Christianity: Jesus NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Atheism NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Template:Talkheaderlong

Archives

Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc. Archive 10: through Dec 2007: more NPOV, fringy-ness (or not), Bauer, etc. Archive 11: through Jan 31 2008: more NPOV, sources, etc. Archive 12: through Mar 18 2008: complaining about Grant quote, etc.

"Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the authenticity of the passages in Josephus which mention Jesus". This makes it sound although the passage in Josephus is only disputed by proponants of the Jesus myth when in fact it is more widely disputed as can bee seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus.

Yes, you are right. This is an example of many statements in the article which are imprecise. Technically is the sentence true but it might give a wrong impression to the reader. You have, in fact, touched on the big problem in this area. It is exemplified by the previous sentence "Three early writers are typically cited in support of the actual existence of Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius." If one looks at Suetonius then it is obvious that he can not be used to support the actual existence of Jesus at all. But it is true that he is typically cited as if he could. What should we, wiki-editors do? We can only cite a reliable source that says that Suetonius can not be used for this. This will give an impression that it is a matter of using different methodologies or even a matter of taste among scholars whether Suetonius can or cannot be used for this. (If some scholarly source said that 2+2=5, you can not do an original research and say that 2+2=4, you have to find a source saying this, and leave an impression that this question can not be resolved by contemporary scholarly methodology ... It is an exaggeration, I know, but that is my impression of many points in this area.) In the case of Josephus, the fact of reality is that he can not be used as a reliable evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth but as a wiki-editor you have to report that "several scholars have proposed that the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable" ...

Sorry for another more general comment. Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty have recently done a real work in this area. They elaborated meticulous methodological works, arriving at the Jesus-Myth idea from different angles. They also took all the previous research in the area into account, they do not repeat some old arguments which were questioned and shown unreliable many decades ago. After mentioning Doherty and Price, the introductory paragraph of the article continues "However, modern scholarly discussion and support is very limited." This is technically true but it might give an impression that Doherty and Price probably make blatant methodological mistakes which could be easily demonstrated if some "real scholar" wanted to spend his/her precious time to demonstrate this. Unfortunately, they do not do this. So if a poor wiki-editor wants to show that the theory is "fringe" or so, (s)he has to resort to references and "arguments" like "I do not know any respectable critical scholar ...", or the quotes from Grant 1977 (who, in fact, just quotes other older works), etc. I think the real problem why modern scholarly discussion of this topic is currently very limited is more sociological than related to the reality of the research problem as such. Of course, I would have to find a reliable source if I wanted that this aspect is also reflected in the article. But we would hardly find a "neutral observer" whose observation could be consensually placed in the article. Now I could only offer a quote from R.M. Price himself though it addresses something slightly different: In Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p.22. "... anything is possible, but we must ask what is probable. This is important because of the very widespread tendency of convential Bible students, even of otherwise sophisticated scholars, to weigh arguments for critical positions and then toss them aside as `unproven'. The operative factor here would appear to be a deep-rooted inertia. The controlling presupposition seems to be, `If the traditional view cannot be absolutely debunked beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it still might possibly be true, then we are within our rights to continue to believe it'.Jelamkorj (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit was changed by KrytenKoro stating that;

"I'd rather this be linked to the actual reports, and present their own opinions - not have him pick 87 by his own methods, and interpret them himself"

I agree in principle but the current sentence leads to a false conclusion i.e. that Josephus is accepted by scholars who oppose the Jesus myth hypothesis.

Could anyone provide some references so we can get this sorted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like what you added could be included, but only if buttressed with some explanation of how he chose these, and how he determined that's what they said. I mean, the 1937-1980 just seems like a weird choice, and why only 87 to look over? Is that how many were written about Josephus in total, or just the ones he could acquire, or what? How large is the "overwhelming majority"? Is it 99%, or as little as 52%?

From the Grant discussion, consensus seems to be that we can't just let one guy summarize the entire question without some discussion of how he did so.

If you could get some of the reports he summarized, just as examples, and then see if he has any more depth to his explanation, that would be great.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

However, as it was, the section does say that this criticism is usually accepted by Biblical scholars - it's just that the proponents use this as one of their arguments.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Grant it basically comes down to him quoting from an even earlier author summarizing things in the 1950's. We saw THAT nonsense in the infamous Bermuda Triangle mess and know it to be poor research of the highest order. Furthermore Gould can demonstrated to be misleading his readers: "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." Jesus Then and Now pg 37 The problem is that statement is NOT TRUE! Of these three only Tacitus clearly mentions Jesus. Suetonus may or may not depending on if you read his Chrestus as a misspelling (Gould plays up the misspelled version of Christus) and Pliny does not mention Jesus at all! This demonstrates that we cannot trust Grant's summations making him useless as a reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And this has to do with sourcing the Josephus criticism how?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Grant's summation of other facts can be demonstrated to be at best grossly inaccurate and borderline deceptive that means that anything else he says (including Josephus) is suspect. Again just because a person is a well respected professional doesn't mean that he has his facts right. So far all I have seen regarding quotes Grant are vague statements that wouldn't have last two seconds in a master thesis defense. Also looking up the exact phrase "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" produced books that attributed the quote to some guy named Otto Betz in his What do We Know about Jesus? (1968) so there are things attributed to Grant that may in fact NOT be from Grant himself. Basically it looks more and more you have a Lost Patrol situation where Grant is parroting Otto Betz who is parroting an even earlier statement dating back to at least 1957 from earlier comments. In short, we cannot trust Grant on ANYTHING he says.--216.31.13.104 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this seriously your argument? You found one quote in the entire sum of literature on Jesus that happened to be used by two different authors over a span of forty years, so Grant does this all the time?

I think, instead of using hilariously laughable rationale like that, you should actually "demonstrate them to be grossly inaccurate", instead of just throwing generalities around. I agree that we should never accept any historian's word as the word of God, but you're getting kind of silly with your reaction.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you don't get it. I ALREADY gave such an example of Grant's "grossly inaccurate SUMMATIONS": "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." AGAIN only Tacitus does what Grant claims. Pliny simply refers to the Christian movement which nobody in the Jesus Myth circle claims didn't exist. The Suetonus claim is even worse as Grant uses the deceptive Christus spelling rather than the actual Chrestus one and doesn't even bother to tell the reader this. Your effort to tap dance around facts is astounding.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...."my effort to tap dance around facts"? Excuse me, have I once said anything about Pliny, Tacitus, or Suetonius? No? I believe I was talking about it being ridiculous to throw out everything a historian says because you disagree with one of his claims. You may be right, he may be right - I honestly don't give a damn right now.

Honestly, I don't know why you keep trying to treat this page like a forum. You want to discuss this so bad, go to infidels.org or something. This is not the place.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will keep posting FACTS. The fact is Grant's statement is not his own and we have no idea where he really got it. That make is relevant regardless of your personal delusions on the matter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hell? Why do you insist on employing ad hominem attacks and continuously changing the subject? We are talking about one thing here - sourcing the Josephus criticism. As far as I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with Grant. I'm not "deluding myself" or "tap-dancing around the topic" - I'm merely refusing to let you run away with the discussion for your own personal grievances. If you want to discuss Grant , in his context to the article, go ahead and do so - in a separate section. If you want to discuss him in general, as you've been doing, go to a forum.

However, I will take you up on one point, here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"The fact is Grant's statement is not his own and we have no idea where he really got it."

If we don't know the source, how can we accuse him of plagiarism? Besides, as the quote is written, it is clear he is using somebody else's words - they even use the single quotation marks. It is evident from how it it written that he is not trying to claim the words as his own.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It not Grants words if it is quoted is it? And if it is not referenced then we don't know if it came from Otto Betz (1986), Roderic Dunkerley (1957), or some other person that Berz and Dunkerley themselves may have quote from. That is the problem. Also when people like Charlesworth use weasel words like "No reputable scholar today" (he is basically saying Richard Price not a reputable scholar. Right, pull the other one; it plays Jingle Bells) they are reaffirming Doherty's position of curt dismissal. Furthermore in the book this quote comes from Jesus and Archaeology Charlesworth was the editor and it is a collection of other works by other scholars and appears in the introduction. Clearly this comment is self published and has no place as a reference. While we are on the issue of book title mind telling us which book the Van Voorst pg 7 reference is from?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the full text of the section - I haven't been able to find a copy myself, but from the way the quote's are used, it seems that he is summing up, and went over them earlier.

