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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
Let me guess: the main subject of an article on recent "scholarship" would be Richard Carrier?
— User:Joshua Jonathan
Well no.
Stephen Law holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed. Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."
Law's position is challenged by Robert G. Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti who in collaboration, present four items of evidence. They also invoke a Bayesian 0.99 prior probability for mundane claims about a historical Jesus. Lataster notes the "incredible assumption" made by Cavin and Colombetti, such that "their 'bracketing' of the material in the sources makes the incredible assumption that the obviously mythical material should not at all make us sceptical about the rest" and further "Cavin and Colombia would be happy to proclaim the 0.00001% of a story's mundane claims as being almost certainly true, even if 99.99999% of the story consisted of supernatural fiction."
Rejecting Cavin & Colombetti's "resort to illogical Christian apologetics", Carrier writes, "Stripped down to its purest generalization, Law’s principle essentially argues that when instead we have evidence for a source’s unreliability, the probability of any mundane detail in the story being true doesn’t increase. It stays at 50/50 . . . . Until we get good independent evidence for it. Cavin & Colombetti present no logically valid or factually sound objection to this conclusion." Lataster writes:
All too often I see philosophers comment on biblical claims with an inadequate knowledge of the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and religion in general. This can lead to scenarios . . . where too much credence — more than some Christian scholars of the Bible in some cases — is given to the sources. And all too often, I see biblical scholars make logical claims without the vitally important critical framework of the analytic philosopher. I believe that both are needed to answer questions of this sort. We need the knowledge and nuance of the specialist scholar of religion and the logical acuity of the analytic philosopher.
Scholars such as Hector Avalos and John Gager make the same sorts of criticism of the methods of their peers, as those leveled by Lataster against said peers—being scholars who really do seem to be operating within a bubble of logical and methodological flaws. Lataster further cites examples of these scholars appealing to “hermeneutics of charity” in which they insist that scholars should assume “traditions” found in the gospels should be accepted as authentic until someone points out clear reasons not to.
Another problem is the supernatural in the gospel narratives. It is not sufficient to remove the supernatural and then suspect the mundane remnant of having some probable historicity. Very often it is the supernatural that is the very point of the story; remove the supernatural and one has removed anything of interest. The supernatural is not the embellishment; it is the core of and the reason for the story.
The most problematic issue of historical Jesus scholarship is the extent to which Christian scholars—and many atheists—tend to assume that the gospels contain some historical core material or are derived from reports of historical events. Lataster writes, "Using the Gospels to argue for Jesus’ existence may be circular reasoning. Arguing from external sources would generally result in a much more convincing case."
A common objection is that “ahistoricists” or “mythicists” do not have an alternative explanation for Christian origins. However given Paul’s testimony that he hallucinated a Jesus constructed from the Jewish Scriptures, it only need be shown that the historicist doesn’t have real evidence that would make his purely human Jesus existing more probable than not." Lataster writes:
This is similar to the agnosticism over God’s existence. Those agnostics do not need to have evidence that God does not exist. They just need to be unconvinced by the lack of good evidence for God’s existence. In other words, my case for Historical Jesus agnosticism does not need to rely on good alternative hypotheses, though it certainly can be strengthened by them.
-- 2db ( talk) 06:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This article should be split into two articles a) history of and b) modern arguments. The logical date to split is c. 1995:
-- 2db ( talk) 21:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me guess: the main subject of an article on recent "scholarship" would be Richard Carrier? Who, as a 'peer-reviewed author', doesn't want to be associated with people who aren't in the scholarly fold; or compared with people who have retracted their fringe views, showing that even mythicists who follow logical arguments fall in line with mainstream scholarship?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
04:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Carrier was a good boy atheist historicist back then and only became a dirty mythicist due to the 2008 financial collapse. LOL -- 2db ( talk) 05:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)The logical date to split is c. 1995...
— User:2db
"Christ myth" means that there has not yet been a "Christ" (or messiah), or that Jesus the man was not the "Christ", and this position is widely accepted by scholarship.
— User:Wdford
The "Christ myth theory" is not a fringe viewpoint. Virtually every biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the living Christ holds that the "Jesus the Christ" figure is a myth. WP should therefore have two articles "Christ myth theory" and "Jesus mythicism".
1835: David Strauss
It appeared to the author of the work … that it was time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of Jesus, in the place of the antiquated systems of supernaturalism and naturalism.… the recent attempts to recover, by the aid of a mystical philosophy, the supernatural! point of view held by our forefathers, betray themselves, by the exaggerating spirit in which they are conceived, to be final, desperate efforts to render the past present, the inconceivable conceivable. The new point of view, which must take the place of the above, is the mythical. [Strauss 1983, p. 21.]
"New Foe Of Religion Arises". Chicago Tribune. February 6, 1910.
[ Arthur Drews] laid down his theories after the classic manner of old time university disputations. The gist of his position in large measure was like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held there was verity in the historic Christ, but that the vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.
1842: Bruno Bauer
[W]hether Jesus is the historical Christ, we have answered by showing that everything that the historical Christ is, what is said of him, what we of him is know, belongs to the world of the imagination and indeed to the Christian imagination, thus also with a person who belongs to the real world has nothing to do with. [Bauer 1842, p. 3:308. "Die Frage, mit der sich unsere Zeit so viel beschäftigt hat ob nämlich Dieser, ob Jesus der historische Christus sey, haben wir damit beantwortet dass wir zeigten, dass Alles, was der historische Christus ist, was von ihm gesagt wird, was wir von ihm wissen, der Welt der Vorstellung und zwar der christlichen Vorstellung angehört, also auch mit einem Menschen, der der wirklichen Welt angehört Nichts zu thun hat. Die Frage ist damit beantwortet, dass sie für alle Zukunft gestrichen ist.]
1904: Albert Kalthoff
A Son of God, Lord of the World, born of a virgin, and rising again after death, and the son of a small builder with revolutionary notions, are two totally different beings. If one was the historical Jesus, the other certainly was not. [Kalthoff 1907, p. 28.]
1906: Albert Schweitzer
That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus came to birth … Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus. [Schweitzer 1910, pp. 3–4.]
1909: John Remsburg
[T]he Christ is understood [as] the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth. [Remsburg 1909, p. 9.]
1997: Robert M. Price
[I]n the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. [Price, Robert M. (1997). "Christ a Fiction". Internet Infidels.]
2021: John W. Loftus
The Jesus [Christ] pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed. If there was a real human being who was the basis for the Jesus character in the New Testament, he is dead now. [Loftus, John (26 July 2021). "My Talk at the GCRR e-Conference on the Historical Jesus". Debunking Christianity.]
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) 3 vols.; 4th vol. under the title
Die Theologische Erklärung der Evangelien (in German). Berlin: Gustav Hempel. 1852. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) translated by W. Montgomery{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) translated by John Bowden et al.{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)-- 2db ( talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC) && update 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
-- 2db ( talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.
"Christ myth theory" as a popularised though misleading term for the view that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all, though incorrectly (and possibly deliberately) conflating the terms to dismiss the view that Jesus is not also 'divine'.
— User:Jeffro77
Clearly "Christ myth theory" is not always synonymous with Jesus ahistoricity being the most probable explanation for the origins of Christianity. -- 2db ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost immediately an editor has sought to restore the mischaracterisation of Wells' later views as mythicist, despite this being explicitly against Wells' stated position, which has been quoted at this Talk page by both Ramos1990 ( talk · contribs) [1] and 2db ( talk · contribs) [2], and explicitly confirmed by Van Voorst. Ramos1990 and others have unequivocally stated that we must go by what sources say, yet editors are happy to ignore the direct sourced statements that show that Wells was not a mythicist from the mid-1990s onwards. If editors continue to want to misrepresent sources in this way, I'll take the matter to the nPOV Noticeboard. See also WP:IDHT.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In particular, Joshua Jonathan ( talk · contribs) has restored all of the misrepresentation of Wells, and added a further unsourced assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Wells departed "from a strict mythicist view", with a weaselly use of "strict" to continue to misrepresent Wells' later views.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I also saw no basis in the cited sources for describing Wells in his later works as a "minimal historicist", which seems to have been an editorialisation in Wikipedia's voice to dismiss Wells' later views.strikes me; I see no dismissal there, on the contrary. All of Wells views are relevant for this article, his earlier, and his later. And note that Wells, in his later works, argued for two separate traditions, which were fused; this still departs from mainstream scholarship, which has no doubt that Paul elaborated on an historical Jesus, using mythemes which had already been introduced by Jesus' earliest followers. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
details about the historical Jesus were 'fused' with other mythical elements- what's mythical about the historical element? - "fused" suggests two separate strands of thought, or traditions. Previously you stated
the view that the "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is actually a mainstream view.That's definitely not what mainstream scholarship argues. It argues that the perception of Jesus has always been embedded in, and framed by, religious narratived and mythemes. It does not say that the mythological Christ was "another tradition." It seems to me that your thinking is too binary. You want to restrict the article to a treatment of 'strict mythicism'; that's not how it works. The topic is broader than that, and if you think that Wells' later position is misrepresented, you should improve the text - as also suggested by Ramos - instead of removing what you don't like. Reality is fuzzy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The difference between "fused" and "replaced" is lost on you? And no, it is not best to remove the incorrect sourcing as a priority
. We only remove large amounts of text in cases of blatant vandalism. Try imcremental improvements, instead of continuously repeating your broad-stroke criticism.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
08:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The following statement currently in the article falsely characterises Wells' later view as mythicism: "Wells argues that Paul's Jesus may have existed many decades, if not centuries, before." However, the source actually indicates that Wells thought Paul incorporated details from old traditions (without reference to any specific individual), not that Paul referred to 'a Jesus who lived long ago'. Instead, the source indicates that, in Wells' view, Paul thought the old traditions "without reference to times and places" (and therefore explicitly not 'one specific individual from a specific time long ago') that he incorporated were actually recent ("he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were"). Since it is known that Wells, in his later views, explicitly regarded 'Paul's Jesus' to be made up of mythologies that were "fused" with details about the actual historical Jesus―who Wells explicitly identified as a first-century Galilean preacher―Wells' thoughts about 'Paul's Jesus' should not be characterised as mythicism on the basis of the 2003 Wells source. As such, it should not be in a section about mythicism, though it may be suitable to incorporate in the section about Wells.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wells contends, Paul understood Jesus to have been a supernatural being who lived in utter obscurity some 150 years or earlier.
Thank you Joshua Jonathan. I have moved this important point to the first paragraph, so that the contrast is easier to see, and I added some extra sources. However this wording does explain the position much better than before. Wdford ( talk) 17:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Distractions aside, the article still misrepresents Wells' later works as the views of mythicists, which is explicitly contrary to sources.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In the Price 2011 work quoted by Ramos1990, Price later goes on to describe the "Traditional myth theory" and then gives his reason for viewing an ahistorical Jesus at the origin of Christianity and it is not the same as the "Traditional myth theory" -- 2db ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Since sources "clearly define Christ myth theory as being about the nonexistence of Jesus"
, the Wiki-article opens with Ehrman's statement "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." That includes Wells. Ehrman, Did Jesus exist p.241:
No one has been a more enduring spokesperson for a mythicist view of Christ than G.A. Wells. For over thity-five years Wells has insisted that the Christ of Christian tradition did not exist but was invented.
This is not mathematics or physics, or a Church dogma with exact boundaries; this is a Wiki-article aiming to give insight into a social phenomenon, namely (a stream of) fringe authors who mostly don't even agree among themselves. As such, Wells' later works can't be excluded; his change of view is relevant, yet still deviating from mainstream scholarship, and it still contains arguments against the mainstream scholarly view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you plese stick to the topic? This section is about the later Wells being included as a mythicist; you already started discusing Wells' later views on when Paul's Jesus lived in another sub-thread. I advised you before to suggest incremental changes; instead you're spamming this page with WP:WALLOFTEXT, critisizing the article as a whole, and pushing your personal interpretation of mythicism. See also WP:CANTHEARYOU. Ehrman characterizes all of Wells'writings as mythicism; you disagree. We summarize the sources, not the opinions of editors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Since sources "clearly define Christ myth theory as being about the nonexistence of Jesus". Next, I quoted Ehrman on Wells' work being mythicist. In response, you divert into the discussion of Wells' position on this distant Jesus. Ergo, you're discussing a subtopic in two different threads, and you're not responding to the fact that your understanding of what constitutes 'mythicism' is contradicted by Ehrman. As Ramos noted before, stick to the sources. And as I advice you: gather your discussions in handable threads and subthreads, and limit yourself to clear, distinguishable points. As you may have noticed, your attempts to change this article have had little impact, which may be related to the way you try to convince other ediors of your point of view, anbd to your lack of concrete proposals. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand all of what has been written above. However my issue is that the ordinary reader would come to this "Christ myth" page to read about the myth of the Christ of the gospels. They are not conversant with academic history, or of what the "sources" academically clearly understood this title to mean. They have never heard of Ehrman or Gullotta. They will see on Wikipedia that "mainstream scholars" accept that "Jesus" was historical, and that people who claim he was a myth are "fringe", and they will be left with the impression that the Christ of the gospels was real – miracles and all.
This approach is blatantly misleading. It can easily be corrected, by adding one simple clear sentence to the lead, acknowledging that the "mainstream scholars" on the whole do NOT consider the parts about miracles and resurrections to be historical, and clarifying that the remaining debate is purely about the historical existence of a non-supernatural Jesus. And yet wiki-editors have fought for years to consistently prevent that simple admission of fact from being added.
