![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
This was the consensus version of the disputed paragraph in the lead. I'd appreciate it if people would not change it without gaining fresh consensus first:
The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. More recent academic advocates include the 19th-century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer and the 20th-century German philosopher Arthur Drews. Writers such as George Albert Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty have re-popularized the idea in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. he philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank, a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it.
SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have looked here after a while. Though I have no further ambitions to actively edit the article (one reason being that I am not a native English speaker, and all this is much time consuming for me), I wanted to make some comments when seeing the current discussion. I close with one concrete particular suggestion.
It seems to me that the position of some editors (including me in the past, you can probably easily find my previous contributions if you wish) is often misinterpreted. I think that no reasonable wiki-editor would try to make the article seem that Jesus of Nazareth nonexistence hypothesis is somehow mainstream or so. The mainstream scholars in their works usually at most mention such a hypothesis in passing, obviously giving it almost no credence, and go on with their work by assuming the (at least basic) historicity of Jesus. This should be surely well reflected in the wiki-article.
If this article should say more, which I think it should, in my opinion the best way would be to summarize the evidence on which the historicity position is based (early Christian literature including the NT epistles and Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus) and then report (in a neutral tone) the arguments used by various `Christ myth proponents' when dealing with this evidence ... Of course, it is not our business to evaluate whether the arguments are `valid' or so, we should just seriously report them. In some sense there is a tendency for doing so; I think that e.g. Akhilleus (with whom I would probably much differ in personal evaluation of the historical probability of the nonexistence hypothesis) has also suggested several times that the `CMT should speak for itself'.
One technical problem is that there are many sorts of `JoN nonhistoricity proponents' (not accurately called CMT proponents), similarly as there are many sorts of `JoN historicity proponents'. And, of course, there are works promoting nonhistoricity, which can be obviously labeled as pseudoscholarship (I myself read such a text written in Soviet times), similarly as there are works promoting historicity which can be labeled so. In my opinion, the wiki-content should concentrate on the arguments, not replacing them with expressions of contempt or so. (I hope that everybody agrees that the quotes like "I know no serious historian who ..." are not scholarly arguments by themselves. Such quotes have any scholarly relevancy only if they are backed with scholarly arguments, so one should primarily concentrate on the arguments as such. Btw, I heared R. Price to say something like "I am already tired to be hearing and reading that I must be wrong because everyone says so".)
So I am surely supporting all the editors who try to concentrate on a neutral reporting of the arguments, trying to reflect the reality as objectively as possible. I am sorry that I cannot engage in real editing but at least I can give one particular suggestion at this moment.
In the text we find: ... and Earl Doherty have each been the subject of such critical comments.[115]
Including this Crossan's comment 115 here gives an impression to the reader that Crossan (a credential biblical scholar) has read Doherty's work and, based on that, he has found good arguments to compare Doherty with moonlanding denialists; otherwise the comment has no relevancy here. But if one looks at the context, we find that Crossan was reacting in a time-limited internet discussion in 2000.
(Description The XTalk Seminar on Materials and Methodology in Historical Jesus Research is a moderated, online, three week long forum whose aim is to provides a platform for exchanges between approved Seminar members and John Dominic Crossan, ....)
He was reacting to the question of a participant about a review of Crossan's book written by Doherty. Crossan in his answer to the participant does not address any arguments from the review, he just deduces from the question that Doherty himself probably suscribes to the idea of nonhistoricity, and based on that, Crossan provides his moonlanding story. Crossan's comment can be, in fact, parahrased more generally: if a person X maintains opinion Y, and X is ready to explain everything we present to X in such a way that it agrees with opinion Y, then it has no sense to try to persuade X that Y might not be correct. This is a generally valid observation (for any X and Y) but it is of no value here. One thing is clear: Crossan's comment and its context give no indication that this was based on contemplating the arguments in Doherty's works. Thus the comment should be removed so that the article does not give the false impression mentioned above.
(In fact, I personally think that it would be illustrative to keep this comment, as demonstrating what sort of `arguments' you can also hear from mainstream scholars when they should react to concrete works doubting the historicity of JoN. But this would be a bit unfair to Crossan, who certainly did not speak of moon landing when reacting to Price in the book "Five views ..."; and certainly the original wiki-editor who introduced Crossan's comment here, in good faith of its relevancy I suppose, would not be happy with this usage of the comment.) Jelamkorj ( talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have looked and found that Crossan's comment was brought into the text by 01:01, 20 January 2010 Eugeneacurry (talk | contribs)
So I ask directly you, Eugene. You are blaming others about bizarre double-standard etc., so I am especially interested to hear what do you say to the comments I made for Crossan's comment which you introduced. Even when looking at the context, you still find Crossan's comment as a relevant scholarly response do Doherty's work? If this is the case, then we have completely differing view on what the article should be about.
I expect Eugene's response to the above question. The following text is just another comment about a central problem which I perceive in the discussion here. This problem can be demonstrated, e.g., on the interview with Bart Ehrman which is recommended by Bill the Cat 7 above. ((talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010). Bill concentrates on Ehrman's Holocaust denial comments, this is the relevant portion of the interview for Bill. I myself am not impressed by expressions of contempt etc., I look for arguments. Here, in fact, I found the arguments which Ehrman gives in the interview embarrassing. Ehrman says that Paul tells us in his epistles that he met Jesus' disciples and Jesus' relatives; the nonhistoricity hypothesis thus forces the proponents to deny the genuiness of these epistles, etc. In fact, if you look at the Paul's epistles, you would never guess from their text that Paul tells us this. To make a parallel: If Mr. X writes that he met Barack Obama in Washington in April 2010, we surely deduce, on other grounds, that he met the American president. If much later a question arises whether the office of the American president was occupied in April 2010, the writings of Mr. X as such are, of course, of no help to solve this question. But precisely such logical mistake is Ehrman doing. He (implicitly) accepts the traditional equating of Peter, John, James, about whom Paul writes, with the disciples from Gospels, not realizing that Paul's writing do not contain such equating (in fact, even the word `disciples' appears nowhere in the epistles), and thus the epistles can not be used in the way Ehrman does. The Jesus' relatives in reality boil down to `James, the brother of the Lord'; this expression is traditionally equated with `the blood brother of Jesus of Nazareth' (not by the Catholics, of course) but Paul does not tell us this, we have to deduce on other grounds (if they are compelling). Sorry for these details, but I hope it is clear what I wanted to illustrate. We should report primarily about arguments, not expressions of contempt. In this concrete case, we should surely report that Doherty uses Paul's epistles as genuine (similarly as Wells etc.), but he disagrees with the logic which Ehrman demonstrates. (To make it clear: I do not think that Ehrman is irrational, he has just got no impulse so far to look at these concrete things in more detail.)
I repeat: my comment about Ehrman should be taken just as an illustration of my point about the priority of the concentration on arguments. The only concrete suggestion to modify the article is now to remove Crossan's comment. What do you say, Eugene? Jelamkorj ( talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Eugene, first, you seem to have misunderstood me with Ehrman etc. It is certainly clear that here is no forum for discussing our personal views of the validity of various arguments. But our personal views seem to heavily influence what one thinks is appropriate to be included in a serious neutrally written encyclopedia article. I tried to illustrate this on an example. If a scholar mocks an idea (here the nonhistoricity of JoN hypothesis), is it more important for an encyclopedia article to report that this scholar is mocking, or to sketch his/her arguments with a reference to a scholarly work on which this mocking is based? Regarding Crossan, I must say I am not sure if you have looked at this in detail even now. You are writing: "If you are concerned that Crossan may not have read Doherty's work, well, do you have a source that says he didn't? A large chunk of Doherty's arguement was pasted into the question ..." But if one looks at your source in more detail, one finds that Crossan was responding to the question "I was wondering if you would mind replying to one section of his (i.e., Doherty's) review of your book which I reproduce below". Crossan gives us no indication that he bases his response on something else than just this one section of Doherty's review of Crossan's book. It is you, Eugene, who should back up including this casual remark by Crossan, which by itself is no scholarly response to Doherty's work by any standards, with good reasons why this should be included in the encyclopedia article. It is not me who should find sources saying that Crossan did not read Doherty's work. (And again, it is surely not important for encyclopedia who (is said to have) read who's work, important are the arguments they make ...) I can see that, e.g., the two us would probably not find a consensus even on such a minor point, if you really do not see including Crossan's comment as inappropriate. So I can only wish good luck to the editors who discuss more important points with you. Jelamkorj ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to reconsider my opinion about RFC. I explicitly asked, though, for top-quality sources that use these terms. And I'd appreciate top quality, not merely good source, top academic publishers. The sources I have seen are the following. I'll sign all my comments individually, so other editors can add comments right under each source if they want. Vesal ( talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't accept your analogy that Jewish historians can't be trusted with the Holocaust. Being a committed Christian is based on faith, not reason. Christians are the first to admit that; indeed, they make a virtue out of it.
Studying the Holocaust or any other period of history for which a lot of material is available is mostly a matter of reason and evidence. Ideology does enter into it, and all history is biased to some degree, of course. But the further back you go, and the more essential that history is to someone's faith (an issue not based on reason at all), the more problematic the issue becomes.
We should therefore focus on the highest-quality mainstream sources we can find for this article. I am less concerned about whether they are Christian or not. My main concern is that we should focus (wherever possible) on academic historians, who have been trained to some degree to put their prejudices to one side, or at least recognize them. By that I mean people with PhDs in history or ancient history working as historians in universities. Other voices can be included, of course, if they're part of the debate, particularly if they're disinterested: personally I place a high value on philosophers because I'm familiar with their approach. But I have a concern about the number of biblical scholars being used here who trained in minor seminaries, and who are emotionally invested. That's why the article has a POV air to it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
Where does Josephus say he was an enemy of Jesus? If Josephus was not an enemy of jesus, I hardly see how he can be used as an example of "enemy attestation.." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
That is not the point. Enemy attestation is in fact a real category used by historians. I have no objection to the category because I know that reliable sources use "enemy attestation" as a criteria. My question is, what reliable source actually uses Josephus as an example of enemy atestation? In what way is Josephus an enemy? Unless someone can answer thse questions we have an NOR and perhaps NPOV violation. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean when searching for pages which contain “enemy attestation” but not “jesus” I find almost none. Google Books indexes this term 10 times, yet stunningly each instance is in the context of proclaiming Jesus′ existence. This raises the question whether non-Jesus historians use a different term for this concept, or apologetic media developed this concept independently. Which is it? ― AoV² 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We say in the lead (unsourced) "The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s" and in the 18th-century section: "The primary forerunners of the nonhistoricity hypothesis are usually identified as two thinkers of the French Enlightenment, Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis." The second is sourced to Schweitzer 2001, p. 355, and Weaver 1999, p. 45.
