Talk:Christ myth theory/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ─AFAprof01 (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GA final review
 :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

'''Very well-written article. Prose is technically correct as is spelling. Free of grammatical and spelling errors. It follows Manual of Style very thoroughly. Checked for jargon and words to avoid.''' :
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

'''Article contains an amazing number of references which are a very thorough annotated bibliography, in addition to the in-line citations. Source-checked fine as WP:RS. Discussion was held concerning some blogs, and they meet Wiki RS requirements. Details included below in discussion. No original research. All major points are cited with reliable sources.''' :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

'''Coverage addresses the main aspects of the article in far more depth and breadth than usually found. Focus is excellent. No detours.''' . '''Strikingly neutral without bias. Both sides fairly presented. It appears editors have gone to considerable lengths to locate many sources of approximately equal number and strength for both positions.  . There is evidence in History of past instability due to content disputes. GA consideration was put on 21-day hold. During that time article remained stable except for edits requested by this GA reviewer.''' :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

Images are appropriate, well-placed, suitably captioned and tagged. 

Introduction from article reviewer
I want to introduce myself. I am AFAprof01 (talk), the reviewer for this article that User:Eugeneacurry in accordance with the good article criteria.

I’m in your court, so to speak. The article is a fine candidate for GA. I will work with you point-by-point through this process, letting you know my opinions and evaluation in each rating category.

At the moment, there is a major stumbling block—the article’s lack of what Wiki calls “stability.” Good_article_criteria states, “Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.” I applaud the editors involved in this dispute. In general, they are communicating with each other in respectful terms and are seeking common ground. The article must become “stable” before evaluation begins, or else it would be immediately failed.

Here are some “frequently-missed” areas that I encourage you to recheck:


 * 1) Spelling and grammar. These tend to be particularly hard to spot for frequent editors. Suggest you ask a couple of qualified people unfamiliar with the article to proofread it for spelling, grammar, and good prose “wording.”
 * 2) The Manual of Style guidelines for WP:Lead section, WP:layout, WP:jargon, and words to avoid (WP:AVOID). WP:AVOID has recently changed. There are adds to the list that surprised all of us.
 * 3) Check for inline citation on all direct quotations, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.
 * 4) Especially in an article like this NPOV is especially difficult. Everything should be written in sch a way that the reader has no basis to suspect the writer’s POV (pro or con).
 * 5) Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources. Please make sure that none of the sources are even marginal on the reliability scale. They should be notable sources.
 * 6) It’s fine for you to continue constructive routine editing during this process.

I am extending the review/evaluation time to 21 days since we’re starting with an area that otherwise would fail the article.

From here on, we will be communicating about the Good Article process via this page. The first time you open this page, look for a line at the very top of this page which reads:

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch

GA reviewer's edit recommendations
Dear Editors:

Here are my recommendations for edits in preparation for the GA candidacy. Rather than repeatedly say "I suggest" or "Please consider," I'll say that here. I don't intend to sound or to be dictatorial. If there are some recommendations you decide not to accept, please provide a brief explanation so I won't wonder if a revision is coming later. I also may learn something new in the process, and that's a good thing!

In general

 * There are several sentences that are a real "mouthful" to parse and are exceptionally long. One runs nearly five lines. There are several places where I will recommend breaking the long sentence into two, occasionally three, sentences. Doing so will probably add a few words to each, but it will be worth it.
 * Need to standardize the capitalization of Pagan. It appears both ways. Dictionary says: "The word pagan (without a capital P) is often used to describe anyone who is not of the three Abrahamaic religions: Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. Today Pagan, with a capital P, often refers to people who follow Neo-Pagan religions that honour the Earth."
 * Please standardize the capitalization of "Christ myth theory" throughout
 * Please standardize the capitalization of "biblical" throughout
 * Sentences should not begin with a conjunction such as "And," (also marked below).
 * It's not incorrect to say "I feel that groceries are too expensive these days." However, in behavioral science a feeling is principally an emotion, not an opinion. "I feel sad," "I feel elated." That dual meaning tends to weaken its use as a stated opinion, which occurs several times in the article. A thesaurus lists reason, reason out, conclude, think, believe, consider, and conceive.