BTW: Price in 2000 actually stated that "The historical Jesus has gotten lost behind the stained glass curtain of the Christ of dogma". That does not sound like Price is asserting the "nonexistence of Jesus" at all. Ditto Wells etc. Wdford ( talk) 16:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
As I understand, Price still accepts a historical Jesus as possible, but not probable. Which is the same position as Carrier. And also the final position of Philip R. Davies as recounted by Lataster ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9
references to Ehrman (or others) where they refer to Wells as a mythicist but are citing his earlier works also cannot be used to say Wells' later views were mythicist: Ehrman is WP:RS; we rely on what those sources regard to be mythiscism, not on your personal opinions. You're trying to force your own understanding of what constitutes "mythiscism" on this article. If you want to do so, propose this in a proper way, with sources. And then, still, Wells' later views are relevant.
I can only imagine how he will feel about this tangent: your imagination is off-track, given my response to Wdford. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
My view is that Paul knew next to nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, and did not have in mind any definite historical moment for his crucifixion. As we saw, holy Jews had been crucified alive in the first and second centuries B.C., but traditions about these events, and about the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, could well have reached Paul without reference to times and places, and he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact weredoes not support the claim that Wells believed "Paul's Jesus lived far earlier" at all. Wells here explicitly claims that 'Paul's Jesus' was based on "traditions" about crucifixions, not some long-dead individual, and Wells additionally says Paul "need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were", that is, Paul thought the traditions were not as old as they really were. At the time, Wells explicitly believed that Jesus was a first-century Galilean preacher, which very obviously contradicts any claim that he simultaneously 'thought Jesus lived far earlier'. So, Joshua Jonathan, you are either dishonest or incompetent to properly assess sources.
If you think Wells is represented or quoted incorrectly, then correct those statements. If you think the definition of mythicism as applied incorrect, then propose using another definition, based on WP:RS. But beware of WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
mainstream scholars have no consensus … on the extent to which the gospels and the Pauline epistles replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith". As such, you are blatantly dishonest.— Jeffro77 ( talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". [1] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
The basic theory comes in two varieties, the strongest of which suggests that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person but was an invention of early Christian writers to serve as a vehicle for Christian teachings. The more modeerate version of the theory holds that Christ did exist in Galilee during the early Christian period, but that stories of his life may be a composite of several different individuals.
References
To be expanded. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I should have known... Talk:Christ myth theory/definition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Osiris presents the most apt theological parallel: as Plutarch explains in his treatise on the cult, in public stories Osiris was placed in history as a historical king subsequently deified, but in private exegesis these were explained as allegories for the actual truth of the matter, which was that each year Osiris descends and becomes incarnate and is slain not on earth, but in the lower heavens, and then rises from the dead and reascends to power in the upper heavens, having gained power over death by this cosmic ritual, which he then shares with his earthly devotees. In the earliest redaction we can reconstruct of the Ascension of Isaiah this appears to be exactly what was imagined to happen for Jesus, only once for all, not yearly.
-- 2db ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
[T]he CMT is not precise. There are many shades of grey...
— User:Wdford
The mythicism theory is not precise because the historicity theory is not precise due to the existence of two camps; the secular academy and the non-secular academy. A precise historicity theory would look very similar to Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED]:
[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:
- An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
- This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
- This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).
but perhaps with modifications and caveats e.g.:
Perhaps in a peer reviewed defense of the historicity theory published by a respected academic press this could be found? -- 2db ( talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Rejection of Paul's "Christ of faith" is not 'mythicism"
diff - that's a personal opinion. As noted several times before: You're trying to force your own understanding of what constitutes "mythiscism" on this article. If you want to do so, propose this in a proper way, with sources. And then, still, Wells' later views are relevant.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
12:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus.— Jeffro77 ( talk) 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative.... Historicists assert that the gospels are literary narratives featuring god-Jesus that contain biographical data for the historical personage Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera that can be extracted. For Biblicists, the gospels do not support any data extraction for a historical figure but a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed. -- 2db ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a reference in the article indicating that Wells, or his particular views, were deemed a part of general scholarship even after he changed his view that Jesus existed. It seems Jeffro is pushing his own understanding of how mainstream scholarship looks like and how he understands Christ myth theory to mean and how he understands Wells to be and trying to superglue them together by argument than with references. If a reference makes such a connection, where is it? Is there such an acknowledgemnt of this by a non-mythicist scholar? We can go on forever on making connections but if no reference makes the connection then what is there to talk about further than this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.10.226 ( talk) 23:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
What we have in the gospels is surely a fusion of two originally quite independent streams of tradition [...] the Galilean preacher of the early first century who had met with rejection, and the supernatural personage of the early epistles, [the Jesus of Paul] who sojourned briefly on Earth and then, rejected, returned to heaven—have been condensed into one. The [human] preacher has been given a [mythical] salvific death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles) but in a historical context consonant with the Galilean preaching. The fusion of the two figures will have been facilitated by the fact that both owe quite a lot of their substance in the documents—to ideas very important in the Jewish Wisdom literature.
I do not doubt the existence of a real Jesus, but I adopt the view that the representation of this figure in the gospels is not historical but mythological. This has caused some to draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of theology. We know little about the former, but I concur with Jung that "this Christ of St. Paul's would hardly have been possible without the historical Jesus.
My reading of Jesus is not to be confused with the tradition known as the "Christ Myth Theory."
Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him.
...there is a vast difference between rejecting the historical nature of the gospels and denying Jesus' existence. One can say that the gospel stories of Jesus are "mythic" while at the same time believing that Jesus existed as a first-century Jew. One simply must acknowledge that the Jesus whom early Christians remembered and described in the gospels was already a figure creatively imagined by Christians as someone more than human - and in that sense mythicized.
But mythicists say more. Not only was Jesus constructed in particular ways by early Christians, he actually did not exist or - by exerting no influence - functionally did not exist.
In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.
There is WP:NOCONSENSUS to remove Wells the way Jeffro has been constantly proposing for so many threads. Please refrain from further disruptions since this edit war has been going on for a while now. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK after so many attempts. I myself removed some of the Well's references in the "mythicist views" sections because some of the points seemed redundant to try to meet Jeffro's concerns as much as possible. But I agree with Joshua Johnathan's general position, per the sources he has provided in this section and in the section below too, showing that there is a spectrum of views that mythicism may extend slightly into the view that Jesus did exist as an obscure preacher man but that Jesus exerted no influence (e.g. Ehrman, Litwa, Bromiley, Hidden Religion). Some of these even review Wells in their surveys of mythicists and others do too like Casey and Van Voorst and even Robert Price. So he is strongly attached to that tradition by these scholars.
Van Voorst 2003, which is a ABC-CLIO encyclopedia entry as well, [15] designates "..Wells and his predecessors.." or "..."Wells and others" in his numerous points on mythicist positions whilst also noting that Well's changed his mind on point #8. The fact that Van Voorst mentions him simultaneously this way means that Van Voorst strongly associates Wells within the spectrum of mythicism even if he is not longer a "traditional" mythicist.
He is not the only one. Per Bilde "The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and a Comparative Attempt" (2013), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht p.60
However I begin with a few general observations concerning contemporary Jesus research as a whole. Looking first at the question of the historical existence of Jesus, the third period of international Jesus research does not differ from the first and the second period. Also today most active Jesus scholars are convinced that Jesus was a real historical being, who existed as a Palestinian-Jewish person in the beginning of the first century CE. With this conviction these scholars oppose a considerable number of scholars from Arthur Drews ((1911) 1924) over Danish Georg Brandes (1925) to G.A. Wells (1971, (1975) 1986, 1982, 1989, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2009), Alvar EllegArd (1992), Francesco Carotta (1999) 2005, Earl Doherty (1999) 2000), Freke - Gandy (1999) 2007, Robert M. Price (2000, 2003, 2007, 2010), and Hector Avalos (2007), who all argue that Jesus has never existed, but is a purely mythological "invention."
Wells is footnoted there and the foot note says
In his most recent works, 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2009, however, G.A. Wells has abandoned his original belief that Jesus never existed. Wells now joins the mainstream of international Jesus research in accepting the historical existence of Jesus and today Wells only differs from that mainstream in assuming that the canonical gospels are the result of a "fusion" between some historical traditions in Q about a Galilean preacher by the name of Jesus, and the testimony of the Pauline letters about a mythological, supra-natural Christ figure (cf. 2009,14 -15).
Lets take a break. Ramos1990 ( talk) 05:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead now kind of gives equal weight to those views:
There are multiple strands of mythicism. One view is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character who was later historicized in the gospels.[q 1][18][19][20] Another view is that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing."[21][22][23] Yet another view is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature,[24][need quotation to verify] or on a Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels.[q 3]
The Christ myth theory#Christ myth theorists says
The most radical mythicists hold [...] Some other authors argue for the Jesus agnosticism viewpoint [...] Some moderate authors
We could adapt the lead to show this differences more starkly, something like
Various views regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists. The most common view is that there never was a historical Jesus, only a mythological character who was later historicized in the gospels.[q 1][18][19][20] Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing."[21][22][23] Yet another view, which comes close to the mainstream view in accepting an historical element, is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature,[24][need quotation to verify] or on a Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels.[q 3]
But, if I remember correctly, Wdford objected against such specifications. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
PS: this was my original description (minus a typo):
Three stances regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists. According to Wells, among others, there may have been an historical Jesus, who may have lived in a dimly remembered past, and was fused with the mythological Christ of Paul. According to Earl Doherty and Richard carrier, among others, there never was an historical Jesus, only a mythological character, who was historicised in the Gospels. According to Robert Price, among others, we cannot conclude if there was a historical Jesus. And if there was a historical Jesus, close to nothing can be known about him.
Note the nuance: not There are multiple strands of mythicism
, but Three stances regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists.
That's actually still a better formulation, I think; I've adapted my 'tentative proposal' accordingly. It does not 'reify' "mythicism" into a hard-boundary entity, but describes what's actually there: people theorizing about the historicity of Jesus.
And I'd put Wells front, because he's arguably the most important mythicist. But the sentence used there does not adequately reflect his positions, I think now. Regards,
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
07:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The most common mythicist view regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Another view is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature. Closer to the mainstream view, the idea that details about an obscure Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source were added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels has also been associated with mythicism.
[Various views regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists.] The most common mythicist view regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." [Additionally/Notably/Closer to the mainstream view,] Wells in his later works argued that the gospels add details about an obscure Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether such a [mythical Jesus] had in fact existed."
Various stances regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists. According to Earl Doherty and Richard carrier, among others, there never was an historical Jesus, only a mythological character, who was historicised in the Gospels. According to Robert Price, among others, any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Additionally, Wells in his later works held a view that was closer to the mainstream view, but still associated with mythicism, in that an obscure Galilean preacher did actually exist per the Q-source, and was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels to create the composite of Jesus Christ.
Different mythicists hold varying views regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity. One view is that no historical Jesus ever existed, and that a purely mythological character was historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual, generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher. A third view holds that the stories have been so obscured by myths and dogma that we could no longer be sure if there had ever been a real person at the root of the stories.
Alternatively, some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual, generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher.is unprecise:
some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual- that's only Allegard; and Allegard is not the same as Wells, and less relevant.
generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher.- the Galilean preacher is Wells' view, but the "generally believed" seems to turn mainstream scholarship into mythicism. I prefer Ramos1990's wording.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan ( talk • contribs)
Originally known as the ‘Christ Myth theory,’ this school of thought has more recently adopted the moniker ‘Jesus Myth theory’ or ‘mythicism’".
— Daniel Gullotta, "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt", p. 311. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 2017.
That's quite a lot already :) @3, something like:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a new wave of alternate views on the origins of Christianity. The most common mythicist view ...
"a new wave of alternate views" is amendable, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively, some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual...- who's view is this? Allegard, as far as I can see. And what's the difference with the mainstream view, except for the phrase "obscure"?
...generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher- this is 'too much'. Which mainstream sources "generally" "believe" that this "obscure historical individual" was "a Galilean preacher"? It's Wells who argues that the sayings and some stories about an 'obscure Galilean preacher' were added to Paul's mythical Jesus. But from this sentence as a whole, I can't figure out in a clear who stated what, nor do I understand what the mainstream sources have got to do with it, if they are even correctly represented here.
Can we also add that "the most common view" of the mainstream consensus is that the gospel Christ is indeed fiction, probably built up around a human Galilean preacher who was crucified for sedition?. This is already covered in the lead:
In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified.[6][7][8][9] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
Given the previous comments, a new proposal:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a new wave of alternate views on the origins of Christianity. The [most common/core] mythicist view [regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity] is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Closer to the mainstream view, Wells later accepted the historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
This is how it would read in the lead. reading it, I suggest to stick to "most common," and drop the line "regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s. One mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." A different view holds that the historical Jesus was a Galilean preacher, some of whose details were added to a mythical Jesus by Paul.
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s. One mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." A different view, which is close to the mainstream view, holds that the historical Jesus was a Galilean preacher, some of whose details were added to a mythical Jesus by Paul.
