Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 18

Source request
Could someone post here what the sources say for the claim in the last paragraph of the context section: "The Christ myth theory stands outside this continuum ..."? They are Walsh, George (1998). The Role of Religion in History, p. 58, and Goguel, Maurice (1926b). "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), p. 117–118. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought this up a while back - see this discussion. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't use a source from 1926 to define a theory that people are writing about in 2010. The 1998 source (Walsh) would be more appropriate, but the question is what does he say. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's there too: ''[W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory.
 * George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998) p. 58''
 * ^^James^^ (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realize it was the same Walsh that we start the section with. He doesn't say anything about a continuum. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry again, Goguel is for something else. The other footnote (17) is Meynell, Hugo A. (1991), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (2nd ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press,   p 166; and Horbury, William (2003), "The New Testament", in Ernest Nicholson, A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, Oxford University Press,  p. 55.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The first one, Meynell, doesn't say anything about a continuum. Nor does Horbury.   SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We may also have a problem with this sentence: "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." The two positions are both historical Jesus positions, minimalist and the other extreme. Sourced to Marshall, pp 249-250.

Google won't let me see those pages. But on p 24, Marshall talks about the spectrum, but he includes the Christ myth theory within that spectrum, not outside it as our article is trying to claim: "We have in effect been looking at two myths in this introductory chapter; two views of the historical Jesus which stand at opposite ends of the spectrum ... At the one end is the view that there was never such a person as Jesus; the Gospels are descriptions of a fictitious person. We have no hesitation in declaring that this view of Jesus is false ... At the other end of the spectrum is the view that the Gospels give us a picture of the historical Jesus, every detail in the Gospels being recorded just as it happened. This view too much be pronounced as false, though it is ... much nearer the truth than the first view." SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That section now reads:

Philosopher George Walsh writes that early Christianity can either be regarded as originating as a myth later dressed up as history, or with an historical being who was later mythologized. The theory that it began as a myth is known as the Christ myth theory; the second as the historical Jesus theory.

The spectrum of views include that there was never such a person as Jesus and that the gospels describe a fictitious person; biblical minimalism, expressed by writers such as Rudolf Bultmann and Thomas L. Thompson, who argue that Jesus did exist but that virtually nothing can be known about him, and that many (perhaps all) of the episodes in the gospels are legendary; and fundamentalism, represented by writers like Charles L. Feinberg and Charles Ryrie, who argue for the literal historicity of each event depicted in the New Testament.

Biblical scholars and classical historians believe that a number of statements about Jesus can be made with considerable certainty:


 * 1) He was a Galilean Jew born between 7 and 4 BCE and crucified around 30 CE.
 * 2) He was perceived by his contemporaries as a teacher, healer, and exorcist.
 * 3) He was baptized by John the Baptist.
 * 4) After John was executed, he began his own ministry preaching in Galilee about the kingdom of God, often using parables.
 * 5) He chose from among his followers a small group of apostles whom he sent out to spread his message.
 * 6) During Passover, when political and religious tensions were running high in Jerusalem, the temple guards arrested him on charges of blasphemy; he was tried by Pontius Pilate and crucified on charges of sedition as "King of the Jews."
 * 7) After his death, the apostles proclaimed his resurrection and continued his ministry.

Biblical scholar L. Michael White, not himself a Christ-myth theorist, writes that there are no extent writings from Jesus himself. So far as is known, Jesus did not write anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him. There are no court records, diaries, unvarnished eyewitness accounts, or any other kind of first-hand record. The gospels themselves, though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all come from later times. The earliest writings that survive are the letters of Paul of Tarsus, and they were written 20–30 years after the dates given for Jesus's death. Paul was not a follower of Jesus; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus.


 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a particularly hard subject to deal with because of the lack of reliable sources. We need to make do with what we have, even if it's from the 1920s. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't use a 1926 source to tell us what's being said in 2010. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but as I have said numerous times before, Walsh's overly simplistic categorization has major problems. Mead, Robinson, and Ellegard all state Jesus existed (ie the second part of Walsh's definition which states what is the historical Jesus) but they put him c100 BCE.  Then you have Remsburg and to a lesser degree Mack saying there was a pre-existing Christ Myth that the historical Jesus was plugged into ie Jesus started with a myth (Walsh's definition of Christ Myth theory).  Thompson in The Messiah myth: the Near Eastern roots of Jesus and David goes even further with suggesting that three separate per-existing mythologies (Myth of the Good King, Myth of the Conquering Holy Warrior, and and the Myth of the Dying and Rising God) were woven into the oral story of the historical Jesus.  Then there is the idea that there was a "Christ Myth" that Jesus was intentionally trying to fulfill (again Christ Myth Theory using Walsh's definition as it started out as a myth).--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Another source request
We say: "Biblical scholars and classical historians believe that a number of statements about Jesus can be made with considerable certainty." Source is Marshall, 2004, pp 215-217. Does anyone know what he says? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of THAT one book is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=W0GvdSMkKRMC&q=blasphemy#v=onepage&q=baptism&f=false - but one source does not indicate agreement. For example, Marshall accepts a trial for blasphemy during Passover - but I have heard much disagreement over that JimWae (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see what he says on those pages. If he says something like: "Biblical scholars and classical historians believe that a number of statements about Jesus can be made with considerable certainty," we can use in-text attribution. But if he only says he believes that a number of statements can be made with certainty, we can't move from that to biblical scholars in general. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Marshall states: "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." --Ari (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which does not mean there is nothing there that is contested - and "very few" seems to acknowledge that "a few" could be contested--JimWae (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Try http://books.google.com/books?id=W0GvdSMkKRMC&q=%22bare+minimum%22#v=snippet&q=%22bare%20minimum%22&f=false JimWae (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but Google won't let me see it. What you can see depends on which country you're in, I believe, and possibly also on what you've looked at before. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see all 3 pages. Maybe I'll type it out -- However, Marshall seems to use the meagreness of the "bare minimum" view to argue that something much more important (like a Resurrection) must have happened to make the movement so powerful. I think that makes his summary a bit suspect JimWae (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does he say or imply that "biblical scholars and classical historians believe that a number of statements about Jesus can be made with considerable certainty," or does he express that as his own view? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just seen the pages and they don't seem to say that. Marshall is arguing that the minimalist version can't be true because how could such a ministry be based on almost nothing. But it's an argument, not a review of what scholars safely assume. He does cite some basic statements about Jesus proposed by Perrin and Fuller, statements more meagre than we have in our article, and which Marshall says most scholars would regard as authentic. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

- actually Marshall only cites Perrin, then says Fuller accepts more than Perrin. Marshall does not say where Perrin says this, but here on page 545 we can see that Perrin's "endorsement" of a Passover trial for perjury is not clear-cut -- and that on page 546 it appears he might even be arguing against it. --JimWae (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perrin uses the criterion of double dissimilarity in a very strict sense, that is why his list is more limited than Fuller's. --Ari (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you able to find what source (by Perrin) Marshall uses for this "summary"? Does Perrin argue against Passover trial for blasphemy or not?--JimWae (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the ref. The cite is on page 235 of Marshall's book and it is to Perrin's 1974 book. Also see this search --JimWae (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have run numerous searches of Perrin's 1974 book So far, I have found nothing that shows Marshall is quoting rather than summarizing. Marshall's note on page 235 indicates pages 287-301 - another indication that he is paraphrasing Perrin --JimWae (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * baptized appears on 6 pages baptised does not match at all. Marshall uses "baptised JimWae (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is confusing because we explain that, among those who argue for an historical Jesus, there is minimalism and fundamentalism. We say the minimalists argue that Jesus did exist but that virtually nothing can be known about him. But then we go on to give this list of what biblical scholars and classical historians believe can be said about Jesus "with considerable certainty":


 * 1) He was a Galilean Jew born between 7 and 4 BCE and crucified around 30 CE.
 * 2) He was perceived by his contemporaries as a teacher, healer, and exorcist.
 * 3) He was baptized by John the Baptist.
 * 4) After his baptism, he began his own ministry preaching in Galilee.
 * 5) He preached about the kingdom of God, often using parables.
 * 6) He chose from among his followers a small group of apostles whom he sent out to spread his message.
 * 7) During Passover, when political and religious tensions were running high in Jerusalem, the temple guards arrested him on charges of blasphemy; he was tried by Pontius Pilate and crucified on charges of sedition as "King of the Jews."
 * 8) After his death, the apostles proclaimed his resurrection and continued his ministry.


 * By offering this list without in-text attribution, are we not saying in Wikipedia's voice that the minimalists are wrong? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said before this and similar quotes that don't themselves include references to the concepts of the CMT are more useful for Historicity of Jesus and tryign to use them for this article is WP:SYN. We have more than enough reliable sources that expressly and directly state the CMT is fringe that we don't need this type of nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BG, don't look at me. I've been saying that the CMT is fringe all along.  Even Sophia, James, Anthony, and others have said as much (to the best of my recollection).  However, I don't think it's a bad idea to include a description of what scholarly minimalists say in order to differentiate between minimalism and myth proponents.  I think that is why Eugene introduced the graphic in the "Context and definition" section.  That is, minimalists do not deny an historical personage, even though very little can be known about him (I mean, the list above is pretty dang minimal) while CMT proponents affirm him as fictional, which is what this article is about.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sources are not entirely clear on where the break is between minimalists and Christ myth theory. Volney's and Dodd's "memories of an obscure historical figure", Michael Grant's statement (regarding the Christ Myth theory) that "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." and similar reliable sources all raise more questions about what the "Christ myth theory" is than they really answer.  Throw in non scholars like Holding who slap the the "Christ Myth Theory" label on minimalists like Remsburg and "Jesus agnostics" like Dawkins, awkward definitions like Walsh's, conflicting statement "Jesus never existed" vs "Jesus existed but in a different century" and the reasons why this article is still a train wreck after three years is painfully obvious.  It is not so much is the CMT fringe but where the break with the minimalists actually is and as I said some three years ago that varies depending on which author's definition you select.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, if we are saying anything in a WP "voice", then it should be excluded. What matters is what  reliable sources say.  And what those RS's say is that the CMT is outside the realm of minimalism.  So, trying to include the CMT in the minimalist camp is certainly WP:SYN as well as WP:OR.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To repeat once again for BruceGrubb, the purpose of this is not to establish the clear and accepted fact that CMT is fringe. It is to place the theory in the wider spectrum of debate, which I believe is very important. Some notes I just made from the Dan Barker and Chris Forbes debate on CMT, Forbes' opening: "Chris Forbes in the debate goes on to separate what an “intelligent amateur historian” may think with what “professionals think on this subject”. He defines professionals as those with “postgraduate qualifications” in relevant disciplines who “publish in peer-reviewed journals and bring out books in decent university presses.” How “professional” historians from all beliefs agree that: Mark’s Gospel was written first, Matt and Luke came after using other things. There was a period of oral tradition before this. “Overwhelming consensus” on a number of things agreed upon by the “great majority of professional historians” which he lists as follows: --Ari (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Jesus believed in the dawning intervention of God in history, which he called the “coming of the Kingdom of God.”
 * 2) Jesus believed himself to be in some sense God’s ultimate messenger. Jesus’ own activities were in some sense inaugurating the great change that eh believed was happening in his life time.
 * 3) Setting up of twelve disciples – symbolic of him renewing Israel.
 * 4) Believed himself and was believed to perform exorcisms and other kinds of miracles.
 * 5) Preached God’s undeserved forgiveness and offer of reconciliation. Gave forgiveness and offered friendship and fellowship with corrupt public servants and prostitutes
 * 6) A critical of the religious establishment of his day, expected to be killed for his views.
 * 7) Jesus believed his death would have something to do with God’s redeeming activities.
 * 8) Jesus believed his own mission was primarily to the people of Israel, but less certain, at a later stage would be taken to the wider world."
 * It would help to have a transcript of this debate as it is a pain to go through some 101 minutes of the audio I found (sadly via a blog page called Ari's Blog of Awesome so it is not usable as a reference) checking things. However, Boyd-Eddy does give a more reliable source (one I am trying to use to clean up the somewhat misleading mess the definition is in) that states that "increasingly common view amoung New Testament scholars today (...) argue, the Jesus we find as this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament."


 * Going back to the debate in the version I have around 8:25 Dan Barker states that "we need to distinguish the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the New Testament; they were not necessarily the same person." Dan Barker also states that there was 5 to 10 percent chance there was historical Jesus but the New Testament Jesus did not exist.  At 9:41 Barker clearly states "I am not ruling out the possibility that there was a 1st century self-proclaimed messiah named Yeshua.  There certainly could have been.  There were others."  Since Barker is not saying Jesus (Yeshua) didn't exist as a person (only it is a low probability) this is NOT in agreement with those reliable sources that define the "Christ Myth Theory" as saying Jesus never existed.  In fact, a quick search via google produced only one book that connected Dan Barker with any of the people given the Christ Myth label and that book was by Apologetics Press Inc..  So this debate is less about the Christ Myth theory in the "Jesus never existed" most and more about the Gospels tell us nothing about a historical Jesus which Boyd-Eddy put outside The Christ Myth theory box.  If anything the Dan Barker-Chris Forbes debate is more along the lines of Legendary Jesus Thesis vs Gospels tell a reasonable account than one debunking the Christ Myth theory.  As such it has no place in this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on minor change to one phrase
I would like to change the phrase: "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians" to "They give priority to the earlier writings, the Pauline epistles, over the later writings, the gospels, in determining the views of the earliest Christians"

Any objections? I made this change already, but Ari removed it. I think it is helpful to put the two sets of sources in historical context, and this only adds eight words to the sentence, so I don't think it is putting an unreasonable burden on the reader. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support the change proposed by PLH - the only effect is to clarify that the epistles are older than the gospels, which fact is not in dispute. Wdford (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also find PLH's proposal clearer, especially for people not familiar with the texts. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous and important factual issues with it and that is why I restored the previous wording for it. For example, the Epistles of the New Testament are not the Pauline epistles. The epistles are not necessarily older than the Gospels, and that is not even by going into the issue about the pre-Gospel sources. --Ari (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ari, thanks for self-reverting. It makes for a better atmosphere if we can try to build on the edits of the person before us. How would you write that sentence to make it clear and informative for people not familiar with the issue?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For reasons of factual accuracy, I would suggest the version I restored. Maybe we could be more specific with what we mean by epistles. Instead of "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians [about Jesus]" to - "In determining early Christian views about Jesus advocates/proponents/whatever-word-we-are-using prioritise the New Testament epistles over the gospels." Or "In determining early Christian views about Jesus advocates/proponents/whatever-word-we-are-using prioritise the epistles of the New Testament over the gospels." --Ari (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the reason some people give higher priority to the epistles of Paul than to the gospels in determining the beliefs of early Christians is precisely because these epistles were written before the gospels were written. The Wikipedia articles on the Pauline epistles and the gospels give estimated dates for these writings which show the epistles came before the gospels. I thought this was undisputed fact. Ari, can you point us to reliable sources that dispute this ordering? (The authorship of some of the epistles attributed to Paul is in doubt, but this is a separate issue.) The relative time ordering of these writings is useful information to the reader of this article, since a Bible reader would reasonably think the books of the New Testament are in chronological order (but they are not). Plus it helps explain why some people give higher priority to the epistles in understanding the earliest Christians. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) You changed it from "epistles", which there are 20 of in the NT to the Pauline epistles. I believe Doherty is the one who has some fun with the Epistle to the Hebrews. So, your change modified the sentence to something factually inaccurate. (2) No, it is not an undisputed fact. The gospels rely on earlier sources- e.g. most scholars think Q was put to paper around the same time as Paul was writing, there are debates about Urmarcus, etc. Mark was most likely completed before Hebrews, the Johannine epistles, and others.
 * Therefore, we implement a sentence that isn't factually inaccurate such as: "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians [about Jesus]" to - "In determining early Christian views about Jesus advocates/proponents/whatever-word-we-are-using prioritise the New Testament epistles over the gospels." Or "In determining early Christian views about Jesus advocates/proponents/whatever-word-we-are-using prioritise the epistles of the New Testament over the gospels."
 * --Ari (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further down in this article, it says this:
 * "Proponents of the Christ myth theory note that among the New Testament documents, the epistles—specifically the undisputed epistles of Paul—constitute the oldest sources related to Jesus. Advocates also note that within this earliest stratum of Christian literature, references to biographical details and teachings associated with Jesus are relatively rare.[19] Further, the fuller depictions of Jesus’ life and ministry found in the gospels demonstrate a textual interdependence which Christ myth theory advocates argue undermines the notion that multiple independent sources stand behind the accounts. On this basis, proponents often theorize that the epistles present an early belief in a purely mythical savior-figure who was subsequently historicized (perhaps in a conscientiously allegorical fashion) by the Gospel According to Mark, with Matthew, Luke, and John further imaginatively embellishing Mark’s narrative in their own derivative gospels.[20]"
 * This is clearly consistent with the change I am proposing. Are you disputing this paragraph of the article also? There is a rationale for using some of the epistles (i.e. the earliest ones) over gospels that the scholarly mainstream agrees were written later. Why should we not make this clear to the reader? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Because as I have pointed out multiple times, it is incorrect. You have changed epistles to specifically the Pauline epistles. Proponents do not only rely only on the Pauline epistles. Doherty uses Hebrews among other non-Pauline epistles. The sentence has been changed from what the proponents actually do, to something that is factually incorrect. --Ari (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article on Hebrews suggests that the most likely date of its authorship was the year 63 or 64, whereas the Gospel of Mark was written around the year 70. And the theory of a Q source document is very much in dispute, not a settled debate of mainstream scholarship.
 * But that's OK, we can change this sentence to make it clearer.
 * How about this: "They give priority to the earliest Christian writings, the epistles of Paul and others, over the later writings, the gospels, in determining the views of the earliest Christians."

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But your sentence is not what they do. They use the epistles, which are not always the "earliest Christian writings" over the gospels which are not always the "later writings." --Ari (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the sentence (both in current and previous forms) is that it's not clear what the significance of it is, unless you already know. It now says: "In determining early Christian views about Jesus proponents prioritise the New Testament epistles over the gospels." Is there any way of rewriting it so that someone who knew nothing about any of this would understand what we're getting at, and why we're mentioning it in the lead? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the significance? They selectively abuse the sources? :p --Ari (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! Perhaps we could find a more disinterested way of putting it. :)  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that the CMT proponents (and others as well) consider that certain of the Epistles predate the gospels, and thus present a more reliable picture of the early beliefs of the original Christians than do the gospels. The lead is here summarising the article, from the section 2.2 Evolution of New Testament literature. The specific ref in the article is from Price. Wdford (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It may be worth stating that mythicists generally discount the mainstream scholarly view that the Gospels as we have them are more-or-less reliable written versions of material that was originally oral and prior to all the epistles. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, but do you have a supporting ref to go with that statement? Wdford (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For it must not be forgotten that the materials of the Synoptic Gospels were in existence before they assumed a written form. Literary analysis is apt to forget this obvious fact, and to proceed by literary comparison alone. The Gospel was confessedly at first and for some years a spoken Gospel, and this fact has to be taken into account in any adequate attempt to understand the phenomena.--Net Bible Barrett Pashak (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Graph
I removed this graph from the context section but was reverted. I feel it needs to go because it's original research created by a Wikipedian, and because it contradicts the view of at least some of the sources. Biblical scholar Ian Howard Marshall (2004, p. 24), someone we cite in the article, discusses the belief that Jesus never existed as part of the spectrum of beliefs about the historical Jesus, not as a thing apart as the graph depicts it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it is not WP:OR. What minimalists affirm is radically different than what CMT proponents affirm.  It is certainly part of the spectrum, but note what the article currently says:


 * The theory that it began as a myth is known as the Christ myth theory; the second as the historical Jesus theory.


 * In other words, there are two "camps" - "minimalism" through "maximalism" are in one camp, and the "myth" theory is in another camp. One is "historical" while the other is "fictional".  Perhaps the CMT can be merged into the left hand side of the graph but there still needs to be a distinction between "history" and "fiction".  After all, according to the link provided by SV above, it says (bold added for emphasis):


 * At the one end is the view that there never was such a person. We have no hesitation in declaring that this view of Jesus is false.  It is not possible to explain the rise of the Christian church or the writing of the Gospels and the stream of tradition that lies behind them without accepting the fact that the Founder of Christianity actually existed.