Let's go section by section:

Lead

 * "sometimes allow" sounds a bit colloquial.
 * "that these individuals" → "that none of these ministers were in any sense…Christianity. [new sentence] Rather, they contend….
 * Last sentence of Lead first paragraph needs a citation. "The proponents of the theory…."
 * "The antecedents" at beginning of second paragraph is hard to match up with the start of the historical sequence. Does it match "forerunners" there? Somehow, antecedents and forerunners don't sound quite equivalent when I read them. "predecessors," maybe?
 * The three eras are Early proponents, Early 20th, and Recent—which is fine. Matching them from Lead para. 2 to the text is confusing. Suggest rewording them in the Lead. Split "The first academic…" sentence into two.
 * The Lead should include a brief paragraph about Arguments.
 * Last paragraph of Lead is one sentence that need division into two. Suggest "circles. Biblical scholars and classical historians ARE…."
 * Re: recent editor criticism of flat-earth, etc., these are well-sourced and a plethora of different authors. If someone wants to present a milder more recent quote from modern academic circles, it is an option to add it.

Constantin-François
No comments.

Dupuis
"Drawing on this conceptual foundation [comma]…"

Volney

 * …solar-myth[comma]
 * …allegorical statements like [remove comma]
 * …has brought forth[remove comma]

The works of V and D

 * The interjection of Napoleon is a bit of a shock. The sentence smoothly flow from V and D into Napoleon. Suggest making it two sentences and "Napoleon Bonaparte, when stating privately that…, may have been thinking about….
 * The "However, their influence…" sentence should be made into two sentences. Semicolons are mostly passé. Recently, I heard a professional editor tell an academic group that if their semicolon key on their keyboard were to break, it would be "no problem."

Bauer

 * "Bauer instead concluded…..Gospels." [new sentence] [drop "that"] The entire Gospel tradition now could be traced…
 * "While Bauer initially…cost him his lectureship. [Suggest adding "at the University of Bohn."] It's been awhile since we read of it his academic affiliation.
 * Next sentence. [drop beginning the sentence with "And"]
 * Next sentence, "Bauer's own comprehensive…" should become at least two, maybe three, sentences.
 * [remove the comma after] Seneca the Younger
 * [drop] "In accordance with this view," (superfluous filler)
 * "Bauer held that Mark was an Italian WHO had been influenced…."
 * Next paragraph beginning "Bauer's views." Second sentence weakly and incorrectly begins with "And"

Early 20th century

 * "(e.g., Edwin Johnson…)" Recommend dropping parenthesis and making that into two sentences, the second beginning: "For instance, Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but nearly…."
 * "…Schmiedel's intention that these passages[plural]…"
 * "history of religions…[rather than the in

J.M. Robertson

 * "Against this intellectual background,"[move up] "in 1900" from later in sentence where it reads like Christian origins were in 1900
 * "Robertson noted that while the [authentic…" POV? Did Robertson call them authentic? Would "undisputed" be better?]
 * "…theology and morality [substitute a comma for "and"]
 * Same sentence: [change "gloss" to "glossing"]
 * Next sentence, "Robertson argued [insert "THAT the Jesus…"]
 * Next sentence, "As a result, Robertson [synonym for "felt" which is weak, perhaps "concluded that"]
 * Same sentence, "must have developed later, [insert PROBABLY] among…" for consistency with the hypothesis idea.
 * The sentence beginning "The Gentile party…" all the way to the end of the paragraph doesn't mention Robertson at all. It isn't immediately clear what that has to do with what has preceded in this paragraph. Suggest a transition phrase or sentence to make it clear where the flow is headed.

Smith

 * "Smith therefore FELT…." Stronger synonym, please.
 * "In keeping with his theory[comma]"

Drews

 * Whatever modest fame these two men →Robertson and Smith
 * 2/3 Of the way down, "His work proved…." End sentence after "Drews' arguments." Then, "Responses appeared…."
 * Final sentence in that paragraph: "In response to his detractors…" is "critics" more appropriate here?
 * "…public debates, of which…" It would be better to change it to read: "debates, the most famous of which…"
 * Who is von Soden? This is the only place he is mentioned. Please clarify by identifying him somehow.

Other writers

 * Jesus's →Jesus'
 * The G.R.S. Mead sentence has a misplaced modifier. It looks like the Talmud lived around 100BCE.
 * "Gilgamesh" shouldn't have a comma after it.