We're getting closer. But this version gives 'equal weight' to various views, which is not the case: the first giew is the core, while the second is a nuanced variation. The third view is specifically Wells' later view, who in a sense left the first view. That fact is obfuscated. Instead of "most common/core," we could also write "in general" or "broadly" or something like that:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when George Albert Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a [new wave of publications on/renewed interest in] the Christ myth theory. Mythicists broadly argue, with a number of variations and nuances, that Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Closer to the mainstream view, Wells later accepted [the/an] historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when G.A. Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a range of alternate views on who Jesus was. The most common mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. In a similar vein, some authors have argued for agnosticism on the matter in that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Alternatively, closer to the mainstream view on historicity, G.A Wells later accepted the historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when G.A. Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a range of alternate views on who Jesus was. Mythicists broadly argue, with a number of variations and nuances, that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. In a similar vein, some authors have argued for agnosticism on the matter in that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Alternatively, closer to the mainstream view on historicity, G.A Wells later accepted the historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s. Mythicists broadly argue, with a number of variations and nuances, that a historical Jesus never existed as described in the gospel stories, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." A view closer to the mainstream view on historicity is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus.
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and was revived in the 1970s. The most common mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing". A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus.
Also okay. Agree that as described in the gospel stories
is confusing. Also agree with "most common," though "broadly argue" may be more accommodating for Wdford.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
11:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and was revived in the 1970s. Proponents broadly argue that a historical Jesus never existed as portrayed in the gospels. Some authors argue that a purely mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing". A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that some details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus.
Some quotes, from
User:Joshua Jonathan/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus
|
---|
References
|
I would never have guessed that this was the concern. I'm not sure that very many readers would understand this either. How about we resolve the entire problem simply and honestly, like this:
How about that? Honest, accurate, clear, simple, unambiguous and informative. Wdford ( talk) 22:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Line | Present lead | Proposal | Comment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | There are multiple strands of mythicism. | Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and was revived in the 1970s. | Agreed by all |
2 | One view is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character who was later historicized in the gospels. | The most common mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. | Almost similar, except for "most common." Wdford objects against "most common," preferring "Proponents broadly argue," and wants to ament "never existed" with "as described in the gospels." |
3 | Another view is that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." | Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing". | Almost similar; agreed. |
4 | Yet another view is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature,[24][need quotation to verify] or on a Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels.[q 3] | A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus. | Corrected; agreed by all |
I suggest that we use "Proponents broadly argue," to reach a compromise. Since "as described in the gospels" (for the mythicist view) is not used in the present lead, and there are strong objections to add that phrase, I think we shouldn't add that.. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, then I thrust we've got an agreement. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I've editd the lead accirdingly diff, and added the text to Talk:Christ myth theory/definition#Present definition in Wiki-article, with a link to the discussion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Like some people here, I've been following this article for years. I haven't contributed anything to it in a very long time, and I don't plan to any time soon (life issues). However, I'm very curious about how far along the article is before it can be submitted for "good article" status. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 15:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
There are quite a few significant POV issues in the article body. Various statements characterised as 'mythicist' are actually wholly or largely consistent with the mainstream consensus. A significant portion of the article conflates hard-line mythicist views with other supposedly 'moderate' views, using Wikipedia's voice to distort the line between scholarly and mythicist views.
In the subsections below red text indicates statements in the article about mythicists and green text indicates the mainstream view or statements responding to mythicists.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Whereas the scholarly consensus is that little is known about the life of the historical Jesus except that Jesus was baptized, and that he was crucified, the article instead sets an inconsistent standard for 'mythicist' views:
The article states clearly that mainstream scholars to varying degrees also question the reliability of Paul's writings and/or the gospels, which they say describe the Christ of faith, presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine and that the historical Jesus was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today; they also recognise that in Paul's writings, Jesus is indeed presented as a 'celestial being' (though having been human); and they also recognise that the gospels were produced later with little agreement about their veracity. all material on Jesus has been handed down by the emerging Church. it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus". The Pauline creeds contain elements of a Christ myth and its cultus.
The article also claims that In his later writings, G.A Wells changed his mind and came to view Jesus as a minimally historical figure though Wells' view was consistently that Jesus likely existed but that most of what is in the Bible about him is not reliable. (I have struck out a previous statement about Wells from when I had not yet properly considered the various sources beyond the misrepresentations present in the article. Wells did indeed explicitly change his view, and that fact is distorted in the article by the continued misuse of his later works. However, the phrase "minimally historical" is misused, apparently to discredit Wells' later works regarding 'Christ' as a myth rather than 'Jesus' as a myth.)--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This issue is still not resolved, with continued misuse of Wells' views from 1996 onwards presented as 'mythicist' views.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
09:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The article has been substantially improved regarding this issue, with less reliance of Wells' later works characterised as mythicist views, and with a clearer indication of the lack of mainstream consensus indicated in the lead. (Two questionable references to Wells' later works, one with a quotation request, remain in the article.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
But those statements are consistent with the fact that modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus"-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This issue is still not resolved, and relies entirely on unsuitable use of Wells' later works when he was no longer a mythicist. The phrase "minimal mythicist" is also inappropriate here for the same reason.--— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jeffro77 (
talk •
contribs)
This issue has been resolved.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
04:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The possibility that early Christianity was significantly influenced by non-Jewish beliefs is characterised as 'mythicist' though it is not actually relevant to whether there was a historical Jesus. (It is actually entirely unsurprising that early Christianity would be influenced by Greek and Roman ideas, just as earlier Jewish belief was influenced by Babylonian, Persian and Greek concepts.)
Yet, scholars have also argued that Paul was a "mythmaker", who gave his own divergent interpretation of the meaning of Jesus, building a bridge between the Jewish and Hellenistic world, thereby creating the faith that became Christianity. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century CE, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy. According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism. According to Philip Davies, the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed "composed of stock motifs (and mythic types) drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world".-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The presentation of this issue is not entirely neutral in the article, though it does not misrepresent Wells and the contrasts given are probably acceptable.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Various statements in the article present misleading black-and-white thinking wherein suggesting that the gospels were influenced by anything other than narratives of the historical Jesus are necessarily at odds with mainstream scholarship:
However, it is entirely compatible with the existence of a historical Jesus for both Paul's writings and the gospels to also draw on other sources or themes. Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography, a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works. Ehrman notes that the gospels are based on oral sources, which played a decisive role in attracting new converts. Christian theologians have cited the mythic hero archetype as a defense of Christian teaching while completely affirming a historical Jesus. the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects. Most of the themes, epithets, and expectations formulated in the New Testamentical literature have Jewish origins and are elaborations of these themes. The article, attempting to assert that the characterisation of Jesus was not based on 'gentile' influences, acknowledges that elements are instead derived from earlier Jewish literature: According to James Waddell, Paul's conception of Jesus as a heavenly figure was influenced by the Book of Enoch and its conception of the Messiah.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This issue is not yet resolved, though it could be acceptable apart from the misuse of Wells' later works regarding other sources that influenced the development of Jesus as presented in the Bible.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
09:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This issue has been sufficiently resolved.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Supposedly 'mythicist' dating of Paul's writings is characterised using weasel words:
Rather than this being something that mythicists "argue", The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to AD 50–60 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains one of the earliest Christian creeds expressing belief in the risen Jesus (53-54 CE), namely 1 Corinthians 15:3–41
'Mythicist' characterisation of the Testimonium Flavianum is also treated with weasel words though it is viewed similarly in mainstream scholarship:
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, … The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage in book 18, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.
It is not merely the view of 'mythicists' that various elements of the gospels 'seem to' "reinforce Old Testament prophecies", it is inherently required for the genre of 'Messianic prophecy'.
There are also some instances of terms such as 'claim' where a more neutral word should be used.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved, tentatively.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The article employs a double-standard regarding the 'argument from silence':
But the article says it is notable that "the mystery cults are never mentioned by Paul or by any other Christian author of the first hundred years of the Church," despite the fact that it would be contrary to their purpose to mention them even if they did draw on them. Also Van Voorst employs argument from silence, Wells cannot explain why "no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it".-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
There probably isn't much that can be done about this, unless there are sources that rebut Ehrman's and Van Voorst's own arguments from silence.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The phrase 'dimly remembered past' in the lead should be replaced with something more specific, such as 'before the first century'.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved, at least currently.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
At a quick glance: the article gives an overview of the mythicists pov('s) and arguments; even if there are arguments that are also being used by mainstream scholarship, it still is an overview of the arguments of mythicists. Mainstream scholarship arrives at other conclusions than the mythicists. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Mythicists do not live in a vaccum. They borrow from some scholars whom they favor for their thesis that Jesus did not exist or is mythological. However it is important to note that the scholars they use or select do not use the same point to arrive at a mythicist conclusion. Mythicits will agree with mainstream scholars on basic information that is found in the texts, for instance that there is little biographical information on Jesus in Paul's writings. That is universally understood by all scholars. However, mythicists take that information and ignore the nuances of mainstream scholars which argue that none of that implies that Jesus was only conceived as a celestial being.
Mythicists do not come up with completely new scholarship. They merely distort mcuh of the schaolrship that is out there and come up with odd conclusions because of their misinterpretation and distortion. The fact that critical scholars like Bart Ehrman wrote a whole book detailing the differences between his liberal interpretation of the evidences and how mythicists misinterpret the evidence should show how mythicists deviate from mainstream scholarship.
Why not read what Ehrman observed as the basis for what the differences are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.10.226 ( talk) 16:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It is a misrepresentation of what I have said to suggest, essentially, 'well it's what the sources say so we have no choice'. The problem is one of presentation. The article presents more of a contrast between mythicist and mainstream views than is actually the case. It then says that 'mythicist views are wrong' (though I have cleaned up some of the most egregious wording), 'poisoning the well' about everything 'mythicists' say even where elements are actually a mainstream view.
Where there is overlap between mythicist and mainstream views, a more balanced presentation would present a single passage about what is agreed (rather than providing two separate pieces with the mythicist view characterised more negatively but really expressing the same views), and then state their varying conclusions. For example, the view that the "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is actually a mainstream view.
Where there is no actual disagreement in a particular element, it should either be removed altogether or at the very least greatly condensed. For example, the supposedly 'mythicist view' that "the Testimonium Flavianum may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others" is in fact a mainstream scholarly view.
Other POV issues include the implicit characterisation of certain conclusions as uniquely or inherently 'mythicist', though they are not actually pertinent to whether a source also believes in a historical Jesus, For example, "Some mythicists, though, have questioned the early dating of the epistles". (Additionally, the use of "some" for two completely incompatible views of 'mythicists' in that paragraph is far too ambiguous, especially if there is actually one predominantly favoured view.)
The views of Wells' later works and of Thompson also should not be expressed as mythicist, except in very direct quoted statements by specified authors, and if a rebuttal exists from the 'accused' author, that should also be included (as is currently provided for Ehrman's views of Thompson and the latter's response).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Ramos1990 ( talk) 09:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: any concrete proposal? Your critique is too broad, and I have to agree with Ramos1990. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
When I have more time I will remove the more obvious examples of misuse of Wells' works from 1996 onwards. If editors believe those references to Wells' later works should not be removed, i.e. they believe that those works are still 'mythicist' despite the fact that Wells explicitly wasn't from at least 1996 onwards (such that up until Wells' death in 2017 this was also a violation of WP:BLP rules), confirmed by Van Voorst, clear justification needs to be provided. Alternatively, editors will need to provide other sources to support those points that are misusing Wells' later works. It is not sufficient to highlight points by Wells that indicate that Christianity had other influences in addition to the historical Jesus, as this is also well recognised in mainstream scholarship.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed references to Wells' later works that were falsely characterised as the views of mythicists. If anyone wishes to restore any of the points removed, you must provide an appropriate source, citing either Wells' works prior to 1996, or a different explicitly mythicist author. It is not sufficient to provide a mainstream source that happens to state a view that is common to mainstream sources and mythicists. I also saw no basis in the cited sources for describing Wells in his later works as a "minimal historicist", which seems to have been an editorialisation in Wikipedia's voice to dismiss Wells' later views. If terms such as "minimal historicist" or "minimally historical" are used, please quote the phrase and provide the specific source, especially if the term is used to describe the views of a specific person.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone here have an actual background in ancient history? Wdford erroneously uses the word "fiction", writing that "mainstream scholarship actually shares with the mythicists the core conclusion that the Gospel Christ is a work of fiction." No, "mainstream scholarship" does not view the gospels as works of "fiction". Fiction is what Stephen King and Dan Brown write - invented characters, invented plots, written purposefully for entertainment consumption. The gospel narratives fall under a genre of writing that incorporates a mixture of historical events, mythology, theology, politics and philosophy - common in ancient narrative, and not at all fiction. Whoever wrote those gospels actually believed what they were writing.
Of course there is no overlap between mythicist arguments and what mainstream scholars believe. If I had to imagine one point of agreement, probably most secular scholars (that is, scholars not employed by conservative Christian colleges) would agree that miracles, faith healings and resurrections are all well outside the purview of historical analysis. It is probably true that people believed that Jesus had healing powers, but to establish the historical reality of those encounters as described in the gospels is virtually impossible.