 * So, maybe by merging the CMT into the left side of the graph, with brackets underneath that make the distinction between history and fiction, is the way to go. I think by doing that, it will satisfy everyone's concerns.   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's certainly part of the spectrum, there's no point in hosting a graph that suggests it isn't. (Please read what Marshall says on page 24 about the spectrum; the bit you quote is not the relevant part). And the danger with any graph here is that it might promote one view over another. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that it is not part of the spectrum. However, there is a quite radical distinction between fiction and history. And the part I quoted is certainly relevant, because it makes it clear that among virtually all scholars (as indicated here and elsewhere), the CMT "is false", which is the "level of acceptance" among scholars, per WP:Fringe.  To say otherwise is factually inaccurate.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not discussing whether it is true or false in your or anyone else's opinion, but whether it is part of the spectrum of belief, or something outside the spectrum. Marshall explicitly describes it as part of the spectrum (which of course it is; what else would it be?). Therefore a graph saying otherwise is not neutral, and as it stands is also OR because unsourced and I suspect unsourceable. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when are reliable sources not important?  The CMT is not in the realm of historicity not because I said so, but because that is what virtually all scholars say.  If you want to promote the CMT as a valid, but minority, opinion then feel free to write a book on it.  In the mean time, scholars reject it, and they reject it in no uncertain terms, so that is how it must be described in this article.  Consider what the guidelines on fringe articles  say (bold added for emphasis):


 * When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views.


 * and,


 * Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.


 * and finally,


 * Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance.


 * Therefore, the graph is relevant and your only objection, it seems to me, is that it is not currently displayed in a fashion that makes it obviously part of the spectrum. Fair enough.  Paste it to the left side of the spectrum (to the left of minimalist), make a distinction to its approach as being fictional as opposed to historical, and this section can be "closed".  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, as I said before Walsh's definition has major problems. It implies that ideas like Mead, Robinson, and Ellegard are part of the "based on an historical person whose actions were later mythologized" part even though they put Jesus c100 BCE and we have several reliable sources that classify Robinson as a Christ Myth theorist.  Conversely it puts people who believe a historical Jesus in the 1st century CE was plugged into a pre-existing myth like Remsburg, Thompson, Mack, post Jesus Legend Wells as Christ Myth theorists because they all basically say "Jesus was originally a myth" even though they also have a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this graph and caption both need to go, for these reasons:

(1) The graph is WP:OR. The graph was created by a Wikipedia editor and is not found in any published work.

(2) The caption is OR, as well as confusing and misleading. It says "The Christ myth theory is an alternative explanation of Christian origins to the historical Jesus.[3] The Christ myth theory is to be distinguished from biblical minimalism,[4]  with fundamentalism occupying the extreme maximalist pole of the historical Jesus spectrum.[5]" The references provided do not justify this bit of OR. Furthermore, if you click on the links to the biblical minimalism and maximilism articles you will find that these terms have nothing to do with Jesus or the New Testament; they are about the historicity of Israel as described in the Old Testament.

(2) The graph is false, misleading, and inaccurate. One of the very first sentences of this very article which defines the CMT is this: "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 statement very clearly contradicts this graph. If the CMT says the stories of Jesus were based on one or more actual people, then it is inaccurate to say that the CMT says the figure of Jesus was invented out of nothing. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (2)The caption is very much appropriate, and it illustrates what the article has Walsh stating.
 * (3) The graph is not "false, misleading, and inaccurate." Your example does not demonstrate this in anyway.
 * I am going to restore this graph, as you don't seem to have raised and substantive objections and the discussions are still going on. I would hope that you refrain from repeating bold edits when they have been objected to and are still being discussed. --Ari (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ari, you have failed to address the arguments I made. And, by the way, Walsh's oversimplistic formulation is very flawed, as another editor has pointed out already.  Simply saying you disagree is not a sufficient argument. In any case, it may be a moot point.
 * The graph is clearly WP:OR. End of story.
 * Nevertheless, I am going to leave it in for the moment and let other editors weigh in on this discussion. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The graph is technically correct as it stands. However it is also WP:OR, and since it adds nothing to the article that is not already described adequately in the text, there is no reason to keep it. Wdford (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The graph is not technically correct as there are many reliable sources that portray the Christ Myth Theory an extreme edge of one side of the Quest for Historical Jesus spectrum with the "Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth." of Remsburg being the other extreme. Both are fringe and rejected by modern scholarship but that doesn't make them separate from the spectrum which this graph does.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, although the graph does not actually attempt to portray "the Quest for Historical Jesus spectrum", but rather shows the CMT being distinct from the "historical Jesus spectrum". As this graph is causing confusion and contention, I again suggest that we drop the graph altogether, and rather explain what we mean in simple and concise text. Wdford (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. Please don't anyone revert again, because it's a classic example of OR. WP:NOR says (emphasis in the original): "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the graph is way more trouble than it's worth, it will just be challenged again and again. We should get back to the core issues with this article. NJMauthor (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record Boyd-Eddy (2007) expressly and directly states: "The second thing we need to do before embarking on our investigation is to specify what constitutes the legendary-Jesus thesis we are engaging in this book. To accomplish this, it will prove helpful to break down the wide variety of views regarding the Jesus of history found in New Testament scholarship today into four broad (and admittedly over simplistic) categories. This spectrum of view points is of course, ideal-typical in nature and is offered merely as a useful heuristic."  Boyd-Eddy then gives us "mythic Jesus thesis" (Later called Christ Myth Theory) ala Drews, Bauer, Wells, and Price; Jesus existed but we know nothing about him ala Bultmann and Mack, the mainstream "the historical Jesus was very different from the Gospel Jesus", and finally "The Gospels give a reasonable accurate picture of the Historical Jesus".  After this Boyd-Eddy reiterates "This fourth grouping, like the others, is quite broad in terms of representative perspectives."   So there it is, three time in a recent reliable source that the concept of the Christ Myth Theory is part of a broader spectrum and the categories shown are merely "a useful heuristic".--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead
BruceGrubb has tried to implement his proposal for the lead, discussed at Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_36. Unless I missed something, there was strong opposition to Bruce's proposal, and I also think it's not an improvement, so I've reverted it. This doesn't mean that I think the lead is perfect, of course. But throwing direct quotes into the first sentence is not a good way to go. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the quotes were summarized, would that satisfy people? I have a feeling it wouldn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is certainly more accurate then what we currently have. It certainly is the most clear definition of what the Christ Myth theory idea is.  I will try for a summation next edit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be nice if we discussed edits to the lead on the talk page before placing them in the article. Might cut down on reverting and such.


 * Even if Bruce summarizes the quotes, there's still going to be a problem. The 1st sentence of the lead is, right now, both concise and clear: "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community." This matches what our sources say. Bruce is trying to redefine the subject so that the CMT includes the idea that Jesus never existed, which implies that it can include other positions as well:.


 * Bruce seems to be confused by the fact that some CMT proponents argued that an earlier historical figure, perhaps Jesus ben Pandira, contributed to the New Testament accounts of Jesus. This is was the position of John M. Robertson, among others. But this is not really a difficulty; the historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth, who lived in the early 1st century CE, not some other guy named Jesus who lived a full century earlier. Our sources are not ambiguous about saying that Robertson denied the historicity of Jesus. I'll quote G.A.Wells' entry on "Jesus, historicity of" in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief: "Denying Jesus's historicity means asserting that Christianity is based on a founder figure who is wholly mythical. This was the position argued by Bruno Bauer in 1850 and later; he was supported at the turn of the century by Arthur Drews in Germany, William Benjamin Smith in American, and John M. Robertson in England, among others, in a fierce debate on the subject that was not without some impact even on Christian scholars." So there really is no problem in saying that Robertson (and Mead and Ellegard too if they're really significant enough to be included here) believed that the historical Jesus never existed. You just have to remember that Jesus of Nazareth is a specific individual, not any random Yeshua living at any moment in time. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * None of this addressed Boyd-Eddy's classification of Price's "Jesus Agnosticism" as part of his definition of what he later explains is the Christ Myth theory. Please note the quote above says wholly mythical which a Jesus c100 BCE would not fit; Osiris and Zeus are "wholly mythical" while King Arthur, Robin Hood, and even Santa Claus are not as buried deep within them is a possible historical person even if their resemblance to the stories known today is basically nil.  Price himself points this out in Deconstructing Jesus using King Arthur as one of his examples.  Also many of the sources paint a very different picture of Robinson; Weaver for example states Robinson 'rejected the idea that "behind the myths of origin are actual historical personages" (pg 59) which throws the idea of a Yeshua around c100 BC out the window but then again no mention of A Short History of Christianity is made in the section on Robinson or anywhere in the version of The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950 google books has.  But this is no surprise as reading "A short history of Christianity" one finds Robinson feels Jesus Pandira many not be historical either (pg 15) so we are left back at square one of do the reliable sources agree on what Robinson is actually arguing here?
 * I should remind you that Boyd-Eddy (2007) stated "we simply lack sufficient information to decided whether a historical Jesus existed" as Price's position citing Deconstructing Jesus as well as Incredible Shrinking Son of Man as examples.  Eddy with Beilby in The Historical Jesus: Five Views calls Price "one of the most provocative Christ-Myth theorists writing today" (pg 32) referencing Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.  So here you have the an editor (Eddy) saying Price is a "Christ-Myth theorist" and that same editor with another editor actually stating Price's position--and it is NOT the "Jesus Never existed" position.  So we have Wells saying one thing and Boyd-Eddy saying something different regarding Price's position.  Not good.  This leaves us where?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, as was nicely summarised above already, the CMT states that the "Jesus of the gospels" (i.e. House of David, Son of God, Risen Lord etc,) was mythical. The CMT allows that some of the legends about the Jesus of the gospels might have had an earlier historical basis, such as the Q Sayings, the Jewish Holy Man and others, but even if Pandera was historical, and even if some of Pandera's exploits were fraudulantly attributed to the Jesus of the gospels by early Church Fathers, Pandera was not the Jesus of the gospels and thus Pandera is not covered by the CMT. Move on already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.63.238 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If Robinson's view of Yeshua Pandera is considered part of the CMT then it shoots the whole Jesus (Yeshua) never existed idea down the tubes. As for "any random Yeshua living at any moment in time" the minimalist position just outside of the CMT is not much better with its 'as long as he is in the right area and right time any Yeshua will do'.  In fact, we still have not gotten a clear explanation regarding the break between the extreme minimalist position of 'yes there was a Jesus but we know nothing about him' and Price's Jesus Agnosticism of 'there is not enough to show he even existed'.  Never mind both I. Howard Marshall and Boyd-Eddy say the ideas that constitute the Christ Myth theory are part of a broader spectrum of ideas regarding the historical Jesus--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed two problematic parts of the lead: (a) "This contrasts with the idea that there was a historical Jesus who was the basis for the later accounts." It doesn't sometimes and sometimes doesn't contrast with it; as many writers point out, the Christ myth theory is part of a spectrum of beliefs, a continuum, and the cut-off points aren't always (or ever) as sharp as that sentence implies. In addition, it contradicted the sentence that came after it. "And (b) "While it has at times attracted scholarly attention ...," because it still does attract scholarly attention, and we mention two names of scholarly proponents in the previous sentence, so it looks odd and contradictory. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I must say that is a lot less awkward. This still leave the "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." part which to somebody that doesn't know Christ Myth theory from the proverbial hole in the ground is about as clear as mud regarding just what it is saying.  We really need some reliable sources to clean this up and we still have to get Price's "Jesus Agnosticism" into the lead somehow as that has been clearly identified with the Christ Myth Theory but doesn't jive with the currently referenced lead in at all.
 * We may even have a changing definition of what "Christ Myth Theory" means as Hoffmann implied in his preface to Jesus Legend when he talked about the "old Christ Myth school" but other than triggering what he calls the Historicity Genre and that Wells is the "contemporary defender of the non-historicity thesis" there is no hint at what the new Christ Myth school even is.  Compounding the confusion is Wells' own words on page xxix: "Accordingly, I have felt, obliged, in this present book, as I have not done before, to allow that the obscure Jesus of the Pauline and other early letters is not the only historical or quasi-historical figure from which the very different Jesus of the gospels was developed."  (This as explained by Wells in later books is in reference to the historical Q Jesus).--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest a way of writing up the Price point for the lead? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think Price's "Jesus agnosticism" is much of a problem. Price tends to say that he finds the CMT a more probable explanation of Christianity's origins than other theories. If someone said s/he thought evolution was a more plausible explanation of the origin of species than intelligent design (instead of saying that evolution is definitely true), that wouldn't alter the definition of evolution; similarly, Price's belief that the CMT is more probable doesn't change the definition of CMT itself. So I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the lead at all, although it should be in the section on Price. If people really think this needs to be in the lead, I would suggest modifying part of the last paragraph of the lead that currently reads "and G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty more recently." to "and more recently, G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price, though the latter regards Jesus' non-historicity as probable, rather than certain." I'm sure the wording can be improved, but you get the general idea. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if that's too much detail for the lead. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is. I had what I thought was a good summation with references which I have slight reworked below:


 * The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the hypothesis that the New Testament account is so mythologized that not even the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth can be proven from it.(Boyd-Eddy ref). The concept can include the idea Jesus never existed, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community (Goguel, Meynell, Horbury ref), that there is not enough to even show Jesus existed (Boyd-Eddy ref regarding Price), is a modern form of docetism where Jesus didn't exist in a physical form (Grant ref), and that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character formed out of events or sayings from one or more individuals who actually existed outside the 1st century CE (Robinson, Mead, and Ellegard via refs better than what we currently have).


 * The next part is a little wonky and needs rework but it tries to address problems that keep coming up:
 * It should be noted that some authors that accepted a historical Jesus in the first century such as Remsburg (if we can find a reference for him) and Post-Jesus Myth Wells have been either called or implied to be "Christ myth theorists" (Price--three different times, Doherty, Boyd-Eddy) but per Wells challenging of Boyd-Eddy on Wells being one (Wells (2009) Cutting Jesus Down to Size) this classification may be in error.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Be cafeful using Boyd as a reference--Legendary-Jesus Thesis vs Christ Myth Theory
Be careful using Boyd as he mixes Legendary-Jesus Thesis and Christ Myth Theory comments a lot. For example page 165 is used to back up "Christ myth theorists often cite the lack of early references to Jesus outside of the New Testament" statement when in reality he clearly states that both groups use this argument on this page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Marshall quoting Perrin really relevant to THIS article?
Going over Marshall's quote I have some issues. While it is quite relevant for placement in the Historicity of Jesus article it just sticks out like a sore thumb in this article. Using Boyd-Eddy as a baseline the quote more argues against the Legendary-Jesus Thesis as a whole than the Christ Myth Theory in particular. Also it should be pointed out that Marshall himself in the very same book states what we define the Christ Myth theory as one of the two poles that form the "spectrum of views regarding the historical Jesus". The quote by Marshall doesn't really add anything to this article and only continues the confusion between the Legendary-Jesus Thesis and the Christ Myth Theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Marx again
I missed the re-adding of the factoid that Marx followed the CMT, then someone hedged it about in a way that sounds even worse. So I have removed the whole thing, for now at least, permanently I hope. I thought we were more or less at consensus that it is simply mistaken. Marx wasn't interested in the CMT and never mentions it. He was of course an atheist, so were the Russian revolutionaries (and not just the Marxist ones but the anarchists and others). So when Drews published, his work fell on fertile ground in the USSR. I know that we have Van Voorst, a respectable scholar. However, I have come across an interesting passage in WP:Reliable source examples. It talks about historical overviews of topics in textbooks. Van Voorst isn't quite that, but he only gives the briefest run-through of the CMT. The main period his book deals with is 1st century CE, not the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. So no wonder he doesn't do justice to CMT. He makes a very minor error, not in the least germane to his main theses about C1 CE, which is understandable and doesn't reflect badly on his status as a scholar. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, Judith. That someone who made it worse was me. I was just trying to make clear how poorly substantiated the claim was without brazenly taking it out altogether. Good for you to have the brass to do it. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks. To remind other editors: virtually all of Marx's words are available online and searchable. There are also books about his attitudes to religion. Nothing in the primary sources or in the secondary literature about Marx's thought indicates any support for CMT. It is only overviews of CMT by historians that seem to repeat a Bauer-Marx-Lenin nexus. Drews-Lenin in a climate of atheism is well sourced. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this removal. I had the opportunity to look at a physical copy of the Zvi Rosen book that's cited by Van Voorst, and it doesn't mention anything about the historicity of Jesus (and indeed precious little about Jesus at all). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of accuracy, I will point out that Rosen does mention Bauer's skepticism about the historicity of Jesus on p. 55. But nowhere is this connected to Marx. Barrett Pashak (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth
Is there any interest in moving this back to Jesus myth, Jesus myth hypothesis, or Jesus myth theory? It would make clearer that we're discussing the historical figure only.

The article was created in 2005 as Jesus myth or Jesus myth hypothesis, and was moved on February 14, 2009 to Christ myth theory by Akhilleus. There was a brief exchange about it here.

It's hard to tell using Google which is more common, because the Wikipedia title has infected the search results, but for what it's worth they're as follows (note: the absence or presence of the hyphen seems to make no difference, and all the titles were inside quotation marks):


 * Christ myth theory: 224,000 (Google); 249 (Google books); 43 (Google scholar)
 * Jesus myth theory: 82,100 (Google); 15 (Google books); 1 (Google scholar)


 * Christ myth hypothesis: 58 (Google); 13 (Google books); 1 (Google scholar)
 * Jesus myth hypothesis: 79,200 (Google); 3 (Google books); 3 (Google scholar)


 * Christ myth: 41,800 (Google); 8,050 (Google books); 645 (Google scholar)
 * Jesus myth: 46,600 (Google); 3,040 (Google books); 239 (Google scholar)

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think changing the title to Jesus myth would help make it clear that this is only about the (nonexistence of) the historical figure. As Bruce has said over and over again, "Jesus myth" is ambiguous, far more so than Christ myth theory—many of the Google hits for "Jesus myth" and "Christ myth" are probably for things other than the subject of this article. Some word like "theory" or "hypothesis" is really necessary to disambiguate the title, and "Christ myth theory" is more common than "Jesus myth theory", "Christ myth hypothesis", or "Jesus myth hypothesis". It's what I've seen most often in secondary sources.


 * To be clear, though, this is not a phrase that every secondary source uses, and sometimes secondary sources don't give the idea a name at all—they just refer to "non-historical theories", denials of Jesus' historicity, and so on. Contemporary proponents, like Earl Doherty, sometimes call their position "mythicism" or "Jesus mythicism"; detractors sometimes refer to "mythers" (which is obviously not a suitable title). So "Christ myth theory" may not be the ideal title, but I've never been able to come up with an unambiguous replacement. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In what way is Jesus myth more ambiguous than Christ myth? I'd have thought less so, because it makes clear that what's being questioned is whether this figure ever existed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you go through the archives the Jesus myth vs Christ myth football has been kicked around before (Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11 and Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_22 are two examples). "Christ Myth" is likely the most common term used for this idea because that is the English translation of the title of Drews' book and is likely the most referenced of all the supporters; talking about the "Christ Myth Theory" and not mentioning Drews is nearly on par with talking about physics and not mentioning Newton.  I should mention that I pointed out that the phrase "Jesus Myth" has some of the same problems "Christ Myth" does; Wells' book Jesus Myth supported the existence of a 1st century Q-Jesus being merged with an early quasi-mythical Paul Jesus a position Wells has expressly and directly said is not part of Boyd-Eddy's mythic-Jesus thesis category. Andrew M. Greeley's 1971 The Jesus Myth has similar problems as it talks about a Historical Jesus.  In looking for examples I stumbled on Dunn stating that Wells The Jesus Myth was a continuation of a lone campaign in reference to the statement "the thesis that Jesus never existed and the Jesus tradition is a wholesale invention" in Jesus remembered Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing page 142 so clearly even experts get confused as who belongs in the Christ Myth theorist category when.
 * I should mention that one needs to take google results with a grain of salt. Google scholar is IMHO hardly deserving of the name.  You are just as likely to get garbage through it as a regular google search.  In fact, your three hits for "Jesus myth hypothesis" are a prime example of just how useless google scholar can be.  The Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection The Debate between Christians and Skeptics by J J Lowder is "the Beta-release of my undergraduate thesis" and therefore unusable.  The God Who Wasn't There, Part 2 hit is actually a review by bethinking.org.uk a religious magazine that is as sloppy with its arguments as it claims The God Who Wasn't There to be and similarly useless.  The final book, Contend: A Survey of Christian Apologetics on a High School Level by Jason Dollar is by Aventine Press whose web site states "makes self publishing  fast, easy and affordable for today's author. Aventine Press has helped authors with books that have been accepted by traditional presses. Our technology allows you to get your book into print quickly, while distributing through Ingram and making it available for sale as well as achieving high sales ranks with the world's leading booksellers."  Ugh. USELESS.  Google really needs to fix this thing... or at least put it out of its and our misery.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bauer statements not supported by provided references
When I investigated the references in this sentence, I found that they do not support the statement: "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism, Bauer concluded that Christianity had not been founded by a Jew at all,[44] that Mark had actually been written by an Italian and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine.[45]"

Actually, the first clause, might be supported, but it would be good if we could get an additional source to back it up, as it appears to be the opinion of a single writer, as opposed to the words of Bauer himself, or a consensus view from other scholars:

[]

The second part of the sentence is not reflected at all in the text of the references as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing something though. Here are links to the sources, for anyone who wants to take a look.

