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. Archive 13: through Apr 28 2008: more of the same Archive 14: through May 24 2008: RfC, neutrality, Grant, etc. Archive 15: through Aug 2008: scholarly response, euhemerization, docetism, circular discussion. Archive 16: more summer 2008: scholarly response, fringiness, hand-wringing. Archive 17: August 2008/September 2008 Archive 18: Sept-Dec 2008 Archive 19: Dec 2008-Jan 2009: Remsburg/-erg, etc. Archive 20: Jan 30 2009-Feb 2009

There is no satisfactory title for this article, because the idea that this article is about is referred to in different ways by scholarly treatments. Nevertheless, "Jesus myth hypothesis" is a phrase that is not commonly associated with this line of thought in reliable sources, whereas "Christ myth theory" (with or without a hyphen) is reasonably common. I doubt this will reduce the steady flow of complaints about how the definition of Christ myth theory/Jesus myth hypothesis/etc. is "inconsistent", but hope springs eternal. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, I must point out that "Christ myth theory" has its own set of problems. The definitions for "Christ myth theory" that Price, Remsburg, Bromiley, Walsh, and Dodd give do NOT agree with the definitions given by Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver. But they are all reliable sources.

Since Walsh, George (1998) states in The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers on pg 58 "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." you are left with the question of where Wells' position fits as he has BOTH (Paul's Jesus is mythical but the Gospel Jesus has a historical person behind him) and yet BOTH Price and Doherty are calling Wells a "Christ Myth theorist" after Jesus Myth. To date no reliable source has been produced to explain the variance in the definitions of "Christ myth theory" in ALL the sources sited and until such is produced trying to say "Christ myth theory" mean a certain thing is OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Akhilleus, don't delete huge sections (ala Rembsurg) based on your demonstratively poor research skills (as demonstrated by your original "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." comment which resulted in me posting a slew of references in talk that I found with not even 1 minute of effort). Searching for "John E (Remsburg|Remsberg) "The Christ"" in google books produces 71 matches and looking for "(Remsburg|Remsberg) "The Christ"" in Google Scholar produces 51 matches so claiming "no reliable secondary source gives him an important role in this line of thought" is a totally OR based claim easily disproved. Nevermind that the Remsburg/remsberg list is popular with the self published/blogger crowd as demonstrated by looking for ""(Remsburg|remsberg) list" Jesus" which produces 230 matches. Since I mentioned way back on the talk pages even Robert M. Price used Remsburg's The Christ as a reference so you must be claiming Robert M Price is not a "reliable secondary source" which is total nonsense. As an administrator you should know better.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, going through the 230 listings I found a direct reference to Remsburg in a 1956 book called Cosmic Creation by Professor Hilton Hotema on page 178. The Remsburg list appears or is referenced in World Transformation: A Guide to Personal Growth and Consciousness‎ by Jawara D. King 2007 on page 35, The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul‎ by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury on page 24, various books by Acharya S, What on Earth is an Atheist!‎ by Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1972 on page 246, and several more. Like it or not even if Remsburg is not common among Christ Myth (however you want to define that thing) scholars he certainly shows up enough to be mentioned.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean "demonstrably poor research skills", right? Research skills consist of a bit more than doing Google searches, don't they? Where does Price mention Remsberg, by the way? Looking through the archives I don't see where you ever said that, but there's a lot of text to go through, and I get kinda bored reading all that stuff (especially the parts I wrote). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Holding's books are self-published, so we shouldn't be using him. Hotema tells us that in ancient times, man was originally Breatharian and had spiritual powers no longer easily accessible in our present state of health. He seems some sort of New Age kook. And Remsburg or Remsberg seems no better. My opinion is that without evidence that Remsburg, however spelled, is actually used by scholars as a reference we shouldn't be using him either. dougweller (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But Hotema is a professor! He went to the Antediluvian College of the Ancient Astrologers! His book is published by Health Research Books! How can you say this isn't a reliable source?

Doug has concisely made the point I've been trying to get across, apparently without any success: without scholarly sources that tell us Remsberg/Remsburg is important in the line of thought developed by Bauer, Drews, Robinson, et al., he should not be included in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So I've taken out the Remsberg section again. I'd like to note that despite BruceGrubb's complaints that I took this action without discussion (and that as an administrator I "should know better"), there are two extensive sections in Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 19 discussing the Remsberg section, and why it shouldn't be in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realised a discussion on this had been taking place under the section heading 'name change', silly me, I thought that was about, well, never mind. The point is that numbers don't count (and my numbers were different), quality counts. A lot of those hits were Remsburger's own books, others were people like Acharya (Bruce, why in the world do you even mention him, is that supposed to be for or against Remsburger?). Remsburger's books have been around a very very long time, if they are any good I'd expect to see a lot of mention of him. As for Holding and Hotema.... Anyway, I support the removal of Remsberg. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce tends to discuss the same topics in every section on the page (search the page for the word "monomania"). Acharya S is a woman, I believe. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because Akhilleus has been using a definition even the reliable sources don't agree on. Again, the definitions of Price, Remsburg, Bromiley, Walsh, and Dodd do NOT say that the Christ myth theory says "Jesus did not exist as a historical person"; they in fact say different things. Walsh's definition fits Wells current position (which admits to a Historical person in the 1st century being part of the story but a precursor myth existing) and agrees with BOTH Price and Doherty calling Wells a "Christ Myth theorist" after his Jesus Myth book." As I said nearly two years ago the definitions of Christ myth theory are all over the place and Christ myth is even worse.