Could someone post on talk what those sources say that supports this sentence, please? SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill, with respect, you're being somewhat rude in ignoring this question. Last night I expanded the Wells section. You were offline. You suddenly reappeared, reverted the whole section, then went offline again without explanation. I've asked you roughly four times what your objections were. I'm not asking Akhilleus or Eugene (and their points would not have required a revert anyway), I'm asking you. Presumably no one asked you to make that revert for them, so you must have had your own reasons. Could you outline them please? SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should weave these arguments into the sections about the different writers. The section as it stands is just repetitive. Does anyone mind if I remove it for now? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
To understand what I'm about to say, please be sure you understand straw man, ad hominem and weasel words. I have highlighted in red the bits I have a problem with; and signed each comment in case you'd like to add yours. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Address the argument, not the man. Is the case against so weak it has to resort to this? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no enduring Christ myth community any more than there is a Simpsons-watchers community. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
What is this fruitcake doing here? Is your case so weak? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You are imputing motives. Ad hominem. Can't you find a sound counter-argument? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"In keeping with his theory" is redundant. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
While absence of evidence does not support the Christ myth theory, it undermines the historical Jesus theory, so of course it will be presented by the Christ myth theorists. They are not only proposing their theory but refuting the historical Jesus theory. Simply saying "Look! They keep pointing to absence of evidence!" in no way implies they hold it up as support for their argument. As described here, this criticism is a straw man. If you want it to stay, you'll have to name the Christ myth theorists who argue that such an absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence; not their critics who make this (possibly) straw man argument, the Christ myth theorists who claim absence = evidence. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this. I think the problem is two meaningless words: "Deconstruct" and "relativize". Also, "confused" is redundant. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Apart from "believability", "credibility" also means "trustworthiness" - a slight moral tone. It should be replaced with something neutral. "Acceptance", maybe. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Should this be "commentary"? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
In its context, this wording may be misunderstood. Make it clearer that reference to Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered by mainstream scholars to contain interpolation. As it stands, it could be read by a sleepy reader as saying Christ myth theorists suspect it of containing interpolation but most "scholars" think it is legit. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who put the decisive arguments against and what were they? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who put the decisive arguments in favor of this view and what were they? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Which "scholar/s" dealt the decisive blow against homogeneous dying and rising gods. Which Christ myth theorists presuppose homogeneous dying and rising? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
All attempts? Some attempts? Two attempts? Seen by whom as inaccurate and historically slipshod. To be clear, name the critic(s), name the target(s), and specify the criticism. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Name these cases. Critic. Target. Criticism. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an opponent of the theory spraying it. It adds nothing to the article. It should go. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who? Who? What sources? What reasons? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Weasely insult, not persuasion. It does the against case a serious disservice. Makes you look pathetic. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Weasely jibberish. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not an argument, it is an insult. Even if some "reliable source" thinks this, it definitely does not belong here. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You may think that because your source makes the argument in a 1923 book, you only have to report his/her conclusions. That's wrong. You may think that because your source uses insults and weasel words, it's okay to use them in this article. It's not. You have to work here. You want to write this article? Write a clear, neutral, well-researched one. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
In fringe medical theories it is sufficient to say there is little support in the clinical, academic and research communities. What's wrong with this article isn't its lack of hyperbolic insults about those who hold this view. This article lacks substance. See the red ink above. Once that is addressed, you won't need the invective. Anthony ( talk) 06:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Eugene, I have already disputed with you about the Crossan's comment above. I just feel like adding my humble opinion also here. No matter who Powell is, it is obvious that this is an insult by any reasonable standards, and it has no place here (unless the article wants to illustrate how emotional the topic is and how far even serious people can go with their emotional expressions). The factual inaccuracy of Powell's comment is witnessed, e.g., by the book James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Downers Grove, also referred in the article. If Powell's comment was correct then we should deduce that Robert Price gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat ..., and, moreover, we should deduce that four other academics had no problems with agreeing to appear in a book on equal footing with such a "skinhead" ... As I said at Crossan, if you, Eugene, honestly see including such comments as appropriate, then I find it almost impossible to reach a consensus with you (and it seems that this is also the case for more active editors than me). Jelamkorj ( talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No. This article does not explain the arguments for, arguments against, by whom. Instead of addressing that fatal defect, you are arguing to include that some opponents equate the theory's worth with that of holocaust denialism. Just stating the opponent's conclusions is way, way short of what this is about. Anthony ( talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)I have just reverted you again on the "skinhead" defamation. Anthony ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Death by inches. Eugene ( talk) 07:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just searched The Case Against ChristianityBy Michael Martin for the word "crank". No results. So I have reverted to less intemperate language. Anthony ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's odd. Obviously, it returned no results for me 5 minutes ago. Anthony ( talk) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's possible that Google Books didn't return a result for Anthony's search; Google isn't always consistent. But WP:V doesn't require that readers be able to verify sources through Google. A direct link has been provided to the sentence in question, and it has been quoted exactly (with page number!) in posts above; if you can't find the quote in Google, the next step is to find the actual book, or ask other people who have access to it. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Anthony ( talk) 18:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus among admins here that the holocaust denial analogy is flawed, offensive and unnecessary. I agree and think the comparison should be fully excised from the article. ^^James^^ ( talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The sources we use for comparing this theory to Holocaust denial are:
These are not disinterested sources. I suggest we remove all these comparisons, whether in the article or in footnotes. If some editors want to press on with it, please find academic historians who have made the comparison (people working in university history or ancient history departments). Otherwise I suggest we move on. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That's for the link, it's worth watching that. I think my concern is where someone has degrees only from seminaries and then works only in them. Some mainstream cross-fertilization would be preferable, but I also take your point that sometimes they might be the best sources for particular points. As WP:V says, though, exceptional claims requires exceptional sources, so if we're going to say that questioning Jesus is like questioning the Holocaust, I want to see the sources for that holding PhDs and full professorships in top history or classics departments. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to come here. I understand that one interpretation of the quotes, that held by supporters of inclusion is that 'anyone who denies the existence of Jesus is up against the same public reaction that Holocaust denial engenders' but I note that every single quoted form of that seems to make the comparison brutally ad hom, and comes off to opposers of inclusion as 'Anyone who denies Jesus' existence ought to be treated like a Holocaust denier.' There has to be a better way of saying it, and it may come down to what I did - Paraphrase something which when outright stated is only inflammatory. I think that any attempt to include this IDEA cannot be achieved with quotation. If that's the only thing one side is open to, then exclusion of the material is all that's left. That said, I think that such comments are mostly "pity us, we are like Jews in the face of the Holocaust Deniers, how can they even THINK that He(it) wasn't real(didn't happen)? They hate our religion!" which seems to contribute little, but does, on the other hand, shows something about the mindset of the study, though to be honest, i'm not sure if it shows more about those on the inside, or those looking in from outside. ThuranX ( talk) 05:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there perhaps a difference between the "Christ Myth Theory" and the "Jesus Myth Theory"? The header and the opening sentence of the article appear to regard them as the same thing, but I'm not sure that this is an appropriate assumption. I have seen a lot of scholarly work that accepts the historical existence of "A Jew named Jesus", but those same scholars don't all necessarily accept the authenticity of the material that make "Jesus the Rabbi" into "Jesus the Christ". Should this point be expanded upon here, or would this belong in yet another separate article? Wdford ( talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Christ myth theory refers to those who believe there was no historical jesus; that there was no Christ figure, nor a "jew named jesus" who was turned into a Christ figure later. I understand your confusion, because "Christ myth theory" would suggest dispute with the Christ part only. However, in virtually all use, it refers to the theory that there was no Jesus the Jew, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the anything who actually lived. It is synonymous, in virtually all usage, with what you'd call "Jesus myth theory".
Sometimes a hypothesis is poorly labelled, but we here at wikipedia can't correct it! Doubts about different aspects of the historical jesus that do not deny his existence are, as Akhilleus mentioned, covered in other articles. I hope that helps. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you but I think this page has become way too cluttered and large to have a meaningful discussion about a consensus. So, what I propose is that we list all the current issues in one section and then tackle them one by one. I have no particular preference in what order we tackle them, as long as each is handled one at a time.
I have no idea if this has ever been done before on Wikipedia, but I honestly don't see a better way to proceed (but I'm open to suggestions), and clearly it's not working well right now (e.g., I've had more than one point I've made go unanswered, and I think everyone else can say the same). Furthermore, I think the article should be locked for a certain amount of time in order to prevent additional issues from popping up and further increasing the difficulty in maintaining a coherent discussion.
I'll start the list (below) and I encourage everyone to add to it. As time goes by and consensus is reached, we can check off the issues that have been successfully addressed (by using a strike-through) and then add to the FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 00:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just blocked User:Ari89 for a fairly blatant failure of 3RR on this article. I only want to use page protection as a last resort, so I'm wondering if an imposition of 1RR on the article as has been used with many other articles would be useful? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw that. Forgive me if I don't take sides. It's very hot in here. It's a symptom of that. I'm here because it's a crap article. I have no axe to grind at all on the past existence (or not) of Jesus. In fact I'm fascinated, and am impatient for the article to show me the state of the scholarly argument on this very important question. Not who's winning. I can work that out for myself if the article clearly, accessibly, fairly, details the propositions, refutations and defenses that constitute the argument. That's my goal for this article. Would you consider taking that on as your primary goal for the article?
Yes, it doesn't matter. It's a distraction. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No. Ditto Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be half the article. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The debate seems to be happening largely between the academy on one side and popular authors supplemented by a couple of respectable academics on the other. So I think we should stoop pretty low for the CMT side. That should be entirely unnecessary for their opponents. It looks like there are ample scholars opposing. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
They should forward the argument. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I would check all their references. They come to the question with their minds made up. But that should by no means exclude their propositions from the debate. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no position on whether to go to 1RR, page protection, neither or both. Anthony ( talk) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily follow that Christian scholars "come to the question with their minds made up." They might be personally skeptical, and if they're historians they are likely able to set aside the historical realm from their own personal beliefs. Without interviewing each one we can't know, and I feel that dismissing or undermining the credibility of such sources would be wrong and highly hypocritical in this article. That said, *unfounded* bias should always be accounted for when it can be demonstrated. (by the way, anthony, I wouldn't exactly call the article "crap", you might want to take a look at the article from a few weeks ago! Hopefully we can get a better article going again now. NJMauthor ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We're off and running. I completely agree with both of you, if you're saying all contenders' arguments should be judged on their merits alone. When I said I would check their references, I meant verify their sources. But we should do that for every contributer. If you're not Bill the Cat 7 could you please respond to Bill the Cat 7's eight questions? I've signed my comments so you can add yours under mine. What are the most vexing questions for you, Bill the Cat 7? Anthony ( talk) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, I appreciate very much your reasonable voice which is looking primarily for arguments. You say "In fact I'm fascinated, and am impatient for the article to show me the state of the scholarly argument on this very important question. Not who's winning. I can work that out for myself if the article clearly, accessibly, fairly, details the propositions, refutations and defenses that constitute the argument. That's my goal for this article." I think that the wiki-article can never fulfill this. I do not want to advertise but let me say the following. (I will also explain how it is related to the problem with this wiki-article.) Regarding the best material of a CMT proponent, I would surely recommend you look at the web page Doherty, Earl. "The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?", which is in Further reading in the article. (One can start with the very short "The Jesus Puzzle in a Nutshell" and then go to the Preamble of the Main articles etc. Of course, the best would be to read the latest book by Doherty, but the main things are there on the web. There are also book reviews written by Doherty, questions/answers, and Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case.) Unfortunately, I cannot recommend any critical scholarly response to the arguments of Doherty because I have not found any (the reviews by R. Price a R. Carrier are very positive). As far as I can see, a major problem for this wiki-article is that Doherty addresses all the previous historicists arguments, and his arguments seem very reasonable, well supported by the evidence we have, in particular by the early Christian writings. So if these arguments are really properly confronted with the historicists arguments (made prior to Doherty), I feel that it would be obvious that Doherty's arguments make sense. I do not mean that it would be obvious that Doherty is `right', but I mean that his arguments make really good sense, and nonhistoricity of JoN would thus surely appear as a valid option. I am afraid that this is something which some editors here would never allow. They would say that we must report the conclusions of official biblical scholars, not confront their arguments with Doherty's, because Doherty is not part of academia, not notable, etc. etc. That's a basic problem with this article, as I can see this. Jelamkorj ( talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a couple of sentences at the end of the final paragraph that sums up the anti-theory position. The current structure of the lead isn't bad. First para tells us what it is. Second para: history of idea, some key current proponents (though we need to describe Wells differently, but that can wait). Third para: a pro(ish) source and an anti-source, both secondary sources and both named, which is good; and we explain that it's a minority position. Final para: explains the theory, but doesn't summarize the counter-position. It currently says:
Proponents of the theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime, and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and Roman gods, such as Dionysis, Osiris, and Mithras. They argue that, while some gospel material may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed, these individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. Rather, they contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism.
It would be good to add two or three succinct sentences here saying what the historical Jesus position is if it can be expressed in a way readers will understand. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Arguing against the theory, the theologian James Dunn writes of the improbability that a figure would be invented who had lived within the generation of the inventors, or that such an elaborate myth would have been imposed upon a minor figure from Galilee who had no significant influence. This, he writes, is the fatal flaw of the Christ myth theory. [9]
It seems too... how should I put it, specific. It shouldn't focus on the gospels as much. But I think you're on the right track. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Gospel of Thomas isn't really used, it's a synthesis composed much later than the canonical gospels and the writings of paul. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I appreciate your efforts, as I said elsewhere. I wanted to stop my contributions but I feel I should still add a comment to your final paragraph of the lead. Look what this `last word' by James Dunn says. (Btw, we can note that he does not say that Jesus is so well documented (as a Holocaust, or moon-landing) that ... ) Concentrate on the second part: He writes of the improbability .... that such an elaborate myth would have been imposed upon a minor figure from Galilee who had no significant influence. This is a classical (I would say apologetic) argument against those who say Jesus was historical but he was just a minor figure (and therefore it is no wonder that he is not on `radar screen' of ancient writers, etc. ...); this argument, in fact, does not address nonhistoricity hypothesis
but aims to show that Jesus must have been, in fact, a major figure with significant influence .... Anyway, e.g. Doherty would surely agree with this second part of the argument (see what I am adding below). So it is at least somehow confusing to say that `this is the fatal flaw of the Christ myth theory'. For your convenience, I am pasting here an abridged version of a paragraph from Doherty's web page (Postscript in Main articles).
The First Fallacy is the idea that Jews, both in Palestine and across the empire, could have come to believe—or been converted to the idea by others— that a human man was the Son of God. Within a handful of years of Jesus' supposed death we know of Christian communities all over the eastern Mediterranean, many of them involving at least some Jewish adherents. ... Traditional Christian views have maintained that such communities were the product of dusty disciples from Judea who went off to centers big and small and almost overnight managed to convince great numbers of Jews (as well as gentiles) that a humble preacher they had never seen or heard of, executed in Jerusalem as a subversive, had risen from the dead, redeemed the world, and was in fact God's pre-existent Son who had helped him create the universe. This is an incredible proposition. ... To believe that ordinary Jews were willing to bestow on any human man, no matter how impressive, all the titles of divinity and full identification with the ancient God of Abraham is simply inconceivable. Paul is not only assumed to have done this, but he did so without ever telling us that anyone challenged him on it, that he had to defend such a blasphemous proposition. ...