[] []

I noticed that in the Bruno Bauer article this statement is made, without any reference provided: According to Bruno Bauer, the writer of Mark's gospel was "an Italian, at home both in Rome and Alexandria"; that of Matthew's gospel "a Roman, nourished by the spirit of Seneca"; Christianity is essentially "Stoicism triumphant in a Jewish garb."

Maybe someone can provide some sourcing to these statements. Otherwise, they probably should be removed. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the Bruno Bauer article is straight out of the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica:. That supports "Mark had actually been written by an Italian and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine." Bauer makes this argument in ''Christus und die Cäsaren. Der Ursprung des Christenthums aus dem römischen Griechenthum, which has been translated into English as Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from Romanized Greek Culture'', review here. As for Bauer's anti-Semitism, this is not in doubt, see the entry at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example. This has been discussed on the talk page before, and my opinion is that Bauer's anti-Semitism should be discussed at Bruno Bauer, but explaining it properly in this article would take up too much space. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_34 is where this was kicked around. As I said there the anti-Semitism part adds nothing as the authors of both the Marcionite Bible and Mein Kampf were anti-Semititic but both believed in a historical Jesus.  Christianity itself has a long history of anti-Semititic activity so anti-Semitism itself has no relevance on the matter of Jesus being a historical figure.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bruce, for pointing us to the previous discussion. As far as I can tell, though Bauer was included in the heading, the quotes and discussion are all about Drews, not Bauer. I do see your point questioning the relevance of antisemitism to the discussion. The current sentence is about as unhelpful and POV as saying, "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism, Martin Luther was a strong advocate of Christianity."
 * Akhilleus, thanks for pointing out the sourcing for the info in the Bauer article. That is very helpful. I am not disputing that Bauer was an anti-Semite.
 * The problem remains that this sentence says one of the motives for Bauer's position was his antisemitism, and the only source we have for that is the opinion of one Bible professor at Kentucky Christian University. He provides no sourcing or justification for this assertion. Bauer's writings are not the focus of the cited work, and the assertion is just a short tangential comment, almost just a throwaway line. Do we have any additional sourcing for this, i.e. some kind of scholarly consensus, or at least the opinion of a scholar or scholars of Bauer's writings?
 * If it can be shown to be an accurate reflection of scholarly consensus, then let's leave it in. Otherwise, let's take it out. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bauer entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows that that relationship between his political views, which varied over time, and his religious views, ditto, was a complex one. You just might find one sentence in that article that could be referred to here, or perhaps in the David Leopold book that discusses his antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should remember that these men belonged to different times. Also as The Oxford guide to library research (2005) and Library research models (1993) by Thomas Mann warns one must be careful and double check as one can find things like The Franklin Prophecy presented as historical fact in books put out by such reliable sources as Routledge in 2002 (in Anti-semitism and schooling under the Third Reich) despite it long being known to no more real than The Protocols of Zion (most sources get this right so I have no idea why Routledge flubbed it so badly here).  A comment attributed to Albert Schweitzer if true shows him to be a bigot to our modern eyes:
 * "I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all white men that have lived here must learn and know; that these individuals are a sub-race; they have neither the intellectual, mental or emotional abilities to equate or share in any of the functions of our civilization.  I have given my life to try and bring them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status; white, the superior, and they the inferior, for whenever a white man seeks to live among them as their equal, they will either destroy him or devour him, and they will destroy all his work; and so for any existing relationship or for any benefit to this people let white men from anywhere in the world who would come to help Africa remember that you must continually retain the status; you the master, and they inferior, like children that you would help or teach.  Never fraternize with them as equals, never accept them as your social equals;  or they will devour you; they will destroy you."
 * It might be true but Schweitzer grew up in a very different world from ours and the same is true of Drews and Bauer. Christianity had a long history of anti-Semititism going all the way back to the Gnostics held the God of the Jews was not the same God as the Christians and the former was an evil, incompetent being.  Later Jews became "the people who killed Christ" and moneylenders with the current Banks rule the world just a cleaned up version of the Jews rule the world rhetoric of generations past.  The point of this Binford like ramble is that anti-Semititism doesn't add anything to either side of this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting again
Ari, we've been making good progress by trying to build on each other's edits, rather than reverting. You keep restoring this sentence, but it's not clear what it means:

"The Christ myth theory has often been advanced for self-consciously anti-religious reasons and is today largely the purview of committed atheists."

First, we give examples where it's not clear the proponents are atheists, so that's contradictory; and secondly what is a "self-conscious anti-religious reason"? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that whoever the "we" is have been making good progress by trying to build up on other's edits. I see a lot of hacking going on and essentially no discussion on massive transformations of the article.
 * I would also like to see the source, and I don't doubt we can tone down the sentence to reflect the sources. However, my main concern was how CMT now became a prerequisite for atheism, and atheism a prerequisite for CMT. CMT is easily linked to atheist polemics (as the sources for that section are), but this is by no means the "Atheist perspective". --Ari (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what a "self-consciously anti-religious reason" is? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably, but that is immaterial to my restoring of the cited content and what I want to happen with it. --Ari (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed a sentence that seems not to mean anything. You restored it twice. I'm therefore asking you what it means. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We use the ordinary use of the words to interpret it. It is saying that the thesis has been advanced for anti-religious aims. If we take the citation of Van Voorst, it is anti-religious aims as opposed to objective scholarly reasons. And the content following this introduction talks of anti-religious polemics making use of the thesis. I find it hard to believe that you did not understand it. But as I said earlier, my aim was to modify the sentence. So I don't get the point of attacking some poor straw man :). --Ari (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a self-consciously anti-religious reason would be, as opposed to a non-self-conscious one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguing the CMT is like Murder vs Manslaughter, obviously. --Ari (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The change you made reads better, though I wonder whether it's accurate where it is, because it implicates Russell and everyone who follows. It's therefore arguably a SYN violation unless the source mentioned those people. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, could you post here what the source says exactly? It seems to me that we could just as easily add that the historicity of Jesus is argued for religious purposes. To add those kinds of arguments I think we'd need disinterested high-quality sources discussing historiography, rather that the claim coming from partisans. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Van Voorst talks of "Wells and others"; Dickson and Barnett talk specifically of Onfray, Dawkins and Hitchens. Not sure what Stark says, hopefully whoever added him is around. --Ari (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's the case we should remove it, because it's a SYN violation in the position it's in, implicating Russell for example. Can you post here what the sources say about anti-religious purposes? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How could any source know what the motives of people are, as opposed to guessing? Any source that didn't spend at least an entire book proving what a single person's motives are would be suspect, and not worth quoting. And who would care what anyone's motives are, since they are irrelevant to the truth or strength of their argument? You make this page look silly by claiming to know the motives of others. E4mmacro (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that deists have been called Christian or atheists depending on who uses the label (Paine a deists has been presented as an atheist many times and many of the founding fathers like Jefferson have been called "Christian" even though they were deists for example) I highly question the use of the term especially in regards to a topic where even experts can't agree on when a person is a Christ Myth theorists as demonstrated by Price, Dunn, and Eddy-Boyd all calling Wells one long after Jesus Myth (1996) came out which said there was a historical person behind Q.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * However, Bruce, the Q author (or authors) was not necessarily Jesus of Nazareth. The issue here is the possibility that the sayings of so-called Q represent accumulated wisdom of various people, not all of them necessarily even Jewish, and that these sayings were later attributed to the "mythical Jesus person" once the Jesus myth was well underway. Therefore, although obviously some historical person or persons were behind the original Q material, per the CMT he/they were not the Jesus of the gospels. Wdford (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Except Wdford, that is not how the reliable sources define the Christ Myth Theory. With the exception of a few experts calling Wells post-Jesus Myth (1996) a "Christ Myther" which Wells himself has clarified is not the case, Schweitzer putting James George Frazer in this group in 1931 which given the 1912 edition of his book might have been a misremember on his part, and one lone non scholar (Holding) labeling Remsburg one we have not seen anyone who said there was a 1st century teacher named Jesus but the gospels tell us nothing about him being called a "Christ Myther".  If you have found such references please relate them so we can fix the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, Bruce, you lost me in that six-line sentence, but I think we are saying the same thing. As I understand it, the theory that "there was a 1st century teacher named Jesus but the gospels tell us nothing about him" is NOT part of the Christ Myth Theory. This is apparently part of Bible Minimalism. However, the theory that "some wise sayings and doings of some unnamed real people were attributed to the fictional Jesus person" apparently IS part of the CMT. Is that your understanding too? Wdford (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The distinction between "there was a teacher named Jesus but we know nothing about him" and "sayings from some real people were attributed to a fictional person" is more theoretical than real, surely. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This all goes back to what do reliable sources that say the Christ Myth Theory is "Jesus never existed" really mean. The Gospels are our only major account of Jesus and if you say that Jesus is a fiction (either as direct myth or composite character then what do you have left?!  Adding to the confusion is that Michael Grant stated that the Christ Myth Theory is a modern version of docetism which put a totally different tack on this article.  Throw in some really fuzzy definitions (see No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_7 for some of those) and the migraines begin.


 * More to the point there people who believe there was no Jesus of Nazareth believing that this is actually a mistranslation and the term was originally Jesus the Nazorean (meaning Jesus was a member of the Essene sect) so where do they fit into this? Topping off this whole mess is Wells who gives us both the traditional Christ Myth Theory (with Paul's Jesus from a bygone time) and a historical Jesus (from Q) who are combined into a totally nonhistorial Gospel Jesus.  So even though Wells is saying there was a historical Jesus in Q he is also effectively saying Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist as that is composite character--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the real difference between Christ myth theory and 'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea?
Ok, way past time to grab this bull by the horns. Is there any reliable source that actually explains the difference between these two? Nearly all we know about Jesus of Nazareth comes from the Gospels and if you say that version is so mythologized that you are reading an ancient version of the De Vinci Code then what do you have left?! Dawkins has shown with John Frum that within a generation (ie 20 years) that a sizable cult can be created with no detectable founder. In fact, the John Frum history records in 1940 is so different from that of the religion that they are effectively two different people. But here is the rub if the Jesus of history is so different from the Gospel account that he might as well be a different person altogether how is that really different from saying the Gospel Jesus (who is Jesus of Nazareth) is a fiction.

Note by "explain" I mean flat out tells us.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The explanation: the CMT says there was no historical Jesus. The "'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea" says there was a historical Jesus. That really ought to be straightforward enough. But, if you say there was no historical Jesus, you have to come up with an alternative origin story for Christianity. If, on the other hand, you say that there was a historical Jesus, but we know almost nothing about him, you still trace the origins of Christianity back to this mysterious, nearly unknowable person.


 * Who's an example of this "'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea", anyway? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The question is whether there is a reliable source who spells out the difference explicitly, so we can use that source in the article, rather than basing our explanation of the difference on the interpretations of Wikipedians. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject, so it would be great to have a source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)To answer that question, I'd like some clarification as exactly what Bruce means by the "'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea". Who says that?


 * As for differentiating the CMT from other positions, we have plenty of reliable sources that do just that. The central thing that distinguishes the CMT from other positions is that it says there's no historical Jesus. If "'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea" equals what we've called "biblical minimalism", there is a source that explains the difference—Goguel 1926. I believe Goguel was once cited for this difference in the article, but that cite doesn't seem to be here anymore. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a source more recent than 1926 who explains the distinction? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet there are equally reliable sources that say the Christ Myth theory is something more than simply Jesus never existed as evidenced by Grant and Walsh as just two examples. As for what I mean by "'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea" that is simply my rephrasing of the category Remsburg and Boyd-Eddy gave us nearly 100 years apart:


 * Remsburg (1909): "Many radical Freethinkers believe that 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."
 * Boyd-Eddy (2007): We have enough to show there was a Jesus but "the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend and "myth" that we can ascertain very little historical information about him."
 * Again what separates "the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend and "myth" that we can ascertain very little historical information about him" and "narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit" from there is nothing to show the Gospel Jesus (the version we base all our searches on) ever existed? That is the elephant in the room regarding the whole Christ myth theory and the most poorly explained aspect.  That might be why Wells with his c100 BCE Paul Jesus and historical Q combined resulted in a composite character of the Gospel Jesus (ie Jesus of Nazareth) from Jesus Myth (1996) has been labeled as a Christ Myther (or close equivalent) by Price, Dunn, and Boyd-Eddy; as a composite character Jesus of Nazareth by very definition cannot have existed as a historical person.


 * I would like to point out that claiming "'Jesus existed but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea" says there was a historical Jesus." is not that much different from claiming "'Jesus existed in a different time (c100 BCE) but the Gospel Jesus is a myth-fiction' Idea" says there was a historical Jesus." and we haven't heard a reliable source explain the difference in those two either.


 * Remember for all intents and purposes Jesus of Nazareth IS the Jesus of the Gospels because we have no other source detailing his life, his teachings, and his death. Throw enough of the Gospel account out and you are not talking about Jesus of Nazareth anymore but some other Jesus.  Jesus of Nazareth brings with him some historical expectations so you ahve to ask how much do you remove from the Gospel account before you admit you are NOT talking about Jesus of Nazareth anymore but just some bloke named Jesus who happened to be in the right place in the right time who might have taught some wisdom?


 * On Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? I see nothing that would clarify the question I am asking. Quite frankly Chapter 1 titled "Non-Historical Theories" is more confusing then help as Goguel's writing style is as bad as Binford's (wanders all over the place).  --BruceGrubb (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Try the following, and please note that Goguel says the distinction is what I said above (and what I've been saying for years now): the difference between the CMT and other theories is that the CMT says that Jesus never existed.

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


 * Boyd/Eddy make the same distinction, really. And, as I've already mentioned, in his 2009 book Wells responds to Boyd/Eddy (see Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_33), and he says that before 1996, he denied the historicity of Jesus, but now he belongs in Boyd/Eddy's category of people who think "that Jesus did exist but, as Bultmann argued, "the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend...that we can confidently ascertain very little historical information about him." So not only do Boyd/Eddy see a distinction between these positions, but so does Wells. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Boyd-Eddy states that the categories are "admittedly overly simplistic" and "This spectrum of viewpoints is, of course, ideal-typical in nature and is offered merely as a useful heuristic. In short the categories Boyd-Eddy present are akin to saying the visible spectrum is composed of Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet BUT (and here is the problem) there are Frequency-Wavelength combos that belong to TWO COLORS SIMULTANEOUSLY.  Continuing the spectrum analogy, if Wells is the equivalent of 484 THz 750 nm then those who call him a Christ Myther (red) and those who say he is not (orange) could BOTH BE RIGHT!  Also my challenge was for a reliable source that EXPLAINED the difference not just restate it (which is as I noted while ago Boyd-Eddy only restate this as does Goguel above  Neither Boyd-Eddy or Goguel really EXPLAINS the difference never mind that Goguel's definition has problems with Walsh's and the above makes no comment on positions like Price's.  To use Binford's  "Archaeology as anthropology" (1962) American Antiquity 8, no 2, 217-225) article as the baseline--so far all we have gotten regarding the Christ Myth theory are explications (ie what the definitions are) rather than actual explanations (the how and WHY) for those definitions.  I again ask for an explanation and not another explication.


 * Rereading Price's Deconstructing Jesus I found this little gem: "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean. (pg 85)   Yet The new encyclopedia of unbelief 2007 on page 372 states "Though he could not accept either the Christ myth theory, which held that no historical Jesus existed..."  Clearly something is wonked here as Price is NOT holding that "no historical Jesus existed" which is how the The new encyclopedia of unbelief and many of of our sources define the term and yet Price is called a Christ Myth theorist in The Historical Jesus: Five Views and implied to be one in Jesus Legend.  This IMHO is the smoking gun that what "Christ Myth theorist" even is varies from author to author and they are not using the same definition.  I should mention that Boyd-Eddy brings up Trypho and makes IMHO a very poor argument that he wasn't a Christ myth theorist by using some clever word dodges and ignoring that Trypho stated "if He has indeed been born"--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Bruce, the John Frum movement was a response to Christian missionary efforts (see "Culture Contact and the "John Frum" Movement on Tanna, New Hebrides". It cannot serve of as any kind of parallel to the origin of the figure of Christ when it is essentially a revolt against Christian missions.

On the broader question that you pose, it may be worthwhile to examine the fact that many scholars say that, while the figure of Christ in the Gospels may be derived from an historical person, such a person is irrecoverable from within a literature that is too contaminated by sectarian and other interests. This is a position favoured by many liberal scholars, from Rudolf Bultmann to William Arnal. While perhaps not itself strictly mythicist, this position does allow mythicism to fluourish with a kind of respectability: if nothing is knowable with certainty, than we must be willing to entertain any and all possibilities, without deciding definitively on any one. Barrett Pashak (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Carl Sagan said something similar when he talks about "saving a step" in his Cosmos series; as I see it the Christ Myth theory an example of that "saving a step" Sagan went on regarding the creation of the universe. With regards to John Frum one must remember that Christianity didn't emerge out of a vacuum either--there was the promise of a Messiah who would come to free the Jewish people from their oppressors, there were mystery cults, and whole host of other social factors going on.  The desperation that Jesus has to be unique is seen with the treatment of Wise and Knohl who are suggesting the quite modest idea that Jesus was following in the footsteps of a previous would be messiah who died c4 BCE.  The reaction to "The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls" (University of California Press) has been horrid but understandable.  Once the possibility that Jesus was not unique enters the picture then the idea that there was a Christ myth preceding Jesus or that the story formed out of pre-existing mythology becomes something other than tin foil hat nonsense and one has to wonder if that is the reason Wise and Knohl are getting such flack.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Stray Footnote
Counter Arguments begins with footnote 81 for some reason. Anyone know what it was originally attached to? --Ari (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was used as a reference for the statement "The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance." I restored this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues to be addressed

 * 1) Is the CMT pseudo-x?  (No as two reliable sources say it is part of a spectrum of views regarding the Historicity of Jesus)
 * 2) Should the scholarly response be one major section (as it currently is) or should it be distributed throughout the article?
 * 3) What is the notability/publication criteria for including a CMT author among the advocates?  (3 scholarly mentions specifically connected to an advocates CMT advocacy) (Two people does not form a consensus)
 * 4) What is the criteria for determining if an included advocate warrants a separate section apart from the "other authors" sections? (a dedicated rebuttal or major section in a scholarly work contentrating on the advocate's CMT work or something like 10 passing mentions)
 * 5) Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable? (The use of scholars teaching at seminaries will be minimized to reduce the appearance of bias.)
 * 6) Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus?
 * 7) How should the article indicate that Wells changed his stance in 1996 (Jesus Legend) but was still placed in the Christ Myth theorist category by various experts and scholars (Price, Dunn, Eddy-Boyd) as late as 2007 and didn't challenge this placement until 2009? (addressed)
 * 8) How should Price's section be structured?
 * 9) Should the definition section include a "background" related to the NT documents, and if so, how should it be crafted and which authors should be included? (the section has been in place, unchanged, for a while now, indicating de facto concensus)
 * 10) Add various FAQs. For example: 1) Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position? 2) Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV? 3) (No consensus)
 * 11) Clarify via reliable sources how "Jesus never existed" and "Jesus existed but in a different time (ala many historical candidates for Robin Hood)" in the vein of Mead, Robinson, Ellegard, etc are part of the same general theory.
 * 12) Clarify via reliable sources if "Jesus never existed" means that there wasn't a flesh and blood teacher named Jesus or that the "Gospel Jesus never existed" which are really different issues.
 * 13) Explain how "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58) works in the context of the theory there was a pre-existing Jesus myth that Jesus either used or his followers plugged him into after death.
 * 14) Clarify the reference Volney regarding "confused memories of an obscure historical figure".  Is this a figure in the distant past or is this a first century figure?
 * 15) Address Michael Grant's statement regarding the Christ Myth theory as a modern form of docetism:  "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." in the context of the other definitions we have.
 * 16) 'continue list here (for example, Point x needs clarifying)"

Eastern views of Jesus
In trying to find out why there is so little about what Eastern cultures say about Jesus and his existence I found "Buddhism and Jesus Christ" By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon which shows why a comparison between Gautama and Jesus as historical figures of equal importance is wonked. Gautama's "rely upon yourself: do not depend on anyone else" is the total antithesis of the message Jesus presents and decouples Gautama and Buddhism; Buddhism doesn't depend on Gautama existing as a flesh and blood person in the way Christianity does because Gautama is not "the one true path" as Jesus is in Christianity.