However, the point is that he is in no way claiming the words to be his, and you're call to throw out everything he says doesn't follow from this.

"Also when people like Charlesworth use weasel words like "No reputable scholar today" (he is basically saying Richard Price not a reputable scholar."

Yes, they are. I was under the impression that Price was only well-known because of the Jesus myth anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your impression of why Price is well-known has no relevance on the matter on of him being a "reputable scholar". Public recognition for achievements is a fickle thing; how many people know of Karl Landsteiner or Charles Drew regarding blood groups? How about Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, Oskar Heil, or Matare and Welker compared to Shockley and Pearson? Even more startling is when tested with the materials available when it was made Lilienfeld's 1925 transistor patent worked. Yet popular history records the transistor was "invented" in 1946; popular history and REAL history sadly are NOT the same thing. For many years Edison was credited with inventing the first electric lightbulb; only recently has then statement been changed to the more historical accurate invented the first commercial feasible incandescent lightbulb. But no such checks were in place when Constantine I came to power and wanted a bible produced. What governed what writings were thought to be valid and which were not was political. Christianity in the 4th century was nearly as varied then as it is now. Yet the mysterious "Gospel by Jesus Chris" Joseph Wheless talks about was not considered as valid. Think about that; a Gospel proporting to be written by Jesus himself was considered so heretical that all we have today is its name. What was in there that so frighted the people putting the Bible together? We will likely never know as the Jesus we know is a political creation of the 4th century. It is that simple.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this probably isn't going to register, but - it's probably not allowed to be debating with you at all about this, and most of these comments should be expunged, but if I am allowed to, I'm still not going to discuss every possible tangent you can come up with. You want to discuss something? Then pick one thing. If you simply want to rant, this is not at all the place.

Seriously, lightbulbs?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, KrytenKoro, you demonstrate you simply don't get it and more over don't even try to get it. The above examples show that public recognition for achievements doesn't not mean squat regarding if that someone is a good scholar or even the person who history "records" as doing the great work in question. Lavoisier's caloric theory was rammed down science's throat simply on the merits of Lavoisier's impressive credentials even though experiments showed Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory made more sense. Since the words are not not Grant's and he provides no support to back up the quote you basically have Lavoisier's caloric theory all over again. I noticed that you have not even touched on the issue of does Grant state WHO he is quoting from in the book?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"In fact, they are not. One referenced writer, Rodney Dunkerley, in his Beyond the Gospels (1957, p.12), devotes a single paragraph to the “fantastic notion” that Jesus did not actually live; its exponents, he says, “have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars,” but since he declares it “impossible to summarize those scholars’ case here,” he is not the source of Grant’s conviction. Nor can that be Oskar Betz, from whose What Do We Know About Jesus? (1968, p.9) Grant takes his second quote. Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

I do not have access to a copy of Grant's book, however, and all mentions on the internet seem to be derived from how doherty chose to write the excerpt. Can you provide the entire excerpt? Or are you relying on how wikipedia phrased it?

And yes, I understood why you tried to bring Lovoisier and lightbulbs into this. I just don't care, since it's not on topic, and is pretty much just another tangent you're trying to drag this into. Also, the personal attacks? Can get you a warning, and if they don't stop, eventually a block from admins. They don't tolerate that crap. If you can't discuss things with a civil attitude, you ought not to be here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This conversation should stop. Michael Grant is a reputable, even famous scholar. No amount of grousing in an online forum is going to change that. Nor, despite all of BruceGrubb's posts, is anything wrong with the quote we're using: Grant uses direct quotes and attributes them to the authors who wrote them. The fact that BruceGrubb happens to disagree with what Grant says is no reason to stop using the quote.

What's more, it looks like BruceGrubb hasn't even read the section of Grant in question. If he had, presumably he would realize that Grant's argument doesn't rely on Dunkerley/Betz/whoever; he spends a few paragraphs discussing flaws in the Jesus myth theory and then concludes with the quote starting "To sum up..." In other words, Grant regards the Jesus myth as "annihilated" because he's looked at it and found it wanting. The quotes from Dunkerley and Betz are rhetorical coloring; if they were absent, the substance of Grant's argument would be no different--it would just be less quotable.

Once again, this conversation should stop. BruceGrubb keeps on repeating the same arguments (for months now) without gaining any traction, and apparently without any regard for Wikipedia's policies on sourcing or personal attacks. It should be clear that there is no consensus to remove Grant's quote, so there's no reason to keep on having the same conversation. I hope that BruceGrubb will simply drop this topic; but if not, there's no reason to respond to what he's saying--in fact, future posts on this topic should probably be removed from the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not personal to point out the flaw in a reference. Also KrytenKoro has admitted "I haven't been able to find a copy myself" and "I do not have access to a copy of Grant's book" and so can't state with certainty where Grant's quote really came from. A search through Google books using the phrase "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" produces three references that the passage being from Otto Betz (McDowell - 1979, Arthur Paterson Lee - 2002, and Dr. C. T. Benedict - 2007) with Michael Martin - 1991 using Grant but then making some reference to Wells as Martin is talking about something else at this point. Sadly Google books does not have any of the text Grant's book available for preview and a search for Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" only produced references to the work not the work itself. But regardless of that KrytenKoro's quote does PROVE part of my point. The reference claims the 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' quote comes from Roderic Dunkerley when everything seems to indicate that it come from Otto Betz. Continuing to support a reference proven to be a question poses some serious problems regarding the support of FACTS in this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you haven't read Grant's book, except for the quotes you've read on the internet? Why are we even having this discussion, if you have no idea what it says? Aren't you guilty of exactly the thing you're accusing Grant of doing--quoting without bothering to do the necessary homework? --Akhilleus (talk)

Have YOU read Grant's book, Akhilleus? If not then how can you defend the defend the reference if you don't know what is says about where Grant got the quotes is true? In short I will put it to you: cite the page reference in Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" that Grant gets the SECOND quote ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from. While you are at it tell us which of the several books Van Voorst wrote the p. 7 reference is to.--216.31.13.104 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant writes a few paragraphs on the subject and it's somehow considered a quotable rebuttle? Why not quote someone who has devoted more than a single page to the topic? It's easy to dismiss something out of hand; it's another to actually study and address the arguments that have been put forth. ^^James^^ (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant's treatment is quite representative of how this theory is treated in academia--actually, no, because most scholars think the theory is so crazy that it's not even worth refuting. When biblical scholars and classical historians mention it, they don't spend much space dealing with it, because they regard it as self-evidently wrong.

It's hard for me to understand why there has to be so much argument over this point--the JM hypothesis is waay outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship, classical history, and anything you'd find inside a college or university classroom. If you like it, and find it convincing, that's fine, but if we're going to craft anything close to an NPOV article, it's also necessary to say that it's not a mainstream theory by any means. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that the scholars think the theory is so crazy that it's not even worth refuting or that that the point is moot and dealing with how Christianity spread after Paul is more important and don't want to get involved in the firestorm even touching on such an idea would generate? Furthermore the Jesus myth theory is not just that Jesus never existed idea but the he is a composite character with a flesh and blood origin that predates the Biblical Jesus by at least half a century; so far NONE of the long references seem to even touch on this version.