Doherty surely does not take Paul as `inventor of Jesus' in the Dunn's sense, he suggests that Paul's texts are best explained when not assuming that Paul had a recent man in mind ... So the first part of Dunn's improbability does not apply to Christ myth theory in general either ...
This was my humble comment. Good luck again. Jelamkorj ( talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a concern that Earl Doherty's books are self-published. The publisher is Age of Reason Publications, but it seems they have only published his books. [10] Per WP:V#SELF, we're allowed to use self-published material with caution, so long as it's published by an expert in the field previously published in that field by independent publications. I see that he had a piece in Robert Price's Journal of Higher Criticism in 1997. Has he had anything else published independently? SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Criteria
(Option #1) Anyone who's published a book that even mentions support from the CMT, through an actual publisher--no matter how small or goofy. (e.g. Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Dan Barker)
(Option #2) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through an actual publisher--no matter how small or goofy. (e.g. Earl Doherty & D. M. Murdock)
(Option #3) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through a respectable publisher. (e.g. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy)
(Option #4) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through a respectable publisher and who is extensively discussed in secondary literature. (e.g. G. A. Wells & Robert M. Price)
Personally I think that the article should discuss the ideas and arguments, rather than the people making them. Giving each person a section strikes me a as a pretty poor strategy. This isn't, after all, "arguments for and against CMT". Guettarda ( talk) 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked PhilKnight if he would be interested in mediating this dispute. He said that he would, which is really quite excellent, as Phil is one of Wikipedia's most experienced mediators. Could all parties in this dispute please note if they would agree to informal mediation? NW ( Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that the issues are in no particular order.
I feel Eugene has been misusing WP's process to nail down a certain POV and have it appear immutable. He and Bill have used the FAQ page almost as a weapon. The previous mediation was used to achieve the result they wanted (adding the article to the pseuoscholarship or pseudohistory cat), and thereafter Eugene issued warnings to anyone who removed the cats, even threatening me at one point with the mediator. He used the GA process to try to stabilize the article on his version. He tried to use the FAC process in the same way. I found a comment of his on a talk page where he basically admitted this, which I'll post when I find it again.
When that failed, he asked the ArbCom to rule that the topic is fringe, as though they're the Ministry of Truth. He approached them again as soon as I started editing the article to ask them to "warn" me. ("SlimVirgin, we forbid you from even trying to improve any articles—put down that source immediately!") I fear any more mediation will be used to obtain compromises on issues that the content policies are actually clear on. Eugene and Bill have also suggested that the article be protected or semi-protected pre-emptively against contentious editing, [12] [13] another attempt to misuse process that shows no understanding of WP's culture.
Instead of spending time on mediation, those of us not familar with the literature need to read it, and those of us not familiar with the policies need to read them. That combination will produce a wonderful marriage. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
At the time the FAQ was written it was the majority consensus on this page, and is the majority consensus among editors before the GA article flood. You'll get nowhere by misrepresenting Eugene or Bill's positions. NJMauthor ( talk) 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As a more-or-less outside observer, I also can see all this as a waste of time, for many reasons. A crucial one, as far as I can see, is that there is no academic source for which SlimVirgin is looking. This source would clearly neutrally present the arguments for historicity on one side, the arguments for nonhistoricity on the other, in a scholarly manner, with due references etc. (Remark. The history of various proponents etc. also belongs here, but many people feel that the crucial point should be the [current] arguments.) Such an academic work would give the readers a reasonable chance to evaluate by themselves if nonhistoricity of JoN is a valid historical option or not, etc. (Though this can never replace their own study, of course.) If there was such an academic work(s), to write this wikipedia article would be easy. But what if there is no such work? Then it is clear that Wikipedia cannot be the first place, where such a work is realized. SlimVirgin has already unintentionally demonstrated this problem. She has done great job by removing the `Holocaust comments', and then (temporarily) ended the final paragraph of the lead with a sentence of James Dunn, letting a strong opponent to make another (less offensive) straw man argument there. (I wrote more in the section `Final paragraph of the lead'.) Of course, she would be surely more happy with a real neutral academic source, but what shall we do if there are none? This is a central question, which should be clarified first of all, according to my opinion. Jelamkorj ( talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether it is done through mediation or not, I'd like to see us work through Bill's list. Could a mediator facilitate that process? If a number of enthusiastic editors have been blow-torched out of here recently, would it be appropriate to invite them back to participate? Anthony ( talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
Excisions = red
Inclusions = blue
Explanations = green.
In addition to affirming the historical existence of Jesus on the basis of documentary evidence, (redundant) mainstream critical scholarship rejects the central supportive (Who says?) argument of the Christ myth theory: namely, that early material related to Jesus can be explained away (derisory) with reference to pagan mythological parallels.
(ref) "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels." Dunn 1992, p. 566 (Bromiley says it all) "[T]here is hardly a reputable scholar today who supports the legitimacy of these so-called parallels" Bromiley 1982, p. 1034 (/ref)
Scholars believe (weasel) Witherington argues that Jesus is to be understood against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism,
(ref) "[T]he Gospels, indeed the whole NT have a profound indebtedness to early Judaism and Jewish ideas about salvation, this life, resurrection, heaven and hell, clean and unclean, the sabbath, circumcision, the nature of God etc. They are also suffused with the Jewish concern for history, for their God was a God who intervenes in history, and they were not looking for a mythical messiah, but rather a flesh and blood one who would rescue them from their oppressors. The universe of discourse is again and again Jewish, not Greco-Roman at its core. Thankfully the vast majority of scholars, Jewish, Christian, or of no faith at all have long since realized that the NT and its ideas, and Jesus himself cannot be explained or explained away using the tired old arguments of the Religionsgeschichte Schule. The discussion has moved on ..." Witherington 2009 (/ref)
an emphasis on broader Hellenistic religious categories having been "largely abandoned."
(ref) "Third, (redundant) the miracles of Jesus are interpreted more carefully and more realistically in context, with the result that they are now viewed primarily as part of charismatic Judaism, either in terms of piety or in terms of restoration theology (or both). The older notion that the miracle tradition is relatively late and of Hellenistic origin, perhaps the product of theios anèr ideas, has been largely abandoned." Evans 1993, pp. 17–18 (/ref)
Further, mainstream scholarship generally rejects the whole concept of homogenous dying and rising gods (The article doesn't say proponents rely on a homogeneous life-death-rebirth concept.)
(ref) "[I]t is presently impossible to accept a general category of a 'dying and rising god' in the ancient Mediterranean and Levantine world." Smith 1994, p. 70 "There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species." Mettinger 2001, p. 7 (gratuitous, unscholarly) (/ref)
the validity of which is often presupposed by advocates of the Christ myth theory. (How often? Which advocates?)The few academics who continue to support the "dying and rising gods" construct nevertheless repudiate the idea that Jesus fits the wider pattern.
(ref) "There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world." Mettinger 2001, p. 221 (/ref)
Furthermore, attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures are widely seen as inaccurate and historically slipshod. (weasely misrepresentation of the source) Yamauchi argues that attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures have not sufficiently taken into account the dates and provenance of their sources.
(ref) "[P]ast studies of phenomenological comparisons have inexcusably disregarded the dates and the provenience of their sources when they have attempted to provide prototypes for Christianity." Yamauchi 1974 (/ref)
For example, far from presenting Mithras' origin as an analogue of Jesus' virgin birth, classical sources depict Mithras emerging Burkert shows that the purported equivalence of Jesus' virgin birth with Mithras' origin fails because Mithras emerged fully grown, partially clothed, and armed from a rock, Ulansey 1991, p. 35 possibly after the rock had been inseminated Burkert 1989, p. 155 n. 40 . (Clearer. But whom does he refute? Who originally claimed the equivalence?)
In other cases, often such supposed parallels are based on the interpolations of skeptical critics themselves: parts of Jesus' biography and early Christianity being inappropriately projected onto the stories of mythical pagan personages, only to be then "discovered" and cited as parallels.Bevan and Forbes argue that proponents of the theory have invented elements of pagan myths in order to support their assertion of parallelism between the life of Jesus and the lives of pagan mythological characters. (Clearer)
(ref) "Of course if one writes an imaginary description of the Orphic mysteries ... filling in the large gaps in the picture left by our data from the Christian eucharist, one produces something very impressive. On this plan, you first put in the Christian elements, and then are staggered to find them there." Bevan 1929, p. 105 Interviewer: "The claims about this particular sky God then, Horus, are that he was born on December the 25th, he was adored by three kings, he grew up, he had twelve disciples, he was crucified, and then he was resurrected. Well, that sounds like the Jesus story." Chris Forbes: "It does—because that’s what it is. But it’s not the Horus story." Forbes 2009 (/ref)
Brandon argues Opponents of the theory argue (weasel) that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable," Brandon 1959, p. 128 given their cultural background,
(ref) "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit." Grant 1995, p. 199 (/ref)
as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.
(ref) "[T]he early Palestinian Church was composed of Christians from a Jewish background, whose generally strict monotheism and traditional intolerance of syncretism must have militated against wholesale borrowing from pagan cults. Psychologically it is quite inconceivable that the Judaizers, who attacked Paul with unmeasured ferocity for what they considered his liberalism concerning the relation of Gentile converts to the Mosaic law, should nevertheless have acquiesced in what some have described as Paul’s thoroughgoing contamination of the central doctrines and sacraments of the Christian religion." Metzger 1968, p. 7 (/ref)
I have made the changes Anthony ( talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I know it now says "argues" four times. If you don't fix it, I will in due course. Sorry. Anthony ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right about my Mettinger comment. I've deleted the dying and rising gods argument because it is one hand clapping. There is nothing above about dying rising gods. I take your word it is an important part of the story but it is orphaned here without the thing it is supposed to be refuting. Can you put something into "Mythological parallels" about who first formulated the concept of homogeneous dying and rising gods? Anthony ( talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is the "homogeneous dying rising gods concept" is not explained in the article even though Price calls it one of the 3 pillars of the Christ-myth theory. It needs explaining. I am criticizing the quality of your rhetoric. Anthony ( talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll write it when I have some time. Anthony ( talk) 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a recent high-quality mainstream source who makes a distinction between the Christ-myth theory and biblical minimalism? SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused about the way sources have been used throughout the article, with several sentence parts having different sources, so that it's not clear who is saying what. For example:
S. G. F. Brandon argues that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable," given their cultural background, as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.
The first part, until "most probable" is sourced to Brandon. The second part ("given their cultural background") is sourced to Grant. The third ("as evidenced by") is sourced to Metzer. So what exactly is it that Brandon is saying? Does he explain why it is most improbable? SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, given that you're all fired up over particular attribution, why did you remove a particularly attributed bit from Paula Fredrickson and suppress the attribution to Evans? Eugene ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add commentary about this to the lead. It doesn't mean "at first sight X, but on further investigation not-X." SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's become increasingly clear that the bias of some--both some editors working on this page and some reviewers who frequent the FAC pages--against scholars who are Christians is invincible. It's sad, but there's nothing we can do. Given this, I think that the good faith editors here should look for scholars who aren't Christians to provide critical commentary on the CMT. I know this will be vastly more time consumming to find relevant quotes, but it's possible. We already have a good start: Alan F. Segal and Will Durant discuss the principle of embarrasment over against the CMT; Louis Feldman indicates that Josephus did in fact refer to Jesus--very probably twice; Bart Ehrman says no serious scholar gives the CMT any credence and compares it to the denial of unmentionable Very Bad Things™; James Frazer contemptuously dismisses the people trying to use his work for CMT purposes; Michael Grant wags his finger at casual attempts to explain Christianity as pagan syncretism; Joseph Klausner exposes the 20th century's CMT's anti-semitic origins. Not bad, but there are more we could add. While not currently in the article, I've some quotes by Morton Smith calling the CMT "thoroughly discredited" and calling its advocates "cranks"; Geza Vermes talks at length about Judaism (not some Greco-Roman religious stew) being the appropriate backdrop against which to understand Jesus; I'm sure there's more. (I'm still opposed to using non-specialists to definte the state of scholarship, but I note that the philosopher Antony Flew once remarked that the CMT was "ridiculous".) Let's start tracking these down so the irreligious bias of some will be a moot point... assuming, of course, that the FAC reviewers actually allow scholars views to trump their own, which I'm not really sure of at this point. Eugene ( talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I propose that we take this opportunity to engage in consensus-building, using the framework of Bill's list of issues, working through the points in sequence, and making edits after discussion, and only edits that will pass GA? This will never get past GA until this minority view is presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Anthony ( talk) 16:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The hardest-working, most experienced, most involved critic of this article has misgivings about mediation. Let's start now.
"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."
Relevant entries in the Cambridge Ancient History
"Frankly, I know of no ancient historian/biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
In a paper presented to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity:
In fact, I doubt that any of us could name a professional biblical or ancient historian who thinks Jesus’ existence is still debatable. Much more representative of the state of the question is the comment of Professor Ed Sanders of Duke University, one of the leading historical Jesus scholars of the last twenty years and no friend of Christian apologetics: ‘There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.’ I think this sentiment would be endorsed by virtually everyone writing in the field today.