I should mention the whole Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 19 was about the amount of space I gave to to Remsburg (something I had reservations about) NOT if he should be in the article. Akhilleus statement of "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg" shows just how poor his research skills were.

Please note Akhilleus said "no secondary source" NOT 'no reliable secondary source'; ie he couldn't find such material as a 1916 The Publishers Weekly; The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul‎ by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled (both by Acharya S), Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography by Marshall G. Brown, Gordon Stein, Secret of Regeneration by Hilton Hotema (1998) Cosmic Creation by Hilton Hotema, Evolution and Man: Natural Morality ; the Church of the Future and Other Essays‎ by Elwood Smith Moser 1919, The Game Between the Gods by Michele Lyon, The Crucified Jew: Who Crucified Jesus?‎ by Max Hunterberg (1927), and and I think you get the point. Even using the wrong spelling of RemsbErg through google scholar produced things like Hanson, JM (2005)Was Jesus a Buddhist? Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 75-89; the two S Acharya books above and even a blog ("Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth?").

You may wonder why I italicized Gordon Stein. Well he was a Ph.D. in Physiology from Ohio State University and was co author of Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography which originally was published by University of California. The snipped view you can get out of this book is "Remsburg wrote three other important freethought books: The Bible (333), The Christ (334), and Six Historic Americans (32)" (sic) (the snipped ends there) So we have a PHD from from an accredited University (Ohio State University) saying in another university publication (University of California) that Remsburg's The Christ was "one of three other important freethought books".

I even pointed out the importance of Gordon Stein in my reply that said "As for as you seeing things you showed you don't look very hard when you claimed "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg" and I showed that even with the mispelling it was insanely easy to find secondary sources which you then tried to blow off as "self-published and non-expert sources" enough though one of the authors was none less than Gordon Stein". Nevermind that Remsburg was regarded so important in his own time that a short biography regarding him appeared in 1911's "The International Who's who" which identifies him as a teacher (sadly it doesn't tell us a teacher in what but that hasn't prevented James Charlesworth being sited as we don't know what his degree is in either.) I am reinstating Remsburg as Akhilleus had his reliable source clear back on 21:27, 20 December 2008 when he replied to my original post. I am going to rework it using 1911's The International Who's who and Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography stuff as there is way too much focus on Holding. The difference in numbers looking for "(Remsberg|Remsburg) list" Jesus is due to the nature of the net. With 200+ references to Remsburg list as well as published books on BOTH sides regarding it something about him needs to be said.

Finally you can't use authors who define the Christ Myth theory as Jesus NEVER existed and then say that people who support Jesus existing in an earlier century are Christ Myth theorists. 'YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS'. You have to admit that the definition does vary form author to author.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

None of that stuff is a scholarly source that indicates Remsberg is an important figure in regard to this theory. There is no consensus to include this material right now; please don't put it back in. However, these sources may be of use in improving John Remsburg (which needs some work). --Akhilleus (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's nice to see that you're sticking to your guns on Professor Hotema. Demonstrably great research skills at work! --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The reworking now states that there is little if anything scholarly regarding Remsburg's list while admitting its popularity with the self published and blogger crowds. Both the 1911 and Gordon Stein reference state Remsburg "delivered over 3,000 lectures, speaking in fifty-two States, Territories and Provinces, and in 1,250 different cities and towns, including every large city of United States and Canada." so the man was clearly important in his own time.

As for "Antediluvian College of the Ancient Astrologers" the logic hole here is to go back Hotema would have had to be there before and yet no mention of his first time there is ever made. Furthermore, Google can only find two idential references to this and it reads like what you would find on a dust jacket. Nevermind it looks like Professor Hilton Hotema is a pseudonym for Dr. George R. Clement but looking under that name doesn't produce anything useful other that he has been publishing stuff since 1926 (Law of Life and Human Health) with a slightly different spelling of his last name (Clemets) and puts LLD and ND after his name in this early book which was republished in 1998 and a little later in The Virgin Mother in addition to LLB and ND, has DC (Doctor of Chiropractic?), OD (Doctor of Optometry?), and PHd listed after his name. And that was about as far as I could take that as there are just too much noise to sift through on this guy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

we can agree that the topic of this article is a fringe theory, not serious grown-up biblical scholarship, yes? In this case, I see no problem with mentioning 19th century crackpots, and this includes both religous crackpots and anti-religious crackpots. Of course, language like "gets a lot of attention by the self published and blogger crowds" is utterly unencyclopedic and may be appropriate for talkpages but certainly not for article space. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the crackpots have to actually have something to do with the subject--and so far, Bruce hasn't demonstrated that. Surely we don't want to stick in every 19th century crackpot who wrote about Jesus into this article. We want the ones related to the article's topic, i.e., the ones who said that Jesus wasn't historical. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can't even agree on what the Christ Myth theory even is as the definition varies depending on what author you provide a fact Akhilleus keeps side stepping. Some define it as Jesus never existing (Wiseman), others define it as simple saying Jesus originated as a myth (Walsh) and others that define it as including some obscure historical person (Dodd and Remsburg). To date Akhilleus has NEVER addressed why Price called Wells a Christ Myth theorist after Jesus Myth which Van Vorst states partly accepted a historical Jesus. Yet Wells states Paul's Jesus was mythical which agrees with Walsh's and Dodd's definitions which would agree with Price's statement but does NOT agree with the definitions used in the lead in. As I asked on the fringe noticeboard thread that Akhilleus started up how can you say an idea is fringe when the reliable sources can't even agree on what the theory even is?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Hiberniantears suggestion and the Wikipedia:Requests for comment guidelines I am starting a section on this issue. Let's cut to the chase and look at the source material (arraigned alphabetically):

