" also means "trustworthiness" - a slight moral tone. It should be replaced with something neutral. "Acceptance", maybe. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic credibility.

Should this be "commentary"? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC) In its context, this wording may be misunderstood. Make it clearer that reference to Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered by mainstream scholars to contain interpolation. As it stands, it could be read by a sleepy reader as saying Christ myth theorists suspect it of containing interpolation but most "scholars" think it is legit. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and Earl Doherty have each been the subject of such critical comments.
 * Josephus' fuller reference to Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, while suspected of containing later interpolations, is nevertheless also believed by a large majority of scholars to preserve an original comment regarding Jesus.

Who put the decisive arguments against and what were they? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * mainstream critical scholarship rejects the central supportive argument of the Christ myth theory: namely, that early material related to Jesus can be explained away with reference to pagan mythological parallels.

Who put the decisive arguments in favor of this view and what were they? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholars believe that Jesus is to be understood against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism an emphasis on broader Hellenistic religious categories having been "largely abandoned."

Which "scholar/s" dealt the decisive blow against homogeneous dying and rising gods. Which Christ myth theorists presuppose homogeneous dying and rising? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * mainstream scholarship generally rejects the whole concept of homogenous (sic) dying and rising gods—the validity of which is often presupposed by advocates of the Christ myth theory.

Who? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The few academics who continue to support the "dying and rising gods" construct nevertheless repudiate the idea that Jesus fits the wider pattern.

All attempts? Some attempts? Two attempts? Seen by whom as inaccurate and historically slipshod. To be clear, name the critic(s), name the target(s), and specify the criticism. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures are widely seen as inaccurate and historically slipshod.

Name these cases. Critic. Target. Criticism. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In other cases, often such supposed parallels are based on the interpolations of skeptical critics themselves: parts of Jesus' biography and early Christianity being inappropriately projected onto the stories of mythical pagan personages, only to be then "discovered" and cited as parallels.

Who? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholars further note that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable," given their cultural background, as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.

This is an opponent of the theory spraying it. It adds nothing to the article. It should go. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholars often note more basic methodological problems with the Christ myth theory. (Footnote: E.g. "This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence." Wood 1934, p. 54)

Who? Who? What sources? What reasons? Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While advocates often rely heavily on arguments from silence (such as the lack of references to Jesus in histories produced during the period, and the silence of Paul regarding much of Jesus' life), specialists regard such arguments with deep suspicion, noting that various sources may not mention Jesus for any number of reasons.

Weasely insult, not persuasion. It does the against case a serious disservice. Makes you look pathetic. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholars from a range of ideological viewpoints have further suggested that the Christ myth theory is plainly unsupported by the evidence, and moreover that it can only be maintained through willful disregard of that evidence.

Weasely jibberish. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Attempts to prove or disprove the existence of a historical Jesus in such a context, they argue, often degenerate into a methodological "black hole" in which all would-be evidence for a historical Jesus is deconstructed into irrelevancy.

This is not an argument, it is an insult. Even if some "reliable source" thinks this, it definitely does not belong here. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As Mark Allan Powell, the chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, writes, "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."

You may think that because your source makes the argument in a 1923 book, you only have to report his/her conclusions. That's wrong. You may think that because your source uses insults and weasel words, it's okay to use them in this article. It's not. You have to work here. You want to write this article? Write a clear, neutral, well-researched one. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anthony, this is very helpful. I've removed a few of the things you mentioned and requested sources for others.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I whole-heartedly disagree regarding the Powell quote. The quote is from a senior historical Jesus researcher and is particularly attributed. It is very helpful in establishing just how negatively the scholarly mainstream regards this topic. Further, the quote draws a meaningful distinction (to adapt science-lingo) between the "proto-scholarship" of Baur and the pseudoscholarship of modern proponents.  It further contains another helpful (though implicit) distinction between how laymen see this issue and how scholars see it.  There is no reasonable policy-based objection to this material and I will reinsert it.  I'm willing to compromise on many things here, but I'm pretty sure that I'll only let this particular issue go if "ruled" against in formal mediation. Eugene (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just an insult. There's no indication that this represents current mainstream academic opinion. It's like one of the sources calling another source "sad". There's no need to include that kind of thing. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's really your concern, would you be happy to include a relevant quote from Perrin in which he compares the methodology of holocaust denialism to the methodology of Jesus denialism? After all, it was you who said "We use in-text attribution for contested views, without censorship". Eugene (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In fringe medical theories it is sufficient to say there is little support in the clinical, academic and research communities. What's wrong with this article isn't its lack of hyperbolic insults about those who hold this view. This article lacks substance. See the red ink above. Once that is addressed, you won't need the invective. Anthony (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be that we are simply at an impasse here. But I'll ask you the same thing I asked SlimVirgin: if your concern is "really" just that Powell's quote demonstrates a lack of substantive argument, then would you be happy to add a similar quote from Nicholas Perrin (Lost in Transmission?, pp. 31-32) in which he compares the methodology of the CMT with the methodology of Holocaust denial? Eugene (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, I have already disputed with you about the Crossan's comment above. I just feel like adding my humble opinion also here. No matter who Powell is, it is obvious that this is an insult by any reasonable standards, and it has no place here (unless the article wants to illustrate how emotional the topic is and how far even serious people can go with their emotional expressions). The factual inaccuracy of Powell's comment is witnessed, e.g., by the book James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Downers Grove, also referred in the article. If Powell's comment was correct then we should deduce that Robert Price gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat ..., and, moreover, we should deduce that four other academics had no problems with agreeing to appear in a book on equal footing with such a "skinhead" ... As I said at Crossan, if you, Eugene, honestly see including such comments as appropriate, then I find it almost impossible to reach a consensus with you (and it seems that this is also the case for more active editors than me).Jelamkorj (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No. This article does not explain the arguments for, arguments against, by whom. Instead of addressing that fatal defect, you are arguing to include that some opponents equate the theory's worth with that of holocaust denialism. Just stating the opponent's conclusions is way, way short of what this is about. Anthony (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)I have just reverted you again on the "skinhead" defamation. Anthony (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It cheapens the article to include comments like that, and it takes us close to BLP violation regarding the sources it's aimed at. Both the article (previously) and the talk archives are full of comparisons to Holocaust denial; allegations that sources are anti-Semites or Nazis; and claims that, if we feel the article relies too heavily on Christian biblical scholars, we must concede that Jewish historians can't be sources for The Holocaust, an analogy that's entirely wrong-headed. These are not occasional remarks, but have been going on for a long time, and some of them were in the lead until recently. It really needs to stop. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 07:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Anthony for such helpful comments. The emotive CMT = Nazis and Commies agenda needs to be stopped.  Sophia ♫  09:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm off the bed, but I suppose that I might mention that some of the more notable CMT advocates were Nazis and Commies: Arthur Drews (who coined the phrase it seems) and Lenin. Eugene (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Godwin's Law. You lose. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is full of weasel words. It improved recently, but still more has to be done. I support removing the highly biased comparison to holocaust denial. Sole Soul (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR tag
Death by inches. Eugene (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that some kind of threat? I don′t follow. ―AoV² 07:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly. It's a reference to an earlier question I asked SlimVirgin concerning her motives with this article. Eugene (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Crank
I just searched The Case Against ChristianityBy Michael Martin for the word "crank". No results. So I have reverted to less intemperate language. Anthony (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? When I follow your link it takes me to the very page in Martin's book where he uses the word "crank". See, SlimVirgin, this is what Ari, Bill, Akhilleus and I have had to put up with for a long, long time.  We're not just jerks; we're suspicious of certain kinds of edits for a reason. Eugene (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. Obviously, it returned no results for me 5 minutes ago. Anthony (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. Eugene (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's possible that Google Books didn't return a result for Anthony's search; Google isn't always consistent. But WP:V doesn't require that readers be able to verify sources through Google. A direct link has been provided to the sentence in question, and it has been quoted exactly (with page number!) in posts above; if you can't find the quote in Google, the next step is to find the actual book, or ask other people who have access to it. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Anthony (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial again
There seems to be a consensus among admins here that the holocaust denial analogy is flawed, offensive and unnecessary. I agree and think the comparison should be fully excised from the article. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the comparison should be removed, simply because, as one of the commenters at the ANI thread put it, "Comparisons to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial are generally unwise and unconstructive (be it in debates over Christ myth theories, climate change, or Israel/Palestine)." But, since several reliable sources say this, I can't help but think we're departing from our supposed mission of simply reporting what reliable sources say, and instead making judgements about them; in particular, we are making a judgement about whether their characterizations of the subject of this article are appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, and agree this is a concern. I do however begin to question the neutrality of a scholar who would make such an inflammatory comparison. Such statements seem like heavy-handed activism rather than disinterested criticism. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no requirement that the sources we use be neutral; it is, after all, a scholar's job to argue for some positions and against others. We make the article neutral by making sure that viewpoints are represented in due proportion to their significance. Whatever our feelings about him and his argument, Mark Allan Powell is an important scholar; you don't get to be the chair of the Historical Jesus section of the SBL by being a nobody. Again, I'm in favor of removing the Powell quote and any reference to Holocaust denial, simply because it's causing far more trouble than any informational value we're getting out of it, and for some readers and editors it arouses strong emotions that are a distraction from the actual topic of the article. However, I remain concerned that we seem to be ruling some reliable sources out of court because we don't like their arguments. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The only argument that matters as far as this article is concerned is that most historians who are experts on the Bible or on 1st century Jewish history consider the existence of a historical Jesus plausible. Why they think this has nothing to do with the Holocaust. The articl will be stronger by focusing on the one debate that does matter to this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, just because everything we publish must have a source doesn't mean everything that has a source is something we must publish. The Holocaust denial comparison is offensive and wrong-headed, and I think we'd be doing the sources of it a favour by not broadcasting to the world that they said it. They may have meant it in a very limited context, or may have been speaking off the cuff, or may regret it. The other issue is that it edges close to a BLP violation to be calling other sources deniers and skinheads, no matter how well-sourced the comments are. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, you misunderstand the issue. The comparison was NOT that the Holocaust didn't happen and therefore Jesus did not exist. Rather, the comparison is that the historical reality of the Holocaust (which Eugene, myself, and everyone else in this discussion, affirm 100%) is not denied by reputable scholars and, similarly, neither is the historical reality of Jesus' existence denied by by mainstream scholarship. Thus, those who deny mainstream scholarship are similarly as fringe-y as those who deny the Holocaust.  I don't think it could have been made any clearer, so I find your antagonism unwarranted.  Please consider my comments.  Bart Ehrman, for one, made that comparison.  If you want to contact him for a clarification, then please do so.  But you can hear his comparison, in his own words, here.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, I agree with your statement that "just because everything we publish must have a source doesn't mean everything that has a source is something we must publish." But that doesn't seem consistent with some of the other things you've said on this talk page. Bill, I agree with your summary of the comparison, but the fact that you have to clarify it, over and over agin, means that it's not an effective way of illustrating the point, right? As Slrubenstein says above, the article is going to be stronger if we don't get bogged down further with the denialist comparisons—we can actually move on to some substantive editing, maybe. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't said anything on this page that's inconsistent with that. We're always forced to choose the most appropriate sources. The idea that one source accusing other sources of being skinheads might be appropriate is clearly wrong-headed. I don't care who the source is. We have strict BLP rules when it comes to issues like this. If we want to post serious attacks on people, we need good secondary sources for the attacks: not just the attacker, but someone reporting what the attacker has said. "Biblical scholar accuses other academics of being skinheads" on CNN would work as a source; using only the original source of the attack isn't good enough. I ask again that the editors on this page make themselves familiar with our content policies and best practices, because it will save a ton of arguing. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, up above when we were discussing Michael Martin, you said we should "stick to the published sources, preferably those working within academia, and just write up what they say." Powell seems to qualify--this quote comes from an academic, it's published in an RS. I agree that we should choose appropriate sources, i.e., use our judgement, but above you were saying that we should be stenographers, which is rather the opposite. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How helpful is this back and forth, Akhilleus? I'd really appreciate if it could stop. These are comments about the other sources, not material that helps us develop the article. We never use any and all comments someone has made about someone else, and you know that, so why keep this exchange going? I'm reminded of when you told me earlier that there were ways beside the Web of obtaining books. I don't see people repeatedly making these kinds of comments against you, Eugene, Bill, and Ari. Let's just try to fix the article and stop trying to get one up on each other. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, the reason it needs to be clarified over and over again is because there are some editors who seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to what they "hear" rather than what is said. I agree that the claim is an emotional powder-keg, but that is exactly the point of the comparison.  That is, anyone can claim that Mr. X didn't exist, or Event X didn't happen, as is done by Holocaust deniers.  But the historical methodology used, and the outright ignoring of evidence by such people is so hopelessly flawed and irrational that mainstream scholars have no way of explaining such opposing views except by questioning the dissenting authors' motivations, which is exactly what mainstream biblical scholars do in the case of Jesus' simple existence.  The comparison is fair and accurate, so it should NOT be excised from the article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, I understand exactly what the comparison is supposed to convey. The problem is that it's not working—instead it's arousing hostility. You can complain all you want about people reading incorrectly, but this is just going to happen over and over again. The ANI thread attracted a lot of attention from long-term contributors, and their reaction to this comparison was very strongly negative. You can assume that this reaction will be shared by many readers of the article, too. Whenever you find yourself in a protracted argument about the Holocaust, even if you are substantively right, there's a very good chance that you're wrong in the eyes of most of the audience. This argument is simply not worth it. We can inform readers about problems in the CMT's methodology by other means—for instance, by spelling out how proponents' use of sources differs from mainstream approaches. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please Clarify?
Is there perhaps a difference between the "Christ Myth Theory" and the "Jesus Myth Theory"? The header and the opening sentence of the article appear to regard them as the same thing, but I'm not sure that this is an appropriate assumption. I have seen a lot of scholarly work that accepts the historical existence of "A Jew named Jesus", but those same scholars don't all necessarily accept the authenticity of the material that make "Jesus the Rabbi" into "Jesus the Christ". Should this point be expanded upon here, or would this belong in yet another separate article? Wdford (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but scholarly work that accepts Jesus' historical existence but doubts the complete historicity of the New Testament is covered in lots of different articles, including historical Jesus, historicity of Jesus, Quest for the historical Jesus, and so on. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. To rephrase my question: Do the "Christ Myth Theory" proponents (on average) absolutely deny the historical existence of any form of Jesus, or do they (on average) claim that the "Christ persona" was grafted onto a historical Jesus, who may well have existed as an ordinary Jewish teacher? I get the impression from the first paragraph of the lead of the article that to qualify as a "Christ Myth Theorist" one must necessarily deny the existence even of the historical Jewish teacher, but this seems to be contradicted in the last paragraph of the lead. Or am I missing something? Wdford (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory refers to those who believe there was no historical jesus; that there was no Christ figure, nor a "jew named jesus" who was turned into a Christ figure later. I understand your confusion, because "Christ myth theory" would suggest dispute with the Christ part only. However, in virtually all use, it refers to the theory that there was no Jesus the Jew, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the anything who actually lived. It is synonymous, in virtually all usage, with what you'd call "Jesus myth theory".