If as Grant says there is "much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary" why do we see the same sources of Josephus (it been altered but let's use it anyhow), Tacitus (don't where he got this information but let's use it anyway), Suetonius (he misspelled), Pliny the Younger (If there are Christians then their must have been a Jesus) and when they are have a really bad day Thallus (a 4th century person supposedly quoting a 3rd century person supposedly quoting Thallus) and the Babylonian Talmud (details and time frames are all wrong for any suggested candidate never mind the age of the document) put forth? Also the full quote has problems. If Grant did research why right after the 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' quote does he say "or at any rate very few"? Doesn't he know?! As for consensus Sophia, E4mmacro, Phyesalis, James and my self has all express concerns about using Grant. Even KrytenKoro said "its just that Grant didn't support it himself very well, in that quote" and later "If better quotes are found, by all means, replace the Grant quote" though he thought the quote somehow helps the pro myth side (which I don't see). Furthermore digging through the archives for the above I found that on 4 February 2008 Akhilleus was informed that that Otto Betz was one of the quoted people and he replied "BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else." Not changing a reference you know to be slightly inaccurate is somewhat excusable given the way things go on the talk page but to defend such a reference when you yourself responded to a correction is borderline reckless. While were we are on the issue of sloppy references anyone found out which book the Van Voorst, p. 7. reference is to?--216.31.13.104 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some elements of Jesus' life are similar to that of Buddha's. Such as going out into the wilderness and being tempted by Mara/Satan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity 70.89.165.91 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean that one element, that isn't actually a defining characteristic? There's only so many different things a savior figure can do, and you're bound to find a few common details here and there. The stories would have to be virtually identical for their to be reasonable concern of one being based on the other.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I worded that poorly. What I was trying to say was that claiming there was a real historical person, at the turn of the millenium, who the figure in the New Testament was based on, doesn't allow for him to be a made up combination of several different stories. Sorry if it sounded like I was claiming that Biblical historians support Bible literalism.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to claim that there was a historical Jesus and say that the figure in the NT is a composite of several myths, stories, figures, what have you. That would make the Gospel narratives a "mythically" inspired elaboration on the career of the actual Jesus, and as such there's no reason why the elaboration couldn't be inspired by other historical figures. I'm sure there's somebody who's claimed something like this. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then to what extent is it a historical Jesus?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro has just discovered the key issue with the composite person version of the Jesus Myth and why claiming that version has been disproved using statements regarding non-historical is OR. Just as if you look hard enough you can find "historical" basis for King Arthur and Robin Hood you can likely find some historical basis for Jesus but in essence you are no longer talking about the people you started with. With Jesus we are not sure how much (if any) of the events outside of what Paul relates supposedly happened or what outside what Paul states Jesus may have said. This means there could have been a Jesus of Nazareth who was made to say things by other historical figures which would make the Biblical Jesus a composite character.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, and most importantly, the article was very, very, off the scale a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, in that it tried to stack opinions into the lead itself.

Second, the cites/references in the lead that supposedly supported the idea that scholars and historians as a whoile reject the theory were not written as references but as lists of quotes of single authors stating their own personal opinions.

Third, upon removing these bogus citations, other citations throughout the article lost there references, because whomever originally made the tags put them together incorrectly. A reference to a specific quote in one location cannot be a reference used for a person or book in general in later references. If someone wants to go back in and restore those in the proper places, great, but be aware that citations are only for others stating opinions and not for trying to prove what "historians" say (especially as most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources).

Fourth, it's very clear that we have people looking for rationalizations to put their own opinions into the article and to remove opinions they do not like, which violates the core foundation of how WIkipedia is supposed to work. Someone removed a whole sentence because he claimed to object to the use of the word "notes" in it and recommended "argues" or some other variant... fine, "notes" is a POV-loaded word. The problem is that the person did not just change it to "argues" but removed the entire section... and also left a number of other sections in the article in which authors he/she agreed with were said to "note" certain things that were only those authors opinions and should also have been "argues" or "claims" in order to be fair and consistent.

WP:NPOV policy is absolute and must be followed. It shouldn't matter if editors or disagree or agree with a theory, the article still needs to be written to reflect the topic fairly. Putting the claim that scholars and historians all oppose it into the lead and even the proponents section is not only inaccurate but a clumsy attempt to push views onto the article every chance the editors had. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is a very old, and tiresome, argument. This article is about a fringe theory; there are quotes from several different scholars that illustrate that this theory is not accepted within academia. The statements you've edited out may well be "personal opinions", but they are the opinions of authoritative scholars, found in reliable sources. If you think that scholars dispute that the JM hypothesis is a fringe theory, find some scholars that say so (and I mean biblical scholars and ancient historians who have published their opinions in peer-reviewed journal articles or other reliable sources, not people who have to start their own journals to get their ideas published, or self-publish on the internet). Your statement that "most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources" mischaracterizes the sources you're removing; Grant, Van Voorst, Burridge/Gould, etc. all hold (or held) academic positions.

As for your last paragraph, I agree that NPOV must be followed, and I agree that some editors are editing according to whether they agree or disagree with the theory that's the subject of this article. Unfortunately, what I see is that people who agree with the JM theory are constantly arguing that the theory is a mainstream part of the academic discussion about the historical Jesus, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Most fringe theories get no discussion in academic literature; for this subject, we're lucky enough to have statements such as that of Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." Since we have authoritative statements that the JM theory isn't accepted in academia, I can only conclude that when an editor removes such statements, they're motivated by their personal opinions. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus.

Secondly, there are a number of citations in this article that show pretty conclusively that JM theory is a very marginal view among scholars, and therefore that deserves to go in the lead. I suggest you read WP:Undue if you're in any doubt about this. The references we cite come from Christians, atheists, and even the most prominent JM proponent.

Thirdly, please WP:AGF, and don't assume that my commitment to WP:NPOV is any less than yours, simply because I am religious. If any person ever thinks they're unbiased, that only shows they have an unusually low self-awareness. TJ (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this particular quote from Doherty belongs in the article. Doherty is notable as a proponent of the JM theory, and the article should therefore refer to him and explain why he thinks Jesus isn't historical (something which the article does a poor job of at present). On the other hand, I don't think that Doherty is an authoritative or reliable source on why the theory is rejected in academia.

What's more, the imputation that scholars are unwilling to accept the JM theory because they're apologists, is wrong; as has been noted many times on this talk page, Michael Grant does not profess to be a Christian, and rejects the JM theory on the grounds that it mishandles historical evidence. For him, it's a question of historical method, not religious belief; and if you look at the work of the other scholars quoted on this issue, they're saying things that are similar to Grant. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Doherty does belong BUT the link to "http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/" that keeps getting used as a reference is a frameset and the actual content comes from jesuspuzzle.humanist.net or someplace else and I can't verify all of that which is quoted that he says.

We must remember that questioning the authenticity of Jesus is tantamount to blasphemy and it is only on the 6th May 2008 (i.e. just a week or so ago) that even in the UK the last of the blasphemy laws in the UK were abolished. Any debate in any country on the authenticity of Jesus prior to the abolition of blasphemy laws in that country is inherently a biased debate. Same applies to debate on Islam in Muslim countries: does anyone here honestly think that a debate could take place in say Saudi Arabia on a critical point about Islam and expect that to be neutral ? Same applies to Western thought and "Jesus".

Given that inherent bias (forced by law) I think that any published source that posits the obverse is more than acceptable here (given the difficulty in publication) but please at least give us a good link to where to verify that what was said was true. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. the Stalinist censoring of anti-historicist views (even, now, from this talk page itself! -- see the previous version for what has not been allowed to be expressed), I have to declare that what was deleted of Doherty's statement was not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is when someone claims that Professor Yaffle's condemnation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis can be ignored because he beats his wife at home. What Doherty is saying is quite different: he is saying that Professor Yaffle's condemnation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis needs to be considered in the light of the fact that Yaffle and his friends exist as part of an academically institutionalised faith community whose very basis would not survive the discovery of Jesus' historical non-existence -- and that as a result, for them the Hypothesis is a literally unthinkable proposition.

Seriously: nothing deomstrates the essentially religious nature of objections to the JMH than the way fact and logic and definition are twisted to tilt the playing field. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No. You spent four paragraphs ranting on how those who disagree with the quote are Stalinist, and trying to censor any claim that doesn't agree with them. Doherty's claim, while not as extreme as to claim wife-beating, is indeed an ad hominem - instead of attacking the arguments of his opponents, he is attacking them - trying to throw out their arguments due to personal qualities. It may try to disguise itself as questions about credibility, but not only is it blatantly false, but it is still an ad hominem. You, again, are engaging in the very same ad hominem attack. Please cease the personal attacks, or I will have to give you a PA warning.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooh! I'm scared! But for the benefit of future readers, here is the supposedly 'ad hominem' and 'blatantly false' statement by Doherty:

"An important factor ... has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se."