"This view hold that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1982) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) under the heading "Christ-myth Theory" History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17)

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." (Doherty, Earl (1999) Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard)

"The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as an historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community." (Farmer, William R. 1975 "A Fresh Approach to Q," Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Vol 2), eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith Brill, 1975) p. 43)

"Defence of biblical criticism was not helped by revival at this time of the 'Christ-myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare." (Horbury, William (2003), "The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain Oxford p. 55)

"In particular these rationalist organisations helped to promulgate the quasi-dogma of the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and thus to foster the 'Christ-myth' school of thought, to be encountered later in this study." (Jones Alan H. (1983), Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel; Mohr Siebeck, p. 47)

"Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." (Price, Robert M (!999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1)

"The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin." (Pike, Royston (1951) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions)

"The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ- myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." (Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History" Transaction Publishers pg 58)

"The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." (Wiseman The Dublin Review‎ pg 358)

"When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." (Wood, Herbert George (1955) Belief and Unbelief since 1850)

What we get out of that is a mess. Dodd certainly doesn't agree with Farmer, Horbury or Jones because his "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" comment. Bromiley "story of" would put Wells current position of "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." (Wells (2003) Can We Trust the New Testament? pg 43) in the Christ Myth theorist camp as would Walsh's definition. Dodd's definition is so vague that it could be Remburg's very broad definition and would include Mead, Ellegard, and Wells who are excluded if you use the Farmer or Horbury definitions.

Trying to say the above together forms some coherent definition for what Christ myth theory even is either requires twisting or reading into the source's statements things that are not even there. As I said some two years ago the very definition of what Christ myth theory even is should not be a game of pick that source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clear to me that 'Christ myth theory' covers all positions that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, whether invented wholesale or based on another historical person. That is how the reliable sources use the term, so what's the issue? --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Taiwan boi. It might be worth mentioning that a number of these sources are ones that I brought to the talk page to show that scholarship describes the Christ myth theory in a consistent fashion. BruceGrubb's insistence that there's no coherent definition is the result of his misreading these sources; if anyone's playing a "game of pick that source", it's him. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Akhilleus, you most certainly do NOT agree with Taiwan boi here. You have repeatedly stated that this article is about the view that Jesus never existed as a historical person, and have rejected any addition of the view that the gospel is a mythological embellishment of an obscure historical person. You're trying to cloud this issue by having it both ways. Either this article should have a broader scope to include views that say Jesus may or may not have been historical but most of the Gospels is embellishment, or it should focus exclusively on those treatments of the Christ-myth that maintain that Jesus is entirely fictional. --davigoli (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so. The article, to quote a bit of the lead that I wrote myself, says that "Some versions of the theory attribute the beginning of Christianity to a historical founder who predates the time Jesus of Nazareth is said to have lived, such as Yeshu ben Pandera or the Teacher of Righteousness." This is the position of, among others, J. M. Robertson, who is unambiguously said to be someone who denied Jesus' historicity by Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Weaver, Van Voorst, and Bennett. Yeshu ben Pandera definitely qualifies as "an obscure historical person"; the Teacher of Righteousness may or may not be a historical person, but the Christ myth theorists who mention him thought he was historical. So there's no problem here; the article covers writers who say that there was no historical Jesus, but some other historical person forms part of the basis for the NT accounts.

I'm quite annoyed by the assertion that I'm trying to cloud the issue. What I have said, quite consistently, is that we need to follow what scholarly treatments of this idea say. I've found six academic sources that devote substantial treatment to this idea: Schweitzer, Shirley Jackson Case's The Historicity of Jesus, Maurice Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?, Weaver, Van Voorst, and Bennett. These scholars are consistent in defining this idea as a distinct trend in the quest for the historical Jesus, and they are consistent in who they list as propoents of the theory. All we need to do here is follow the lead of these sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to attract any outside comment it needs to be posted at the appropriate boards: I suggest both Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. It would be worth starting a new section with an even shorter question of the problem, though, because people who comment on RfCs do not always read long posts... --Akhilleus (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus keeps claiming that "that scholarship describes the Christ myth theory in a consistent fashion" but that only is due to his misreading these sources. Reading what is only there in the sources rather than what one wants to be there (ie NPOV's "Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.") it clear the definitions do NOT match no matter how you want to handwave it.

Again he side steps the Price-Wells issue which blows a huge hole in his argument because Wells holds in Jesus Myth that there were two Jesuses: Paul's (a mystic figure of a previous century) and that of the Gospel (a historical man whose life was shoe horned into Paul's version). Remember all Walsh's definition says is "Jesus was originally a myth" which fits Wells' current position like a glove despite Wells also saying the Gospel Jesus has a historical person behind him which is in direct opposition to the definitions Farmer, Jones, Pike, and Wiseman. Furthermore Price and Doherty independently call Wells a Christ myth theorist after Jesus Myth putting them at odds with the definitions Farmer, Jones, Pike, and Wiseman give.

