Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ myth theory/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:01, 12 April 2010.

Christ myth theory

 * Nominator(s): Eugene (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article status because, since its last FAC, it has completed a Peer Review and a compromise has been reached regarding some of the more controversial elements through formal mediation. I realize that this is a provocative topic that engenders strong opinions. Special effort has been made, however, to reference every possibly contestable statement and an FAQ has been included to address some of the more common prima facie concerns like bias and content-forking. A number of controversial articles (e.g. global warming, intelligent design, Xenu, etc) have achieved FA status and I'd like very much if the Christ myth theory could join their ranks. If as a reviewer you see a problem with the article, please, rather than immediately object to the FAC, indicate what the problem is and give the involved editors time to reply and possibly alter the article. Eugene (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. No dab links. Link to http://www.infidelguy.com/feed-listen-834-836/Tape428_bart_ehrman.mp3 requires login. Ucucha 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Infidel Guy Show episode in view here can be found on YouTube but the article's editors felt it was better to link to the official source. If the reviewers here disagree it would be effortless for us to re-link to the YouTube file. Eugene (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This link does not work, since people normally will not be able to log in on that site and the page does not provide an opportunity to do so, but linking to the YouTube version would presumably be linking to a copyright violation, which is prohibited. Ucucha 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link in question from the bibliographic entry. Eugene (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Ucucha 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comments – for now. This is a well-written and engaging contribution. I have made a few notes during my two readings. They are not in any particular order so forgive me.
 * Here, "Whatever modest fame Robertson and Smith had achieved, they were soon overshadowed by Arthur Drews" - sounds a little biased; the subject of the sentence is "fame" so should "they were" be "it was"?
 * Drews is generally better known than Robertson and Smith. He was the one who coined the phrase "Christ myth". If this is a deal-breaker, though, I'll change it. I'm not entirely sure about the grammar, but I think it's correct. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "a historical" should be "an historical".
 * Both are correct, it's a matter of regional/generational differences. "A historical" is more in line with modern American English, which is the variant in which the article is written. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like how the references and footnotes are mixed, and are all those lengthy quotations therein necessary?
 * Since the article has proven uber-contentious, the editors have included tons of quotes in the footnotes to limit objections to the sources based on ignorance of the subject or secondary literature. Once the article achieves FA (thus establishing its reliability) I'd be happy to go back and convert most the quotations to bare references. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In this sentence form the Lead, "The proponents of the theory trace the evolution of Christianity through a conjectural understanding of the evolution of the New Testament literature, giving primacy to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians" sounds very biased. How about "The proponents of the theory give primacy to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians"?
 * "conjectural understanding of the evolution of the New Testament literature" is included because CMT advocates believe, in contrast to mainstream scholarship, that the narrative of Jesus (which is recorded in the gospels) grew out of the epistles, and not vice versa. I think this information is helpful, but if you're adamant, I'll change it. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am adamant. I'm concerned with maintaining WP:NPOV and explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. Much of mainstream biblical scholarship is conjecture in my view. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is "great forerunners" inside quotation marks?
 * Fixed. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, "Bauer's views proved to be foundational for much of the Christ myth community of later generations" - is foundational a word? How about, "proved to be the foundation"?
 * Yes, "foundational" is a word. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the universities of Amsterdam and Berlin need to be linked.
 * I'm sort of surprised this is an issue. The article wikilinks to the universities of Bonn, Amsterdam, Zurich, Tulane, Berlin, Baylor, just recently London, and the Technische Hochschule Karlsruhe.  Why is wikilinking to specifically the universities of Berlin and Amsterdam problematic?  Also, I note that the FA Huldrych Zwingli article wikilinks to the universities of Basel and Vienna. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds odd, "who were known in German scholarship" - does it mean "called by German scholars"?
 * Here, "As Joseph Klausner wrote at the time, Biblical scholars "tried their hardest ..." why is biblical spelt with an upper case B ?