To describe Jesus' non-existence as 'not widely supported' is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, 'It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened.' There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. [1]
"Reputable ancient historians irrespective of religious persuasion know that Jesus was a genuine figure of history."
Please note that Michael Grant is actually quoting two other authors here: R. Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin 1957), p12; O. Betz, What do we know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968). SCM's own web page says "SCM Press - buy religious books online" and "SCM Canterbury Press - buy religious books online; Religious Book Publishers". The final consensus was the quote was useless.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If a consensus is reached to the effect this is a fringe theory, the article will need to make that clear in a way that is neutral. Once. Not over and over again in every nook and cranny. Sly, underhanded discredits like the top link in "See also" being to Bible conspiracy theory make you (whoever put it there) appear to be sleazy and contemptible. It gives the impression that you play dirty, that the quality of your argument against the theory is so weak you need to apply Fox News persuasion techniques. I'm sure none of that is the case. But that's the impression it gives.
And the word fringe need not be used. The word in general parlance carries a derogatory implication (marginalized and nutty), whereas the way we use it, fringe theory is "not mainstream". Something like "the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians" conveys it's place in the field without stooping to derision.
Personally, judging only on the quotes provided by Eugene in the FAQ, which are opponents speaking, but includes one proponent (I think - did I delete him?) who concedes the view is considered eccentric, and in the absence of any counter evidence, I have no choice but to conclude it is a fringe theory. Can someone please explain to me why it is not? Anthony ( talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't ask "Does anybody agree with me?" Everybody knows what you think on this issue. Anthony ( talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you give it some time please. People live in different time zones and have jobs. Let's just sit quietly and have one very slow, thoughtful, patient, respectful, genuinely scholarly discussion. Anthony ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool. How do you feel about my wording above? ("the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians"). Anthony ( talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Just trying to sense the mood. Eugene? Anthony ( talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think, Ari? Anthony ( talk) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Eugene, can you please explain to me the problem with "theologian"? Anthony ( talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Forget that, unless you have further to add - I just read Bill's discussion with Crum375. Anthony ( talk) 06:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
A possible version from CMT sandbox:
By all standards it is a fringe theory, and this is accepted by the scholarly mainstream as well as proponents such as Doherty. Eugene has a point on the weak phrasing that we are employing, as the scholars themselves have a history of pronouncing it dead, unscholarly and conspiratorial. The fringe of the fringe. -- Ari ( talk) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we archive some of the sections? The talk page has become monstrous in size and it's a chore to edit, especially if there is an edit conflict? Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Before we continue discussing the contents of this article, I think we need to decide whether it ought to stand alone. The problem with it is that it strikes up an extreme position—Jesus is a fiction in his entirety—then lists a number of people who don't hold that position, and claims that they changed their minds. Therefore (the implication goes), the theory must be nonsense if even its adherents don't hold it anymore, and therefore (the implication goes further), Jesus did exist perhaps just as the New Testament claims. Any attempt to introduce nuance is reverted.
My feeling is that this article should exist as a section of Historicity of Jesus, confined only to those who themselves clearly state that they're adherents. Price doesn't see himself as believing it; G.A. Wells hasn't for a long time. Does Doherty rule out that there is some minimal historicity to Jesus? Did Drews even hold to it entirely? I just wonder whether this is a straw man position that would be better off explained within its context.
Merging would involve a slight expansion of this section of Historicity of Jesus (currently 4,200 words, so it could stand a little expansion), and anything not appropriate could be added to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is A. Fringe, B. Worthy of remaining distinct. NJMauthor ( talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(remove indent)I once believed there was a definite 'non-historical Jesus' aka Christ myth theory but after going through the literature I had to accept the painful fact that there was no consensus in the literature on what the term even ment. Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman define the term Christ Myth theory in the Jesus NEVER existed context of this article but then you have definitions of Bromiley, Pike (vague), Dodd (vague), and Welsh which do allow for a historical person to be involved. It certainly doesn't help that Price and Doherty call Wells' current preexiting quasi-mythical Paul Jesus + Historical Teacher = Gospel Jesus as being part of the "Jesus/Christ myth theory" or that the terms Christ myth and Jesus myth are used in other ways. I still hold that this entire article rests on WP:SYN, WP:OR, and the False dilemma that Jesus either is or isn't historical. There are those who hold the there was a "historical" Jesus but his relationship tot eh Gospel accounts is effectively nil--where to they fit into all this.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
From CMT definition above:
I think it deserves substantial attention in the body of the article. Anthony ( talk) 07:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
From Eugene's quotes in the FAQ (and in the absence of any examples to the contrary) it is clear that CMT means complete ahistoricity. Theory can mean just the proposition, or the proposition and its supporting explanation/argument. If this article is to discuss only the proposition, it will be ten sentences long and can be a tiny subsection of Historical Jesus or Historicity of Jesus. If it adopts the latter definition of theory, the article needs to cover how you explain the emergence of the Jesus and Christ traditions while denying the historicity of Jesus the man, and, perhaps, also cover the argument against that explanation. Eugene's examples hint at some diversity in explanation, and I think a detailed, neutral elaboration of those alternative explanations is essential here. Anthony ( talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a big battery of quotes up there in the FAQ, from 1926 to the present, saying it means there was no historical person behind the legend, or Jesus never existed. Bruce thinks (if I've understood him correctly) the term was twisted into this meaning in the late 1920's 1930's; and prior to that it was less narrowly defined. If the term has been habitually used by experts in the field for the last eighty years to mean "he never lived" that's probably the meaning for this article. Now, just what does "He never lived" mean (see Vesal
above)!?
Anthony (
talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Aaaargh! Anthony ( talk) 21:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
A stable definition of the title of the article is essential. In the FAQ, Eugene has provided references and quotes for authors who say it is the proposition that Jesus is a fictional character. Do you have the resources to supply the exact quote and citation for "Bromiley, Pike (vague), Dodd (vague), and Welsh", Bruce? If not the exact cite, then what you can remember about the sources? Anthony ( talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Akhilleus. Bruce, I've followed Akhilleus' link to a long list of quotes, but as a nonspecialist in this field (i.e., a typical reader of the page) you'll need to spoon feed me. From that list, or elsewhere, can you find any quotes that say "Christ myth theory/hypothesis means ..." or words to that effect, that convey something different than "Jesus was an entirely fictional character?" Anthony ( talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This non-issue has long been used by critics of the page as a wedge strategy to try to rehabilitate the thesis. The fact of the matter is that RSes, over and over and over and over again, equate the CMT with a belief in the non-existence of Jesus. Eugene ( talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If a person accepts that there lived an insignificant miracle-working preacher called Jesus, but this preacher had no impact on early Christians, this would still be effectively denying the historicity of Jesus. Do we all agree on at least this much? Then, what if we were to say that this insignificant preacher is the source behind the Q traditions? I'm willing to accept that this is where the line is drawn, but I am genuinely confused as to why. And sources that just say "CMT = Jesus did not exist" does not help me understand where and why the line is drawn. Vesal ( talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added a few more quotes regarding the definition to FAQ #1. We now have scholars teaching (or who taught) at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, and on and on and on all defining the CMT as the denial of Jesus' historicity. Please, for the love of God, let this go. Eugene ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean?
All of the above? Something else? What is meant by ahistoricity is crucial. Anthony ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me in your own words what "Jesus never existed" or "there was no Jesus of Nazareth" means, for the purpose of this definition? Anthony ( talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this one: The Christ Myth theory designates a number of explanations of the origins of Christianity which minimize or deny the historical life and teaching of Jesus Christ, arguing instead that this figure is best understood as essentially mythical. Barrett Pashak ( talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I quote: "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him." The last part (nor did anyone...) seems to be a sweeping statement. Please change this to make the article more neutral. Another somewhat objectionable statement is "Paul was not a follower of Jesus; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus." In Acts 9, Luke, who is thought to be the author, claims Paul saw Jesus. Paul might not have made such a claim, but Luke did. Paul was also definitely a follower of Jesus, even though not at the time that Jesus lived. This is evident through the text in the Epistles, which are usually attributed to Paul. I suggest that the first be replaced with: "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did any of his followers, during his lifetime." The second sentence (Paul was not a follower...) should be omitted. It does not seem to add to the article. I think this would significantly improve the neutrality of the article. -- Wsrh 2009 ( talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) So you'd really rather prefer a section that reads: "White says X, Y, and Z. But scholars A, B, and C say Z is nonsense" ? Wouldn't it just be better to side-step this and just have a definition with a continuum showing the CMT as the polar opposite of fundamentalism? Eugene ( talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like this...
I think this would be both fun and helpful. With this, a shortened version of the White material (sans the "no personal knowledge" stuff that could be contested forever), a nice clear definition like "The Christ myth theory is the belief that Jesus never existed at all", and maybe a passing referene to Goguel's distinction between mythicism and minimalism, I think we'd be set. Eugene ( talk) 20:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"As I have stated before the Christ Myth theory covers a large area from the extreme Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form outside of the mind through the historical teacher who was "plugged into" an already existing messiah myth" I disagree with the validity of this statement, Bruce. Virtually all sources use CMT to describe the position that "Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form". NJMauthor ( talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"NJMauthor has clearly missed Dodd's definition" Bruce has clearly forgotten the definition of the word "Virtually". And Slimvirgin, I wasn't suggesting the use of that wording, I was quoting Bruce. NJMauthor ( talk) 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the nice spectrum, Eugene. The polar opposite of CMT is the historicity of Jesus, not "literalistic fundamentalism" regarding the canonical gospels (with the polar opposite probably being something like Bultmann or Burton Mack.) -- Ari ( talk) 04:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In a discussion above, this was said:
Virtually all sources use CMT to describe the position that "Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form". NJMauthor ( talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which is practically a reductio ad absurdum. Which academic source in his right mind would confidently assert that? Price doesn't, Wells doesn't. Does anyone? SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur Drews was a German academic who debated and wrote books about the Christ myth theory. One of his books, translated into English was, in fact, titled The Christ Myth Theory Here's a 1911 review of the book in The New York Times [20]. The second paragraph of the review describes Drews' position:
[H]is thesis is, that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed, and that the characteristics attributed to this non-existent personage are derived from Jewish ideals floating in the air at the time, which were supposed to be realized by the hero of the Gospels. This mythical personage was transformed into a demigod by St. Paul, whom the author, in a way, regards as virtually the creator of Christianity. His main grounds for disbelief in the existence of Jesus are the absence of any contemporary references to him except in the Gospels [...]
This is one of a number of articles [21] the Times wrote about Drews.
Here [22] is the (hilarious in parts) article in the Times that describes the uproarious debate Drews had with other academics in 1910. I'm sure we'll all be happy to know that our article, although it doesn't cite this news article directly, gives an accurate summary of it, including the part about the woman standing on the chair invoking God to strike Drews and various women being "carried from the hall, shrieking hysterically". The Times reported that Drew "caused a public sensation by plastering the billboards of the town with posters propounding the startling question: 'Did Jesus Christ ever exist?'" The reporter was very clear about Drews' position:
The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth."
The title of this article, from the February 6, 1910 edition of the paper:
The Times certainly isn't infallable, but it doesn't appear to have been interested in getting Drews' position wrong in order to advance some evangelical agenda. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 03:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you have the exact text for The reviewer mentions reductio ad absurdum and also considers the polemical uses the "Christ myth theory" has (or had) for the "conservative" side of the debate, John? The link in your post above takes me to a Google snippet view. Anthony ( talk) 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Or the issue or page number. The journal (I think it's the same one) is available here. Anthony ( talk) 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. (Missed that. It was off my small screen.) Links to the 1914 review of Drew's The Christ Myth: Beginning of review reductio ad absurdum. The Warfield link didn't work for me. Do you have the Vol, issue, page numbers for that Eugene? Anthony ( talk) 14:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Eugene. Link to Warfield's 1913 review of the sequel to The Christ Myth.
Akhilleus: "After all, Drews' book The Christ-Myth is where the title of this article ultimately comes from; his is a particularly prominent version of the theory." (From higher in this thread) How do you mean, Akhilleus? Anthony ( talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
So, before 1910, were the terms "Christ myth" or even "Christ myth theory" (if it was ever uttered) used differently? Was it Drews' use that gave it the meaning we now find in the FAQ? Anthony ( talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
This was the consensus version of the disputed paragraph in the lead. I'd appreciate it if people would not change it without gaining fresh consensus first:
The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. More recent academic advocates include the 19th-century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer and the 20th-century German philosopher Arthur Drews. Writers such as George Albert Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty have re-popularized the idea in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. he philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank, a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it.
SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have looked here after a while. Though I have no further ambitions to actively edit the article (one reason being that I am not a native English speaker, and all this is much time consuming for me), I wanted to make some comments when seeing the current discussion. I close with one concrete particular suggestion.