But that's not what mythicists are saying. They are claiming that there was no historical Jesus at all, and that he was some sort of celestial space deity who was never believed to have had an earthly presence until centuries later. And when that becomes untenable, they resort to a totally contrived, ad hoc theory of an 'Amalgam Jesus' (that the Jesus in the gospels was a combination of multiple first century preachers and not a single individual) - for which there is no evidence. Sometimes they will agree that Jesus existed, but claim that if we had a time machine we wouldn't be able to pick this person out among all the other Jesus people back then (and thus he may as well have been an amalgam..or something like that). Actually we'd have a pretty good idea of who this person was: He was the one from Nazareth, who preached around the backwaters of Galilee; we even know who ordered his execution. New Age types like Acharya S, on the other hand, say Jesus was the latest iteration of a pagan sun god.
Actually, most of the New Testament describes pretty mundane, unextraordinary happenings rather than miracles, wonderworks and resurrections. About 90% of the gospels say stuff like "Jesus went to this town, then Jesus went here, and Jesus said this, then Jesus said that." The scholarly consensus is that these narratives speak about memories of an actual individual who actually lived and had an actual ministry on planet earth. So let's not insist there's any agreement between this consensus and "Sun God Jesus", "Space Jesus", "Amalgam Jesus", and "Time Machine Jesus" - all things mythicists have claimed, and all things mainstream scholars reject. In fact most professional scholars point and laugh at mythicists, and otherwise don't spend very much time thinking about this. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
References
• Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].
[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:
- An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
- This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
- This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).
• Loftus, John W. (2021). "Preface". In Loftus; Price (eds.). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press. ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9.
All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too! It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.
• Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the historicity of Jesus : why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse. Leiden. pp. 2f.
ISBN
978-9004397934.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
[We should] use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’.
-- 2db ( talk) 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
"minimally historical figure" and "biblicist's historical figure" are synonymous. -- 2db ( talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary. [Wells 2009, pp. 14–15.]
• Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.
-- 2db ( talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed |
The gospels do not support a rounded figure but a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed |
The gospels do not support a Jesus figure and a position of agnosticism is held on the historicity of Jesus |
Jesus is probably ahistorical |
Bart Ehrman – American New Testament professor and writer
George Albert Wells – English Professor of German and writer
Raphael Lataster – Australian credentialed teacher of religious studies and writer
Richard Carrier – American credentialed historian and writer
The final viewpoint of G. A. Wells is that of the "biblicist", not the "historicist".
As is
R. Joseph Hoffmann – American theologian and writer |
I no longer believe it is possible to answer the 'historicity question'. … Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer. [Hoffmann, R. Joseph (2009). "Threnody: Rethinking the Thinking behind The Jesus Project". Archived from the original on 9 October 2009. The Bible and Interpretation
-- 2db ( talk) 04:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC) && 21:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we please change the title to "Jesus myth theory"? I feel like the title of the article as it currently stands is conflating - accidentally, I am sure - any belief that Jesus was not really the Savior with fringe beliefs about who he was or was not. 2601:5C7:8300:EF70:A94F:7BB9:C3E1:4C70 ( talk) 02:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert M. Price has argued that he would prefer the position to be called ‘New Testament Minimalism’, stressing, as he sees it, the continuity with an approach found in the Hebrew Bible scholarship of Thomas L. Thompson, Philip R. Davies and others. See Price, R. M., ‘Introduction: Surprised by Myth’, Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth (ed. Zindler, F. R. and Price, R. M.; Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2013) xvii–xxxv.
What has been branded “minimalism” by its critics is actually a methodology, an approach to the evidence: primary, secondary, archaeological, biblical. Minimalism is in fact the conclusion derived from following that methodology. In short, this methodology is the study of a region or era by applying normative methods to the primary archaeological evidence and only then interpreting biblical literature in the light of that primary evidence. The alternative “maximalism”, in short, reverses this process and starts with the assumption of the historicity of the biblical narrative (post demythologization), and then interprets the archaeological evidence through that narrative.
The “minimalism”/“maximalism” viewpoints is an example of a complete reversal of the consensus over a twenty-year-plus time period. Many of the attacks made against “minimalism” then are similarly made now against "mythicism".
Per Thompson,
The proper question [of the historicity of Jesus] is rather a largely literary question than an historical one. Until we have texts, which bear evidence of his historicity, we can not do much more with that issue. We can and must, however, ask what the texts mean—as well as ask what they mean if they are not historical (a minimalist question).
The original meaning of "Christ mythicist", was someone who like David Strauss asserted that the historicity of second-god was false. But in the modern era, it has now evolved to mean someone who believes in the literal truth of the myth of second-god as set out in the epistles and gospels of the New Testament. A similar example would be "unicorn mythicist", being someone that asserts that the existence of unicorns is true.
The historicity of second-god was held to be true under pain of death for much of the earlier history of the Christian world and during much of the latter it would likely affect ones career prospects to assert that it was not true.
That the historicity of second-god is false; is now the majority opinion of most secular scholars, yet there is a quixotic passion among some to continue using the term "Christ myth theory".
Arguably the Jesus ahistoricity theory should be the antithesis of the Jesus historicity theory. But no historicity defense (peer reviewed; published in a respected academic press; etc.) enumerating the historicity theory and defense is currently available.
In current mainstream secular and non-secular (i.e. devotees of Jesus) scholarship on the question of the historicity of Jesus:
But
-- 2db ( talk) 16:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
this article is about Christ myth theory, however it begins by refuting the theory before it even tries to explain what the theory is. which is biased and poisoning the well fallacy. when people come to this article they wanna what the theory is, they don't wanna read through paragraphs after paragraphs of why its refuted before they even know what it is. in short this article does a terrible job of explaining what its about and is not neutral.
my suggestion is that the content of this article should be reordered as such
Synopsis:
short explanation of the theory(it can include the fact that its a fringe theory)-> longer explanation of the theory -> criticism and scholarly Conesus.
Rest of the articles:
it should begin with a short history of the theory but it opens with refutations and opposing views . (which is again poisoning the well) Shahabb1 ( talk) 06:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
The first sentence of the lead should not quote one person, authoritative or notI disagree, and there is no policy that supports this argument, in any event. Happy ( Slap me) 21:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Whittaker in 1904 proposed that the religion arose around AD70 as an unintended consequence of the Roman Jewish War. Why is this thesis not discussed in this article? 1.127.106.8 ( talk) 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article only about attempts to depict Jesus of the Christian Bible as impossible to identify with an actual person? It is perfectly legitimate and must be common simply to be unimpressed and uncompelled by any of the testimony that has been offered to suggest that Jesus was a real person. The whole framing of this question of Jesus’s historicity here on Wikipedia seems to deny this and to discourage people who would hold and like to feel at liberty to share such a view. - OB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.39.231 ( talk) 05:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems like it would go hand in hand with this topic of religious ahistoricity as well. 67.8.169.171 ( talk) 22:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The Brill 2019 book "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" is only indirectly mentioned in the text, and in particular it is missing in the paragraph on Raphael Lataster, as well as in Printed sources. It would be nice if somebody can improve this situation. (I apologize for not trying to struggle with this myself.) 185.250.14.249 ( talk) 12:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@ UpdateNerd: your recent edit diff, edit-summary "ce: summarize before attributed quotation," changed
the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". [1] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty,
into
the view that there was no historical Jesus, and that, in the words of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology". [1] Alternatively, in the view of Earl Doherty—summarized by Bart Ehrman
References
The summary is questionable: "Jesus did not exist!" is a simplification, tthe battle-cry of the hardcore atheists, whereas the real topic is the conclusion from New Testamentical scholarship that the stories about Jesus are myths. "Myths" not as in nonsense and fantasies, but as in sacred stories which 'lived' by people, creating or invoking a sacred reality.
As for Ehrman, this is Ehrman's paraphrasing of Doherty, not exactly Doherty's words; and Ehrman is used because this is the 'definition' from a bona fide scholar, not from a CMT-theorists. Quotes are used when the topic is contentious, and summaries can be interpretations. So, rather the summary of a scholar than the interpretation of an editor.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
So we agree that it is inappropriate to mention paraphrasing Doherty in connection with Ehrman's generalized summary. Good.
Re the proposed rewording of paragraph 2, this proposed wording is not at all contradictory. It is the same wording as before, just clarified slightly to make clear that "virtually all scholars of antiquity" accept the historicity of a human Jesus but not the historicity of the supernatural divinity of the gospels. If you have reliable sources stating that "virtually all scholars accept the historicity of the supernatural divinity of the gospels", then please present them.
Ramos overlooks the fact that Ehrman stated that any historian who personally believes in miracles does so "not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer." It is obviously correct that Ehrman is "not able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done." However it is obviously also correct that Ehrman is not able to affirm or deny the existence of the tooth fairy. If magic is real, then all magic stories are equally believable. We should not word the article such as to create the perception that the inability to conclusively prove the existence or otherwise of miracles (or of the tooth fairy) means that mainstream scholarship is evenly split on either subject – a fringe view is a fringe view.
Ramos overlooks the fact that Ehrman also stated, on the same page, that: "the chances of a miracle happening are, by definition, infinitesimally remote". We should not use wording that suggests that Ehrman believes the stories of Jesus' miracles.
I agree with Ehrman that we do not have enough reliable information to confidently state what Jesus actually said or did or experienced – although Ehrman holds the firm view that the sources which establish Jesus as a Jewish teacher are "more than ample". Ehrman clearly states that there are large scholarly disagreements over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher Jesus was – but Ehrman nowhere states that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was a divinity with superpowers.
There are many differing portraits of the historical Jesus, but only a small percentage of scholars support the theory that Jesus really was a divinity with superpowers. We should not word the article such as to create the perception that this is a mainstream theory among actual scholars. Wdford ( talk) 22:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
So we agree that it is inappropriate to mention paraphrasing Doherty in connection with Ehrman's generalized summary. Good., that's a peculiar reading of
Since Doherty is only one of the mythicists, there are others, Ehrmans seems to generally summarize the views there [...] The current wording was the consensus we reached here.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I have explained at length exactly how my thinking works, but still you pretend to "not understand". So let me explain again.
My specific concern is that the lede currently contains the wording: "the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea". I fully agree with this position, provided the Jesus in question is understood to be a normal non-supernatural human. However this careful wording allows the reader to assume that the Jesus in question was indeed the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels, and that "the mainstream scholarly consensus" is thus affirming the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels. This is seriously misleading.
It is correct that there is no single "portrait" of Jesus that is agreed upon by a majority of scholars, however the vast majority of different portraits agree that the historical Jesus was a normal human being, rather than a supernatural miracle worker. All I want is for the lede to be slightly reworded to make this clear, and to clarify the ambiguity that has been protected so fiercely for so long. There are some scholars who do believe that the historical Jesus was a supernatural miracle worker, but that is a minority portrait.
Your accusations about WP:SYN are inappropriate – that is exactly why I cited all the sources, which you are now attempting to sidestep. The quotes I brought up above were actually sources cited by you to support your POV, and I was simply pointing out that none of these sources actually support the position that the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels is the mainstream scholarly consensus.
This critical point continues to be suppressed – that many "mythicists" happily accept some form of historical human Jesus, but reject the supernatural stories of the gospels. Even mainstream scholars like Ehrman clearly state that: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time". These many scholars contradict your position that the supernatural miracle-worker was an historical figure. The lede should be less ambiguous, and should state clearly that the mainstream scholarly position is that the historical Jesus existed as a normal human being, and was NOT the supernatural figure of the gospels – even if a minority do still cling to that position. This would require only small modifications.
PS: You are wrong to say that "the main relevant point for this article" is that "scholars are unified against non-existence theories." The main point of this article is to accurately describe the Christ Myth Theory. We certainly MUST mention that most scholars do not support the non-existence theory, but this is NOT "the main relevant point for this article". You reveal your POV yet again. Wdford ( talk) 09:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
[T]he majority of biblical historians in academia are employed by religiously affiliated institutions. This fact alone explains much of the resistance to Jesus Myth theory even among scholars who personally identify as secular. Furthermore, of those schools, we can quantify that at least 41% (if not 100%) require their instructors and staff to publicly reject Jesus Myth or they will not have a career at that institute of higher learning. So the question shouldn’t be: “How many historians reject mythicism?” but “How many historians are contractually obliged to publicly reject mythicism?”
Fitzgerald 2017, p. 62, §. Myths of Mythicism §. Bias Cut". ISBN 978-1-5428-5888-5
Cf. "New Testament Scholarship Has a MAJOR Issue". YouTube. @time 00:00:23 WWW: https: //youtu.be/X5y-RavZ8VA?t=23
I wonder why the "mainstream scholarly consensus" isn't questioned or deconstructed anywhere here or in any of the articles concerning historicity of Jesus. Trying to answer the question "what is indicated as mainstream?" in the above statement I found only theologians and Bible scholars. Actually none of the articles concerning the historicity of Jesus lists or merely defines the extent of this "mainstream consensus", which AFAICT excludes historians without theological, religious studies or biblical studies associations. 178.182.201.166 ( talk) 14:32, 25 May 2023 (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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
Let me guess: the main subject of an article on recent "scholarship" would be Richard Carrier?
— User:Joshua Jonathan
Well no.
Stephen Law holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed. Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."
Law's position is challenged by Robert G. Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti who in collaboration, present four items of evidence. They also invoke a Bayesian 0.99 prior probability for mundane claims about a historical Jesus. Lataster notes the "incredible assumption" made by Cavin and Colombetti, such that "their 'bracketing' of the material in the sources makes the incredible assumption that the obviously mythical material should not at all make us sceptical about the rest" and further "Cavin and Colombia would be happy to proclaim the 0.00001% of a story's mundane claims as being almost certainly true, even if 99.99999% of the story consisted of supernatural fiction."