Sometimes a hypothesis is poorly labelled, but we here at wikipedia can't correct it! Doubts about different aspects of the historical jesus that do not deny his existence are, as Akhilleus mentioned, covered in other articles. I hope that helps. NJMauthor (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Current Issues
I don't know about the rest of you but I think this page has become way too cluttered and large to have a meaningful discussion about a consensus. So, what I propose is that we list all the current issues in one section and then tackle them one by one. I have no particular preference in what order we tackle them, as long as each is handled one at a time.

I have no idea if this has ever been done before on Wikipedia, but I honestly don't see a better way to proceed (but I'm open to suggestions), and clearly it's not working well right now (e.g., I've had more than one point I've made go unanswered, and I think everyone else can say the same). Furthermore, I think the article should be locked for a certain amount of time in order to prevent additional issues from popping up and further increasing the difficulty in maintaining a coherent discussion.

I'll start the list (below) and I encourage everyone to add to it. As time goes by and consensus is reached, we can check off the issues that have been successfully addressed (by using a strike-through) and then add to the FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we provide answers? --Ari (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I would like simply just to list the current issues here so we have a central checklist. After we get everyone to add what they think is important to the list, then we can create separate sections to discuss them in order, and then come back to this section so we check resolved issues off the list.  While we are discussing one issue, people would still be welcome to add additional issues at the end of this checklist.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues to be addressed

 * 1) Is the CMT fringe?
 * 2) Is the CMT pseudo-x?
 * 3) Is the FAQ #2 NPOV?
 * 4) Should the scholarly response be one major section (as it currently is) or should it be distrbuted throughout the article?
 * 5) What is the notability/publication criteria for including a CMT author among the advocates?
 * 6) What is the criteria for determining if an advocate warrents a separate section or should be lumped into the "other authors" sections?
 * 7) Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable?
 * 8) Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus?
 * 9) How should the article indicate that Wells changed his stance in 1999?
 * 10) How should Price's section be structured?
 * 11) Should the definition section include a "background" related to the NT documents, and if so, how should it be crafted and which authors should be included?
 * 12) 'continue list here (for example, Is the FAQ #x NPOV?)"

Blocks or protection? Use of 1RR
I've just blocked User:Ari89 for a fairly blatant failure of 3RR on this article. I only want to use page protection as a last resort, so I'm wondering if an imposition of 1RR on the article as has been used with many other articles would be useful? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes 1RR would be helpful. Eugene (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to fully protect the page for a week or two. There are a whole bunch of issues that need to be addressed, and each new edit is causing disruptions.  After the protect expires, then we can have a 1RR.  That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What are the advantages of these options? I've never worked on an article where either happened. Anthony (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Once this is decided, can moot we then negotiate a strategy for arriving at our common goal here? I reckon we can achieve that. Anthony (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The advantage of 1RR rule is that it will force editors to go the talk page to discuss things before reverting, or risk getting blocked. Protecting the page prevents any edits, so its advantage is that it eliminates the possibility of a reversion or getting blocked, and gives editors time to calm down (which is why I think this is the better option).


 * As far as strategy for arriving at a common goal, I started a list called "Issues to be addressed" above so that such issues can be addressed in a orderly manner. Right now, there are two diametrically opposing views on the issues to be addressed and until they can be resolved, there is going to be a lot of fighting going on on this page.  We even have an accusation of anti-semitism that has been unjustly hurled at one of the editor.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've worked on an article before that had 1RR imposed on it, and it was a mixed blessing. It did slow the reverting down, but it also stopped article improvement. Editors were worried about removing nonsense because they wanted to "save" their revert, so they'd just keep on writing over it. When the 1RR restriction was lifted, the article had to be almost completely rewritten, because bad material had been allowed to co-exist alongside the good, and the two had become so interwoven it wasn't easy to separate them. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. Especially in your last sentence.  I would have to say that the article should be locked and then when a consensus is reached, we ask the locking admin to add in the new consensus.  Of course, I'm probably the only one who would like to see it approached in this manner.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Forgive me if I don't take sides. It's very hot in here. It's a symptom of that. I'm here because it's a crap article. I have no axe to grind at all on the past existence (or not) of Jesus. In fact I'm fascinated, and am impatient for the article to show me the state of the scholarly argument on this very important question. Not who's winning. I can work that out for myself if the article clearly, accessibly, fairly, details the propositions, refutations and defenses that constitute the argument. That's my goal for this article. Would you consider taking that on as your primary goal for the article?

Yes, it doesn't matter. It's a distraction.Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) No. Ditto Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I don't know.Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) It should be half the article.Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) The debate seems to be happening largely between the academy on one side and popular authors supplemented by a couple of respectable academics on the other. So I think we should stoop pretty low for the CMT side. That should be entirely unnecessary for their opponents. It looks like there are ample scholars opposing. Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) They should forward the argument. Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I would check all their references. They come to the question with their minds made up. But that should by no means exclude their propositions from the debate. Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the CMT fringe?
 * Is the CMT pseudo-x?
 * Is the FAQ #2 NPOV?
 * Should the scholarly response be one major section (as it currently is) or should it be distributed throughout the article?
 * What is the notability/publication criteria for including a CMT author among the advocates?
 * What is the criteria for determining if an advocate warrents a separate section or should be lumped into the "other authors" sections?
 * Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable?
 * Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus? To be perfectly honest, any contribution that forwards the argument is fine with me. Anthony (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no position on whether to go to 1RR, page protection, neither or both. Anthony (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that Christian scholars "come to the question with their minds made up." They might be personally skeptical, and if they're historians they are likely able to set aside the historical realm from their own personal beliefs. Without interviewing each one we can't know, and I feel that dismissing or undermining the credibility of such sources would be wrong and highly hypocritical in this article. That said, *unfounded* bias should always be accounted for when it can be demonstrated. (by the way, anthony, I wouldn't exactly call the article "crap", you might want to take a look at the article from a few weeks ago! Hopefully we can get a better article going again now. NJMauthor (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is my goal. Just FYI, though; the issues to be addressed will not involve (at least at first) a simple vote, but will require extensive (and I'm sure heated) discussion.  For example, the idea that Christian peer-reviewed scholars are somehow less credible than non-Christian scholars cannot be proved without the ability to read minds.  And to assume it indicates a bias (POV), and is therefore inadmissible.  That's the last I'll speak of it until I can get enough people to list their concerns in the section above and the discussion "officially" starts.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We're off and running. I completely agree with both of you, if you're saying all contenders' arguments should be judged on their merits alone. When I said I would check their references, I meant verify their sources. But we should do that for every contributer. If you're not Bill the Cat 7 could you please respond to Bill the Cat 7's eight questions? I've signed my comments so you can add yours under mine. What are the most vexing questions for you, Bill the Cat 7? Anthony (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I appreciate very much your reasonable voice which is looking primarily for arguments. You say "In fact I'm fascinated, and am impatient for the article to show me the state of the scholarly argument on this very important question. Not who's winning. I can work that out for myself if the article clearly, accessibly, fairly, details the propositions, refutations and defenses that constitute the argument. That's my goal for this article." I think that the wiki-article can never fulfill this. I do not want to advertise but let me say the following. (I will also explain how it is related to the problem with this wiki-article.) Regarding the best material of a CMT proponent, I would surely recommend you look at the web page Doherty, Earl. "The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?", which is in Further reading in the article. (One can start with the very short "The Jesus Puzzle in a Nutshell" and then go to the Preamble of the Main articles etc. Of course, the best would be to read the latest book by Doherty, but the main things are there on the web. There are also book reviews written by Doherty, questions/answers, and Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case.) Unfortunately, I cannot recommend any critical scholarly response to the arguments of Doherty because I have not found any (the reviews by R. Price a R. Carrier are very positive). As far as I can see, a major problem for this wiki-article is that Doherty addresses all the previous historicists arguments, and his arguments seem very reasonable, well supported by the evidence we have, in particular by the early Christian writings. So if these arguments are really properly confronted with the historicists arguments (made prior to Doherty), I feel that it would be obvious that Doherty's arguments make sense. I do not mean that it would be obvious that Doherty is `right', but I mean that his arguments make really good sense, and nonhistoricity of JoN would thus surely appear as a valid option. I am afraid that this is something which some editors here would never allow. They would say that we must report the conclusions of official biblical scholars, not confront their arguments with Doherty's, because Doherty is not part of academia, not notable, etc. etc. That's a basic problem with this article, as I can see this.Jelamkorj (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the background, Jelamkorj. Food for thought. I am a bit flushed with optimism. Give me a week! Would you consider responding to Bill the Cat 7's 8 questions above in this thread? I've signed my comments so you can add your thoughts under mine if you like. Anthony (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want a quick idea about the fringe-ness of the CMT, check out this audio. It is a clip of an interview between an atheist and the well-known and well-respected scholar Bart Ehrman (note that Ehrman is NOT a Christian).  Enjoy.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This really amusing. I followed your link to Ehrman's article and the talk page.   Under "Ehrman partisans", there you are calling Ehrman fringe, in fact, "definitely on the fringe".   So is Ehrman fringe or not?   And if he is, using your own words, definitely on the fringe, how can he be considered not fringe here, except of course he is now "well-respected" because you want to hammer someone else with the "fringe" label by giving Ehrman the authority you deny him elsewhere.  Apologies about not providing a dif, I am not sure how to do that.  Gingervlad (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that does seem kind of funny doesn't it? :)  I wrote that about 7 months ago, before I investigated him further.  Slrubenstein's recent edit of his page alerted me to it (I had forgotten all about it, obviously) and I have retracted my statement.  You can go to that page and read for yourself, but, in short, after I wrote that, I read some really nice things about his scholarly abilities from Christian friends of his which changed my mind (or more accurately, corrected my misunderstanding, since even his theological "enemies" praise him).  I still maintain, however, that he is no friend of Christians, which makes him a good source to go to for those who ignorantly claim that Christian scholars are inherently biased.   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All this is, in fact, amusing (but also instructive) in many respects. Anthony, I would also recommend you the audio with Ehrman, which Bill keeps recalling. I have already addressed this above (in the section Crossan's comment). Ehrman surely gives the listener an impression that if you want to contemplate the idea that there was no historical Jesus then you have to deny the historical evidence, in particular Paul's letters. He says he is a historian who studies all this for thirty years (for his living), and he explains the value of disinterested comments for historical research. He exemplifies this on the comments by Paul where he (according to Ehrman) tells us that he met Jesus' disciples and Jesus' relatives. Now the best way to check the validity of Ehrman's argument is to read Paul's epistles for yourself ... I hope I do not have to stress that Wells, Doherty, Price do not deny any historical evidence, including Paul's letters; they just do not read into the letters what is not there, in fact. OK, I will stop, I know that my contributions have limited value, when I gave up trying to edit the article. So sorry, Anthony, I will not consider responding to Bill the Cat 7's 8 questions, I do not think it would help anyhow. (I made clear that I would prefer presenting and confronting arguments, instead of derogatory remarks etc. But I can see also on Ehrman, that this is not the manner how official biblical scholar work, at least wrt Jesus historicity question. Wikipedia can only reflect this reality, I am afraid.)Jelamkorj (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Final paragraph of the lead
I wouldn't mind a couple of sentences at the end of the final paragraph that sums up the anti-theory position. The current structure of the lead isn't bad. First para tells us what it is. Second para: history of idea, some key current proponents (though we need to describe Wells differently, but that can wait). Third para: a pro(ish) source and an anti-source, both secondary sources and both named, which is good; and we explain that it's a minority position. Final para: explains the theory, but doesn't summarize the counter-position. It currently says:

"Proponents of the theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime, and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and Roman gods, such as Dionysis, Osiris, and Mithras. They argue that, while some gospel material may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed, these individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. Rather, they contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."

It would be good to add two or three succinct sentences here saying what the historical Jesus position is if it can be expressed in a way readers will understand. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 06:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. At present the lede does not put a cross just how unsupported the theory is by biblical/NT scholars. We don't need moon-landing quotes but there have been some good quotes commenting specifically on the methodological concerns. Sophia ♫  06:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added something from James Dunn to keep us going so the lead is more balanced:


 * "Arguing against the theory, the theologian James Dunn writes of the improbability that a figure would be invented who had lived within the generation of the inventors, or that such an elaborate myth would have been imposed upon a minor figure from Galilee who had no significant influence. This, he writes, is the fatal flaw of the Christ myth theory."


