Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 17

8.Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus?
Since itsmejudith brought up the idea of discipline specific authority, I think we might as well get this off the list. I think it was Ari who asked the following: Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus? Now, I'm pretty sure that Ari phrased it this way for rhetorical effect, but there's a relevant issue here. Should a non-scholar be presented as a countervailing authority to real scholars? And, perhaps more realistically, should a scholar in a particular field, when speaking outside his area of expertise, be presented as a countervailing authority to scholars in that field?

I think that the obvious answer is "no" and "no": when we have scholarly sources for a particular point, non-scholarly sources have no standing; further, when we have scholarly sources speaking on their area of expertise for a particular point, scholarly sources speaking outside their area of expertise have no standing. So, essentially, there is a hierarchy of authority with non-scholars defering to scholars, and, even among scholars, non-specialists defering to specialists.

Sound reasonable? Eugene (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now now, Eugene, this is sophistry at its most blatant. On the surface it’s obviously reasonable that non-scholars should defer to scholars, and that non-specialists should defer to specialists. However, the issue here is the determination of a specialist. Take for example the case of the “water erosion debate” in the article Great Sphinx of Giza. Specialist Egyptologists conclude that the Sphinx is 4500 years old, based on calculations which are acknowledged to be uncertain, derived from king lists which are acknowledged to be incomplete, and using assumed reign-lengths which are acknowledged to be largely guesswork. Specialist geologists examine surrounding rocks – i.e. their area of expertise – and conclude that the rocks were weathered by flowing water. Specialist ancient weather boffins determine that there was no such rainfall in that area in that time period, or ever since. Result is gridlock – the conclusions of one set of specialists contradict the conclusions of another set of specialists. Which specialist has “authority” here? The situation is then further clouded by members of both groups who try to “cook” the facts to support their own theory, and those others who similarly stretch the facts to find agreement with the other party’s interpretations, and we end up with a serious lack of clarity on who is actually the specialist here. Then we come to the CMT. We can’t even find clarity on what the CMT actually is. Various “specialists” have different definitions of the CMT itself, and once again the so-called “evidence” is based on texts which are known to have been seriously “cooked” over the millennia to suit various agendas. Who can be considered a “specialist” on the CMT, when we can’t even agree on the definition thereof, or on who coined the label to begin with? Wdford (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wdford's sphinx example is a red herring, I am afraid. In interdisciplinary questions, of course experts from all disciplines involved need to be considered, and if they come to conflicting conclusions, this needs to be left standing as is, as unresolved. Another example would be the Thera eruption. "Christ myth" is not an example of this, since the only kind of people advocating this today are pulp authors writing for the popular mass market. Look at the "21st century" section. The article is aware that "By the 21st century, the non-existence of Jesus had become a dead thesis within academia". Period. The end. It was nice while it lasted, but as of today, it has passed on. It has ceased to be. THIS IS AN EX-THESIS!. The fact that popular books keep being written about it is a facet of geeky pop culture, not of scholarship. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's right, but what is happening is people are riding roughshod over the history of ideas. It was once a thesis in academia, but see above what I found about Bauer, that doesn't support the idea that he held it in a strong form. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, Dab the Dogmatic - all he needs is a silly little mustache! The thesis can’t be dead, because people are still writing about it. QED! Some scholars in related fields, who might not be all that objective to begin with, have declared the thesis dead, but that does not make it so. It is, perhaps, an example of wishful thinking. And not all those who write on the subject are pop-geeks, whatever that means. So, sadly, the original question remains – who is a “specialist” in this field, and who is therefore the authority to whom the article should defer? Thanks Dab, but are there any other takers? Wdford (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you try a really stupid attempt at a personal insult. Perhaps you want to come to my user page and deface it with some swastikas? I really think this would help getting this article back on track. Clearly   you haven't understood a single word that was said. QED indeed. I guess you think Time Cube is an exciting new hypothesis in physics because "people are still writing about it"? Specialists in this fields, dear Wdford, would be academic historians and biblical scholars. They have discussed this at length a hundred years ago. Just because you only discovered about it much later doesn't make it a "live" hypothesis. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Sphinx example was a red herring and silly personal swipes doesn't make it any less so. The thesis is dead as there is no academic peer-reviewed work arguing it. --Ari (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So Dab can dish it out, but he can't take it. Goodness me. I believe the term is "Kafkaesque". And clearly neither Dab not Ari understood a single word that I said. Note that this is an article about what the CMT IS, not about whether the CMT is academically or historically correct. Dab asserts that "specialists in this field ... would be academic historians and biblical scholars." Well, are academic historians all necessarily specialists on the CMT? Since they tend to assert that the CMT is not history, I would doubt that it falls into their field of expertise. Are biblical scholars to be considered specialists on the CMT? Well the CMT holds that the New Testament of the Bible has been so seriously "modified" that what is says about the Jesus character is unreliable, so would a biblical scholar really be a specialist on the CMT? And because a number of “real” scholars agree that the New Testament has been seriously "modified", are the Bible texts even a useful benchmark to begin with? Academic historians and biblical scholars undoubtedly have an axe to grind here, as the CMT undermines their personal comfort zone and meal ticket, but does being opposed to a theory make one a specialist on that theory? Since the people who claim to have created the CMT can't agree on who is a specialist thereon, can those who oppose the CMT really be specialists thereon? Seriously? Wdford (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can "take" a lot more than you can imagine. You barely register on my troll-meter. This is why I invited you to come to my talkpage for further insults. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll raise your personal swipe and incoherent rant an invitation to act civil and make sense. --Ari (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't engage editors in insults, Dab - please take my remark as constructive criticism, and consider carefully your tone next time you visit a talk page to Pronounce the Final Word. And as for Ari – well he has a long history as a pro-Bible POV pusher and edit warrior, so any judgements from him about “incoherent rants” are taken with a bucket of salt. BTW – my question still stands, to all constructive editors – who would be considered to be a “specialist” on the subject of the CMT? Wdford (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet we see you engaging directly in insulting other edits. As I said, talk about being incoherent. To your incoherent (I know, bad form repeating a word) - a specialist for a ancient history would be - wait for it - an ancient historian. We use historical method to know about history. New Testament scholarship utilises ancient historical method, especially (and quite stringently) in historical Jesus studies. I know, you want to rant some more about them being scared of your radical ideas (groovy man!) but an obscure belief about Jesus never stopped NT scholarship from doing what they do (e.g. the whole traditional form critical method that came out of Bultmann's ideas about history and Jesus.) --Ari (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh dear - the familiar Ari diversion away from the actual question, sliding into the (yawn) familiar Ari groove of "We use historical method to know about history." (Note the use of "we".) No, these ideas are not mine - I merely ask a question. And no, these ideas are not radical, a lot of people have shared them over many decades. And no, nothing will (or should) stop NT scholarship from doing what they do. And no, I am not asking about a specialist for ancient history, I am asking about a specialist on the CMT itself. Can you focus long enough to answer that question without diverting off onto your favourite groove, or do you intend to do what you usually do on sites that question the reliability of the Bible? Wdford (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wdford, I have no doubt that you can make personal attacks but I still don't see how they are relevant to this discussion. The Christ Myth Theory is a claim about history, following? It claims to use historical sources to reconstruct (or deconstruct?) history. They make claims about these sources - their origins, interpretation, etc. This is ancient history. There is no need to appeal to a greater conspiracy theory such as "CMT undermines their personal comfort zone and meal ticket, but does being opposed to a theory make one a specialist on that theory?" When historians deem the hypothesis dead as a scholarly question (as Dab made reference to above, and you angrily objected to) they are talking about a question the reception of the hypothesis in their field of expertise. As this subheading has to do with my original question, you do not need to redefine it for me. --Ari (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ari has at least answered my questions about diversions, and about his tactics going forward. However, my original (and more important) question thus still remains – who is an expert on the CMT? To correct an important misunderstanding – the CMT DOES NOT “use historical sources” – rather it claims that “there are no historical sources” on the subject of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether or not this is factually true is not the point of the article – the point of the article is to explain what the CMT itself actually proposes. I did not “object angrily” to Dab’s pronouncement – I was actually chuckling at the Kafkaesqueness of his comment. The “deadness” or otherwise of the hypothesis in the historians’ field of expertise is not my question – we already have an undue weight of references for scholars proclaiming the “deadness” of the theory. What the article still needs - as per Judith's own concern - is clarity on who do we rely on re explaining the theory itself? Wdford (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jumping past the personal attacks. The CMT advocates do use historical sources and they do make judgements on their origins. That is why they make claims about there being a lack of contemporary sources or that sources were late or that content was an interpolation. If we go by the process of elimination we can say you are no expert in the CMT. And back to what I said at the beginning: scholars in the field of ancient history and NT scholarship are well aware of the historical debates on the issues, so they are still the best place to go. --Ari (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please lay off the ad-hominems - everyone. To clarify, people are, unintentionally, riding roughshod over the history of ideas. Van Voorst is mistaken about Marx's espousal of any version of CMT, and we need to correct that. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is extremely well developed by now, a classic case of trolls driving the good editors to produce quality. It is an extremely instructive example of the workings of Wikipedia that the best coverage of the historicity question that the project has produced stems from an entirely troll-driven debate.

The facts have been on the table for a long time, and people are just waving their hands about how to best present them. For the best part of a year this has been about nothing but proponents trying to conjure up an impression of credibility for the hypothesis to the casual reader. For example, the lead is full of contorted phrases about 'proponents' and 'evidence' and 'scholars such as' and 'while' clauses and you need to pay very close attention that the lead is actually saying that the hypothesis has no merit, and you actually need to go 50% into the article body to be told that the hypothesis is dead. This isn't encyclopedic editing, we are just looking at increasingly silly attempts at spin-doctoring.

Ari is right, NT scholarship is perfectly aware of the question, and it is an unexciting, resolved question. As long as we address the question itself, there is no need to turn elsewhere. If we are going to address the ideological hubbub surrounding it, obviously we will need a different kind of sources, but this aspect needs to be kept strictly separate from the scholarly hypothesis itself. --dab (𒁳) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Dab, not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a troll.
 * Secondly, you don’t actually “need to pay very close attention that the lead is actually saying that the hypothesis has no merit” – the lead states quite clearly that “While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.”
 * Thirdly, do we really need to exclude from this article the “ideological hubbub”, or should the article not explain that hubbub too in the interests of completeness and balance?
 * Lastly, Ari has suggested that we should rely on “scholars in the field of ancient history and NT scholarship” to objectively explain what the CMT actually proposes. This is like relying on the Spanish Inquisition to objectively explain the hypothesis of the Cathars. It doesn’t get more Kafkaesque than that, yes?
 * Wdford (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We'd rely on scholars of medieval history, especially those who specialize in medieval France and theology. Not Kafkaesque at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Could everyone who has commented in this section please go up to the New FAQ #1 Proposal section and cast a vote. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that this has proven so controversial. I thought my suggestion would be self-evidently acceptable. On a point where all we have is a non-scholar (say, a pop author), that's the source we use. When we have a non-scholar and a scholar, and they disagree, we use the scholarly source. When we have two scholarly sources, one a specialist in the area in question and one not, and they disagree, we use the specialist source. How is this problematic? It seems entirely reasonable and would address itsmejudith's concerns: If we find a source by a specialist on Marxist intellectual history that explicitly contradicts the Bauer --> Marx --> Marxism CMT connection made by at least four different scholarly (but non-specialist) sources, we'll defer to the specialist.

It looks like Wdford is the only one disagreeing and on some pretty goofy grounds (the old canard about the definition, etc); if everyone else agrees with my proposal, we ca still consider that consensus. So what say ye? Eugene (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * More sophistry by Eugene. Actually, Wdford is disagreeing on the grounds that using the Spanish Inquisition as reliable sources to explain the Cathar Heresy is contrary to WP:Reliable. We have lots of comments in the article already by the Inquisition, but we need more comments from the Cathars. However, we need first to be able to recognise a genuine Cathar, as there has been some confusion about this, and our efforts keep being swamped out by supporters of the Inquisitors who claim the Inquisitors are perfectly reliable sources for this purpose. Wdford (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be a consensus. Let's move forward with it.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You won't find a specialist on Marx who contradicts his espousal of CMT because they are not aware that it is something that needs to be addressed. Mainstream view is among other places at . This is also a good source for the fact that the Soviets positively decided to promote Drews' beliefs (as distinct from inheriting a generalised atheism from Marxism). Another book on Marxism and religion that nowhere states that Marx adopted Bauer's view of a non-historical Jesus. The classical Marxist critiques of religion: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kautsky By Delos Banning McKown. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This article already cite's Thrower's book in the "Soviet adoption" section. Also, I note that Thrower writes concerning Marx's beliefs: "One should not, however, under-estimate the influence of Bauer, to whom Marx was extremely close during his student years in Berlin and for two or three years afterward. Given this general statement which makes Marx's adoption of Bauer's CMT plausible, and given the four RSes that explicitly refer to the such an adoption, a Wikipedia editor's vague argument from silence concerning other sources (inherently OR) won't cut it. We'd need an explicit contradition from a specialist to undermine the presumptively accurate information.
 * All this is a bit to the side though; how do you feel about my proposal concerning relative authority more generally? Eugene (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Eugene, but reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether or not your sources are "experts" and "reliable". Out of the 72 people that you quote in your FAQ, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. This obviously raises serious questions about their ability to be objective. It is well-established that religious beliefs cloud one's ability to think critically. People who are infected with a particular religion virus are usually not able to see the irrationality of their own belief systems, though they are able to see it in other people's religious beliefs. If we accept your criteria for reliable sources, then Wikipedia has a big problem. If the majority of Koran scholars believe it is accepted fact that the prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse, that does not mean they are the experts and all other viewpoints must be censored, distorted, misrepresented, and abused in a Wikipedia article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does this page attract anti-religious bigots? PLH, your opinions are no longer welcome.  Go away.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My intent is not to insult or demean anyone. The fact that someone has an irrational belief does not make them a 'bad person'. (For all of us are irrational at times and fall short of the glory of Reason.) The issue here is the reliability of the opinions of sources. It is a legitimate issue. Let's turn the heat down. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You honestly think that the way to "turn down the heat" is to continue to label all religious belief "irrational"? Your wiki-alias is seeming more ironic all the time; StrifeCondescensionDiscord might be more apropos. Eugene (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting that all religious beliefs are irrational. I am just saying that one's religion can have a distorting effect on one's judgment of the reliability of data that supports or undermines one's religion's truth claims. Do you disagree with this assertion? I would like to have a civil discussion about the reliability of the opinions of the sources without resorting to name-calling and extreme hostile reactions. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to have a civil discussion, please start by recognizing that the study of religion is an academic discipline, and the books and articles published by scholars who study religion meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. You could also stop going on about the irrationality of religious beliefs; it's simply not relevant here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I did not see an answer to my question (Do you disagree with this assertion?) anywhere in that response. I would be interested to hear your opinion, as well as Eugene and Bill's. I do think it is openly hostile, and not in the spirit of Wiki, to say that you will not respond to me in a civil manner unless I start agreeing with you. As for Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, it very specifically notes that Religious_sources are "reliable sources for religious doctrine". However, it does not say they are reliable sources for objective scholarly inquiry into questions that threaten the core belief of that religion. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PLH, it's pretty difficult to have a conversation with you when you repeatedly fail to understand a very basic point: scholarship on religion is not a "religious source". --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my response below, in a new section. Thanks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Eugene, I already said what I think about scholarly sources. Of course I will always argue for scholarship. It is important that we write up an article like this from the mainstream of scholarship in the different fields. People were talking earlier about interdisciplinary work. However, I say, consistently I hope, that each article really "belongs" in a discipline. If this article is about a pseudo-scholarly notion, then it should be written up from works by experts on pseudo-scholarly notions. At the moment - and this really is repetition and I'm not going to say it again - it lumps together populist writing of the late C20 and early C21 with antecedents in the C18, C19 and early C20 that were scholarly at the time they were written. This is a synthesis that creates a false effect. It is the essentialist fallacy to assume that there is one "Christ myth theory" that is the same from Volney through to Freke and Gandy. Theologists are genuine scholars; their field of interest is religious belief systems. Whether Jesus existed or not is a concern of theologists, but it is even more the proper concern of ancient historians. More importantly, theologists are not specialists in C18-C21 thought. Evans makes a sweeping statement about Marx in a footnote - it's mistaken. That's not my OR, it's my "source research" that shows me that the standard texts on Marx and religion or Marx and the Young Hegelians say nothing about Marx having a view on Jesus's historicity. Here (p.155, Lobkowicz) is a careful account of Marx's profound differences with Bauer and Feuerbach. Can you see that not only is there no mention of Marx adopting their views on Jesus, but there is an explanation of why Marx would not have wanted to adopt their views on Jesus. Van Voorst is mistaken too - these errors tend to perpetuate themselves. He is writing an overview of non-belief in Jesus's historicity - BTW not a history of a pseudo-scholarly "Christ myth theory" - and he's doing so as a preliminary to his real concern which is with the ancient sources on Jesus. Van Voorst cites Zvi Rosen, not giving a page number, but the fact he wants to cite is not in the Rosen text. Thrower on the Soviet adoption is fine and we could use more of it. Note that in one place he contrasts the Drews-inspired ideas with a "more Marxist" line. More Marxist = less Drews. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take your response as support for the general proposal. When you say that Van Voorst is wrong, do you have a source that actually says he's wrong, or is this just your own guess? Eugene (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We can find numerous sources that say that Marx thought that Bauer was wrong to devote himself to the critique of Christianity. That is, in fact, the main thing that Marx thought about the Young Hegelians. A major fact about his life was that he moved away from Hegelian philosophy and devoted himself to the critique of political economy. See any Marx for Beginners type book. The onus to verify is upon those who want to include the material. Van Voorst is not a specialist on C19 thought and he cites Rosen for something that isn't in Rosen's book. WP:REDFLAG says that anything way out of line with what is generally established should be regarded with suspicion. Ergo, the statement stays out. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Has someone read the Rosen books and the other sources Van Voorst cites? I missed that, if it's been stated above (sorry, there's a lot of text on this page). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've searched in it using Google Books limited preview and can't find any reference. I did clarify that before and asked if anyone else wanted to try searching. Sorry that I stated it a bit more strongly than I should have. I also asked if anyone was getting the Scottish Journal of Theology reference - but it is a very minor journal.