Rejecting Cavin & Colombetti's "resort to illogical Christian apologetics", Carrier writes, "Stripped down to its purest generalization, Law’s principle essentially argues that when instead we have evidence for a source’s unreliability, the probability of any mundane detail in the story being true doesn’t increase. It stays at 50/50 . . . . Until we get good independent evidence for it. Cavin & Colombetti present no logically valid or factually sound objection to this conclusion." Lataster writes:
All too often I see philosophers comment on biblical claims with an inadequate knowledge of the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and religion in general. This can lead to scenarios . . . where too much credence — more than some Christian scholars of the Bible in some cases — is given to the sources. And all too often, I see biblical scholars make logical claims without the vitally important critical framework of the analytic philosopher. I believe that both are needed to answer questions of this sort. We need the knowledge and nuance of the specialist scholar of religion and the logical acuity of the analytic philosopher.
Scholars such as Hector Avalos and John Gager make the same sorts of criticism of the methods of their peers, as those leveled by Lataster against said peers—being scholars who really do seem to be operating within a bubble of logical and methodological flaws. Lataster further cites examples of these scholars appealing to “hermeneutics of charity” in which they insist that scholars should assume “traditions” found in the gospels should be accepted as authentic until someone points out clear reasons not to.
Another problem is the supernatural in the gospel narratives. It is not sufficient to remove the supernatural and then suspect the mundane remnant of having some probable historicity. Very often it is the supernatural that is the very point of the story; remove the supernatural and one has removed anything of interest. The supernatural is not the embellishment; it is the core of and the reason for the story.
The most problematic issue of historical Jesus scholarship is the extent to which Christian scholars—and many atheists—tend to assume that the gospels contain some historical core material or are derived from reports of historical events. Lataster writes, "Using the Gospels to argue for Jesus’ existence may be circular reasoning. Arguing from external sources would generally result in a much more convincing case."
A common objection is that “ahistoricists” or “mythicists” do not have an alternative explanation for Christian origins. However given Paul’s testimony that he hallucinated a Jesus constructed from the Jewish Scriptures, it only need be shown that the historicist doesn’t have real evidence that would make his purely human Jesus existing more probable than not." Lataster writes:
This is similar to the agnosticism over God’s existence. Those agnostics do not need to have evidence that God does not exist. They just need to be unconvinced by the lack of good evidence for God’s existence. In other words, my case for Historical Jesus agnosticism does not need to rely on good alternative hypotheses, though it certainly can be strengthened by them.
-- 2db ( talk) 06:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This article should be split into two articles a) history of and b) modern arguments. The logical date to split is c. 1995:
-- 2db ( talk) 21:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me guess: the main subject of an article on recent "scholarship" would be Richard Carrier? Who, as a 'peer-reviewed author', doesn't want to be associated with people who aren't in the scholarly fold; or compared with people who have retracted their fringe views, showing that even mythicists who follow logical arguments fall in line with mainstream scholarship?
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
04:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Carrier was a good boy atheist historicist back then and only became a dirty mythicist due to the 2008 financial collapse. LOL -- 2db ( talk) 05:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)The logical date to split is c. 1995...
— User:2db
"Christ myth" means that there has not yet been a "Christ" (or messiah), or that Jesus the man was not the "Christ", and this position is widely accepted by scholarship.
— User:Wdford
The "Christ myth theory" is not a fringe viewpoint. Virtually every biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the living Christ holds that the "Jesus the Christ" figure is a myth. WP should therefore have two articles "Christ myth theory" and "Jesus mythicism".
1835: David Strauss
It appeared to the author of the work … that it was time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of Jesus, in the place of the antiquated systems of supernaturalism and naturalism.… the recent attempts to recover, by the aid of a mystical philosophy, the supernatural! point of view held by our forefathers, betray themselves, by the exaggerating spirit in which they are conceived, to be final, desperate efforts to render the past present, the inconceivable conceivable. The new point of view, which must take the place of the above, is the mythical. [Strauss 1983, p. 21.]
"New Foe Of Religion Arises". Chicago Tribune. February 6, 1910.
[ Arthur Drews] laid down his theories after the classic manner of old time university disputations. The gist of his position in large measure was like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held there was verity in the historic Christ, but that the vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.
1842: Bruno Bauer
[W]hether Jesus is the historical Christ, we have answered by showing that everything that the historical Christ is, what is said of him, what we of him is know, belongs to the world of the imagination and indeed to the Christian imagination, thus also with a person who belongs to the real world has nothing to do with. [Bauer 1842, p. 3:308. "Die Frage, mit der sich unsere Zeit so viel beschäftigt hat ob nämlich Dieser, ob Jesus der historische Christus sey, haben wir damit beantwortet dass wir zeigten, dass Alles, was der historische Christus ist, was von ihm gesagt wird, was wir von ihm wissen, der Welt der Vorstellung und zwar der christlichen Vorstellung angehört, also auch mit einem Menschen, der der wirklichen Welt angehört Nichts zu thun hat. Die Frage ist damit beantwortet, dass sie für alle Zukunft gestrichen ist.]
1904: Albert Kalthoff
A Son of God, Lord of the World, born of a virgin, and rising again after death, and the son of a small builder with revolutionary notions, are two totally different beings. If one was the historical Jesus, the other certainly was not. [Kalthoff 1907, p. 28.]
1906: Albert Schweitzer
That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus came to birth … Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus. [Schweitzer 1910, pp. 3–4.]
1909: John Remsburg
[T]he Christ is understood [as] the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth. [Remsburg 1909, p. 9.]
1997: Robert M. Price
[I]n the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. [Price, Robert M. (1997). "Christ a Fiction". Internet Infidels.]
2021: John W. Loftus
The Jesus [Christ] pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed. If there was a real human being who was the basis for the Jesus character in the New Testament, he is dead now. [Loftus, John (26 July 2021). "My Talk at the GCRR e-Conference on the Historical Jesus". Debunking Christianity.]
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) 3 vols.; 4th vol. under the title
Die Theologische Erklärung der Evangelien (in German). Berlin: Gustav Hempel. 1852. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) translated by W. Montgomery{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) translated by John Bowden et al.{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)-- 2db ( talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC) && update 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
-- 2db ( talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.
"Christ myth theory" as a popularised though misleading term for the view that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all, though incorrectly (and possibly deliberately) conflating the terms to dismiss the view that Jesus is not also 'divine'.
— User:Jeffro77
Clearly "Christ myth theory" is not always synonymous with Jesus ahistoricity being the most probable explanation for the origins of Christianity. -- 2db ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost immediately an editor has sought to restore the mischaracterisation of Wells' later views as mythicist, despite this being explicitly against Wells' stated position, which has been quoted at this Talk page by both Ramos1990 ( talk · contribs) [1] and 2db ( talk · contribs) [2], and explicitly confirmed by Van Voorst. Ramos1990 and others have unequivocally stated that we must go by what sources say, yet editors are happy to ignore the direct sourced statements that show that Wells was not a mythicist from the mid-1990s onwards. If editors continue to want to misrepresent sources in this way, I'll take the matter to the nPOV Noticeboard. See also WP:IDHT.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In particular, Joshua Jonathan ( talk · contribs) has restored all of the misrepresentation of Wells, and added a further unsourced assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Wells departed "from a strict mythicist view", with a weaselly use of "strict" to continue to misrepresent Wells' later views.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I also saw no basis in the cited sources for describing Wells in his later works as a "minimal historicist", which seems to have been an editorialisation in Wikipedia's voice to dismiss Wells' later views.strikes me; I see no dismissal there, on the contrary. All of Wells views are relevant for this article, his earlier, and his later. And note that Wells, in his later works, argued for two separate traditions, which were fused; this still departs from mainstream scholarship, which has no doubt that Paul elaborated on an historical Jesus, using mythemes which had already been introduced by Jesus' earliest followers. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
details about the historical Jesus were 'fused' with other mythical elements- what's mythical about the historical element? - "fused" suggests two separate strands of thought, or traditions. Previously you stated
the view that the "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is actually a mainstream view.That's definitely not what mainstream scholarship argues. It argues that the perception of Jesus has always been embedded in, and framed by, religious narratived and mythemes. It does not say that the mythological Christ was "another tradition." It seems to me that your thinking is too binary. You want to restrict the article to a treatment of 'strict mythicism'; that's not how it works. The topic is broader than that, and if you think that Wells' later position is misrepresented, you should improve the text - as also suggested by Ramos - instead of removing what you don't like. Reality is fuzzy. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The difference between "fused" and "replaced" is lost on you? And no, it is not best to remove the incorrect sourcing as a priority
. We only remove large amounts of text in cases of blatant vandalism. Try imcremental improvements, instead of continuously repeating your broad-stroke criticism.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
08:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The following statement currently in the article falsely characterises Wells' later view as mythicism: "Wells argues that Paul's Jesus may have existed many decades, if not centuries, before." However, the source actually indicates that Wells thought Paul incorporated details from old traditions (without reference to any specific individual), not that Paul referred to 'a Jesus who lived long ago'. Instead, the source indicates that, in Wells' view, Paul thought the old traditions "without reference to times and places" (and therefore explicitly not 'one specific individual from a specific time long ago') that he incorporated were actually recent ("he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were"). Since it is known that Wells, in his later views, explicitly regarded 'Paul's Jesus' to be made up of mythologies that were "fused" with details about the actual historical Jesus―who Wells explicitly identified as a first-century Galilean preacher―Wells' thoughts about 'Paul's Jesus' should not be characterised as mythicism on the basis of the 2003 Wells source. As such, it should not be in a section about mythicism, though it may be suitable to incorporate in the section about Wells.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wells contends, Paul understood Jesus to have been a supernatural being who lived in utter obscurity some 150 years or earlier.
Thank you Joshua Jonathan. I have moved this important point to the first paragraph, so that the contrast is easier to see, and I added some extra sources. However this wording does explain the position much better than before. Wdford ( talk) 17:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Distractions aside, the article still misrepresents Wells' later works as the views of mythicists, which is explicitly contrary to sources.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In the Price 2011 work quoted by Ramos1990, Price later goes on to describe the "Traditional myth theory" and then gives his reason for viewing an ahistorical Jesus at the origin of Christianity and it is not the same as the "Traditional myth theory" -- 2db ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Since sources "clearly define Christ myth theory as being about the nonexistence of Jesus"
, the Wiki-article opens with Ehrman's statement "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." That includes Wells. Ehrman, Did Jesus exist p.241:
No one has been a more enduring spokesperson for a mythicist view of Christ than G.A. Wells. For over thity-five years Wells has insisted that the Christ of Christian tradition did not exist but was invented.
This is not mathematics or physics, or a Church dogma with exact boundaries; this is a Wiki-article aiming to give insight into a social phenomenon, namely (a stream of) fringe authors who mostly don't even agree among themselves. As such, Wells' later works can't be excluded; his change of view is relevant, yet still deviating from mainstream scholarship, and it still contains arguments against the mainstream scholarly view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you plese stick to the topic? This section is about the later Wells being included as a mythicist; you already started discusing Wells' later views on when Paul's Jesus lived in another sub-thread. I advised you before to suggest incremental changes; instead you're spamming this page with WP:WALLOFTEXT, critisizing the article as a whole, and pushing your personal interpretation of mythicism. See also WP:CANTHEARYOU. Ehrman characterizes all of Wells'writings as mythicism; you disagree. We summarize the sources, not the opinions of editors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Since sources "clearly define Christ myth theory as being about the nonexistence of Jesus". Next, I quoted Ehrman on Wells' work being mythicist. In response, you divert into the discussion of Wells' position on this distant Jesus. Ergo, you're discussing a subtopic in two different threads, and you're not responding to the fact that your understanding of what constitutes 'mythicism' is contradicted by Ehrman. As Ramos noted before, stick to the sources. And as I advice you: gather your discussions in handable threads and subthreads, and limit yourself to clear, distinguishable points. As you may have noticed, your attempts to change this article have had little impact, which may be related to the way you try to convince other ediors of your point of view, anbd to your lack of concrete proposals. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand all of what has been written above. However my issue is that the ordinary reader would come to this "Christ myth" page to read about the myth of the Christ of the gospels. They are not conversant with academic history, or of what the "sources" academically clearly understood this title to mean. They have never heard of Ehrman or Gullotta. They will see on Wikipedia that "mainstream scholars" accept that "Jesus" was historical, and that people who claim he was a myth are "fringe", and they will be left with the impression that the Christ of the gospels was real – miracles and all.
This approach is blatantly misleading. It can easily be corrected, by adding one simple clear sentence to the lead, acknowledging that the "mainstream scholars" on the whole do NOT consider the parts about miracles and resurrections to be historical, and clarifying that the remaining debate is purely about the historical existence of a non-supernatural Jesus. And yet wiki-editors have fought for years to consistently prevent that simple admission of fact from being added.
BTW: Price in 2000 actually stated that "The historical Jesus has gotten lost behind the stained glass curtain of the Christ of dogma". That does not sound like Price is asserting the "nonexistence of Jesus" at all. Ditto Wells etc. Wdford ( talk) 16:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
As I understand, Price still accepts a historical Jesus as possible, but not probable. Which is the same position as Carrier. And also the final position of Philip R. Davies as recounted by Lataster ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9
references to Ehrman (or others) where they refer to Wells as a mythicist but are citing his earlier works also cannot be used to say Wells' later views were mythicist: Ehrman is WP:RS; we rely on what those sources regard to be mythiscism, not on your personal opinions. You're trying to force your own understanding of what constitutes "mythiscism" on this article. If you want to do so, propose this in a proper way, with sources. And then, still, Wells' later views are relevant.
