Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ discussions

Include a FAQ?
In order to avoid a 3RR, I'm adding this section. It appears to me that there are two editors (Ttiotsw and Dbachmann) who don't want a FAQ on this page. Their reasons differ:


 * Ttiotsw claims that the "intent of this FAQ is to not inform but act as a chilling effect to editors."


 * Dbachmann claims "this page is quite bad enough without the addition of a misguided, OWNed FAQ page."

Just to be clear, will both of the above editors please state if they have a problem with 1) The entire FAQ, 2) Only a portion of the FAQ, or 3) All FAQs in general.

Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Number 1,2 and 3. We can keep 4. The FAQ was added by the editor Eugeneacurry around 8th January 2010 though looking at the edits I see little to support the inclusion. This article gets few, if any IP vandalism and most named editors are blue-linked on their talk pages (a good metric to show in seconds if a collection of editors are recent or old-timers) so at a glance of the past 1000 talk page edits it is a very tidy page with little concerns (check out Peanut butter for a contrast - that article is locked until 25th April and the talk pages have loads of IPs). Thus my contention that the FAQ is added as a chilling effect as it presents a single Point of View. We're not here to record the "truth" but to record what has been said and done by others. If you look at a recend book which presents two sides, The Historical Jesus: Five Views By James K. Beilby, Paul Rhodes Eddy then a book like that has Price, Crossan, Johnson, Dunn and Bock which shows very good balance. *They* don't cherry pick sound-bites from the few to then ignore, belittle or denigrate the inclusion of the adverse voice, but discuss it in context. So neither should we. An article that . Wikipedia has perfectly good WP:DR processes to address content disputes. This FAQ tries to preempt editor contributions by presenting a serious of fallacies. It is thus an original research, not neutral and unreasonably inhibits editors from contributing in a field which is not fixed in stone. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me guess, Ttiotsw, 1-3 are bad because they "out" the Christ myth theory as fringe. 4 is great because it advocates for suppressing the entire article and thus further preventing this outing.  Am I close? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was asked by Bill the Cat 7 what was the scope of my objection and this was the compromise, but now that you have demanded further elaboration then actually I don't want #4 either as I fail to see where it has been a repeated concern in the article talk pages. I thought I was being fairly clear in what I said and I fail to see why you should have to guess. The intent of the FAQ are to help address repeated issues that crop up but with this article this has never obviously happened. The FAQ seems to be pretty much your personal view and I say that they are a mechanism to ring-fence the article from other editors' additions. I concur with the other editor that this is a case of WP:OWN. The accusation of fringe has a hollow ring and is utterly irrelevant for the following reason: In the article Jesus is would be fringe to add excessive references to the non-existence of Jesus but in the article about the non-existence (about the myth) then it is not fringe. The participants in the debate are of equal weight according to their community credentials and how we accept reliable sources. Same with the moon landings - a bit silly to add fake moon landing stuff to the article on the Apollo program but on an article on Fake Moon Landings then it can be described with equal weight. This article is about the myth. The sheer wall of quote-mined references from those paid to promote one side unbalances the article. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misunderstading you, Ttiotsw. Having worked on an article frequented by zombies, I've developed the bad habit of immediately shooting at everyone who walks with a limp.  At the same time, though, you've misunderstood me regarding the FAQ and you seem to have badly misunderstood a number of Wikipedia guidelines.


 * I didn't include the FAQ to intimidate other editors, I included it to save time. Near hysteriacal claims that the Christ myth theory isn't a fringe idea as defined by WP:FRINGE has been voiced over and over and over again on this talk page by zealous editors who make a big fuss for a couple days, finally realize they are wrong (or at least realize that Wikipedia policy believes there are wrong) and then storm away in a huff.  Also, the comparisons mentioned have been the target of arm-waving objections that routinely miss the mark ("they're ad hominem", "they're unencyclopedic", "they're wrong").  And, lastly, a few editors have complained about the way the article defines the Christ myth theory, hoping for a more inclusive definition that allows for more reputable scholars to be considered part of the club.  Rather than aruge these points all over again, and then again, and then again, I thought a FAQ would help things. I agree with you, though, that accusations of content-forking are rare and generally brought up by Dbacmann alone.