On a more reliable source note "The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge" (1908) has much the same thing though in far more detail. Buddhist thought: a complete introduction to the Indian tradition (2000) Routledge pg 22 even go as far to say if someone somehow showed Gautama didn't exist Buddhism would basically shrug its shoulders and go on its merry way as it is the religion is more dependent on the message rather the messager. In Christianity Jesus is both the messager and the message. Buddhists talk about Jesus, Christians talk about the Buddha (2000) Continuum gives even more insight as to why you don't seem to have this debate in Eastern cultures about their religious founders. Just a little something I thought I might share--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source
Found something of interest that I added to the further reading section:

"Jesus Myth and history: Troeltsch's Stand in the “Christ-Myth” Debate." Journal of Religion, vol. 55 No. 1 (1975) reprinted in Old Protestantism and the New (2004) By Brian Gerrish--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes it interesting? Can you provide a short quote?  Just curious.  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting because it gives a different definition of the Christ myth theory from what this article uses and it was originally in a peer reviewed journal article:
 * "The man who moved the faithful to such heights of indignation and alarm was Arthur Drews, who explained the purpose of his book in these words: "This work seeks to prove that more or less all the features of the picture of the historical Jesus, at any rate all those of any important religious significance, bear a purely mythical character..."  The gospel story of the "historical" Jesus, so Drews declared, was a pious fiction of the Christian community.  There was no possibility for seeking any such historical figure behind the myth, and none was needed to account for the rise of Christianity.  Should anyone assert that there must have been a historical figure behind the gospel, it could only replied:  "We know nothing of this Jesus" (Drews (1910) Burns translation pg 19)  This, however, was no genuine cause of dismay, since the historical Jesus had no religious interest at all, but at most concerned historians and philologists (Drews (1910) Burns translation pg 293)"


 * Now take a good hard look at that paragraph by Gerrish. It does NOT claim that Drews said Jesus never existed as a flesh and blood man like so many of our other sources are saying but rather the Gospel Jesus account had so much mythology that any effort at separating an actual man, his actual words, his actual actions, his actual history from the mythology was a useless endeavor as "Even in the representations of historical theology he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow."


 * Long ago (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_22I brought up the possibility that Drews' position had changed by his third edition citing (Weaver, Walter P. (1999) The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950) as evidence. This only reinforces that view and if that is the case then it raises the question of where does Drews 1st edition vs Drews 3rd edition fall and are the sources careful to note which version they are using?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Further along Gerrish states: "The cornerstone of Drew's thesis, on its historical side, was that a Jesus-cult existed among the Jews in pre-Christian times..." [...] "The Gospels do not record the history of an actual man but convey the Jesus-myth in quasi-historical form" But what is Wells currently arguing?  Why Paul believing in this pre-Christian Jesus-cult that was mixed with the actions of the Q-Jesus to form the composite character of the Gospel Jesus which by definition would fit the above like a glove.


 * Again the issue of what exactly is meant by "Christ Myth Theory" comes up--it is so much there wasn't a flesh and blood man called Jesus or as suggested by the above that the Gospel account is so filled with myth and legend that any hope at finding a historical man behind it is next to nil? Or as I have said before could it be there be several definitions floating around that describe similar but also different concepts and not everybody is on the same page as to which definition they are using?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gerrish is a fine source, and I think he's been mentioned here before. A permanent link to the Journal of Religion article on JSTOR:. (I don't know whether it was revised for publication in Old Protestantism and the New or not.)

However, BruceGrubb misreads what Gerrish is saying. On pp. 16-17 (page #s are for the Journal of Religion version), Gerrish writes: "In other words, for most historians of religions Jesus was an idealized person, not a personified ideal. Even the most skeptical treatments of the primitive documents generally assumed that behind the fanciful narratives of the Gospels lay a real human life. Drews, by contrast, held that the "real" Jesus was a deity-not a deified man but a humanized god, a mythological divine being who was mistakenly entangled in history. The Gospels, accordingly, were not mythologized history, but historicized myth. So far from standing more or less where most historians of religion stood, Drews really turned their quest upside down. For their part, the liberal theologians did not doubt that Hellenistic accretions had clothed the historical figure of Jesus, as the historians of religions had argued. But they recognized it as quite another thesis when Drews and his associates denied that there ever was a body to clothe." A bit later on p. 17, Gerrish writes: "An improbable historical claim, that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth, raised fundamental questions about the logic of faith. This, after all, was entirely fitting, since Drews never disguised his essentially religious design: to eradicate the romantic Jesus cult which was supported by the practitioners of a 'historical theology.'" In other words, Gerrish summarizes Drews' argument as "there never was a Jesus of Nazareth".

This really shouldn't come as a surprise to BruceGrubb, since one of the quotes he gives above, "The Gospels do not record the history of an actual man, but convey the Jesus myth in quasi-historical form." is on p. 16 of the article, and is followed immediately by the sentence "There remains, therefore, no historical object on which faith could rest." This, again, is equivalent to saying that Drews thought there was no historical Jesus.

Gerrish does not support the idea that Drews' views regarding Jesus' ahistoricity changed from the 1st to the 3rd edition, nor does any other source we have. Gerrish does have a lot of interesting information that's not currently in the article, and succinctly sets out the differences between Christ-myth theorists like Drews and comparative mythologists ("history of religions" folks) like James Frazer, which could be helpful for the "context and definition" section. (Or maybe not—I'm not sure I understand what people are trying to accomplish with that section.) --Akhilleus (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of "context and definition" is clear--to show that not every reliable source definition holds to the definition that the article presents in the lead in. Grant and Walsh are particular headaches that have not to date been addressed.  Again if Jesus of Nazareth was a composite character then by definition he could not exist as no one person did all the things the gospel Jesus did and we are right back to square one with the key question that the Christ Myth theory as it currently stands fails to answer: how close does a Jesus you present have to be to not be considered part of it?  Also please note that the way the Christ Myth theory is presented above leaves no room for a Jesus existing c100 BC and we have at least one reliable source that puts that idea as part of Christ Myth theory--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some definitions that also raise the issue of just where does the idea of a c100 BC Jesus fit into the Christ Myth theory: "Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process." (Barker), "Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity." (Remsburg).  Furthermore in his debate with Forbes, Barker said that while there may have been as 5 to 10 percent chance there was historical Jesus, the New Testament Jesus did not exist.  The Historical Jesus: Five Views flat out states on page 230 "Here I represent the viewpoint of the Christ-Myth theory, the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, represents a subsequent historicization of a mythic deity..."  Again how do you fit the idea of a flesh and blood man existing in c100 CBE and fit it into that?  You can't unless you acknowledge that the Christ Myth theory has several definition that might not all match up with one another.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting a handle on the various definitions (again)
Time to grab this bull by the horns and address the various definitions of Christ Myth theory and the problems each has and see if we can hammer out these issues.

1) Jesus never existed (exact words uses in many reliable sources)

Interpretation: The Gospel Jesus is a "pure myth" ie a total fiction with no more historical basis than Osiris or Zeus.

Problem: excludes the possibly of Jesus being a historical person from a different time ala some of the candidates for a "historical" Robin Hood.

2) Jesus existed but in a different time (Ellegard, Mead, and perhaps Robertson)

The Gospel Jesus is a historialized myth based on the actions of a Jesus who lived c100 BC.

Problems:


 * By definition this conflicts with the idea that the Gospel Jesus is a pure myth and has consistency problems when compared to some "historical" Robin Hoods being found a full century after the events supposedly took place. (ie falling in Remsburg's historical myth category)


 * Reliable sources that could confirm this definition are either vague (Dodd and Pike) or contradicted by other reliable sources.


 * Reliable sources are at odds regarding if Robertson was saying the Gospel Jesus was a pure myth or a historical myth based on as Jesus that lived c100 BCE. Most of the ones that actually describe his position lean toward the pure myth position.


 * AFAIK to date only one reliable source (by Price) has been presented that puts Ellegard's position in the Christ Myth category.

3) The Gospel Jesus story is so mythologized that all trace of an actual man has been lost (Jesus agnosticism)

Problem: to date only one reliable source author (Eddy) uses this definition and only for Robert Price.

4) The Gospel Jesus is a myth (Doherty and Holding)

Problems


 * overly broad definition of "Jesus myth theory" presented by notable but not necessarily reliable sources that put Wells post Jesus Myth and Remsburg (who held odds were there was a 1st century teacher named Jesus) in the Christ Myth theory category creating possible confusion with visitors to this page.


 * Muddies the issue of what is meant by "Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" as it opens the whole composite character issue.

5) "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." (Walsh)

Problem: totally different definition of Christ Myth theory that could include a historical Jesus. Some theories regarding Jesus say there was a Jesus prophecy myth that he intentionally tried to fulfill but by a strict reading of Walsh's definition this theory would be part of the Christ-myth theory because "Jesus was originally a myth". Conversely since Mead and Ellegard are saying "he was an historical individual" but existed c100 BC they cannot per Walsh's definition be talking about the Christ Myth Theory.

6) Michael Grant effectively saying the Christ Myth theory is a modern version of the heresy of docetism.

Problem: strictly speaking docetism doesn't say there wasn't a historical Jesus but rather he didn't have a real physical body so it is not entirely clear just what point Grant it making here. Also this Christ Myth as modern docetism view would seem to pull the Islamic view of Jesus into the Christ Myth.

That sums up the issues that exist (ignoring the occasional expert misclassifies someone) and that at some level need to be addressed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to work out these issues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that most of these issues are problems that BruceGrubb has, but not matters that reliable sources focus upon. Article writing shouldn't be driven by editors' individual concerns, but what reliable sources say. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one who has problem with these issues as a quick trip through the archives will show per the examples of User:Vesal, User:Peregrine_Fisher, User:Blueboar, User:jbolden1517, User:^^James^^, User:SlimVirgin, User:Crum375 and even User:Paul_Barlow and User_talk:Bill_the_Cat_7 show. In fact, Paul B and Bill the Cat 7 both agreed that the idea of the Gospel Jesus as a composite character "may legitimately fall under the umbrella of "Christ Myth Theory" though they never answered the question of would that include a 1st century teacher who was NOT crucified being in the mix.  User:PeaceLoveHarmony, User:Ari89, and even User:Akhilleus called Dan Barker a supporter of the Christ Myth theory but as I pointed out in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_37 his position is outside how Boyd-Eddy define Christ Myth theory and there don't seem to be any reliable sources that calls him a Christ Myth theorist.  The fact three people flubbed it so badly shows that there is a problem with the term and trying to ignore that fact is not going to make it go away.


 * I still say my "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the hypothesis that the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so mythologized that not even the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth can be proven from it.(Boyd-Eddy ref). The concept can include the idea Jesus never existed, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community (Goguel, Meynell, Horbury ref), that there is not enough to even show Jesus existed (Boyd-Eddy ref regarding Price), is a modern form of docetism where Jesus didn't exist in a physical form (Grant ref), and that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character formed out of events or sayings from one or more individuals who actually existed outside the 1st century CE (Robinson, Mead, and Ellegard via refs better than what we currently have)." is a much better description of the source material we have that the current lead in is. That whole second sentence in the current lead in is about as clear as mud and worse has no references to even back it up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are Dan Barker's own words on the matter in his book Godless: "I am now convinced that the Jesus story is a combination of myth and legend, mixed with a little bit of real history unrelated to Jesus [...] The Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the New Testament. [...] "The Gospels, written many decades after the fact, are a blend of fact and fantasy--historical fiction--and although the proportions of the blend may different from scholar to scholar, no credible historians take them at 100 percent face value.".  In the chapter "Did Jesus Exist?" Dan Barker sites our old friend Remsburg.  The Hegesippus (c69 CE) vs Josephus (c64 CE) contradiction Remsburg all too briefly showed appear again but this time collaborating evidence for the Hegesippus version in the form of Clement is presented.  Barker goes on to say the James brother of Jesus passage refers to another Jesus and NOT the one of the Gospels. various antichronisms in Tacitus are pointed out.


 * From there nearly every point Christ mythists use comes out but further along Barker gives us an interesting comparison: Santa Claus, William Tell, and Zeus. This is interesting as it runs the full gambit of flesh and blood person being part of the story (Saint Nicholas becoming Santa Claus), a heavily debated maybe (William Tell), and a pure myth (Zeus).  As with Remsburg and Boyd-Eddy we get the historical Jesus spectrum broken up into four categories but it is his category two that interests us:  "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered.  Ok where does THAT fit especially as that leaves the option of this first century personality NOT even being named Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 clearly shows that I am not the only one having problems with how Christ Myth theory is defined in this article. User:Crum375's concerns regarding "the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed" and "that someone in the Hellenistic period saw the need for a fictive ego-ideal/personal savior and invented Jesus to play that role" were not really addressed by Akhilleus. The first link Akhilleus provided is just anything that had Thompson in the text with NO attempt to see if it was relevant to the topic at hand (lazy searching IMHO) and the one direct reference provided ( Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_30) didn't really address the content issues Crum375 had. On a side note here is the list of books he was referencing in the handout by Richard Carrier, for his May 30, 2006 Stanford University presentation:

Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (This one is a definite huh? While the 1998 clearly refers to the Westminster-College-Oxford-Classic reprint put out by Prometheus books I have no idea why Drews is presented as a contemporary scholar)
 * Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth (1998)
 * Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (1999)
 * Harold Liedner, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth (2000)
 * Robert Price, Deconstructing Jesus (2000) and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (2003)
 * Thomas Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (2005)
 * George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)

The William Lane Craig audio Eugene provided was from William Lane Craig's own website (self-published) and unless something was missed the only history degree Craig has listed is in church history while Carrier had a BA in History, an MA in Ancient history, and a MPhil in Ancient history when he gave this presentation. The claim about Thompson is backed up by Robert M. Price's [http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/thompson_messiah_myth.htm "Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. NY: Basic Books, 2005." review] "In the end, I gather Thompson is saying, a la Bruno Bauer, that someone in the Hellenistic period saw the need for a fictive ego-ideal/personal savior and invented Jesus to play that role. Nor does such a theory seem unlikely to me. But I could wish for a good bit more than hints from Thompson, who has forgotten much more of the relevant data than I will ever learn. For instance, I need Thompson, if I am to understand his work, to explain how the propaganda mythemes of ancient sacred kings became isolated from any actual king or would-be king and became the basis of a complete fiction, whether David or Jesus."

So we have Carrier and Price putting Thompson in the mythist column. A quick trip to Bennett via google books show no reference to Thompson anywhere on page 7 and 131 seems to be in reference to the work of some guy called Bultmann. The page 8 of Thompson is about as clear as mud: "The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of a historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified." I kept those reference in good faith but looking at them to try and figure out where the break between Christ Myth theory and minimalist is gives me (and it appears Crum375 as well) a headache.

The most extreme minimalist position seems to be that some person (perhaps not even named Jesus) wandered around Galilee in the 1st century, said a few words of wisdom, and then drifted off into obscurity only to be mythologized into Jesus of Nazareth several decades later. Exactly how does that differ from the Christ Myth theory that Jesus of Nazareth never existed? You technically still don't have a Jesus of Nazareth at the heart of the story. On the outer edges the minimalist position seem to be saying 'but see we have this teacher in Galilee in the 1st century (though we many know next to nothing about him) so it not like we are not saying there was nothing there'.

Also when you get right down to it the extreme minimalist position is about as fringy as the Christ Myth Theory is and in some cases (such as Remsburg) the only difference between the two is that the later grudgingly accepts there might have been a teacher wandering around Galilee in the 1st century and that is it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh, Guys could we calm down and get to fixing the article. This is really getting old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The radical Dutch school
Looking for more on this group I found that Schweitzer made comments regarding them in Paul and his interpreters. Hopefully this will help in turning that section of the article into more than a footnote.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop
There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Opine as you will. It will probably be about a fifty fifty split. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't even close, as 11 opposed the unblock and only 2 supported the unblock when an another administrator hit the thing with a "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." tag. Letting it go on longer wasn't going to get him unblocked IMHO.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Introduction
Article erroneously stated, "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2]" which is a rather deceitful slight-of-hand. as the supporting note [2] references only religious christians - Stanton, Charlesworth, Ehrman - and no supporting notes or links to modern secular historians or anthropologists. This is on par with proving that KRISHNA was an actual historical figure with references to people who are deeply devoted to Hinduism. Complete rubbish. The dishonest inclusion of Wells in that list and the spurious assertion that he embraces a historacle Jesus of Nazareth is flatly false. Groovymaster (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Anthony (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ehrman isn't a Christina let alone a "religious Christina". And even the most religious Christian who is a respected secular academic in the field can make consensus statements about what scholarship as a whole believes in reliable sources. It is not the job of anonymous WP editors to complain that reliable sources disagree with their personal opinion. --Ari (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make the point in the article - in the footnotes? I am against identifying religious or any other orientation of RS's, on principle. But, it would cut out a lot of this. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ari, where is the support for the claim that "the theory is without support among classical historians?" I see Michael Grant being raised as the only example, but what specifically does he say about the CMT? How can the claim be made that CMT-dismissal is a consensus view of classical historians when there is little or no documentation for it? As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old 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. Can anyone find scholars who dismiss the CMT who do not fit these criteria? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I really like to avoid this issue as it tends to degenerate into a mess. The general view among historians is that there a reasonable amount of evidence that the Gospel account is mythologized historical account--that puts the Christ Myth theory, Minimalists, and the Gospels are totally historical groups into the fringe category.  In fact, this is becoming such an issue I am working on a new FAQ to try and deal with this mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FACT REMAINS
 * Fact remains - inclusion of Wells (in the supporting note) as opposing CMT is flatly false.
 * Fact remains - the statement "without support among biblical scholars AND classical historians" is flatly false.
 * My correction - "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars. Classical historians have divergent views on the matter..." is balanced and factual.
 * I realize - this article is being subverted by a bevy of evangelical christians irked by this topic. However, removing their purposeful distortions would be helpful. I noticed how they fought tooth-and-nail against the removal of the spurious insult that CMT advocates are on par with Holocaust denial.

TEXT SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO STATE: The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars. Classical historians have divergent views on the matter. For example, G.A. Wells is unequivocal that the early Christian's Jesus was not historical. However, he does concede the posibility that the Essene religious community (one-hundred and fifty years before Paul's Jesus) may have had an actual founder by the name of Jesus yet clarifies the distinction: "I have treated both the Galilean and the Cynic elements less skeptically in The Jesus Myth, allowing that they may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents)." Groovymaster (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Re so called remaining "fact"
 * "Fact remains - inclusion of Wells (in the supporting note) as opposing CMT is flatly false." - Wells isn't opposing the theory, he as an advocate is stating that the theory is not accepted by the academy. Proponents often note that they are going against mainstream scholarship. We are citing Wells' statement on the state of scholarship, not his personal view contrary to this.
 * "the statement "without support among biblical scholars AND classical historians" is flatly false. " - If the sources state it, then it is not "flatly false". It is cited content from reliable sources.
 * "My correction - "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars. Classical historians have divergent views on the matter..." is balanced and factual." - What reliable source states that classical historians have a divergent view about the historicity of Jesus? None, you are engaging in some sort of original research. In fact, we have reliable sources stating contrary, we have classical historians speaking against the theory and noting it is fringe and no classical historians stating anything contrary. --Ari (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Classical historians have divergent views on the matter" is unrefenrced and calling G.A. wells a Classical historian is streching the definition of the term way too much. He is an advocate of a fringe idea that warps history to fit into his conclusion.  What source calls him a Classical historian? or that other classical historians "have divergent views"  Hardyplants (talk)


 * Calling Wells a classical historian is not stretching the definition of the term. Rather, it is outright false to call him that.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"CLASSICAL HISTORIAN" IS YOUR PHRASE, NOT MINE

You were the folks who cited GA Wells as the "classical historian" opposing CMT. I didn't add that phrase. Is Wells a "classical historian" only when you are allowed to twist his writings to imply he opposes CMT, then - astoundingly - when it is pointed out that he does not oppose CMT he is no longer a "classical historian?" That's convenient. Also, f we are going to discuss "stretching the definition of the term" as you put it, we need to address the very charitable usage of "biblical scholar" and similar titulars attributed to those people with "i love jesus degrees" at non-accredited colleges and religious seminaries.

ANOTHER FALSE ASSERTION + BOGUS LINK

Counter-arguments: The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]

This links to "Evans 1993, p. 8" which is a PDF on a self described "Jesuite-sponsored journal of theology." The author, Craig Evans, currently teaches at Acadia Divinity College "a Christian theological seminary rooted in the Bible." How exactly is Craig Evans an expert to assert that CMT has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance? Well, he doesn't actually say that. On page 8 he writes, "The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church." However, read it in context, the reference to the "scholarly mainstream" is clearly the scholarly mainstream of the early 1900s:

"Artur Drews in 1909 gave new expression to what had come to be called the "Christ myth." He argued that the gospel story of Jesus is completely mythical, that Jesus never lived, and that Paul, the tentmaker of Tarsus, was one of the major developers of the myth. But Drews's work failed to convince many, coming to be looked upon as the last gasp in a rather strange chapter in the century-long quest of the historical Jesus. The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church. The quest for the historical Jesus therefore continued." Groovymaster (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, so we agree that the statement is unsupported. What others have done in the past has no bearing on what we should do now, which is to be as factually correct as we can within the editing guidelines that Wikipedia proscribes. Hardyplants (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'''HUH? WHAT?''' What statement is unsupported? There are no divergent views among classical historians? All secular historians support CMT? All secular historians reject CMT?