 * We can change it if there are better suggestions. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The historical Jesus position - how about this:
 * Proponents of the 'historical Jesus' believe that the canonical Gospels were inspired by the life of an actual and unique individual. However, they believe that the authors of the Gospels were intent on communicating theological truths, not historical accuracy.  Moreover, they hold that in some cases the theological content of the Gospels reflect the experiences of Christians after Jesus was executed.  They therefore view the Gospels as necessary but unreliable historical sources, and seek to reconstruct Jesus's life and teachings by reconstructing the context of Jesus' life based on non-Christian sources.  This reconstructed context provides them with a basis for selecting and interpreting those passages of the Gospels they believe to be of historical value.
 * This is the best I can come up with. I cannot make it more pithy because proponents of the historical Jesus agree on little (baptism by John, crucifiction by Pilate) and disagree on a lot - they are united more by a set of assumptions and method than by a particular view of Jesus, as far as I can tell, so that is what I have tried to describe.  There are some people who edit the Jesus article - user:Leadwind and user:Andrew c who know the literature on the historical Jesus really well.  You can ask them, or run my version by them and ask how they would improve it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems too... how should I put it, specific. It shouldn't focus on the gospels as much. But I think you're on the right track. NJMauthor (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am curious to know why it should not spend as much time on the Gospels - every historian of the historical jesus I know of spends a great deal of time on the Gospels. Besides, I did not think I was focusing on the Gospels at all.  I thought I was focusing on how historians relate to their sources, which, after all, is the key question in any historical study, given that history is the study of given sources.  Anyway, like i said, if anyone has any doubts about my definition, run it by Leadwind or Andrew c, they are excellent judges, very well-informed. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I like having the Dunn quote in the lead—thanks for the change, SV. Slrubenstein's suggestion is an excellent starting point, although I would point out that many (most?) scholars base their reconstructions of the historical Jesus largely upon the New Testament itself; they use non-canonical Christian material (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas) and non-Christian material, but the NT is more important. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gospel of Thomas isn't really used, it's a synthesis composed much later than the canonical gospels and the writings of paul. NJMauthor (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I appreciate your efforts, as I said elsewhere. I wanted to stop my contributions but I feel I should still add a comment to your final paragraph of the lead. Look what this `last word' by James Dunn says. (Btw, we can note that he does not say that Jesus is so well documented (as a Holocaust, or moon-landing) that ... ) Concentrate on the second part: He writes of the improbability .... that such an elaborate myth would have been imposed upon a minor figure from Galilee who had no significant influence. This is a classical (I would say apologetic) argument against those who say Jesus was historical but he was just a minor figure (and therefore it is no wonder that he is not on `radar screen' of ancient writers, etc. ...); this argument, in fact, does not address nonhistoricity hypothesis


 * Maybe nobody reads this anyway but I must correct myself. This `(I would say apologetic)' above should be removed. As I say below, this argument is shared by Doherty etc.; the part `but aims to show' which I write below should be read as `Christian apologists often use this argument to conclude'.Jelamkorj (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

but aims to show that Jesus must have been, in fact, a major figure with significant influence .... Anyway, e.g. Doherty would surely agree with this second part of the argument (see what I am adding below). So it is at least somehow confusing to say that `this is the fatal flaw of the Christ myth theory'. For your convenience, I am pasting here an abridged version of a paragraph from Doherty's web page (Postscript in Main articles).

The First Fallacy is the idea that Jews, both in Palestine and across the empire, could have come to believe—or been converted to the idea by others— that a human man was the Son of God. Within a handful of years of Jesus' supposed death we know of Christian communities all over the eastern Mediterranean, many of them involving at least some Jewish adherents. ... Traditional Christian views have maintained that such communities were the product of dusty disciples from Judea who went off to centers big and small and almost overnight managed to convince great numbers of Jews (as well as gentiles) that a humble preacher they had never seen or heard of, executed in Jerusalem as a subversive, had risen from the dead, redeemed the world, and was in fact God's pre-existent Son who had helped him create the universe. This is an incredible proposition. ... To believe that ordinary Jews were willing to bestow on any human man, no matter how impressive, all the titles of divinity and full identification with the ancient God of Abraham is simply inconceivable. Paul is not only assumed to have done this, but he did so without ever telling us that anyone challenged him on it, that he had to defend such a blasphemous proposition. ...

Doherty surely does not take Paul as `inventor of Jesus' in the Dunn's sense, he suggests that Paul's texts are best explained when not assuming that Paul had a recent man in mind ... So the first part of Dunn's improbability does not apply to Christ myth theory in general either ...

This was my humble comment. Good luck again.Jelamkorj (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-published material
I have a concern that Earl Doherty's books are self-published. The publisher is Age of Reason Publications, but it seems they have only published his books. Per WP:V, we're allowed to use self-published material with caution, so long as it's published by an expert in the field previously published in that field by independent publications. I see that he had a piece in Robert Price's Journal of Higher Criticism in 1997. Has he had anything else published independently? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This gets back to my concern about how we determine who is included in the article and, further, who gets a separate section. A little while back you (SlimVirgin) deprived Edwin Johnson, an erstwhile professor of classical literature at New College, London (now a part of the University of London), of even his passing reference in the article. But now you've expanded Doherty--an amatuer with almost no education and certainly no academic post and only one article published in a fringy journal and one book published by a very small publisher (which he subsequently republished on his own in an expanded form under a different name)--into a full subsection.  I don't think that Doherty's section necessarily detracts from the article, but how can we possibly justify this uneven treatment?  Doesn't giving Doherty this much space seem WP:UNDUE?  Dbachmann once mentioned his concern that this article was just an elaborate front to make Doherty and his ilk seem more respectable than they are by grouping them with actual academics. I'm not sympathetic to that view, but stuff like this makes me less unsympathetic.


 * And this is a problem that will recur in the future. When Richard Carrier finally gets around to publishing on this topic, should he be lumped into "other authors" or should he get his own section?  What about Freke and Gandy?  If Doherty merits a section certainly they do.  What about Madalyn Murray O'Hair? What about Dan Barker?  It seems like we need an agreed upon set of criteria for inclusion and, then, a further agreed upon criteria for determining who gets to move out of the low-rent "other authors" section and into their own section? Here are a few possibilities arrainged in order of increasing rigorousness, indicate which you prefer:

Criteria

(Option #1) Anyone who's published a book that even mentions support from the CMT, through an actual publisher--no matter how small or goofy. (e.g. Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Dan Barker)

(Option #2) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through an actual publisher--no matter how small or goofy. (e.g. Earl Doherty & D. M. Murdock)

(Option #3) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through a respectable publisher. (e.g. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy)

(Option #4) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through a respectable publisher and who is extensively discussed in secondary literature. (e.g. G. A. Wells & Robert M. Price)


 * I think that the threshold for mere inclusion in this article should be Option #2 and the threshold for getting a separate section should be Option #4. What does everyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs)

Personally I think that the article should discuss the ideas and arguments, rather than the people making them. Giving each person a section strikes me a as a pretty poor strategy. This isn't, after all, "arguments for and against CMT". Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Guettarda. I'd like to see a focus on the arguments rather than the people. I've been continuing to write within the current structure only because it's there. Also, what we need are uninvolved sources who give an overview of the debate and who tell us who the key players are, rather than trying to decide for ourselves. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the current structure, which aims to be a history of the CMT, is the best structure to follow, because it allows us to tie arguments to specific proponents, some of whom take radically different approaches to the subject. If you don't tie arguments to a specific person, you run the risk of creating a synthetic position that's held by nobody. Furthermore, to the extent that the article is already "arguments for and against the CMT", this is a problem, but it will become worse if the article isn't structured as a history.


 * As for "uninvolved sources who give an overview of the debate and who tell us who the key players are," I've already listed some, several times. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly let's add to the arguments section. But the history sections are vital and need to stay.  Also, I did some checking and I think that Doherty may justify his own section.  He's referred to fairly regularly in modern discussions of the theory.  It's iffy, but why not err on the side of comprehensiveness?  At the same time, I looked around a bit for Edwin Johnson.  The wackiness of his views aside, Arthur Drews, undeniablly notable in this context, referred to him in both The Christ Myth and The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus.  Also, Maurice Goguel, a major historical rebutting author, mentions Johnson in his book The Life of Jesus.  Likewise, comments regarding Johnson pop up in fairly major referene works from the period including the 1915 version of The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia and the Encyclopaedia Biblica.  I'm putting his little passing reference back in the article.  If someone objects for reasons other than Johnson's wackiness (Why was this ever legitimate grounds for removing him completely?), please say so. Eugene (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I asked PhilKnight if he would be interested in mediating this dispute. He said that he would, which is really quite excellent, as Phil is one of Wikipedia's most experienced mediators. Could all parties in this dispute please note if they would agree to informal mediation? NW ( Talk ) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Thank you. Anthony (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree . Outside input much appreciated. Sophia ♫  20:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having seen Eugene try to hijack the process I'm not in a hurry to go through all that again. Sophia ♫  06:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about PhilKnight, but if he really is "one of Wikipedia's most experienced mediators", I'm sure he can stop me and the rest of my sinister cobelligerents from "hijacking the process". Please just agree, let's actually address some of these issues rather than go on talking past each other. Eugene (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Too many edits, IMHO, have been done without a clear consensus and the Talk page has become filled with unaddressed concerns. If each outstanding issue can be addressed in an orderly manner, one at a time, I think we have the makings of a great article.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Eugene (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, I guess, but I think we need the mediation to be focused on specific questions. Without some kind of structure, I'm not sure we'll get anywhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point of the section below. If you have any concerns, please list them there.  Then, when everyone who wants to be in the mediation agrees to participate and makes their concerns known, we can work out the details during the preliminary part of the mediation.  Let's take this one step at a time.  I have a feeling that in the end, this article will achieve FA status, and ALL of us can add a feather in our caps for making it happen.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues to be addressed in mediation
Note that the issues are in no particular order.


 * 1) Is the CMT fringe?
 * 2) Is the CMT pseudo-x?
 * 3) Is the FAQ #2 NPOV?
 * 4) Should the scholarly response be one major section (as it currently is) or should it be distributed throughout the article?
 * 5) What is the notability/publication criteria for including a CMT author among the advocates?
 * 6) What is the criteria for determining if an advocate warrants a separate section or should be lumped into the "other authors" sections?
 * 7) Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable?
 * 8) Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus?
 * 9) How should Wells' section indicate that his 1999 book marked a departure from his earlier stance?
 * 10) How should Price's section indicate his involvement in the Jesus Seminar?
 * 11) How should Price's section indicate his contempt for the scholarly consensus?
 * 12) ''continue list here (for example, Is FAQ #x NPOV?)"

A concern about mediation
I feel Eugene has been misusing WP's process to nail down a certain POV and have it appear immutable. He and Bill have used the FAQ page almost as a weapon. The previous mediation was used to achieve the result they wanted (adding the article to the pseuoscholarship or pseudohistory cat), and thereafter Eugene issued warnings to anyone who removed the cats, even threatening me at one point with the mediator. He used the GA process to try to stabilize the article on his version. He tried to use the FAC process in the same way. I found a comment of his on a talk page where he basically admitted this, which I'll post when I find it again.

When that failed, he asked the ArbCom to rule that the topic is fringe, as though they're the Ministry of Truth. He approached them again as soon as I started editing the article to ask them to "warn" me. ("SlimVirgin, we forbid you from even trying to improve any articles&mdash;put down that source immediately!") I fear any more mediation will be used to obtain compromises on issues that the content policies are actually clear on. Eugene and Bill have also suggested that the article be protected or semi-protected pre-emptively against contentious editing,  another attempt to misuse process that shows no understanding of WP's culture.

Instead of spending time on mediation, those of us not familar with the literature need to read it, and those of us not familiar with the policies need to read them. That combination will produce a wonderful marriage. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For me, the point of mediation is to establish an orderly way of addressing everyone's concerns in a fair manner with an "umpire" (to keep everyone "honest", so to speak). If you need time to become familiar with the issue, I have absolutely no problem with that.  Just let us know how much time you need.  In the mean time, I strongly encourage everyone to limit themselves to non-contentious edits of the article and to  cease from bringing up the past in a negative way.  There have been a lot of comments made that are highly emotional and have been bandied about but I'm willing to wipe the slate clean.  Does this sound fair to you all?   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I get that you think I've been "misusing WP's process", but we're just going around and around in circles here. Meditation, especially if conducted by an uber-mediator, can help us to tackle the relevant issues one at a time.  And how better to prevent my evil schemes from coming to fruition than by having a wiki-policy wonk such as yourself involved in the process to call me on my bullshit?  I really think this is the right way to go.  Please agree to the mediation. Eugene (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the time the FAQ was written it was the majority consensus on this page, and is the majority consensus among editors before the GA article flood. You'll get nowhere by misrepresenting Eugene or Bill's positions. NJMauthor (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking through the archives, I can't see any point at which there was consensus on those issues; on the contrary, experienced editors were repeatedly raising the same concerns. This is the talk page from around the time the FAQ was created. I see the same issues raised there as are being raised now. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After a year or so absence I was shocked to see such a biased FAQ and the first thing I did was go through the archives to see if I'd missed something. Like SlimVirgin I found the FAQ constantly disputed (reread the archives with fresh eyes) and editors subjected to rude dismissive comments. I myself have been insulted numerous times by Eugene and Bill so I find his request for AGF amusing. I found in the last mediation that "fair" and "non-contentious" means whatever they think best represents this as skinhead territory. Sophia ♫  06:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As a more-or-less outside observer, I also can see all this as a waste of time, for many reasons. A crucial one, as far as I can see, is that there is no academic source for which SlimVirgin is looking. This source would clearly neutrally present the arguments for historicity on one side, the arguments for nonhistoricity on the other, in a scholarly manner, with due references etc. (Remark. The history of various proponents etc. also belongs here, but many people feel that the crucial point should be the [current] arguments.) Such an academic work would give the readers a reasonable chance to evaluate by themselves if nonhistoricity of JoN is a valid historical option or not, etc. (Though this can never replace their own study, of course.) If there was such an academic work(s), to write this wikipedia article would be easy. But what if there is no such work? Then it is clear that Wikipedia cannot be the first place, where such a work is realized. SlimVirgin has already unintentionally demonstrated this problem. She has done great job by removing the `Holocaust comments', and then (temporarily) ended the final paragraph of the lead with a sentence of James Dunn, letting a strong opponent to make another (less offensive) straw man argument there. (I wrote more in the section `Final paragraph of the lead'.) Of course, she would be surely more happy with a real neutral academic source, but what shall we do if there are none? This is a central question, which should be clarified first of all, according to my opinion.Jelamkorj (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is done through mediation or not, I'd like to see us work through Bill's list. Could a mediator facilitate that process? If a number of enthusiastic editors have been blow-torched out of here recently, would it be appropriate to invite them back to participate? Anthony (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

FAQ
Speaking of the FAQ, it has been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 03:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These FAQ's contain a lot of useful information, but they are very hard to find, and most readers probably wouldn't even know to look for them. Should we not incorporate all of the valuable info into the article itself, so that all readers can have ready access to it?