 * You also seem to be confusing WP:FRINGE with WP:UNDUE. A theory is fringe according to WP:FRINGE if it departs "significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." Articles that cover fringe theories are subject to a number of special guidelines such as WP:PARITY and others.  And regardless of whether a fringe idea appears in the context of another artice (like Jesus) or in a dedicated article (like Christ myth theory), it remains WP:FRINGE in either case.


 * Your assertion (made below) that this article is a WP:COATRACK is absurd. (Though it should be born in mind that WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and therefore has no inherent authority anyway.) The Christ myth article contains huge amounts of information related to the history of the theory's promotion and it's arguments. In fact, the ratio of this material to mainstream scholarly responses exceeds 2:1.  Given that this is a WP:FRINGE article, that doesn't seem excessive.


 * And lastly, the sentence "The sheer wall of quote-mined references from those paid to promote one side unbalances the article," had me thinking of zombies again. If only I had an FAQ I could point you to; oh well, I'll just have to copy and paste since someone felt it shouldn't exist. "The 'academic consensus' cited in the article is just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV! Response: No, it isn't. While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Alan F. Segal are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy." Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I like the entire FAQ. Regarding the ones in contention (1, 2, and 3), they are not only reliably sourced, but also exceedingly well-sourced.  #'s 1 and 3 go hand in hand, and I consider these two especially important.


 * Why? Because I can't tell you have many times I've heard people say, "Well there's no proof that Jesus existed".  Or simply state flat out, "Jesus never existed, period".  With the FAQ in place, good-faith editors (especially of the casual variety), can be quickly and neatly informed of the facts.  They are still free to deny it, of course, and start the argument all over again (I mean no one is commanding them not to, and certainly no one has that power anyway), but IMHO most people aren't aware of the facts stated in #'s 1 and 3 of the FAQ.


 * Number 2 is somewhat less important than 1 and 3, but I still think it's a keeper. Anyway, that's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is this FAQ? I'd be interested to read it.  --ShotgunFrank (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The talk page used to link to the FAQ but another editor felt it should be deleted. This is the FAQ that had sat here for a couple weeks, this is the most recent version I had made, and this is the version with Dbachmann's latest and contested edits. I've chosen not to make an issue of this at the moment so as not to bog down the GA review process with a trivial edit war.  But I support my most recent version on the basis that all four objections have appeared here with some regularity whereas Dbachmann's version (question 4 especially) addresses a question only Dbachmann asks and then presents as a fact a POV that Dbachmann supports but which most other editors disagree. Eugene (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the first thing I notice is that the FAQ doesn't contain any questions. It might be better described as FOO (Frequently Offered Objections) or FM (Frequent Misunderstandings).  Also, do you think it might not be unnecessarily combative to start every response by contradicting the statement that has been made?  I would advise you to consider this FAQ from the point of view of someone who is not familiar with the arguments that you've been frequently engaged in over this page (again, the casual reader), and to consider whether they would consider it to be civil and neutral in its tone.  I might feel that the writer was slightly irritable myself.  Otherwise, I have no problem with the factual content of what you've written, although I think the word "contempt" is unnecessarily provocative.  I also think that the charge of "ad hominem" doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response.  There's a page on wikipedia explaining the meaning of this term, perhaps people should read it before road-testing the word.  --ShotgunFrank (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to moderate the tone of the FAQ a bit. But I think we should wait to do anything with the FAQ until after the GA process is finished; there's no need to foment another edit war over something so trivial.  I agree with you about the ridiculousness of the ad hominem charge, but it seemed necessary to address it since three different editors have made the accusation in the last month or so on this page (Шизомби, Stevie is the man!, Ttiotsw). As for the FAQ being more of a FOO, I agree.  But the "FAQ" is built into the template.  I could reword the objections so that they're technically questions while nevertheless maintaining the tone in which they are generally offered here: "How dare this article claim the Christ myth theory is fringe?!" :) Eugene (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I was getting at, the fact that an FAQ should be for questions which a casual reader/average person might wish to pose, without having an agenda. If the questions are generally asked in a tone of "how dare you..." then they probably don't belong in a respectable FAQ.  I do understand the difficulty of your position though, having to repeat yourself endlessly to people who refuse to take your explanations at face value.  I'm sure you know that including an FAQ won't stop these people coming to the talk page and challenging you though (I think you observed that yourself at one point), so maybe an FAQ should be kept for questions which the average person might ask and answers which the average person would be satisfied with.  Anything else may just be taken as a provocation by some without necessarily benefiting those who aren't provoked.  I realise though that this is trivial in the context of the GA.  Personally, I would be happy to see this article get GA status (much as I'm not familiar with what that would mean on wikipedia, beyond the obvious meaning of the words), as I think it's well-written and informative, and I would hate to see it dragged down by anything petty at this stage.  --ShotgunFrank (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag on the FAQ
I feel it's important to signal at the top of the FAQ page that it's disputed, in case new editors reading it feel it reflects consensus. I've added the POV tag, but Eugene has removed it, saying it was preventing the page from displaying on the article. If that's the case, I don't want to restore it, but I feel we need something. I'm going to write out that the FAQ is disputed instead; hopefully without a template it won't cause formatting issues. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can respect that the neutrality of the article itself is being meaningfully challenged by a substantive number of editors (SlimVirgin, Sophia, ^^James^^, Graham Colm) and that the NPOV tag is therefore justified at this point. However, there seems to be a clear consensus that the topic is nevertheless WP:FRINGE.  Not only do I (Eugene), Ari, Bill the Cat 7 & Akhilleus feel this way, Sophia  and even ^^James^^  agree as well.  Against all this, SlimVirgin seems to be the only one arguing that "It's... not clear that FRINGE even applies".  Given this unambiguous consensus, I'm going to remove the NPOV warning from the FAQ. I will, however, leave the Martin quote in deference to SlimVirgin's arguments on this matter. Eugene (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, could you please stop removing the POV notice from the FAQ? The practice on WP is to leave these tags in place until the dispute is resolved, so long as it's not just one person questioning the neutrality, and also so long as it's not drive-by tagging. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please be a little more specific about the reason for the tag? The FAQ, particularly FAQ #2, contains a great many quotations.  I mean, just because you don't agree with those quotations does not mean they don't represent the mainstream.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The FAQ was written mainly by Eugene, and it's largely a reflection of the article. It's not neutral and it uses lots of weasel words and expressions e.g. "Numerous premiere scholars at top-tier universities have done exactly this ..." It's basically telling people "don't bother to argue against this, because we're not going to listen." SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter who it was written by - it represents mainstream scholarly conclusions. Once again, it's too bad that you don't like it but those are the facts.  You said:


 * It's basically telling people "don't bother to argue against this, because we're not going to listen."


 * Neither Eugene, me, or anyone else on our side is saying this. It is the conclusion of experts in the field.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tagging the FAQ as having disputed neutrality
Does anyone else agree that the FAQ has neutrality issues and should be tagged as such until we get this resolved? Eugene has now removed the tag three times e.g. I feel it needs to be there to signal to people that not everyone agrees with the way this has been written up, particularly as Eugene and Bill are insisting that new editors commenting here read it.

The page about these tags (which is not a guideline) advises that they not be removed until the dispute is resolved, so long as the people adding the tags stick around to help resolve it. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 01:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I indicated above, you are only one who is disputing that this topic is WP:FRINGE. Since that was your concern with the article, and as you yourself have said that tags can be removed if only one person is complaining, I removed the tag. Don't worry, Martin's quote is still in there though, warning people to not take the united consensus of professional historians and New Testament scholars too seriously. Eugene (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not only disputing that the article should fall into the WP fringe category, I'm disputing the entire tone of the FAQ. I am disputing its neutrality. I therefore have a right to add a neutrality tag to that page, and you shouldn't remove it until the issue is resolved. As I've asked before, if editors would make themselves familiar with our policies and best practices, it would save a huge amount of time, rather than having to argue each and every point of process afresh. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the FAQ has neutrality issues. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Like what exactly? Eugene (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's addtion to the FAQ states that "several editors oppose presenting the subject in accordance with WP:FRINGE". Now, like I've shown, the only single person who disputes that this topic is fringe is SlimVirgin herself. Even other editors who are more sympathetic to the CMT (like Sophia and ^^James^^ ) concede it's fringe; Sophia even got a little upset for my misunderstanding her views here a little while back, going so far as to say "no one is disputing fringe". Given that SlimVirgin has said caveats related to POV disputes can be removed "so long as it's... just one person" complaining, and given that the above links indicate that SlimVirgin is indeed the only person "disputing fringe", to use Sophia's words, I'm going to remove the relevant line from the FAQ. Eugene (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that this is a small-minority theory. I dispute that it's necessarily a theory that's covered by WP:FRINGE, which is quite a different proposition. I also don't dispute the FAQ page only because of that issue, as I've told you at least twice already. I dispute its neutrality in its entirety, and its tone, which includes language such as "Numerous premiere scholars at top-tier universities ..."