I was clearly being too charitable. If "classical historians have divergent views on the matter" isn't neutral enough lets change that to:

'''Secular academics - such as G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, and Alvar Ellegård - support the Christ Myth Theory. The theory remains essentially without support among self-described "bible scholars" at non-accredited universities and religious seminaries.''' Groovymaster (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So a book published by a renowned scholarly orientated press is just "non-accredited universities" to you. Are you sure that you understand this area of academic study? Hardyplants (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm...Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. And all of them reject the CMT. In fact, the scholarly community as a whole reject it. Even proponents of the CMT (Wells, Price, Doherty, et al) acknowledge this rejection by the scholarly community. Consider these quotes:


 * [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?


 * Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
 * Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii

I'd say that's a slam dunk. You lose and it is no longer your turn.


 * "The theory remains essentially without support among self-described "bible scholars" at non-accredited universities and religious seminaries." The irony about this statement is that the only academic in the field who subscribes to CMT has a position at a non-accredited institution. --Ari (talk)

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

RE: G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218 (etc.)

Your links are misquotes and purposefully out-of-context. Wells 1988, p. 218 states:

"... 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... my purpose has been rather to show that recent work from critical theologians themselves provide a basis for taking more seriously the hypothesis that Christianity did not begin with a Jesus who lived on earth."

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Thanks for reverting to the dishonest, "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2]"

Including Wells in the bogus list [2] is more than dishonest. It's a lie.

Hardyplants writes, "so we agree that the statement is unsupported" when it's pointed-out that including Wells in that list is a lie, then reverts to the original "unsupported" statement. I assume Wells is a "classical historian" again.. he's a "classical historian" when you are allowed to lie and include him in this bogus list?

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

RE; Ummmm...Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. And all of them reject the CMT.

That's the plan? Throw out a bunch of names and then lie and claim it's a list of modern legitimate secular historians and anthropologists who refute CMT? You included James Frazer, author of the Golden Bough? And Morton Smith, author of the goofy "Jesus the Magician" book?

Clearly, you are copy/pasting this garbage from fundamentalist-christian cheat-notes; the same sort of misquotes, falsehoods, and lies as the copy/pasted cheat-notes you post on various science forums to "prove" the earth is 6000-years old and biological-evolution is s sneaky trick of the devil.

I'm done. You are simply dishonest liars.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Groovymaster (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeating erroneous points does not make them true. You have failed to engage any of the editors here or raise any meaningful objection to the legitimacy of the provided reliable sources. I would hope you cut the personal attacks from your comments on your own accord. --Ari (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming the points are erroneous doesn't not make the claim true. The fact is Michael Grant clearly has a different definitions for Christ Myth theory than this article does defining it as a form of modern docetism, Walsh's definition has clear problems, and some of the others require WP:SYN to figure out just what they are saying.  It clearly is fringe but just what Christ Myth theory is varies between authors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb, if you are going to reply to me can you please make it somehow relevant to what I am saying. Bringing up your own pet definition in every discussion is just annoying. Thanks. --Ari (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming that is is "my pet definition" does not change the FACT there are definitions other than "Jeuss never existed" used for Christ Myth theory by such people Michael Grant or George Walsh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

POV-section / RE: The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2]
RE: The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2]

Note [2] lists three biblical scholars and GA Wells who in fact supports CMT not opposes as the reference implies. A current quote to that effect from Well has ben supplied and ignored. Editors are antagonistic to Wells and mock him as not being a classical historian when correctly quoted but continue to use him as the sole "classical historian" if allowed to falsely asset that he opposes CMT. Groovymaster (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason a POV tag is already at the top of the article, there is no reason to repeat the tag. Numerous editors have addressed the issue you have repeated in this section. Again, you are misrepresenting the use of Wells in the citation. No one is claiming he is a classical historian, he is used for his statement on what mainstream scholarship believes. --Ari (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the support for the claim that "the theory is without support among classical historians?" How can the claim be made that CMT-dismissal is a consensus view of classical historians when there is no documentation for it? As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old 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. Can anyone find scholars who dismiss the CMT who do not fit these criteria? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Even proponents of the CMT acknowledge that it is without support by mainstream scholarship, but you seem to think that you know more than they do, so I suppose providing you with documentation again will serve no purpose. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a reference in answer to my question above. Anyone? If not, I suggest we should improve the article by removing the "classical historians" part of the statement. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording is horrid and after looking at the cited works the statement appears to be WP:SYN. Religious tolerance site gives us an even broader view of the historical Jesus spectrum in Jesus of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) Did he actually exist? All sides to the question article with Dunkerley and Russell presented as the two ends.  We also get Boston University philosophy professor Michael Martin and Doherty and a real mixed bag of reference (some useful some useless) at the end of the thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the provided citations which state historians. The continual push to state that only biblical scholars believe Jesus existed is a fiction, more importantly an unsourced fiction that has no place on this article. --Ari (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased Sourcing
 * "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2].” The footnote contains four sources. The first is a theologian, not peer-reviewed. The second is a theologian, James H. Charlesworth; the publisher is Eerdmans...."Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." . The third is interesting, just because the expert self-describes as recently agnostic--after a life of evangelism. Unfortunately, the original publisher is Fortean Times, a popular magazine focused on science fiction and the paranormal.. The 4th source is George Albert Wells; he doesn't support the historical Jesus theory, and so is misrepresented as considering its opposition a fringe theory.
 * "The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]” The source is Craig A. Evans. The publisher is "Theological Studies: A Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology"

Please cite some peer-reviewed, secular sources treating the existence of Jesus as a fact. Noloop (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, your points about Eerdmans and Charlesworth have been raised before--just look for Eerdmans or Charlesworth in the archive. As I said before James Charlesworth has not been demonstrated to have so much as a Bachelors in history, archeology, or anthropology.


 * Also, as I also pointed out before, a review by Jonathan Reed University of La Verne in Review of Biblical Literature 10/2007 stated: "One minor criticism must be raised: scattered throughout the book are numerous illustrations, mostly from Charlesworth’s collection, which, although at times helpful, at other times seem misplaced or could be replaced with something more appropriate. So we see, for example, a bichrome Canaanite decanter in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass, or the excavations at Cana in Kloppenborg’s article, but none at all of the Theodotos inscription whose letters are analyzed in a way that is hard to visualize without a picture. Of course by using his own photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful."


 * As some who actually has a anthropology degree I will again say compromising accuracy in the name of cost or convenience is at best questionable in terms of ethics and something that no reputable publisher of archeology papers would allow certainly with papers that didn't originally have those pictures in the first place. There are far better sources denoting everything outside of the "Gospel account gives a reasonable historical account of Jesus" as fringe that we don't need Charlesworth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb, if you were to read the "minor criticism" correctly it was not an accuracy vs cost thing; the accuracy does not seem to be questioned by anyone but yourself, and the cost reference is a benefit - without royalties the book is economically accessible. Take the personal distaste and dragging of reputable scholars through the mud somewhere else. --Ari (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your statement makes no sense as since the works would be copyrighted by their respective authors royalties would likely have been involved for the text regardless of any photos. Never mind Charlesworth's statement is ad hominem and circular ie if someone supports this view they are not a reputable scholar.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote you provided stated the exact same thing regarding images and cost ("Of course by using his own photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful."). It seems you are very confused when it comes to reading, whether it be relevant sources or the comments of other editors. For example, here you have missed the entire point the reviewer makes and go on to take a personal attack at the accuracy of the volume. At this stage I would suggest you cool off from the article - you are letting your personal opinion override everything you are reading. --Ari (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Charlesworth's statement is still ad hominem, circular, and doesn't really add anything to the article in the way of proof. Charlesworth has not been shown to have any archeological degree so one would have major misgivings about him being the editor of a book on archeology per the SAA's old 1960 "Four statements for archaeology", the modern version of the same or "Archaeological ethics and the People of the past" in The Ethics of Archaeology (Cambridge University Press) by Sarah Tarlow.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Source request
Ari, would you mind quoting here what the top three sources say about the theory having essentially no support among classical historians? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you really want to hear from me, but statements from proponents of the CMT are very compelling:


 * [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?


 * I can provide "positive" statements from those who reject the CMT (which is practically everyone), should you express an interest. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for explicit sources for the statement: "The theory remains essentially without support among ... classical historians." Ari restored the sentence, so I'm hoping he can tell me what the three top sources say. Just the three best ones, please. There's no need for a long list. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I couldn't give you the top three, so let's see what Ari has to say. In the mean time, here is one quote which should be more meaningful to radical atheist/agnostics (since Bart Ehrman is an atheist/agnostic; bold added to emphasize relevant sentence):


 * What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.
 * Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007


 * At any rate, what say you, Ari?   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, we must have something better than a quote from Fortean Times ("the world of strange phenomena featuring weird news, strange pictures, videos, books, film reviews and more")--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

New paragraph
I've changed the final paragraph of the lead, basing it on a secondary source, The Sydney Morning Herald, rather than the primary sources (the involved academics) we've been using to date. The new paragraph also makes clear that there seems to be an academic versus popular opinion about this.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Update
Actually I've added another new sentence to the last paragraph of the lead, and re-arranged it for flow, so here are both side by side:

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

POV-section: The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]
RE: The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]

The supporting note-link [85] to "Evans 1993, p. 8" is a PDF on a self described "Jesuite-sponsored journal of theology." The author, Craig Evans, currently teaches at a "Christian theological seminary rooted in the Bible." Craig Evans is not an expert to assert that CMT has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance. Furthermore, he doesn't actually make that claim. Read in context, the reference to the "scholarly mainstream" is clearly the scholarly mainstream of the early 1900s:

Craig Evans writes, "Artur Drews in 1909 gave new expression to what had come to be called the 'Christ myth.' He argued that the gospel story of Jesus is completely mythical, that Jesus never lived, and that Paul, the tentmaker of Tarsus, was one of the major developers of the myth. But Drews's work failed to convince many, coming to be looked upon as the last gasp in a rather strange chapter in the century-long quest of the historical Jesus. The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church. The quest for the historical Jesus therefore continued."

This slight-of-hand (false assertion with non-supporting link) has previously been brought to the attention of the editors. From the responses, it is clear to even a casual observer that several editors are overtly hostile to CMT and are unconcerned or complicit in distorting information and are driven by a fundamentalist-christian viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groovymaster (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Groovymaster, please read the policy on reliable sources. Craig A. Evans is a notable scholar, especially in historical Jesus studies. He has edited and contributed many leading volumes on the state of historical Jesus scholarship such as Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research and Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Why exactly are we to dismiss this source because you personally believe that several editors are "driven by a fundamentalist-christian viewpoint." Other than making judgements about other editors, is there actually a reason related to various WP guidelines as to reject reliable sources? --Ari (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ari, I removed the section NPOV tag twice, but he put it back in again. He also vandalized the page by deleting the entire thing.  I'm going to sleep now, so please keep an eye on Groovymaster.  I seriously doubt he is interested in collaborating constructively.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure why the section NPOV was where it was. The context and definition section is likely one of the most NPOV parts of this whole article.  We have the Marshall and Boyd_Eddy saying the Christ Myth theory is part of the broader historical Jesus spectrum.  We have the somewhat conflicting definitions of Walsh, Boyd-Eddy, and Grant showing there is some variance as to what the Christ myth theory even is but there is no debate the thing is fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fringe and mainstream issue
Ok, this is getting out of hand again. This is from the new FAQ I am working on for this article:

'''I've read there is a spectrum of ideas regarding the historical Jesus. Doesn't that mean the Christ Myth theory just a strawman argument to used to claim the Gospels are totally historical?'''

Response: You have likely read Marshall and-or Boyd-Eddy and yes there is a spectrum of ideas regarding the historical Jesus. But just as the visible spectrum can be broken down into seven colors so the historical Jesus spectrum can be similarly broken down. In fact over the course of a century at least three people (Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy-Boyd) have done so. Because as Eddy-Boyd points out these four categories (or "colors" if you will) are "admittedly over simplistic", "ideal-typical", and a "useful heuristic" they should not be taken as absolute definitions. In fact, if you look at the definitions provided by these three authors as well as some others you will notice that the four categories don't always match up which in turn means the boundaries between the definitions are not sharp and clear. However, this doesn't mean the Christ Myth theory is a strawman created by pro historical Jesus supporters only that where it breaks with the equally fringe minimalist position is not always clear...even to scholars and experts.

The four "colors" of the historical Jesus spectrum (and their current status with the academic community) are:

Christ Myth theory (Fringe)
 * all trace of a historical person, if there was ever one was to begin with, has been lost. (Jesus agnosticism) (Boyd)
 * Jesus began as a myth (Walsh)
 * "Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process." (Barker)
 * "Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity." (Remsburg)

Minimalist (Fringe)
 * There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else. (Boyd)
 * "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." (Barker)
 * "Many radical Freethinkers believe that 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." (Remsburg)

Moderate Historical (mainstream)
 * "Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life." (Remsburg)
 * "Jesus did exist, and that some parts of the New Testament are accurate, although the miracles and the claim to deity are due to later editing of the original story." (Barker)
 * A historical Jesus did exist but was very different from the gospel Jesus (Boyd-Eddy)

Total/Extreme Historical (Fringe)
 * "Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth." (Remsburg)
 * "The New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories." (Barker)

References:

Barker, Dan (2006) Losing Faith in Faith pg 372

Boyd-Eddy (2007), The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 24-25

Marshall, Ian Howard (2004), I Believe in the Historical Jesus

Remsburg, John (1909) The Christ

Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58

(end of FAQ section)

It's still a work in progress but as the above hopefully shows anything outside of the Moderate Historical position is considered fringe. So while the boundary between Christ Myth theory and extreme minimalist position is not a sharp as we would like we should realize they are both fringe. So can we please get off that topic and work on improving this article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Bruce. I think we're on the same side in this, but I must say that I don't read your posts because they're too long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The length of my posts generally reflects the complexity of this issue. Let's face it, anything outside "the gospels have a reasonable about of history in them" is fringe where it be Christ Myth Theory, Minimalist, or Extreme Historical.  The problem is where the divide between Christ Myth Theory and Minimalist varies depending on the author especially when you throw in Mead, Ellegard, and Robinson into the mix.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Who calls 3 out of 4 positions fringe? Is that your interpretation or is that sourced? Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Boyd-Eddy is my main source for this as it is the most recent and most reliable of the three sources I used in the FAQ example above but if you go through the more recent literature that is effectively the argument being presented. Even in 1909 Remsburg called the minimalist position a radical freethinker one and we have enough reviews of Drews and ideas similar to Drews to put the "there is not enough evidence Jesus existed" idea into the fringe category.
 * The Gospels are totally historical accurate is another matter as until the Enlightenment period no one (we know of) question their accounts but today most scholars consider the Gospel account to some degree mythical which puts this into fringe as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, we should be careful with such classification and not to make them ourselves and I am very happy with this additional sourced information. Although I have to say that the border between minimalist and moderate is not always very clear see e.g. "There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else. (Boyd)" and "A historical Jesus did exist but was very different from the gospel Jesus (Boyd-Eddy)". But you cover that in your text noting it is shifting scale, so no absolute categories. To me the minimalist seems the least fringy of the three minority views (but that maybe my personal bias). Arnoutf (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is this "shifting scale" with "no absolute categories." that creates problems for this article. It makes a formal definition about what the article is about a game of pick that source.  The name largely comes from the fact most people are referring to Drew's book Chrith Myth but the term was and still is used for other thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates
Does anyone mind if I start to go through the article to remove the short refs and the citation templates? They are causing the article to be very slow to load&mdash;diffs and preview can take several minutes to load on my computer. They also mean we have to keep jumping back and forth to find the full citation. My preference is simply to write, e.g.:

If there are no objections, I'll start doing that slowly over the next couple of weeks. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against the theory
One of the problems I've always had with this article is that, after reading it, I still don't know why anyone believes Jesus existed. I know why we say Socrates existed: we have the writings of Plato, who knew him. I know why we say Euripides existed: we have his plays and there is contemporaneous reference. But why do biblical scholars say Jesus existed? If that could be written up in clear language, so that we're presenting the best arguments that exist (arguments, not rhetoric), I think it would improve this article a lot.

For example, this section about Paul is weak, yet it is apparently the primary data people rely on:

Biblical scholar L. Michael White, not a Christ-myth theorist, writes that the earliest writings mentioning Jesus that survive are the letters of Paul of Tarsus, written 20–30 years after the dates given for Jesus's death. Paul did not know Jesus, and does not claim ever to have seen him.

Many biblical scholars nevertheless turn to Paul's letters (epistles) to support their arguments for a historical Jesus. Theologian James D.G. Dunn argues that Robert Price ignores what everyone else in the business regards as primary data. Biblical scholar F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) writes that, according to Paul's letters, Jesus was an Israelite, descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16) and David (Rom. 1:3); who lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4); who was betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine (I Cor. 11:23ff); who endured the Roman penalty of crucifixion (I Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1, 13, 6:14, etc.), although Jewish authorities were somehow involved his death (I Thess. 2:15); who was buried, rose the third day and was thereafter seen alive, including by over 500 on one occasion, of whom the majority were alive 25 years later (I Cor. 15:4ff). The letters say that Paul knew of and had met important figures in Jesus's ministry, including the apostles Peter and John, as well as James the brother of Jesus, who is also mentioned in Josephus. In the letters, Paul on occasion alludes to and quotes the teachings of Jesus, and in 1 Corinthians 11 recounts the Last Supper.

All it does is tell us what Paul's letters say, but Paul never met Jesus. So it remains unexplained why we should take what he says as evidence. Can we explain in clear language why Paul's letters are viewed as authoritative? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, rather than reverting what other people write, can you help to develop the article? What we need is an explanation, in clear language, of why anyone believes Jesus existed:


 * 1) We say Socrates existed because Plato's work survived, and Plato knew and wrote about Socrates.
 * 2) We say Euripides existed because his own work survived. The work of his contemporaries survived too, and they mention him.
 * 3) We say Jesus existed because ... ?

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Epistles, gospels
This comment may be an unwelcome distraction but do we have evidence that "mythers" (in particlar) "prioritize the New Testament epistles over the gospels"? My impression would be that there is little dispute, away from fundamentalism, that the epistles are closer to the life of Jesus and therefore more reliable. The Christ Myth Theory may hold this view, but I would not be surprised if the Archbishop of Canterbury does too. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, we had an issue with that earlier. Price in 2009 states that the traditional CMT argument prioritises the Epistles over the gospels. However, that really doesn't encapsulate it, does it? E.g. they tend to only give priority to the epistles and ignore the gospels. Furthermore, advocates do not limit themselves to the Pauline epistles (e.g. Doherty with Hebrews). --Ari (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ari: does (edit: Price) note that CMT is unusual in its preference for the epistles? If not then surely it is misleading to include the info in the lead (compare "proponents of the Christ Myth Theory prefer to read their bibles with the light on"). --FormerIP (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will recheck the wording of Price shortly. They are probably unique in that they on the whole reject the gospels in favour of the epistles, but other historical Jesus scholars such as Paul Barnett prioritise the historical value of the epistles. --Ari (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The second of the three pillars of the traditional Christ-Myth case is that the Epistles, earlier than the Gospels, do not evidence a recent historical Jesus." (emph in text) Price 2009, p.63. --Ari (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's poor support, then, for "proponents prioritize the New Testament epistles over the gospels". Suggest this should be removed, since it is very misleading. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that should be removed. It always struck me as confusing. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition again
"Accordingly, though the Gospels are entirely fictional in their portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant preacher and wonderworker, accompanied by twelve disciples, Paul's Jesus was indeed a historical figure, namely, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness." (Theologians as historians Alvar Ellegård Scientific Communication Lunds Universitet pg 171-172)

"This again has been pushed to the extreme of maintaining that Jesus never existed as a historical person... (citing Drews and Smith) (Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 7 edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray pg 574)

"The last was made necessary by a number of British writers who had been attracting attention with the theory that Jesus never existed at all; he was a mythological figure, they said, invented like the Greek gods as a symbol of a new faith." (Albert Schweitzer: a biography By James Brabazon pg 222)

"They could have exploded the whole thing if Jesus never rose because He never died, and never died because He never lived, and there was no Jesus either to die or rise." (The facts of life in relation to faith Patrick Carnegie Simpson (1913) Page 134)

"When, several years ago, the theory was revived that Jesus never existed — that he was a myth..." (A Jewish View of Jesus 2009 H G Enelow)

"The story that this God Jesus lived in Judea as man was but the result of giving the subject of the myth a human form. In reality the man Jesus never existed. If this theory of W.B. Smith were but the fancy of an amateur,..." (What is the truth about Jesus Christ?: Problems of Christology Friedrich Loofs (1913) Page 6)

"The element of truth in much perverse criticism, arguing that Jesus never existed, is that the Jesus of history is quite different from the Lord assumed as the founder of Catholic Christianity." (Landmarks in the history of early Christianity Kirsopp Lake (1922) Page 60)

"The result, at least, in this author's learned pages, is the removal of the last particle of historicity from the life of Jesus in the Gospels. Such a person as Jesus of Nazareth never existed " — " never lived."(p 1026) "The Jesus-legend is a Israelitish Gilgamesh-legend" (p1024), attach to some person of whom we know absolutely nothing--neither time nor country."(p 1026) (The resurrection of Jesus By James Orr (1908) pg 243)

"Some nineteenth-century rationalists maintained that he never existed, that the gospels portrayed an ideal Jew who never was." Jesus: Word made flesh By Gerard S. Sloyan (2008) pg 160)

"Bauer who argued that everything in the New Testament is a myth and that Jesus never existed as a historical person." (What have they done to the Bible? John Sandys-Wunsch (2005) Page 321)

This quick sampling of varies authors shows a fundamental problem with our definition. Many of them are say that the Christ Myth theory is that Jesus was a pure myth but you have others that indicate something different. Again the exact meaning of "Jesus never existed" seems to vary depending on the author going from "Jesus never existed except as a fictional creation no more historical than Osiris or Zeus" to "Jesus of the gospels is a composite character and therefore never existed in the same way King Arthur or Robin Hood never existed" which are really are two different issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Source request for Wells 2009
For this sentence:

"Since then, The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth have been called continuations or modifications of Wells' original position by Price, Dunn, and Eddy-Boyd,  leading Wells to clarify again in 2009 that his position since The Jesus Legend (1996) should not be considered part of the Christ myth theory."