 * Also, I feel the lead section is getting a bit big. Perhaps some of that material can be moved down into a "background" section in the body of the article? Wdford (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is within the length recommended by WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the lead length isn't an issue. Eugene (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed significant edit of subsection "Rejection of alleged mythological parallels"
Excisions = red Inclusions = blue Explanations = green.

Rejection of alleged of mythological parallels (this isn't CSI)
In addition to affirming the historical existence of Jesus on the basis of documentary evidence, (redundant) mainstream critical scholarship rejects the central supportive  (Who says?) argument of the Christ myth theory: namely, that early material related to Jesus can be explained away  (derisory) with reference to pagan mythological parallels.

(ref) "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels." (Bromiley says it all) "[T]here is hardly a reputable scholar today who supports the legitimacy of these so-called parallels" (/ref)

Scholars believe (weasel)  Witherington argues that Jesus is to be understood against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism,

(ref) "[T]he Gospels, indeed the whole NT have a profound indebtedness to early Judaism and Jewish ideas about salvation, this life, resurrection, heaven and hell, clean and unclean, the sabbath, circumcision, the nature of God etc. They are also suffused with the Jewish concern for history, for their God was a God who intervenes in history, and they were not looking for a mythical messiah, but rather a flesh and blood one who would rescue them from their oppressors. The universe of discourse is again and again Jewish, not Greco-Roman at its core. Thankfully the vast majority of scholars, Jewish, Christian, or of no faith at all have long since realized that the NT and its ideas, and Jesus himself cannot be explained or explained away using the tired old arguments of the Religionsgeschichte Schule. The discussion has moved on ..." (/ref)

an emphasis on broader Hellenistic religious categories having been "largely abandoned."

(ref) " Third, (redundant) the miracles of Jesus are interpreted more carefully and more realistically in context, with the result that they are now viewed primarily as part of charismatic Judaism, either in terms of piety or in terms of restoration theology (or both). The older notion that the miracle tradition is relatively late and of Hellenistic origin, perhaps the product of theios anèr ideas, has been largely abandoned." (/ref)

Further, mainstream scholarship generally rejects the whole concept of homogenous dying and rising gods (The article doesn't say proponents rely on a homogeneous life-death-rebirth concept.)

(ref) "[I]t is presently impossible to accept a general category of a 'dying and rising god' in the ancient Mediterranean and Levantine world." "There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species." (gratuitous, unscholarly) (/ref)

the validity of which is often presupposed by advocates of the Christ myth theory. (How often? Which advocates?) The few academics who continue to support the "dying and rising gods" construct nevertheless repudiate the idea that Jesus fits the wider pattern.

(ref) "There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world." (/ref)

Furthermore, attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures are widely seen as inaccurate and historically slipshod. (weasely misrepresentation of the source) Yamauchi argues that attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures have not sufficiently taken into account the dates and provenance of their sources.

(ref) "[P]ast studies of phenomenological comparisons have inexcusably disregarded the dates and the provenience of their sources when they have attempted to provide prototypes for Christianity." (/ref)

For example, far from presenting Mithras' origin as an analogue of Jesus' virgin birth, classical sources depict Mithras emerging  Burkert shows that the purported equivalence of Jesus' virgin birth with Mithras' origin fails because Mithras emerged  fully grown, partially clothed, and armed from a rock,  possibly after the rock had been inseminated. (Clearer. But whom does he refute? Who originally claimed the equivalence?)

In other cases, often such supposed parallels are based on the interpolations of skeptical critics themselves: parts of Jesus' biography and early Christianity being inappropriately projected onto the stories of mythical pagan personages, only to be then "discovered" and cited as parallels. Bevan and Forbes argue that proponents of the theory have invented elements of pagan myths in order to support their assertion of parallelism between the life of Jesus and the lives of pagan mythological characters. (Clearer)

(ref) "Of course if one writes an imaginary description of the Orphic mysteries ... filling in the large gaps in the picture left by our data from the Christian eucharist, one produces something very impressive. On this plan, you first put in the Christian elements, and then are staggered to find them there." Interviewer: "The claims about this particular sky God then, Horus, are that he was born on December the 25th, he was adored by three kings, he grew up, he had twelve disciples, he was crucified, and then he was resurrected. Well, that sounds like the Jesus story." Chris Forbes: "It does—because that’s what it is. But it’s not the Horus story." (/ref)

Brandon argues Opponents of the theory argue  (weasel)  that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable,"  given their cultural background,

(ref) "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit." (/ref)

as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.

(ref) "[T]he early Palestinian Church was composed of Christians from a Jewish background, whose generally strict monotheism and traditional intolerance of syncretism must have militated against wholesale borrowing from pagan cults. Psychologically it is quite inconceivable that the Judaizers, who attacked Paul with unmeasured ferocity for what they considered his liberalism concerning the relation of Gentile converts to the Mosaic law, should nevertheless have acquiesced in what some have described as Paul’s thoroughgoing contamination of the central doctrines and sacraments of the Christian religion." (/ref)

I have made the changes Anthony (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I know it now says "argues" four times. If you don't fix it, I will in due course. Sorry. Anthony (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with most of the changes. But cutting the material on dying and rising gods won't wash.  The  tag was unnecessary as footnote indicates that this is a consensus view.  Further, to say Mettinger is "gratuitous, unscholarly" is a bit strange: he's a tenured academic in a state school, publishing through an academic publisher... who considers himself one of those "residual members of an almost extinct species". If for some baffling reason you find the quotation offensive, just cut the text of the quote but leave the ref. When you ask about the CMT use of dying and rising gods, "How often? Which advocates?", the answer is "Almost always; almost all of them."  I'm not sure something like this needs further clarification. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right about my Mettinger comment. I've deleted the dying and rising gods argument because it is one hand clapping. There is nothing above about dying rising gods. I take your word it is an important part of the story but it is orphaned here without the thing it is supposed to be refuting. Can you put something into "Mythological parallels" about who first formulated the concept of homogeneous dying and rising gods? Anthony (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference to dying-and-rising gods are made 3 times previous to the comment in question. In the Arthur Drews' section we find this: "[Drews] brought together the scholarship of the day in defense of the idea that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities." Later, in the Price section, there's this: "Price writes that everyone who espouses the Christ-myth theory bases their arguments on three key points... The third pillar is that the Jesus narrative is paralleled in Middle Eastern myths about dying and rising gods, symbolizing the rebirth of the individual as a rite of passage." And then, in the "Mythological parallels" section, there's this oblique reference: "Sometimes appeal is made to broader anthropological understandings of religion and ritual patterns of human behavior as postulated by James Frazer and others in such works as The Golden Bough." I think three references are enough to provide the other hand to your koan. Eugene (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is the "homogeneous dying rising gods concept" is not explained in the article even though Price calls it one of the 3 pillars of the Christ-myth theory. It needs explaining. I am criticizing the quality of your rhetoric. Anthony (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase "dying-and-rising god" (and it's variants) is wiki-linked twice in this article. Isn't that enough?  If someone wants a fuller idea of what these are they are only ever a click away of being educated. Eugene (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll write it when I have some time. Anthony (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am compelled to comment here.  Yes, people should link to that article.  And the history and the talk page.   It has been significantly altered and dare I say gutted in the past  six months.   Aside from one mention of Adonis (kind of without context), there are no other examples...or internal links to said Adonis, or Osiris for example.   Or any other possible deity that was once linked, Levantine or otherwise.  Ari was quite busy, with your help Eugene.   It is a subject stripped of examples.  Gingervlad (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * True enough. However, let's link it now anyway, and fix it in parallel as we go along. There are many examples to be added. Wdford (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Source request
Do we have a recent high-quality mainstream source who makes a distinction between the Christ-myth theory and biblical minimalism? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't see the point of this question. Do we have any recent mainstream sources that draw any links between the two? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to write a sentence about the distinction, and because everything in this article from now on must be sourced to a high-quality source, I'm asking whether someone has one. Eugene did write up a distinction, but he based it on a source from 1926. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. Offhand I don't know of anything more recent, but I will look and see. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eddy and Boyd distinguish between the Christ myth theory and other more moderate views that believe that the gospel depictions of Jesus are highly legendary. I think a relevant quote is in FAQ #1. Eugene (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Source request
I'm confused about the way sources have been used throughout the article, with several sentence parts having different sources, so that it's not clear who is saying what. For example:

"S. G. F. Brandon argues that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is 'intrinsically most improbable,' given their cultural background, as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers."

The first part, until "most probable" is sourced to Brandon. The second part ("given their cultural background") is sourced to Grant. The third ("as evidenced by") is sourced to Metzer. So what exactly is it that Brandon is saying? Does he explain why it is most improbable? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Until recently this article avoided particular attribuition when describing mainstream views, in accordance with WP:FRINGE, for all but the most inflamtory comments. Recently it seems editors have wanted to ignore this policy so sentences that once were sourced by four or five different authors are having the problem you mentioned.  I think the solution is to take WP:FRINGE seriously and avoid particular attribution whenever possible. Eugene (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution is to take the content policies seriously, which means using in-text attribution for anything contentious. I think what has happened is that adding in-text attribution has revealed how much SYN there is in this article. Do you know what Brandon actually says? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 04:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was me. I struck it late last night (my time) at the end of a big edit but didn't want to start this discussion and then sign off. It shows up the synthesis nicely. Eugene, compared to you I know nothing about this stuff. I came here because it was mentioned at Fringe Theories and it looked interesting. I thought I might learn something. I have a moderate level of interest in the early church. I've read
 * Crossan's Essential Jesus (1989), Historical Jesus (1993) and Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994);
 * Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians (1988) and The Unauthorized Version (1992);
 * Robert Miller's (ed.) The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (1994);
 * Funk, Hoover & Jesus Seminar's The Five Gospels (1993);
 * Ian Wilson's Jesus: The Evidence (1984);
 * A.N.Wilson's Jesus (1992);
 * Michael Goulder's A Tale of Two Missions (1994);
 * Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus (1997); and
 * Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Gospels (can't lay my hands on it for the date).
 * Not very closely, and a long time ago. So my knowledge is general. I am relying on you, and others, for the specialist information that will make this a good article. What I have brought here is a critical mind and an understanding of policy honed in editing a few medical articles, where precision, clarity and neutrality are crucial. When I called this article crap the other day, I was judging it on those criteria. It is not clear and not neutral, so I doubt its veracity - as will anyone with half a mind who reads it. It is a bad article. If you want it to be good or featured, I recommend you welcome me, SV and the many other good editors who come here. It could be at GA in two weeks. Anthony (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with you guys & gals editting this article. But that doesn't me that I'm thrilled with each and every particular edit you make. I keep hearing the complaint that the article is not neutral, what specifically isn't neutral about it? Eugene (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, given that you're all fired up over particular attribution, why did you remove a particularly attributed bit from Paula Fredrickson and suppress the attribution to Evans? Eugene (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Prima facie
Please don't add commentary about this to the lead. It doesn't mean "at first sight X, but on further investigation not-X." SlimVirgin talk  contribs 02:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias against scholars who are Christian
It's become increasingly clear that the bias of some--both some editors working on this page and some reviewers who frequent the FAC pages--against scholars who are Christians is invincible. It's sad, but there's nothing we can do. Given this, I think that the good faith editors here should look for scholars who aren't Christians to provide critical commentary on the CMT. I know this will be vastly more time consumming to find relevant quotes, but it's possible. We already have a good start: Alan F. Segal and Will Durant discuss the principle of embarrasment over against the CMT; Louis Feldman indicates that Josephus did in fact refer to Jesus--very probably twice; Bart Ehrman says no serious scholar gives the CMT any credence and compares it to the denial of unmentionable Very Bad Things™; James Frazer contemptuously dismisses the people trying to use his work for CMT purposes; Michael Grant wags his finger at casual attempts to explain Christianity as pagan syncretism; Joseph Klausner exposes the 20th century's CMT's anti-semitic origins. Not bad, but there are more we could add. While not currently in the article, I've some quotes by Morton Smith calling the CMT "thoroughly discredited" and calling its advocates "cranks"; Geza Vermes talks at length about Judaism (not some Greco-Roman religious stew) being the appropriate backdrop against which to understand Jesus; I'm sure there's more. (I'm still opposed to using non-specialists to definte the state of scholarship, but I note that the philosopher Antony Flew once remarked that the CMT was "ridiculous".) Let's start tracking these down so the irreligious bias of some will be a moot point... assuming, of course, that the FAC reviewers actually allow scholars views to trump their own, which I'm not really sure of at this point. Eugene (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is solidly established that the CMT has no merit whatsoever. Therefore it isn't even necessary to scrutinize whether any particular scholar arguing against it may or may not themselves be Christian.


 * The problem with this article is that people keep pretending that there is a "controversy", perhaps even a controversy between Christians and non-Christians. This is not the case at all. The current article really goes out of its way to hide that fact. The intro quotes a philosopher saying that there is prima facie evidence for it. So there is. Prima facie means that the idea strikes you as plausible the first time you ever hear about it. After reviewing the evidence for five minutes, that prima facie impression goes away. I mean, there is also prima facie evidence that the moon is destroyed and then rebuilt once a month.


 * What has happened? The article looked ok-ish at the beginning of the month. Now it appears to be really going down the drain.


 * Thinking about all the man-hours of good editing invested in this time-sink really makes me sad. I am convinced that this problem will only go away if the article is split up cleanly along Jesus and history articles with cleanly defined scope. Writing an article about a debunked hypothesis as a sort of counter-article to the coverage of mainstream opinion is a dreadful idea. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with dab, but the archives of this talk page are an extended lesson in people sticking with their first impression. I wonder if I made a page for moon cyclical destruction theory if there would be the same problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I know that you respect dab's opinion; are you now willing to relent a bit? Eugene (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dab's sentiments on the state of the article are exactly what I felt re-reading its current state last night. At every corner some editor/s have taken every opportunity to belittle and override mainstream scholarship in a POV push, and this is painfully obvious in the current version. --Ari (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's Zeitgeist and Zecharia Sitchin all over again... Dab, you nailed it.NJMauthor (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have always agreed with Dab that the article should be merged into one of the others. I strongly disagree that the version he linked to was okay-ish (it was the one with Holocaust denial and moon-landing in the lead).