Soviet adoption

 * First sentence: "came thus to be" is archaic. Change to "became"
 * Next sentence, "As such" is a filler and should be deleted.
 * "Further, public debates…." Delete "further"
 * …"including such men as…" → "including the Commisar…." "Including" implies an exemplar list follows.

Allegro
Break sentence after "hallucinogenic mushrooms." Change "and that" to "he claimed."

Wells

 * Change "Allegro was…" to "G.A. Wells, professor of German at the University of London, quickly superseded, {passive voice}
 * "On this view" doesn't read well. Suggest: "According to this view"
 * "by the earliest strata of the NT" isn't part of the quote and sounds rather stogy. Suggest it be simplified into something more understandable. As written, the sentence is unclear.

Price
"rehabilitate" could use a more understandable synonym. "Revive" maybe?

Other writers

 * "Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy" sentence should become two sentences. "…ever existed. He maintains…." "
 * …feeling that a Gnostic…." Again, "feeling" is weak.
 * Next sentence should not begin with "And". Please strike it.
 * Likewise in next paragraph, "And slogans…."
 * Same paragraph: "In his book[comma] The God Delusion
 * I must admit, "meme" is not in my vocabulary, so I looked it up. Perfectly good word. I looked for a synonym but couldn't find one. If anyone knows a good synonym, it might be better.
 * Wiki style is to use the ampersand only between the names of two authors.

Scarcity & unreliability

 * Scarcity and… [no ampersand]
 * Also please replace it between Clement of Rome & Ignatius
 * In the same sentence, suggest a comma after "Apostolic Fathers", and another one after "Antioch)"
 * 2nd para. "dependant" → "dependent"

Mythological parallels

 * "…the Christ Myth theory, though " (standardize capitalization)
 * Here's one of the "Pagan"s
 * "…, And so on." Maybe "others" would be better.
 * "More sober refutations…" paragraph: Move "in 1914" in front of "Fred" so there's no ambiguity about what it refers to.
 * Biblical scholar Maurice Gogeul, who….
 * Para. beginning "Beyond these general treatments…" uses "advocates" close together in first and second sentences. Maybe change one to a synonym.

Affirmation of a historical Jesus

 * Main article: Capitalize "Historicity"
 * The (e.g., "For the king knows…) parenthetical expression is confusing. Starting a sentence with "e.g." isn't a great practice. If done, then the "E" must be capitalized. Suggest no parentheses, and a transition phrase or sentence to explain what reader is to get from reading the verse. Its connection to the previous sentence seems vague. An approach would be something like: "Paul the Apostle used such an appeal to well-known events in petitioning King Agrippa: "For the king knows…etc." Please close it with template after the closing period of right quotation mark, and no parentheses around the sentence and quotation.
 * Para. "In addition…" 'critical' → 'crucial' perhaps?
 * Multiple attestation (I'm not sure, but it seems the bulleted points should follow Wiki's rules for capitalizing words in titles.)
 * "In contrast to Bauer…." Again, it's been awhile since we read about Jack, er, Bruno. "While Bauer held (such and such), modern scholarship believes…." Having inanimate belief sounds a little strange, even when used to represent scholars. How about "scholars" believe?
 * Shouldn't Hypothesis be capitalized to be consistent with Two-Source? Also, here's a great place to break it into two sentences: "Hypothesis. It postulates…."

Enemy attestation

 * The second sentence is a humongous sentence.
 * The quotation, James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" doesn't have a misplaced modifier, but the punctuation (part of the quote) could contribute to it being misread: "James…who was called Christ." One possible re-word: "Josephus, in his book The Antiquities of the Jews,makes an allusion to the death of James the Apostle. He specifically refers to James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." His Antiquities Jewish history is almost universally accepted as legitimate." Then start a new sentence, "A fuller reference to Jesus…." I think Testimonium Flavianum should be italicized.

Embarrassment

 * "Were the gospels…." Consider "If the Gospels were….." Capitalize gospels? It's also a long sentence. It isn't a very good sentence and needs to be reworded. I'll try: "If the Gospels were purely imaginary, they likely would not include some very specific references to the life of Christ. Mark and other Gospels associate Jesus with Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. The creative narratives do not consistently present Jesus in conformity with preexisting messianic expectations. The fact that…."