Worse yet in Can We Trust the New Testament? on pg 50 Wells states that as early as Jesus Legend (1996) he had dropped the Jesus of the Gospels is totally mythical idea so why is Price in 1999 saying "Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era."?

To date the only thing we have gotten regarding the Price-Wells mess is Wells' comment to Holding: "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court." (please note that both Apologetic Quotation Marks and italics are used in the original work). Using Wells own comments in Jesus Myth and Can We trust the New Testament? the sentence most logically reads "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" (as Holding defines it) without further explanation or description.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've covered each one of these points, somewhere in the extensive archives of this talk page. Sadly, BruceGrubb keeps on writing the same things over and over again, as if I haven't written anything. So I'm not going to bother to repeat myself; anyone who's interested and has a lot of time on their hands can read through the archives. However, I thought the point of this section was to get outside input, and that's not going to happen unless there's a listing at the requests for comment noticeboards--I suggested two appropriate subpages of WP:RFC in my post above. I'm not going to list this myself, because I would frame the issues quite differently than BruceGrubb has in this section. However, if BruceGrubb doesn't list this at WP:RFC soon, I may do so in a couple of days. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) I tried and got "Login error:" and yes everything looks like I should be allowed to use the RFC tool but it isn't working.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC tool seems to be broken right now, but you can post the request using the instructions at WP:RFC. If it isn't working for you just post the text you want here and I'll put it on the pages myself. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it was something I was doing wrong. I did the manual posting following the instructions to the letter and I think I did it right but double check.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:RFCreli

How is Christ myth theory defined and is there more than one definition?

are there diffs for various proposals here? --Ludwigs2 02:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is read the lead of the article and then the talk page section just above this one. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• well, I was involved in this discussion some months back (I think) and I thought the issue was resolved then. since that's apparently incorrect, here's my new two cents. the only substantive issue involved in this topic is the debate over whether or not Christ is the real, true, singular Son of God. all this foofaraw about whether JC was an 'embellished historical figure' or a 'purely mythological creation' is a red herring, since the notable aspect of both positions is that they deny that JC was supernatural or divine. write the article to encompass both positions (pure myth and mythologized person), from the perspective that they are both arguments against the divinity of an actual SoG (which is the way, historically, they are both usually used). and don't shoot the messenger (meaning me...) --Ludwigs2 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ludwigs2, I don't mean to "shoot the messenger," but I find your position a little strange. Most scholarship on the historical Jesus presupposes that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being, not the SoG. If I understand your proposal, the result would be that this article would cover Albert Schweitzer, Paula Fredriksen, the Jesus Seminar, Geza Vermes, Burton Mack, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan etc., because each one doesn't think that Jesus was supernatural or divine. But such an article would devote zero space to the authors that this article currently covers, because in the context of scholars like Fredriksen, Vermes, Funk, and Crossan, people like Arthur Drews and William Benjamin Smith are forgotten men. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • hey, it's just 2 cents worth of opinion. the problem is that the RfC is not very well defined; you guys seem to be having an RfC on the subject "What is this article about?" which is a bit open-ended. for instance, I wouldn't have gathered from the above discussion or the current article that you all want to focus on a particular and relatively obscure group of theorists and historians. you're the experts on this subject, not me... is it that you want to exclude 'historical jesus' arguments entirely? if I remember correctly, there was a problem where you were all trying to decide whether a mythology built around real people who weren't jesus (e.g., earlier prophets, or a combination of several individuals' lives) counted as historical or mythological. is that still on-going? --Ludwigs2 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the response. It's probably worth clarifying what the RfC is about, because it seems like editors who aren't familiar with the material are just going to shrug their shoulders and say "huh?" For my part, I think the current version of the lead describes the subject well, and the specific authors covered in the "history" section are basically the "particular and relatively obscure group of theorists" the article should deal with. Presumably, other editors have a different lead and a different list of authors the article should cover...but that's for them to say. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • But that is the point of why the RfC descriptor is worded the way it is: "How is Christ myth theory defined and is there more than one definition?" The article is dependent on how, through reliable sources, the term is defined and if that usage varies then claiming Christ myth theory is one and only one definition is OR. I also don't see how Ludwigs2 suggestion of "write the article to encompass both positions (pure myth and mythologized person)" would "devote zero space to the authors that this article currently covers". Sure we have one sentence blurbs on Edwin Johnson and Radical Dutch school but that is hardly "zero" though both could be a lot better. I still think Hiberniantears' "Christ Myth theory is a term which encompasses various debates concerning the existence and nature of, or the relationship between a historical Jesus and the concept of a Christ" is a good one as it addresses all the definitions available in the reliable sources without choosing certain ones over others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Ludwigs2's suggestion (and for that matter, Hiberniantears') could result in the article covering scholars like Burton Mack, Paula Fredriksen, and others who think that the NT has elaborated upon the career of a historical Jesus. Once you start writing an article about those scholars, putting in people like the Radical Dutch School, Bruno Bauer, or George Albert Wells becomes undue weight, because these people have had almost no influence on mainstream scholarship.
          • Bruce, you've written a lot about how you think the definition should be changed, but very little about the practical changes to the article that would result. Aside from Remsberg, what other authors do you think should be added to the article? Who do you think should be left out? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Akhilleus, you're drifting off topic. The point of this RfC is to deal with how Christ Myth Theory is defined and if any of the reliably source definitions available include the idea of a historical Jesus even if some of those definitions are along the lines that historical Robin Hoods and King Arthurs are found (like Mead, Ellegard, and Wells current 'distant past likely mythical Paul Jesus + historical 1st century would be messiah = Gospel Jesus' position). This RfC is NOT about who we are to include in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
              • It's not off topic. As far as I can tell, the definition you prefer would drastically alter the focus and scope of the article, in ways that you don't seem to understand. Asking you what authors you think should be included in the article is a way to try to figure out what you actually want the article to look like. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Call it the non historical theory if you want to focus on that portion but don't say that Christ myth theory/Christ myth/Jesus myth is the nonhistoricity hypothesis because the reliable source material does not uniformly support such a position. I would have no problem with the lead in being reworked as "The nonhistoricity hypothesis (sometimes also called the Christ myth theory, Christ myth, or Jesus myth)" This would acknowledge that all uses of these terms are not the nonhistoricity hypothesis which is the biggest problem with the article as it currently stands. We would have to throw out Mead, Ellegard, and Wells' current position as they do argue for a historical Jesus (abet in a different century for the first two and Wells for some form of composite person) but if scholars can find historical Robin Hoods a full century after the stories take place then these guys are basically arguing for a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'm still not seeing the problem, here, with having two sections in the article - the 'non-historical jesus' section and the 'historical but non-jesus basis' section. probably best not to use those exact titles... the first section could be dedicated to the more obscure scholars, while the second section could be dedicated to the people that Akhilleus thinks will take up all the space. you can balance the two positions with a discussion in the lead about the relative prominence of each group.
                    • Ludwigs2, Bruce has changed the subject here. The two groups you just mentioned, the "non-historical Jesus" and the "historical but non-Jesus basis", are both saying there is no historical Jesus (and we have academic sources that say so, one even mentions Mead specifically). The problem that I was talking about earlier is when you try to include the idea that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth and the New Testament is an elaboration of this historical person, because that's the position that many, perhaps most, scholars of early Christianity take. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
                      • ok, then maybe that's the first issue. does the article exclude those theories where there is an actual singular historical individual to which the New Testaments all refer? --Ludwigs2 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) Ludwigs2, I'm confused by your wording. Are you asking: 1) does the article exclude any theory that a historical figure supplies some basis for the figure of Jesus in the New Testament? or 2) does the article exclude theories that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC - 33 AD), who supplied some basis for the character of Jesus in the New Testament? or 3) does the article exclude theories that there was a historical figure (not Jesus of Nazareth) that supplied some basis for the figure of Jesus in the New Testament? These are pretty different questions. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