It seems to me that the position of some editors (including me in the past, you can probably easily find my previous contributions if you wish) is often misinterpreted. I think that no reasonable wiki-editor would try to make the article seem that Jesus of Nazareth nonexistence hypothesis is somehow mainstream or so. The mainstream scholars in their works usually at most mention such a hypothesis in passing, obviously giving it almost no credence, and go on with their work by assuming the (at least basic) historicity of Jesus. This should be surely well reflected in the wiki-article.
If this article should say more, which I think it should, in my opinion the best way would be to summarize the evidence on which the historicity position is based (early Christian literature including the NT epistles and Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus) and then report (in a neutral tone) the arguments used by various `Christ myth proponents' when dealing with this evidence ... Of course, it is not our business to evaluate whether the arguments are `valid' or so, we should just seriously report them. In some sense there is a tendency for doing so; I think that e.g. Akhilleus (with whom I would probably much differ in personal evaluation of the historical probability of the nonexistence hypothesis) has also suggested several times that the `CMT should speak for itself'.
One technical problem is that there are many sorts of `JoN nonhistoricity proponents' (not accurately called CMT proponents), similarly as there are many sorts of `JoN historicity proponents'. And, of course, there are works promoting nonhistoricity, which can be obviously labeled as pseudoscholarship (I myself read such a text written in Soviet times), similarly as there are works promoting historicity which can be labeled so. In my opinion, the wiki-content should concentrate on the arguments, not replacing them with expressions of contempt or so. (I hope that everybody agrees that the quotes like "I know no serious historian who ..." are not scholarly arguments by themselves. Such quotes have any scholarly relevancy only if they are backed with scholarly arguments, so one should primarily concentrate on the arguments as such. Btw, I heared R. Price to say something like "I am already tired to be hearing and reading that I must be wrong because everyone says so".)
So I am surely supporting all the editors who try to concentrate on a neutral reporting of the arguments, trying to reflect the reality as objectively as possible. I am sorry that I cannot engage in real editing but at least I can give one particular suggestion at this moment.
In the text we find: ... and Earl Doherty have each been the subject of such critical comments.[115]
Including this Crossan's comment 115 here gives an impression to the reader that Crossan (a credential biblical scholar) has read Doherty's work and, based on that, he has found good arguments to compare Doherty with moonlanding denialists; otherwise the comment has no relevancy here. But if one looks at the context, we find that Crossan was reacting in a time-limited internet discussion in 2000.
(Description The XTalk Seminar on Materials and Methodology in Historical Jesus Research is a moderated, online, three week long forum whose aim is to provides a platform for exchanges between approved Seminar members and John Dominic Crossan, ....)
He was reacting to the question of a participant about a review of Crossan's book written by Doherty. Crossan in his answer to the participant does not address any arguments from the review, he just deduces from the question that Doherty himself probably suscribes to the idea of nonhistoricity, and based on that, Crossan provides his moonlanding story. Crossan's comment can be, in fact, parahrased more generally: if a person X maintains opinion Y, and X is ready to explain everything we present to X in such a way that it agrees with opinion Y, then it has no sense to try to persuade X that Y might not be correct. This is a generally valid observation (for any X and Y) but it is of no value here. One thing is clear: Crossan's comment and its context give no indication that this was based on contemplating the arguments in Doherty's works. Thus the comment should be removed so that the article does not give the false impression mentioned above.
(In fact, I personally think that it would be illustrative to keep this comment, as demonstrating what sort of `arguments' you can also hear from mainstream scholars when they should react to concrete works doubting the historicity of JoN. But this would be a bit unfair to Crossan, who certainly did not speak of moon landing when reacting to Price in the book "Five views ..."; and certainly the original wiki-editor who introduced Crossan's comment here, in good faith of its relevancy I suppose, would not be happy with this usage of the comment.) Jelamkorj ( talk) 08:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have looked and found that Crossan's comment was brought into the text by 01:01, 20 January 2010 Eugeneacurry (talk | contribs)
So I ask directly you, Eugene. You are blaming others about bizarre double-standard etc., so I am especially interested to hear what do you say to the comments I made for Crossan's comment which you introduced. Even when looking at the context, you still find Crossan's comment as a relevant scholarly response do Doherty's work? If this is the case, then we have completely differing view on what the article should be about.
I expect Eugene's response to the above question. The following text is just another comment about a central problem which I perceive in the discussion here. This problem can be demonstrated, e.g., on the interview with Bart Ehrman which is recommended by Bill the Cat 7 above. ((talk) 20:56, 13 April 2010). Bill concentrates on Ehrman's Holocaust denial comments, this is the relevant portion of the interview for Bill. I myself am not impressed by expressions of contempt etc., I look for arguments. Here, in fact, I found the arguments which Ehrman gives in the interview embarrassing. Ehrman says that Paul tells us in his epistles that he met Jesus' disciples and Jesus' relatives; the nonhistoricity hypothesis thus forces the proponents to deny the genuiness of these epistles, etc. In fact, if you look at the Paul's epistles, you would never guess from their text that Paul tells us this. To make a parallel: If Mr. X writes that he met Barack Obama in Washington in April 2010, we surely deduce, on other grounds, that he met the American president. If much later a question arises whether the office of the American president was occupied in April 2010, the writings of Mr. X as such are, of course, of no help to solve this question. But precisely such logical mistake is Ehrman doing. He (implicitly) accepts the traditional equating of Peter, John, James, about whom Paul writes, with the disciples from Gospels, not realizing that Paul's writing do not contain such equating (in fact, even the word `disciples' appears nowhere in the epistles), and thus the epistles can not be used in the way Ehrman does. The Jesus' relatives in reality boil down to `James, the brother of the Lord'; this expression is traditionally equated with `the blood brother of Jesus of Nazareth' (not by the Catholics, of course) but Paul does not tell us this, we have to deduce on other grounds (if they are compelling). Sorry for these details, but I hope it is clear what I wanted to illustrate. We should report primarily about arguments, not expressions of contempt. In this concrete case, we should surely report that Doherty uses Paul's epistles as genuine (similarly as Wells etc.), but he disagrees with the logic which Ehrman demonstrates. (To make it clear: I do not think that Ehrman is irrational, he has just got no impulse so far to look at these concrete things in more detail.)
I repeat: my comment about Ehrman should be taken just as an illustration of my point about the priority of the concentration on arguments. The only concrete suggestion to modify the article is now to remove Crossan's comment. What do you say, Eugene? Jelamkorj ( talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Eugene, first, you seem to have misunderstood me with Ehrman etc. It is certainly clear that here is no forum for discussing our personal views of the validity of various arguments. But our personal views seem to heavily influence what one thinks is appropriate to be included in a serious neutrally written encyclopedia article. I tried to illustrate this on an example. If a scholar mocks an idea (here the nonhistoricity of JoN hypothesis), is it more important for an encyclopedia article to report that this scholar is mocking, or to sketch his/her arguments with a reference to a scholarly work on which this mocking is based? Regarding Crossan, I must say I am not sure if you have looked at this in detail even now. You are writing: "If you are concerned that Crossan may not have read Doherty's work, well, do you have a source that says he didn't? A large chunk of Doherty's arguement was pasted into the question ..." But if one looks at your source in more detail, one finds that Crossan was responding to the question "I was wondering if you would mind replying to one section of his (i.e., Doherty's) review of your book which I reproduce below". Crossan gives us no indication that he bases his response on something else than just this one section of Doherty's review of Crossan's book. It is you, Eugene, who should back up including this casual remark by Crossan, which by itself is no scholarly response to Doherty's work by any standards, with good reasons why this should be included in the encyclopedia article. It is not me who should find sources saying that Crossan did not read Doherty's work. (And again, it is surely not important for encyclopedia who (is said to have) read who's work, important are the arguments they make ...) I can see that, e.g., the two us would probably not find a consensus even on such a minor point, if you really do not see including Crossan's comment as inappropriate. So I can only wish good luck to the editors who discuss more important points with you. Jelamkorj ( talk) 06:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to reconsider my opinion about RFC. I explicitly asked, though, for top-quality sources that use these terms. And I'd appreciate top quality, not merely good source, top academic publishers. The sources I have seen are the following. I'll sign all my comments individually, so other editors can add comments right under each source if they want. Vesal ( talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't accept your analogy that Jewish historians can't be trusted with the Holocaust. Being a committed Christian is based on faith, not reason. Christians are the first to admit that; indeed, they make a virtue out of it.
Studying the Holocaust or any other period of history for which a lot of material is available is mostly a matter of reason and evidence. Ideology does enter into it, and all history is biased to some degree, of course. But the further back you go, and the more essential that history is to someone's faith (an issue not based on reason at all), the more problematic the issue becomes.
We should therefore focus on the highest-quality mainstream sources we can find for this article. I am less concerned about whether they are Christian or not. My main concern is that we should focus (wherever possible) on academic historians, who have been trained to some degree to put their prejudices to one side, or at least recognize them. By that I mean people with PhDs in history or ancient history working as historians in universities. Other voices can be included, of course, if they're part of the debate, particularly if they're disinterested: personally I place a high value on philosophers because I'm familiar with their approach. But I have a concern about the number of biblical scholars being used here who trained in minor seminaries, and who are emotionally invested. That's why the article has a POV air to it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
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 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)
Where does Josephus say he was an enemy of Jesus? If Josephus was not an enemy of jesus, I hardly see how he can be used as an example of "enemy attestation.." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
That is not the point. Enemy attestation is in fact a real category used by historians. I have no objection to the category because I know that reliable sources use "enemy attestation" as a criteria. My question is, what reliable source actually uses Josephus as an example of enemy atestation? In what way is Josephus an enemy? Unless someone can answer thse questions we have an NOR and perhaps NPOV violation. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean when searching for pages which contain “enemy attestation” but not “jesus” I find almost none. Google Books indexes this term 10 times, yet stunningly each instance is in the context of proclaiming Jesus′ existence. This raises the question whether non-Jesus historians use a different term for this concept, or apologetic media developed this concept independently. Which is it? ― AoV² 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We say in the lead (unsourced) "The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s" and in the 18th-century section: "The primary forerunners of the nonhistoricity hypothesis are usually identified as two thinkers of the French Enlightenment, Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis." The second is sourced to Schweitzer 2001, p. 355, and Weaver 1999, p. 45.