 * The abolition of God: materialistic atheism and Christian religion By Hans Gerhard Koch seems to have a discussion not only of the Bauer-Marx nexus but also of the Drews-Lenin one. But it's only in snippet view. I can see that it says that the only reference the mature Marx made to Jesus was to say that the thing he liked best about him was his love of children. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Itsmejudith, I missed those earlier posts. I'm getting the Rosen and the SJT article, but I'm not sure how soon they'll arrive. You've provided some good reasons to think that Van Voorst is in error here, but I'd like to check these sources in full. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, a few points:
 * 1) That Marx may have thought Bauer was wrong to devote himself to critiquing Christianity isn't at all the same thing as Marx thinking Bauer was wrong about the historicity of Jesus; these are two separate issues. Thus, all the sources in the world establishing the first issue would do nothing to establish the second.
 * 2) When you say that "The onus to verify is upon those who want to include the material", I totally agree. (Just imagine what a mess this article would be if this wasn't the case, what with all the POV trolls it attracts.) But given that we have three different sources appearing in the relevant citation supporting the material (plus a few more that aren't cited), in the absence of a direct contradiction by at least equally high-quality sources, I think that burden has been met. That some anonymous Wikipedia editor happens to think that the variety of cited professors are wrong isn't enough; as WP:V says, "verifiability, not truth".
 * 3) You said, regarding the Rosen text, "I've searched in it using using Google Books limited preview and can't find any reference" to the material in question. In the US, at least, Rosen's book isn't available for limited preview through Google Books, only snippet preview--which is hardly as conducive for verification purposes as you seem to admit. Are you based in another locale that has a genuinely "limited preview" of Rosen's work, or did you mean to say that you checked through Google Book's snippet view?
 * 4) Koch's work, which you cite, says this: "The only statement of the mature Karl Marx about Christ as far as is known, says that what he, Karl Marx, liked best about the Christ of the Bible was his love of children."  This is hardly conclusive; I'd debate that it's even suggestive. What I like best about the Ulysses of the Odyssey is his (eventual) love for his wife. But that doesn't at all mean that I think Ulysses really existed.
 * 5) You mentioned that a specialist on Marx would be helpful here. While I eagerly await Akhilleus' report on Rosen and the SJT article, I think I've found one online that will serve, at least temporarily.  The late Alphonse Mani wrote a monograph on Marx's thought entitled "Man in the Paris and London Manuscripts of Marx". A year later he also wrote an article entitled "Karl Marx' Critique of Religion" which was published in the journal Indian Theological Studies. In that document, Mani writes of Marx that "From B. Bauer he learnt that Jesus never existed."

Given all this (Mani's statement, the five other independant sources--three currently quoted in the article, and the complete lack of any direct contradiction from any source--scholarly or even otherwise), at this point I think that this issue should be allowed to die. Eugene (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mani provides no citations. This shouldn't be allowed to die, no. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like with explanation, sourcing comes to an end somewhere. So Mani doesn't provide a citation; what if he did? Would the work he cites have to provide a citation to another work?  Would that work then have to cite another work? Do we require a chain of citations leading to a hand-written note from Marx himself scrawled on the back of his manuscript for Das Kapital saying "I totally disbelieve that Jesus ever existed and I totally got the idea from Bruno Bauer"? Eugene (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, this has all the earmarks of a completely bogus meme. Dump it. Barrett Pashak (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched the Rosen book in Google snippet view. It came up with only 3 refs to "Jesus". Of these, only one (p. 55) deals with mythicism, and, from what I can see, only deals with Bauer:"Even if the historical Jesus really existed, (something which Bauer once regarded as self-evident and later treated with reservation and eventually with great doubt bordering on denial of the historicity of the figure)" The book is at our university library. I'll try to get hold of it. But for now it looks like Marx is being tied to Bauer on mythicism without any real basis. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how Google Books works. When a book is only available for snippet preview, every word search will only return a maximum of three results at a time. So just because a search for "Jesus" only returns three results (pp. 30, 33, 55), that doesn't mean that there are only three pages in the book on which that word appears. For example, if you search for both "Jesus" and "myth", you still get only three pages... but they are differet pages: 30, 31, 38. If you search for "Jesus" and "exist", you get pages 33, 49, 56. Eugene (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, yes precisely there would be a reference to a written statement by Marx. Virtually everything he ever wrote is available online and searchable at wwww.marxists.org. He hardly ever mentioned Jesus. He did say a fair bit about religion, and a lot of it was in the context of critiquing Bauer and Feuerbach. Every single sentence of that has been pored over and disagreed about. Young people in Britain are currently struggling to write A Level Philosophy exam answers on The German Ideology, and I think it's also a set text in the French baccalaureate exams. So we need secondary sources to make claims, and there are no shortage of such sources. Great that Akhilleus is getting the Zvi Cohen. Thrower's book is a good source for us. David McLellan is a respected commentator on Marx, has written on Marx and religion, says nothing about Marx's views on the historicity of Jesus. Applying Occam's razor, let's just note that atheists, in general are not much exercised by whether Jesus really lived or not. It is not all that relevant to an atheist perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith, you said,


 * Applying Occam's razor, let's just note that atheists, in general are not much exercised by whether Jesus really lived or not. It is not all that relevant to an atheist perspective.


 * I couldn't agree more. Only militant atheists, or the typical "village atheist", would get "exercised".  However, the claim that only certain scholars think that Jesus existed - because they are Christians, or went to religious schools, etc. - has been made over and over again on this page.  Therefore, what do you think about including a FAQ like this, so that we don't have to rehash the issue repeatedly?

Do you think that's fair? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree this is part of the problem there are deeper issues that the FAQ currently avoids:


 * "What separates the Christ Myth Theory from the idea that Jesus existed but the Gospels tell little to nothing about him?"
 * How does the Christ Myth Theory differ from the idea that King Arthur and Robin Hood are composite characters with a possible historical core?"
 * If the Christ Myth Theory is the idea Jesus never existed why are theories he may have lived a century earlier sometimes considered part of the theory?"
 * "I've seen an author call someone who accepts there may have been a first century Jesus a Christ Myth Theorist and am confused regarding the definition."--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BG, while I appreciate your concerns above, there have been several editors in the past that think scholars who are Christian, or scholars who are not religious but went to religious schools, are not to be trusted. There has been an honest, and successful, effort made to include scholars that are not religious, and the vast majority of such scholars concur with religious scholars.  That is all this FAQ is attempting to say.