 * Eugene, you're engaging in one of the worst cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that I've encountered. To keep on repeating the same points is a horrible waste of your time too, not just ours. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hardly fair to say that I'm engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; each time I've editted the FAQ I've interacted with your concerns, sometimes defering to them. For example, with this last edit to the FAQ I not only addressed your  tag but left the NPOV tag-esqe since James agreed with you in your NPOV concerns.  Also, in support of removing the material related to disputing WP:FRINGE, I added a modest section to the talk page with diffs and quotes from your own comments.  This isn't WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's responsible editing. Eugene (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the FAQ sufficiently NPOV now to remove the tag? Eugene (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate if you wouldn't remove the tags until we have the neutrality issues sorted out. The first response for example: it's oddly written ("numerous premiere scholars at top-tier universities"), you're telling readers how you are defining the term, the Bart Simpson business, the tone is argumentative, and it's basically your own opinion. I think as we get the article issues straightened out, we can go back and sort out the relevant question and answers, but it can't be rushed. I'm even wondering whether we should have an FAQ if it's going to be inherently problematic. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 19:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fringe" topics and WP:Fringe are different things. There is no danger that wikipedia will become the primary source for this so I'm not sure the wiki guideline applies. Eugene is wikilawyering and misrepresenting my posts. The FAQ is one of the nastiest bits of this talk page and has been a stick with which to beat other editors who disagree with the Bill/Eugene view. It gives the false impression to someone new that there is general consensus amongst editors and tries to entrench ownership of this article. Sophia ♫  08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