lol - and my question was: which of those questions are you dealing with, and which not? look, to my (fairly ignorant) mind you have a lot of fiddly-diddly distinctions here (real live historical Jesus; real live historical person (not-jesus) in the right time frame; real live historical person (jesus or not) in a different time frame; real live historical people (not all jesus) combined across different time frames, non-historical mythological figure, and probably more). which of these possibilities does the article want to talk about? I'll tell you frankly, from the position of an interested neophyte, I don't want to get involved in all the fiddly-diddly stuff; I just want you to tell me a basic set of theories, delineated nicely. all the gory details can be dealt with each in its own section as needed. there is obviously confusion in the sources over what the term 'Christ-myth hypothesis' means; what you need to do is spell out three or four prominent uses of the term, and then in separate sections you can get into the details of how different sources tweak out different meanings of each of these prominent uses. my sense here is that you guys have gotten your heads so deep inside this issue that you've forgotten this article should be understandable to your average high school student. see what I'm saying? so what are the 3 or 4 prominent uses of the CMH in sources? (I think you've spelled most of them out above, but still...) --Ludwigs2 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, these questions aren't fiddly-diddly at all: they're what separates a fringe theory from mainstream scholarship. So: the topic of this article is the idea that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the character of Jesus we find in the New Testament is a fictional creation of the early Christian community. Some writers believe that an earlier historical person such as Jesus ben Pandera supply some basis for the figure of Jesus in the New Testament; these writers (such as GRS Mead and John M. Robertson) still think that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, so they're part of this article.

What's not part of this article is the position that there was a "real live historical Jesus" (as you put it) in the right time frame, who did everything that the Gospels say; nor is the position that there was a real live historical Jesus, in the right time frame, whose career was elaborated with all sorts of mythical material to become the figure described in the New Testament. For that, you go to historical Jesus.