 * As I said earlier, the editors who want to be involved in this need to do two things: (1) read the literature and (2) read the policies and become familiar with how they're applied. The first will take longer than the second (I'm currently doing the first, but it takes time), but judging by some of the edits I'm seeing there are editors who aren't doing the second. :) We need both: what the literature says and how to turn that into a good WP article.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 02:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A substantial number of editors think that your heavy handed editing is undermining the quality of this article, SlimVirgin. I'm more than willing to build on quality edits, but not on obscurantism, puffery, and so on. Eugene (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Protected

 * Enough. Article protected for two weeks.  I have created a copy at Christ myth theory/Sandbox where you can revert each other to your heart's content - and if anything constructive comes out of it that's agreed by all sides you can always use the editprotected template to put it in the article.  Eugene - 3RR is not an entitlement - five (or is it six?) reverts in 36 hours or so isn't acceptable - I was seriously considering blocking you for that, and if it happens again I will. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be the last revert. I was pressed for time and editing the whole article (which is what it would have taken to sort the headers) was something I didn't want to have to do. Sophia ♫  06:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider myself fairly warned. Does that same warning also apply to SlimVirgin then? Like myself she's been reverting quite a bit recently; 3 times in the last 26 hour. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It applies to anyone; it was obvious that you were gaming the system though, your "I've run out of reverts" edit summary made that quite clear. Let's concentrate on trying to come to some sort of consensus whilst the article is locked now, please. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's. SlimVirgin, Sophia, James? Eugene (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss before edit?
Can I propose that we take this opportunity to engage in consensus-building, using the framework of Bill's list of issues, working through the points in sequence, and making edits after discussion, and only edits that will pass GA? This will never get past GA until this minority view is presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Anthony (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I whole heartedly agree. Mediation is waiting and an experienced mediator has agreed to work through the list in an order manner.  All that remains is for SlimVirgin, Sophia, and their partisans to agree to participate. Eugene (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree too. But I really think that we need to take up Phil Knight's offer (of the mediation cabal) to act as a mediator.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The hardest-working, most experienced, most involved critic of this article has misgivings about mediation. Let's start now.

Scholarly views on CMT

 * Michael Grant (author)


 * Education: Classics at Trinity College, Cambridge


 * Position: Professor of Humanity at University of Edinburgh; Vice-chancellor at the Queen's University of Belfast and University of Khartoum


 * Relevant specialization: Ancient historian; has written on historical Jesus and the gospels.


 * Relevant publications:


 * 1) Ancient History (1952)
 * 2) Paul (1976)
 * 3) Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (1977)

"'To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.'"
 * Views on scholarly acceptance of CMT:


 * Graeme Clarke


 * Education: A lot; Litt. D from the University of Melbourne.


 * Position: Lecturer in the Department of Classics at the Australian National University; Senior Lecturer at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia; Associate Professor at the Department of Classical Studies at Monash University; Professor at the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Melbourne; Professor of Classical Studies and Director of the Humanities research Centre at the Australian National University; Visiting Fellow at the School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, and is currently Adjunct Professor at the School. In addition: Numerous executive positions in the Australian Academy of the Humanities; President for Australian Society for Classical Studies; Council Member of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens; Fellow of the Society of Antiquities in London; He has also held a great many other Fellowships, Chairs and other academic positions, including stints as Associate Dean, Deputy Dean and Acting Dean of Arts at the University of Melbourne.


 * Relevant specialization: Ancient historian and classicist

Relevant entries in the Cambridge Ancient History
 * Relevant publications:

"'Frankly, I know of no ancient historian/biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.'"
 * Views on scholarly acceptance of CMT:


 * John Dickson (author)


 * Education: B Theology (Hons); PhD Ancient History (Macquarie University) - thesis published as Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities.


 * Position: Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University


 * Relevant specialization: Ancient history; historical Jesus; theology; New Testament.


 * Relevant publications:
 * 1) Christ Files: How Historians Know what they Know about Jesus
 * 2) Jesus: A short life

In a paper presented to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity: "In fact, I doubt that any of us could name a professional biblical or ancient historian who thinks Jesus’ existence is still debatable. Much more representative of the state of the question is the comment of Professor Ed Sanders of Duke University, one of the leading historical Jesus scholars of the last twenty years and no friend of Christian apologetics: ‘There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.’ I think this sentiment would be endorsed by virtually everyone writing in the field today."
 * Views on scholarly acceptance of CMT:

"To describe Jesus' non-existence as 'not widely supported' is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, 'It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened.' There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method."


 * Paul W. Barnett


 * Education: MA Hons, University of Sydney, ThL, Australian College of Theology; BD Hons, and a PhD, London University.


 * Position: Has held various teaching positions and is currently Visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University and Research Professor at Regent College


 * Relevant specialization: Ancient historian and theologian; has written on historical Jesus and the gospels.


 * Relevant publications:
 * 1) Jesus and the Logic of History
 * 2) Finding the historical Christ
 * 3) Messiah: Jesus - the evidence of history
 * 4) More

"'Reputable ancient historians irrespective of religious persuasion know that Jesus was a genuine figure of history.'"
 * Views on scholarly acceptance of CMT:

Comments
Please note that Michael Grant is actually quoting two other authors here: R. Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin 1957), p12; O. Betz, What do we know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968). SCM's own web page says "SCM Press - buy religious books online" and "SCM Canterbury Press - buy religious books online; Religious Book Publishers". The final consensus was the quote was useless.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) Michael Grant is actually making a statement as to the state of play, whether he references other people or not is irrelevant. (2) What has a work by Michael Grant not published by SCM have to do with the reputable publishing house SCM? Is it that it is religious some how meaning non-Christian scholars writing books are not allowed to reference their works? (3) What "consensus" has rendered a quote by an authoritative historian "useless"? --Ari (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the CMT fringe?
If a consensus is reached to the effect this is a fringe theory, the article will need to make that clear in a way that is neutral. Once. Not over and over again in every nook and cranny. Sly, underhanded discredits like the top link in "See also" being to Bible conspiracy theory make you (whoever put it there) appear to be sleazy and contemptible. It gives the impression that you play dirty, that the quality of your argument against the theory is so weak you need to apply Fox News persuasion techniques. I'm sure none of that is the case. But that's the impression it gives.

And the word fringe need not be used. The word in general parlance carries a derogatory implication (marginalized and nutty), whereas the way we use it, fringe theory is "not mainstream". Something like "the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians" conveys it's place in the field without stooping to derision.

Personally, judging only on the quotes provided by Eugene in the FAQ, which are opponents speaking, but includes one proponent (I think - did I delete him?) who concedes the view is considered eccentric, and in the absence of any counter evidence, I have no choice but to conclude it is a fringe theory. Can someone please explain to me why it is not? Anthony (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, since I'm so scarry that even mediators can't keep me in check, apparently, let's do this here. WP:FRINGE says this: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Given this neutral & broad definition, the CMT clearly and unambiguously qualifies as a fringe theory. Remember, this isn't about whether the "prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" is right or wise or whatever. Bracketing those kinds of issues, the identification of the CMT as WP:FRINGE should be obvious and non-controversial. Eugene (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask "Does anybody agree with me?" Everybody knows what you think on this issue. Anthony (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This should probably be the easiest of issues to resolve. I'm just wondering how many people involved in this discussion, who do not think it is fringe, will respond.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give it some time please. People live in different time zones and have jobs. Let's just sit quietly and have one very slow, thoughtful, patient, respectful, genuinely scholarly discussion. Anthony (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one more thing. We don't necessarily have to wait until the two week protection expires.  If we come to a consensus, then we can ask BK to have that reflected in the article, where applicable.  Just FYI.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. How do you feel about my wording above? ("the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians"). Anthony (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would prefer something along the lines of "the theory is almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars", since that is what the various quotes in the recently revised faq indicate. But, we are jumping the gun here a little bit.  I think we need to wait about 24 (?) hours to get other people to chime in.  However, I'm glad you're keeping on top of this.  It's helpful.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to sense the mood. Eugene? Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm by disagreeing, but I don't think the phrase "the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians" is helpful. First, no one cares about what mainstream theologians think on this point. It'd be better if it read "the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream historians and New Testament scholars".  But even then there are problems since, as Bill notes, the sources don't say the CMT is "not widely accepted"; the phrase is too weak. Consider these just three quotes.
 * "It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus." (emphasis original, Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 32)
 * "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ" (Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008)
 * "I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. (Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007).
 * Considering that Perrin's book was written as a direct rebuttal to Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (originally the title of Ehrman's book was supposed to be Lost in Transmission) their strong agreement on this point is all the more striking. Since WP:FRINGE say "Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is", we need to be very clear that "the theory is not accepted by mainstream historians and New Testament scholars", period. Eugene (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given Eugene's evidence, I like Bill's wording ("the theory is almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars") or Eugene's ("the theory is not accepted by mainstream historians and New Testament scholars"). Bill's seems more emphatic, which match the emphatic statements Eugene quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think, Ari? Anthony (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, can you please explain to me the problem with "theologian"? Anthony (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Forget that, unless you have further to add - I just read Bill's discussion with Crum375. Anthony (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have wondered the same. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Theologian" isn't best because this isn't an article on the hypostatic union, perichoresis, soteriology, or any other explicitly theological topic; it's a historical/documentary question and thus should be commented upon by historians and experts on the New Testament documents. The RSes constantly refer to historians and biblical scholars abominating the theory; to ignore the sources' terminology and substitute a term like "theologians" would be OR and subtly POV. Eugene (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A possible version from CMT sandbox:
 * The hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, but remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians. Ancient Historian Michael Grant writes that "In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." The biblical scholar Graham Stanton writes that nearly all historians today accept that Jesus existed, and that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain valuable evidence about him.

By all standards it is a fringe theory, and this is accepted by the scholarly mainstream as well as proponents such as Doherty. Eugene has a point on the weak phrasing that we are employing, as the scholars themselves have a history of pronouncing it dead, unscholarly and conspiratorial. The fringe of the fringe. --Ari (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive
Can we archive some of the sections? The talk page has become monstrous in size and it's a chore to edit, especially if there is an edit conflict? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think sections 1-20 should be archived. Does anyone have a problem with this suggestion?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the RfC, at least, since it hasn't closed. Any other RfC-like discussion that hasn't been closed should stay also. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging this article
Before we continue discussing the contents of this article, I think we need to decide whether it ought to stand alone. The problem with it is that it strikes up an extreme position&mdash;Jesus is a fiction in his entirety&mdash;then lists a number of people who don't hold that position, and claims that they changed their minds. Therefore (the implication goes), the theory must be nonsense if even its adherents don't hold it anymore, and therefore (the implication goes further), Jesus did exist perhaps just as the New Testament claims. Any attempt to introduce nuance is reverted.

My feeling is that this article should exist as a section of Historicity of Jesus, confined only to those who themselves clearly state that they're adherents. Price doesn't see himself as believing it; G.A. Wells hasn't for a long time. Does Doherty rule out that there is some minimal historicity to Jesus? Did Drews even hold to it entirely? I just wonder whether this is a straw man position that would be better off explained within its context.

Merging would involve a slight expansion of this section of Historicity of Jesus (currently 4,200 words, so it could stand a little expansion), and anything not appropriate could be added to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it should stand alone. There's a significant number of secondary sources that treat this as a distinct and notable topic. I don't understand the straw man concern at all. In fact, the quote I provided from G.A. Wells just above is a good illustration that the position isn't a straw man: he says that he used to think there wasn't a historical Jesus, then he changed his mind. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But he is responding to critics who have created an extremist category. He says himself, no, I've made clear in my last four books that I don't belong in your category one. We should try to get hold of his own summary of his position, the paper he references above. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He also makes it clear that he did belong in category one in his earlier books. If that was an extremist category, he was part of it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wells doesn't say that, A. He may have meant that, but he doesn't say it. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Akhilleus. This is definitely a "distinct and notable topic".  To claim otherwise would show a lack of understanding of the issue(s) at hand.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very doubtful about merging, but this and Historicity of Jesus are closely linked. Normally, I prefer to split up subjects in ways other than POV because it's harder to maintain neutral treatment of all sides. Even if no one held the idea today, it's still a notable idea based on its history, and there is enough material in this article that shouldn't be lost as a result of a merge or some kind of reorganization. Slim, you say, and therefore (the implication goes further), Jesus did exist perhaps just as the New Testament claims. Well, of course, that the idea is rejected by so many scholars and held by extremely few does have the inevitable implication that Jesus (the man) existed. We and the readers can live with that implication as easily as we live with the implication that Mohammed and Buddha and Confucius existed. That part about just as the New Testament claims is a bit unclear to me. The New Testament is, in relation to this subject, a text like any other that can be used as evidence. If you mean that the implication is that Jesus existed just the way the New Testament describes him, that goes too far. Clearly Bart Ehrman doesn't believe that. I'm not familiar with the recent, popular books by atheists, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if all of those authors had no problem with the existence of Jesus as a man. For atheists or other non-Christians, or for Christians with various opinions, it simply doesn't mean much, either way. Any attempt to introduce nuance is reverted. We should explain the relevant nuances in the article. Has that been the subject of a discussion in the archives? If so, should we restart it? Could you post the language you want to add here? I think the purpose of the article protection was to encourage something like that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with a merge. As Akhilleus has noted, it is a distinct topic and treated as such in many sources. Secondly, if it were to be merged in an article what justification do we have for dedicating so much space to an obscure fringe theory rejected by mainstream scholarship? It may be notable in its own right to have a page - it has a history and development, but to destroy Historicity of Jesus by having a fringe theory dominate it is ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) John, there are too many diffs to repeat them. The problem is that some of the editors writing the article have very strong views, and I feel are engaged in OR. I gave an example in the section above this about G.A. Wells. Wells says that he made his views clear in his 1996, 1999, and 2004 books that he does not subscribe to the extremist Christ myth position (a position created by the theory's opponents), but to a more nuanced position. Despite that, Eugene has been determined in this article to label Wells as someone who changed his mind radically in 1999, and has reverted every attempt to say otherwise.