 * Fixed. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly "G" here "Robertson concluded that those elements of the Gospel narrative which."
 * I've standardized the capitalization of "gospel" in the article in accordance with M-W.com. References to the specific books called "the Gospels" are capitalized, references to the more general "gospel message" are not capitalized. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here, "A variety of other less well known authors advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period as well" A variety of and as well are redundant.
 * I'm not sure that that's true. "As well" is just another way of saying "too"; is "A variety of other less well known authors advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period too." redundant? Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about "A variety of"? Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's redundant and dismissive, try, "Other authors advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period." Graham Colm (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not realy, "A variety of other authors also advocated versions of the Christ myth theory during this period". I think my suggestion is better. Graham Colm (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's less artful, but fine, if you must have it, fixed. Eugene (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here the "etc" is not at all helpful, "Osiris was resurrected from the dead, etc."
 * Fixed.Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be an extra period here, "their particular socio-religious tastes.."
 * Fixed. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think "mainstream" is over used and "the scholarly mainstream" is an ugly expression.
 * "Mainstream" does get used a lot. What do you suggest instead?  As for "the scholarly mainstream", the expression appears rather often in published literature. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an important issue re WP:NPOV. I get the impression that the views of those who are not recognised, mainstream biblical scholars are deemed to be less valid or not valid at all. I sense a bias every time I read the word. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, shouldn't the views of recognized mainstream scholars in the field be seen as more valid than amateurs? I mean, think about another topic that you're very familiar with, like microbiology.  Would you object to an article on virons which implies that recognized, mainstream virologists should be taken more seriously than dilettantes who contradict the academic consensus regarding some detail or other? Eugene (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a red herring, just as are comparisons to intelligent design, and an appeal to my vanity. But I would welcome any contribution on any virus that is written from a neutral point of view and does not cherry-pick its sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How could a man as dashing and seductive as yourself think that the virology comparison is a red herring? (See, now that's an appeal to vanity!) Seriously though, it seems like a perfect comparison: would you really object to a page on AIDS denialism giving greater weight to sources published by recognized mainstream virologist than countervailing sources published by, say, philosophers, German language professors, and mathematicians?  I can't believe that you would have a problem with that; it's merely in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on sources. Eugene (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another red herring. This discussion is about this candidate only— period. I will not be drawn into this unhelpful argument. Graham Colm (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The citation after "for this has not been done in a corner" is an external link.
 * It's actually some sort of fancy Wikipedia link designed for Bible passages. If the reviewers here would prefer it changed to a more standard reference, I'll change it. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it to be changed to the standard.Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The vague "a number of" is used four times.
 * Fixed. 4 --> 2. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can live with the two occurrences, but "several" would be better. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all for the time being.Graham Colm (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Following my third reading, I have decided to oppose the promotion of this candidate. I think it contravenes WP:NPOV. In the Lead for example, there is "the proponents of the theory" rather than the theory, and the last sentence of the Lead—"The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship"—establishes the biased theme of this contribution. This article is essentially an a attempt to debunk the "myth" and is not written from a  neutral point of view. Graham Colm (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nothing further to add to this FAC. The nominator seems to be more interested in argument than consensus building. Graham Colm (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little disappointed by the oppose vote. I've changed the wording of the lead to focus more on the theory itself and not the proponents.  As regards the final sentence of the lead though, WP:FRINGE clearly states that "[a]rticles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."  