Could we have a page number for Wells 2009 (footnote 4), and be told exactly what he says, please? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was presented by User:Akhilleus (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_35) and was quoted at length but I can't seem to find it in the archive at this time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll remove it for now until we know what it says and have a page number. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I missed this before. The relevant pages of Wells 2009 are 327-28; a relevant quote appears at Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_33. Note that Wells essentially says that he has repudiated the Christ myth theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverting


Ari, please stop reverting. The article is poorly written, POV, incomplete, difficult to read. It needs to be fixed. I wouldn't mind your reverts so much if you were also working to improve the page, but all you do is revert. It makes progress slow to non-existent. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, Ari, why not allow work to continue for, say, three months with no reverts, then judge the page overall? That way, at least you'd be able to stand back and see what the rest of us have to offer, which would put you in a better position to evaluate it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain this revert.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, how about you give me the right to edit just as much as any other editor. You made edits that were not agreed to and discussions were not in favour of it. You disregarded these and made bold edits. Good for you, your bold edits have been disagreed with and I am trying to gain consensus by implementing both the previous consensus version and your bold version. All constantly reverting of my changes does is slow down the process. --Ari (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is that you don't edit, Ari. You only undo other people's work. That isn't fair, especially when it's carefully written and sourced. The adding of the Swedish scholar to the lead, for example, is important, because it finally explains why there seems to be such a rift within academic: biblical scholars calling people who question Jesus flat-earthers, accompanied by mostly silence on the other side. It's important to put that in the lead, and the reason for it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I do edit - and the only reason I am not editing at this very moment is to respond to childish accusations against myself. Ellegard's personal non-scholarly opinion on why there may be a rift is really not lead worthy, and it contradicts reliable sources by relevant scholars that have actually engaged the theory. E.g. Robert Van Voorst talks of the arguments being answered time and time again. Furthermore, Ellegard does not understand how historians work - they see Jesus existing because they can attributed authentic words and deeds to the main. This isn't just using historical method to demonstrate Jesus' existence but moving beyond that to determine what he said and did.


 * In addition to this, there are also problems with the definition. That some proponents may believe the sayings go back to some or a series of historical figures, this was dropped to "They". --00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you call Ellegard's paper personal and non-scholarly? It seems to be a scholarly paper. And it explains very well why there seems to be such a rift about this.


 * I asked above if someone could explain why we believe Jesus existed. Could you contribute that to the article? It is currently very unclear. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your constant reversion to a non-consensus bold version is quite tedious and in direct contravention to WP policies on editing. --Ari (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are multiple objections to saying there is no support for this among classical historians, yet you keep restoring it. You must not keep doing that. The version I put up gives us in-text attribution for it, and an explanation, at long last, of why it might be the case. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple objections that have no basis in reliable sources. On the other hands, reliable sources make consensus statements explicitly stating "Biblical scholars and classical historians." That said, that does not seem to be the objection and you are opting to use false edit summaries to cover up reversions. There is no need for the latter. --Ari (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could others please give an opinion on the two versions of the lead that Ari and I disagree about?

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, that is not my version. What may be said as "my" (although I very much dislike the possessive on WP) is not presented above as it is the fusion of the previous consensus version and your own version.


 * Ari has reverted the lead again to include the disputed "classical historians" material.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not a revert, it was a revamp of most of the lead fusing the consensus version and your bold version. Is this not how consensus is made? --01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead
--Ari (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is is still a mess. I think my version better reflects the litature

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the hypothesis that none of the Jesus account in the New Testament including proving his very existence is historical accurate. The concept can include the idea Jesus never existed, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. , is a modern form of docetism, or 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 addresses issues like:

"Strauss included, that Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of the Gospels, actually lived as a historical character.." (The Jesus of the Gospels and the Influence of Christianity; A. Hatchard (2006))

"I proved to you beyond dispute and against the cavil of all the Freethinkers in Europe, Strauss included, that Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of the Gospels, actually lived as a historical character" (The origins of theosophy: Annie Besant--the atheist years Annie Wood Besant, J. Gordon Melton - 1990)

The puzzle of the Gospels Peter Vardy, Mary E. Mills (1997) Page 99 makes  the point that the Jesus of the gospels (ie Jesus of Nazareth) and the historial Jesus may be two different people.

"Emerging from Bultmann's literary analysis is the conclusion that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Christ of the apostolic experience. No historical foundation by legitimately be sought in the Synopitics--a judgment based on a twofold premise"  (Bromiley, Geoffrey W.  International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J - Page 1037)

There are many other examples but they all say that Jesus of Nazareth is the Jesus of the Gospels. The problem with that connection is if you say there was 1st century teacher named Jesus who along with other teacher was used to from the gospel Jesus you are still saying Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist by the very definition of composite character! Given the Talmud has been on occasion presented as evidence for the historical Jesus and yet as Mead points out the temporal markers put the Jesus described within as being c100 CBE and for pointing this out he is labled a Christ myther.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think many people who reject CMT regard the New Testament as historically unreliable. So, I question this: "CMT is the hypothesis that none of the Jesus account in the New Testament including proving his very existence is historical accurate." I'm not sure about this either: "The concept can include the idea Jesus never existed, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community." For example, Alvar Ellegard believes the NT Jesus is based on a historical figure, an Essene who lived around 100 BC. That's not considered a historical Jesus, just because its distance from the NT Jesus crosses an undefined line. Still, it's an historical figure. Noloop (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, first read Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_37 as that goes into the various sources.


 * "CMT is the hypothesis that none of the Jesus account in the New Testament including proving his very existence is historical accurate." is the best way I can sum up Boyd and keep true to spirit of the other sources in the above link.


 * "The concept can include the idea Jesus never existed, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community" statement is backed up by Goguel, Meynell, and Horbury as well as Walsh, Remsburg and Baker so there is no debate on that part. Please note what is ALSO in that sentence:


 * is a modern form of docetism (citing Grant)


 * or 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 covers about everybody else as well as addressing Wells post Jesus Legend (1996) still being put into the Christ Myth category by so many authors and Wells challenging of that classification.).


 * It is an attempt to be as NPOV as possible with all the different definitions using the source material as it stands. IMHO is is the best of a very confusing situation. --BruceGrubb (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against the theory again
The section outlining arguments against the Christ myth theory is weak, and I would like to try to strengthen it with a clear introduction. I'm re-posting my question here in case it gets lost in the above. Can anyone help me out, from a historian's perspective, with the most basic, brief arguments in the simplest language?


 * 1) We say Socrates existed because Plato's work survived, and Plato knew and wrote about Socrates.
 * 2) We say Euripides existed because his own work survived, as did the work of his contemporaries, who wrote about him.
 * 3) We say Jesus existed because ... ?

It is acknowledged by all that no writings of his exist; that no one who knew him wrote about him; and that no one wrote about him in his lifetime. So what is the strongest evidence, and why is it regarded as strong?

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but I think people generally think he existed is that there's so much text in the Bible or whatever about him, that there was probably someone who they are writing about. And we call that person Jesus, although who really was and exactly what he really did is debated.  That's my guess.  I haven't seen a good RS summary of it, or at least don't remember one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of writing about other gods too, though, and we don't argue that therefore they must have existed. Dionysus, for example, was often described as if he was a real person who turned up here and there to cause chaos. What is the evidence that people rely on to argue that Jesus was real? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its basically the Great Man Theory--Christianity is so large so grand that is impossible for it to have evolved on its own. There has to be a Great Man behind it and that Great Man is Jesus.
 * The counter to this is System theory--events are shaped by a complex series of interconnecting social political factors. The Jewish community had been waiting for a messiah a Christ to lead them back to greatness.  There were many would be claimants to this title of which Jesus may have been one (or elevated to that status after his death by his followers).  From all this Christianity came into existence with varies views of who or even what the messiah was.  Eventually one form became dominate in the Roman Empire with varies Pagan elements added in so it could replace various Pagan religions eventually becoming the version we know.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there's a circular logic. I've seen Occams Razor quoted often - the easiest option is that the Gospels are mostly based on a real person. The trouble then is that most of the historical christ scholars basically make an a priori assumption that there was a real person in there somewhere, and then anyone questioning it is automatically fringe.  We know about Alexander the Great, although his biography was written ages after he died, because he was a political leader who conquered stuff, built stuff etc, so he leaves a mark in the archaeological record. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some evidence of the very early church suppressing information about both James (the one who is listed as Jesus brother) and Mary Magdalen, suggesting that there might have been a real person who had a brother James (problematic for virgin birth) and a wife Mary (problematic for the son of god). The other real challenge, the one that never gets talked about, is that Jesus might be more than one person. We really have nothing to verify that there was only one of him, other than Occam's razor.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Right, Alexander the Great left something. Socrates, via Plato who was his pupil, left something. Euripides left his plays.


 * Jesus left nothing. No one who might have known him left anything. There are no diaries, no witness accounts. There are only stories written after he is said to have died, by people who never claim to have seen him. The earliest writings that mention him are the letters of Paul, also written decades after the dates given for Jesus's death.


 * So could someone explain what the evidence is that is so strong it is causing people who don't believe it to be compared to flat-earthers? This is not a facetious question. I would like to write it up in the article so that the strength of the argument is clear, which it currently isn't. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it isn't on the basis of the material being so strong, but that this is a question which, so far as I can determine, seems to be raised only regarding a select few characters in Jewish and Christian history. I don't see any questions raised about whether Gautama Buddha ever existed, although the evidence of his existence is similar to that of Jesus. The same applies for figures of other religions as well. There isn't much sourcing available for his existence, perhaps beyond the possible references in the Babylonian Talmud, but the question of his non-existence seems to many/most in the Western world to posit some points which they regard as being basically of the conspiracy theory type, and about as "fringey" as other such theories. It was only in the past 100 years or so that we had any reliable external evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate, although there doesn't seem to have been much question of his existence raised. The fact that other figures, whose existence is often no better founded than Jesus of Nazareth's is, such as Buddha, do not face such questioning, at least so far as they can see, can lead them to think that the question might be motivated by reasons other than historical accuracy. And there doesn't seem to have been much relatively contemporary questioning of Jesus' existence; it is hard for many to believe that, if there were contemporary questions regarding his very existence, that some first or second century CE Jews wouldn't have raised the point much more strongly than it seems to have been raised, particularly come the Pauline era. And at least two of the evangelists are within the texts supposed to have had direct contact with the subject.
 * But again, I think, in the eyes of many, they do not see the question as being about the quality of the sourcing, but the reasons for raising the questions, particularly so late after the alleged existence of the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Why are you picking on Jesus?" might be a rational thing to raise out there in RL, but here we have an article title "Christ Myth Theory". --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point seems to be more about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in some form, which I acknowledge would go against policy and guidelines, and wasn't what I was really trying to indicate. There does seem to be some roughly contemporary sourcing of Jesus's existence, certainly similar to other individuals whose existence is not seriously questioned. The fact that this evidence is apparently discounted, even though sourcing of a sort does seem to exist, and that that sourcing did not, apparently, receive significant historical questioning at the time, like I think we would expect of Jews who knew about the Jesus movement gaining credibility elsewhere but didn't say "Who? No such person seems to have existed" raises the conspiracy theory question, particularly in light of the question seeming to get serious discussion only a significant period of time after the fact. Lack of direct, verifiable evidence, particularly when the sources one would expect were apparently destroyed during conflict, is not, to many people, sufficient evidence to say that the less reliable evidence which does exist is necessarily questionable. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't really know what discussion of these sources there may or may not have been in antiquity. None survives - that's all we can really say about it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997) takes a brief look into mind set of the 1st century Roman Empire. The one thing people forget that Carrier points out using Josephus as his source is that you are not dealing with highly skeptical people in 1st century Roman Empire.
 * Another thing is there there were would be Messiahs (ie Christ) showing up all the time so the Jewish community would have been like that scene in Napoleon Bunny-part--"Here's another Christ. That's the sixth one today."  Israel Knohl and Michael O. Wise have recently suggested two such Christs before Jesus that they feel inspired the 1st century prophet (The Messiah before Jesus:The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls; The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ) with the kind of reaction one normally sees reserved for Christ Mythers: "they've lost control and gone out on limbs." (Lawrence Schiffman, Edelman professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University quoted in New York Times)
 * Price in The Historical Jesus: Five Views on page 65 calling (Ellegard a mythicist along with the early Wells) give another view of the mindset of the time: "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)
 * So the idea that Jesus might have been a totally fictional would likely have never occurred to either the the Jewish or Roman communities of the time. The attitude would have been more "oh, another one?"  Even if you take the two passages of Josephus as factual it is clear Jesus brother of James was so minor that he got little more than a passing foot note.  The Christ Myther's point is that if the Gospel Jesus was even remotely historical Josephus would have written more than that for reasons pointed out in The God Who Wasn't There--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem may be that the article treats the reality or otherwise of JC as an academic question (as opposed to a question of faith) to a greater extent than it actually is. --FormerIP (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * John, regardless of whether we ought to question other people's existence, why do we say Jesus exists? There are no contemporaneous sources; no one disputes that. The earliest, Paul, comes decades after the dates for Jesus's death, and Paul did not claim ever to have seen or had contact with Jesus. Hence my problem in trying to write up the strongest arguments. Are you able to summarize them for us? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul may have been the earliest, but two of the gospels are (allegedly) written by individuals who were among the 12 apostles, John and Matthew, and who thus would have been speaking on the basis of direct personal knowledge of the subject. I guess you somehow missed that point. I think Matthew is even, by at least some scholars, considered to have been the person who actually wrote his book. They may not have been the earliest sources, which seems to the point you find most important, but I think we have some modern cases where authors of first biographies of individuals are by people not familiar with the subject, and sometimes those books are followed by others who do have personal memories of the subject. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is correct&mdash;if it's accepted that two of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus&mdash;why does L. Michael White (and all the other academics I've read) say that no one with personal knowledge of Jesus wrote anything about him? He writes that are no records, diaries, eyewitness accounts, or any other kind of first-hand record. Am I misunderstanding? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (out of sequence)@John Carter. All scholars of the history of the new testament now seem to agree that the Matthew who wrote the gospel was not Matthew Levi the apostle. That's been the case for at least 30 years.  However, 30 years ago, there was still a subset at least who held that John the Evangelist was John bar Zebedee. This view seems to have declined since then.  Others would be better placed to tell you why. The last view of the Gospels that I saw was that Marks (the earliest) had a predecessor that was just a collection of sayings and parables, with no 'biographical' details at all - although that view may have changed since the last time I looked.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elen. I'd really like to pin this down. My worry is threefold. First, we're not doing the historical Jesus perspective justice in the article, so it would be good to clarify it. Secondly, I worry that there are editors on this page (not talking about John or anyone in particular), who are arguing from a position that's not fully understood. Third, Ellegard says that one of the problems with the historical Jesus theory is that scholars have dressed it up in such fancy language that it's impenetrable, and in so doing have hidden how weak it is, perhaps including from themselves. I would like to try to prevent that impenetrability from affecting this article, or the way we discuss the issues on this page. We should be able to produce an article that says "Here is why people say he existed," and "here is why people say he didn't" in language anyone can understand. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that everyone working in the field makes an a priori assumption that there was a person. Even Cupitt, whose base position is that "God is the sum of our values, representing to us their ideal unity, their claims upon us and their creative power’.God is ‘real’ in the sense that he is a potent symbol, metaphor or projection, but He has no objective existence outside and beyond the practice of religion(from the Sea of Faith manifesto, and from Taking Leave of God)  still argues that Jesus himself was an almost purely secular teacher of wisdom whose teaching was buried beneath the Church. I've not read Ellegard - is he trying to make the point that they cannot speak of Jesus as not existing, and so they dress it up in fancy language, to hide the concept that they cannot speak of??Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ellegard article is here, Elen (I fixed a typo in your post that was caused by a typo in mine; my apologies). He writes that the dogma is concealed under a cover of mystifying language, and gives an example of the kind of thing that's hard to penetrate (p. 171). Interesting point about Cupitt, but I wonder if he means Jesus really existed, or whether he's recounting a description of him from the stories. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @SlimVirgin, you probably want to ask Akhilleus for an answer to that question. Sometime in the past, he had recommended some book (books?) that covered historical methodology in relation to the historical Jesus.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, you also argue in favour of Jesus's existence and the importance of making clear that doubting it is fringey. Can you summarize the strongest arguments? I'm not looking for anything fancy or dozens of quotes from other people. I'm looking for a very simply worded two or three sentences. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can find. I've moved several times over the last 10 years, and I tend to sell books with each move (they're heavy!!).  So, give me a day or two to see what I can dig up.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, though I should add that I'm not at this stage looking for anything from sources. I'm willing to do that legwork myself. I'm just looking for a sentence or two very briefly summarizing why (the historical reasons, not the religious) biblical scholars believe so strongly that he existed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegard
Could someone please explain why it's so important that Alvar Ellegard, whose academic expertise is in the linguistics of English, be cited in the lead, especially in a way that seems to affirm that the lack of attention paid to the CMT by theologians is a failure? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because he explains what seems to be the rift between theologians (whether you call them biblical scholars or ancient historians) and the rest of academia and sources outside academia. It's something that needs explaining, because to any rational person first approaching this article, it does seem bizarre that almost all specialists are saying he definitely existed and anyone denying it is a flat-earthist, when there is no firsthand evidence. Ellegard explains that phenomenon. If you read his whole paper, it's really quite interesting.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with what you're saying is there is no rift between theologians and "the rest of academia and sources outside academia." The view that Jesus was is historical is the standard view; it's not hard to figure out that this is overwhelmingly the mainstream position, and it's not limited to "theologians". The fact that you seem to be saying that a biblical scholar or an ancient historian who says there was a historical Jesus is a theologian is, at best, mistaken.


 * It certainly would be nice to have some explanation of why there is such a profound gap between the views of academic experts and amateurs on this subject, but Ellegard does not have the relevant expertise. In fact, his writing on Jesus seems to have attracted no scholarly attention whatsoever, unlike Wells and Price. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's your opinion that there's no rift, and you may be right, but we go by what the sources say, and Ellegard says there is one (though I don't think he uses the word "rift"). The view that Jesus existed is the standard view, in Ellegard's opinion, because theologians are failing in their job as humanities scholars. It's an interesting view, which explains a lot. I'm only surprised that he hadn't already been added to the article as an example of a scholar writing about this. Why was he left out? In dismissing him, you illustrate exactly his point, not to mention that you violate Wikipedia's sourcing policy.


 * I'm also confused about the insistence that biblical scholars not be called theologians. I used to attend theology lectures at Cambridge because there were a few star lecturers there at the time. I recall no such distinction being made by them. A distinction can be made, of course, but for the most part one is a subset of the other. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A distinction should be made, because far too often on this talk page "theologian" is taken to mean a person who unthinkingly espouses Christian doctrine and so is unable to rationally and impartially think about the CMT. That leads to people thinking that most academic experts on Christianity can't be used as sources on this article. The blanket use of "theologian" also obscures the fact that many people who study early Christianity do so as historians, not as a religious enterprise.