 * My worry with the article is that material has been grabbed here and there (SYN violations) to support a position that is mostly the opinion of the Wikipedians who wrote it. The difficulty in countering this is that I haven't found a good scholarly overview of the theory (and it may not exist, which further raises the question of whether we should have a stand-alone article about it). So I'm doing the reading, but it will take time, because I'm having to do it the old-fashioned way: going to libraries and borrowing books. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why start a discussion about merging before boning up on the subject? I hope to get to an academic library to do a little research on this myself. In the meantime, I'm trying to find the books I have at home that mention this subject. I think any thick book about the history of scholarship on the New Testament is going to cover this. One book I have in front of me is by Michael Grant (about whom, our article states "According to his obituary in The Times he was "one of the few classical historians to win respect from [both] academics and a lay readership.") Grant has an appendix at the end of this book, Jesus (1977), in which he devotes two paragraphs (out of 24 paragraphs) to the position that Jesus never existed. He calls it "the Christ-myth theory". "[F]rom the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even 'seem' to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction." He also states,
 * "But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. [...] [T]here had also been a rapid growth of legend round pagan figures like Alexander the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (pp 199-200)
 * Grant footnotes this (Footnote 13), but I can't entirely make out the citation right now. Here's what the footnote says: "R. Dunkerley, Behond the Gospels (Penguin, 1957), p. 12; O. Betz What Do We Know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968), p. 9; cf. H. Hawton, Controversy (Pemberton, 1971), pp. 172-182, etc." Here "SCM" stands for "Student Christian Movement", so you may distrust Grant for relying, at least in part, on a partisan source. On the other hand, if historians are relying on these sources, it may lend credibility to the source. Whoever this "H. Hawton" is, he seems to have 10 pages related to the subject, and that might be worth looking for. In another footnote (#12) in the appendix, Grant states: "The latest book supporting the Christ-myth theory is G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (Pemberton, 1975) criticized by G. Stanton in The Times Literary Supplement, 29 August 1975, p. 977." Clearly, the subject of this article is not a figment of Wikipedia editors' imaginations. While I'm quoting Grant, here's another one:
 * A short way back, exception was taken [by Grant, himself] to the view that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong. Should we, therefore, accept the opposite opinion, which has been locked in an agonizing struggle with it for two hundred years, that all the contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine? No, that is also too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields. When, for example, one tries to build up facts from the accounts of pagan historians, judgment often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation -- which is sometimes, but by no means always, available -- but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability. The same applies to the Gospels. Their contents need not be assumed fictitious until they are proved authentic. But they have to be subjected to the usual standards of historical persuasiveness." (p 201)


 * Another book I found, Jesus Through the Centuries (1985) by Jaroslav Pelikan, a Sterling Professor of History at Yale, states, "Although there is no warrant for the extreme skepticism of those who maintain that the historical figure of Jesus, if indeed there even was one, is irretrievably lost behind the smoke screen of the preaching of the early Christian church, it is necessary nevertheless to begin with the caution that every later picture of Jesus is in fact not a picture based on an unretouched Gospel original, but a picture of what in the New Testament is already a picture." (p 10, Chapter 1: "The Rabbi"). This does seem to combine the ideas of "did not exist" with "we don't know whether or not he existed", kind of like the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. I think both ideas, which may be what you mean by "nuance" could be covered in this article, but that's not an argument for merging; it may be an argument for having the scope of this article cover both positions, which seem to be extremely close. I think some passages of our article already mention this.


 * My own knowledge of the subject is grossly inadequate, but these sources that I happen to have at hand show serious, respected historians taking this subject seriously. I think that's enough, unless you can impeach them, to establish the legitimacy of the subject. In light of some of the other responses in this section, it seems to me counterproductive to be raising general doubts without a lot more evidence to back them up. I think it would be more productive to concentrate, slowly, on addressing specific problems with the article where we can back up a position with specific sourcing, as you did above with G.A. Wells. If you find sources that disagree with the WP article's description of the subject that trump these sources and the sources already mentioned in the article, then we can have a productive discussion. As of now, we have plenty of sourcing to justify the existence of this as a separate article, although we could certainly improve the sourcing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good scholarly overviews exist. I've mentioned them several times. Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Bennett, Weaver, Van Voorst. Hoffman's introduction to the 1996 reissue of Goguel, Drews' introduction to The Christ-Myth, and some of Wells' books have useful historical overviews. The introduction to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (eds. Belby and Eddy) has useful info as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean an overview by an uninvolved academic. That would allow us to write this article without engaging in OR. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Following reliable sources, such as every single source I just named, is what allows us to write this article without engaging in OR. You seem to be defining "involved" in such a way that means no source will be uninvolved. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, that line of reasoning is not going to work anymore - that is, "that some of the editors writing the article have very strong views" and that there is OR. You can sling mud all you like but you will not be able to shake the fact that the CMT is fringe, specific, and is thus worthy of a separate article.  You can read all of the relevant documentation you like but, if you are honest, you will concede that the CMT is a wacky theory deserving illumination.


 * Furthermore, you said, "The difficulty in countering this is that I haven't found a good scholarly overview of the theory". It seems to me that you are saying that you haven't found a reliable source that agrees with you.  And you won't, because there isn't any source that is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars as being historically and methodologically sound and, in many cases, not even worthy of a response from mainstream scholars.  That's how highly unlikely the CMT is.


 * SlimVirgin, is this the hill you really want to make a stand on? Please, don't let your pride get in the way.  It's unbecoming.  And if you don't want to believe me, then at least consult the resources Akhilleus mentioned above (03:57, 23 April 2010) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin said "Wells says that he made his views clear in his 1996, 1999, and 2004 books that he does not subscribe to the extremist Christ myth position (a position created by the theory's opponents)" are you saying that Wells said that the position was created by the theory's opponents, or are you claiming that yourself? Because, as you must've already discovered, that notion is false. It was certainly not created as a strawman by opponents. For example, the Jesus-as-fictional near-eastern synthesis notion was often based off of the "evidence" of Social Darwinist amateurs like Massey who attempted to link Old-world monotheism with aryan race theory a century ago.

This article is A. Fringe, B. Worthy of remaining distinct. NJMauthor (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This article should remain distinct. As Sophia has noted in the past, were this to be merged with historicity of Jesus, unsympathetic editors would use WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to suppress the CMT position into virtual non-existence on the page. Also, SlimVirgin, as you are concerned with this page being shaped by OR and SYN, don't you realize that your repeated and unsupported assertion that the definition here is a "straw-man" is itself an example of OR? Allow me to repeat an earlier post: There are all sorts of theories that were once seriously considered by academics, then abandoned, and now are still peddled only by cranks and amatuers (e.g. catastrophism, geocentrism, etc). Powell's quote indicates that the CMT falls into exactly this category: there used to be meaningful academic support, now it's a total laughing-stock. Why should we try to force the theory to be something it isn't (i.e. define it in a way the RSes don't) so as to artificially inflate it's modern academic credibility? Eugene (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you address the Wells example, then? You have reverted over a dozen times to your Wells section, where you wrote in WP's voice that Wells changed his position in 1999. But Wells himself says in numerous quotes that he didn't, but that he had revised it several years earlier. This was in the source in the article, and also in the source Akhilleus found, and I kept rewriting that section to reflect the source, but you wouldn't allow it.


 * Could you address that one point only, please? I see it as OR, but perhaps you can explain it differently. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've addressed it above; it seems I was mistaken and I'm willing to adopt a different phrase: "In the late 1990s, Wells revised his position,..." Fair enough? Eugene (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you reverted me over a dozen times without reading the source, or any of my posts? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that I thought Wells' comment in his online essay wasn't clear enough to correct Van Voorst's comment published in a book. Now that I've seen Wells' statement repeated in print, I concede that the article should indicate the shift came in the "mid-1990" as Wells says. Eugene (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What was unclear about Wells saying: "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books ... it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court" (my emphasis), which is in the source, and which I added to the article (but you kept removing it), and stressed in some of my posts to you?


 * And please don't continue to do OR. If you want to say that he really changed his position, you will have to quote him saying that with no ambiguity, and not "well, sure, if you want to call that changing my position, then fine." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The quotes I've provided aren't ambiguous. Neither is Van Voorst. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying the above and replying in the G.A. Wells section. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)I once believed there was a definite 'non-historical Jesus' aka Christ myth theory but after going through the literature I had to accept the painful fact that there was no consensus in the literature on what the term even ment. Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman define the term Christ Myth theory in the Jesus NEVER existed context of this article but then you have definitions of Bromiley, Pike (vague), Dodd (vague), and Welsh which do allow for a historical person to be involved. It certainly doesn't help that Price and Doherty call Wells' current preexiting quasi-mythical Paul Jesus + Historical Teacher = Gospel Jesus as being part of the "Jesus/Christ myth theory" or that the terms Christ myth and Jesus myth are used in other ways. I still hold that this entire article rests on WP:SYN, WP:OR, and the False dilemma that Jesus either is or isn't historical. There are those who hold the there was a "historical" Jesus but his relationship tot eh Gospel accounts is effectively nil--where to they fit into all this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bruce - that was exactly the question I raised in the "Please Clarify?" section above. There is more than one "interpretation" of the "Christ Myth Theory". The topic is certainly notable, but the article needs to clarify the different versions, as the rebuttals etc also vary accordingly. Wdford (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative CMT explanations of the origins of Christianity and the formation of the Gospels.
From CMT definition above:


 * Akhilleus: "The essential feature of the CMT is the denial of Jesus' historicity; but once you do that, you have to come up with an alternative story of the origins of Christianity and the formation of he Gospels, etc. CMT advocates are united on non-historicity, but diverse in their accounts of how early Christianity developed. It's worth explaining that in the lead."


 * Eugene: "...as for indicating a diversity of explanations for Christianity's emergence sans Jesus, I think that would be helpful. I'm aware of at least three: (1) Kalthoff's socio-economic interpretations that saw "Jesus" as an idealized underdog or something, (2) Drew's pagan copy-cat theories, (3) and Jewish mystical xeno-genesis stuff like the middle stuff Wells produced."

I think it deserves substantial attention in the body of the article. Anthony (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Akhilleus that it should be mentioned in the lead. However, since many of those alternative theories accept that a historical Jesus existed, and that the cloak of "Divine Saviour" was thrust upon him hundreds of years after his death, they are not strictly speaking "Christ myth theories". Should they really be discussed here in detail, or should that material rather form part of a separate article (such as Historical Jesus perhaps) with links? Wdford (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

From Eugene's quotes in the FAQ (and in the absence of any examples to the contrary) it is clear that CMT means complete ahistoricity. Theory can mean just the proposition, or the proposition and its supporting explanation/argument. If this article is to discuss only the proposition, it will be ten sentences long and can be a tiny subsection of Historical Jesus or Historicity of Jesus. If it adopts the latter definition of theory, the article needs to cover how you explain the emergence of the Jesus and Christ traditions while denying the historicity of Jesus the man, and, perhaps, also cover the argument against that explanation. Eugene's examples hint at some diversity in explanation, and I think a detailed, neutral elaboration of those alternative explanations is essential here. Anthony (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The opponents have made the theory refer to complete ahistoricity, but that's the straw-man aspect. Proponents wishing not to be categorized in such stark terms deny being mythicists, at which point opponents say either (a) "See? It has no proponents who aren't nuts," or (b) "Ha! Another one has changed his mind!"


 * But in fact the debate, as you'd expect in ancient history, is considerably more nuanced than the opponents' framing of it. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a big battery of quotes up there in the FAQ, from 1926 to the present, saying it means there was no historical person behind the legend, or Jesus never existed. Bruce thinks (if I've understood him correctly) the term was twisted into this meaning in the late 1920's 1930's; and prior to that it was less narrowly defined. If the term has been habitually used by experts in the field for the last eighty years to mean "he never lived" that's probably the meaning for this article. Now, just what does "He never lived" mean (see Vesal above)!? Anthony (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've pulled together some threads from this year about the confusion over the definition in case there's anything in there that's helpful; see Talk:Christ myth theory/definition. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Aaaargh! Anthony (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but instructive. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth: definition
A stable definition of the title of the article is essential. In the FAQ, Eugene has provided references and quotes for authors who say it is the proposition that Jesus is a fictional character. Do you have the resources to supply the exact quote and citation for "Bromiley, Pike (vague), Dodd (vague), and Welsh", Bruce? If not the exact cite, then what you can remember about the sources? Anthony (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, not this again. Discussing Bruce's assertions has chewed up tons of space in the talk page archives. Suffice it to say that Bromiley, Pike, Dodd, and Walsh (not Welsh) define the subject as the idea that there was no historical Jesus. If you want the sad details, you can conveniently access some quotes in Bruce's post Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_24. The post there repeats almost verbatim posts Bruce has made throughout the talk archives. I'll just pick out a quote from Pike: "The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin." (Pike, Royston (1951) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions) This does not differ significantly from the definition in the FAQ. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Bruce has beat this horse to death to no avail. As I told the GA reviewer, Bruce misrepresents his sources on this point, sometimes very substantially so.  For example, Bruce mentions Walsh... but this article already quotes Walsh in both the in-line text and provide a fuller quote in the FAQ (or at least it did) and it's quite clear that Walsh understand the CMT as the argument that Jesus was a pure myth. Eugene (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus. Bruce, I've followed Akhilleus' link to a long list of quotes, but as a nonspecialist in this field (i.e., a typical reader of the page) you'll need to spoon feed me. From that list, or elsewhere, can you find any quotes that say "Christ myth theory/hypothesis means ..." or words to that effect, that convey something different than "Jesus was an entirely fictional character?" Anthony (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While most sources say Christ myth theory implies the belief that Jesus did not exist, I'd recommend following Walsh and Wells in saying that the essential contention is that Christianity originated as a myth. It will avoid much confusion if this is presented primarily as a theory about how early Christians came to believe in Christ. The mainstream accounts all hold that a historical person had significant impact on the formation of this belief. Perhaps, it developed as a disillusioned community re-interpreted the past in light of their failed messianic expectations. The precise account may vary, but mainstream scholarship trace such trajectories from Jesus to Christ. In contrast, this theory denies any impact whatsoever, even when conceding that a historical Jesus is at the core of Q, it maintains that Christ originated as a myth later dressed up as history. Vesal (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it becomes a more mainstream position if interpreted that way, and more of a tiny-minority position if interpreted the other way. Eugene has offered one sourced definition, the one currently used in the article, which says the definition is that Christianity originated as a myth: "Philosopher George Walsh writes that early Christianity can be regarded as originating as a myth later dressed up as history, or with an historical being who was later mythologized. The theory that it began as a myth is known as the Christ myth theory ..." That makes no comment on whether such an historical being existed&mdash;it simply asserts, as you say, that he had no impact on the formation of the myth. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd dispute your characterizations. The broader definition would make the theory more of a tiny minorty view, the correct and more narrow definition make it a crank view.  But that's not entirely relevant.  More to the point, it's simply untrue that I've only provided one sourced definition; the FAQ contains many!