Could someone post on talk what those sources say that supports this sentence, please? SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Bill, with respect, you're being somewhat rude in ignoring this question. Last night I expanded the Wells section. You were offline. You suddenly reappeared, reverted the whole section, then went offline again without explanation. I've asked you roughly four times what your objections were. I'm not asking Akhilleus or Eugene (and their points would not have required a revert anyway), I'm asking you. Presumably no one asked you to make that revert for them, so you must have had your own reasons. Could you outline them please? SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should weave these arguments into the sections about the different writers. The section as it stands is just repetitive. Does anyone mind if I remove it for now? SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
To understand what I'm about to say, please be sure you understand straw man, ad hominem and weasel words. I have highlighted in red the bits I have a problem with; and signed each comment in case you'd like to add yours. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Address the argument, not the man. Is the case against so weak it has to resort to this? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no enduring Christ myth community any more than there is a Simpsons-watchers community. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
What is this fruitcake doing here? Is your case so weak? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You are imputing motives. Ad hominem. Can't you find a sound counter-argument? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
"In keeping with his theory" is redundant. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
While absence of evidence does not support the Christ myth theory, it undermines the historical Jesus theory, so of course it will be presented by the Christ myth theorists. They are not only proposing their theory but refuting the historical Jesus theory. Simply saying "Look! They keep pointing to absence of evidence!" in no way implies they hold it up as support for their argument. As described here, this criticism is a straw man. If you want it to stay, you'll have to name the Christ myth theorists who argue that such an absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence; not their critics who make this (possibly) straw man argument, the Christ myth theorists who claim absence = evidence. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this. I think the problem is two meaningless words: "Deconstruct" and "relativize". Also, "confused" is redundant. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Apart from "believability", "credibility" also means "trustworthiness" - a slight moral tone. It should be replaced with something neutral. "Acceptance", maybe. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Should this be "commentary"? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
In its context, this wording may be misunderstood. Make it clearer that reference to Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum is generally considered by mainstream scholars to contain interpolation. As it stands, it could be read by a sleepy reader as saying Christ myth theorists suspect it of containing interpolation but most "scholars" think it is legit. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who put the decisive arguments against and what were they? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who put the decisive arguments in favor of this view and what were they? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Which "scholar/s" dealt the decisive blow against homogeneous dying and rising gods. Which Christ myth theorists presuppose homogeneous dying and rising? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
All attempts? Some attempts? Two attempts? Seen by whom as inaccurate and historically slipshod. To be clear, name the critic(s), name the target(s), and specify the criticism. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Name these cases. Critic. Target. Criticism. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is an opponent of the theory spraying it. It adds nothing to the article. It should go. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Who? Who? What sources? What reasons? Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Weasely insult, not persuasion. It does the against case a serious disservice. Makes you look pathetic. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Weasely jibberish. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not an argument, it is an insult. Even if some "reliable source" thinks this, it definitely does not belong here. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You may think that because your source makes the argument in a 1923 book, you only have to report his/her conclusions. That's wrong. You may think that because your source uses insults and weasel words, it's okay to use them in this article. It's not. You have to work here. You want to write this article? Write a clear, neutral, well-researched one. Anthony ( talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
In fringe medical theories it is sufficient to say there is little support in the clinical, academic and research communities. What's wrong with this article isn't its lack of hyperbolic insults about those who hold this view. This article lacks substance. See the red ink above. Once that is addressed, you won't need the invective. Anthony ( talk) 06:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Eugene, I have already disputed with you about the Crossan's comment above. I just feel like adding my humble opinion also here. No matter who Powell is, it is obvious that this is an insult by any reasonable standards, and it has no place here (unless the article wants to illustrate how emotional the topic is and how far even serious people can go with their emotional expressions). The factual inaccuracy of Powell's comment is witnessed, e.g., by the book James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Downers Grove, also referred in the article. If Powell's comment was correct then we should deduce that Robert Price gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat ..., and, moreover, we should deduce that four other academics had no problems with agreeing to appear in a book on equal footing with such a "skinhead" ... As I said at Crossan, if you, Eugene, honestly see including such comments as appropriate, then I find it almost impossible to reach a consensus with you (and it seems that this is also the case for more active editors than me). Jelamkorj ( talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No. This article does not explain the arguments for, arguments against, by whom. Instead of addressing that fatal defect, you are arguing to include that some opponents equate the theory's worth with that of holocaust denialism. Just stating the opponent's conclusions is way, way short of what this is about. Anthony ( talk) 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)I have just reverted you again on the "skinhead" defamation. Anthony ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Death by inches. Eugene ( talk) 07:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just searched The Case Against ChristianityBy Michael Martin for the word "crank". No results. So I have reverted to less intemperate language. Anthony ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's odd. Obviously, it returned no results for me 5 minutes ago. Anthony ( talk) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it's possible that Google Books didn't return a result for Anthony's search; Google isn't always consistent. But WP:V doesn't require that readers be able to verify sources through Google. A direct link has been provided to the sentence in question, and it has been quoted exactly (with page number!) in posts above; if you can't find the quote in Google, the next step is to find the actual book, or ask other people who have access to it. --Akhilleus ( talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Anthony ( talk) 18:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus among admins here that the holocaust denial analogy is flawed, offensive and unnecessary. I agree and think the comparison should be fully excised from the article. ^^James^^ ( talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The sources we use for comparing this theory to Holocaust denial are:
These are not disinterested sources. I suggest we remove all these comparisons, whether in the article or in footnotes. If some editors want to press on with it, please find academic historians who have made the comparison (people working in university history or ancient history departments). Otherwise I suggest we move on. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That's for the link, it's worth watching that. I think my concern is where someone has degrees only from seminaries and then works only in them. Some mainstream cross-fertilization would be preferable, but I also take your point that sometimes they might be the best sources for particular points. As WP:V says, though, exceptional claims requires exceptional sources, so if we're going to say that questioning Jesus is like questioning the Holocaust, I want to see the sources for that holding PhDs and full professorships in top history or classics departments. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to come here. I understand that one interpretation of the quotes, that held by supporters of inclusion is that 'anyone who denies the existence of Jesus is up against the same public reaction that Holocaust denial engenders' but I note that every single quoted form of that seems to make the comparison brutally ad hom, and comes off to opposers of inclusion as 'Anyone who denies Jesus' existence ought to be treated like a Holocaust denier.' There has to be a better way of saying it, and it may come down to what I did - Paraphrase something which when outright stated is only inflammatory. I think that any attempt to include this IDEA cannot be achieved with quotation. If that's the only thing one side is open to, then exclusion of the material is all that's left. That said, I think that such comments are mostly "pity us, we are like Jews in the face of the Holocaust Deniers, how can they even THINK that He(it) wasn't real(didn't happen)? They hate our religion!" which seems to contribute little, but does, on the other hand, shows something about the mindset of the study, though to be honest, i'm not sure if it shows more about those on the inside, or those looking in from outside. ThuranX ( talk) 05:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there perhaps a difference between the "Christ Myth Theory" and the "Jesus Myth Theory"? The header and the opening sentence of the article appear to regard them as the same thing, but I'm not sure that this is an appropriate assumption. I have seen a lot of scholarly work that accepts the historical existence of "A Jew named Jesus", but those same scholars don't all necessarily accept the authenticity of the material that make "Jesus the Rabbi" into "Jesus the Christ". Should this point be expanded upon here, or would this belong in yet another separate article? Wdford ( talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Christ myth theory refers to those who believe there was no historical jesus; that there was no Christ figure, nor a "jew named jesus" who was turned into a Christ figure later. I understand your confusion, because "Christ myth theory" would suggest dispute with the Christ part only. However, in virtually all use, it refers to the theory that there was no Jesus the Jew, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the anything who actually lived. It is synonymous, in virtually all usage, with what you'd call "Jesus myth theory".
Sometimes a hypothesis is poorly labelled, but we here at wikipedia can't correct it! Doubts about different aspects of the historical jesus that do not deny his existence are, as Akhilleus mentioned, covered in other articles. I hope that helps. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of you but I think this page has become way too cluttered and large to have a meaningful discussion about a consensus. So, what I propose is that we list all the current issues in one section and then tackle them one by one. I have no particular preference in what order we tackle them, as long as each is handled one at a time.
I have no idea if this has ever been done before on Wikipedia, but I honestly don't see a better way to proceed (but I'm open to suggestions), and clearly it's not working well right now (e.g., I've had more than one point I've made go unanswered, and I think everyone else can say the same). Furthermore, I think the article should be locked for a certain amount of time in order to prevent additional issues from popping up and further increasing the difficulty in maintaining a coherent discussion.
I'll start the list (below) and I encourage everyone to add to it. As time goes by and consensus is reached, we can check off the issues that have been successfully addressed (by using a strike-through) and then add to the FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 00:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just blocked User:Ari89 for a fairly blatant failure of 3RR on this article. I only want to use page protection as a last resort, so I'm wondering if an imposition of 1RR on the article as has been used with many other articles would be useful? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw that. Forgive me if I don't take sides. It's very hot in here. It's a symptom of that. I'm here because it's a crap article. I have no axe to grind at all on the past existence (or not) of Jesus. In fact I'm fascinated, and am impatient for the article to show me the state of the scholarly argument on this very important question. Not who's winning. I can work that out for myself if the article clearly, accessibly, fairly, details the propositions, refutations and defenses that constitute the argument. That's my goal for this article. Would you consider taking that on as your primary goal for the article?
Yes, it doesn't matter. It's a distraction. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No. Ditto Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It should be half the article. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The debate seems to be happening largely between the academy on one side and popular authors supplemented by a couple of respectable academics on the other. So I think we should stoop pretty low for the CMT side. That should be entirely unnecessary for their opponents. It looks like there are ample scholars opposing. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
They should forward the argument. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I would check all their references. They come to the question with their minds made up. But that should by no means exclude their propositions from the debate. Anthony ( talk) 17:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no position on whether to go to 1RR, page protection, neither or both. Anthony ( talk) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily follow that Christian scholars "come to the question with their minds made up." They might be personally skeptical, and if they're historians they are likely able to set aside the historical realm from their own personal beliefs. Without interviewing each one we can't know, and I feel that dismissing or undermining the credibility of such sources would be wrong and highly hypocritical in this article. That said, *unfounded* bias should always be accounted for when it can be demonstrated. (by the way, anthony, I wouldn't exactly call the article "crap", you might want to take a look at the article from a few weeks ago! Hopefully we can get a better article going again now. NJMauthor ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
We're off and running. I completely agree with both of you, if you're saying all contenders' arguments should be judged on their merits alone. When I said I would check their references, I meant verify their sources. But we should do that for every contributer. If you're not Bill the Cat 7 could you please respond to Bill the Cat 7's eight questions? I've signed my comments so you can add yours under mine. What are the most vexing questions for you, Bill the Cat 7? Anthony ( talk) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, I appreciate very much your reasonable voice which is looking primarily for arguments. You say "In fact I'm fascinated, and am impatient for the article to show me the state of the scholarly argument on this very important question. Not who's winning. I can work that out for myself if the article clearly, accessibly, fairly, details the propositions, refutations and defenses that constitute the argument. That's my goal for this article." I think that the wiki-article can never fulfill this. I do not want to advertise but let me say the following. (I will also explain how it is related to the problem with this wiki-article.) Regarding the best material of a CMT proponent, I would surely recommend you look at the web page Doherty, Earl. "The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?", which is in Further reading in the article. (One can start with the very short "The Jesus Puzzle in a Nutshell" and then go to the Preamble of the Main articles etc. Of course, the best would be to read the latest book by Doherty, but the main things are there on the web. There are also book reviews written by Doherty, questions/answers, and Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case.) Unfortunately, I cannot recommend any critical scholarly response to the arguments of Doherty because I have not found any (the reviews by R. Price a R. Carrier are very positive). As far as I can see, a major problem for this wiki-article is that Doherty addresses all the previous historicists arguments, and his arguments seem very reasonable, well supported by the evidence we have, in particular by the early Christian writings. So if these arguments are really properly confronted with the historicists arguments (made prior to Doherty), I feel that it would be obvious that Doherty's arguments make sense. I do not mean that it would be obvious that Doherty is `right', but I mean that his arguments make really good sense, and nonhistoricity of JoN would thus surely appear as a valid option. I am afraid that this is something which some editors here would never allow. They would say that we must report the conclusions of official biblical scholars, not confront their arguments with Doherty's, because Doherty is not part of academia, not notable, etc. etc. That's a basic problem with this article, as I can see this. Jelamkorj ( talk) 18:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a couple of sentences at the end of the final paragraph that sums up the anti-theory position. The current structure of the lead isn't bad. First para tells us what it is. Second para: history of idea, some key current proponents (though we need to describe Wells differently, but that can wait). Third para: a pro(ish) source and an anti-source, both secondary sources and both named, which is good; and we explain that it's a minority position. Final para: explains the theory, but doesn't summarize the counter-position. It currently says:
Proponents of the theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime, and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and Roman gods, such as Dionysis, Osiris, and Mithras. They argue that, while some gospel material may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed, these individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. Rather, they contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism.
It would be good to add two or three succinct sentences here saying what the historical Jesus position is if it can be expressed in a way readers will understand. SlimVirgin talk contribs 06:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Arguing against the theory, the theologian James Dunn writes of the improbability that a figure would be invented who had lived within the generation of the inventors, or that such an elaborate myth would have been imposed upon a minor figure from Galilee who had no significant influence. This, he writes, is the fatal flaw of the Christ myth theory. [9]
It seems too... how should I put it, specific. It shouldn't focus on the gospels as much. But I think you're on the right track. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Gospel of Thomas isn't really used, it's a synthesis composed much later than the canonical gospels and the writings of paul. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I appreciate your efforts, as I said elsewhere. I wanted to stop my contributions but I feel I should still add a comment to your final paragraph of the lead. Look what this `last word' by James Dunn says. (Btw, we can note that he does not say that Jesus is so well documented (as a Holocaust, or moon-landing) that ... ) Concentrate on the second part: He writes of the improbability .... that such an elaborate myth would have been imposed upon a minor figure from Galilee who had no significant influence. This is a classical (I would say apologetic) argument against those who say Jesus was historical but he was just a minor figure (and therefore it is no wonder that he is not on `radar screen' of ancient writers, etc. ...); this argument, in fact, does not address nonhistoricity hypothesis
but aims to show that Jesus must have been, in fact, a major figure with significant influence .... Anyway, e.g. Doherty would surely agree with this second part of the argument (see what I am adding below). So it is at least somehow confusing to say that `this is the fatal flaw of the Christ myth theory'. For your convenience, I am pasting here an abridged version of a paragraph from Doherty's web page (Postscript in Main articles).
The First Fallacy is the idea that Jews, both in Palestine and across the empire, could have come to believe—or been converted to the idea by others— that a human man was the Son of God. Within a handful of years of Jesus' supposed death we know of Christian communities all over the eastern Mediterranean, many of them involving at least some Jewish adherents. ... Traditional Christian views have maintained that such communities were the product of dusty disciples from Judea who went off to centers big and small and almost overnight managed to convince great numbers of Jews (as well as gentiles) that a humble preacher they had never seen or heard of, executed in Jerusalem as a subversive, had risen from the dead, redeemed the world, and was in fact God's pre-existent Son who had helped him create the universe. This is an incredible proposition. ... To believe that ordinary Jews were willing to bestow on any human man, no matter how impressive, all the titles of divinity and full identification with the ancient God of Abraham is simply inconceivable. Paul is not only assumed to have done this, but he did so without ever telling us that anyone challenged him on it, that he had to defend such a blasphemous proposition. ...
Doherty surely does not take Paul as `inventor of Jesus' in the Dunn's sense, he suggests that Paul's texts are best explained when not assuming that Paul had a recent man in mind ... So the first part of Dunn's improbability does not apply to Christ myth theory in general either ...