Now, what I'm not dealing with in this post is the use of the term "Christ myth theory", but in case it wasn't clear, I think every single quote that Bruce has brought to this page (and remember, I brought most of them to the talk page first) refers to the theory of the nonexistence of the historical Jesus. But, as I've said, the term is secondary to the topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

hey, even fringe theories need love. so, ok, we have a distinction: exclude all theories that have a real live dude doing and saying (in essence) what the Gospels report. cool. so now, what's the issue? does Bruce want to include something you want to exclude, or exclude something you want to include, or is this just a dispute over how you want to phrase or depict the issue? --Ludwigs2 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, fringe theories need love. I wouldn't be spending so much time on this one unless I found it interesting. I'm not sure I quite agree with the way you put it in your last post, though, because this article needs to include people that say Jesus ben Pandera was a partial basis for the Gospel accounts--he was (probably) a "real live dude", but not the real live Jesus of Nazareth (they were in different timeframes). Sorry if this seems fiddly-diddly, but it's probably best to be precise. As for where Bruce and I differ, I'm no longer sure what he wants this article to look like, and I hope he'll tell us 1) what he thinks the topic should be and 2) which theorists should be covered in it. (If you're curious to know which authors I think the article should cover, I think EALacey gives a good list here.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

eh, I'm no stranger to fiddly or diddly on my own turf. no worries. let's see what Bruce has to say: maybe this whole issue will magically disappear. --Ludwigs2 04:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic should reflect what the source material says and given the loose way Christ myth theory is used that is just isn't going to cut the mustard. Trying to say Welsh's definition does not support Wells' current position despite Price calling Wells a Christ Myth theorist shortly after the book came out just confuses the issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that I really don't understand regarding Akhilleus' position is how one hand you can have Robyn Hode, Simon de Montfort, and Sir John de Evill (or Sire Johannes d'Eyvile in the English of the day) can be presented as historical Robin Hoods despite their careers being well after 1199 (Robyn Hode is the latest at 108 years) and yet on the other ideas about Jesus living 100 years before the Gospel timeframe are somehow nonhistorial. Wouldn't suggesting a person who lived 108 years after the timeframe of the stories that they appear in be more nonhistorical (Robin Hood) then suggesting the person who inspired the stories they appear in lived 100 to 200 years before (Jesus ala Mead and Ellegard)? It just doesn't strike me as a consistent way to look at the definition of historial.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce: again, this is well into fiddly-diddly territory. a line has to be drawn somewhere/somehow; the question is how it's going to get drawn. the new testament, as I understand it, is fairly specific about the timeframe that Jesus is supposed to have lived in (noting events and people that are known through other sources); would someone living 100 years earlier really pass muster as Jesus? the tales of Robin Hood, by contrast, have a bit more wiggle room, time-wise. or would it work to divide it by the theorist's perspective (e.g., exclude those theorists who think they are actually talking about Jesus, and include only those who think they're talking about someone who wasn't really jesus? --Ludwigs2 09:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It may appear fiddly-diddly territory but Wells' current position to some degree fits the Robin Hood model. Beginning with Jesus Legend (1996) going through Jesus Myth (1999)and finally in Can we Trust the New Testament? you see the progression of Wells' current idea that the Gospel Jesus is a synthesis of Paul's Jesus who belonged to an an earlier time and a historical 1st century Galilean preacher (Can we Trust the New Testament? pg 43-44) The really messy part is that Wells expressly states in Jesus Legend pg 12: "What I have denied is not that Paul believed in a historical Jesus, but that he believed Jesus to have lived the life ascribed to him in the gospels." and yet in 1999 Price and Doherty are calling Wells a Christ myth theorist and current Jesus myth supporter respectively.

If as Akhilleus contends Christ myth theory is the non historical position (which I don't think the source material uniformly supports) something is really wonked with Price and Doherty putting Wells in the non historical category in 1999 when Wells expressly states that is not his potion in 1996. The Gospel Jesus Wells portrays in Jesus Legend through Can we Trust the New Testament? is essentially a composite character and in one sense cannot be historical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. I'm sure this is a valid concern in a detailed discussion of the issue, but at the moment (unfortunately) it creates an obstacle without suggesting a remedy. what is the problem (in terms a neophyte like me can understand) and what is a possible solution? or would you rather continue this endless argument until the issue becomes moot in the real world? (probably a few thousand years for that...) --Ludwigs2 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)What "obstacle without suggesting a remedy"? To put it bluntly as possible Christ myth theory, Christ myth, and Jesus myth are NOT always synonymous with nonhistoricity position and claiming so ina sentence effectively defining the four terms as synonyms is OR. For example, take Burton L. Mack who uses "Christ myth" in a totally different way from nonhistoricity (More along the lines of historical myth) and you see the problem. Digging around some more I found William Henry Fitchett's 1911 The Beliefs of Unbelief has a full chapter called "The Theory that Christ is a Myth" where he talks about both what Remsburg called the historical myth and pure myth with with a lot more space given to taking apart the pure myth idea.

Again if you want this to be about the nonhistoricity position simply rework the lead in to "The nonhistoricity hypothesis (sometimes also called the Christ myth theory, Christ myth, or Jesus myth)"