I can only imagine how he will feel about this tangent: your imagination is off-track, given my response to Wdford. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
My view is that Paul knew next to nothing of the earthly life of Jesus, and did not have in mind any definite historical moment for his crucifixion. As we saw, holy Jews had been crucified alive in the first and second centuries B.C., but traditions about these events, and about the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, could well have reached Paul without reference to times and places, and he need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact weredoes not support the claim that Wells believed "Paul's Jesus lived far earlier" at all. Wells here explicitly claims that 'Paul's Jesus' was based on "traditions" about crucifixions, not some long-dead individual, and Wells additionally says Paul "need not have regarded their occurrences as anything like as remote in time as they in fact were", that is, Paul thought the traditions were not as old as they really were. At the time, Wells explicitly believed that Jesus was a first-century Galilean preacher, which very obviously contradicts any claim that he simultaneously 'thought Jesus lived far earlier'. So, Joshua Jonathan, you are either dishonest or incompetent to properly assess sources.
If you think Wells is represented or quoted incorrectly, then correct those statements. If you think the definition of mythicism as applied incorrect, then propose using another definition, based on WP:RS. But beware of WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
mainstream scholars have no consensus … on the extent to which the gospels and the Pauline epistles replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith". As such, you are blatantly dishonest.— Jeffro77 ( talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". [1] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
The basic theory comes in two varieties, the strongest of which suggests that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person but was an invention of early Christian writers to serve as a vehicle for Christian teachings. The more modeerate version of the theory holds that Christ did exist in Galilee during the early Christian period, but that stories of his life may be a composite of several different individuals.
References
To be expanded. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I should have known... Talk:Christ myth theory/definition. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Osiris presents the most apt theological parallel: as Plutarch explains in his treatise on the cult, in public stories Osiris was placed in history as a historical king subsequently deified, but in private exegesis these were explained as allegories for the actual truth of the matter, which was that each year Osiris descends and becomes incarnate and is slain not on earth, but in the lower heavens, and then rises from the dead and reascends to power in the upper heavens, having gained power over death by this cosmic ritual, which he then shares with his earthly devotees. In the earliest redaction we can reconstruct of the Ascension of Isaiah this appears to be exactly what was imagined to happen for Jesus, only once for all, not yearly.
-- 2db ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
[T]he CMT is not precise. There are many shades of grey...
— User:Wdford
The mythicism theory is not precise because the historicity theory is not precise due to the existence of two camps; the secular academy and the non-secular academy. A precise historicity theory would look very similar to Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED]:
[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:
- An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
- This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
- This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).
but perhaps with modifications and caveats e.g.:
Perhaps in a peer reviewed defense of the historicity theory published by a respected academic press this could be found? -- 2db ( talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Rejection of Paul's "Christ of faith" is not 'mythicism"
diff - that's a personal opinion. As noted several times before: You're trying to force your own understanding of what constitutes "mythiscism" on this article. If you want to do so, propose this in a proper way, with sources. And then, still, Wells' later views are relevant.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
12:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus.— Jeffro77 ( talk) 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative.... Historicists assert that the gospels are literary narratives featuring god-Jesus that contain biographical data for the historical personage Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera that can be extracted. For Biblicists, the gospels do not support any data extraction for a historical figure but a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed. -- 2db ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a reference in the article indicating that Wells, or his particular views, were deemed a part of general scholarship even after he changed his view that Jesus existed. It seems Jeffro is pushing his own understanding of how mainstream scholarship looks like and how he understands Christ myth theory to mean and how he understands Wells to be and trying to superglue them together by argument than with references. If a reference makes such a connection, where is it? Is there such an acknowledgemnt of this by a non-mythicist scholar? We can go on forever on making connections but if no reference makes the connection then what is there to talk about further than this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.10.226 ( talk) 23:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
What we have in the gospels is surely a fusion of two originally quite independent streams of tradition [...] the Galilean preacher of the early first century who had met with rejection, and the supernatural personage of the early epistles, [the Jesus of Paul] who sojourned briefly on Earth and then, rejected, returned to heaven—have been condensed into one. The [human] preacher has been given a [mythical] salvific death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the early epistles) but in a historical context consonant with the Galilean preaching. The fusion of the two figures will have been facilitated by the fact that both owe quite a lot of their substance in the documents—to ideas very important in the Jewish Wisdom literature.
I do not doubt the existence of a real Jesus, but I adopt the view that the representation of this figure in the gospels is not historical but mythological. This has caused some to draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of theology. We know little about the former, but I concur with Jung that "this Christ of St. Paul's would hardly have been possible without the historical Jesus.
My reading of Jesus is not to be confused with the tradition known as the "Christ Myth Theory."
Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him.
...there is a vast difference between rejecting the historical nature of the gospels and denying Jesus' existence. One can say that the gospel stories of Jesus are "mythic" while at the same time believing that Jesus existed as a first-century Jew. One simply must acknowledge that the Jesus whom early Christians remembered and described in the gospels was already a figure creatively imagined by Christians as someone more than human - and in that sense mythicized.
But mythicists say more. Not only was Jesus constructed in particular ways by early Christians, he actually did not exist or - by exerting no influence - functionally did not exist.
In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.
There is WP:NOCONSENSUS to remove Wells the way Jeffro has been constantly proposing for so many threads. Please refrain from further disruptions since this edit war has been going on for a while now. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK after so many attempts. I myself removed some of the Well's references in the "mythicist views" sections because some of the points seemed redundant to try to meet Jeffro's concerns as much as possible. But I agree with Joshua Johnathan's general position, per the sources he has provided in this section and in the section below too, showing that there is a spectrum of views that mythicism may extend slightly into the view that Jesus did exist as an obscure preacher man but that Jesus exerted no influence (e.g. Ehrman, Litwa, Bromiley, Hidden Religion). Some of these even review Wells in their surveys of mythicists and others do too like Casey and Van Voorst and even Robert Price. So he is strongly attached to that tradition by these scholars.
Van Voorst 2003, which is a ABC-CLIO encyclopedia entry as well, [15] designates "..Wells and his predecessors.." or "..."Wells and others" in his numerous points on mythicist positions whilst also noting that Well's changed his mind on point #8. The fact that Van Voorst mentions him simultaneously this way means that Van Voorst strongly associates Wells within the spectrum of mythicism even if he is not longer a "traditional" mythicist.
He is not the only one. Per Bilde "The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and a Comparative Attempt" (2013), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht p.60
However I begin with a few general observations concerning contemporary Jesus research as a whole. Looking first at the question of the historical existence of Jesus, the third period of international Jesus research does not differ from the first and the second period. Also today most active Jesus scholars are convinced that Jesus was a real historical being, who existed as a Palestinian-Jewish person in the beginning of the first century CE. With this conviction these scholars oppose a considerable number of scholars from Arthur Drews ((1911) 1924) over Danish Georg Brandes (1925) to G.A. Wells (1971, (1975) 1986, 1982, 1989, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2009), Alvar EllegArd (1992), Francesco Carotta (1999) 2005, Earl Doherty (1999) 2000), Freke - Gandy (1999) 2007, Robert M. Price (2000, 2003, 2007, 2010), and Hector Avalos (2007), who all argue that Jesus has never existed, but is a purely mythological "invention."
Wells is footnoted there and the foot note says
In his most recent works, 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2009, however, G.A. Wells has abandoned his original belief that Jesus never existed. Wells now joins the mainstream of international Jesus research in accepting the historical existence of Jesus and today Wells only differs from that mainstream in assuming that the canonical gospels are the result of a "fusion" between some historical traditions in Q about a Galilean preacher by the name of Jesus, and the testimony of the Pauline letters about a mythological, supra-natural Christ figure (cf. 2009,14 -15).
Lets take a break. Ramos1990 ( talk) 05:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead now kind of gives equal weight to those views:
There are multiple strands of mythicism. One view is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character who was later historicized in the gospels.[q 1][18][19][20] Another view is that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing."[21][22][23] Yet another view is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature,[24][need quotation to verify] or on a Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels.[q 3]
The Christ myth theory#Christ myth theorists says
The most radical mythicists hold [...] Some other authors argue for the Jesus agnosticism viewpoint [...] Some moderate authors
We could adapt the lead to show this differences more starkly, something like
Various views regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists. The most common view is that there never was a historical Jesus, only a mythological character who was later historicized in the gospels.[q 1][18][19][20] Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing."[21][22][23] Yet another view, which comes close to the mainstream view in accepting an historical element, is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature,[24][need quotation to verify] or on a Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels.[q 3]
But, if I remember correctly, Wdford objected against such specifications. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
PS: this was my original description (minus a typo):
Three stances regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists. According to Wells, among others, there may have been an historical Jesus, who may have lived in a dimly remembered past, and was fused with the mythological Christ of Paul. According to Earl Doherty and Richard carrier, among others, there never was an historical Jesus, only a mythological character, who was historicised in the Gospels. According to Robert Price, among others, we cannot conclude if there was a historical Jesus. And if there was a historical Jesus, close to nothing can be known about him.
Note the nuance: not There are multiple strands of mythicism
, but Three stances regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists.
That's actually still a better formulation, I think; I've adapted my 'tentative proposal' accordingly. It does not 'reify' "mythicism" into a hard-boundary entity, but describes what's actually there: people theorizing about the historicity of Jesus.
And I'd put Wells front, because he's arguably the most important mythicist. But the sentence used there does not adequately reflect his positions, I think now. Regards,
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
07:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The most common mythicist view regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Another view is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature. Closer to the mainstream view, the idea that details about an obscure Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source were added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels has also been associated with mythicism.
[Various views regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists.] The most common mythicist view regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." [Additionally/Notably/Closer to the mainstream view,] Wells in his later works argued that the gospels add details about an obscure Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether such a [mythical Jesus] had in fact existed."
Various stances regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity, can be found among mythicists. According to Earl Doherty and Richard carrier, among others, there never was an historical Jesus, only a mythological character, who was historicised in the Gospels. According to Robert Price, among others, any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Additionally, Wells in his later works held a view that was closer to the mainstream view, but still associated with mythicism, in that an obscure Galilean preacher did actually exist per the Q-source, and was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels to create the composite of Jesus Christ.
Different mythicists hold varying views regarding the history of Jesus, and the origins of Christianity. One view is that no historical Jesus ever existed, and that a purely mythological character was historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual, generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher. A third view holds that the stories have been so obscured by myths and dogma that we could no longer be sure if there had ever been a real person at the root of the stories.
Alternatively, some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual, generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher.is unprecise:
some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual- that's only Allegard; and Allegard is not the same as Wells, and less relevant.
generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher.- the Galilean preacher is Wells' view, but the "generally believed" seems to turn mainstream scholarship into mythicism. I prefer Ramos1990's wording.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan ( talk • contribs)
Originally known as the ‘Christ Myth theory,’ this school of thought has more recently adopted the moniker ‘Jesus Myth theory’ or ‘mythicism’".
— Daniel Gullotta, "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt", p. 311. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 2017.
That's quite a lot already :) @3, something like:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a new wave of alternate views on the origins of Christianity. The most common mythicist view ...
"a new wave of alternate views" is amendable, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Alternatively, some authors hold that the gospels added mythical and literary details onto the life of an obscure historical individual...- who's view is this? Allegard, as far as I can see. And what's the difference with the mainstream view, except for the phrase "obscure"?
...generally believed by mainstream sources to have been a Galilean preacher- this is 'too much'. Which mainstream sources "generally" "believe" that this "obscure historical individual" was "a Galilean preacher"? It's Wells who argues that the sayings and some stories about an 'obscure Galilean preacher' were added to Paul's mythical Jesus. But from this sentence as a whole, I can't figure out in a clear who stated what, nor do I understand what the mainstream sources have got to do with it, if they are even correctly represented here.
Can we also add that "the most common view" of the mainstream consensus is that the gospel Christ is indeed fiction, probably built up around a human Galilean preacher who was crucified for sedition?. This is already covered in the lead:
In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified.[6][7][8][9] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
Given the previous comments, a new proposal:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a new wave of alternate views on the origins of Christianity. The [most common/core] mythicist view [regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity] is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Closer to the mainstream view, Wells later accepted the historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
This is how it would read in the lead. reading it, I suggest to stick to "most common," and drop the line "regarding the history of Jesus and the origins of Christianity." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s. One mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." A different view holds that the historical Jesus was a Galilean preacher, some of whose details were added to a mythical Jesus by Paul.
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s. One mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." A different view, which is close to the mainstream view, holds that the historical Jesus was a Galilean preacher, some of whose details were added to a mythical Jesus by Paul.