Copied from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ



 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Contact me on my talk page if you want this userfied. Tim Song (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ
This is a misuse of the FAQ page format. A talk page FAQ should normally only be created when there is widespread consensus on specific issues. In this case, the issues are still being debated and discussed extensively by long-time, good-faith users. This "FAQ" was created by one side of the debate to attempt to stifle the opposition. *** Crotalus *** 16:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps even speedy keep. Not a valid argument for deletion. Please take your debate about the contents of the FAQ back to the article talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not even involved in that debate. Secondly, my point is that there shouldn't even be a FAQ page unless consensus exists amongst the regular editors, and no such consensus exists here. *** Crotalus *** 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, My view largely lines up with Bill's. It can be salvaged. NJMauthor (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, from my recollection, there WAS a consensus. Of course, a consensus is subject to change, but that is not a valid reason to simply delete it; rather, it's a valid reason to modify it.  And I have no doubt that sometime in the near future, that is exactly what is going to happen.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't one now. So, wouldn't it be productive to pull it down, address the issues, and put something back which does what an FAQ should do? We could make 1 and 2 first cabs off the rank at mediation. I think 1 has to be agreed on before we can get anywhere, anyway. Is someone like Wells, who now admits the likelihood of some kind of human Jesus, a Christ myth theorist? Or is this article only about people who promote the likelihood that it is complete fiction? This needs to be resolved before we can move on. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, the FAQ reflected the consensus that existed at one time. With the FAC procress the consensus seems to have weakened but the NPOV caution seems to be enough to address this. Also, given that the FAQ's most contentious sections are mostly just long lists of quotes from relevant specialists, I think the page is helpful in bringing new editors up to speed on the state of the scholarship in the area. Crotalus apparently considers this "stifling the opposition", I'd say it's educating them. Eugene (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or userify. I think it's better to delete this for now than to have edit wars over it. The FAQ was written to reflect one side of the debate, and has been used as a bit of a battering ram ever since, with editors repeatedly told to read it when they raise legitimate concerns&mdash;or even before commenting in an RfC&mdash;as though it's the Delphic oracle. FAQs should confine themselves to issues that really do reflect overall consensus. A quick look through the talk pages shows there has never been consensus on the points made in this FAQ, including among experienced editors or those who've contributed a lot to the article. If we want to keep the list of quotes, we can retain those at Talk:Christ myth theory/Quotes from sources. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete FAQs are supposed to save time and effort by answering commonly asked questions. The time and effort wasted on edit wars over this highly biased FAQ make this page counter productive. This is Eugene answring his critics so the page title should be User:Eugeneacurry/FAQ . Sole Soul (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Reading through the archives the FAQ is the work of a couple of editors who found a lull time in editing by others and seized their chance. It has constantly been disputed by numerous editors and Eugene and Bill are using it lock down the article in their preferred biased state as it has a semi official look to it at the head of the talk page. Sophia ♫  06:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete for now. Replace once consensus is achieved. It is clear and un controversial. It defines "Christ Myth Theory", makes clear it is a fringe theory, explains the inevitable preponderance of Christian contributers to the debate, and explains the need for the article. I haven't read any examples yet but, from the above comments, it seems some editors are misusing it in some way. If that is the case, I suggest shunning them. That is, they are bathwater, this is the baby. Anthony (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is prone to fly by editors who are generally uninformed of the topic (quoting their favourite amateur polemicist, etc), and the FAQ provides scope and verifiable RS on where the debate stands. --Ari (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It says nothing about the debate. It defines the term, which is essential. But there is dispute about that. It shows that it is a fringe theory, but in a juvenile, disrespectful tone. It explains the inevitable preponderance of Christian contributers to the debate, and the need for a devoted article. It says nothing about the debate. And it doesn't belong here in its present form while there is so much dissent. Anthony (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, at least the current version. Currently, the FAQ only contains information that one would expect to see in the article, but that is being debated on the talk page.  Frankly, it seems tendentious.  Now, I could perhaps see an FAQ linked to the Jesus article, which would direct readers with different questions as to which article they should go to to find their answers.  But right now this reads like a parallel article, like one set of views on the topic presented in Q and A form.  It is not about misconceptions, it covers material fundamental to the article itself.  I just do not get it.  If the decision is to "keep" it, I think NPOV issues need to be addressed and the administrator judging the result of the AfD should provide some guidance as to what FAQs are for, and not for, to help us improve them.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is similar to the one at Talk:European Union. I’m sure pages like these can be used in an even-handed, constructive manner, but at the same time I doubt I’ll ever see it happen that way. Even for the best of such pages, when the other option is to read it until I believe it (otherwise refrain from commenting) I would prefer to delete it. ―AoV² 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I am watching this article as an uninvolved admin. This page is unhelpful, especially to newer editors who may take the information here as gospel, when of course it is the opinions of various editors.  This information should be debated on the talkpage, not presented as a fait accompli here, not to mention that it is prone to edit-warring in itself. If information presented here is useful, it should be userfied by the editors who want to present it and linked in talkpage discussions.  Having it as a subpage of the article itself lends it a gravitas that it does not deserve. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete These FAQ pages can be useful when they give short, straight-forward answers that are unlikely to be contested. This one does not. I see it as yet another attempt to win the reader over to a particular point of view and thus contravenes WP:NPOV. Graham Colm (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of consensus. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I perused the archives in the hope of understanding how such a shabby article could go unimproved for 4 years. I have that understanding now. The comments above by Sophia and Graham Colm best express my view on the FAQ. PYRRHON  talk   21:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is too much controversy surrounding the history of the article and the use of the FAQ to allow the FAQ to stand. Per SlimVirgin, the quotations might be kept somewhere as a raw resources page. When the article and its talk page have been stable for a couple of months a new FAQ may arise from consensus on the talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prefer Archive as a valid but misdirected contribution to the discussion on the article over "delete" but agree, is not a good page, reading as it does like one persons point of view, but unsigned. If there is any good in such an approach, better to start fresh.  Do not delete out of fear of dooming ourselves to repeat the same mistakes again.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark as Archive Seems best choice.  I am loath to eradicate on general principles, but it clearly includes material which some wish to discuss currently. WRT the comment that it represents what editors thought - that is true of just about every FAQ or article out there, and is not, per se, a reason for deletion.  Collect (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion: I have just reworked the FAQ
Removed the insults, hyperbole and verbose irrelevancies. Anthony (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep this than nothing. Eugene (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Voting Section
Please register votes here.


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

Comments Section

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.
 * Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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