As for Akhilleus statement, "What's not part of this article is the position that there was a "real live historical Jesus" (as you put it) in the right time frame, who did everything that the Gospels say; nor is the position that there was a real live historical Jesus, in the right time frame, whose career was elaborated with all sorts of mythical material to become the figure described in the New Testament. For that, you go to historical Jesus" he has still not explained Wells current position which says Paul's Jesus belonged to an earlier time (Christ myth theory as Akhilleus), yet supports the Jesus of Q as being historical (per Van Voorst and Walsh), and whose position is called Christ Myth theorist by Robert M Price. He may claim he has explained it but he really hasn't.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. so, on reading this, I'm inclined to think that the lead might start with something like: "The Christ myth theory (also known as the nonhistoricity hypothesis, Christ myth, or Jesus myth) is a set of academic and philosophical theories arguing against the idea that the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament is a historically accurate representation. Versions range from theories which postulate a historical individual whose life was embellished into the New Testament stories, to those which suggest that the Jesus of the bible was based on earlier historical figures, and even theories which argue that the Jesus of the Bible was a construct based on mythological personas." that would allow for separate sections on each of those various theories, which would be more complete but still keep the more obscure theories from being swamped by the better documented ones. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By all accounts this article is effectively dead - "...anyone who says that Jesus never existed "today -in the academic world at least- is grouped with skinheads that deny the holocaust and scientific hold outs who want to believe that the Earth is flat." And with lovely encyclopedic writing such as "Van Voorst is quite right in saying...", deservedly so I say. Coupled with a name that gets virtually no ghits [1] no one is going to find it anyway. Sophia 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Van Voorst is quite right in saying..." is a quote from Doherty, so if you want to call him unencyclopedic, go right ahead. The first quote is from a reliable source, so I'm not sure why you think it's proof that this article is dead--I would rather say it's good evidence that the subject of this article is considered a fringe theory. I recently found a pretty similar quote in Michael J. McClymond, Familiar Stranger: an Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Eerdmans 2004) pp. 23-24: "Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response--on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio." This, too, seems like a good indication of how this theory is regarded by scholars.

Do you have some other suggestion for the article's title? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1) It's not clear it's a direct quote as there are " marks all over the place. 2) There is verifiable datable evidence for the holocaust and that the earth is spherical - anyone who thinks the literary evidence for the existence of Jesus is of the same calibre cannot in all honesty call themselves a scholar. Using quotes of such ilk smacks of desperation and attempts to cheaply discredit an idea. The quote is unsuitable for the article as it is an extreme view of the subject - attempts to defend its inclusion underline why this subject will never have a suitable article on wikipedia. 3) As for the name - what was ever wrong with "The Jesus myth"[2]? Sophia 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sophia, with respect I think your heavy emotional investment in the subject is clouding your judgment. It's always frustrating when the scholarly literature doesn't support us, or relegates our cherished beliefs to the fringe, but that's life. I don't think that's sufficient justification for heavy handed rants in the Talk page (though I do sympathize, we all feel like that from time to time). Let's focus on improving the actual article content, shall we? As Akhilleus has helpfully pointed out, the words 'Van Voorst is quite right in saying' are Doherty's, and very telling words they are too. To answer your question, it appears Grubb objected to the title 'The Jesus Myth'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Emotional investment? Unlike some who edit here, my world view does not depend on the historical existence or otherwise of someone called Jesus of Nazareth. Please deal with the issue - should an obviously extreme quote be used? Do you really think it is fair to class doubts of the authenticity of ancient documents with the denial of gas chambers that exist, and refusal to accept that a world that has been photographed is spherical? There are a lot of quotes that could be used so editorial judgment will come into play here, it's not just a case of using any old apologists opinion. The whole criticism section flies in the face of the MOS anyway. Sophia 17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think everyone should refrain from making personal assumptions about editors who work on this article. It's not that helpful to speculate about anybody's worldview.

Since I've found two different authors who compare the theory with holocaust denial, I don't think the idea can be rejected out of hand as extremist--especially since we've got plenty of other quotes that communicate disdain and dismissal of this article's subject.

As far as the title, "The Jesus Myth" is unsuitable because we don't use "the" at the beginning of an article title unless it's part of the name of a book or other artistic work; "Jesus myth" would be fine, except that it's so ambiguous people would try to put anything that had to do with a combination of "Jesus" and "myth" in the article. It would end up being a grab bag of unrelated topics. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is unnecessary. Seriously - if this is the level of "scholarship" that is going into this article we don't need Godwin's law to kill it off. A bit of research shows that Michael J. McClymond claims no research specialism in the area of ancient bibliography so should not be used to sum up the field, and Mark Allan Powell writes books about "Loving Jesus" so any fair minded person would treat his summation with caution. Jesus myth is how this subject is most popularly known - we can't change that and shouldn't. It is a bit of a rag bag field and will need careful handling but we are supposed to reflect the world - not force it to fit into a convenient box. Sophia 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Speculation is unnecessary." That's what I said, but somehow you seem to mean it differently. Whatever.

Michael J. McClymond is an associate professor in the Department of Theology at Saint Louis University, with well-reviewed books published by Johns Hopkins University Press, Eerdmans, and Oxford University Press. That's the kind of scholar that this article should cite, and someone who's in a good position to know how this idea is currently received in academia. The book in which Powell made his comment is published by a reputable press (Westminster John Knox), received at least one favorable review (Reviews in Religion and Theology 7 (2000) 135-136; the reviewer called the book "balanced and thorough"), and the book is cited a number of times is subsequent academic literature [3]. This looks like a fine source to me.