Rejection of alleged mythological parallel

 * "pagan" ─ caps or no caps consistency
 * "Further, mainstream scholarship…" is another long sentence. The emdashes help, but it's still a mouthful. Suggest 2 sentences.
 * "gods[145]─the validity…." I think it works better to have the ref and emdash switched. The reference belongs only to the word "gods," while the dash belongs to both sentence segments
 * Para. 2: "sloppy" comes up as a bit of a shock. The original may have used that, but since it's not in quotes, I think a different word would be preferable. What about "slipshod"? The other alternative is to include a direct quote or say Yamauchi terms it "sloppy," but that doesn't track with the footnote.
 * Another "Pagan" needing caps or no caps consistency
 * "Scholars further note…" A comma after "improbable" is needed.
 * Is "as evidenced by " a continuation of "improbable" or of "cultural background"? A comma after "background" is needed if it is the former.

Methodological concerns

 * The second sentence, "While advocates…," has no principal clause.
 * "As a result Bart Ehrman has labeled…" Comma after "result." One would pause there if reading this aloud.
 * "Deconstructed" is a very memorable term that is used in  Scarcity & unreliability of extra-biblical source and here. Is there a good synonym for one of them? (very optional)

Modern scholarly consensus

 * "As N.T. Wright has written:" I believe it was an interview. "Said" perhaps.
 * Since it was an interview probably transcribed, we probably don't need a [sic] for "Jesus's." We're quoting Wright, and I'm certain he would not write it that way. Suggest correcting it with Jesus'

END
I've made basically all the recommended changes. Just a few quick points, though. The phrase "critical criteria" should remain as it is (not becoming "crucial criteria") because the criteria are generally accepted tools within higher criticism, not because they're simply "really important". Also, the final block quote's use of "Jesus's" is a little tricky. The Maunal of Style states that it can be either "Jesus'" or "Jesus's" (though "Jesus'" is preferred) so long as it's consistent throughout the article. So far "Jesus'" in the way it normally appears in the article, but there are a few "Jesus's" in the quotations and titles appearing in the footnotes. Should we change Wright's usage to "Jesus'" for uniformity since it appear in the in-line text or should we just leave it since its a quotation? And lastly, WP:LEADCITE indicates that material in the lead only needs to sourced when likely to be challenged. I've been working on this page for a few months now and I can't recall a single time that anything in the lead other than the definition and the scholarly reception was challenged. Is it really necessary then to add the citation to the uncontroversial material? Eugene (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the research. I accept these appeals as completely valid. My preference is to change Wright's usage to "Jesus'" for uniformity since it appear in the in-line text, particularly in view of the fact that his comments were spoken (interview) by him and not written. Excellent job. I'm sorry you had to make all the edits without any assistance from other editors. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Eugene (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm made the recommended changes (the less one's noted above—and I left "meme" since it's linked). What's the next step? Eugene (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As explained in Talk:Christ myth theory/GA1, I extended the review/evaluation time to 21 days from 30 January 2010, hopefully to be able to document Stability. I do not anticipate asking for any other edits. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling, grammar, readiness of article
"spelling and grammar"? I am sorry, I realize that "GA" mostly means "passed a review that could be done by a very short shell script", but this is rather rich. There is no way this article can be described as "good", never mind its spelling and grammar or MOS compliance, as long as it cannot make up its mind on what it is even about.

I respect the GA people as a sort of formatting reminder, but it is too often that they end up confusing writing an encyclopedia with spellchecking. MOS and spelling is the very final, very trivial polishing on a finished article. Somebody with an actual grasp of the encyclopedic topic will have had to sat down and done the actual work before there is even any grammar for you to check. In the case of this article, it will need to be dismantled entirely and disributed among the articles that actually discuss the respective topics before there can be any talk of "good article". --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the nomination for GA has been in for awhile, I wonder why you're just now saying it's not even close to being ready for review? Perhaps I missed where you registered your complaint/concerns. Are you proposing that the GA process cease? If not, what is your proposal, please. And for anyone to grasp what actually are your concerns, it seems to me you should provide specific concerns by section. I don't know the background to which Eugene refers, but to "dismantle it entirely and distribute among the articles" is a severe condemnation. Please say more about this.