 * As for Ellegard, I'm quite puzzled by your attitude. You're taking the opinion of a scholar who studied English linguistics as more authoritative and worthwhile than the opinions of people who have spent their careers studying the subject. This seems to be equivalent to thinking that the opinions of, say, a specialist in South Asian history regarding the authorship of Shakespeare's plays deserve more play in a Wikipedia article than the opinions of Shakespeare scholars... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Akhilleus, we have to stop paying attention to distinctions made on this page, arguments and opinions put forward on this page. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say about the topic. That Christian scholars have had difficulty approaching this rationally is a legitimate POV, and it's expressed by Ellegard, so we include it. We don't only use biblical scholars as sources about Jesus. Please stick to the policies. And please don't make us keep on having to post that! SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And the question of Akhilleus, with which I agree, is whether Ellegard is a sufficiently reliable source, as per policy and guidelines, that his opinion merits inclusion in the lead. I know that he has published a number of works on the subject of his Jesus myth proposal, and even been the co-recipient/dedicatee of a volume of festschriften, but that collection seems to not be particularly about this topic, but rather "language and literature" . I don't doubt that he may be the best source available, considering the topic is one which has received comparatively little attention in the academic community of late. I tend to think myself that a comment from David Boulton's Who on Earth was Jesus?, which discusses the topic in general, might be more appropriate. Boulton is, as I recall, a Quaker and an investigative journalist, so he isn't exactly a neutral "expert" on the topic, but the book was well received, is more or less of a "review of literature" type, and basically discusses the "Jesus as myth" theory as a separate chapter. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, you know quite well that the policies don't mandate including everything said by anything that might conceivably be called a reliable source. The policies, as I think you know quite well, say that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." What's your evidence that Ellegard's view is significant? If it is significant, why is it more significant than those of biblical scholars, etc.? Because we know that there are biblical scholars who think that CMT proponents are nutbars, yet the lead doesn't report those opinions at the moment. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * John, the problem we have had on this page is that a small number of editors only ever argue in one direction, and Akhilleus is one of them. That makes the arguments very hard to keep having to address, because they are always the same, no matter the issue. If you have a better suggestion for the lead than Ellegard, by all means write it up, but it would be good to include a point of view that explains the ideological background to this, and Ellegard's strikes me as eloquent, reliable, and with a lot of explanatory power. Again, it is:


 * "Swedish academic Alvar Ellegård argues that the failure by theologians to question Jesus's existence can be attributed to a lack of communication between them and lay scholars, which he writes has caused some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate."


 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"theologians"
I've mentioned several times that the constant references on this page to academic experts on early Christianity as "theologians" are misguided, both because it is inaccurate to describe all scholars who study early Christianity as theologians, and because the argument that theologians, as Christian believers, cannot be used as sources for this article means that editors are willfully disregarding the type of expert sources on which this article should rely.

The article by Ellegard that SlimVirgin has proposed citing in the lead can be found here:. Ellegard's article is followed by a response by Bertil Albrektson, an Old Testament scholar. I thought what he had to say about "theologians" was interesting:

"It may be appropriate to give some attention here to the term 'theologian'. The word is ambiguous, with at least two different meanings. It can denote (a) a person who studies the theology, i.e. the religious doctrine, of Christianity or some other religion, with scientific methods and regardless of the scolar's own faith or lack of faith. But it may also refer to (b) someone who embraces such a theology, who tries not only to analyse and understand it but also to defend and develop and propagate it…All theologians in sense (a) are not theologians in sense (b). In fact a great many biblical scholars do practise their profession as an ordinary philological and historical subject, avoiding dogmatic assumptions and beliefs. It is unfortunate that the same word is used both about preachers and about scholars, and Ellegard has exploited this ambiguity."

Albrektson's is only one of several responses to Ellegard, each of which finds fault with his ideas about Jesus and his characterization of academic responses to his ideas. As I've said, I don't see any reason to include Ellegard's opinion in the lead, but if it is included there, the responses of these scholars should be mentioned as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not all theologians are religious, Akhilleus. Some are atheists. I told you I used to attend theology lectures when I was at Cambridge. The ones I recall were all atheists, or were at the very least exploring it, including Don Cupitt, an Anglican priest. Theologian is not an insult in my book, or an attempt to denigrate; quite the reverse. I was surprised when I was first asked on this page not to call someone a theologian, but to say he was a biblical scholar instead. The latter sounds much less distinguished to my ears than the former.


 * I'm fine with including material from Albrektson too (or whoever), if it directly addresses the issue. Could you write up how you'd want the other sources to be used in this context? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please also note that not all "biblical scholars" are even theologians in the "(a)" sense of the term either -- at the very least in American academic usage of those terms.  The amount of confusion surrounding the term theologian that I've seen in discussions surrounding scholarship on Jesus in the last couple of weeks is rather staggering.  Maybe someone needs to write a FAQ, tack it to a relevant page like Theology and handily refer to it as needed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The concern is not that all scholars who study Christianity are theologians, or that Christians cannot be used as sources. The concern is very specific: many of the actual, specific sources used in these articles are, in fact, theologians and Christian publishing houses. For example, here is a common source: Charlesworth, James H. (2006), Jesus and Archaeology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Charlesworth is a professor at a theological seminary of the Presbyterian Church. The publisher, Eerdmans, "publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." This is not a historical source that "happens" to be Christian. The objection is that the vast majority of sourcing is like this, not that a little of it is.  Noloop (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. James Charlesworth holds a named chair at Princeton Theological Seminary and is the director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton. This is one of the most eminent New Testament scholars in the world, exactly the type of source that should be used in Wikipedia articles, and you want to exclude him. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right, he teaches at Princeton Theological Seminary, which is a theological seminary of the Presbyterian Church. He is not the director of anything at Princeton University. The publisher of the book in question has an overtly Christian mission statement. As I've said, how many times, I do not want to "exclude" anyone.  It gets harder and harder to assume good faith when you mischaracterize my position immediately after I explicitly give it. Noloop (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. I thought it was Princeton the university, but it's Princeton the town, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, fine, you don't want to exclude him. However, you seem to be going to great lengths to ignore that Charlesworth is an eminent scholar, and you seem to think that because of where he teaches/researches and because of the press he's published with that the source is problematic. It sure looks like you're saying you will only trust scholarship that you think is secular. Meanwhile, people who spend their professional lives studying this stuff think that Charlesworth is a good source, and that Eerdmans publishes quality work. For instance, this review of Charlesworth's Jesus and Archaeology says "This is a book suitable for upper division undergraduate courses, graduate courses, and is recommended reading for New Testament scholars interested in the ways in which archaeology is brought to bear on Jesus research." Obviously not the most enthusiastic review in the world, but it does say that the book is a useful resource. On the other hand, the review appeared in Review of Biblical Literature, so I suppose if you're inclined to distrust Christians, it's easy to discount this review... --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd always thought that mainline protestant seminaries were notorious as breeders of atheists. Princeton Theological Seminary is not a bible college. john k (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. Ergo,  Jesus and Archaeology should not be considered reliable, except to show the view of "pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians." Noloop (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Graeme Clarke
The best source is Clarke (for the lead), because he's a classicist who, so far as I can tell, has no connection to biblical studies or theological seminaries. I suggest we rewrite that sentence and use in-text attribution. Noloop's point is a good one, namely that classical historians largely ignore this topic, so we can't have a sweeping statement about their views in Wikipedia's voice&mdash;as though they all agree that Jesus existed, when in fact most have never paid attention to it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources state that it is not accepted in mainstream historical studies. It is a consensus fact - not a personal opinion therefore not to be attributed as if it is an isolated opinion. In fact, we have no reliable sources contrary to this.
 * Noting that someone is a pastor or that an world renowned academic is at a seminary connected at the Presbyterian church is meaningless. Reliable sources are reliable sources, no matter the religious persuasion. I am restoring the previous lead and the multiple sources. Misleading the reception of the theory after so many discussions is pushing agf. --Ari (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with Clarke is that it's a total anecdote. We have an op-ed by a biased source relating how he called his buddy in Graeme Clarke, and Grame told him over the phone... Not a reliable source.
 * We do not have reliable sources stating that it is "not accepted" (or discredited, which is what matters). We have a lot of excerpted quotes, and personal opinions to that effect, and so on. We have poor information--since we have unknown context--about whether "mainstream" refers to Biblical studies (predominantly Christian theologians), or secular historians or what, in the (often informal, offhand) opinions we have. We have no formal, neutral polling, which is the only way to truly have neutral information about a distribution of opinions. Finally, we have the nagging problem that we can't actually find "widespread" acceptance anywhere except among Christian theoligians publishing in Christian presses. Noloop (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to return the Ellegard sentence to the lead ("Swedish academic Alvar Ellegård argues that the failure by theologians to question Jesus's existence can be attributed to a lack of communication between them and lay scholars, which he writes has caused some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate").


 * I was going to restore the Clarke material too ("Graeme Clarke, professor of classics at the Australian National University, said in 2008 that he knows of no ancient or biblical historian who doubts that Jesus existed as an historical figure"). Rather than just having the classical historians sentence unattributed. Noloop, I think if we have the Clarke material followed by Ellegard, that will be quite neutral. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a huge problem with adding Clarke, but it would be better to cite a scholarly source than a newspaper op-ed. We don't exactly lack for scholarly sources that say that classical historians think there was a historical Jesus. They've been mentioned over and over again on this page.


 * I still don't see any evidence that Ellegard's opinion is notable or authoritative, so I see no reason to put it in. And I do not think it is at all neutral to end the lead with a sentence that says that theologians have failed. Whether intentionally or not, that makes the lead slanted toward the position that the CMT is not only plausible but correct. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They go together. One professor saying "all classical historians think X." Another saying "that's because of Y." It's a good juxtaposition. We can move it so it's not at the end of the lead. As for the newspaper article, I don't see that it matters where he said it. He said it very clearly, and said he had no hesitation in doing so when asked explicitly about it within the context of doubting the existence, so that makes it a perfect source for our purposes, in terms of avoiding NOR and SYN. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But Ellegard is not talking about classical historians. He's talking about theologians. So it's not a reply to Clarke at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Ellegard's WP article "He is most widely known for his books about the conflict between religious dogma and science and his promotion of the Jesus myth hypothesis". On that basis, the answer to the question of whether his opinion is notable in this article seems clear. --FormerIP (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) You are splitting hairs, Akhilleus. Look, you, Bill, and Ari have uniformly argued against anything that would make the lead sound more neutral. It gets to be too much. Can you please start writing for the enemy, as we're all supposed to? I'm trying to do it by asking for ideas to strengthen the section of arguments against the Christ myth theory. Please join me in helping to explain why questioning the existence of Jesus has the respect of some good scholars.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it splitting hairs to point out that Ellegard is not talking about classical historians? It's a straightforward reading of what he says. And you seem to be missing the point that I think including Ellegard in the way you have proposed makes the lead less neutral. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He does not need to mention historians. His point stands alone. You think it makes it less neutral because you have a very strong POV about this, and haven't once written, argued, or even tweaked the article in any direction but that POV, while insisting that everyone else be neutral. I can't keep responding to you if it's always going to be the same story, Akhilleus. Life's too short! Please let us see another side to you! :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, I'm sorry that you're finding me too stubborn, but precision is important. Above, you've said that the opinions of Clarke and Ellegard "go together"—"One professor saying 'all classical historians think X.' Another saying 'that's because of Y.'" But Ellegard is not saying anything about what classical historians think; he speaks of theologians, the theological establishment, etc. Last time I heard, classicists aren't theologians—unless the definition of theologian has changed in some unexpected fashion. So Ellegard's statement cannot be regarded as a rejoinder to Clarke in any way. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, Ellegard is saying something which is in completely contradiction to what Clarke says. Clarke says "all classical historians think X."  Ellegard is saying, "theologians think X, but only because they haven't talked to classical historians, who know that X is nonsense."  john k (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Break

 * Okay, in the meantime, could you give us a two-sentence summary of the strongest evidence in Jesus's favour, the reason classical historians are so certain of it? I'd like to strengthen the introduction to that section. I've asked a few times on this page for someone to clarify, and Bill referred me to you, so if you could post something (here would be fine), that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is any particular overwhelming strong argument in favor of Jesus's existence. The question, as the article states, has rarely received much critical attention in the realm of history. I don't think, as you say, that the "classical historians are so certain of it," but rather that, perhaps, none of the arguments to the contrary have, in the eyes of those historians, been sufficiently without perceived problems that those arguments to the contrary necessarily need detailed refutation. Basically, perhaps, it may not be the case that the historians are certain of it, but rather that the arguments to the contrary to date have not necessarily been so strong that the historians have necessarily seen that the arguments need to be necessarily refuted. Note that even Robert Price says that the theory of Christ's existence falls apart if methodology is applied with "ruthless consistency." How many times, within the field of history, is methodology applied with ruthless consistency? Not that often. History is a rather conservative field. It is kind of difficult for any modern writer to ignore the material available to him, questionable or not, particularly if that material forms the basis of the history of a significant period. And the existence of Jesus, the fundamental basis of what is, basically, 2000 years of western history, is something that a lot of people will request very serious evidence for before accepting. There is, in a sense, a "default" to accept material which has been regarded as historical before, even if it is later challenged, if that challenge is not itself overwhelmingly powerful. In effect, the evidence to the contrary needs to be much stronger than the prevailing "historical" historical opinion for it to be changed. This sometimes happens in matters of recent history, but revisionist history of a period about which the documentation is weak for both or all sides generally faces a significant uphill battle. And the inductive reasoning behind these theories is based on applying very general arguments to a specific case which has some virtually contemporary sourcing, none of which argues that "Hey, I was there, and I don't remember this stuff." So, any and all such evidence, of any kind anywhere, was comparatively quickly, over like 30 years, thoroughly and completely destroyed, to the extent that even letters, memoirs, and the like which may have referred to these contradictory documents was destroyed in short order. And this was done by a group which had no government support for several hundred years and comparatively small numbers at the time the wholesale destruction of all records everywhere would have had to take place. Such unprecendented and thorough destruction of all documents, whether known to these bookburners or not, which is required for these theories, honestly seems, well, miraculous. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You also have this resistance to anything that resembles old discarded theories. This is why the idea that Vikings landing before Columbus had such a hard time of it in the 1960s and 1970s--it smacked of the old Imperial Synthesis period (c1770-c1890) where theories were based more on racial or nationalistic grounds (many times to justify suppression of indigenous populations in colonies) than any real data.  So the historical and archeological communities were going "Oh, not this nonsense, again" and required an insane amount of proof before accepting the idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find the request for a "strong argument in favor of Jesus' existence" strange. Most scholars of early Christianity simply look at the Pauline epistles, Gospels, and Acts, and say that they provide evidence for reconstructing the life of Jesus; useful information can also be gleaned from other early Christian writing, and testimonia in non-Christian authors of the 1st and early 2nd century. This is far richer evidence than exists for many historical figures of antiquity, e.g. Solon and Epimenides. It's only through treating this evidence in non-standard ways that one arrives at the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The Bible has a lot of text about Jesus, and people basically figure you wouldn't go to that trouble without there being a person who existed.  I imagine there are lots of historical figures who are believed to exist, based on text only. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What form of documentation do you think exists outside the textual for the time period that Jesus is said to have existed in? I can't tell how one is supposed to take that comment.  Maybe that was just meant as a straight comment in case ... yes I agree.Griswaldo (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a straight comment, I guess. I just saw an interview on the Daily Show about Hannibal whooping up on some Romans in 200 something BC in Italy.  The only physical evidence was a stone that said "Hannibal", the rest of the info is taken from two Roman's who wrote about it.  That's how they learn about history, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that just because there are a bunch of stories about a figure in the past, does not mean that figure was a single person, or that the stories are not more legend than reality. (The more outlandish the claims in the stories, the more reason to be skeptical.) There were any number of people wandering around claiming to be mystics or the messiah in that time period, and Yeshua was a very common name. A lot of the philosophy of Jesus closely matches the Cynical philosophy of that time period (not to be confused with the modern meaning of cynicism!), and there were a lot of homeless Cynics wandering around at that time preaching their philosophy. (If my reading of the Wikipedia article on Cynicism is accurate.) The problem is that Jesus may very well be a legendary figure like Robin Hood. There are any number of theories about who Robin Hood was, and the reality was that a composite story about Robin Hood based on what were probably multiple people was composed over the course of several years or decades. Was there ever really a person actually named John Frum on Vanuatu? There must of been some individual or individuals on whom that cargo cult was based on, but the details of how it got started are lost to the mists of time.  PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree, although that's all stuff for cited scholars to comment on and not us. Anyways, my one sentence answer to Slim's question about what's the strongest evidence in two sentences is "The Bible has a lot of text about Jesus, and people basically figure you wouldn't go to that trouble without there being a person who existed."  It could use a copyedit, but I think it's the truth, and might even be supported by an RS somewhere out there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that reliable sources do not doubt the basic notion of a historical Jesus, even if they differ drastically on what we know or can know about him. There are all kinds of legends out there, but that doesn't mean we assume something that scholars believe to be historical is a legend.  We just need to follow the scholarship.Griswaldo (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But again we get into this semantic issue. Clearly there are people called Christ Mythers that argued that Jesus was a pure myth-no more historical than Zeus or Osiris and then you have the writers that say the Gospel Jesus is myth in the way King Arthur and Robin Hood are and yet have been labeled "Christ mythers".  That is also a big problem with article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two other problems I see. The lack of any contemporary assertions that Jesus was a mythical figure is one other reason the idea might get comparatively little attention. Were any followers of Apollonius Roman citizens who had to be tried, convicted, and executed by the Roman government, like Saint Paul was? Or, perhaps, did the early Christians make that up too? Would it not have been expected that with the executions of Paul, Peter, the victims of the Diocletian persecution, and however many other Christians by the Roman government in Rome, not counting all the other executions elsewhere in the empire, that no one would have checked the records of the Sanhedrin, the High Priest, or Pilate and the others, including perhaps the record-keepers when they heard about the worship of a Jewish man-god who allegedly they were partial contemporaries of? If they had, and they found that there was no contemporary evidence to support the existence of Jesus, why on earth would they not have said so?
 * I see no evidence that anyone did question the existence of Jesus in the first few centuries, including any statements by Augustine and others about the possible silliness of such proposals. And, as indicated above, comparisons to other individuals who were not perceived as possible threats to the government are a bit strained. And, despite the repetition of "thirty years" as possibly some form of mantra, believe it or not guys, there were quite a few people who actually lived longer than that at the time. Some even made seventy or more. So, despite the implicit assumption that thirty years was enough time for people to basically forget everything about the time, the evidence of logic and history says otherwise.
 * Yes, there is a problem with this article that there is no independent roughly contemporary documents which say anything about the existence or nonexistence of Jesus one way or another. We are aware that the sack of Jerusalem, the sack of Rome, and lots of other sacks destroyed a lot of documents. I can and do see that point being mentioned prominently in the article, possibly in the lead. I could even see mentioning, if anyone has, that Constantine might have had a vested interest in destroying documents that disagreed with him, although he must have done a really good job if he did. Equally problematic is the fact that this theory seems to have not been given any weight at any time prior to the seventeenth or eighteenth century. Prior to that time, there were lots of stories that Jesus was a bastard, a warlock, and God knows what all else, but apparently none that he never existed. That, I think, deserves a degree of mention as well.
 * If Bruce is suggesting that the article be split into two articles, one for "Jesus never existed theory" and one for "the Gospels are a crock of noxious extrusion of the bowels theory", I would not necessarily have any objections to that, other than the fact that at least some of the parties discussed, like Price, seem to be saying something along the lines of "the Gospels are a crock of whatever, so bad that I can't even say for sure that he ever actually existed," because their statements make it hard to determine which article their theories should be most prominently discussed in. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Breaking this article into two would be a very bad idea. On the Wikipedia side you have WP:CFORK and on the practical side the literature doesn't support such a split.  The Christ myth theory might have have two parallel tracks from the get go with Dupois and Volney; Dupois went the "Jesus is a pure myth" route while Volney went the "hazy memories of an obscure historical figure was integrated into existing mythology" route; AFAIK to date every source that mentions one mentions the other--Dupois and Volney are a package deal with being the "founders" of the Christ Myth theory and that creates a major problem.  One thing the article currently doesn't do is follow the Volney path--only the more extreme Dupois path.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's actually more components to it than these two. Most scholars who write on the historical Jesus are looking for some kind of religious teacher, but I've read a number of offerings now from people arguing that the chap who eventually became immortalised in the gospels was no such thing. Which raises the interesting prospect of having two people, one was called Jesus and one who wrote all the stories. There needs to be some kind of coverage of that as well, I feel Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Baigent's theory that Jesus was a revolutionary who changed his mind, grassed on his buddies and got something like witness protection from Pilate for it later, yeah, I agree. If Baigent's own rep were a bit better, I might think it the most likely alternative here myself. I'm not sure what you mean by the "one who wrote all the stories", though. Do you mean the Gospels or the stories Jesus allegedly told? The Gospels are generally considered to be based on some other now-lost source; the parables may have been based on other sources since lost; the stories about Jesus, well, they could be based on either repetition of other stories or an attempt to get all the predictions of the OT addressed. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

American conservative influence
One of the themes I'm picking up as I do some background reading is that there's a bit of a rift between European scholars and the conservative Christian scholarly community in the United States, the latter pushing for the most conservative interpretation of texts. That's something else it would be good to watch out for by making sure we don't rely too heavily on modern American biblical scholarship. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that puts the issue in terms of Christian vs secular scholars?  I mean, it sure seems to me that you are implying that Christian scholars (or Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) are second rate scholars and therefore must take a back seat to the more authoritative "secular" scholars.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do have a source for that (see above), but that's not what I was writing about in this section. There is apparently also a rift (though that is perhaps not the right word) between theologians and biblical scholars in Europe, and conservative religious scholars in the United States. Yes, I do have sources, obviously. That is what I meant when I talked about background reading. I'm not psychic. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So you have a source that says Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, et al, scholars are considered by the historical community as being in some way "second rate"? Or do you have a fringe source that says something to that effect?  I mean, I've seen a bunch of militant atheists who make such claims, as well as editors here (such as Noloop) who sincerely believe that, but that idea is rejected, as far as I can tell, by virtually all historians.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bill, you're not reading what I wrote. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it's not like this discussion page is short.