The guideline goes on to state that "[i]deas 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." I fail to see how the current lead for the CMT article oversteps these bounds.  By way of comparison, look at the FA intelligent design article: the lead of that article states that ID is "not science" three times, "psuedoscience" once, and "junk science" once.  The CMT article is being gentle with its subject by comparison!  Please, please reconsider the oppose vote--at least for a few days.  If you have specific NPOV concerns make them known and the article's editors will address them as I have your more prosaic concerns. Eugene (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The intelligent design article clearly attributes the pseudoscience description to well known bodies, not individuals, which does make a big difference. Also pseudoscience is easier to prove as there is a clear scientific method that they contravene, whereas the historical method is a lot less clear cut. The only reason to overstate the case in historical research would be on ideological grounds. Sophia ♫  11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not rehash this all over again here, Sophia. Sufficied to say that you yourself agreed  to categorize this article as pseudoscholarship.  Also, as regards the intelligent design page, you're simply mistaken.  In addition to the institutional denunciations, that article's lead states "Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science."  That statement is supported by a couple refs with five sources, none of which are official statements from scientific bodies.  What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Eugene (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed the word "just" as in "not just individuals". If you can find as good from some official historical body then that would make an important addition to the article. Sophia ♫  17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The chariman of the SBL's Historical Jesus Section (quote at the end of the section) isn't official enough? Come on, Sophia, let's not repeat the endless talk page wrangling here. Eugene (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards oppose. With no prior knowledge of the subject, this article seems wildly unbalanced to me; it reads to me like it's been written (or rewritten) by someone who's a strong advocate of a particular point of view on the matter and is willing to throw core principles of NPOV out the window to belittle anyone expressing another view. Wild throw-mud-and-hope-it-sticks accusations, such as "These issues have led a number of scholars to class the Christ myth theory as a form of denialism" are slipped into the article as cited facts, but the "number of scholars" cited in the footnote transpire to be books published by Christian publishers Eerdmans and Thomas Nelson, a book called The Case for the Real Jesus, and an interview with Bart D. Ehrman, none of which can be considered remotely impartial on the matter. Obvious POV material such as "As Mark Allan Powell, the chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, has stated, "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." is included without comment as "commentary from a scholar", when "chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature" should set off warning bells right away. These are just two examples; it seems riddled top-to-bottom with an inherent POV of "anyone who believes this is a crank, anyone who doesn't believe it is a scholar", and to me this seems so pervasive that it needs a top-to-bottom cleanup and a strong look at the sourcing, before it's going to come close to meeting 1(d). – iride  scent  17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that in your litany against the sources in the relevant footnote you fail to mention that a book published by Oxford University Press is cited and that Bart Ehrman is an agnostic. Also, while Eerdmans is certainly a Christian publisher, it's not hopelessly biased as you claim: Eerdmans has published work by the militant atheist Hector Avalos and a sympathetic memoir  of John Allegro (a Christ myth theorist, by the way) by Allegro's own daughter.  As for the Society of Biblical Literature, why should this "set off warning bells"? The SBL is the premiere body studying the Old and New Testaments; well known skeptics (e.g. Robert Price) and atheists (e.g. Hector Avalos) are members and some well known critics of Christian orthodoxy have held serious leadership positions (e.g. Elaine Pagels & Bart Ehrman).  As for looking at the sourcing, one of the page's most tenacious critics, Sophia who commented above, conceeded in the recent mediation that the sources in question meet the standards of WP:IRS.  Again, I'm pleading with the reviews here who are concerned with tone and POV issues, compare this article's lead against that at intelligent design which has not only achieved FA but survived two FAR's.  If that article is acceptably NPOV but this article isn't, I don't know how to interpret that as anything else than a double-standard. Eugene (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote from the OUP book (a) doesn't mention holocaust denial (or any other form of denial), and (b) is not "commentary by a neutral scholar" but a quote from the Bishop of Durham. Even in the Church of England, I'd imagine "refuse to admit the possibility that the Bible isn't true" is part of the job description.