'Blatantly false'?? You have got to be joking!! Pfistermeister (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1) You have failed to explain what the quote does for the article besides trying to say "Well, they're just theists, so why listen to them?" As I said before, the reasoning for keeping the quote would also allow us to find and add quotes along the lines of "it must be considered that only atheists and those with a grudge against Christianity support this theory" - and I doubt that you would so whole-heartedly support such a quote, hmm?

2) Then where is this majority of scholars that are not historians?

• Richard Burridge, Graham Gould, Van Voorst, Graham Stanton, R.T. France are heads of theology departments. I can not find whether they were taught in a divinity school, though.
• Michael Grant is an atheist and a full-fledged historian.
• James Frazer studied myth and religion in general.

An excerpt from online, detailing some of those who oppose the hypothesis:

"Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:

The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:

"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

Again, the fact is is that the complaint isn't relevant. The mainstream historian position, which would hardly be mostly Christian, supports the claim that Jesus was a historical person. All that quote does is try to attack the speaker's instead of the evidence, and it would be blatantly dishonest to try to include it. Provide all the arguments for the claim that you want - but this isn't one of them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough we do know quite a bit about John the Baptist from Josephus (in response to the "know very little about any Jew pre 70CE). As for the picture woven in the gospels - what about all the "gospels" that didn't make it. You have the classic blinkered view that the bible is somehow special and not the political work of a council trying to secure its power base. Your only interest in this subject seems to be to annihilate it - not the basis of an interesting informative article.

So I ask you - what do you personally know of this subject? How many of the books on this page have you actually read? This article is being stamped to death for fear that it may do the devil's work and somehow present the Jesus Myth as a rational (all be it very small) line of academic enquiry. Two years on from my involvement in this article and I have seen no real progress as wave after wave of uniformed editors turn up who "just know this is wrong". Sophia 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What? First off, I'm just providing quotes to show that the dissenters are not all the products of Christian programs. I'm not saying I personally agree with them all. Furthermore, I've reverted many changes intended to remove pro-myth lines from the article. I'm not so obsessed with wiki as to believe it to be a front on the last crusade. As stated multiple times, the reason I disagree with including that specific quote (that the dissenters are all biased), is because it provides nothing but an ad hominem attack. And again, I would like to ask you group of editors to stop resorting to personal attacks. It does nothing to help your case, only aggravates any aggressive behavior that actually exists, and can get you blocked if done persistently.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think would improve this article? Sophia 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to cut back as much as possible on quotes that do nothing but attack the debaters, and we need to include as much of the actual arguments from both sides as possible. The section just listing that the opponents dislike the theory needs to be rewritten to focus on their actual critiques, and less on the character attacks.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So how would this article differ from the historicity of Jesus? What you describe is pretty much what goes on there. Sophia 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then I could support a merge decision. I honestly can't think of why they would be separate in the first place, besides size concerns.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out before this is an area that really needs an expert on historical anthropology involved as there are anthropological issues involved that need to be addressed to truly evaluate the documents available. Based on what I read under the late Fred Plogg at NMSU for my masters most old school historians don't know how to anthropologically evaluate documents and most old school anthropologists barely know how to properly use historical documents. The problem is historical anthropology is insanely new--perhaps not even 30 years old. In fact very idea of the urban legend which is what is really at the heart of the JM is itself only 30 some years old. Scopes shows just how fast these stories can spread and for some believed. The 19th and 20th centuries are filled with urban legends like Spring Heeled Jack, that c1800 there really was a revenge crazed barber named Sweeney Todd, John Frum, and the biggest of the 20th centuries urban legends: the Bermuda Triangle.

The biggest problem on the pro historical Jesus side is this 'we think this way now so the Roman's must have thought this way' mentality. That is something for an anthropologist to determine as most historians are ill suited to the task. Questions about how the Roman's viewed history (did they use it as a political tool, for example) and their willingness to believe supernatural stories must be answered. Very little of that is actually addressed on the pro historical Jesus side--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Are the references in this article stating that the Jesus Myth theory is a minority in scholarly circles sufficient for the purpose for which they are used? Note: I believe this RFC is worded in such a way as to not address the actual concerns under dispute. Whether this hypothesis is a minority opinion or not is NOT at issue. See comments below.

Template:RFCreli

Template:RFChist

• Yes - There are about seven good references for this in the article. Most of the references are from scholars with notable academic credentials (Burridge, Gould, Grant), at least one is an atheist (Grant), and they even include a quote from a prominent JM proponent (Doherty). The only one who doesn't have a PhD is Doherty, and almost all the others have or have had teaching positions (only one if I recall at a religious institutions, though I may been be wrong), have been published in peer reviewed journals, etc. TJ (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• More than sufficient. This isn't the first time this has been discussed, either--there's endless wrangling about this in the archives. But, as I say above, it's often difficult to establish something is a fringe theory precisely because academic sources usually ignore fringe sources. In this case, we've got several prominent scholars who have looked at this and said that there's no validity to the theory and that most scholars find it implausible, unrespectable, absurd, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Probably - I didn't read through everything, but got the gist of it. This is the hypothesis that Jesus was entirely a mythical character, with no historical person attached (greater degree), and the hypothesis that the narrative of Jesus, a real person, was augmented with mythology borrowed from other cultures -- for example Buddhism (lesser degree). I would think either way it's fringe to varying degrees. Completely mythical is definitely fringe because most scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus sans-story. The Jesus narrative being based on other cultures has more support, but still fringe, because it's not the generally accepted account. One has to argue that other cultures influenced the early Christians. The necessity of persuading or argument on the part of scholars is a good duck test for the fringe label. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for that, it's interesting. It's not clear, though, what you thought about the strength of the sources themselves, rather than your opinion of the subject matter. Anyone who has studied early Christian history knows that Jesus' existence is always assumed (even someone, like myself, who studied it primarily under non-Christians, insofar as I was aware of their beliefs.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologyJohn (talk • contribs)

Concerning the sourcing, you don't have to be a theology scholar to apply the "principle of least astonishment". You go to the Jesus article and see that weight is first given to the orthodox mythology, then to the historical views of Jesus as a historical figure (and in the linked off article Historical Jesus it's similarly weighted to orthodox views). In none of these sections/articles is the alternate mythology (story borrowed from other cultures) or the non-historical Jesus given much weight. Upon encountering this article, it can thus be assumed that it is a fringe view, regardless of what sources are actually listed here. It's a process that doesn't require evaluating the sources directly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Problematic sources. I have noticed that some of those references were from Christian theologians, and at least one other seemed to have a close Christian affiliation. To me it seems rather unlikely that such scholars would support the Jesus myth hypothesis (rather it seems they would be predisposed to oppose it), so there would be a stronger argument if the sources were not ministers or priests. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - several of the scholars have christian affiliation, although I'm not aware that any are a theologian in the sense of a scholar of Christian doctrines, rather than a Christian scholar of the historical texts of Christianity from a historical-critical point of view (perhaps van-voorst, I don't know much about the guy). I don't see this as a problem, though. While it's true that religious people are generally biased to believe their religion, they are normally capable of being aware that people disagree with them. If the Jesus myth theory were held by even a reasonably-sized minority of scholars, I can't see that many professional scholars wouldn't be aware of them. If they've devoted their lives to studying the subject, including reading enormous quantities of their works, and attending many academic conferences with fellow scholars, and yet aren't aware of any notable numbers of scholarly mythicists, one can draw only two conclusions: that there aren't any notable number of scholarly mythicists, or they are insane. Ordinary bias doesn't explain it.

Furthermore, I think it's a fairly biased assumption (one which I'm not sure you're making, but without which your criticism seems not to make sense) to assume that religious scholars are biased in a way that non-religious scholars are. Anyone who understands christianity (or pretty much any religion) in any more than a superficial way, would realise that it's a system of thought that has enormous implications for how someone should live their life. It should lead to some kind of emotional response, otherwise you don't understand either Christianity or your emotions. If you're a Christian, to challenge christianity is to challenge the person around which you orient your life. If you're not a christian, to proclaim Christianity is to challenge the things around which you orient your life.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, I think it's a fairly moot point, seeing as there are non-Christians cited. These include the atheist Michael Grant, and the prominent JM proponent Earl Doherty. TJ (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue the point here, but I did think about this seriously. There is an RfC, and I commented; but I did not necessarily expect agreement, or applause. Certainly, I am sorry if I offended you, or anyone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I didn't take any offense from your comment, and also did not mean to give any. My language was evidently too strong if it could be interpreted in that way, and I'm sorry for that error.