 * You got that right, Bill. Slim, what does the sentence about seculars start with, so I can ctrl f this page.  Also, do you have a link about the European stuff?  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I can't have made myself clear, sorry. :) I am currently doing some reading to try to learn about this. One of the themes I keep seeing briefly mentioned is that European scholars tend to have more liberal views than American scholars do, and that there seems to be a Conservative Christian strain that is overly influencing the scholarly approach. So I was saying we should be careful to make sure we use a wide range of sources: American, European, Christian, secular, biblical scholars, other academics, so that no single group gets to frame the issue for us entirely.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe all that. If you read a book that has a good google preview, hook us up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that attitudes towards Christianity differ between the U.S. and Europe, and that the difference is reflected in scholarship. But I don't see what that has to do with the topic of this article. Unless someone has some evidence that the CMT is more popular in European scholarship than it is in the U.S.... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I've seen in the way this article has been edited has been American conservative Christian certainty. You'll recall the lead: that anyone doubting the existence of Jesus was like a Holocaust denier. In doing some of the background reading, I see others mention that too, in terms of the general academic approach to the historiography. So it makes me feel even more that we must make an extra effort to include a wide range of sources (secular, Christian, American, European), to avoid the dominance of any group. Peregrine, when I next see it I'll send a link. If I can find enough of it, it would be worth adding to the article.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the people making the comparison you mention were neither Christian nor conservative. I certainly agree that a variety of sources should be included in the article; the problem is that editors do not seem to realize that there is a huge diversity of scholarly opinion towards the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman is very different than Darrell Bock; April DeConick is different than Burton Mack and L. Michael White. But there are some Wikipedia editors who would look at each one of the people I just named and decide they're all theologians and conservative Christians. Lumping everyone together like that blinds one to the fact that an ideologically and religiously diverse range of scholars all agree that there was a historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True, true. However, in the course of a rather unfortunate rant in another place, Slrubenstein has just said that the above are Christians, even Ehrman who (as I recall) does not believe in a divine Christ.  I do think that all those who claim to be 'Christians' by whatever definition they choose to adopt (unless they explicitly state that their stance does not require a historical Jesus, which I suppose is possible) must have satisfied themselves by whatever signs or tokens they choose, that there was a historical Jesus. That few of them choose to focus on what those signs and tokens were (unless they are making fairly conventional religious statements) leaves the gap which we are finding hard to fill, with the suspicion among the 'other side' that the answer is along the lines of 'because I believe it to be so,' which is perfectly valid in terms of personal philosophy, but not so satisfactory when placed against the query 'why do you believe that there was this chap called Jesus'Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

If we can return to SV's initial comment: "One of the themes I'm picking up as I do some background reading is that there's a bit of a rift between European scholars and the conservative Christian scholarly community in the United States, the latter pushing for the most conservative interpretation of texts." There is a slightly circular element to the query, since you use the adjective "conservative" in the subject and in the predicate. Of course conservative scholars will push for conservative interpretations, I assume that is how we know they are conservative. But if the query is really about a rift between American and European scholars, this is my sense: among critical historians, whatever their training or affiliation, scholars in the US and Europe pretty much agree: there is no conclusive proof that Jesus existed but all the scholars I have read consider it more rather than less likely that he existed (one argument sounds counterintuitive: it is the contradictions among the Syncretic Gospels that incline historians to think there was a real man, because if he were invented, those that invented him would have come up with a uniform account. Another argument is that there are within the Syncretic Gospels enough statements or acts by Jesus that are compatible with what we know of 1st century Jewish life and less compatible with the Christian image of Jesus as wholely divine, which means that there were stories about Jesus so widely held that early Christians could not exclude them from written accounts even when they would have been very problematic for early Christians - one example being the fact that Jesus was crucified ... if you are a Christian today you were probably brought up to believe that this was all part of God's plan and thus completely normal, but historians try not to look at things from today's perspective but rather to try to imagine how things looked to people back then and in the second century, the fact that Jesus had been crucified would have been a big headache for early Christians to make sense of). At the Jesus article we spent a lot of time comparing different historians to see what if anything they agreed on, and this is what we came up with: "Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire." As best we could tell, historians are divided on just about everything else in the Gospels. When we tried to sum up the major debates among critical historians, this is what we came up with and I think it is a pretty good catalogue of the range of views: "Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement." Maybe the "and" at the end should be an "or," grammatically, I am not sure - the idea is that few if any scholars believe he was all these things, each of these is a theory argued by a different group of historians. I actually have some misgivings about this sentence, I think it leaves some important views out, but there you have it, a sentence by committee. In any event, I think you will find these views held by historians on both sides of the Atlantic.

I do suspect however that SV has a point about conservative Christians in America. The US has something like 300 million people, and that means it has a lot more Christians than any single European country with the exception of Russia I think, and it certainly has a lot of conservative Christians, and they do have their own Bible colleges and what have you, and they will certainly generate a good deal of very conservative scholarship. I would imagine they too have their counterparts in England, Germany, France - but in much much smaller numbers. In the US conservative Bible colleges seem to spring up like weeds. If there are any in Europe I would bet they are more likely as common as orchids. That said, there is also a strong atheist movement in the US and they have their own publishing venues (but nothing like the clout of conservative Christians). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "in the second century, the fact that Jesus had been crucified would have been a big headache for early Christians to make sense of"  Interesting that you would pick up on that.  It is often used (by a different set of sources, often lawyers for some reason) as the central plank of the case that Jesus must have risen from the dead  .  It does show the problem with that kind of argument, that it can also be used perfectly respectably to support the "supernatural" (probably the wrong word, but you know what I mean) claims in the Gospel. But if one argues that it cannot be so used in that context - because it requires an act of faith and no less to believe that a man can rise from the dead - then it makes the entire exercise suspect in the eyes of some.  The Gospels appear to be whole cloth.  The sayings, the parables and the miracles all fit together seamlessly, and the use of this kind of analysis to validate only some of the whole is suspect in the eyes of some.

I think historians would argue that most Christians are just not aware of how many people - let alone how many Jews - the Romans crucified. Most Christians also believe he was crucified because he committed blasphemy (which is implied by the Gospels). All historians I have read agree that the Romans would not have crucified anyone for committing blasphemy, certainly not a Jew for committing blasphemy, which most historians also believe Jesus did not do. The account of the trial by the sanhedrin also does not fit with what we know of Jewish legal practice at the time, so historians reject this too. However, that a man either claiming to be the messiah or predicting that the Kingdom of God was nigh (and neither of these claims are in Judaism blasphemous), however, would be crucified, is eminently plausible. Historians thus conclude that Jesus (if he existed) was crucified, and so the account of his crucifixion arose at the time. But the suggestion that he was crucified for blasphemy after a trial by the Sanhedrin was added at a much later date. To believing Christians today, all these parts fit together seemlessly, but historians are claiming that they did not fit together for Christians in the first century. If any of Jesus's original followers believee that Jesus was the messiah (and not all historians agree that this was even the case), most of them would have given up on Jesus after he was executed. Those who continued to believe in Jesus could easily have believed that he was risen to heaven, since Jews believed that about a couple of other people in their past, but that he would return very soon to innaugurate the kingdom of God. As long as people believed this, crucifixion was an embarassment but something that they could explain away with wishful thinking of his return. For these Jewish Christians, the idea that Jesus committed blasphemy would still have been unthinkable. But Jesus was still guilty of sedition, and these Jewish Christians who preach that the Kingdom of God is at hand are also seditious, which is why Jewish authorities (including Saul) "persecuted" them - these Jewish Christians could make the Romans think the Jews were about to revolt (whcih in fact they did in 70, and again in 135). The next crisis for Christians occurs when they start giving up on the idea that Jesus is coming back to innaugurate God's kingdom during their lifetime. When this occurs, virtually all Jews abandon Christianity. And this would be the time when Paul's ideas, which are not based on the teachings of a human named Jesus who (like Ezekial and Isaiah) preaches about God's Kingdom, but rather on the God Jesus, whose Kingdom is not on earth but in heaven, and whose function is to save people from sin. This has no foundation in Judaism of the time, but it takes on among Gentiles. But for these Gentile Christians the idea that Jesus was seditious is a real problem, because they all see themselves as good Romans and they do NOT believe that an independent Jewish kingdom will be restored, as Jewish Christians believed. But by this time there is no way to deny that Jesus was crucified, everyone, including all those non-Christians, know it. So instead of blaming the Romans for Jesus' death, they blame the Jewish authorities. And since they care more about the Divine Jesus than the human Jesus, crucifixion is actually a good thing (which Jews still cannot believe ... but remember these are gentiles in the Hellenic world and all the educated ones had read Plato and knew from Plato's "Apology" and "Crito" that death liberates the spirit to the world of truth).

Historians often study the complex processes by which institutions and ideas change. But when looking at Mark or Matthew or Luke, their starting point is: what in this text would have been uncontroversial to people in the 1st century, based on what we know about Jews in the 1st century from other sources? This is typical of the way historians typically go about analyzing the texts available to them (how well does this fit with what we know from other texts that are from the time claimed? If something does not fit well with what other sources from that time, does it fit with other sources from a later time?  Or from an even later time?  When we thus separate a text into elements that seem to be written at different times, can we then reconstruct a plausible narrative of how we move from one period to the next?  This method is very much like that used by historians studying any composit text, e.g. Homeric myths.  And it is very unlike the approach taken by fundamentalists, who start off assuming the text must be interpreted as a unified whole, that all parts must be consistent with one another.  I think the difference in approach is clear.)

To be clear, fundamentalists assume that the text is unified; therefore, any inconsistency, contradiction, or repetition is the clue to some deeper truth. Modern historians make no such assumption. Therefore, when they see inconsistencies, contradictions, or repetitions, they (1) separate out what they consider distinct segments of the text, (2) try to assign each distinct element to a period in history, based on its similarities or congruences to other texts that we know to be from that period, and (3) see if the new sequence of segments tells a comprehensible story. This in fact is quite similar to the methods that had developed among geologists a century earlier, and that were being developed among archeologists, for reconstructing history (natural or cultural) through stratigrify. My point is that the diagnostic difference between fundamentalists and modern historians is not belief in god versus atheism, or assuming that jesus did exist or assuming that he did not. The diagnostic difference is in how they read texts. The innovation that marked the rise of modern history was to abandon metaphysical questions (does God exist) in favor of hermeneutic questions (how does one properly read a text?) (One thing i find interesting is that many atheists read texts just the same way that fundamentalists do; here the difference is in metaphysics, here the difference is in whether they believe in God or not) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not myself see how this is resolvable. There are a group of scholars - religious and non-religious - who start from the basis that there was a historical Jesus, who may or may not be reflected in the Gospels, and examine the evidence in that light.  There are another group who start out from the basis that there was no such person/there were several people/there was someone but he was in fact called Brian/etc, who examine the evidence in that light.  There are yet another group who claim to have started from a position that there was no Jesus, and to have eventually arrived at religious faith through convincing evidence that he existed as depicted in the Gospels.  How do we regard that group? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are inviting response from anyone, my own view is this: keep the focus on what this article is about, viz. the "Gospel Myth Theory" which as I understand it is the claim that the basics of Christology were created out of existing religious beliefs and myths in the Hellenistic/Ancient Near Eastern world, and that this explanation for the origins of Christianity invalidates Christianity. Our obligation is to provide a proportionate account of all significant views from reliable sources on this topic, distinguishing when possible between mainstream, majority, minority, and fringe views. My understanding is that this theory is a fringe view among Biblical historians, but (if others agree with me) this need be stated only once, somewhere, with a link to the article on the historicity of Jesus for mainstream (as I see it) views of Biblical historians.

What is important is to distinguish majority and minority views about "the jesus myth theory" and we just have to follow the sources. You distinguish views based on their assumptions. But is this how the sources represent these views? I thought the sources distinguish themselves based on their conclusions rather than their starting-points. Of course, if part of the argument made in a source calls attention to their starting point, that has to be mentioned. I am just saying we follow the sources. You ask about "another group who claim to have started from a position that there was no Jesus, and to have eventually arrived at religious faith through convincing evidence that he existed as depicted in the Gospels" any my question is, how many people from this group have written about the Christ myth theory? Are they a majority, or minority, or just another view? To be frank, I would not think most of them would have much to say about the Christ Myth theory except that like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and maybe even the theory of evolution, it is one of the many things they do not believe in. We do not have to include there view in this article if they have not written notable accounts of their views. NPOV does not require us to include views we can imagine, only those views that are in verifiable sources. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, the only problem is what the "Jesus myth theory" even is about is somewhat of a mess following the sources. Some are vague, some same one thing while others say another, and then there is the occupational "now how does that fit?"  Yes it its fringe but its exact limits as to what it is and who should be put under it is a game of pick that source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bruce (and Elen) I appreciate that ... but look, I made only a few edits to this article maybe several months ago. I am only familiar with the most frequently cited sources, Wells and Doherty (and please do not misunderstand me, while I think these two authors are fringe in the jesus article, I fuly acknowledge they are central to this article).  Beyond that I just do not know enough to get involved.  The only constructive point I can make is, when in doubt, check policy, and try to come up with a process that all editors can agree on, regardless of their own views.  The process I would propose is: first make a list of the most frequently cited sources.  Pay attention as well to who is citing them.  In the process, you might discover that there are two

or more non-contiguous groups who cite (or favor) different sources - in other words, if you made a venn diagram, you would have two circles, one circle that commonly cite p, q, and r, and another circle that favor x, y, and z. At that point you might want to consider a content fork, perhaps we really need two different articles. Are pqr and xyz presenting different theories? Or is the difference in the followers, the people who cite them? Is the difference in the questions they ask? The methods they use? I just ask because sometimes these matter more than the specific conclusions. If you decide to keep one article, it just has to say that there are two (or more) different theories, or approaches to the theories, or reasons for liking (or not liking) the theories. My point is simply this: they do not all have to fit together. If you do not mind an analogy, this is often a problem at the articles on race and ethnicity - in those cases though it is very easy to diagnose the problem: the definitions of these words, or the way scholars used them, and therefore debates over them, changed over time. It was impossible to fit pqrxyz together, because p and q turned out to be two different views about ethnicity as it was definesd in the 1940s, and r and x were two different views about ethnicity as defined in the 1960s and y and z are two different views debating each other in academe today. So, really three different debates, and occuring at different times. Is it possible that your sources do not fit together because they are not supposed to fit together? If so, identifying distinct debates or conversations (however you want to describe multiple points of view that are clearly nevertheless about the same thing, clearly talking about the same thing, maybe even debating one another directly) and treating each distinct circle separately may make a lot more sense than trying to fit it all together.


 * If I am right, this would help you deal with the "who is fringe" issue because obviously someone who is central in one circle will be fringe or entirely outside another circle. I realize it may be a challenge deciding what and how many "circles" to include in this article, but if you can do that, the inclusion criteria becomes "a source that is notable in at least one of these circles."  If you have several sources left over even after doing this, you just have to ask: do they constitute another "circle," or perhaps these sources really are entirely fringe and should be excluded from the article.


 * But NPOV simply demands we include all significant views. In my own experience, you can tell that one view is significant if it is significant to (discussed in some detail or at some length by) another significant view.  But we have NO obligation to include all views.  A view has to be significant to some vocal group of people outside of Wikipedia.


 * I apologize if this is all stuff you have considered and tried to work through. I am just trying to be constructive.  If this is not helpful I can only wish all of you good luck. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all as a fresh look at some of the old stuff it is order. However NPOV says (this is sic BTW):
 * "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
 * So it must not only be significant but also by a reliable source. Remsburg's list is certainly significant (he is used by at least 5 different non scholars as well as 200 some bloggers) and notable but he doesn't meet the reliable source requirement--he wasn't a professor in a relevant field and AFAWK none of his books were published through what Wikipedia call reliable publishers.  It would be a good NPOV to point out his use by the Christ Myth group if we could find reliable source that tells us this.  So far it has been dry well time and the subject matter is filled with annoying things like that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ellegard again
Outside comment, and forgive me if I'm repeating something because I haven't read through all the previous debate yet. I tend to share some objections against the recent rewrite of the lead and the addition of Ellegard in particular. Reasons:
 * 1) Generally speaking, a lead section shouldn't engage in extensive "X said, Y said". That's for the main body. A lead section should be bold enough to synthesize a generalized overview of the state of debate in Wikipedia's own third-person voice. (Whether the previous "...essentially without support..." sentence did this correctly is a different matter, but as far as I can see, it most likely did.)
 * 2) The current wording, giving Ellegard pride of place by having the "last word" in the lead, gives his view an extra, and probably undue, amount of weight.
 * 3) Grammatically, its summary is problematic because "...argues that the failure..." is most naturally understood as presupposing that the "failure" is a fact. That's what happens when you use a definite article in the subject of a that-clause. The summary needs to explicitly bring the "fail" claim into the scope of the attribution. Something like: "...argues that X have failed... and that this is because ...".
 * 4) The description as a "Swedish academic" unduly glosses over the fact that he is an academic of an unrelated discipline, and hence not an expert, but precisely an example of the non-expert partisans of this non-mainstream hypothesis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to re-describe him, but I see you did it, so thank you. I also moved him from the end of the lead, so he doesn't have the last word. As for in-text attribution in the lead, it's normal where the issue is a contentious one, and it's important to know who said what. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll probably disagree about the role of in-text attribution in leads (I personally happen to believe its "commonness" is a sign of a misdirected development in Wikipedia owing to a misinterpretation of the NPOV and NOR policies). But another more concrete little detail: "...lack of communication between them and lay scholars". Is "lay" a correct summary? The word is ambiguous: it most usually means "non-expert"/"non-professional" (in which case "lay scholar" is a contradiction in terms, and would lead to a very serious distortion of what I believe is meant here.) It can also mean "non-cleric". But first, that meaning is much less prominent in common English, and second, not all theologians are clerics. I don't think "lay" can ever mean "non-theologian". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lay scholar is the term he used. He means non-specialist academics, and that often boils down to non-Christians, because the specialists tend to come from within the Christian faith, even though some have left it. That indeed is his point. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he means specifically non-theologians (explicitly including historians under the term, who are of course also specialists). He uses "lay" in scare quotes, because he knows he is just using it as an ad hoc substitute for a concept for which there isn't really a good word in English. We can easily avoid this by simply saying "other scholars" or "scholars in other fields", or "non-theologians". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me if you feel it preserves the meaning. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Small note: thanks for this removal; I had just copied the old sentence there as a model to work from and then forgot to remove it from the edit window when hitting save. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's easily done. Your edits are good. If you could see your way to sticking around, we could use the fresh input. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with SlimVirgin's last post. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to change it yet, because of our talk page dynamics, but the Ellegard part doesn't mesh with the rest of the summary style sentences of the lead. It would be nice to have another person who says the same thing, or disagrees, put them in the body and a summary sentence in the lead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And maybe this is it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Over the next few days I'll be reading the rest of the responses to Ellegard in that series of 2008 articles that we're using as a source, and I'll be adding responses and criticisms to the Ellegard section (but tightening as I go along because length is becoming an issue), so it will change a little, perhaps a lot. Once that's done, there might be something there to summarize in the lead. But it's quite a lot to read and digest, so I won't be able to do it today. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read the exchange between Doherty and Ellegard? Noloop (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST by Alvar Ellegard is interesting though as I have noted before he does weird things with the definition of Jesus-myth theory: "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." I put this under definition under "possible agenda" in my fledgling FAQ along with Holding slapping the Christ Myth theorist label on Remsburg despite Remsburg effectively going the minimalist route.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)