 * With my experience on this article, I think that militant atheists would be against such a FAQ because it takes away a weapon from their argument. But if we are honest, then I think most of us would agree that this FAQ is neither pro-Christian nor pro-atheist - rather, it is neutral and disinterested.  So, what do you think?  (By the way, I reformatted your previous question above to make it easier to read.  I hope you don't mind.)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a "militant atheist" has plenty of targets on the range to shoot at to discredit Christianity you have to ask why would one pick the "Jesus didn't exist" target. There is the easier "The Gospel Jesus didn't exist" target right next to it which is a lot harder to deal with as you are saying the Gospel Jesus is a composite character (ie by definition non historical) that may or may not contain a historical first century teacher.  Note how carefully Doherty plays this card in his "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review effectively establishing a very different definition of "modern Jesus mythicists" (ie Christ Myth theorist) then what is used in this article.  It certainly doesn't help that as I pointed out back in Archive 22 Wells' himself called Paul's Jesus a "supernatural personage" (twice in fact) and stated that Paul's Jesus and the Q-Jesus "have been fused into one."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The relevant disciplines
Eugene asked a very good question and sadly things went south. In a effort to get this back on topic here are the general disciplines that I can think of applying here: Historical Anthropology (Ethnology), New Testament archeology, Theology, Mythology, New Testament History, New Testament Literary criticism, and Philosophy. IMHO Egyptology don't really count as the whole Egyptian sun deity connection died a miserable twitching death decades ago.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how philosophy is relevant, nor theology (at least to the central issue; thought it would be relevant to the "uses" section), and ethnology would only seem to be relevant with regard to macro cultural issues--such as the implausibility of 1st century Jews adopting pagan myths wholesale. Eugene (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment above re each article belonging to a discipline. If this one is about a superseded notion that is perpetuated in populist writing, then we really need sources that deal with populist writings. Perhaps something about cultural dumbing-down? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that its implausible to suppose that 1st century Jews adopted pagan myths wholesale. However, much more likely is that 3rd century Romans and Greeks and Persians - who already had shed-loads of pagan myths - incorporated them into the new "Christian" doctrines and scriptures, over-writing the original Jewish scriptures, and then burned the original copies. What kind of -ology would that be - fraudulantreligionology? Wdford (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) That would be paranoia, so probably psychopathology. Eugene (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent that we are discussing belief systems of 1st century Eurasia, New Testament scholars are experts. Thanks to Feuerbach et al. they can take a historical/scientific approach to the life of Jesus and his contemporaries ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree the reason is paranoid the process is not. One must remember from the building of the Colosseum on the Roman Empire was in cultural decline.  Books from the libraries were used to keep the baths heated long before the Christians came to power.  We know that the early Christians weren't above take Pagan holidays and putting a Christian spin on them--after all that is how Jesus wound up with a Dec 25 birthday in the 4st century.  That is also the century that one form of Christianity with it version of Jesus became "official" and all others Heresy.  The official version of Christianity had the resources to keep its version alive while other versions withered on the vine through a combination of active persecution and neglect so when the Western Empire finally fell apart there was only one 'official' voice.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Ari (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)I put out Philosophy mainly because Philo via the Resmburg list (or some variant of it) has been presented, Theology because it is "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth", and Historical Anthropology (Ethnology) for far broader reason than simply how easily 1st century Jews would adopt pagan ideas- like how skeptical was the average 1st century Roman citizen aka Richard Carrier's "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)". One thing we must remember is that the Christan message that became canon was aimed at Gentiles and Jews alike and it if in appealing to the Gentiles that the pagan stuff would have been brought in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The core of the Christian faith regarding the resurrection of Jesus was quite contrary to Graeco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife; the physicality of it was viewed as primitive. More importantly, take note of wp:or and WP:SYN --Ari (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the core of the Christian faith regarding the resurrection of Jesus was quite contrary to Jewish beliefs and doctrines as well. We should also take note of the fact that the date of Christmas is based on pagan input, the name "Easter" is a pagan fertility goddess, Easter eggs and Easter bunnies are pagan fertility symbols, "patron saints" simply replaced pagan deities (patron saint of farmers replaces god of the harvest etc), the Madonna and Child image is a direct copy of the Isis with Horus image, Catholic bishops carry the same staff that Egyptian priest-kings carried and I presume many others also exist. Do we have a wikipedia article on all the pagan symbolism and ritual that has been absorbed into Christianity? Wdford (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it was a divergence - many Jews at the time believed in a physical resurrection, they just didn't expect it to happen to an individual before a general resurrection. That said, the early Christians were Jewish and their beliefs developed within that matrix, so to state that it wasn't Jewish is kinda...meaningless. But I digress - albeit, not as far as you have. For example, you should look up the word Pesach/Pascha before talking about Easter having pagan origins. I also like the one about the staffs - Jewish rabbis carried staffs, Greco-Roman cynics carried staffs, Jesus charged his disciples to take no staff, etc. But you cracked the code - Christianity is practically a copy-paste of Egyptian priest-kings. --Ari (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah so - you know you are on to something when Ari resorts to misquoting, diversion and sarcasm. For the record, I never said Easter had "pagan origins", merely that the name and fertility symbols currently associated with Easter had pagan origins - which is not disputed. Not really the same thing, is it Ari? I never said Christianity is a copy-paste of Egyptian priest-kings - that is just Ari resorting to extreme misquoting in order to divert attention from the real point, namely that much pagan symbolism has been absorbed into modern Chistianity. And Ari has inadvertently confirmed one of my points - many religions carried staffs, Jesus told Christians not to carry staffs, yet Catholic bishops carry staffs today as per the pagans but in contravention of Jesus own instruction. Hmmmmm. Wdford (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal attack noted and ignored. I don't quite see how it was a misquote as we were talking about the earliest resurrection tradition. This was anything but Pagan, yet you go ahead and make some forced connections anyway. So what is the point? The earliest Christians and their contemporaries had never heard of the English word Easter or its Germanic root, yet you find this relevant to explaining the CMT or pagan influence on earliest Christianity? The same goes for your erroneous claim that "Catholic bishops carry the same staff that Egyptian priest-kings carried." What is the point, what has it got to do with the historical Jesus or CMT? Is it anything but an erroneous polemic? --Ari (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually we weren't talking about the earliest resurrection tradition, we were talking about the extent to which pagan mythology has influenced Christian mythology - and I never limited that influence only to the earliest Christians either. Egyptian priest-kings carried the shepherds-crook as part of their regalia - as do bishops today - there is nothing erroneous about that at all. The fact that modern Christianity incorporates pagan mythology indicates that modern Christianity is partly mythical - which directly addresses the issue of which disciplines are relevant to the article. Wdford (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we were. You see, what does some late Germanic word have to do with Jesus or the CMT? A word that has nothing to do with the resurrection, historicity of Jesus or anything but poorly conceived polemics. And again, how is your claim that Bishops carry the same staff as Egyptian kings relevant or even accurate. Frankly, there are thousands of cultural specific examples of people carrying staffs. So, I still see no relevance to this article other than some unverified, factually questionable assertions by an editor. Hence the reason I suggested BruceGrubb reacquaint himself with OR and Synth before going on. --Ari (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Ari, we were not talking about the resurrection – you introduced that word all by yourself. We were talking about the impact of MYTHOLOGY on the Christ MYTH Theory. And what does this particular Germanic MYTH have to do with the Christ MYTH Theory? Well, in the context that the CMT regards Christianity as being based on MYTH, and the indisputable fact that Christians today do incorporate this particular Germanic MYTH into their religious terminology and practices, it seems to be very relevant to this thread on the subject of which specialist disciplines should be considered reliable sources. Exactly when the Germanic MYTH got adopted into the Christian MYTH is irrelevant – since we were talking about MYTHOLOGY generally and not just the resurrection myth, as you now attempt to assert. To assist you with your concern about the factual accuracy of my comment re the adoption of Egyptian crooks by Catholic clergy, see the examples attached.     Wdford (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For people talking about mythology, BruceGrubb and I had a strange complete silence on it. I'm not going to bother with the image thing (seriously?). You simply don't understand myth if you think that English speakers using the word Easter means that they are incorporating Germanic myth into anything. How is a word disassociated by many years and an entire cultural shift incorporation of myth? How is a word completely foreign to Jesus and the early Christians relevant to CMT? It's rhetorical so you don't need to bother. I personally don't care for your ill-informed attempts at forcefully causing fights that have nothing to do with the discussion. But if you must, go for your life here and stick to something relevant on this talk page. --Ari (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) I don't see how Ari can say "The core of the Christian faith regarding the resurrection of Jesus was quite contrary to Graeco-Roman conceptions of the afterlife; the physicality of it was viewed as primitive." as my copy of Mythology(1942) by Edith Hamilton provided many examples of things that could be viewed as precursors to much of the Jesus story including the resurrection. The concept of Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell might as well been lifted lock, stock, and barrel from Hades' Elysium, the Asphodel Meadows, and Tartarus. Hamilton talks about how some Elysium souls could elect to return to the physical world (reincarnation or resurrection?), the story of Asclepius who was killed by Zeus via thunderbolt for bringing a man back from the dead, and the sad story of Orpheus--all of which in some form or another involve someone returning from the realm of the dead tot he realm of the living. Outside of Hamilton you variants of the Sisyphus where he handcuffs Hades rather than Death in his dog kennel preventing anyone form dying--so it is not like the details in the myths are always consistent and Hamilton explained this was due to regional differences and when local beliefs were incorporated into the larger Greek-Roman mythos (this used to explain why Zeus is so unfaithful to his wife--the other women were part of the local mythology with the local supreme deity being replaced with Zeus). It is kind of interesting that in Alcestis_(play) 438 BCE you have Heracles bringing a woman back from the dead who must wait three days in silence before she formally became part of the living again. We also need to realize that a lot of Christ Myth Theory involves tradition that is not in the Gospels or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter such the December 25 birthday or the three kings (only Matthew mentions magi and he never states how many there were). An interesting Pro Historical Jesus site is [Jesus Police] because it sometimes uses citations by Christ Mythers to show some traditions about Jesus are incorrect.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can say it quite easily, with scholarly consensus backing me. That isn't to say that I am not sure that you can jump into some original research and deal with something other than what I said. --Ari (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What "scholarly consensus"? Stephen J. Bedard's "Hellenistic Influence on the Idea of Resurrection in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature" Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism abstract states "It is common to encounter the assertion regarding ancient concepts of the afterlife that a bodily resurrection is a Jewish view and a bodiless spirit existence is a Greek view. However, an examination of resurrection texts within Jewish apocalyptic literature reveals much in common with Greek ideas of an afterlife. Jewish resurrection texts that describe an angelic transformation are remarkably similar to the Greek concept of apotheosis where a hero is transformed into a god at death. It is possible that apotheosis traditions played a significant role in the articulation of the Jewish belief in a bodily resurrection."


 * Lehtipuu (2007) "The Afterlife Imagery in Luke's Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus" Brill in chapter 5 points out the numerous problems with forming a reliable picture of how Greco-Roman changed over time--the lack of being able to determine dates for much of what we have. Sure Homer's afterlife of c850 BCE is a dismal place but contrast that with Virgil's (c19 BCE at the latest) as Hamilton does in the "Gods of the Waters" chapter. In fact, Hamilton expressly states "The later poets define the world of the dead more and more clearly as the place where the wicked are punished and the good rewarded."  So from Homer to Virgil you have a change in the Greco-Roman view of the afterlife but there are few if any sign posts to tell you when things changed.  Gary Amirault in "The Early Christian View of the Savior" shows by quoting Christian scholar after Christian scholar showing the various pagan idea coming into Christianity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Religious and Theological Scholarship
I am adding a new section to address the question of the reliability of religious and theological sources. I have included this dialogue from earlier on the page in a compressed FAQ format to provide context (and not eat up too much 'real estate').

Akhilleus, I do understand the point you are making, that scholarship on relgion is not, strictly speaking, a "religious source" (in the same sense as a pronouncement of dogma from the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Taliban) and that the study of religion is an academic discipline and the books and articles published by scholars who study religion meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable, perhaps even incontrovertible, assertion. However, is this stated explicitly anywhere in the Wikipedia articles regarding reliable sources?

Unfortunately, as far as I can find, the Wikipedia article on reliable sources and on fringe theories does not specifically address the reliability of religious and theological scholarship. I fully understand your position in regarding this silence on the issue as meaning that no exception should be made in assessing the reliability of such sources. This would seem to me to be a very defensible default position to take.

I freely admit a fair amount of ignorance of the world of religious and theological scholarship and I have little doubt that you are much more familiar with it than I am. Just using Wikipedia as a source to try to begin to familiarize myself with this world of religious and theological scholarship, I find these pages.


 * Wikipedia Category:Religious studies journals
 * List of ARC religion journals
 * List of theological journals

When I take a look at the articles on some of these journals I notice that some of them have deep ties to specific religious organizations, e.g. BYU Studies, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. However, most of them do not have such ties. However, the editors and writers whose work appears in these journals often do have ties to the religions they are studying. Indeed, I think it is safe to surmise that many of them are ardent believers.

Is it your position that any article appearing in any of these journals should be considered a reliable source of objective scholarship for Wikipedia articles? If not, what criteria should be used to determine what is reliable? If we say they are "reliable" does that mean they are reliable in all areas, e.g. history, archaeology, geology, paleontology, cosmology, or just in the area of theology and religion?

I stand by my assertion that one's religion can have a distorting effect on one's judgment of the reliability of data that supports or undermines one's religion's truth claims. I think that this should be taken into account when accessing the reliability of a particular source. Leaving aside for a moment the question of what the current Wikipedia policy may or may not be on this particular question, I would be very interested in hearing the views of other editors.

I know there is probably a better Wikipedia venue than this CMT talk page to address these questions. Since you are a Wikipedia administrator, maybe you can point me to where that would be? It may well be that Wikipedia policy needs to be expanded and clarified in this area before the issues with this article can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Wikipedia community.

In any case, I did notice that there are four strong pronouncements at the top of this page:
 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * Avoid personal attacks
 * Be welcoming

The name-calling and extremely hostile behaviors of Eugene and Bill are out of line with the Wikipedia community spirit and I am disappointed that an Administrator such as yourself would side with them and not call them on it. But enough said about that. Let's all turn the heat down and have a civil and reasonable discussion, please. Thanks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious, well credentialed scholars of religion who happen to be religious can't be excluded from the RS category because the logic behind such a move would undermine essentially any discipline. The basic idea behind such thinking is, "You can't trust and Y-ist / Y-ian  about Y because they've got too much invested in their position on Y." But obviously that could apply to almost anything: You can't trust a Darwinian on Darwinism because they've got too much invested in their position on Darwinism; you can't trust a Keynesian on Keynesianism because they've got too much invested in their position on Keynesianism; you can't trust a Neoclassicalist on Neoclassicalism because they've got too much invested in their position on Neoclassicalism.  After all, in every case the academics in question have built a career on their research and if that research was proven wrong it would be at least embarrassing, possibly professonially damaging, and even potentially existentially disorienting. So rather than simply assume that all scholars everywhere are making up rationalizations ex post facto to justify their non-rational beliefs, it's better to just asssume that well qualified, well published scholars are generally reliable when they speak on their specific areas of expertise.


 * As for the journals, knowing the publisher of a journal is often a good way to tell what's legit and what's fringy: the Scottish Journal of Theology is published by Cambridge University, some others are less reputable. Eugene (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And you can't trust mythicists on mythicism because they're not professors at a university. 24.108.35.231 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RSN#Christ_myth_theory. It might be cool to let univolved editors discuss it for a while (if anyone chimes in), or else go at it there as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to point out for what seems like the millionth time that PLH's post is based on the assumption that everyone who studies religion is themselves religious. Further, the assertion that scholars who are religious cannot be trusted in their area of expertise, because "religious beliefs cloud one's ability to think critically" and "People who are infected with a particular religion virus are usually not able to see the irrationality of their own belief systems" is offensive, and it is, at the least, ironic that an editor who wrote that is now calling for civil discourse.

As for the substantive question you raise, you've already understood and acknowledged my earlier point that the study of religion is an academic discipline and the books and articles published by scholars who study religion meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. And that's basically all we need. If you have doubts about whether a particular source is reliable, it's best to raise that at the reliable sources noticeboard. But this attempt at a blanket condemnation of scholarship on early Christianity is a non-starter and a waste of everyone's time. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is really getting silly. It is a non-issue and goes against the verifiable nature of WP through use of reliable sources. There is no reason to prejudice against scholars let alone an entire field of academia because many in the guild are religious. Why hasn't this subject dropped off the face of the Earth? --Ari (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PLH linked a Dawkins "Mind Virus"/Memetics article to make some kind of case that religious scholars are to some degree too brainwashed by Big Pray to be trusted in their disciplines. This is blatant O.R. at best, Trolling at worst. What would PLH suggest, that a note be made under the critical sources saying "REASON GENERAL'S WARNING: Contains material written under the Opiate of the Masses"? I find such an attack on a very large percentage of scholars in all fields to be aggressive and malicious, and I also find the passive-aggressive nature of PLH's posts quite irksome. That is not how wikipedians act.NJMauthor (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's silly Ari, and I agree with both Akhilleus' and NJMauthor, too. At any rate, I really think that we need to add the following FAQ to the talk page:


 * What do you guys think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at Ehrman. I think it's a copyvio (or an archive of one), but in any case it seems pretty good. He's agnostic, and he says historians agree that Jesus existed. I may have missed one, but he seems to be the only non-christian from the FAQ above who is used for that info. Is that correct? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PF, if you haven't already done so, you might also find this audio interesting: Bart Ehrman interview. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you really want to deal with the "only Christans believe in Jesus" and "only atheists hold Jesus didn't exist" nonsense that has peppered the talk page of late but IMHO this in your face method is just not the way to do it. As I said above there is still the "defend status quo" arrow in the old quiver and that addresses the scholars who aren't Christians.


 * IHMO the four questions I asked above are what the FAQ should really be about and we should avoid this Christan-atheist tar baby. Here a reworking of the fourth question based on some of the talk and sources that have been produced over the years:
 * Doesn't the Christ Myth Theory just say that the Gospel Jesus story is akin to that of Santa Claus where reference to the actual historical person is basically nil?
 * This variant is based on what went on in Archive_18 and the Christ a Fiction (1997) by Robert M. Price--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Peregrine Fisher, Ehrman isn't the only non-Christian to make a comment about the third party consensus regarding the CMT. Here are a few others:


 * "In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today."
 * Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196


 * "[T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected."
 * G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218
 * "It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed."
 * G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27
 * "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"
 * Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179
 * "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."
 * Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?
 * 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.
 * Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200
 * I think my posting these into the talk page over and over again is getting a bit tedious. From now on I'll just list the names and link to the FAQ. Eugene (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of relying on a FAQ, this is the kind of info that should go into an article that's headed for GA/FA. Something like "Atheists Smith and Johnson, agnostics Ehrman and Jones, and Christians Williams and Brown have all stated that historians have agreed that Jesus existed."  Stating their credential explicitly would be good to, but I'm too lazy to fit that into my made up sentence right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Identifying scholars by their religious affiliation seems less than encyclopedic to me and I'd rather avoid it. Eugene (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has issues, although they may just be editor issues and not article issues. But, 37 talk page archives show that we should try and resolve those issues, even if we have to go outside the box a bit.  If religious affiliation can be seen as a sort of bias, and I think that at least a case can be made for that, then attribution is our standard way to deal with that.  We do it frequently in political articles, although it's not an exact parallel, obviously.  "Democratic strategist Jones said Obama was right" holds less weight than "Republican strategist Smith said Obama was right", and in both cases it's good to know who's talking.  Plus it's useful info to help the reader decide for themselves how to interpret what they read.  If we could get this stuff ironed out enough that the talk page arguments get to a reasonable level, and the article becomes stable, then the FA reviewers could then say "that's doesn't sound encyclopedic".  Then it could be removed or reworked, and you'd have that to point to, which would carry more weight than an FAQ, since it would be from totally uninvolved editors who (theoretically) know how to judge what's the best on WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If we were to use attribution to overcome the bias concern, I think labeling scholars by their position would be a better way to go. Saying "The late Joseph Klausner, professor of Hebrew literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote that..." would be more encyclopedic than "The late Joseph Klauser, a Jew, wrote that..." But even so, it still seems a bit bulky and awkward. Eugene (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Euguene that affiliation is more professional, and perhaps one could move this all into a footnote to make it less bulky in the body. I'm not sure how to deal with situations like this, but there is a very similar situation on Alvin Plantinga about the acceptance of his free will defense. Vesal (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

New FAQ #1 Proposal
I think we have a consensus that the CMT is fringe, even though there might be some disagreement on how that should be expressed in the article. So, at this point, what do you all think about creating a new FAQ #1 based on the old FAQ #2. Eugene came up with the citations, Anthony modified it, and I think that most of us agree with it. Here is the text.