 * The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as a historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community.
 * William R. Farmer, "A Fresh Approach to Q", in Jacob Neusner, Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, 4, Leiden: Brill, 1975, p. 43


 * Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder.
 * Maurice Goguel, "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118


 * The Christ-Myth theory (that Jesus never lived) had a certain vogue at the beginning of this century but is not supported by contemporary scholarship.
 * Alan Richardson, The Political Christ, London: SCM, 1973, p. 113


 * If this account of the matter is correct, one can also see why it is that the 'Christ-myth' theory, to the effect that there was no historical Jesus at all, has seemed so plausible to many...
 * Hugo A. Meynell, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (2nd ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, p. 166


 * Defense of Biblical criticism was not helped by the revival at this time of the 'Christ-Myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare.
 * William Horbury, "The New Testament", in Ernest Nicholson, A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 55


 * [W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory.
 * George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History, New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998, p. 58


 * The Jesus-was-a-myth school... argue[s] that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth, that he never existed.
 * Clinton Bennett, In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images, New York: Continuum, 2001, p. 202


 * Zindler depends on secondary works and writes with the aim of proving the Christ-Myth theory, namely, the theory that the Jesus of history never existed.
 * John T. Townsend, "Christianity in Rabbinic Literature", in Isaac Kalimi & Peter J. Haas, Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity, New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006, p. 150


 * Though [Charles Guignebert] could not accept either the Christ myth theory, which held that no historical Jesus existed, or the Dutch Radical denial that Paul authored any of the epistles, Guignebert took both quite seriously.
 * Robert M. Price, in Tom Flynn, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007, p. 372


 * As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend.
 * Paul R Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007, p. 165

This non-issue has long been used by critics of the page as a wedge strategy to try to rehabilitate the thesis. The fact of the matter is that RSes, over and over and over and over again, equate the CMT with a belief in the non-existence of Jesus. Eugene (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, reliable sources do equate the theory, and I don't mean to ignore them. I prefer the other framing because I find it hard nail down what it means to say "Jesus of History did not exist". But let me try... Jesus is two things to us 1) the founder of Christianity, and 2) the star of the Gospels. For this theory, I would emphasize his role as the founder of Christianity. Even Biblical minimalists, who have their issues with the Gospels, seem to have no doubt that a historical person was the founder of Christianity. Thus, the core and unique feature of myth-theory is the denial of a historical person having significant impact on the foundation of Christianity. Making this clear will avoid confusion with minimalists, and lest you worry, it will not change the scholarly acceptance of this theory in any way. :) Vesal (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Vesal's pointing to something important here. The essential feature of the CMT is the denial of Jesus' historicity; but once you do that, you have to come up with an alternative story of the origins of Christianity and the formation of he Gospels, etc. CMT advocates are united on non-historicity, but diverse in their accounts of how early Christianity developed. It's worth explaining that in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should in any way obscure the CMT unity on Jesus' non-existence; even the littlest bit of ambiguity here and you'll end up with hordes of WP:ZOMBIES trying to excise almost every source given in the article in a desperate bid to rehabilitate the theory. Their battle-cry will be "OR" or "SYN" or something.  But as for indicating a diversity of explanations for Christianity's emergence sans Jesus, I think that would be helpful. I'm aware of at least three: (1) Kalthoff's socio-economic interpretations that saw "Jesus" as an idealized underdog or something, (2) Drew's pagan copy-cat theories, (3) and Jewish mystical xeno-genesis stuff like the middle stuff Wells produced. Eugene (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If a person accepts that there lived an insignificant miracle-working preacher called Jesus, but this preacher had no impact on early Christians, this would still be effectively denying the historicity of Jesus. Do we all agree on at least this much? Then, what if we were to say that this insignificant preacher is the source behind the Q traditions? I'm willing to accept that this is where the line is drawn, but I am genuinely confused as to why. And sources that just say "CMT = Jesus did not exist" does not help me understand where and why the line is drawn. Vesal (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "If a person accepts that there lived an insignificant miracle-working preacher called Jesus, but this preacher had no impact on early Christians, this would still be effectively denying the historicity of Jesus." I don't think so, because this person still accepts that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. However, you seem to be describing a position that no one holds. After all, if the preacher's activity is recorded in the Q source, he had some influence on early Christians. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The material currently in the lead seems to draw the line at a completely different point than that "They argue that, while some gospel material may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed, these individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity". The word "some" in there leaves a lot of room for interpretation but it seems to be suggesting that you can be a Christ Myth Theorist while believing in a historical preacher who did have an impact on early Christians to the extent that at least "some" material in the gospels was based on his life. Is everyone saying that that's incorrect? Or are people supporting that content? 217.28.5.247 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some CMT advocates believe that a historical person living in a different timeframe (Yeshua ben Pandera, for instance) lies behind some of the New Testament material (but that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist). The article should probably explain this position more clearly... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But what about Wells who currently holds to both positions ie Paul's Jesus was a vaguely remembered figure from a begone time and the Gospel writers took that and mixed in the accounts of a historical 1st teacher of the same name ala Dodd?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few more quotes regarding the definition to FAQ #1. We now have scholars teaching (or who taught) at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, and on and on and on all defining the CMT as the denial of Jesus' historicity. Please, for the love of God, let this go. Eugene (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Eugene's sources make it abundantly clear that the "strict CMT" holds that "no Jesus ever existed at all". However, to clear up the residual confusion, perhaps we should simply add a sentence to the opening paragraph that reads something like "The CMT is different to other theories which accept that a historical Jesus did exist, but reject the gospel claims that he was a divine being." Then it will be clear to everyone where the limits of this article lie, and there can perhaps be separate article/s dealing with the various "historical but not divine" theory/s (which do have the support of many respected historians). Maybe it would help even more to rename the article "Jesus myth theory", to make it even more distinct from those who postulate "Jesus the preacher did exit, but the gospel Christ did not". Wdford (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course "historical but not divine" is the mainstream position and discussed in the historical Jesus article. I'm tired of this already...  since I think this article is getting far more attention than it deserves, I'm not at all motivated to argue this any further. Let me just try to spell it out one last time: the question is how any of these sources make clear what it means to say Jesus did not exist. Akhilleus, who is the only one to actually address my questions, says that allowing for an insignificant miracle worker is already admitting that Jesus existed. I'm willing to accept that, but I really don't see how that follows from any of these sources. Doesn't even Price admit that an insignificant preacher may have lived?  I'm still confused, but I'm willing to let this go and unwatch this page. Regards, Vesal (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean? All of the above? Something else? What is meant by ahistoricity is crucial. Anthony (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) there were no preachers in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing or saying the kinds of things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, and the NT Jesus is pure fiction?
 * (2) there was/were preacher/s in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing and saying some or all of the things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament but he/they are anonymous, and the New Testament character may be partly or wholly based on him/them?
 * (3) there was a man named Jesus, brother of James, in 1st century Galilee-Judea, but we do not know what he said or did, so the New Testament Jesus Christ is as likely as not pure fiction?


 * Well, #3 isn't the Christ myth theory since the CMT is the affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth, brother of James, never existed. I know some guys who have argued for #2, like Revilo P. Oliver, but currently he isn't on the list. #1 seems closest to the definition, but to say that "there were no preachers in early 1st century Galilee-Judea doing or saying the kinds of things attributed to Jesus in the New Testament" is sort of ambiguous.  After all, John the Baptist was sorta like Jesus, but that's not really pertinent to the CMT. Eugene (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me in your own words what "Jesus never existed" or "there was no Jesus of Nazareth" means, for the purpose of this definition? Anthony (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not clear how Paul used the term 'brother' (in blood or in spirit). Worse Hegesippus clearly puts the death of James the Just c69 CE while the death of the James brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, in Josephus occurs c62 and Josephus seems to tell us the fate and full name of the Jesus he is referring to in the final passage: "Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." Richard M. Mitchell in 1893 is the earliest person to point the "son of Damneus" issue and Remsburg pointed it out again in 1909 while adding the Hegesippus-Josephus contradiction as to when James the Just died.  Given how common the name Jesus was and the fact that Christ was a title if the "Jesus, who was called Christ" and "Jesus, the son of Damneus" were two people then why didn't Josephus say something like "Jesus, son of Joseph, who was called Christ" to clarify things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's like Josephus was trying to confuse us by talking about a Jesus brother of James who was heralded as Messiah, lead a movement as a wise teacher and miracle worker, and was executed under Pontius Pilate (26-36) having been accused by the leading men. It's just coincidence that all this is reflected in Christian and non-Christian sources as core features of the life of Jesus. Could have been anyone. He should have left a video if he wanted anyone to take him seriously. --Ari (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Article guys. Eugene (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this one: The Christ Myth theory designates a number of explanations of the origins of Christianity which minimize or deny the historical life and teaching of Jesus Christ, arguing instead that this figure is best understood as essentially mythical. Barrett Pashak (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering how often reviewers complain that the article isn't clear enough about what the Christ myth theory is, I think it would be better to just stick closely to the dozens of sources to hand and say something like this in the lead: "The Christ myth theory is the theory that Jesus never existed." We can then go on to provide a bit of nuance (as the article currently does) in subsequent sentences and perhaps discuss a few varients in the fuller definition body section. I think that the smash-mouth definition is needed at this point, though; it seems to be the only way to accomodate careless readers of this article. Eugene (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Writings about Jesus
I quote: "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him." The last part (nor did anyone...) seems to be a sweeping statement. Please change this to make the article more neutral. Another somewhat objectionable statement is "Paul was not a follower of Jesus; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus." In Acts 9, Luke, who is thought to be the author, claims Paul saw Jesus. Paul might not have made such a claim, but Luke did. Paul was also definitely a follower of Jesus, even though not at the time that Jesus lived. This is evident through the text in the Epistles, which are usually attributed to Paul. I suggest that the first be replaced with: "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did any of his followers, during his lifetime." The second sentence (Paul was not a follower...) should be omitted. It does not seem to add to the article. I think this would significantly improve the neutrality of the article. --Wsrh 2009 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that section is deeply problematic and only remains as it is because the POV material was thrown in right before the page was locked. When the lock expires it will be drastically revised. The issues you mention are currently on the list of things to discuss here and, assuming that progress can be made on the trival matters that seem to be bogging us down, hopefully we'll hash out that section in the next two weeks. Eugene (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which POV material was "thrown in" just before the page was locked? That's not true at all of that section, which was written and sourced some time before page protection. And please make sure that any drastic revision involves expanding material, but not removing it if it's properly sourced. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The statement that "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him." is wild over-reach and not at all the consensus view of scholars. For example, N. T. Wright (the man Newsweek called "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar"; taught at McGill University and Oxford University), Martin Hengel (University of Tubingen), Richard Bauckham (University of St. Andrews), I think Larry Hurtado (University of Edinburgh), and a veritable army of professors in North America think that people with "personal knowledge" of Jesus wrote parts of the Bible (e.g. The Gospel According to John, 1 John, probably James, maybe 1 Peter). In fact, I think the whole background and definition section is currently intended to "create the space" neccesary to make the CMT seem less fringy, in contravention of the scholarly consensus, and thus runs afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.


 * How about this instead. Rather than include a left-of-center quote about how unreliable the Bible is (which will only produce more edit warring or, at the very least, another section with a back-and-forth quote "argument") let's replace it with a snappy graphic based on John Macquarrie's quote in The Scope of Demythologizing: Bultmann and His Critics: ...on the one hand, literal acceptance of everything in the New Testament as the veridical record of what happened, and, on the other, some form of Christ-myth theory which denies that there ever was a Jesus. But neither of these extreme positions stands up to scrutiny." (p. 93) We could whip up a nice little colorful spectrum in which the CMT theory is the left pole and literalistic fundamentalism is the right pole.  It would help make the point that needs to be made while being less contentious than the alternatives. We don't have to say that neither pole "stands up to scrutiny" we'd just be using the quote as a ref that the two positions represent contrasting "extremes".Eugene (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, can you say which "POV material was thrown in right before the page was locked", please? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems I was mistaken about the timing. Shockingly I overlooked your inclusion of this material a few days before the lock. Had I noticed it I would have been removing it along with the other stuff.  But the timing isn't all that relevant, my above concerns and proffered solution still stand. What do you think about replacing White's paraphrased quote with the continuum based on Macquarrie's comment?  Macquarrie is most academically impressive than White, afterall. Eugene (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove anyone else's work, Eugene. L. Michael White is a good source. When I was asking around about who I should read for a solid background in this, White was recommended. Feel free to expand that section or any other, but please don't remove anything. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) So you'd really rather prefer a section that reads: "White says X, Y, and Z. But scholars A, B, and C say Z is nonsense" ? Wouldn't it just be better to side-step this and just have a definition with a continuum showing the CMT as the polar opposite of fundamentalism? Eugene (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you can have against White&mdash;he has degrees coming out of his ears, and a PhD from Yale. But yes, I would like to see the article written with in-text attribution: A says X and B says Y (this must be the 100th time I've written this on these talk pages). :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * White's a good source for general knowledge about Christian origins. But why use him in this article? The amount of background given here should be minimal; readers who want it can turn to historical Jesus, etc. All we need to say is that most scholars think Jesus was historical, the NT and other sources contain valuable evidence about his life and deeds, but there's deep disagreement about how to interpret this evidence. Macquarrie provides that, but so would other sources that have been brought up here already. It is, I think, valuable to point out that there are options other than biblical literalism and the CMT, because from time to time editors come in here thinking that Jesus was historical entails thinking that all the details of the Gospels including the miracles are true. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition again
I was thinking of something like this... I think this would be both fun and helpful. With this, a shortened version of the White material (sans the "no personal knowledge" stuff that could be contested forever), a nice clear definition like "The Christ myth theory is the belief that Jesus never existed at all", and maybe a passing referene to Goguel's distinction between mythicism and minimalism, I think we'd be set. Eugene (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that looks pretty good. Let's do it.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Except you still have Dodd's "Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." definition to deal with which is basically Wells' current position and Dodd put for this definition back in 1938!--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If your "passing reference" could also say something like "For the theory that Jesus did exist only not as the Divine Being of the gospels, see xxx", then let's do it indeed. Wdford (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That still leaves the part of the Christ Myth theory crowd that holds there was a first century philosopher named Jesus but the Gospels tell us next to nothing about him. As I have stated before the Christ Myth theory covers a large area from the extreme Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form outside of the mind through the historical teacher who was "plugged into" an already existing messiah myth to the point the Gospels tell us little to nothing about the actual man (ala John Remburg) to the Gospel Jesus is a composite character composed of many messiahs of which the actual flesh and blood Jesus is only one part.  If you really are honest about it Occam's Razor suggests the composite character is most rational solution to all the known timeline discrepancies of the Gospels.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"As I have stated before the Christ Myth theory covers a large area from the extreme Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form outside of the mind through the historical teacher who was "plugged into" an already existing messiah myth" I disagree with the validity of this statement, Bruce. Virtually all sources use CMT to describe the position that "Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form". NJMauthor (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is practically a reductio ad absurdum. Which academic source in his right mind would confidently assert that? Price doesn't, Wells doesn't. Does anyone? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that NJMauthor was saying that we should use that exact terminology. I think we should use the exact quotes in the FAQ to define the CMT, and when we paraphrase (should that be necessary), we can use words like "ahistorical" and/or "fictional".  Also, even a composite person would still be ahistorical and/or fiction (like Mel Gibson's character in the movie  The Patriot, where the character is mainly a composite of four different people with fictional elements thrown in to add drama).