 * I'm not going to take up your suggestion of "compare it to Intelligent design; I've not read that article nor does its FA status have anything to do with this one. That was promoted more than three years ago (in a rather dubious FAC) and scraped through an FAR in 2008, and the article as promoted has only the vaguest resemblance to the current article. This is the FAC of Christ myth theory, not the FAR for Intelligent design. – iride  scent  18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the intelligent design FAC; this isn't that and that isn't this. I think you're dismissing high-quality sources rather glibbly though. Yes, Wright is a clergyman in the Anglican Communion, but so was James Pike, so is John Shelby Spong, and so is even Tom Harpur--a Christ myth theorist! Those Anglicans are a broad minded bunch. So I think it's entirely unfair to just dismiss the man Newsweek described as "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar" on the grounds that he's probably biased. Are you suggesting that this article, because it's about Jesus, shouldn't quote scholars who happen to be Christians? Doesn't that seem a bit... odd? And while, yes, Wright don't class the CMT with a speficially denialist theory, he does compare it to the belief that the moon is made of cheese. Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not dispute that they were reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, however as Eugene knows I do not support this FAC as I do not think quotes have been used in a balanced way. Any attempt to work on the article is met by disparaging abuse making it a very unpleasant place to edit. Sophia ♫  18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes – I'm starting to see why mediation was necessary. I've not read either the mediation nor the PR, nor do I intend to; this is FAC and I'm judging it by my interpretation of FAC standards, not what was agreed at a mediation. As it stands, my interpretation is that this is wildly POV, cherry-picking sources, and written as a debunking job rather than a neutral commentary (almost 50% of the article at present consists of attacks on the theory, dismissive commentary on its supporters like "less well known authors" and attempts of varying crudeness to link its proponents to Hitler and Stalin); consequently, I don't think it's going to be in a position to meet 1(d) without significant rewriting. – iride  scent  19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I never intended to give the impression that Sophia supports this FAC; I specifically said that she is one of the "page's most tenacious critics". I only hoped to show an editor "[w]ith no prior knowledge of the subject" that, even among the page's detractors, those more familiar with the topic grant that the sources in question meet Wikipedia' reliability guidelines. I've also cut the phrase "less well known" from the "Other advocates" section, though I don't understand why this was controversial; some authors are better known than others, aren't they?  As for cherry-picking, what are you referring to? All of the contentious material is referenced, most of those references include substantial quotations you can check, there is a massive bibliography, and most of the authors have their own wiki pages. Are you claiming that the editors have systematically excluded some notable body of countervailing academic literature in a relevant field?  If so, how could you possibly know this if, as you admit, you have "no prior knowledge of the subject"?  Is it just a knee-jerk assumption?  Eugene (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I freely admit it's an argument from absence; however, as the article itself mentions other works on the topic, but you're only citing your most controversial claims to works by people with a clear and obvious POV (it bears repeating that the views of a serving bishop on the historical truth of the gospels have no validity in a Wikipedia context other than as a source for what the church believes), I'm inferring that you're choosing to work only with those sources with which you agree, while dismissing everyone else with "While largely uncredentialed, a few of these authors have achieved a degree of notability in their own right". (The final paragraph is also extremely dubious in using only figures from English-speaking Christian countries to define "the general population".) – iride  scent  19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. So the the man Newsweek described as "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar" now has "no validity in a Wikipedia context other than as a source for what the church believes"?  Come on.  I'm starting to think that it's not the article that has the POV issues here.  As for your comcerns about the emphasis on the Anglosphere at the end of the article, those were the only RS surveys I could find; it's not like I've tried to prevent other editors from including data on Japan or India or somthing. And honestly, do you really think that the agnostic Bart Ehrman, (cited a few times in the article, mind you) has "a clear and obvious POV"?  That just seems a little silly. Eugene (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ←I did say I wouldn't reply again, but just to sum up for S/K/R's benefit: I don't think this article in its current form is near ready. Regardless of whether this is a fringe theory or not—I personally couldn't really care less if someone really existed 2000 years ago, given that barring major new discoveries it will never be provable either way—this is not Christ myth theory, it's List of reasons why the Christ myth theory is wrong. – iride  scent  20:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just going to toss out a few comments here. I tried to guide the article through mediation the last few weeks (Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory). As I was new to the mediation process, I undoubtedly did not handle it particularly well, but one thing that I tried to stress during the mediation was that anyone who felt that the article did not meet NPOV should bring up reliable sources to support their claim. A number of sources were indeed brought up that supposedly noted that the CMT might have validity. A number of these were dismissed; in retrospect I should have tried to focus more on them and ensure that the dismissal of those sources was proper. They were: Martin, Thompson, Pearson, Jonas, Campbell, Graves, DeConnick, Avalos, Feder, and Davies (what books those authors wrote are located on the mediation page). Perhaps someone independent could check over those authors again and make sure that their views are not being improperly excluded from the article? I am thinking in particular of Martin and Avalos, as well as Thompson. NW ( Talk ) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - The problem some are having in evaluating this article is that they are unaware of historical methodology. For example, when dealing with ancient history, there is nothing which is provable (in a mathematical sense).  There are only probabilities.  And the probability that Jesus didn't exist is so low that historians of all types of backgrounds have labeled the CMT, in one way or another, as "crazy".