So, can we get a vote of consensus on this? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of an FAQ. Eugene (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, due to Anthony's concern a few paragraphs above, does anyone think that it would be a good idea to identify which of the citations are made by atheist/agnostic scholars? I think this would prevent editors, such as PLH and others in the future, from claiming that only Christian scholars hold to the fringeness of the CMT.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be instructive to identify which of the sources are not either (a) faculty of theological or religious institutions, (b) clergy, or (c) received their degrees from theological or religious institutions. I have not investigated all of the sources, but so far I have not found any that do not fit one or more of these categories, with the single exception of Michael Grant. Are there any others? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wells, Doherty, Grant, Forbes, Clarke, Bevan, and Sandmel all avoid your three criteria and their quotations appear lower down on the page. Satisfied? Eugene (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. If your list is complete, then out of the 72 people that you quote, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of theological or religious institutions, and/or (b) clergy, and/or (c) received their degrees from theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. (The number of Christians in the list of 7 you provided may be higher; I am only counting Bevan) as a Christian as I am not sure about any of the others.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned the names of the authors who speak of the existence of a thrid-party scholarly consensus, there are many more who speak of their own views or the-way-things-are. Seven different sources (two of them CMT advocates themselves) which all attest to the existence of a universal scholarly consensus should be suffient for any reasonable person. Eugene (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Please address questions raised about neutrality and purpose of FAQ, or close this. Viriditas (talk)


 * The purpose of the FAQ is to explain to potential editors who are not knowledgable about the topic how virtually all academic sources view the CMT. Also, the discussion has been going on for longer than 8 months (which is about the time I joined in), although it would be more accurate to say the discussion has been going on for years.  If you think that  verifiable,  reliable sources aren't neutral, then it is incumbent on YOU to provide counter citations (your personal opinion is irrelevant).  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed your harassment of the voters below. If you wish to open a discussion in a new discussion entitled "Discussion section", please do so, but a "Voting Section" is for voting only, so please stop disrupting the votes.  Now, as for the so-called "purpose" of the FAQ, I'm very confused as why you think it is needed.  This article recently failed a GAR and was delisted as a good article.  The priority, therefore, is on fixing and improving the current article, not on distracting others from this effort with a silly "FAQ" cobbled together from sources you personallly approve of for inclusion.  Please address the concerns raised in the GAR.  Ironically, your own vote and that of Eugene's below doesn't even count, as a "metoo" isn't a form of discussion, therefore, the voting should be closed as consensus against including the FAQ at this time.  Please think about this the next time you try to vote stack. Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved your comments to a separate Comments Section. Please confine them there. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see. And I reverted it.  I'm going to assume good faith at this point since you don't appear to be familiar with common practices (and there is NO shame in that).  However, if you remove my comments again, I will consider it vandalism.  But don't take my word for it.  Other editors can tell you that what I'm saying is the truth.  Also, you are mistaken about my vote and Eugene's vote not counting.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not Christian apologetics. You need to write a good article that passes GAR, and stop distracting others from that task with a "FAQ" that serves no purpose.  You have made approximately 16% of your contributions in article space and the vast majority in talk, which tells me you aren't here to build an encyclopedia.  "Support" is not a valid means of voting here, and polling is not a substitute for discussion.  We need impartial participation from editors not connected with you or Eugene, and we need to file an RFC to do that. Viriditas (talk)


 * Apparently, I'm not getting through to you. You seem to be taking a hostile attitude and have deleted some of my comments.  If you do so again, I will consider it vandalism.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your purpose here is to improve the article and have it relisted as a GA. Your purpose is not to "get through to me" with your distracting FAQ's and disruption of the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting Section
Please register votes here.


 * Support the inclusion of the new FAQ #1 because it represents verifiable,  reliable sources.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Walled garden voting between Bil and Eugene while ignoring everyone else doesn't count, and questions have been raised about the neutrality of the FAQ.  Please address those questions. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A number of fundamental problems with this FAQ, and this article, and their extreme POV problems are still being ignored by the WP:OWNers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Something like this needs to be here, since a lot of editors come in here without familiarity with how academic sources view the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Many of the critics of this page seem to be operating on ignorant assumptions as to the academic credibility and prevelance of the CMT. An FAQ which contains a wealth of quotations from reliable sources (which comment specifically on the existence of the scholarly consensus) could concieveably defuse some of the unthinking knee-jerk reactions that plague this article and save the serious editors a lot of time--freeing us to discuss the actual limitations of the article without fear that some opportunist would parley that formatting inch into some sort of abominable fringy POV mile. Eugene (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. FAQs can be tricky at the best of times, but in this case it would be used to quash legitimate objections. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I saw the previous FAQ being used to push a particular POV. Suggest that interested users create FAQ pages of their own, avoiding the appearance of officialdom while still sharing information. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This topic is quite difficult enough, without moving valuable info to an FAQ that might not be visible to lay readers. If the info is useful, put it in the article itself. Wdford (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. This FAQ is much more condensed than the old one. It does not accuse new visitors to the page of being "wrong" before they have a chance to speak, it merely points out the scholarly consensus.NJMauthor (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I think a lot of us have been here long enough to know that an FAQ like this is necessary. It clears misconceptions (especially those of fly-by editors) and it is wholly verifiable. Scholarship has no doubts about the existence of Jesus, and they can fill academic tomes about what the historian using critical tools can be quite certain about. The FAQ presents both advocates, and mainstream reliable sources placing the theory on the spectrum of what scholars say. The personal advocate of the theory may believe there are good arguments for the hypothesis and disagree with what scholars believe, however, verifiable and reliable sources are clear that it is by no means mainstream or argued in academic literature. --Ari (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. FAQs are offputting to new editors. Let's agree a to-do list instead. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've been beaten with the stick of their previous, very POV, FAQ that Bill and Eugene defended to the end. I saw nothing in the deletion discussions to show that they understood its failings and would not repeat the same errors. I have read some of the discussions recently and am horrified that the nasty, bullying, snide atmosphere seems to be getting worse not better. Sophia ♫  08:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The FAQ is only "necessary" because of the inadequacy of the article. If the article simply said CMT has virtually no support within mainstream scholarship and cited Wells and Price to that effect, half the editors objecting to this article wouldn't be here. This endless (and I use the term carefully) drama exists because lousy rhetoricians insist on overdoing the putdowns with words like fringe and pseudoscholarship. Fringe it is. Thought of as pseudoscholarship by many, it is. Using those terms in this essay is obviously stupid. Please see that Ari, Bill, Eugene, NJM. Using them does not help the article get its message across. Using them is lousy, lousy, lousy rhetoric. Anthony (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Section

 * Viriditas: What does "walled garden voting" mean? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PeaceLoveHarmony: Please be specific. The legion of citations given represent verifiable,  reliable sources. Unless you do so, then you are essentially voting against two core wiki policies and your opinion will be ultimately ignored. If you have counter citations that support your POV, then please list them (good luck on that). And forget about the article in general and, IMHO, your bogus claims of POV problems regarding the article. This vote is ONLY about the proposed FAQ. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill the Cat: Why do we need a FAQ authored by you and Eugene? Why aren't you focused instead on improving this article so that it passes GAR? I will be happy to include a FAQ authored by neutral editors who have been drawn here from an RFC.  Please draw one up. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My rationale was added above a few minutes ago. Also, discussion and consensus is not a way to bypass core wiki policies.  And please concentrate on the purpose of this general section; that is, the FAQ itself.  If you want to discuss other issues, do so in another section.  And as I said before, the FAQ was created by Eugene and modified by Anthony.  It is NOT their opinions.  It is simply a list of what  reliable sources say about the CMT.  If you can find counter citations, then you are free to list them.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't need a FAQ. We need you to contribute to article space by fixing the problems raised in the GAR and bringing this article back to GA status.  Why do you think this article requires a FAQ instead?  Who is asking for it?  You pose the question, "Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position?"  Which neutral, non-theological sources raise this exact question?  Show me them, so I can review. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources are in the FAQ. Read it.  And since you have taken a hostile attitude towards me, and seem to be implying that there is some kind of "christian conspiracy" going on here, I suggest you take a break for a bit.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have said nothing of the kind. What I have said, is that you are distracting away from the primary issue: Improve the article and address the problems raised by multiple editors.  Your edit history shows that you are only here to distract and revert.  There are 35 archival pages and neither you nor Eugene can keep this article at GA or above?  What's wrong with this picture?  Could it be that some editors are preventing others from improving it?  If so, what should be done with those editors? Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene: Please find a non-theological, secondary or tertiary source that supports your FAQ. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheerfully obligied. Let's start with statements from perhaps the three most notable recent proponents of the CMT acknowledging the scholarly consensus:


 * [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.
 * G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218


 * "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"
 * Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179


 * "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."
 * Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?


 * Now let's get some real scholars commenting on the scholarly consensus, carefully screened to keep those awful clerical and divinity school cooties away, or course:


 * 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.
 * Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200


 * There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.
 * Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009


 * Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.
 * Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008


 * An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare.
 * Edwyn R. Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256


 * In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today.
 * Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196


 * Q.E.D. Any more requests? Eugene (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a reason for the FAQ. Why are we asking if the Christ myth theory is fringe or a respectable minority position?  I really doubt that an article in The Sydney Morning Herald is appropriate here.  What is interesting and relevant is who the major proponents and critics are, what they said and why it was dismissed/accepted, where the theory originated and where it had the most impact, why it is important or not, and how it is used in contemporary discourse today.  Please improve the article so that these questions are not only answered in the first two paragraphs of the lead section, but are also fleshed out in a neutral manner in the appropriate place.  Let the facts speak for themselves. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not the Sydney Morning Herald that's important, it's Graeme Clarke's quote that appears in it. BTW, WP:V allows for mainstream newspapers to be used as sources. Eugene (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does this article need a FAQ? Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A more important question is why do you keeping asking that question when it has already been answered? Did you miss the answer or are you just ignoring it?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it. Remind me again? Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a FAQ because the same questions/arguments keep coming up again. For instance, the definition keeps getting questioned, even though there are tens of sources that support it. It's a lot easier to ask people to read a FAQ than to have the same discussion over and over again. (This isn't to say that Viriditas' who-what-where-why-how questions above aren't important—but the answers to those questions should be in the article, not in the FAQ.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is some of the above quotes are not quite what they appear to be.


 * "Following the lead of Christian apologists, the retrenching ranks of New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain, no longer bothering to attempt refutations as their predecessors had thought necessary." Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179


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


 * But contempt is not to be mistaken for refutation. After reviewing the opponents of Jesus mythicism we have already surveyed, Van Voorst focuses on G. A. Wells, “the most articulate contemporary defender of the non-historicity thesis” (a quote from R. Joseph Hoffmann), and he summarizes seven points made by contemporary commentators such as France against Wells’ case. If we hope to find any in-depth refutation here, we will be sorely disappointed. It covers exactly three pages. Yet in that limited span, Van Voorst manages to lay out several questionable and even fallacious ‘defenses.’" Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?


 * The Grant quote was quite infamous on the talk pages back when this was still called Jesus Myth Theory Archive_12, Archive_13, Archive_14, Archive_32, etc If you go to the relevant text in Attitudes to the Evidence you find some very interesting things:  "Unacceptable, too, is the insistence of C.H. Dodd and J.M. Robinson that the burden of proof has passed from the believer to the historian: that greater weight is required to discredit a Gospel statement than to authenticate it." [...] "This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence."  Not only does Grant put C.H. Dodd on par with J.M. Robinson but he seems to be connecting docetism and the Christ myth Theory putting its origins not in the 1700s as many people are stating but as early 70 CE.


 * The comment I made in Archive_25 regarding where Wright for 25 years can also be applied to Chris Forbes--Richard Carrier has a Phd in ancient history). Never mind that Zeitgeist is so horrible with its information that it is a strawman all on its own.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb, I do not believe claiming all of the quotes are misrepresentations of some sort will get you far. We should be passing on verifiable RS on the standing of the debate, not what you think is wrong with everyone who has dismissed, with good reason, the theory. The fact that these scholars can write about what we can historically know about Jesus as a figure of history is not an underhanded dismissal of the hypothesis, but a demonstration that the sound application of historical method to ancient sources yields favourable results. --Ari (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say all of the quotes were misrepresentations only some of them and the quotes I put back into don't exactly say what they were presented as saying. Furthermore Zeitgeist is so horrible with its facts that only someone who knows nothing about Egyptian mythology would buy it.  Nevermind the whole Sun myth connection thing should have died when it became known that the December 25 date was a 4th century degree and not part of the original story (clearly documented in detail c180 CE)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sophia - what is the actual reason? You hint to it previously being non-NPOV but could you describe the actual problem with it. --Ari (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Smearing people
I want to note here for the record that Eugene today created an attack page about me&mdash;in the form of a Wikipedia article&mdash;in his userspace, which has now been oversighted. He did this a day after I reported him for 3RR on another article, and just before he nominated this article yet again for GA status. It demonstrates that his tendency to smear sources and editors he disagrees with continues. I would ask the small number of editors on this page who've been enabling this behavior, and in particular Akilleus because he's an admin, to please reconsider. He's only able to behave this way because of your support. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm generally not in favor of removing sections from the talk page, but I really don't think this section has much to do with improving the article. Problems with editors' behavior are not best addressed on article talk pages. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, it would probably be best to tone down your aggressive behavior towards Eugene. I would personally like to see an article about you, since you are such a prolific wiki editor.  (By the way, I didn't see the so-called attack article on you, but I'd like to ask, did it have reliable sources?)  At any reate, as Akhilleus has implied, this is not a forum, so please take this conversation elsewhere.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, WADR, that's ridiculous. Eugene's conduct was wholly unacceptable.  I am quite surprised that jpgordon did not block him indefinitely. --B (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, thank you for the heads up. The conduct and behavior of Eugene, the principle editor of this article who consistently exhibits, with his small cadre of allies, egregious WP:OWN behavior with this article, is extremely relevant to this article's talk page, because it directly impacts the ability of editors to improve the article (or not). PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PeaceLoveharmony, you've rather destroyed your ethos as an editor with the above hate speech (see ad hominem in above sections), and I really don't appreciate you and others jumping on this bandwagon. I am certainly not a braindead zombie following Eugene, nor are bill, Akhellius, Ari, or Anthony (who does not see Eugene as a puritan-era fire-and-brimstone zealot as you seem to), or other editors on this page.
 * Slimvirgin herself has become too tangled up in wikipolitics to see the arguments for what they are-that is my opinion, and it is meant as a critique. NJMauthor (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene has been indefinitely blocked from editing. Administrators' discussion is here. Anthony (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments regarding Issues to be addressed

 * I'd like comments and sigs on adjustments to this list, assuming we're using it as a checklist. There's no controversy or whatever that makes me say that, I'd just like it easy to follow.  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a reason we don't have comments and sigs in the "Issues to be addressed" section--if it went inactive for longer than 4 days MiszaBot would archive it. You can create a section on a part you think needs addressing...like I just did in this case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Conclusively resolving matters of definition
I would like to see conclusive discussion on the definition. First of all, it may be worth just collecting all the definitions together in a sub-page /Definitions in Reliable Sources. Many of them are already in the FAQ #1, but sometimes truncated, I'd like to see all definitions in a central place. (Although I don't know what copyright law has to say about such things being posted on talk pages.)