I think that, because I'm someone who likes playing with words, I often use stronger language than I actually mean, simply because I enjoy using language in that way. In any case, I didn't mean to indicate any kind of anger or disapproval against you, only disagreement - and we all disagree with people all the time.

I did request comment on the subject, and I'm grateful for any one doing so (particularly if they come from outside of the normal kind of people who visit this page, which is generally very emotionally committed to the subject, from one side or the other - and if they stick around, become more so in response to the things the other side do), and would be a complete jerk if I only wanted comment that agreed with me. TJ (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the theory is a minority theory, so as such asking that question in an RFC is at best a waste of time and at worst totally misleading as it could be used to try to justify unrelated edits. Let me track down the SPECIFIC statements I most objected to first, which I will include below, and then I will give further thoughts on NPOV in general. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFC wasn't actually entered primarily in response to you, there's been a lengthy discussion involving several people (and indeed comes up a lot) and I've been feeling for a few weeks that it would be wise to try to get some outside comment in, because the people who turn up on this article tend to have strong opinions and feelings about the subject already, one way or the other. I just needed a bit of spare time to have the time to do so, and it was largely unrelated that your edits happened at the same time.

I look forward to discussing these specific statements that you disagree with - hopefully will have some time tonight, but I have a few chores so might have to wait up to even a few days if not - alas, life is busy, and today is my only full day off. TJ (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's about me or not is immaterial. I don't know of anyone who argues that this hypothesis is a majority view, and that's what the RFC was worded as. RFCs need to be worded in an objective and need to cover the actual topic under dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to break this down:

This line was removed: "However, modern scholarly discussion and support opposes the hypothesis." This line is way over the top POV-pushing in my mind. Saying that something is a minority opinion is one thing, saying that scholars as a whole oppose it is way beyond pointing out relative weights to taking a full side. Merely quoting a number of authors claiming that the field as a whole rejects it suggests that those people are somehow allowed to talk for the entire field, and that anyone who says otherwise isn't a scholar. That's completely unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed that edit myself, so I don't have much gripe with you disagreeing with that wording. TJ (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity, that is, that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than completely made-up myth." Again, this is nothing more than going beyond saying it's a minority view to taking a specific side. It also claims that ALL scholars and historians believe this, which is certainly not true. The people who have the other view are also historians and scholars. DreamGuy (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If there's any significant following of the JM theory in the scholarly community, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. Name ten scholars (ie people with PhD's and proper research posts at accredited universited) who affirm the Jesus Myth theory.

I have been following this page for two years, and at best I've heard of two (Price and Pagels). And neither of them are clear proponents, either - Price feels the burden of proof is on jesus' historicity but doesn't strongly propose it in the same way as Doherty, Freke, etc, and I've never heard any evidence - beyond assertion - that Pagels holds to the Jesus myth (and indeed have read her saying things that are quite difficult to square with that.)TJ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson - from The Messiah Myth "the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding" (something like that - I don't have the book handy but can find it). I have mentioned this one more than a few times. Sophia 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I evidently forgot that one. You haven't been around much lately, so you probably haven't mentioned it since then.

Given that, I guess it's plausible that there might be a couple of others from a while ago that I've forgotten. TJ (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion about Thompson earlier, somewhere in this section in the archives, and no one provided any definite evidence that Thompson thinks Jesus wasn't historical. The quote "the historical Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding", as far as I can tell, is not from Thompson's book, but from this review on someone's blog. I haven't read Thompson's book, but my impression is that The Messiah Myth doesn't argue against Jesus' historicity. On p. 16, (the full text of the book can be found at Amazon) Thompson says: "The purpose of this book is not historical reconstruction. Nor is it centered in the problems of the historical Jesus. It is about the influence of the ancient Near Eastern figure of the king in biblical literature, and this has much to do with how figures such as Jesus are created." Thompson's argument is that the biblical figures of David and Jesus are shaped by literary tropes that are shared throughout Near Eastern literature, as far back as 3rd millenium BCE Egyptian texts. One could argue that, if the Gospels are based in shared literary/mythical tropes, there's no historical figure behind them--but it doesn't look like Thompson takes that step. One could also argue that the Gospel writers took a historical Jesus and portrayed his career in terms of the traditional Messiah figure--but I don't think Thompson says that either. As far as I can tell, he's not interested in whether Jesus was historical or not, but he is very critical of methods used by members of the Jesus Seminar to reconstruct the historical Jesus.

So, I don't think it's correct to say that Thompson is a proponent of the JM--at least, not from what I've seen so far. If Thompson does say somewhere that there's no historical Jesus, I'd be happy to be corrected. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From the blurb on the inside cover: "Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed". As per usual too much opinion here and not enough reading of the sources. Sophia 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That's not at all fair - Akhilleus explicitly stated that he was only saying that he hadn't heard anything conclusive, and was happy to be corrected. He wasn't dogmatically stating anything about something he hadn't read, he was just stating what he at that point believed.

Equally, you frequently state a length your opinions on various subjects, without similar qualifiers. TJ (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your attempt at distraction from the point is referring to. If you are implying I have not read Christian authors to counter my obvious bias then I'm afraid you are wrong. Not as many as you I'm sure as I found them samey and based on inconsistent arguments that were frequently just appeals to authority (the basis of the disputes here not surprisingly). One thing I do try to do is only argue from my own knowledge base and am genuinely sorry if I have not done this. The point in question here is whether Thompson throws his hat in with the Jesus Myth lot - the answer has to be he considers the Jesus of the Christian faith to be based on older myths and prophecy fulfillment from the OT and other Jewish sources. We split enough hairs here (and good grief no one can doubt his scholastic credentials in the area) that I'm sure he will get thrown out so the Conservapedia "no reputable sane person would ever dare think this" mantra can continue. Give it a month or two and I'm sure he will be forgotten again. Sophia 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I stated, in response to Akhilleus IN THE EXACT SAME DIFF, that I agreed with you about Thompson. My only issue with that post was that you were being unfair on Akhilleus. Please do not Assume Bad Faith against me like this ("your attempt at distraction from the point is referring to"), especially when it's BLATANTLY untrue.

I have no idea, nor do I care, how many Christian or non-Christian books you have read. I wasn't intending to insult you by that comment at all, I was merely defending Akhilleus's right to have opinions. TJ (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A Dilbert cartoon comes to mind.....but I won't. Sophia 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The blurb? Come on. That doesn't show that you've read the text either. Give me something from inside the text. "the Jesus of the gospels never existed" could easily mean that there was a historical Jesus, but the Gospels don't tell us anything reliable. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it would show that early christianity doesn't say anything reliable. I don't think anyone is disputing that there were first century people called Jesus - what's at stake is whether any of them is who Jesus is based upon in any significant way. TJ (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While Akhilleus is right that dust jackets are useless (many times they are written by people who don't know the book's constants) the book is available through Google book in limited preview format. "The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified. Even though a historical Jesus might be essential to the origins to early Christianity, such a need is not obviously shared by the gospels." (Thompson, The Messiah Myth pg 8) Thompson represents that part of the JM idea the scholars have not even touched: that while there might have been a historical Jesus the Gospels tell us little perhaps nothing about this man. Mead held this view in his Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? and Alvar Ellegard does the same thing in his Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ using the (unknown to Mead in 1903) Dead Sea Scroll's even earlier Teacher of Righteousness. It is one thing to say Jesus never existed in any shape way or for as Doherty does and a totally different thing to to say he has been so mythologized we can't tell much if anything about the true historical man these accounts are based on as Mead, Ellegard, and Thompson do; the second position is a lot harder to ridicule or dismiss. Especially when you have some 200 scholars of the Jesus Seminar throwing out about 82% of the sayings attributed to Jesus as not being actually from him. So far not one scholar has been put forth to show the middle of the road version of the JM is fringe; if anything the Jesus Seminar would indicate that version is pretty mainstream. Remember I said there many months ago was no excluded middle in this theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the emotion and money/power involved, scholars have to be exceptionally brave, or stupid, to step outside the accepted norms - just look at what happened to John M. Allegro. His work was never judged on its merits but by the offense it caused. On a lighter note I remember The Life of Brian being banned from my local cinema for the same reason.