We're getting closer. But this version gives 'equal weight' to various views, which is not the case: the first giew is the core, while the second is a nuanced variation. The third view is specifically Wells' later view, who in a sense left the first view. That fact is obfuscated. Instead of "most common/core," we could also write "in general" or "broadly" or something like that:
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when George Albert Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a [new wave of publications on/renewed interest in] the Christ myth theory. Mythicists broadly argue, with a number of variations and nuances, that Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Alternatively, some authors have argued that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Closer to the mainstream view, Wells later accepted [the/an] historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when G.A. Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a range of alternate views on who Jesus was. The most common mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. In a similar vein, some authors have argued for agnosticism on the matter in that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Alternatively, closer to the mainstream view on historicity, G.A Wells later accepted the historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s, when G.A. Wells argued for the non-historicity of Jesus, inspiring a range of alternate views on who Jesus was. Mythicists broadly argue, with a number of variations and nuances, that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. In a similar vein, some authors have argued for agnosticism on the matter in that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." Alternatively, closer to the mainstream view on historicity, G.A Wells later accepted the historical Jesus as the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source and suggested that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus, leaving open the question "as to whether [Paul's Jesus] had in fact existed."
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born," and was revived in the 1970s. Mythicists broadly argue, with a number of variations and nuances, that a historical Jesus never existed as described in the gospel stories, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." A view closer to the mainstream view on historicity is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus.
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and was revived in the 1970s. The most common mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing". A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus.
Also okay. Agree that as described in the gospel stories
is confusing. Also agree with "most common," though "broadly argue" may be more accommodating for Wdford.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
11:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and was revived in the 1970s. Proponents broadly argue that a historical Jesus never existed as portrayed in the gospels. Some authors argue that a purely mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing". A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that some details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus.
Some quotes, from
User:Joshua Jonathan/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus
|
---|
References
|
I would never have guessed that this was the concern. I'm not sure that very many readers would understand this either. How about we resolve the entire problem simply and honestly, like this:
How about that? Honest, accurate, clear, simple, unambiguous and informative. Wdford ( talk) 22:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Line | Present lead | Proposal | Comment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | There are multiple strands of mythicism. | Mythicism "goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born", and was revived in the 1970s. | Agreed by all |
2 | One view is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character who was later historicized in the gospels. | The most common mythicist view is that a historical Jesus never existed, and that a mythological character was later historicized in the gospels. | Almost similar, except for "most common." Wdford objects against "most common," preferring "Proponents broadly argue," and wants to ament "never existed" with "as described in the gospels." |
3 | Another view is that any evidence for the historical Jesus is so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." | Some authors have argued that the sources on Jesus are so obscured by myths and dogma that "we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing". | Almost similar; agreed. |
4 | Yet another view is that stories about Jesus may be based on someone who lived prior to the 1st century AD, whose life story was embellished with elements from myth and literature,[24][need quotation to verify] or on a Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, who was added to Paul's mythical Jesus in the gospels.[q 3] | A view closer to the mainstream position is that the historical Jesus was the Galilean preacher preserved in the Q-source, and that details about him were added to Paul's mythical Jesus. | Corrected; agreed by all |
I suggest that we use "Proponents broadly argue," to reach a compromise. Since "as described in the gospels" (for the mythicist view) is not used in the present lead, and there are strong objections to add that phrase, I think we shouldn't add that.. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, then I thrust we've got an agreement. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I've editd the lead accirdingly diff, and added the text to Talk:Christ myth theory/definition#Present definition in Wiki-article, with a link to the discussion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Like some people here, I've been following this article for years. I haven't contributed anything to it in a very long time, and I don't plan to any time soon (life issues). However, I'm very curious about how far along the article is before it can be submitted for "good article" status. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 15:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
There are quite a few significant POV issues in the article body. Various statements characterised as 'mythicist' are actually wholly or largely consistent with the mainstream consensus. A significant portion of the article conflates hard-line mythicist views with other supposedly 'moderate' views, using Wikipedia's voice to distort the line between scholarly and mythicist views.
In the subsections below red text indicates statements in the article about mythicists and green text indicates the mainstream view or statements responding to mythicists.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Whereas the scholarly consensus is that little is known about the life of the historical Jesus except that Jesus was baptized, and that he was crucified, the article instead sets an inconsistent standard for 'mythicist' views:
The article states clearly that mainstream scholars to varying degrees also question the reliability of Paul's writings and/or the gospels, which they say describe the Christ of faith, presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine and that the historical Jesus was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today; they also recognise that in Paul's writings, Jesus is indeed presented as a 'celestial being' (though having been human); and they also recognise that the gospels were produced later with little agreement about their veracity. all material on Jesus has been handed down by the emerging Church. it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus". The Pauline creeds contain elements of a Christ myth and its cultus.
The article also claims that In his later writings, G.A Wells changed his mind and came to view Jesus as a minimally historical figure though Wells' view was consistently that Jesus likely existed but that most of what is in the Bible about him is not reliable. (I have struck out a previous statement about Wells from when I had not yet properly considered the various sources beyond the misrepresentations present in the article. Wells did indeed explicitly change his view, and that fact is distorted in the article by the continued misuse of his later works. However, the phrase "minimally historical" is misused, apparently to discredit Wells' later works regarding 'Christ' as a myth rather than 'Jesus' as a myth.)--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This issue is still not resolved, with continued misuse of Wells' views from 1996 onwards presented as 'mythicist' views.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
09:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The article has been substantially improved regarding this issue, with less reliance of Wells' later works characterised as mythicist views, and with a clearer indication of the lack of mainstream consensus indicated in the lead. (Two questionable references to Wells' later works, one with a quotation request, remain in the article.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
But those statements are consistent with the fact that modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus"-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This issue is still not resolved, and relies entirely on unsuitable use of Wells' later works when he was no longer a mythicist. The phrase "minimal mythicist" is also inappropriate here for the same reason.--— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jeffro77 (
talk •
contribs)
This issue has been resolved.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
04:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The possibility that early Christianity was significantly influenced by non-Jewish beliefs is characterised as 'mythicist' though it is not actually relevant to whether there was a historical Jesus. (It is actually entirely unsurprising that early Christianity would be influenced by Greek and Roman ideas, just as earlier Jewish belief was influenced by Babylonian, Persian and Greek concepts.)
Yet, scholars have also argued that Paul was a "mythmaker", who gave his own divergent interpretation of the meaning of Jesus, building a bridge between the Jewish and Hellenistic world, thereby creating the faith that became Christianity. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century CE, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy. According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism. According to Philip Davies, the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed "composed of stock motifs (and mythic types) drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world".-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The presentation of this issue is not entirely neutral in the article, though it does not misrepresent Wells and the contrasts given are probably acceptable.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Various statements in the article present misleading black-and-white thinking wherein suggesting that the gospels were influenced by anything other than narratives of the historical Jesus are necessarily at odds with mainstream scholarship:
However, it is entirely compatible with the existence of a historical Jesus for both Paul's writings and the gospels to also draw on other sources or themes. Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography, a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works. Ehrman notes that the gospels are based on oral sources, which played a decisive role in attracting new converts. Christian theologians have cited the mythic hero archetype as a defense of Christian teaching while completely affirming a historical Jesus. the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects. Most of the themes, epithets, and expectations formulated in the New Testamentical literature have Jewish origins and are elaborations of these themes. The article, attempting to assert that the characterisation of Jesus was not based on 'gentile' influences, acknowledges that elements are instead derived from earlier Jewish literature: According to James Waddell, Paul's conception of Jesus as a heavenly figure was influenced by the Book of Enoch and its conception of the Messiah.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This issue is not yet resolved, though it could be acceptable apart from the misuse of Wells' later works regarding other sources that influenced the development of Jesus as presented in the Bible.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
09:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This issue has been sufficiently resolved.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 04:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Supposedly 'mythicist' dating of Paul's writings is characterised using weasel words:
Rather than this being something that mythicists "argue", The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to AD 50–60 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains one of the earliest Christian creeds expressing belief in the risen Jesus (53-54 CE), namely 1 Corinthians 15:3–41
'Mythicist' characterisation of the Testimonium Flavianum is also treated with weasel words though it is viewed similarly in mainstream scholarship:
Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, … The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage in book 18, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.
It is not merely the view of 'mythicists' that various elements of the gospels 'seem to' "reinforce Old Testament prophecies", it is inherently required for the genre of 'Messianic prophecy'.
There are also some instances of terms such as 'claim' where a more neutral word should be used.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved, tentatively.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The article employs a double-standard regarding the 'argument from silence':
But the article says it is notable that "the mystery cults are never mentioned by Paul or by any other Christian author of the first hundred years of the Church," despite the fact that it would be contrary to their purpose to mention them even if they did draw on them. Also Van Voorst employs argument from silence, Wells cannot explain why "no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it".-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
There probably isn't much that can be done about this, unless there are sources that rebut Ehrman's and Van Voorst's own arguments from silence.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The phrase 'dimly remembered past' in the lead should be replaced with something more specific, such as 'before the first century'.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved, at least currently.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 09:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
At a quick glance: the article gives an overview of the mythicists pov('s) and arguments; even if there are arguments that are also being used by mainstream scholarship, it still is an overview of the arguments of mythicists. Mainstream scholarship arrives at other conclusions than the mythicists. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Mythicists do not live in a vaccum. They borrow from some scholars whom they favor for their thesis that Jesus did not exist or is mythological. However it is important to note that the scholars they use or select do not use the same point to arrive at a mythicist conclusion. Mythicits will agree with mainstream scholars on basic information that is found in the texts, for instance that there is little biographical information on Jesus in Paul's writings. That is universally understood by all scholars. However, mythicists take that information and ignore the nuances of mainstream scholars which argue that none of that implies that Jesus was only conceived as a celestial being.
Mythicists do not come up with completely new scholarship. They merely distort mcuh of the schaolrship that is out there and come up with odd conclusions because of their misinterpretation and distortion. The fact that critical scholars like Bart Ehrman wrote a whole book detailing the differences between his liberal interpretation of the evidences and how mythicists misinterpret the evidence should show how mythicists deviate from mainstream scholarship.
Why not read what Ehrman observed as the basis for what the differences are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.10.226 ( talk) 16:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It is a misrepresentation of what I have said to suggest, essentially, 'well it's what the sources say so we have no choice'. The problem is one of presentation. The article presents more of a contrast between mythicist and mainstream views than is actually the case. It then says that 'mythicist views are wrong' (though I have cleaned up some of the most egregious wording), 'poisoning the well' about everything 'mythicists' say even where elements are actually a mainstream view.
Where there is overlap between mythicist and mainstream views, a more balanced presentation would present a single passage about what is agreed (rather than providing two separate pieces with the mythicist view characterised more negatively but really expressing the same views), and then state their varying conclusions. For example, the view that the "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is actually a mainstream view.
Where there is no actual disagreement in a particular element, it should either be removed altogether or at the very least greatly condensed. For example, the supposedly 'mythicist view' that "the Testimonium Flavianum may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others" is in fact a mainstream scholarly view.
Other POV issues include the implicit characterisation of certain conclusions as uniquely or inherently 'mythicist', though they are not actually pertinent to whether a source also believes in a historical Jesus, For example, "Some mythicists, though, have questioned the early dating of the epistles". (Additionally, the use of "some" for two completely incompatible views of 'mythicists' in that paragraph is far too ambiguous, especially if there is actually one predominantly favoured view.)
The views of Wells' later works and of Thompson also should not be expressed as mythicist, except in very direct quoted statements by specified authors, and if a rebuttal exists from the 'accused' author, that should also be included (as is currently provided for Ehrman's views of Thompson and the latter's response).-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Ramos1990 ( talk) 09:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: any concrete proposal? Your critique is too broad, and I have to agree with Ramos1990. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
When I have more time I will remove the more obvious examples of misuse of Wells' works from 1996 onwards. If editors believe those references to Wells' later works should not be removed, i.e. they believe that those works are still 'mythicist' despite the fact that Wells explicitly wasn't from at least 1996 onwards (such that up until Wells' death in 2017 this was also a violation of WP:BLP rules), confirmed by Van Voorst, clear justification needs to be provided. Alternatively, editors will need to provide other sources to support those points that are misusing Wells' later works. It is not sufficient to highlight points by Wells that indicate that Christianity had other influences in addition to the historical Jesus, as this is also well recognised in mainstream scholarship.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed references to Wells' later works that were falsely characterised as the views of mythicists. If anyone wishes to restore any of the points removed, you must provide an appropriate source, citing either Wells' works prior to 1996, or a different explicitly mythicist author. It is not sufficient to provide a mainstream source that happens to state a view that is common to mainstream sources and mythicists. I also saw no basis in the cited sources for describing Wells in his later works as a "minimal historicist", which seems to have been an editorialisation in Wikipedia's voice to dismiss Wells' later views. If terms such as "minimal historicist" or "minimally historical" are used, please quote the phrase and provide the specific source, especially if the term is used to describe the views of a specific person.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 05:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone here have an actual background in ancient history? Wdford erroneously uses the word "fiction", writing that "mainstream scholarship actually shares with the mythicists the core conclusion that the Gospel Christ is a work of fiction." No, "mainstream scholarship" does not view the gospels as works of "fiction". Fiction is what Stephen King and Dan Brown write - invented characters, invented plots, written purposefully for entertainment consumption. The gospel narratives fall under a genre of writing that incorporates a mixture of historical events, mythology, theology, politics and philosophy - common in ancient narrative, and not at all fiction. Whoever wrote those gospels actually believed what they were writing.