Here is really needs to be clarified. What does it mean to say Jesus never existed? The question boils down to this: what criteria does a first century Palestinian have to satisfy to be a worthy referent of the label "Jesus". I can think of two things: such a person should have been instrumental in the foundation Christianity and be the historical core of the Gospel accounts. Therefore, the claim the Jesus did not exist consists of two related but independent statements: If we consider the positions on these two questions, all four combinations are present: Now, it is clear that Jesus' role as the source of Christianity is primary: Wells is considered a "worthy successor" of myth theory, whilst Thompson is not considered a myth theorist at all. Also note that while the first question is essentially an either/or question (is Christianity best explained as originating in historical events or out of cultural currents in spiritual life?); the second question allows for a whole gradient of views.
 * 1) The origin of Christianity is best explained without reference to a historical teacher or leader; and
 * 2) There is no historical core behind the Gospel accounts.

I think it is absolutely crucial to sort out the definition, and have it explained in such a way that all editors, including those commenting on the GA page, are happy with the definition. Vesal (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Table clarified after the following reply. Vesal (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC))


 * For sources on the definition, you can look at #1 here.


 * More care is needed with Wells in this table; he's changed his position over the years, and it's not clear whether the table is meant to reflect his pre-1996 position, or post. In any case, since in his more recent work Wells believes that Q reflects a historical Jesus, it can't be right to say that he thinks Christianity is "best explained without reference to a historical teacher or leader."


 * As for the definition, it needs to be based on what secondary sources say, rather than editors' attempts to reinvent the wheel. The work's been done for us; we just need to summarize what other people have done. The core point that scholars make about the CMT is that it is the idea that Jesus never existed. Once you make that step, you need to provide an alternative account of the creation of the Gospels and the formation of early Christianity, but CMT authors differ widely on these points; the thing they're united on is ahistoricity. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the post? I said some of the material are in FAQ #1, and you respond that I should see that very same FAQ. And I meant post-1996 position because he makes it very clear that the Jesus at the core of the Gospels is not to be identified with Paul's Jesus; he still considers the origins of Christianity as better explained in mythical terms. Obviously, the definition needs to be based on secondary sources, just like the definitions of atheism and free will need to be based on secondary sources, but that does not mean defining such concepts is easy. One has to carefully consideration of what all sources say and take nuances into account. Vesal (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Vesal, I read your post, but I didn't notice you mentioned the FAQ because you didn't link to it. There's also Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition. I'm glad you agree that the definition should be based on secondary sources. This is a much easier topic to define than atheism or free will, and I think people are trying to make things much harder than they actually are. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We kicked this around a long time ago--the issue of does "Jesus never existed" mean that there wasn't a flesh and blood teacher named Jesus or that the "Gospel Jesus never existed" which is actually a totally different question. Complicating matters is explaining how Jesus existing in a earlier century matches up with the "Jesus never existed" premise especially when seen through the Robin Hood lens.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you guys are talking about, but it does sound like something that should be explained to a reader early on. Kind of highlights one of the problems with this article. Quick info is needed, in an easy to digest manner. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be good to very quickly clarify what it means to be a myth theorist. I actually want a fairly minor change that would facilitate understanding. I want to emphasize that once you deny Jesus' existence you have to account for all the ancient evidence, including the fact that people eventually came to believe in a living Jesus. That is to say, I think what all myth theorists have in common, and which minimalist don't share, is that they give some alternative account of the emergence of belief in Christ. Even if these accounts may differ greatly, the fact that a person gives some account distinguishes them from those that just say Jesus is buried in legend and no longer accessible to us. Consider something like the following definition:
 * Christ myth theory is an alternative account of the emergence of belief in Christ. While mainstream scholarship consider the life and death of a historical individual, Jesus of Nazareth, instrumental in the formation of that belief, myth theorist reject the historical existence of such a person, and contend that the Jesus of early Christianity was a mythological character to whom biographical elements were only later attached.
 * I don't think there is any problem backing this up with secondary sources. It's not very succinct, but before attempting to polish, the question is if this idea makes it any clearer. I know some people think everything is completely clear, but it wasn't for me, and you shouldn't have to look at talk pages and FAQs to get the idea. What about you, Peregrine Fisher, do you think kind of approach would make it any more clear, or is it just confusing things even more?? (And Akhilleus, I apologize that I got annoyed, but I think you were too dismissive. I respect your judgement more than anyone else on this article, so if you give this a serious consideration and still think it is a bad idea, I will drop it.) Vesal (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Context and definition" section currently includes this material:"Given the quality of the evidence concerning Jesus' life, different scholars affirm the historicity of Jesus' traditional biography to differing extents. Minimalists, such as Rudolf Bultmann and Thomas L. Thompson, concede that Jesus did exist but argue that virtually nothing can be known about him with certainty and that many (perhaps all) of the episodes in the gospels are legendary.[8] At the other extreme, fundamentalists such as Charles L. Feinberg and Charles Ryrie affirm the literal historicity of each discrete event depicted in the New Testament.[9] Taken together, these two positions represent the twin poles of the spectrum of views regarding the historical Jesus, with many intermediate positions falling in between.[10] The Christ myth theory, however, stands entirely outside this continuum.[4] It argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, simply never existed at all.[11]"What about this is unclear? Eugene (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with all this is it leaves the issue of why ideas of a historical Jesus c100 BCE ala Mead and Ellegard are sometimes considered Christ Myth Theory.  Also the above doesn't explain how the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character which by definition could have never existed does not fit into the Christ Myth Theory.  It also fails to explain how saying the Gospels are the 1st century equivalent of the De Vinci Code also doesn't fit into the Christ Myth Theory; the Gospels are our only really detailed account of the life of Jesus and if you say they are a fiction then what are you left with for determining if Jesus was a historical person?  A document known to have been partly tampered with and another one that could have just been repeating Christian belief.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here from the reliable sources noticeboard and I agree with Eugene that the current explanation quoted by him is inclusive enough already. Bruce you refer to the Christ myth theory in a way that even I understand to be misleading.  There is no one Christ myth theory -- so the definite article should be used with caution in these types of discussions.  There are several theories that fall outside of mainstream scholarship all of which claim to some degree or another that the Jesus of the Christian gospels was not an historical individual.  In my view, the minute you make these types of claims about the historicity of Jesus you fall into the Christ Myth camp.  If a theory concerns the nature of the gospels and does not concern itself directly with the historicity of Jesus then of course it wouldn't fall into the Christ myth camp.  If someone, in arguing against the historicity of Jesus picks up such a theory in support of their claims or in building their own arguments then of course those secondary arguments fall into the Christ myth camp.  What's all the fuss about?Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This still leaves the issue where of saying the Gospel Jesus is a composite character which by definition cannot be an historical individual which may or may not include a historical person who fits in the right time frame. Remember Wells states Paul's Jesus is from an earlier time and related only by name to the Historical Q-Jesus who was not crucified nor resurrected and the Gospel Jesus is a composite character ie a non historical person but and here is the kicker Wells has clearly stated that he does not belong in the Christ Myth theorist camp.  Remember one of the definitions found (Walsh) says "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" and Wells with his Paul Jesus form a previous century could fit that bill as do some fringe theories that say Jesus was inspired by a Jesus Myth or that his ministry was "plugged into" an already existing "Christ Myth".  How do those fit into the Walsh definition?
 * I know these are not easy questions but if we ever hope to get this article back on track we need to answer them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of these, what I'd most like to have explained is why considering the Gospels as myth is radically different from myth theory. The context section states that there is a complete difference, but there is really no explanation why. Vesal (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That (definition of myth) was also kicked around back when this was the Jesus Myth theory. IMHO Remsburg gave the easiest to understand definition of "myth" in Chapter 9:
 * "Myths are of three kinds: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.
 * A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth. The earliest records of all nations and of all religions are more or less mythical. "Nothing great has been established," says Renan, "which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in such cases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived."


 * A Philosophical myth is an idea clothed in the caress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth. Many of the gods and heroes of antiquity are pure myths. John Fiske refers to a myth as "a piece of unscientific philosophizing," and this is a fairly good definition of the philosophical myth.


 * A Poetical myth is a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination. The poems of Homer and Hesiod, which were the religious text books of the ancient Greeks, and the poetical writings of the Bible, which helped to form and foster the Semitic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, belong to this class.


 * It is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"


 * To use modern examples, the Battle of Custer and Columbus sailing to prove the world was round would be historical myths, Washington's chopping down of the Cherry Tree is a Philosophical and pure myth, and Longfellow's Paul Revere is a Poetical myth. Does this help?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems like the kind of info the reader would want. I know it helps me understand things a bit more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is trying to find a reliable source that says all this in reference to the CMT so as not to wade into a sea of OR and SYN. Bruce, which reliable souces explicitly class Ellegard and Mead as CMT advocates? Ellegard doesn't appear in tis article, and while Mead does, there's no source connected to him. If we can't come up with a reliable source for Mead then we should cut him and that would defuse that issue all together. Eugene (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ellegard used to appear in this article back when it was still called the Jesus Myth theory some two years ago and Price uses Mead's book as a reference in his The incredible shrinking Son of Man. A little digging showed that GRS Mead was to give a lecture at Blavatsky Lodge regarding "The Christ Myth" in Oct 31, 1892 (Lucifer By Theosophical Publishing Society and The Path)  I am currently trying to find out just what Mead meant by the term "The Christ Myth".  This highlights the biggest problem finding things regarding this as a concept as the same phrase is not used and phrases used for this are sometimes used for other things.


 * Similarly, I have found snippets that show promise (like Boslooper (1962) The Virgin Birth which mentions "The Christ-Myth School." and lists Mead with Kalthoff and Robertson or Jones, Maurice (1924) The New Testament in the twentieth century: a survey of recent A Survey of Recent Christological and Historical Criticism of the New Testament which just shows the term) but again they may lead nowhere.


 * A more promising work is Herbert Cutner 1986 Jesus: God, Man Or Myth


 * I should mention none of this addressed the problem Welsh's definition as I have seen fringe theories that say there was a "Jesus myth" that Jesus was using as the framework for his ministry. Where does that fit in using Welsh's definition?  Furthermore you have Wells clearly stating that he has always held that Paul "believed" in a historical Jesus but not one who lived in the first century but earlier just moves the problem to Wells Pre Jesus Myth" (1996) and we have a crap load of sources that call him a Christ Myth theorist even though he always said Paul believed his Jesus was historical and not a myth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While Price cited Mead in a footnote, I can't see what it's in reference to. Considering that he cited Walter Bauer just previously, this isn't helpful.  Likewise, as you say, the simple phrase "Christ myth" can mean a lot of different things so he Theosophical ad doesn't help either.  Boslooper is a different story, I think that source would be helpful, but my snippet view doesn't let me get a good idea of what Mead's being used for.  Jones, as far as my use of good books goes, doesn't seem to refer to Mead at all--but this could be a quirk of the software somehow; did you see Mead appear in the Jones book? As for Cutner, he's not a reliable source. Eugene (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mead's work shows up as a reference in The Historical Jesus: Five Views on page 80 though as evidence why the Jesus of the Gospels is likely not historical rather than as a supported of the Christ Myth Theory. However, on page 65 Price does call Ellegard a mythicist along with the early Wells and clearly states their views:  "the first Christians had in mind a Jesus who had lived as a historical figure, just not of the recent past, much as the average Greek believed Hercules and Achilles really lived somewhere back there in the past" (reference given regarding that last part is Veyne, Paul (1988) Did the Greek Believe in Their Myths?  An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination trans Paula Wissing University of Chicago Press)


 * I should mention that The Historical Jesus: Five Views in "Quest for the historical Jesus: An introduction" gives what is likely the best quick summation regarding the history of the Quest for the historical Jesus while touching on Christ Myth Theory that I have seen in a long time. Also on page 62-64  Price actually gives us the foundation of the "Traditional" Christ Myth Theory as three pillars two of which are italicized for our benefit: 1) Why no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources?; 2) The Epistles, earlier than the Gospels, do not evidence a recent historical Jesus, and 3) The epistles "attest to an an even earlier stage of belief in which the savior received the honorific name Jesus only as of his post portmortem exaltation."--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the software yes it is a little wonky as searching for connections between Mead and Christ myth produced this for Boslooper (1962) The Virgin Birth: "These taskmasters now carry the appellation "The Christ-Myth  School." The development of this movement is difficult to trace because of the ... GRS Mead, Did Jesus Live 100 BC?, 1903, an inquiry into the Talmud, identifies Jesus with..."  Significantly less useful than the other snippet though it is showing more promise but with Price putting Ellegard with the Early Wells does it really matter?  We still have an existing Jesus before the Gospel Jesus vs "Jesus never existed" definition problem.  Also Price's Deconstructing Jesus uses Mead as a reference but it is Price's own words that interest us: ""The gospels' Jesuses are each complete synthesis of various other, earlier, Jesus Characters.  Some of these may have been reflections of various messianic prophets and revolutionaries, other the fictive counter parts of itinerant charismatics, and still other historicizations of mythical Corn Kings and Gnostic Aions.  I think it is an open question whether a historical Jesus anything with these Jesuses, much less the Jesus of the gospels." (pg 266)


 * On a side note Jonathan Z. Smith in his 1990 Drudgery Divine (Jordan lectures in comparative religion) by Routledge (Publisher of Academic Books, Journals, eBooks, Textbooks, Media, Software, Reference and Online Learning Resources) lists Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 BC? along with Drews' The Christ Myth as examples of works following Strauss rather than proponents of a non historical Jesus. I continue searching.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Found another possible connection. Kepler, Thomas Samuel (1944) "Contemporary thinking about Jesus: an anthology" Abingdon-Cokesbury Press snippet reads "JM Robertson and George Mead; in America by WB Smith."--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New lead in--an idea
Here is another reworking of the lead to try and addess some of the issues raised

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the hypothesis that "we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus Narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus" or at best "lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed." (Boyd-Eddy (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic pg 24-25) It should be noted that some authors that accepted a historical Jesus (Remsburg, Mead, Ellegard (Price), Post-Jesus Myth Wells (Price--three different times, Doherty, Boyd-Eddy) have been either called or implied to be "Christ myth theorists" but per Wells challenging of Boyd-Eddy on Wells being one (Wells (2009) Cutting Jesus Down to Size) this classification may be in error.