I'll state again that I do not claim this is an academically widespread view - it is a minority interest that has captured a lot of popular attention. What bugs me is the fight by some to include extreme quotes from Christian theologians who question the sanity of those who challenge the status quo - not based on the arguments - just trying to destroy the reputation of any individual who dares to "go there". The drive here seems to be to make this article echo how Conservapedia treats this subject [1]. Over the last two years I have never seen this article move forward, the same fights keep going round and round. Sophia 09:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John M. Allegro's work claimed that Christianity was the descendant of a fertility cult based on the use of amanita muscaria. In The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, Allegro said: “This is the basic origin of the stories of the New Testament. They were a literary device to spread the rites of mushroom worship to the faithful…" I think this idea got as much attention from the scholarly establishment as it deserved. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

His "Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christan Myth" is a better read and does pull up the problems with the crossover with the Nazarenes and Essenes who get swept under the carpet in the normal Christian history of the region. Sophia 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From the description on Allegro's website it looks like Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth might be worth covering in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you haven't read it - you would find his views on communion rather hard to swallow. Sophia 20:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to YOU to decide what a "significant following" is, and neither is it up to people who oppose it to declare it either. Frankly, from looking at the sources already on the article it seems significant enough to me. But, more importantly, scholarly disputes are not "resolved", they are based upon the evidence, and evidence in history can and does change, and for anything with limited evidence it's all going to come down to a judgment call. We know what *your* judgment is, but NPOV policy isn;t about that. Insisting that it is resolved is not only POV-pushing, it's downright naive. DreamGuy (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

...and neither is it up to you to declare schism where it is not shown to exist. NPOV policy specifically adds that fringe views with no mainstream academic support should not be treated as if they were on equal footing with the accepted view. You were specifically challenged to prove that professional historians and scholars throw in with the myth theory - quibbling about philosophies of academia is not relevant.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The people who have the other view are also historians and scholars." I don't think so. With the notable exception of Robert M. Price, the proponents of the JM theory don't hold academic positions in religious studies or ancient history, which is what I think the label "scholar" is supposed to denote. Price isn't exactly a proponent of the JM theory--rather, he claims to be an agnostic about Jesus' historicty. JM proponets usually say that Jesus is definitely ahistorical. Another person who's not currently listed in the "recent proponents" section (but probably should be) is G. A. Wells, who is a scholar--but of German. Not of biblical studies or ancient history. In other words, Wells is as much an expert on 1st century Palestine as someone who's spent their scholarly career writing about Shakespeare is an expert on Presocratic philosophy. My point here is that the authors who espouse the JM hypothesis almost always come from outside the academic fields of biblical studies (and ancient history). I don't see why anyone disputes this, especially since a frequent argument from proponents of the JM theory is that academia is deeply biased against the JM theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think so." That simply isn't so. I've looked at the list of authors cited in the pro-theory articles, and some I recognize as scholars and historians in fields that give them just as much right and ability to give an informed commentary on the topic as a bunch of Bible scholars. Hell, more so... most of the Bible scholars became Bible scholars in the first place for religious reasons. Biblical archeologists, for example, are first and foremost trying to prove the Bible and not to provide objective archeological research that might undermine their own beliefs. Topics in fields of history and religious studies and mythology can approach the topic in a LESS biased and more informed way. And, while I admit that some people would disagree with this argument, NPOV policy is very clear on this. Editors don't get to pick and choose which authors, researchers, scholars and so forth THEY consider to be knowledgeable (especially not when it so clearly is being done to advance one side of an argument). This article cannot take a side, and to directly state or imply in the article itself (as compared to quotes) that the Jesus myth proponents are not scholars or historians is a massive and undeniable violation of the very foundation of NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you name some of these authors you recognize as being scholars and historians. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The follow line was removed. The person who removed it had previously removed it claiming that "notes" (as the verb used to be instead of the "argues" in the present version) was too loaded of a word but that "argues" would be preferable. I can't see any possible reason to object to it: "and argues that "An important factor ... has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se."^[1]"

Certainly this view is a view that is sourced, and directly relates to the question of reliability of sources. Including this person's views is not taking a side but merely presenting his side. Removing it would unfairly underrepresent this side, and hugely so if the sections arguing that scholars and historians reject/oppose/refute remain. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've reponded to this above, I'll simply copy paste what I've said there.

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On why I continuously removed it - because it serves nothing to the article, and isn't about the theory. It's a blatant ad hominem attack, designed to discredit the position of adhering to Jesus' historicity. I could provide quote's from prominent historian's (maybe not one's with a clear record of npov, but then, neither is this quote) declaring something along the lines of "what do they know? They're just atheists." And I can bet that the line wouldn't last two seconds in the article. That we have quotes from atheists as prominent refs on this page should show the lie to the claim, at the least.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Richard Burridge and Graham Gould stated that they did not know of any "respectable" scholars that held the view today." -- This lines seems especially inflammatory, consisting of nothing but a major personal attack/poisoning of the well. Certainly the scholars who disagree think they are respectable, and might believe that Burridge and Gould are not worthy of respect. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just citing what some people said, per WP:NPOV - the word "respectable" is quoted precisely to enable people like you to interpret it in that way! TJ (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV policy doesn't say that just citing what some people say automatically means a statement is neutral. How such statements are presented, how many, where, in what context, etc. makes a lot of difference (this is the basis behind WP:UNDUE weight and other aspects within the NPOV policy). This statement in a list of reasons to oppose the theory sounds like an endorsement of the claim. If it's paired (in the same section, not split up) with a proponent of the theory pointing out that most of the people most strongly opposed to the hypothesis are theologians then both sides get their say in context. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had a reliable source for that quote, and it was referenced accordingly, I might well agree with you! TJ (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a quote, and it seemed like a reliable source for the opinion, and it was referenced... yet you yourself removed it. You can't pick and choose who you consider reliable solely to suit your own agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I did already insert his response there, actually - the bit about interests both secular and religious (thereby confirming that a lot of non-religious people disagree) campaigning against it - I think it's balanced already, and I'm not sure I see the point of citing everything he's ever said on the subject. TJ (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would add here that with the section above, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to - arguing for both sides of the coin, so long as they agree with you. I believe that the intent of the word in their quotes is to apply to professional historians and scholars, with PhD's and recognized in their field as such, instead of crank's or mere students.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead of addressing the arguments they direct their comments to the "respectability" of the persons putting them forward. Is that an ad hominem attack I wonder? Hmmmmmmm...... Sophia 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be considered such, though to be fair it does have the uniqueness of having numbers to back itself up. Happy? I don't believe I ever zealously argued for those quotes to stay in, anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By the standards the late Carl Sagan put for in his book Demon Haunted World there is plenty of baloney on both sides go around but a good hunk is in the Pro historical Jesus side. Weasel words such as those quoted by Grant abound. The one thing Carl Sagan warned against which is at the heart of this issue is appeal to authority. I have mentioned before how simply on the merit of his impressive credentials Lavoisier was able to ram his flawed caloric theory down the throat of science and the few who were able through experimentation were able to show Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory were dismissed simply because their credentials weren't as good as Lavoisier. In his series Day the Universe Changed James Burke correctly pointed out how when a sea change is just about to occur in a scientific view of how the world works or view on a historical event 'you see some scientists clutching to the old theories like grim death'--216.234.222.130 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, one editor had claimed that "states" implies that they are stating a fact and that "argues" is more accurate. I think any rule we pick on what word is used where has to be applied fairly. An editor cannot complain about one source (especially one he disagrees with) using "states" while another source (especially one he agrees with) can use it without complaint. For example, "R.T. France states that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure." Here "states" goes with the first part, but "stating" that a religious movement would have been utterly discredited if blah blah blah presumes that this person has the ability to state what would or would not had to have happened under certain circunstances. It's only an opinion, an argument used in debate, not a statement of fact. Any wording here has to apply fairly and evenly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I made no such claim about "states", in fact wikipedia policy RECOMMENDS states, I made that comment about 'notes'. Please don't falsely accuse me of hypocrisy. Please Assume good faith. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. If we apply "states" fairly it shouldn't matter. That's the important part. I think "states" sounds more like advancing a fact than an argument. "Argues" is nice and nuetral. But whatever we decide upon it should be applied FAIRLY. By pointing out POV problems I am not suggesting you did so intentionally. People can make edits in good faith but still end up pushing a POV. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am applying states entirely fairly - if you read my edit summary when removing the part including "notes", I actually SUGGESTED "states" as an alternative to "notes". You really need a variety of words (states, argues, believes, writes etc), none of which imply that a scholar is right or wrong, but which prevent constantly using the same words again and again! TJ (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think states actually does imply that a fact is being stated, or it has that connotation anyway, but certainly not as strongly as "notes". I think anything that is an opinion advanced as an argument should be "argued" "claims" "believes" etc. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to that view (on states), and actually I am somewhat sympathetic to it, but wikipedia policies disagree with us. :)