 * As for when grammar/spelling is checked my list does not imply a sequence any more than does the list at WP:GA. Maybe it's like going for a job interview. First impressions can never be undone. Thanks for your inquiry. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote a long response to this, but my baby just deleted it a second ago. I'm bugged and don't intend to rewrite it all over again. So here's the short version: Dbachmann, you're wrong; this article was deemed worthy of an individual existence in 2006, this article's individuation from historicity of Jesus mirrors the individuation of Oxfordian theory from Shakespeare authorship question, etc, etc, etc. Stop riding this hobby horse. Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry, as long as you stick to ignoratio elenchi there can be no progress. This article has been a complete mess for four years, long before you became involved, and it is approaches such as yours which have prevented us from fixing it. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! That was pretty hostile and uncivil, not to mention that it is an argumentum ad hominem. By the way, who is this "us" that you mentioned as being stymied? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "it is approaches such as yours which have prevented us from fixing it..." Approaches such as mine?! Sourcing virtually every statement made in the article? Investing hours in the bibliography? Converting all references into Harvard links? Culling OR and organizing criticism into a coherent ensemble? Adding entire notable sub-sections on the Soviet Union? Submitting the article for GA review? These are approaches that have prevented people from "fixing" this article?! Give me a break, dab.Eugene (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe and parity
Afaprof01, you wrote that we should "make sure that none of the sources are even marginal on the reliability scale." How does that play out with a WP:FRINGE article given WP:PARITY? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, it's obviously best if none are marginal, but I realize that's not always possible. I won't use the word "none" next time; that's too strong and I appreciate your pointing that out. Obviously, they should be held to a minimum and used very sparingly. In the case of parity, sometimes it cannot be avoided. If you have any ones particularly in mind, let me know and I'll take a look. Somehow it should be obvious to the astute reader why a stronger one(s) are not used.


 * Two statements from WP:FRINGE that I think are particularly strident [my apologies, wrong word!] pertinent:


 * Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.


 * The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field.


 * Thanks for the inquiry. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm back at the computer and my baby's no where around. The article currently cites a lot of self-published sources, both from notable Christ myth theory advocates and from established scholars. Here's a list.

Christ Myth Advocates













Mainstream Scholars





















Now some of sources perhaps don't qualify as self-published: Craig's debate with Carrier was hosted by a university and rigorously moderated and XTalk (Crossan), Bible Interpretation (Hoffmann), and the Centre for Public Christianity (Forbes) all have some sort of officiality to them. But the rest are clearly self-published.

WP:FRINGE states that "fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe," so that column would seem to be okay. And according to WP:RS, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This sentiment is further emphasized in relation to this particular article by WP:PARITY. But your concern still seems valid.

We've had some discussion on this page regarding the viability of some of these sources, especially when they criticize the Christ myth theory and it's adherent--vigorously. Maier's article raised an eye-brow or two because 4truth.net is an apologetics site connected to the SBC. Similar sentiments were expressed regarding Licona's article, and I think Criag's article too. Ehrman's interview prompted some concern because his thundering criticism seemed "off the cuff". In every case, only a handful of editors have objected (some times only one), but the criticism has been made.

I've lobbied to keep the contested sources on various grounds (Maier is one of the few historians proper quoted in the article, Licona mentions Doherty by name, Ehrman's comments indicate that it's not just Christians who compare the theory to holocaust denial, etc) and I'd be interested to know what you think of the lists. Eugeneacurry (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, thank you for the logical arguments and full disclosure. Some observations: This article would be a candidate for the best cited article, if there were such an award. The only downside are some (not all) of the self-published and otherwise not refereed articles. With it being so easy to get published these days, sometimes I wonder why we honor refereed articles but have no consistent way to judge books by authors not known, or at least not well known. I've been through the blog issue, actually about Ben Witherington, with Wiki topside, and they approved the idea of blogs by otherwise well-respected authors. Many of them self-publish to their blog for comments before they turn their manuscript over to the publisher. I'm also not overly concerned about denominational organizations that are official agencies or are sponsored by the denom.


 * The bibliography is superb, and greatly increases the value of the article. It represents a lot of effort.


 * Even in the biblio, there is a dearth of quotable sources for the myth sections. IMO, this article's editors have done a very credible job of citing, limitations notwithstanding. You editors appear to have done your best to work with the limited available material on the myth side. While that must be noted in the final report, the explanation will also be presented. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Long held issue over definition remain
The elephant in the room is that not everyone uses "Christ myth theory" the same way and some versions include a historical Jesus so obscured by mythology that nothing of the actual historial man is thought to remain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)