I'm not thrilled with the last sentence in that but it at least it tries to deal with some of the oddball classifications we've seen. What do you think of the first sentence at least?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the status quo is better. Eugene (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Eugene. This suggestion is way too confusing and not very encyclopedic because of it.  Look, no subject matter is cut and dry, but encyclopedias owe it to their readers to dumb some things down and make things a bit more clear cut.  If we treated every subject matter like this on Wikipedia the whole project would be a ridiculous sham.  Let's not get carried away here.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your idea of trying to explain what the article is about, but the execution needs work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew the second part was a mess but the first part is two direct quotess from a reliable source so how is it "too confusing and not very encyclopedic"? Meynell defines Christ Myth Theory as "to the effect there was no historical Jesus at all" which is not what the Jesus existed in another time group that have been labeled Christ Myth Theorist are saying at all nor is it what Price is saying.  Nicholson has the exact same problem with his "suggesting that Jesus had never existed".  Existing c100 BC is still existing and is a totally different thing than saying Jesus never existed."


 * I would like to point out that the status quo is also "too confusing and not very encyclopedic":


 * "Some proponents of the hypothesis argue that some of the events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity."


 * This basically says that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character which could include one or more historical Jesus in the right time and you are right back at the problem of trying to shows how a composite character with possible 1st century teacher fits into the "Jesus had never existed" mold. More to the point there is not one reference backing any of it up while mind comes straing from a reliable source.  Until this key problem is addressed with realible sources this article will always have problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You want to open the entry with two long quotes? That in and of itself is not encyclopedic, confusing or not (and as you note the second part of your text is clearly confusing).  I also question the second long quote in the first sentence because it appears to be very inclusive.  Do others really include those who are agnostic about this question in the "Christ myth" camp because that's what I read in this quote, at least in how it is being used?Griswaldo (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bruce, if the RS definition doesn't conveniently allow for people like Ellegard and Mead, and if we don't have very many (any?) RSes that label Ellegard and Mead as mythicists, then perhaps that's not a failing of the article; maybe they just don't fit. As for the fact that "there is not one reference" supporting the idea that mythicists as a group sometimes think that Jesus' bio may incorporate real events from other people's lives, that sounds like a pretty good reasons for deletig that statement. If someone can't find a source for the info in the next day I'll cut it.  That should also help with clarity. Eugene (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No doubt the sentence is unclear, but I always understood it as attempting to include the views of people like John M. Robertson, who believed that the NT figure of Jesus was partially based on Jesus ben Pandira, whom Robertson believed lived ca. 100 BC. Mead thought the same thing. Despite what BruceGrubb says, this is not the same thing as believing in a historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually my statement is based on what how some of the sources define Christ Myth Theory. I should remind Akhilleus that Boyd-Eddy says saying Paul believed in a mythical Jesus is Christ Myth Theory (pg 186) but Paul 'not viewing Jesus as a recent historical figure' (pg 201) is part of the broader "legendary-Jesus theory" which includes such people as Bultmann, Mack, Funk, and Crossan.  It doesn't help that Boyd-Eddy's only mention of Ellegard is with Doherty, Wells, and Martin not making it clear if he is refering to the larger concepts of "legendary-Jesus theory" or the "narrower particularly the Christ Myth theorists" in the sentence on page 202.  Sadly Robertson is not mentioned at all by Boyd-Eddy which might have helped matters.


 * Also by WP:NPOV you can't cherry pick reliable sources taking the ones you like and rejecting the rest. We need to fined a reliable source that explains how "Jesus NEVER existed" is comparable with "Jesus existed but in an earlier time."  So far we haven't seen one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus ben Pandira is not Jesus of Nazareth. This isn't hard. As for sources that explain how Robertson fits in to the CMT, see Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, and Wells 2009, among others. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which leaves us with all the reliable sources that simply say The Christ myth theory is Jesus (ie any Jesus) never existed. Also at least in the version that is online at earlychristianwritings only thing Schweitzer says regarding Robertson is in chapter 17: "According to J. M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (London, 1900), the Christ-Myth is merely a form of the Krishna-Myth. The whole Gospel tradition is to be symbolically interpreted."  This also strangely seems to be the only place in this version where the term "Christ-Myth" is used.  The version would seem to put Robertson in the pure myth camp rather than the "Jesus was partially based on Jesus ben Pandira" camp of Mead and Ellegard.  It certainly doesn't explain how what appear to be two conflicting idea are part of the same concept.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to cope with all the possible variations along the existence/non-existence continuum does my head in and I can't pretend that I'm keeping up with the debate. Just to say that a problem with Bruce's suggestion is having quotes in the lead. I don't think that works at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand the logic here. I am quoting from a recent clearly reliable source as to what the Christ Myth Theory is as best as I can.  That would seem to be the best way to address the issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is that quotations in the lead make it seem bulky and that detracts from the flow of the article. I tend to agree. Eugene (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the tag in the lead really needed? The lead is supposed to summarize the article and the article expands on the popular reception pretty well. Also, as far as I know, such tags are designed to prevent weasel words for being used to either undermine or over-hype a subject. I don't think that the final sentence of the lead does either of those things. Eugene (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Which would be a perfect argument for using a direct quote at I wanted to do as two of the referenced works are more along the "Jesus never existed" line--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag again
I'm once again (for the 100th time) asking that the POV tag not be removed until the issues have been dealt with. There are multiple people with concerns about this article's neutrality. My own concern is the debunking tone in general; the lack of dissenting voices in the lead; the inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics; and the inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears.

Not one of these has been addressed, I'm not the only person with concerns, and any attempt we've made at clean-up has been reverted by Eugene, who also keeps removing the tag. Therefore the tag is being used correctly. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on SV, give it a rest. You wanted a dissenting voice in the lead, you put together an RfC, you even posted it to various wikiprojects in a way that would skew the result in your favor and it raised some eyebrows on the ANI, and the RfC still sided against you.  Let it go.


 * Nothing in the lead says that Wells and Price aren't academics; the lead just notes that they have been instrumental in popularizing the theory in recent times. Beyond the fact that this is clearly truw, academic popularize things all the time: think of Richard Dawkins with evolution, Carl Sagan with astronomy, and William Lane Craig with Jesus.


 * As for your complaint about "smears", it's just counter to WP:V, plain and simple. We have tons of sources backing this up and the information is currently presented in a very even-handed way. If, with these sources in hand, this article can't use the disignation "pseudo-scholarship" or "pseudo-history" or whatever, then no article can.  But clearly other articles do (including FAs), so this article may. You've cried foul on this a few times and everytime you've failed to build consensus; again, let this go.


 * Concerns about "tone" are pretty vague and hard to address, could you be more specific? I and the others here aren't unreasonable, if you have reasonable concerns that don't violate policy or consensus then I'd be happy to address them in the article. But as it stands your complaints seem more like sour grapes than anyting at this point.


 * So, contray to your claims, your concerns have been addressed and thus your justification for the NPOV tag fails. I'm taking it down again. (Just imagine if all the global warming skeptics could so causually throw the same tag on that page. Eventually the scholarship wins out and the critics, presumably, find a way to live with it.) Eugene (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Eugene on this as I'm not sure the problems the article currently has are really POV ones any more. I will admit that are a few hiccups in the definitions and some of the lists but for the most part things seems to hold together.  Sure we need some reliable sources to explain the more problematic hiccups and blink and you may miss it Radical Dutch school section but this is more a Refimprove tag than a POV one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh thank God. Thank you Bruce. Eugene (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an honest evaluation of the situation. If you look at the material 95 to 98 percent seem to be on the same page.  The problem is explaining that page along with the occasional wrong page to readers via reliable sources.  Such issues of "Jesus never existed" and "Jesus existed but in a different time (ala many historical candidates for Robin Hood)" and people who believe in a historical Jesus in the correct time (Remsburg, Dawkins, Post-Jesus Myth Wells) are called by some "Christ Myth Theorists" really need to addressed and so far not dealing with them just makes this article get POV chargers when the problems are really Refimprove.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Throwing up a POV tag, for the 100th time, and ignoring both WP:RS and WP:V seems like disruptive editing to me. That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please sign here if you agree with the POV tag
If I'm the only person who believes the article should be tagged, then obviously I'll withdraw. I don't like to see well-attended articles tagged just because one person thinks so. I'd therefore like to ask anyone who believes the tag should remain to say so here, and to add their reasons in brief. I'll contact people who've commented on the tag in the past to make sure they see this.


 * The issues I have include the debunking tone; the lack of a dissenting voice in the lead; the inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics; the inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears. The Wells and Price sections are too short given that they're the major proponents, and the aetheist polemics section is inappropriate. Also, I'm afraid I don't believe Eugeneacurry understands the content policies, and there are too many editors on this page who are willing to go along with whatever he says. He has driven off opposing editors with attacks and aggressive reverting, and that skews consensus. Also noting this discussion on the Fringe noticeboard just a couple of weeks ago, raising all the issues previously raised by others and never dealt with. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with keeping the POV tag in place. As I and others have noted in many previous discussions, there are many, many POV issues with this article that remain unaddressed. The hostile and unprofessional attacks from the conservative Christian editor Eugene and his supporters, who collectively WP:OWN this article make it impossible to resolve these issues in a collaborative fashion. (Eugene's creation of an attack page today on a fellow editor is just one example of a long pattern of abuse.) Most of the POV issues that were identified in the last GA review remain unresolved. I do not have the time to fight this battle right now. It is comforting to know that there are many resources on the internet that do a much better job of presenting the Christ Myth Theory than this current article. This article is so disorganized, turgid, and self-contradictory that most readers probably fall asleep or go elsewhere after reading a few paragraphs. Unfortunately, it will remain impossible to improve the article as long as Eugene and his allies continue to WP:OWN it. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Though, my objection is more to its tone and quality. It correctly presents CMT as fringe, and considered to be pseudoscholarship by many academics. So, in these important respects, it is neutral. But its description of the CMT is poor, its explanation of what is wrong with the theory is unconvincing, and importantly for the NPOV question, it uses obviously slanted language and innuendo to discredit the theory and its proponents, which works against that very goal and perpetuates this fun on the discussion page. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to keeping the tag on. Article isn't out of the woods yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
"I'll contact people who've commented on the tag in the past to make sure they see this." How is this not yet another violation of WP:CANVASSING on your part? And, as I hinted at before, if I were to canvass, how many editors skeptical of global warming do you think would sign up for a POV tag on the global warming page? I imagine a lot. Clearly that's not the best way to proceed. Eugene (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've driven people away who would otherwise see this, so they need to be informed. I'll make sure my post is neutrally worded, and I won't ask many.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But you'll be asking people whom you suspect of agreeing with your position, that's textbook vote stacking... again. Eugene (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only interested in finding out for this section whether anyone else agrees with the tag, so obviously there's no point in asking people who don't. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense: you've staked out a position in a (faux) controversy and now you are actively seeking out support for your position under the guise of a survey. As I said, such an approach could manufacture support for a POV tag on any article that deals with a controversial subject: global warming, intelligent design, Israel, Barack Obama, etc, etc, etc. And if it would would "legitimize" a POV tag for any article then clearly it can't meaningfully be used at all. Eugene (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the procedures being used here are sub-optimal. I can't get that worked up about a POV tag, really, but if this issue is to be resolved we need to get more people involved, especially people who haven't been involved in the article before and so won't be looking at the article through the lens of long-running disputes. So, SV, if you're going to post messages to user talk pages, could you post to some WikiProjects too? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus, I think at least part of the reason for keeping the POV in place may be that it prevents the article from going to GA and then to FA status. Doesn't a POV tag do that?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely that the article would be promoted with the tag in place. But I can't get that worked up about the GA/FA process either. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, my support for the POV tag is purely based on my above vote statement. I'm involved because I'd like it to be a good article; a motive I share with you, SV, Eugene,, PLH, Vesal, etc. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anthony, more than any other POV "vote" I respect yours. Setting aside the quality issues, as they're not immediately relevant, if you could enumerate a few specific instances of "innuendo" then we could meaningfully discuss them with reference to reliable sources and so on; which I would be happy to do. Eugene (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anthony, I believe you. However, SV and others clearly don't want the CMT presented as fringe.  I, too, am happy to work with you, but what are we supposed to do when SV slaps on a POV tag and then refuses to discuss the issues in a way that we can come up with result that represents the vast majority of reliable sources?


 * And now that I think about it, I can't even remember the last time (if there was one) SV has replied substantially to any of my points. She seems to accuse me of this or that and then "strongly suggests" that I do what she tells me.  A little while ago, I took the time to rebut her objections (see "unindent: response to Akhilleus" below) point by point.  Let's see if she responds and is willing to dedicate some time in going through the issues to be addressed point by point.


 * My last point is this: compare the reasoning you gave above in your vote with that of PLH and Itsmejudith. Neither of them even bothered to list valid reasons for their vote; both you and SV listed your concerns and we can work with that (assuming SV is willing to be actively involved in the discussion).  At the very least, they should have said "Agree - per SV".  I mean, where do we go with "It's not out of the woods yet?"  It doesn't say anything.  Or how about PLH's  remark, which once again violates WP:AGF, "The hostile and unprofessional attacks from the conservative Christian editor Eugene and his supporters...."?  I would ask for the basis of PLH's antipathy towards "conservative Christians" but 1) this is not the place for it; and 2) it's most likely a waste of everyone's time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent: repsonse to Akhilleus) Well, neither do I get that worked up if this article doesn't achieve FA status (and I've said as much in the past). However, trying to prevent it from happening for personal (spiteful, vengeful, or whatever) reasons and attempting to do so by canvassing seems to me to be disruptive editing and, obviously, against wiki policies.

At any rate, let's take SV's allegations of POV one by one (from above)


 * Debunking tone - none of the editors here have debunked the CMT. the vast majority of scholars have done a thorough job of that and we should note that according to WP:Fringe.  This is the main problem of SV's argument.  SV wants portray the CMT as a valid, minority opinion.  We both know that the CMT is almost universally rejected by scholars as bogus and it should therefore, according to WP:Fringe, be noted as such.  Thus, attempting to detail the verifiable level of acceptance by the vast majority of reliable sources in the article is not a justification for slapping on a POV tag.


 * The lack of a dissenting voice in the lead - I see five dissenting voices (i.e., CMT advocates) are mentioned in the lead, so how their "voices" should be heard is a stylistic/prose concern, and not an indication of POV.


 * The inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics - No such thing is being done, as Eugene as noted above,


 * Nothing in the lead says that Wells and Price aren't academics; the lead just notes that they have been instrumental in popularizing the theory in recent times. Beyond the fact that this is clearly truw, academic popularize things all the time: think of Richard Dawkins with evolution, Carl Sagan with astronomy, and William Lane Craig with Jesus.


 * The inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears - That's not our opinion or smear. That is the judgment of almost every scholar in the field.  That is, that is the level of acceptance, according to WP:Fringe, which says (underline added),


 * ...ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources .


 * The Wells and Price sections are too short given that they're the major proponents, and the aetheist polemics section is inappropriate - Once again, these are stylistic/prose issues, and not an a reason for a POV tag.


 * I'm afraid I don't believe Eugeneacurry understands the content policies, and there are too many editors on this page who are willing to go along with whatever he says - I'm not sure how well Eugene understands the content policies, but he knows the policies involving vote stacking and WP:Fringe better than some folks.


 * He has driven off opposing editors with attacks and aggressive reverting, and that skews consensus - LOL. What's that saying about the pot calling the kettle black? :)

Anyway, that's my $1.50 (used to be $0.02, but with inflation and all...). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) I see people responded before I'd asked anyone to, and the tag is restored, so there's probably no need to let anyone else know. I strongly suggest in future that neither Eugene nor Bill remove the tag again; the frequent removals have become disruptive. If consensus is reached to remove it, please let someone else do it.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, I'm willing to leave it there for a few days to give everyone an opportunity to discuss the issues you mentioned. However, if you don't want me to remove the tag in a few days, then I strongly suggest you respond to my rebuttal of your points in my comments at time 20:58, 18 June 2010 above in an active and substantial manner (i.e. no "drive-by" accusations and complaints).  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether the tag remains isn't up to you and Eugene. It needs to be left to a consensus of editors. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you refuse to discuss the issues while others reach a consensus (which I have no doubt will happen), then don't be surprised that I, or someone else, removes the tag is removed in a few days. And by the way, saying that the article is POV and not giving a reason, or saying "just because", is meaningless when it comes to a consensus.  Such tactics will be ignored.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SV: I implore you, please do not resort to canvassing again. For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia, do not do this. It makes any progress on articles like this one impossible. Do you recall last time, when you canvassed on the atheism wikiproject and not the Christianity, Ancient Near East, Judaism, or any other relevant wikiprojects? It's simply ethically wrong from a scholarly perspective to do what you did. You attempt to flood votes with uninformed editors through these canvass appeals. NJMauthor (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never canvassed in relation to this article; posting a neutral note about an RfC to Wikiproject Atheism and Wikiproject Religion at the same time is not canvassing. And I did not ask anyone to comment about the tag. Please don't buy into Eugene's propaganda. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Buy in?" I was the one who pointed your canvassing out to Eugene, and called it as I saw it. Like I said down below, this isn't a mindless puppet show. NJMauthor (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't keep repeating the canvassing claim; it's wrong and there's no point in trying to turn it into a meme. No one was contacted about the tag, so it's pointless mentioning it anyway. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, can you prove that no one was contacted about the tag? Until you can do that, NJMauthor has a valid point.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's silly - how exactly do you prove a negative? She can't prove a negative therefore she is guilty? --B (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In an oddball way that is in essence one of problems with some of the challenges to the Christ Myth Theory--the idea is presented as somehow trying to prove Jesus never existed. Boyd-Eddy's "we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus Narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus" is IMHO a much clearly and more correct definition.  I still say incorporating this exact quote from a recent reliable source would be a major step in trying to clean up some of the issues the article has had since day one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Bruce. I don't think I've seen one instance of an author who claims to have proven Jesus was just a myth - only authors who argue he may not have existed, given the poverty of historical evidence, and that he need not have existed, as the stories were already in circulation.

Bill, from where I sit, you and SV both have the best interests of the article in sight. Anthony (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, the most egregious and self-defeating use of slanted language is "fringe" and "pseudoscholarship". You know where I stand on that. The theory's status can more effectively be communicated by using words like "virtually no support in mainstream scholarship." "Fringe" and "pseudoscholarship" stink, stink, stink, stink, stink, stink (ad nausium) of bias. It doesn't matter how many RS's you point to. They stink of bias. Stink. Which means they undermine the credibility of the article. Sorry for the shouting. They add nothing to the article. They weaken it. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here. The idea that the evidence that exists is not enough to show the Gospel Jesus existed is fringe.  Remsburg the darling of so many armchair researchers (and who believed in a historical Jesus in the correct time but has gotten the Christ Myth Theorist label slapped on him anyhow) like Boyd-Eddy some 100 years later separated what this article calls Christ Myth theory from the more moderate "Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit."  Even in Remsburg's time (1909) the idea was pretty far out there and time has not changed that.


 * As for sources themselves having bias WP:NPOV covers that: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." If this article does have any POV failings it is in the "analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence." part but this can also be a Refimprove issue or finding that one reliable source that explains a confusing point about the concept.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, do you think the article lacks neutrality, Bruce? If so, which aspects of the subject need clarifying? (I may not respond for a day or so.) Anthony (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I addressed this in what the FAQ (if we ever brought it back) should be addressing:


 * "What separates the Christ Myth Theory from the idea that Jesus existed but the Gospels tell little to nothing about him?" (Both Remsburg and Eddy-Body make this distinction but neither really adequately explains it.)
 * How does the Christ Myth Theory differ from the idea that King Arthur and Robin Hood are composite characters with a possible historical core?" (This is to address varies points such as Jesus Under Fire lists B. L, Mack with Robinson and Funk and vague unclear statements that we have seen in or about some reliable sources. It is partly inspired by Price's Christ is a Fiction article.  Most of the historical Arthurs were never knight in the sense of the stories, likely never even heard of a place called Camelot, and most of them were not even named Arthur!   Robin Hood is even worse.)
 * If the Christ Myth Theory is the idea Jesus never existed why are theories he may have lived a century earlier sometimes considered part of the theory?" (In of light of Robin Hood this is the most poorly explained part of this article. Historical Robin Boods a full century after the events of the stories have been suggested but a Jesus 100 years before is not historical?  How does that work?)
 * I've seen an author call someone who accepts there may have been a first century Jesus a Christ Myth Theorist and am confused regarding the definition. (address the Remsburg, Dawkins and Post-Jesus Myth Wells ala Price problems head on)--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New addition to the context section
This strikes me as inappropriate&mdash;presented as fact, which begs the question. Are there objections to its removal?

"He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, he began his own ministry, preaching in Galilee. He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery and was renowned as a teacher and a healer. Many scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations that the gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem. The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus."

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How about attribution. I like your recent edits, by the way.  Explains it pretty clearly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is more than appropriate. It places the theory within the context. I.e. mainstream historical Jesus scholarship. --Ari (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I got curious, so I decided to see what the notes said. Strangely, that section uses notes that are offline, not in the references section, and the first three don't have page numbers.  That part needs work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So I went to Historicity of Jesus to see what it says about a few of these things, and the word "temple" is only used once, and doesn't shed much light. The word "baptized" is not in that article.  The only thing it says about Galilee is "Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself."  Etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right about the page numbers so I'll chase those up later today. Not quite sure what the word baptism not being in the Historicity of Jesus article has to do with anything? However, for the baptism: Sanders Jesus and Judaism p.11; Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 231. --Ari (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless it is sourced it is WP:OR. John 2-3 makes it clear Jesus started his ministry and Jesus was baptizing his followers and John heard about it "For John was not yet cast into prison" (John 3:24 KJV) In fact, John has as many chronology headaches with the synoptic gospels as trying to get Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born in the same decade does if not more.  You also have the problem that John the Baptist was killed c36 CE and Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome c36 CE.  Try fitting John's three passovers into that!  The only thing truly consistent in the Gospel account is Jesus was killed under the rule of Pontius Pilate--everything else is somewhat of a continuity morass as to what happened when.
 * Peregrine Fisher, go to Bible Gateway and search for "baptized"; the passages you need to look at are Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9, and Luke 3:21. As stated above John is the oddball in this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in Wikipedia's voice, it says "He was baptized by John the Baptist". That means that that part is unquestionably true.  We don't want a primary source (the Bible) for that kind of thing.  We want to know what scholar(s) say it's true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The text in question is in a paragraph that begins: "Most scholars on the historical Jesus believe that a number of historically certain details can be said about the life and ministry of Jesus." The baptism by John the Baptist, etc. are the details that scholars think are historically certain. If it is unclear to readers that the entire paragraph lists bits of Jesus' life that scholars (in general) think to be historical events, then perhaps the paragraph should be rewritten; but how to do that without beginning every sentence "most scholars believe"?

Also worth considering: is all of this text necessary? It seems like enough to say that most scholars believe Jesus existed, and the gospels provide valuable evidence about his life and deeds... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My bad. I didn't look closely enough.  But, if "Sanders 1985, p. 11Crossan 1991, p. 234" says that "most scholars believe He was baptized by John the Baptist...", and if "Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)" says that "most scholars believe He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery" then I think that's great info to have.  It may be overlapping with the historicity article, but that's OK with me, because I don't think a reader should have to read too many other articles to understand the one they're at currently, especially if it's a GA or FA.  If they don't say that, then that's another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And looking a bit closer, I doubt most scholars believe that he used "pithy parables with startling imagery", so that section is not using it's sources right, or the "Most scholars believe" part should be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite follow the logic here. You contest that most scholars believe Jesus used "pithy parables with startling imagery" therefore instead of removing that you argue we should remove "Most scholars believe." That said, like the baptism most scholars do believe Jesus taught in parables. Even the most critical form critics would argue that the parables are the best preserved sayings of Jesus.(E.g. Bultmann.) Even Mack defends the aphorisms and parables. On this point I. Howard Marshall writes, ""It can be said with confidence that theere are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical scholars." --Ari (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, I had it backwards. Let's figure out what most scholars believe and add that.  Starting with the John the Baptist part, what does the source say?  Can you give me a bit of a quote?  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From what was cited and quoted in the article: "Two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent. They bracket the three years for which Jesus is most remembered, his life's work, his mission. One is Jesus' baptism by John. The other is his death by crucifixion. Because they rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts'..." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered p.339.) --Ari (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great info. I'll try and work it in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I made an adjustment . Hopefully it's OK.  So, what does the ref say about "After John was executed, he began his own ministry, preaching in Galilee"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunn's comment raises issues again with Wells' current theory which expressly states "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." (Wells (2003) Can We Trust the New Testament? pg 43). Also Islamic religion holds Jesus existed but was not crucified so there are problem with religious bias in his statement.  This is the problem with using this and similar comments to show the CMT is fringe--they have other problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything you said is totally irrelevant to Dunn's comment. Dunn (a scholar) made a note on what historical scholarship believes. This has nothing to do with imagined claims of religious bias or what some non-experts (you or Wells) believes. Engaging in OR will not change what the majority of scholarship believes. --Ari (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And Dunn's quote unless it is in connection to this matter is also WP:OR which was my point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Original research is not reporting exactly what the source says. Original research is your proposal of changing what historians agree upon to what you personally believe. WP doesn't care for that. --Ari (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is not what you are doing, Ari89. What you keep doing is WP:SYN a form of WP:OR: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume that you have no idea what I am talking about. It is the only way to make sense of whatever you are trying to dispute, as I have absolutely no clue what it is.--Ari (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) We should probably summarize all those things as well. We need sources that explicity say what the consensus is for this section, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To save from more unfounded claims of OR, the citation provided is I. Howard Marshall p.215-7. Here Marshall discusses the "bare minimum" historical scholarship says about Jesus. In fact, he states that "It can be said with confidence that there are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars." These are what he quotes as what most scholars agree on: ""He was baptised by John the Baptist, and the beginning of his ministry was in some way linked with that of the Baptist. In his own ministry Jesus was above all the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and who challenged his hearers to respond to the reality that he was proclaiming. The authority and effectiveness of Jesus as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God was reinforced by an apparently deserved reputation as an exorcist. In a world that believed in gods, in powers of good and evil, and in demons, he was able, in the name of God and his Kingdom, to help those who believed themselves to be possessed by demons. A fundamental concern of Jesus was to bring together into a unified group those who responded to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God irrespective of their sex, previous background or history. A central feature of the life of this group was eating together, sharing a common meal that celebrated their unity in the new relationship with God, which they enjoyed on the basis of their response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom. In this concern for the unity of the group of those who responded to the proclamation, Jesus challenged the tendency of the Jewish community of his day to fragment itself and in the name of God to reject certain of its own members. This aroused a deep-rooted opposition to him, which reached a climax during a Passover celebration in Jerusalem when he was arrested, tried by the Jewish authorities on a charge of blasphemy and by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and crucified. During his lifetime he had chosen from among his followers a small group of disciples who had exhibited in their work in his name something of his power and authority.""

BruceGrubb, I get it - you personally don't agree with what scholars believe. You have your own hypothesis that you have presented as an alternative to, for example, Jesus' baptism. However, we are reporting the verifiable views of what mainstream scholarship believes about Jesus. --Ari (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ari, how about toning it down a notch and commenting on the contributions, not the contributors? Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the article. I do not why that should stop me replying to the criticisms of myself... --Ari (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides this quote says nothing about how this relates to the CMT which was my original point. Taking this or any similar passage that doesn't expressly and directly reference at least the concept of the CMT and saying it demonstrates CMT's fringeness is WP:OR.  We have plenty of reliable sources that say the CTM is fringe even if you include the borderline Jesus may have not existed concept that we don't need this from of WP:SYN nonsense.  I would like to point out there are as many (if not more) fringe ideas about Jesus that also don't fit the above but (and here is the important part) THEY ARE NOT CMT.  The above would be good for the Historicity of Jesus article but for this article it serves no purpose.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was never your point. Your point was constantly trying to undercut what scholars believe with your own personal hypothesis. And now you go on another irrelevant tangent. No one said that what the mainstream believe is meant to be about establishing the CMT as fringe. The CMT is beyond fringe and the discussions for that are above under the pseudo-scholarship. This is about setting the context and giving meaning to the diagram. --Ari (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very close to violating WP:Civil by implying I am a lier. Where does this quote involved the CTM?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed a para
Here it is:


 * Biblical scholars and classical historians believe that a number of statements about Jesus's life and ministry can be made with considerable certainty. It is widely held that he was a Galilean Jew born between 7 and 4 BCE and crucified around 30 CE. He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, he began his own ministry preaching in Galilee. He was perceived by his contemporaries as a teacher, healer, and exorcist, preaching about the kingdom of God using parables and startling imagery. He chose from among his followers a small group of apostles whom he sent out to spread his message. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were running high in Jerusalem. The gospels say the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution by crucifixion. After his death, the apostles proclaimed his resurrection and continued his ministry.