I really don't like claims, though - it implies the opposite. (And needs to be removed from this article, along with many others.) TJ (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The line "The theory is actively discussed on the internet, both on websites and on Usenet. However," seems calculated to try to belittle the theory. Books have been written about it, and articles, and so forth, but the implication (pushed into the lead of all places) was that these are all just jabberers online and real people oppose it. The fact that people discuss things on the Internet should be assumed for anything notable enough to get an article. It doesn;t belong here, especially not as an excuse to toss in an "however." DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and I may not), that line was inserted by a JM proponent. TJ (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so. I can see a supporter thinking that online support somehow helps his case. "Calculated" was a poor choice. Wither it was intentional or not, I think the end result belittles it. Certainly we don't say that evolution is much discussed on the internet, or so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I put that in, and it comes straight out of Van Voorst. I'm sorry it comes across as an attempt to belittle people; Van Voorst is commenting on the fact that there's no serious interest in the JM idea in academia, but there's active discussion of the idea in other fora, especially online. He's pointing out a disconnect between the way scholars and amateurs deal with the idea, which I think is an interesting aspect of this topic--the fact that lots of people are interested in this idea despite the fact that you won't find it taught in school. Someone I read, I think it might be Van Voorst, mentions that he often gets asked about the JM hypothesis when he gives public lectures--and he finds it strange.

If people don't think this belongs in the lead, that's fine with me, but I think some variation of the "no scholarly interest/active amateur interest" contrast should be stated somewhere in the article, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't seem condescending.

I should mention that the Van Voorst reference just has a page number. But he didn't write just one book so which book does this quote come from? Without a book it might as well be a citation needed there because there is no way to know WHERE the thing came from. I should also mention Robert, E. Van Voorst's PHD is in Theological Seminary; his very degree depends assuming that the Jesus of the Bible is a historical person. That he currently teaches for a University with tight ties to the Reformed Church in America doesn't help as that mean his very teaching position is dependent on supporting the idea of a historical Jesus. Also some his statements make NO logical sense. Take this little gem for example:

"What can be gained from Thallus? Some fog of uncertainty still surrounds Thallus's statement: its extreme brevity, its third-hand citation, and the identity and date of the author. While this fog prevents us from claiming certainty, a tradition about Jesus' death is probably present. Like Christian tradition as found in the Synoptic Gospels, Thallus accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus." (Van Voorst, Robert E., (2000) _Jesus Outside the New Testament_, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 23).

Ok the first part admits that Thallus is third hand and yet later Van Voorst says "Thallus accepts..." How the sam hill can anyone say Thallus accepts anything?!? You have Eusebius in the 4th century supposedly telling us what Sextus Julius Africanus in the 3rd century supposedly said quoting Thallus of the 2nd. That Eusebius also is the first to quote the Testimonium Flavianum in the early 4th century should send up a red flag faster than 25 car pile up at Indianapolis Speedway and yet Van Voorst goes happily along as if nothing is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can;t be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is a problem. The lead needs to state that the JM hypothesis is not widely accepted in academia, and there can be a longer section in the body that deals with the (relatively few) scholarly responses to specific authors (e.g., Van Voorst's criticism of Price). But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The article opens with the claim that support is limited... which is fine, right now it is. But the cites don't support that claim, the cites just site what a bunch of religious authors claim, and of course the religious authors are going to make that claim. In order to say something is actually limited, minority, etc., it would have to be something entirely agreed upon -- so that the opposing view also says it -- are supported in some meaningful source documenting overall opinion of a field instead of individuals in it. See a bunch of footnotes of people bashing an opposing view doesn't cut it. If you can find a proponent of the view documented somewhere as admitting to be in the minority, which should be too hard, source that, and then save all the true-believers' statements for the criticism section. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have that - Doherty! It is in the scholarly response section.

Anyway, I think all the people cited there are scholars, and not all are religious. TJ (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's immaterial whether they're religious or not. Grant, Van Voorst, Stanton, and the others who are cited hold academic positions (or held, since some are dead). They're perfect examples of reliable sources on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if they quote people like Otto Betz (Protestant theologian) and Roderic Dunkerley (all Wikipedia has about this guy is a list of the books he wrote and that "This article about an English writer, poet or playwright is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."; nothing about him being a scholar or even when he died-I hardly think he is 120 years old)? I have heard of standing on the shoulders of giants but here it looks like Grant is standing on midgets and slapping his substantial credentials on the works of two other authors that may not be worthy of them. Scholarly it looks insanely sloppy and unworthy of Grant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be immaterial whether they are religious or not for the purposes of citing them as experts on *their own conclusions*, but declaring that any position is a consensus etc. requires EVIDENCE of consensus, not just some people who have agenda to push claiming that there is one. Furthermore, the fact that these people come from a highly Christian apologist mindset absolutely makes a huge difference in whether their claims are objective or merely reflecting their religious beliefs, so the reliable source already included earlier making his argument that these people are operating out of a mindset of advancing their religion over advancing history is certainly a point that that side is capable of making and should not be hidden because *you* think that the religion of the person claiming it is irrelevant. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this argument that religious scholars are so biased by their religious convictions that they can't treat the theory objectively is actually an argument in favor of treating the JM hypothesis as a fringe theory. If biblical scholars are so biased, there's no way they can accept the theory, therefore it has no place in biblical studies, and therefore it's fringe--it's entirely outside the relevant academic community.

Of course, the argument that these scholars are excessively biased by their religious convictions is wrong. First of all, there's no necessary connection between studying Christianity and being a Christian. One can go to, for example, Harvard Divinity School without being a Christian, or a member of any faith. There's no necessary connection between teaching in a religious studies department and being a Christian, or a member of any faith at all. It is unwarranted to assume that everyone who rejects the JM theory is a "theologian" or an "apologist". These are academic scholars of religion. Some of them may well be Christian, but you can't assume that just from what they study--and even when they are Christians, the people we've cited are writing as historians of religion, not as theologians.

When we turn to the specific set of people cited in the article, we know that at least one of them--Michael Grant--said he was an atheist. Grant wasn't even a religious scholar at all, actually, he was an ancient historian, and that's another problem with this argument. The historicity of Jesus is a topic within ancient history as well as religious studies, so the statement that "these people come from a highly Christian apologist mindset" is flat wrong--Grant is coming from a different field of study entirely.