 * SV, Eugene, Akhilleus, and everyone who has the resources at hand, can you compile a list of exact quotes from proponents of the CMT that define what they mean? We can then place them side by side, so to speak, with the quotes in the FAQ and then place the section at the top of the discussion page for reference.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would really appreciate it if people wouldn't post any more lists of quotes. We need to focus on quality, not quantity. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, how can we focus on quality if we are not even agreed on what we are talking about??? I mean, if you and others  maintain that the CMT is something other what already is quoted in the FAQ, then why the problem with listing opposing definitions?  If you really think that the CMT is not about the idea that Jesus is a purely fictional character, then you should be able to find quotes from the proponents of the CMT that say as much.  BruceGrub is making an effort (see his comments below) so why can't you do the same?    Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)\


 * Then lead the way, Bill. You're asking others to list quotes, but you're not including yourself. To avoid cluttering this page even more, you could list them at Talk:Christ myth theory/Quotes. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NJMauthor has clearly missed Dodd's definition which clearly includes an obscure but historical person being "plugged into" an existing myth as well as James Remburg's definition in his The Christ (now retitled The Christ Myth): "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable." Then you have uses of the term Christ myth in this manner:  "As for the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, Mark took the basic ideas from the Christ myth but dared to imagine how the crucifixion and of the Christ might look if played out as a historical even in Jerusalem, something the Christ myth resisted. [...] Ever after, Christians would imagine Mark's fiction as history and allow this erasure of the time as a wink in the mind of Israel's God." (Mack, Burton L. (1996) Who wrote the New Testament? pg 152)  Now Mack clearly accepts Jesus was a historical person on page 46 so this "Christ myth" he is talking about is not the same as the non-historical theory that this article presents.  Remember Drews has been referenced repeatedly but AFAWK he never used the term Christ myth theory only Christ myth.  I have already presented proof that in 1931 Schweitzer put Frazer a man who clearly stated "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" in the same class as John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews and no amount of tap dancing is going to change that quote.  The FAQ is flawed because it tries to exclude definitions like Dodd's that thorw the entire no historical basis out the window.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BG, you have some good quotes. Can you please list them in the same form as is done in the FAQ (i.e., specifying the author's published material, page number, etc.) and put them on my talk page?  If you are willing to do so, then I'll be happy to create a new section on this page that includes both your list and the list found in the FAQ.  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or better still you could write them up yourself and post them to the FAQ. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 00:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, I'm not trying to put the onus on other people. But I'm not the one who insists that the CMT is anything other than the claim that Jesus is fictional.  I simply want BG to list quotes that suggest otherwise (on my talk page, since you have some reservations about listing them here), and I'll be happy to do the work to place them side by side with the abundant quotes in the FAQ.  Moreover, this is not specifically about the FAQ, per se - it's about the quotes themselves, so trying to eliminate the FAQ from the discussion is a waste of time (unless, of course, you intention is to muddy the waters).


 * If you think that the CMT has nuances beyond the clearly defined quotes already given, then please include them them too. SV, I'm willing to do the work to compile the list into a single section, but I need those editors who disagree with the definition provided by  reliable sources to list the resources because my access to the relevant data are limited.  Don't you think that that is fair?   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"NJMauthor has clearly missed Dodd's definition" Bruce has clearly forgotten the definition of the word "Virtually". And Slimvirgin, I wasn't suggesting the use of that wording, I was quoting Bruce.NJMauthor (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said, NJMauthor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the nice spectrum, Eugene. The polar opposite of CMT is the historicity of Jesus, not "literalistic fundamentalism" regarding the canonical gospels (with the polar opposite probably being something like Bultmann or Burton Mack.) --Ari (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that, on the spectrum, literalistic fundamentalism grants a full and strict 100% of the NT material related to Jesus. On the other hand, the CMT grants a strict 0%.  From my understanding of Bultmann, he grants that Jesus was a wonder-working/exorcizing Jew of the first century who was eventually crucified. For his part, Mack at least grants that an identifiable sub-stratum of the parables are authentic.  I'd put these guys somewhere at around 10% on the continuum.  There's no need to represent that graffically, but the in-text distinction between the CMT and biblical minimalism, sourced with the relevant Goguel quote I think makes this clear.  Any chance of bringing you on board?  (We could alter the graphic's wording if needed.) Eugene (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ari on this point (the spectrum). On second thoughts, I think I'll wait for more knowledge. Anthony (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: Other meanings for the term CMT. Can I suggest we build an editable list of authors' names, each linked to a subpage (e.g., Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Dodd) which contains brief quotes from the author demonstrating the author's usage of CMT, each followed by a neat citation like those in the FAQ, followed by a brief explanation, if necessary. This would help me (and everybody, I think) develop a clearer picture of usage. Once we've built a stable picture of historical and contemporary usage of the term, it could then migrate to the FAQ. At the moment there are diverse discussions going back 2 or more years on this. Anthony (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

One example of the pure "Jesus never existed" theory: Arthur Drews
In a discussion above, this was said: Virtually all sources use CMT to describe the position that "Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form". NJMauthor (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Which is practically a reductio ad absurdum. Which academic source in his right mind would confidently assert that? Price doesn't, Wells doesn't. Does anyone? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Drews was a German academic who debated and wrote books about the Christ myth theory. One of his books, translated into English was, in fact, titled The Christ Myth Theory Here's a 1911 review of the book in The New York Times. The second paragraph of the review describes Drews' position: "[H]is thesis is, that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed, and that the characteristics attributed to this non-existent personage are derived from Jewish ideals floating in the air at the time, which were supposed to be realized by the hero of the Gospels. This mythical personage was transformed into a demigod by St. Paul, whom the author, in a way, regards as virtually the creator of Christianity. His main grounds for disbelief in the existence of Jesus are the absence of any contemporary references to him except in the Gospels [...]"

This is one of a number of articles the Times wrote about Drews.

Here is the (hilarious in parts) article in the Times that describes the uproarious debate Drews had with other academics in 1910. I'm sure we'll all be happy to know that our article, although it doesn't cite this news article directly, gives an accurate summary of it, including the part about the woman standing on the chair invoking God to strike Drews and various women being "carried from the hall, shrieking hysterically". The Times reported that Drew "caused a public sensation by plastering the billboards of the town with posters propounding the startling question: 'Did Jesus Christ ever exist?'" The reporter was very clear about Drews' position: "The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.'"

The title of this article, from the February 6, 1910 edition of the paper:


 * JESUS NEVER LIVED,
 * ASSERTS PROF. DREWS

The Times certainly isn't infallable, but it doesn't appear to have been interested in getting Drews' position wrong in order to advance some evangelical agenda. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article used to cite the NYT article you mention. I don't know why it's gone. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's still there—footnote #49, listed in the bibliography under author "unknown." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it. My mistake. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still good to bring it up. After all, Drews' book The Christ-Myth is where the title of this article ultimately comes from; his is a particularly prominent version of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with Bruce, below) Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I think, in light of some of the discussions on this page, this brief 1914 review of one of the books written in reaction to Drews' volume is interesting, in light of SV's statement above. The reviewer mentions reductio ad absurdum and also considers the polemical uses the "Christ myth theory" has (or had) for the "conservative" side of the debate over the "picture of an historic Christ stripped of supernatural attributes". In the same way, athiests in debate will stress quotes or anecdotes about the oddest, most extreme fundamentalist or ultra-conservative Christians. It's a very old debating tactic. Of course, that doesn't mean fundamentalist or ultra-conservative Christians (and some embarassing things done by some of them) don't exist. In just the same way, Drews' position exists. (In terms of how meaningful it is to separate it from the very close position that myth may have been wrapped around an actual human person, perhaps one who was a strikingly popular preacher, I don't know enough about the issue to say.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting New York Times article. Professor Baron von Soden's position that "even if it were firmly proved that no such person as Jesus every existed, that would hardly injure the heart and core of the Christian religion" is a total non sequitur.  The Christian religion depends not only Jesus existed but that he was what the Bible says he was.  Finding Jesus' actual bones (proving beyond all rational doubt he existed) would be nearly devastating to the Christian religion as finding proof that Jesus as we known him from the Gospels didn't exist.  I like to use David Kusche's comment about what has the biggest hoax of the 20th century--the Bermuda Triangle: "Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember Bruce, this isn't a forum; focus on the article. Eugene (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out some really bizarre logic by Baron von Soden. Also David Kusche's position on the Bermuda Triangle echos the more rational of the Christ Myth Theorists regarding the evidence of Jesus outside the New Testament which when you get right down to it has quality problems.  Never mind the Gospel timeline itself is such a train wreck that some historical Jesus supporters go to such extremes that it is hard to take them or their position seriously.  Let's face it; some of the whole Herod the Great, Quirinius, Quinctilius Varus handwaving is jaw droppingly goofy--a previous census that no one seems to know of with both the guys running the area so incompetent that Rome had call somebody who was fighting a war in the Pamphylia-Galatia province and who would have had to go through either the Cappadocia province to the north or the Lycia and Cilcia provinces to the south to even reach the area in to manage things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't a forum. Stick to the article.--Eugene (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sticking to the article showing that the contention that Christ Myth theory having one definition and only definition is a bunch of WP:SYN and WP:OR garbage. I should point out that as a "pastor of the First Baptist Church of Granada Hills" you have a very clear WP:COI with regard to this article and the definition of Christ Myth Theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the exact text for The reviewer mentions reductio ad absurdum and also considers the polemical uses the "Christ myth theory" has (or had) for the "conservative" side of the debate, John? The link in your post above takes me to a Google snippet view. Anthony (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Or the issue or page number. The journal (I think it's the same one) is available here. Anthony (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This source, page 513 & 615. B. B. Warfield made basically the same observation in the same journal here. Eugene (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (Missed that. It was off my small screen.) Links to the 1914 review of Drew's The Christ Myth: Beginning of review reductio ad absurdum. The Warfield link didn't work for me. Do you have the Vol, issue, page numbers for that Eugene? Anthony (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's in the article's references: Warfield, Benjamin B. (1913), "book review of The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus by Arthur Drews", The Princeton Theological Review 11 (2): 293–300 Eugene (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Eugene. Link to Warfield's 1913 review of the sequel to The Christ Myth.

Akhilleus: "After all, Drews' book The Christ-Myth is where the title of this article ultimately comes from; his is a particularly prominent version of the theory." (From higher in this thread) How do you mean, Akhilleus? Anthony (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean that if you were looking for a poster boy for the CMT, it's Drews. His book gives the theory its name; he was the most visible advocate in the first half of the 20th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So, before 1910, were the terms "Christ myth" or even "Christ myth theory" (if it was ever uttered) used differently? Was it Drews' use that gave it the meaning we now find in the FAQ? Anthony (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the term "Christ myth theory" was used before Drews' book was translated into English. The phrase "Christ myth" can mean a lot of things, including the story of Jesus' birth, life, and death. But this article isn't about a phrase; it's about a set of ideas, the central one of which is that there was no historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "But this article isn't about a phrase; it's about a set of ideas, the central one of which is that there was no historical Jesus." Sorry, Akhilleus that is clear WP:SYN which is not allowed and as an adminstrator you should know that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know that very well. Which is why I think the article should stick very closely to how secondary sources cover this subject; to repeat myself for the 1000th time, those sources are Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Hoffman, Van Voorst, Bennett, Weaver, etc., each of whom say that Drews said there was no historical Jesus. So does G.A. Wells, in his most recent book, Cutting Jesus down to size, p. 272: "Even more alarmingly, Arthur Drews in Germany and John M. Robertson in England were, among others, maintaining that there had been no historical Jesus at all. Schweitzer did not accept that they had made out a convincing case, but as I have indicated he allowed that Christianity must reckon with the possibility of having to give of the historicity of Jesus, and must have a metaphysic in readiness for such a contingency, so as to base religion on mind, not on history." If secondary sources tell us that Drews denied the historicity of Jesus, it is original research to pick out quotes from Drews and say that he didn't deny Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But has anybody actually claimed that Drews didn't deny Jesus' historicity? It seems both of you are agreed that Drews did in fact deny Jesus' historicity. Or am I missing something? Wdford (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)