From what I've seen so far, it doesn't accurately reflect it's references. We need to fix this before we put it back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Marshall included all of those things as widely believed by even the most critical scholars. Although that would suffice for references, additional citations have been provided. As you raised no specific issues I restored this. --Ari (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, you want specifics, so let's look at the first two statements and their refs. After the first few refs of a para I see are invalid, I believe that we should look at all of them and make sure they're OK.  They may have gotten mixed up in an edit mistake or who knows, but regardless, things are not right.  If you require an explanation for every sentence with an offline reference, and why I think it may not be correct, then just tell me, and I'll take this article off my watchlist and let you do whatever you want.  I'm not actually pushing a POV, and am just trying to help improve the refing in this article.
 * "It is widely held that he was a Galilean Jew born between 7 and 4 BCE and crucified around 30 CE." - This is attributed to "Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993." with no page number, and there's nothing in the "References" section.
 * "He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, he began his own ministry preaching in Galilee." It's ref says "Sanders 1985, p. 11 Crossan 1991".  Neither one exists in the "References" section.
 * Earlier I couldn't find a ref to support a statement, and it was provided by Ari, but the ref wasn't the one used, it was one found at the end of the paragraph supporting something else entirely. While it ended up working, and improved the article greatly with its addition, it wasn't the ref that was used before I asked question. I do not have faith that these refs support these statements.  Again, it may just be that things were garbled by a funky edit sometime in the past.  I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were pushing a POV, so no need to get defensive and threaten leaving the article. I typed out two pages of what Marshall said most scholars believe above, so I don't see the point in having to defend all these additional citations. It seems that you may have missed that, so here it is again:

"To save from more unfounded claims of OR, the citation provided is I. Howard Marshall p.215-7. Here Marshall discusses the "bare minimum" historical scholarship says about Jesus. In fact, he states that "It can be said with confidence that there are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars." These are what he quotes as what most scholars agree on: ""He was baptised by John the Baptist, and the beginning of his ministry was in some way linked with that of the Baptist. In his own ministry Jesus was above all the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and who challenged his hearers to respond to the reality that he was proclaiming. The authority and effectiveness of Jesus as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God was reinforced by an apparently deserved reputation as an exorcist. In a world that believed in gods, in powers of good and evil, and in demons, he was able, in the name of God and his Kingdom, to help those who believed themselves to be possessed by demons. A fundamental concern of Jesus was to bring together into a unified group those who responded to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God irrespective of their sex, previous background or history. A central feature of the life of this group was eating together, sharing a common meal that celebrated their unity in the new relationship with God, which they enjoyed on the basis of their response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom. In this concern for the unity of the group of those who responded to the proclamation, Jesus challenged the tendency of the Jewish community of his day to fragment itself and in the name of God to reject certain of its own members. This aroused a deep-rooted opposition to him, which reached a climax during a Passover celebration in Jerusalem when he was arrested, tried by the Jewish authorities on a charge of blasphemy and by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and crucified. During his lifetime he had chosen from among his followers a small group of disciples who had exhibited in their work in his name something of his power and authority.""

This seems to cover most things in the list, and that is why the citation was provided at the start of the list. What is widely held is coming after + additional citations. If you have a problem with the additional citations, we can remove them; not the whole cited paragraph.

Furthermore, here is another chunk on the "consensus" for the passion narrative: "Overwhelmingly, modern scholars accept as secure the broad outline of the passion narratives, from Last Supper to final breath...there is a strong consensus...that affirms at least the following few facs: Jesus shared a final meal with the twelve during the Passover week of AD 30; he was betrayed by one of the twelve; he was arrested by the Temple guards; he was interrogated by the Jewish authorities and then 'officially' tried by Pontius Pilate; after scourging, he was crucified outside the walls of Jersualem under the charge, 'King of the Jews'." --Ari (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. That was a knee jerk and uncalled for comment about POV. Just wanted to say that before I read what you said. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So, is it Marshall 2001 or 2004, or are there seperate books? I'm trying to tie the Notes and References sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be 2004 (I think at one stage I put 2001 on the basis of the online bibliographical data but that is incorrect.) It is one of those books that went through some expansions and changes with different publishers. --Ari (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My internet is acting up, otherwise I would change it.
 * Now I'm looking at the quote you provided on Gbooks. It has a lot of good info, but the part you quoted is just him quoting Perrin.  It's only after that that Marshall actually discussed what scholars in general believe.  And the situation is complicated, what with the "few elements...cosidered inauthentic" part.  Our para makes it sound simple when it's not.  That book has great info, and when I read Marshall I feel I'm starting to understand the subject, but when I read our para, I don't feel that way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship
I'd like to propose that we remove any reference to pseudoscholarship or pseudohistory from the lead. Its placement there has caused a lot of dissent, and it makes the lead appear POV by using language that's insulting. Could we have a straw poll here to see if removal has support?


 * Support removal. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment do we have a reasonable number of reliable sources directly and explicitly saying this If so we need to keep it in.  If on the other hand it is like one or two dump it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the old FAQ #2. It contains a whole host of quotations.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The majority of those show the CMT as fringe. Few of the quotes say anything about pseudoscholarship or pseudohistory and that can be a problem.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is not POV for something that is viewed by the academy as pseudo-scholarship to be identified as such. To remove it would be POV. --Ari (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ari. It also goes against the  Fringe guideline.  In addition, obfuscating reliable and verifiable information because someone, or a group of people, find something insulting or offensive is clearly indicative of a POV.  See FAQ #2 on Muhammad for an example - Shouldn't the images be removed because they might offend Muslims?.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal. NathairNimheil (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this vote. This has been a circular debate for at least two years. How is a bunch of "support"/"oppose" going to solve anything. We have discussed this in much more depth than a simple "yes/no" question. The fact remains that inasmuch this article has a scope at all different from historicity of Jesus, it is because it discusses the recent touting of the idea in pseudo-scholarly or popular books. I would still prefer merging this article and removing the "pseudoscholarship", but as long as the merger isn't possible, the existence of the article is in fact only justified because it focusses on pseudoscholarship. I do not keep slapping "merge" tags on the article because I think the discussion has completely derailed even without trying to push any drastic moves, but this doesn't take away from the fact that I remain unconvinced that this article is anything other than a glorified WP:CFORK. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly support removal. I am not able to check all of the sources, but this looks very much like a case of WP:SYN. Is anyone able to verify that any one of the sources given supports the claim "most (biblical scholars and classical historians] regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship"? The first source says "There is a good deal of psuedoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print", which is not the same thing at all. Two of the other sources are far too old to be of use (if they mention any academic consensus about pseudoscience then the academics in question will be long dead). --FormerIP (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the other two cites are "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position" and "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth". None of this tells us anything about "most" scholars or their view on CMT as pseudo scholarship in general. The strongest claim that can be made on the basis on these sources, I think, it that some scholars have considered some examples of CMT to be psedoscholarship. --FormerIP (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly support removal. For the reasons stated above by FormerIP. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'd like pseudoscholarship removed. I think it's accurate, but I'm still not convinced it's a real enough word for us to use it.  Not sure about pseudohistory, but if it is pejorative, then it should probably go as well.  The fact that it's pejorative isn't referenced, so I'm not sure that's true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And in fact, I think what FormerIP says about pseudoscience should be included in the article, with attribution and which types of examples are considered to be pseudoscience. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be a solution. One thing that occurs to me, though, is that it looks like a number of proponants of CMT are serious academics, even though they may be persuing a minority sport. Think we need quite stong sourcing for any implication that bona fide scholars are engaged in pseudo-scholarship. On the other hand, there seem to be authors who write "potboilers" on the subject. These might count as pseudo-scholarship (although I have not read any of them - they may well be excellent), but they are also less noteworthy, I would suggest, so less space should be spent on discussing them.
 * Also, the fact that works of pseudo-scholarship may exist on a subject should not be confused with that subject being pseudo-scholarship per se. For example, lots of popular and not-very-acadmic books are written about the Dead Sea Scrolls. This does not mean, though, that studying the Dead Sea Scrolls is pseudo-scholarship. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FormerIP is right that just because some people engage in pseudo-scholarship in relation to this doesn't mean that everyone does. It's arguably a BLP violation to name the living academic proponents in the lead, then to say in the next paragraph, in Wikipedia's voice, that most scholars regard it as pseudo-scholarship. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A BLP violation? I see absolutely no justification for suggesting that calling a fringe subject fringe violates that policy. Can you please elaborate on this, or could you please not try to scare people into believing that we can't accurately reflect reality.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can reject it as a BLP vio without knowing what we're actually dealing with. I did a (very) quick gBooks search and didn't come up with much, but I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, Griswaldo, the lead says that academic X and academic Y are proponents, then we proceed to call it pseudo-scholarship, without in-text attribution. We are therefore saying that academic X and academic Y are engaged in pseudo-scholarship. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) "We" are doing no such thing. It is the reliable sources who characterize the CMT as such. And to include that in the article is simply following the WP:fringe guidelines. Thus, there is no BLP violation at all. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Except the sources currently cited do not support the statement in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. If you click on reference #3, it will take you to the bottom of the page where the sources are listed.  Also, if you want a whole host of quotes from reliable sources, here is a link to the old FAQ #2 (Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position?).  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any source that tells us that most such scholars regard CMT as a whole as pseudo-scholarship, only a succession of sources that tell us something about the attitude of an individual to some example or aspect of CMT. What's needed is not not 10, 50 or 8,000 sources from which a conclusion can be drawn and included in the article. Instead we need just one source, as long as it actually supports the statement in the article (see WP:SYN). --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the number of sources is indicative of what most scholars think. I've heard William Lane Craig, in one of his debates, say that the non-existence of Jesus doesn't even appear on the "map" of NT history.  I can look up the debate if you want to listen to it.  In the mean time, try this link.  It is an interview with Bart Ehrman (who is an atheist/agnostic).  The relevant portion is around the 6:20 to 7 minute mark, but I suggest you listen to it from the beginning for purposes of context.  I promise you that it is well worth your time.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That might be an interesting listen sometime, Bill, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion, which is specifically about the term "pseudo-scholarship". --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You said that you had concerns with using the term "pseudo-scholarship" because you weren't convinced that it represented how "most" scholars regard the CMT as a whole. I gave you a list of abundant quotes and an audio link that confirms how great the rejection of the CMT is among the relevant scholars.  If the quotes and the link do not adequately answer your concerns, then perhaps you can rephrase and elaborate exactly what your concerns are.   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether I am convinced, Bill. It is about whether there is a source to back up the claim. How great the rejection of CMY amongst scholars is also not the question. The question is whether most of them consider it to be psuedo-scholarship, which is a strong claim not supported by any sources at present. --FormerIP (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there are sources. Abundant sources, in fact.  And those sources are in the article.  What exactly are you looking for?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me Bill, but I don't think you are following. No source is provided that links a phrase such as "most scholars" to CMT in general to the term "pseudo-scholarship". For example, we have a source that says "There is a good deal of psuedoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print". But this does not mention CMT and it does not mention "most scholars". No number of such examples will do. You just need one source that supports the statement in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject itself is fringe. Call it pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, fringe, or whatever you want but it isn't an accepted perspective on the historicity of Jesus even if some of people involved are otherwise respectable.  Respectable scholars publish weirder and more out there stuff than this all the time btw.  If you don't like the term pseudoscholarship find a better one that labels this for what it is.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support taking it out of the lead unless it is incredibly carefully worded. I am mindful that some scholars have described it in extremely hostile terms. But (to simplify somewhat) there are strong and weak versions, and it is not always clear which are intended to be covered. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Find less hostile alternative --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC) While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2] could be too soft. Perhaps While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[2] many of whom contest its scholarship.[3] is stronger, but less hostile.
 * Keep Slimvirgin is attempting to usurp discussion by calling these silly do-or-die polls. It is my personal belief that Slimvirgin should be removed from the administrator position on wikipedia for abuse, canvassing and unethical behavior regarding the scholarly process. NJMauthor (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * MJ, this is not a platform for you to voice your opinions of other editors. Please refrain from doing so.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, what platform would you prefer? NJMauthor (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones that deal with editor behavior. Take your pick.  I don't think this poll is productive either but that's all that needs to be said on the matter.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Anthony (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly support removal. The exact same point can be made using non-inflammatory language. These terms just perpetuate this circus. I advocate the intelligent use of language to achieve the same or better communication without creating discord. Anthony (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support We can easily refer to it as a minority position within biblical scholarship without using POV terms such as Pseudo-history. If specific scholars refer to specific historians as 'pseudo-scholars' or the theory as 'pseudo-history' then this can be referenced in the body in appropriate sections if it is noteworthy. As an aside, this seems obvious to me and people really need to take a step back and read policy as well as reevaluate their reasons for editing.--Woland (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not about a minority position. That is, this article is about a fringe theory.  Virtually no relevant scholarship exists that take the CMT as being in any way valid.  In fact, the degree of rejection of the CMT is so overwhelming by scholars that calling it "pseudo-whatever" is being kind.  If you want a whole host of quotes from reliable sources, here is a link to the old FAQ #2 (Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position?).  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying and I read that faq before I posted here. I simply disagree with the some of the POV terms in the lead. As an example look at the Aquatic ape hypothesis. It is an idea that is certainly in the fringe category but doesn't delve into POV language in the intro. The body of the article presents the theory as well as the overwhelmingly mainstream consensus against it.--Woland (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. So, we have mainstream scholarship calling the position, which is beyond the fringe of scholarship, pseudo-history/scholarship. I am yet to see a reason raised as to why we should reject what mainstream reliable and verifiable sources state on the matter. WP is about verifiability. --Ari (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual statement in the article ("most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship") is not currently supported by any source. All we have is three individual contemporary scholars (plus two pre-war) calling individual examples of CMT pseudo. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Removal per FormerIP. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal People, fringe is NOT the same as pseudoscholarship or pseudohistory.   Take a look at White dwarf for the brilliant response of the scientific community in 1914 as documented by Sir Arthur Eddington regarding the discovery of the first white dwarf: "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense."  A white dwarf was fringe in 1914 but was NOT pseudoscholarship or pseudoscience-the conclusions of the observations were based on good solid Newtonian physics.  A modern example would be the age of the Sphinx debate where the idea that the Sphinx predates its supposed constructor by centuries if not thousands of years is considered fringe.  This is where this article keeps getting into trouble; it keeps assuming fringe = pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or pseudoscience.  Fringe is just that--fringe; nothing more nothing less.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in this section, but I'd like to maybe discuss this more, if it's true. It sounds important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Category:Fringe_theory. A piece of scholarship can be fringe in either its conclusions, its methods or both.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And this differs from my point, how?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal of "pseudoscholarship". It is pseudoscholarship. Keep it. -- JALatimer 17:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, reliable sources call it pseudo-scholarship; reliable sources note that no historians in any peer-reviewed or academic work argue it. Reliable sources note that it abandons historical method. etc. It seems that editors prefer their personal biases to what the reliable sources say on the matter. --Ari (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except no reliable source defines the word pseudoscholarship. It's not whether CMT is not accepted by scholars, it's whether we're using a word that we shouldn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, fringe is not always pseudoscholarship.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's described by reliable sources as such. Even if there's no amazing definition of pseudo-scholarship, that's what reliable sources call it, and we can't whitewash reliable sources if we don't like a particular word. 21:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep Purple Dreams (talk • contribs)
 * Support removal from the lead. A fringe theory based on sound scholarship is not the same as pseudoscholarship - however that may be defined. Respected scholars who support a fringe theory do not suddenly become pseudoscholars. I agree that those mainstreamers who use the word "pseudoscholarship" should have that point noted in their dedicated sub-sections, but the lead would be better with less emotive wording. Wdford (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)