The biggest problem with the argument is that it assumes that people of a particular religious faith are incapable of rationally evaluating statements about that faith's history. We could make the same statement about proponents of the JM theory--they're atheists, therefore we can't trust what they say about the historicity of Jesus, because their beliefs (or lack thereof) have made them so biased against Christianity that they're operating out of a mindset of destroying religion over advancing history. But that's a bad argument, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with using Grant as a source. From his whole body of work, he basically devotes a couple paragraphs to the subject, essentially to let his readers know that nobody important takes the subject seriously. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But remember what we're using him as a source for. He's one example of scholars who say that the JM theory isn't taken seriously in academia. If he's right, why would he devote more than a few paragraphs to the theory? He's already paid more attention to it than most scholars who write about Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that Grant comes off as a very poor example. The majority of the quote is actually Grant quoting two other authors: Otto Betz ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from 1968 and Dunkerley from 1957 ("again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars") with him throwing in things like 'In recent years' (Recent?! Last time I checked 20 years was considered a generation!) and 'or at any rate very few' (Basically Grant hasn't even bothered to check in the 20 years since Dunkerley wrote this and so doesn't know) around the Dunkerley quote. If anything Grant would seem to to support Doherty's position that that no body even thinks there is enough merit the Jesus never existed part of JM to even check to see if perhaps it might have some validity. I find it amusing to see Akhilleus still defending a quote that he knows to be partly in error.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant may be a reliable source for a number of topics, but having mentioned some personal opinions in a minor way on this topic does not make him either a reliable or notable source on this topic. Furthermore, his claim that the entire field rejects the topic *might* be relevant for whether he and many others at the time he said it think on the topic, but it in no way *proves* that there *is* a consensus, so the wording has to be very precise on these things. Quoting five authors trying to speak for an entire field only proves their opinions, not the opinions of the entire field, and certainly not for "scholars" and "historians" in general, which would include the people supporting the Jesus myth hypothesis. The whole slant of this article right now isn't trying to cover the topic objectively, it's try to savage the idea. And we can certainly see that intent in the comments of posters here on the talk page and in edit comments. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The statements of academics in a given field are certainly reliable sources for the state of the field. If you disagree with the source, or believe it to be incorrect, then produce a reliable source to the contrary. --Haemo (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the sources in this article are fine, but I think the article as a whole has gotten a little bent out of shape. it seems to me that ideally the article should be a discussion of the Jesus Myth itself - its historical roots, variations of its basic beliefs, evidence that is used in its support, and etc. The fact that it is a minority (or fringe, or discredited) belief should be mentioned in the lead and discussed briefly in the body, but only to a limited extent. as it stands now the 'discrediting' portion is starting to overwhelm the discussion of the topic (particularly with the repeated use of the same quotations near the end of the article). it feels like the article is being shaded to make sure everyone knows that these theories are passé; but I don't think that should be the purpose of the article.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dun quote looks dodgy and I want to look it up but there isn't enough info there - how do I find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.29 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any quote by Dunn. I do see a sentence that is cited to Dunn (2003)--this is in footnote 63--and Dunn (2003) is listed in the "Books arguing for a historical Jesus" section as Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Christianity in the Making Vol 1: Jesus Remembered. Wm B Eerdmans Pub Co. That's the source you want to be looking at, I think, unless I've missed something. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Scholarly response" section of this article is a quote farm, and should be deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add wiki-links for the scholars quoted in "Scholarly response", but can't find much. Is the Michael Grant who is cited this Michael Grant (author)? If so, I note that he is called a "classicist and numismatist", indicating that his specialty is not theology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's an ancient historian, as has been said many times on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Is Michael Grant (author) his article? If so there is nothing there that says that he is an historian, or that he is particularly ancient either (rather he seems to be dead). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's his article. "Ancient historian" means someone who works on the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Grant is indeed dead, so perhaps I should have said that he was an ancient historian. If his article doesn't say that he was one, it should--actually, a quote in the beginning says that he was a classical historian, which is the same thing as an ancient historian. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. To me "ancient historian" just means a very old historian. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm in favor of removing this section for the time being. (I'm actually in favor of removing most of the article, and starting over from scratch.) Where scholars have commented on the specific aspects of the theory, that can be integrated into the article--for instance, there are quite a few discussions of Arthur Drews in the secondary literature, and there are a handful of discussions of Wells' ideas. Citing those in the article is a good way of illustrating the scholarly consensus on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to keep the section, and maintain its effectiveness, while reducing the dependence on direct quotes. But if you want to do it differently, that should be OK too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, also subscribed to a version of Jesus myth hypothesis.

H.P. Blavatsky stated that the story of Jesus was invented after the 1st century. Jesus, she says, "is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples, and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. . . . Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac. [2]

It seems to me that writing this article based only on scholarly sources is a mistake. The idea has a much wider grounding, and would the subject would remain notable even without the academically based discussion.

Thomas Paine also seems to have held a version of the Jesus myth hypothesis, which he discusses in The age of Reason,

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground. [3]

I am sure there is much more on this subject than has been included, so far, in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's notable, no one's disputing that. The attention this got in the old days definitely establishes its notability. But whether or not we give it a favourable report in terms of "likely truth" depends on modern academic sources (not 19th century ones), because it is an academic hypothesis. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to "give it a favourable report", or otherwise. It is the job of editors to present what notable discussion has occurred, in its various facets, in as neutral a way as possible. If you feel the necessary to comment on truth (as you see it), you need your own web site; because Wikipadia is not interested in truth, but verifiablity.

Paine's is a fairly standard rationalist/deist position. The first sentence clearly implies that Jesus was a real person (how else could he write "no account of himself, of his birth, parentage"), whose life was built up into an aggrandised myth. Blavatsky is taking the standard Aryanist model of the Jesus myth of the time, derived ultimately from the writings of Ernest Renan and Max Muller, culminating in books like Aryan Sun Myths. Yes, all this history should be in the article. It should cover the evolution of these ideas in their context, up to the modern day, including orthodox Christian reactions and mainstream scholarly opinion about it. It should not be a list of arguments in an attempt to prove or disprove it. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You will note that in the first paragraph of this article's introduction it says: "There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." Paine's version falls well within that parameter. Also he introduced the idea that the Jesus myth had pagan characteristics -- particularly that the father of Jesus was God (it was common for pagan gods to father children with mortals, a concept foreign to Judaism).

I agree with Paul B that it would make a better article to present all this as history, rather than to get into arguments over story of Jesus being true or false. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to establish truth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition in the lead is quite poor, and I don't think it's a good idea to use it to decide what belongs in this article. The quote: "There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." picks out versions of the theory where the Jesus of the Gospels is based on figures like Jesus ben Pandera (1st century BCE)--this was the argument of John M. Robertson. An editor on this talkpage has mention Alvar Ellegard as another example of this variant of the JMT. Both Robertson and Ellegard deny that Jesus was a historical, 1st century CE person. The central component of the JMT is the argument that Jesus was a historical person. Paine doesn't say that there was no historical Jesus.

There are good scholarly sources on history of the JM hypothesis from its precursors through the first part of the 20th century. One is Van Voorst's book; another is Walter Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950. These are useful sources with which to cover the history of the JMT up to the mid-20th century--and neither mentions Paine nor Blavatsky. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that Van Voorst's book and/or Walter Weaver's book are important enough, you should write articles for them; but I see no reason why the content of this article should be limited by what they have written.

I think there are editors who are trying to impose too narrow limits on the scope of the article to make it easier to maintain their POV. The definition from the lead is excellent, and it gives the basis for an interesting article on the history of the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already said above why I think this sentence should remain, but to remind people, I'll just quote myself:

I think I put that in, and it comes straight out of Van Voorst. I'm sorry it comes across as an attempt to belittle people; Van Voorst is commenting on the fact that there's no serious interest in the JM idea in academia, but there's active discussion of the idea in other fora, especially online. He's pointing out a disconnect between the way scholars and amateurs deal with the idea, which I think is an interesting aspect of this topic--the fact that lots of people are interested in this idea despite the fact that you won't find it taught in school. Someone I read, I think it might be Van Voorst, mentions that he often gets asked about the JM hypothesis when he gives public lectures--and he finds it strange.

If people don't think this belongs in the lead, that's fine with me, but I think some variation of the "no scholarly interest/active amateur interest" contrast should be stated somewhere in the article, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't seem condescending.

It looks like I forgot to sign the first time--sorry about that! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that, because Van Voorst wrote it, it belongs in the introduction? If you think it important, find someplace aside from the introduction to put it. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I already said why I think it's important. I think it belongs in the lead because I think the lead sections of articles should place the subject of the article in a wider context--here, the lead should say where the JM hypothesis fits into the history of religious studies, and how it's received in academia and by the public at large. The citation from Van Voorst gives us a way to do that without straying into original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has everything necessary to establish notability without that sentence. The subject could go elsewhere in the, for instance in its own section, but Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. Whatever the case, that sentence does not fit with the rest of the intro, and sticks out like a bandaged toe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The sentence was not about "trivia", but a possible way of establishing that the theory is popular outside of academia. Now the intro contains no mention of the theory's popularity. If people are happy with that, that's fine with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)