 * Therefore, it only appears as a "List of reasons why the Christ myth theory is wrong" to you (Iridescent), and possibly others, because a bizarre and crazy theory means that there will be a whole host of evidence against it. Thus, this article adheres quite nicely to  Fringe (levels of acceptance) policies.  That's my $0.02.


 * Full disclosure - I have not been a significant editor of the main text of this article, but I have made significant contributions to the Talk page and was involved in the mediation with both Eugene and Sophia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the NPOV concerns above, per Slim Virgin's comments on the previous FAC and WP:SOAPBOX. Christ_myth_theory should be the bulk of the article, these are the authors even I've heard of in connection with this topic.  As the quotes in the footnotes (particularly Christ_myth_theory) demonstrate there has not been a scholarly review of the Christ Myth material, so why spend 80% of the article informing readers about something that hasn't happened in inflammatory language?   This would be like focusing on the scholarly reception of pop music lyrics. CD-Host (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just avoid the mess above. I've never used the Reference List formatting used here. I assume the "authormask" field creates the em dashes for a repeat of the same author. I haven't checked the WP:MoS on this, but I never did that here on Wikipedia simply because if someone else adds another reference in between... If the "authormask" formatting takes care of that, disregard. Also, for some reason, some of the em dashes are longer than others. Maybe there's a reason for that? I'm not aware of that might be. Finally, some of the em dashes for "ibid" author are followed by a semicolon and most aren't. Easy cleanup. If these were the biggest problems with the article, there wouldn't be any problem at all... Airborne84 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As long as some editors feel the need for this article to preach that the myth theory is "pseudo-scholarship" and "fringe", it shouldn't pass the FAC process.  I don't see anything obviously fraudulent about Christ-myth theory; it's not as if its proponents, particularly its earliest ones, planted or fabricated evidence, and they seem to have done the little the historical method requires: formulate a thesis, gather evidence and cites in support of thesis, and engage critics' challenges.  In fact, this theory is not analogous to the intelligent design movement, as they claim -- most commentators agree that intelligent design contravenes a core tenet of the scientific method, in not making testable predictions or being falsifiable, as well as obviously having antecedents in creationism, which has rarely aspired to the methodology of science.   The correct analogy is to Lamarck's theory of inherited traits; patently, almost laughably wrong in retrospect, but quite plausible in the scientific context of his time.  We do not label the theories of even the tragically wrong Aristotle and Anaximenes as "fringe" or "psuedo-science" and belabor to prove them wrong in their articles; it should be the same for at least Bruno Bauer's careful formulation.  FWIW, I came to edit the article as a relatively strident atheist and came away feeling that Christ Myth Theory was lacking, as many editors seem to want to impart.   But you can do that with just the facts -- please let them speak for themselves.71.203.159.37 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.