This was my humble comment. Good luck again. Jelamkorj ( talk) 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a concern that Earl Doherty's books are self-published. The publisher is Age of Reason Publications, but it seems they have only published his books. [10] Per WP:V#SELF, we're allowed to use self-published material with caution, so long as it's published by an expert in the field previously published in that field by independent publications. I see that he had a piece in Robert Price's Journal of Higher Criticism in 1997. Has he had anything else published independently? SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Criteria
(Option #1) Anyone who's published a book that even mentions support from the CMT, through an actual publisher--no matter how small or goofy. (e.g. Madalyn Murray O'Hair & Dan Barker)
(Option #2) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through an actual publisher--no matter how small or goofy. (e.g. Earl Doherty & D. M. Murdock)
(Option #3) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through a respectable publisher. (e.g. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy)
(Option #4) Anyone who's published a book that focuses on the CMT through a respectable publisher and who is extensively discussed in secondary literature. (e.g. G. A. Wells & Robert M. Price)
Personally I think that the article should discuss the ideas and arguments, rather than the people making them. Giving each person a section strikes me a as a pretty poor strategy. This isn't, after all, "arguments for and against CMT". Guettarda ( talk) 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked PhilKnight if he would be interested in mediating this dispute. He said that he would, which is really quite excellent, as Phil is one of Wikipedia's most experienced mediators. Could all parties in this dispute please note if they would agree to informal mediation? NW ( Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that the issues are in no particular order.
I feel Eugene has been misusing WP's process to nail down a certain POV and have it appear immutable. He and Bill have used the FAQ page almost as a weapon. The previous mediation was used to achieve the result they wanted (adding the article to the pseuoscholarship or pseudohistory cat), and thereafter Eugene issued warnings to anyone who removed the cats, even threatening me at one point with the mediator. He used the GA process to try to stabilize the article on his version. He tried to use the FAC process in the same way. I found a comment of his on a talk page where he basically admitted this, which I'll post when I find it again.
When that failed, he asked the ArbCom to rule that the topic is fringe, as though they're the Ministry of Truth. He approached them again as soon as I started editing the article to ask them to "warn" me. ("SlimVirgin, we forbid you from even trying to improve any articles—put down that source immediately!") I fear any more mediation will be used to obtain compromises on issues that the content policies are actually clear on. Eugene and Bill have also suggested that the article be protected or semi-protected pre-emptively against contentious editing, [12] [13] another attempt to misuse process that shows no understanding of WP's culture.
Instead of spending time on mediation, those of us not familar with the literature need to read it, and those of us not familiar with the policies need to read them. That combination will produce a wonderful marriage. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
At the time the FAQ was written it was the majority consensus on this page, and is the majority consensus among editors before the GA article flood. You'll get nowhere by misrepresenting Eugene or Bill's positions. NJMauthor ( talk) 03:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As a more-or-less outside observer, I also can see all this as a waste of time, for many reasons. A crucial one, as far as I can see, is that there is no academic source for which SlimVirgin is looking. This source would clearly neutrally present the arguments for historicity on one side, the arguments for nonhistoricity on the other, in a scholarly manner, with due references etc. (Remark. The history of various proponents etc. also belongs here, but many people feel that the crucial point should be the [current] arguments.) Such an academic work would give the readers a reasonable chance to evaluate by themselves if nonhistoricity of JoN is a valid historical option or not, etc. (Though this can never replace their own study, of course.) If there was such an academic work(s), to write this wikipedia article would be easy. But what if there is no such work? Then it is clear that Wikipedia cannot be the first place, where such a work is realized. SlimVirgin has already unintentionally demonstrated this problem. She has done great job by removing the `Holocaust comments', and then (temporarily) ended the final paragraph of the lead with a sentence of James Dunn, letting a strong opponent to make another (less offensive) straw man argument there. (I wrote more in the section `Final paragraph of the lead'.) Of course, she would be surely more happy with a real neutral academic source, but what shall we do if there are none? This is a central question, which should be clarified first of all, according to my opinion. Jelamkorj ( talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Whether it is done through mediation or not, I'd like to see us work through Bill's list. Could a mediator facilitate that process? If a number of enthusiastic editors have been blow-torched out of here recently, would it be appropriate to invite them back to participate? Anthony ( talk) 07:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
Excisions = red
Inclusions = blue
Explanations = green.
In addition to affirming the historical existence of Jesus on the basis of documentary evidence, (redundant) mainstream critical scholarship rejects the central supportive (Who says?) argument of the Christ myth theory: namely, that early material related to Jesus can be explained away (derisory) with reference to pagan mythological parallels.
(ref) "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels." Dunn 1992, p. 566 (Bromiley says it all) "[T]here is hardly a reputable scholar today who supports the legitimacy of these so-called parallels" Bromiley 1982, p. 1034 (/ref)
Scholars believe (weasel) Witherington argues that Jesus is to be understood against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism,
(ref) "[T]he Gospels, indeed the whole NT have a profound indebtedness to early Judaism and Jewish ideas about salvation, this life, resurrection, heaven and hell, clean and unclean, the sabbath, circumcision, the nature of God etc. They are also suffused with the Jewish concern for history, for their God was a God who intervenes in history, and they were not looking for a mythical messiah, but rather a flesh and blood one who would rescue them from their oppressors. The universe of discourse is again and again Jewish, not Greco-Roman at its core. Thankfully the vast majority of scholars, Jewish, Christian, or of no faith at all have long since realized that the NT and its ideas, and Jesus himself cannot be explained or explained away using the tired old arguments of the Religionsgeschichte Schule. The discussion has moved on ..." Witherington 2009 (/ref)
an emphasis on broader Hellenistic religious categories having been "largely abandoned."
(ref) "Third, (redundant) the miracles of Jesus are interpreted more carefully and more realistically in context, with the result that they are now viewed primarily as part of charismatic Judaism, either in terms of piety or in terms of restoration theology (or both). The older notion that the miracle tradition is relatively late and of Hellenistic origin, perhaps the product of theios anèr ideas, has been largely abandoned." Evans 1993, pp. 17–18 (/ref)
Further, mainstream scholarship generally rejects the whole concept of homogenous dying and rising gods (The article doesn't say proponents rely on a homogeneous life-death-rebirth concept.)
(ref) "[I]t is presently impossible to accept a general category of a 'dying and rising god' in the ancient Mediterranean and Levantine world." Smith 1994, p. 70 "There is now what amounts to a scholarly consensus against the appropriateness of the concept. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species." Mettinger 2001, p. 7 (gratuitous, unscholarly) (/ref)
the validity of which is often presupposed by advocates of the Christ myth theory. (How often? Which advocates?)The few academics who continue to support the "dying and rising gods" construct nevertheless repudiate the idea that Jesus fits the wider pattern.
(ref) "There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world." Mettinger 2001, p. 221 (/ref)
Furthermore, attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures are widely seen as inaccurate and historically slipshod. (weasely misrepresentation of the source) Yamauchi argues that attempts to equate elements of Jesus' biography with those of mythological figures have not sufficiently taken into account the dates and provenance of their sources.
(ref) "[P]ast studies of phenomenological comparisons have inexcusably disregarded the dates and the provenience of their sources when they have attempted to provide prototypes for Christianity." Yamauchi 1974 (/ref)
For example, far from presenting Mithras' origin as an analogue of Jesus' virgin birth, classical sources depict Mithras emerging Burkert shows that the purported equivalence of Jesus' virgin birth with Mithras' origin fails because Mithras emerged fully grown, partially clothed, and armed from a rock, Ulansey 1991, p. 35 possibly after the rock had been inseminated Burkert 1989, p. 155 n. 40 . (Clearer. But whom does he refute? Who originally claimed the equivalence?)
In other cases, often such supposed parallels are based on the interpolations of skeptical critics themselves: parts of Jesus' biography and early Christianity being inappropriately projected onto the stories of mythical pagan personages, only to be then "discovered" and cited as parallels.Bevan and Forbes argue that proponents of the theory have invented elements of pagan myths in order to support their assertion of parallelism between the life of Jesus and the lives of pagan mythological characters. (Clearer)
(ref) "Of course if one writes an imaginary description of the Orphic mysteries ... filling in the large gaps in the picture left by our data from the Christian eucharist, one produces something very impressive. On this plan, you first put in the Christian elements, and then are staggered to find them there." Bevan 1929, p. 105 Interviewer: "The claims about this particular sky God then, Horus, are that he was born on December the 25th, he was adored by three kings, he grew up, he had twelve disciples, he was crucified, and then he was resurrected. Well, that sounds like the Jesus story." Chris Forbes: "It does—because that’s what it is. But it’s not the Horus story." Forbes 2009 (/ref)
Brandon argues Opponents of the theory argue (weasel) that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable," Brandon 1959, p. 128 given their cultural background,
(ref) "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit." Grant 1995, p. 199 (/ref)
as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.
(ref) "[T]he early Palestinian Church was composed of Christians from a Jewish background, whose generally strict monotheism and traditional intolerance of syncretism must have militated against wholesale borrowing from pagan cults. Psychologically it is quite inconceivable that the Judaizers, who attacked Paul with unmeasured ferocity for what they considered his liberalism concerning the relation of Gentile converts to the Mosaic law, should nevertheless have acquiesced in what some have described as Paul’s thoroughgoing contamination of the central doctrines and sacraments of the Christian religion." Metzger 1968, p. 7 (/ref)
I have made the changes Anthony ( talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I know it now says "argues" four times. If you don't fix it, I will in due course. Sorry. Anthony ( talk) 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right about my Mettinger comment. I've deleted the dying and rising gods argument because it is one hand clapping. There is nothing above about dying rising gods. I take your word it is an important part of the story but it is orphaned here without the thing it is supposed to be refuting. Can you put something into "Mythological parallels" about who first formulated the concept of homogeneous dying and rising gods? Anthony ( talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is the "homogeneous dying rising gods concept" is not explained in the article even though Price calls it one of the 3 pillars of the Christ-myth theory. It needs explaining. I am criticizing the quality of your rhetoric. Anthony ( talk) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll write it when I have some time. Anthony ( talk) 17:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a recent high-quality mainstream source who makes a distinction between the Christ-myth theory and biblical minimalism? SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused about the way sources have been used throughout the article, with several sentence parts having different sources, so that it's not clear who is saying what. For example:
S. G. F. Brandon argues that the very idea that early Christians would consciously incorporate pagan myths into their religion is "intrinsically most improbable," given their cultural background, as evidenced by the strenuous opposition that Paul encountered from other Christians for even his minor concessions to Gentile believers.
The first part, until "most probable" is sourced to Brandon. The second part ("given their cultural background") is sourced to Grant. The third ("as evidenced by") is sourced to Metzer. So what exactly is it that Brandon is saying? Does he explain why it is most improbable? SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, given that you're all fired up over particular attribution, why did you remove a particularly attributed bit from Paula Fredrickson and suppress the attribution to Evans? Eugene ( talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add commentary about this to the lead. It doesn't mean "at first sight X, but on further investigation not-X." SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's become increasingly clear that the bias of some--both some editors working on this page and some reviewers who frequent the FAC pages--against scholars who are Christians is invincible. It's sad, but there's nothing we can do. Given this, I think that the good faith editors here should look for scholars who aren't Christians to provide critical commentary on the CMT. I know this will be vastly more time consumming to find relevant quotes, but it's possible. We already have a good start: Alan F. Segal and Will Durant discuss the principle of embarrasment over against the CMT; Louis Feldman indicates that Josephus did in fact refer to Jesus--very probably twice; Bart Ehrman says no serious scholar gives the CMT any credence and compares it to the denial of unmentionable Very Bad Things™; James Frazer contemptuously dismisses the people trying to use his work for CMT purposes; Michael Grant wags his finger at casual attempts to explain Christianity as pagan syncretism; Joseph Klausner exposes the 20th century's CMT's anti-semitic origins. Not bad, but there are more we could add. While not currently in the article, I've some quotes by Morton Smith calling the CMT "thoroughly discredited" and calling its advocates "cranks"; Geza Vermes talks at length about Judaism (not some Greco-Roman religious stew) being the appropriate backdrop against which to understand Jesus; I'm sure there's more. (I'm still opposed to using non-specialists to definte the state of scholarship, but I note that the philosopher Antony Flew once remarked that the CMT was "ridiculous".) Let's start tracking these down so the irreligious bias of some will be a moot point... assuming, of course, that the FAC reviewers actually allow scholars views to trump their own, which I'm not really sure of at this point. Eugene ( talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can I propose that we take this opportunity to engage in consensus-building, using the framework of Bill's list of issues, working through the points in sequence, and making edits after discussion, and only edits that will pass GA? This will never get past GA until this minority view is presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Anthony ( talk) 16:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The hardest-working, most experienced, most involved critic of this article has misgivings about mediation. Let's start now.
"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."