Of course there is no overlap between mythicist arguments and what mainstream scholars believe. If I had to imagine one point of agreement, probably most secular scholars (that is, scholars not employed by conservative Christian colleges) would agree that miracles, faith healings and resurrections are all well outside the purview of historical analysis. It is probably true that people believed that Jesus had healing powers, but to establish the historical reality of those encounters as described in the gospels is virtually impossible.
But that's not what mythicists are saying. They are claiming that there was no historical Jesus at all, and that he was some sort of celestial space deity who was never believed to have had an earthly presence until centuries later. And when that becomes untenable, they resort to a totally contrived, ad hoc theory of an 'Amalgam Jesus' (that the Jesus in the gospels was a combination of multiple first century preachers and not a single individual) - for which there is no evidence. Sometimes they will agree that Jesus existed, but claim that if we had a time machine we wouldn't be able to pick this person out among all the other Jesus people back then (and thus he may as well have been an amalgam..or something like that). Actually we'd have a pretty good idea of who this person was: He was the one from Nazareth, who preached around the backwaters of Galilee; we even know who ordered his execution. New Age types like Acharya S, on the other hand, say Jesus was the latest iteration of a pagan sun god.
Actually, most of the New Testament describes pretty mundane, unextraordinary happenings rather than miracles, wonderworks and resurrections. About 90% of the gospels say stuff like "Jesus went to this town, then Jesus went here, and Jesus said this, then Jesus said that." The scholarly consensus is that these narratives speak about memories of an actual individual who actually lived and had an actual ministry on planet earth. So let's not insist there's any agreement between this consensus and "Sun God Jesus", "Space Jesus", "Amalgam Jesus", and "Time Machine Jesus" - all things mythicists have claimed, and all things mainstream scholars reject. In fact most professional scholars point and laugh at mythicists, and otherwise don't spend very much time thinking about this. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
References
• Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].
[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:
- An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
- This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
- This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).
• Loftus, John W. (2021). "Preface". In Loftus; Price (eds.). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press. ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9.
All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too! It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.
• Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the historicity of Jesus : why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse. Leiden. pp. 2f.
ISBN
978-9004397934.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
[We should] use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’.
-- 2db ( talk) 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
"minimally historical figure" and "biblicist's historical figure" are synonymous. -- 2db ( talk) 13:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary. [Wells 2009, pp. 14–15.]
• Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.
-- 2db ( talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed |
The gospels do not support a rounded figure but a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed |
The gospels do not support a Jesus figure and a position of agnosticism is held on the historicity of Jesus |
Jesus is probably ahistorical |
Bart Ehrman – American New Testament professor and writer
George Albert Wells – English Professor of German and writer
Raphael Lataster – Australian credentialed teacher of religious studies and writer
Richard Carrier – American credentialed historian and writer
The final viewpoint of G. A. Wells is that of the "biblicist", not the "historicist".
As is
R. Joseph Hoffmann – American theologian and writer |
I no longer believe it is possible to answer the 'historicity question'. … Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer. [Hoffmann, R. Joseph (2009). "Threnody: Rethinking the Thinking behind The Jesus Project". Archived from the original on 9 October 2009. The Bible and Interpretation
-- 2db ( talk) 04:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC) && 21:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Can we please change the title to "Jesus myth theory"? I feel like the title of the article as it currently stands is conflating - accidentally, I am sure - any belief that Jesus was not really the Savior with fringe beliefs about who he was or was not. 2601:5C7:8300:EF70:A94F:7BB9:C3E1:4C70 ( talk) 02:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert M. Price has argued that he would prefer the position to be called ‘New Testament Minimalism’, stressing, as he sees it, the continuity with an approach found in the Hebrew Bible scholarship of Thomas L. Thompson, Philip R. Davies and others. See Price, R. M., ‘Introduction: Surprised by Myth’, Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth (ed. Zindler, F. R. and Price, R. M.; Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2013) xvii–xxxv.
What has been branded “minimalism” by its critics is actually a methodology, an approach to the evidence: primary, secondary, archaeological, biblical. Minimalism is in fact the conclusion derived from following that methodology. In short, this methodology is the study of a region or era by applying normative methods to the primary archaeological evidence and only then interpreting biblical literature in the light of that primary evidence. The alternative “maximalism”, in short, reverses this process and starts with the assumption of the historicity of the biblical narrative (post demythologization), and then interprets the archaeological evidence through that narrative.
The “minimalism”/“maximalism” viewpoints is an example of a complete reversal of the consensus over a twenty-year-plus time period. Many of the attacks made against “minimalism” then are similarly made now against "mythicism".
Per Thompson,
The proper question [of the historicity of Jesus] is rather a largely literary question than an historical one. Until we have texts, which bear evidence of his historicity, we can not do much more with that issue. We can and must, however, ask what the texts mean—as well as ask what they mean if they are not historical (a minimalist question).
The original meaning of "Christ mythicist", was someone who like David Strauss asserted that the historicity of second-god was false. But in the modern era, it has now evolved to mean someone who believes in the literal truth of the myth of second-god as set out in the epistles and gospels of the New Testament. A similar example would be "unicorn mythicist", being someone that asserts that the existence of unicorns is true.
The historicity of second-god was held to be true under pain of death for much of the earlier history of the Christian world and during much of the latter it would likely affect ones career prospects to assert that it was not true.
That the historicity of second-god is false; is now the majority opinion of most secular scholars, yet there is a quixotic passion among some to continue using the term "Christ myth theory".
Arguably the Jesus ahistoricity theory should be the antithesis of the Jesus historicity theory. But no historicity defense (peer reviewed; published in a respected academic press; etc.) enumerating the historicity theory and defense is currently available.
In current mainstream secular and non-secular (i.e. devotees of Jesus) scholarship on the question of the historicity of Jesus:
But
-- 2db ( talk) 16:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
this article is about Christ myth theory, however it begins by refuting the theory before it even tries to explain what the theory is. which is biased and poisoning the well fallacy. when people come to this article they wanna what the theory is, they don't wanna read through paragraphs after paragraphs of why its refuted before they even know what it is. in short this article does a terrible job of explaining what its about and is not neutral.
my suggestion is that the content of this article should be reordered as such
Synopsis:
short explanation of the theory(it can include the fact that its a fringe theory)-> longer explanation of the theory -> criticism and scholarly Conesus.
Rest of the articles:
it should begin with a short history of the theory but it opens with refutations and opposing views . (which is again poisoning the well) Shahabb1 ( talk) 06:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
The first sentence of the lead should not quote one person, authoritative or notI disagree, and there is no policy that supports this argument, in any event. Happy ( Slap me) 21:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Whittaker in 1904 proposed that the religion arose around AD70 as an unintended consequence of the Roman Jewish War. Why is this thesis not discussed in this article? 1.127.106.8 ( talk) 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article only about attempts to depict Jesus of the Christian Bible as impossible to identify with an actual person? It is perfectly legitimate and must be common simply to be unimpressed and uncompelled by any of the testimony that has been offered to suggest that Jesus was a real person. The whole framing of this question of Jesus’s historicity here on Wikipedia seems to deny this and to discourage people who would hold and like to feel at liberty to share such a view. - OB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.39.231 ( talk) 05:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems like it would go hand in hand with this topic of religious ahistoricity as well. 67.8.169.171 ( talk) 22:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The Brill 2019 book "Questioning the Historicity of Jesus" is only indirectly mentioned in the text, and in particular it is missing in the paragraph on Raphael Lataster, as well as in Printed sources. It would be nice if somebody can improve this situation. (I apologize for not trying to struggle with this myself.) 185.250.14.249 ( talk) 12:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@ UpdateNerd: your recent edit diff, edit-summary "ce: summarize before attributed quotation," changed
the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". [1] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty,
into
the view that there was no historical Jesus, and that, in the words of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology". [1] Alternatively, in the view of Earl Doherty—summarized by Bart Ehrman
References
The summary is questionable: "Jesus did not exist!" is a simplification, tthe battle-cry of the hardcore atheists, whereas the real topic is the conclusion from New Testamentical scholarship that the stories about Jesus are myths. "Myths" not as in nonsense and fantasies, but as in sacred stories which 'lived' by people, creating or invoking a sacred reality.
As for Ehrman, this is Ehrman's paraphrasing of Doherty, not exactly Doherty's words; and Ehrman is used because this is the 'definition' from a bona fide scholar, not from a CMT-theorists. Quotes are used when the topic is contentious, and summaries can be interpretations. So, rather the summary of a scholar than the interpretation of an editor.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk! 05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
So we agree that it is inappropriate to mention paraphrasing Doherty in connection with Ehrman's generalized summary. Good.
Re the proposed rewording of paragraph 2, this proposed wording is not at all contradictory. It is the same wording as before, just clarified slightly to make clear that "virtually all scholars of antiquity" accept the historicity of a human Jesus but not the historicity of the supernatural divinity of the gospels. If you have reliable sources stating that "virtually all scholars accept the historicity of the supernatural divinity of the gospels", then please present them.
Ramos overlooks the fact that Ehrman stated that any historian who personally believes in miracles does so "not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer." It is obviously correct that Ehrman is "not able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done." However it is obviously also correct that Ehrman is not able to affirm or deny the existence of the tooth fairy. If magic is real, then all magic stories are equally believable. We should not word the article such as to create the perception that the inability to conclusively prove the existence or otherwise of miracles (or of the tooth fairy) means that mainstream scholarship is evenly split on either subject – a fringe view is a fringe view.
Ramos overlooks the fact that Ehrman also stated, on the same page, that: "the chances of a miracle happening are, by definition, infinitesimally remote". We should not use wording that suggests that Ehrman believes the stories of Jesus' miracles.
I agree with Ehrman that we do not have enough reliable information to confidently state what Jesus actually said or did or experienced – although Ehrman holds the firm view that the sources which establish Jesus as a Jewish teacher are "more than ample". Ehrman clearly states that there are large scholarly disagreements over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher Jesus was – but Ehrman nowhere states that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was a divinity with superpowers.
There are many differing portraits of the historical Jesus, but only a small percentage of scholars support the theory that Jesus really was a divinity with superpowers. We should not word the article such as to create the perception that this is a mainstream theory among actual scholars. Wdford ( talk) 22:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
So we agree that it is inappropriate to mention paraphrasing Doherty in connection with Ehrman's generalized summary. Good., that's a peculiar reading of
Since Doherty is only one of the mythicists, there are others, Ehrmans seems to generally summarize the views there [...] The current wording was the consensus we reached here.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I have explained at length exactly how my thinking works, but still you pretend to "not understand". So let me explain again.
My specific concern is that the lede currently contains the wording: "the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea". I fully agree with this position, provided the Jesus in question is understood to be a normal non-supernatural human. However this careful wording allows the reader to assume that the Jesus in question was indeed the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels, and that "the mainstream scholarly consensus" is thus affirming the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels. This is seriously misleading.
It is correct that there is no single "portrait" of Jesus that is agreed upon by a majority of scholars, however the vast majority of different portraits agree that the historical Jesus was a normal human being, rather than a supernatural miracle worker. All I want is for the lede to be slightly reworded to make this clear, and to clarify the ambiguity that has been protected so fiercely for so long. There are some scholars who do believe that the historical Jesus was a supernatural miracle worker, but that is a minority portrait.
Your accusations about WP:SYN are inappropriate – that is exactly why I cited all the sources, which you are now attempting to sidestep. The quotes I brought up above were actually sources cited by you to support your POV, and I was simply pointing out that none of these sources actually support the position that the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels is the mainstream scholarly consensus.
This critical point continues to be suppressed – that many "mythicists" happily accept some form of historical human Jesus, but reject the supernatural stories of the gospels. Even mainstream scholars like Ehrman clearly state that: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time". These many scholars contradict your position that the supernatural miracle-worker was an historical figure. The lede should be less ambiguous, and should state clearly that the mainstream scholarly position is that the historical Jesus existed as a normal human being, and was NOT the supernatural figure of the gospels – even if a minority do still cling to that position. This would require only small modifications.
PS: You are wrong to say that "the main relevant point for this article" is that "scholars are unified against non-existence theories." The main point of this article is to accurately describe the Christ Myth Theory. We certainly MUST mention that most scholars do not support the non-existence theory, but this is NOT "the main relevant point for this article". You reveal your POV yet again. Wdford ( talk) 09:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
[T]he majority of biblical historians in academia are employed by religiously affiliated institutions. This fact alone explains much of the resistance to Jesus Myth theory even among scholars who personally identify as secular. Furthermore, of those schools, we can quantify that at least 41% (if not 100%) require their instructors and staff to publicly reject Jesus Myth or they will not have a career at that institute of higher learning. So the question shouldn’t be: “How many historians reject mythicism?” but “How many historians are contractually obliged to publicly reject mythicism?”
Fitzgerald 2017, p. 62, §. Myths of Mythicism §. Bias Cut". ISBN 978-1-5428-5888-5
Cf. "New Testament Scholarship Has a MAJOR Issue". YouTube. @time 00:00:23 WWW: https: //youtu.be/X5y-RavZ8VA?t=23
I wonder why the "mainstream scholarly consensus" isn't questioned or deconstructed anywhere here or in any of the articles concerning historicity of Jesus. Trying to answer the question "what is indicated as mainstream?" in the above statement I found only theologians and Bible scholars. Actually none of the articles concerning the historicity of Jesus lists or merely defines the extent of this "mainstream consensus", which AFAICT excludes historians without theological, religious studies or biblical studies associations. 178.182.201.166 ( talk) 14:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)