Relevant entries in the Cambridge Ancient History
"Frankly, I know of no ancient historian/biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
In a paper presented to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity:
In fact, I doubt that any of us could name a professional biblical or ancient historian who thinks Jesus’ existence is still debatable. Much more representative of the state of the question is the comment of Professor Ed Sanders of Duke University, one of the leading historical Jesus scholars of the last twenty years and no friend of Christian apologetics: ‘There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.’ I think this sentiment would be endorsed by virtually everyone writing in the field today.
To describe Jesus' non-existence as 'not widely supported' is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, 'It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened.' There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. [1]
"Reputable ancient historians irrespective of religious persuasion know that Jesus was a genuine figure of history."
Please note that Michael Grant is actually quoting two other authors here: R. Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin 1957), p12; O. Betz, What do we know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968). SCM's own web page says "SCM Press - buy religious books online" and "SCM Canterbury Press - buy religious books online; Religious Book Publishers". The final consensus was the quote was useless.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If a consensus is reached to the effect this is a fringe theory, the article will need to make that clear in a way that is neutral. Once. Not over and over again in every nook and cranny. Sly, underhanded discredits like the top link in "See also" being to Bible conspiracy theory make you (whoever put it there) appear to be sleazy and contemptible. It gives the impression that you play dirty, that the quality of your argument against the theory is so weak you need to apply Fox News persuasion techniques. I'm sure none of that is the case. But that's the impression it gives.
And the word fringe need not be used. The word in general parlance carries a derogatory implication (marginalized and nutty), whereas the way we use it, fringe theory is "not mainstream". Something like "the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians" conveys it's place in the field without stooping to derision.
Personally, judging only on the quotes provided by Eugene in the FAQ, which are opponents speaking, but includes one proponent (I think - did I delete him?) who concedes the view is considered eccentric, and in the absence of any counter evidence, I have no choice but to conclude it is a fringe theory. Can someone please explain to me why it is not? Anthony ( talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't ask "Does anybody agree with me?" Everybody knows what you think on this issue. Anthony ( talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you give it some time please. People live in different time zones and have jobs. Let's just sit quietly and have one very slow, thoughtful, patient, respectful, genuinely scholarly discussion. Anthony ( talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Cool. How do you feel about my wording above? ("the theory is not widely accepted by mainstream theologians and historians"). Anthony ( talk) 19:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Just trying to sense the mood. Eugene? Anthony ( talk) 19:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What do you think, Ari? Anthony ( talk) 05:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Eugene, can you please explain to me the problem with "theologian"? Anthony ( talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Forget that, unless you have further to add - I just read Bill's discussion with Crum375. Anthony ( talk) 06:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
A possible version from CMT sandbox:
By all standards it is a fringe theory, and this is accepted by the scholarly mainstream as well as proponents such as Doherty. Eugene has a point on the weak phrasing that we are employing, as the scholars themselves have a history of pronouncing it dead, unscholarly and conspiratorial. The fringe of the fringe. -- Ari ( talk) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we archive some of the sections? The talk page has become monstrous in size and it's a chore to edit, especially if there is an edit conflict? Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Before we continue discussing the contents of this article, I think we need to decide whether it ought to stand alone. The problem with it is that it strikes up an extreme position—Jesus is a fiction in his entirety—then lists a number of people who don't hold that position, and claims that they changed their minds. Therefore (the implication goes), the theory must be nonsense if even its adherents don't hold it anymore, and therefore (the implication goes further), Jesus did exist perhaps just as the New Testament claims. Any attempt to introduce nuance is reverted.
My feeling is that this article should exist as a section of Historicity of Jesus, confined only to those who themselves clearly state that they're adherents. Price doesn't see himself as believing it; G.A. Wells hasn't for a long time. Does Doherty rule out that there is some minimal historicity to Jesus? Did Drews even hold to it entirely? I just wonder whether this is a straw man position that would be better off explained within its context.
Merging would involve a slight expansion of this section of Historicity of Jesus (currently 4,200 words, so it could stand a little expansion), and anything not appropriate could be added to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is A. Fringe, B. Worthy of remaining distinct. NJMauthor ( talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(remove indent)I once believed there was a definite 'non-historical Jesus' aka Christ myth theory but after going through the literature I had to accept the painful fact that there was no consensus in the literature on what the term even ment. Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman define the term Christ Myth theory in the Jesus NEVER existed context of this article but then you have definitions of Bromiley, Pike (vague), Dodd (vague), and Welsh which do allow for a historical person to be involved. It certainly doesn't help that Price and Doherty call Wells' current preexiting quasi-mythical Paul Jesus + Historical Teacher = Gospel Jesus as being part of the "Jesus/Christ myth theory" or that the terms Christ myth and Jesus myth are used in other ways. I still hold that this entire article rests on WP:SYN, WP:OR, and the False dilemma that Jesus either is or isn't historical. There are those who hold the there was a "historical" Jesus but his relationship tot eh Gospel accounts is effectively nil--where to they fit into all this.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
From CMT definition above:
I think it deserves substantial attention in the body of the article. Anthony ( talk) 07:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
From Eugene's quotes in the FAQ (and in the absence of any examples to the contrary) it is clear that CMT means complete ahistoricity. Theory can mean just the proposition, or the proposition and its supporting explanation/argument. If this article is to discuss only the proposition, it will be ten sentences long and can be a tiny subsection of Historical Jesus or Historicity of Jesus. If it adopts the latter definition of theory, the article needs to cover how you explain the emergence of the Jesus and Christ traditions while denying the historicity of Jesus the man, and, perhaps, also cover the argument against that explanation. Eugene's examples hint at some diversity in explanation, and I think a detailed, neutral elaboration of those alternative explanations is essential here. Anthony ( talk) 08:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a big battery of quotes up there in the FAQ, from 1926 to the present, saying it means there was no historical person behind the legend, or Jesus never existed. Bruce thinks (if I've understood him correctly) the term was twisted into this meaning in the late 1920's 1930's; and prior to that it was less narrowly defined. If the term has been habitually used by experts in the field for the last eighty years to mean "he never lived" that's probably the meaning for this article. Now, just what does "He never lived" mean (see Vesal
above)!?
Anthony (
talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Aaaargh! Anthony ( talk) 21:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
A stable definition of the title of the article is essential. In the FAQ, Eugene has provided references and quotes for authors who say it is the proposition that Jesus is a fictional character. Do you have the resources to supply the exact quote and citation for "Bromiley, Pike (vague), Dodd (vague), and Welsh", Bruce? If not the exact cite, then what you can remember about the sources? Anthony ( talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Akhilleus. Bruce, I've followed Akhilleus' link to a long list of quotes, but as a nonspecialist in this field (i.e., a typical reader of the page) you'll need to spoon feed me. From that list, or elsewhere, can you find any quotes that say "Christ myth theory/hypothesis means ..." or words to that effect, that convey something different than "Jesus was an entirely fictional character?" Anthony ( talk) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This non-issue has long been used by critics of the page as a wedge strategy to try to rehabilitate the thesis. The fact of the matter is that RSes, over and over and over and over again, equate the CMT with a belief in the non-existence of Jesus. Eugene ( talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If a person accepts that there lived an insignificant miracle-working preacher called Jesus, but this preacher had no impact on early Christians, this would still be effectively denying the historicity of Jesus. Do we all agree on at least this much? Then, what if we were to say that this insignificant preacher is the source behind the Q traditions? I'm willing to accept that this is where the line is drawn, but I am genuinely confused as to why. And sources that just say "CMT = Jesus did not exist" does not help me understand where and why the line is drawn. Vesal ( talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added a few more quotes regarding the definition to FAQ #1. We now have scholars teaching (or who taught) at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, and on and on and on all defining the CMT as the denial of Jesus' historicity. Please, for the love of God, let this go. Eugene ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If the Christ myth theory means "Jesus did not exist", what does that mean?
All of the above? Something else? What is meant by ahistoricity is crucial. Anthony ( talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me in your own words what "Jesus never existed" or "there was no Jesus of Nazareth" means, for the purpose of this definition? Anthony ( talk) 21:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this one: The Christ Myth theory designates a number of explanations of the origins of Christianity which minimize or deny the historical life and teaching of Jesus Christ, arguing instead that this figure is best understood as essentially mythical. Barrett Pashak ( talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I quote: "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did anyone who had personal knowledge of him." The last part (nor did anyone...) seems to be a sweeping statement. Please change this to make the article more neutral. Another somewhat objectionable statement is "Paul was not a follower of Jesus; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus." In Acts 9, Luke, who is thought to be the author, claims Paul saw Jesus. Paul might not have made such a claim, but Luke did. Paul was also definitely a follower of Jesus, even though not at the time that Jesus lived. This is evident through the text in the Epistles, which are usually attributed to Paul. I suggest that the first be replaced with: "So far as is known, Jesus never wrote anything, nor did any of his followers, during his lifetime." The second sentence (Paul was not a follower...) should be omitted. It does not seem to add to the article. I think this would significantly improve the neutrality of the article. -- Wsrh 2009 ( talk) 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) So you'd really rather prefer a section that reads: "White says X, Y, and Z. But scholars A, B, and C say Z is nonsense" ? Wouldn't it just be better to side-step this and just have a definition with a continuum showing the CMT as the polar opposite of fundamentalism? Eugene ( talk) 18:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of something like this...
I think this would be both fun and helpful. With this, a shortened version of the White material (sans the "no personal knowledge" stuff that could be contested forever), a nice clear definition like "The Christ myth theory is the belief that Jesus never existed at all", and maybe a passing referene to Goguel's distinction between mythicism and minimalism, I think we'd be set. Eugene ( talk) 20:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"As I have stated before the Christ Myth theory covers a large area from the extreme Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form outside of the mind through the historical teacher who was "plugged into" an already existing messiah myth" I disagree with the validity of this statement, Bruce. Virtually all sources use CMT to describe the position that "Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form". NJMauthor ( talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"NJMauthor has clearly missed Dodd's definition" Bruce has clearly forgotten the definition of the word "Virtually". And Slimvirgin, I wasn't suggesting the use of that wording, I was quoting Bruce. NJMauthor ( talk) 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the nice spectrum, Eugene. The polar opposite of CMT is the historicity of Jesus, not "literalistic fundamentalism" regarding the canonical gospels (with the polar opposite probably being something like Bultmann or Burton Mack.) -- Ari ( talk) 04:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In a discussion above, this was said:
Virtually all sources use CMT to describe the position that "Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form". NJMauthor ( talk) 22:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which is practically a reductio ad absurdum. Which academic source in his right mind would confidently assert that? Price doesn't, Wells doesn't. Does anyone? SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Arthur Drews was a German academic who debated and wrote books about the Christ myth theory. One of his books, translated into English was, in fact, titled The Christ Myth Theory Here's a 1911 review of the book in The New York Times [20]. The second paragraph of the review describes Drews' position:
[H]is thesis is, that the Jesus of the Gospels never existed, and that the characteristics attributed to this non-existent personage are derived from Jewish ideals floating in the air at the time, which were supposed to be realized by the hero of the Gospels. This mythical personage was transformed into a demigod by St. Paul, whom the author, in a way, regards as virtually the creator of Christianity. His main grounds for disbelief in the existence of Jesus are the absence of any contemporary references to him except in the Gospels [...]
This is one of a number of articles [21] the Times wrote about Drews.
Here [22] is the (hilarious in parts) article in the Times that describes the uproarious debate Drews had with other academics in 1910. I'm sure we'll all be happy to know that our article, although it doesn't cite this news article directly, gives an accurate summary of it, including the part about the woman standing on the chair invoking God to strike Drews and various women being "carried from the hall, shrieking hysterically". The Times reported that Drew "caused a public sensation by plastering the billboards of the town with posters propounding the startling question: 'Did Jesus Christ ever exist?'" The reporter was very clear about Drews' position:
The gist of his position was in a large measure like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held that there was verily a historic Christ, but that a vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth."
The title of this article, from the February 6, 1910 edition of the paper:
The Times certainly isn't infallable, but it doesn't appear to have been interested in getting Drews' position wrong in order to advance some evangelical agenda. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 03:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you have the exact text for The reviewer mentions reductio ad absurdum and also considers the polemical uses the "Christ myth theory" has (or had) for the "conservative" side of the debate, John? The link in your post above takes me to a Google snippet view. Anthony ( talk) 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Or the issue or page number. The journal (I think it's the same one) is available here. Anthony ( talk) 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. (Missed that. It was off my small screen.) Links to the 1914 review of Drew's The Christ Myth: Beginning of review reductio ad absurdum. The Warfield link didn't work for me. Do you have the Vol, issue, page numbers for that Eugene? Anthony ( talk) 14:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Eugene. Link to Warfield's 1913 review of the sequel to The Christ Myth.
Akhilleus: "After all, Drews' book The Christ-Myth is where the title of this article ultimately comes from; his is a particularly prominent version of the theory." (From higher in this thread) How do you mean, Akhilleus? Anthony ( talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
So, before 1910, were the terms "Christ myth" or even "Christ myth theory" (if it was ever uttered) used differently? Was it Drews' use that gave it the meaning we now find in the FAQ? Anthony ( talk) 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)