If people want to move this page to "Jesus myth", I'm won't stand in the way; I'm not in favor of that move, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So the Jesus myth should be in the same categories as the holocaust denial and the flat earth theory? Pseudohistory? Sophia 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put it there, go ahead. I think categories are silly. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange view for an editor of an encyclopedia. If you are interested in finding related information, categories are invaluable. Try going into a book shop with no sections. As to the quote - have you read pages 3 and 4 particularly of the link you gave above? There are some quotes in there that I would be interested in using here. Sophia 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you just recently tried to get this article categorized WP:FRINGE. Strange to hear you saying "I think categories are silly". --davigoli (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In brief, my position - and would think we should be able to agree on this - is that this question is not fringe, but it is indeed controversial, and the article should avoid taking a position on it. The field at large is rife with controversy, and even established "divinity schools" at universities like Johns Hopkins don't really have much archeological credibility compared with other fields, given the constituencies they serve. Theologians of any stripe are tainted with POV bias, as their field is fundamentally unscientific. I'm fine with having opinions of these scholars in the article, for example, in the criticism section -- I'm not going so far as saying they're worthless or should be censored, or that their critiques are invariably faulty -- but NOT ok with elevating their opinions to the final word on the topic (such as Akhilleus seems to want to do in the introduction). --davigoli (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say I find the quote

anyone who says that Jesus never existed "today -in the academic world at least- is grouped with skinheads that deny the holocaust and scientific hold outs who want to believe that the Earth is flat."

in rather poor taste. What this is trying to say, the "Christ myth theory" is a fringe topic and the haunt of crackpots. We have long established that this is the case and I do not think we need such enlightened commentary from the Trinity Lutheran Seminary in order to drive home the point.

The historian's view on this is... ta-da: Jesus was just some bloke. Who became the focus of a doomsday cult about a century after he died. The Christ-mythers with their pulp publications along the lines of "revelations the Vatican didn't want you to read -- the juicy facts about the mythical Christ-Osiris" are cranks. For the purposes of this article, this has been clear as day for about two years now. No need to mention the holocaust. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are cranks, yes, there are plenty of authors on this subject who are indeed fringy. I have no problem treating specific authors as fringe. But that is not the same as the question itself being fringy, and that does not dismiss everyone who writes on this topic as fringy. Doing so is an association fallacy. --davigoli (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Davigoli, you're still fairly new to Wikipedia, so I think you are probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia categories, a Wikipedia-specific system of putting articles into related groups. They are listed at the bottom of (almost) every Wikipedia article; currently, this article reads "Categories: Historicity of religious figures | Jesus and history | Perspectives on Jesus | Hypotheses | Mythemes". Click on any of those categories and you'll be whisked away to a page that lists articles placed in that category. SOPHIA was asking whether I think the article should be listed in Category:Pseudohistory, and my response is that I don't care because I think the entire category system is silly. But looking at the articles grouped in that category, I would say that the article probably doesn't belong there.

The question of whether this article is a fringe theory has nothing to do with Wikipedia categories; it has to do with this theory's place in mainstream thought about Jesus. And it should be obvious, from the sheer number of scholars we can cite who say in various ways that this is a crank theory, that this belongs squarely in the fringe category. Ask yourself, if you were to walk into a class on early Christianity at the University of Michigan, Swarthmore College, or Princeton University (none of which are affiliated with a Christian denomination)--do you think they're going to spend a lot of time in that class discussing the nonhistoricity of Jesus? Do you think this is a hot topic of research that spawns numerous articles in journals on ancient history, early Christianity, the ancient Near East, etc.? The answer is no, because, as Dab says, this theory is the haunt of crackpots. And unlike many fringe theories, we actually have statements from a number of academics who actually tell us that this theory is the haunt of crackpots. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the entire "historical Jesus" question is the haunt of crackpots. From what I've read, most early Christianity studies are not that interested in the particulars of Jesus' biography (as there is very little direct evidence of it) but rather about the formation of the early church, early Christian writers who left something behind (like Paul or the Gospel authors), and the cultural context of first-century Palestine. Likewise, do you think classical scholars spend a lot of time arguing about whether Socrates existed? Does his physical existence matter to determine the influence of the teachings attributed to him? No. What can be ascertained of his biography - if he existed at all and was not merely a fabrication of Plato - may be academically interesting and the subject of some research but is not a central concern for the historical question of the influence of the Athens school. People on both sides of the question too often treat the "historical Jesus" question as though the foundations of Christianity would come crumbling down if his existence were to be disproven; fact is, the teachings remain influential and the main focus of research, whether there was a single historical personage named Jesus who lived ca. 4 BC - 33 AD behind them or not. Certainly, his teachings are of human origin; there must therefore be someone who said them at some time, but what else do we know about this person? Why choose certain Gospel facts and not others as criteria for historicity? Do we then say that people who question the existence of Socrates are crackpots, because their area of study is not the central focus of classical scholarship? --davigoli (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If any classical scholar asserted that Socrates was merely the invention of Plato, s/he'd be laughed right out of the academy, since there's ample evidence that he existed--Socrates appears in the writing of Aristophanes, Xenophon, and several other writers who were personally acquainted with him. I don't know of anyone who said that Socrates was fictional, but I'd like to know about anyone who does!

It is difficult to determine what Socrates' actual philosophical opinions were, but this doesn't stop people from trying--Gregory Vlastos is one good example of an ancient philosopher who devoted some time to figuring out the "Socratic problem"--see, e.g. Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher. This may not be the most vital question in ancient philosophy, but it's a question that everyone who studies Plato seriously has to think about; it's probably a topic covered in any class on Plato or any introductory course on ancient philosophy.

As for the entire "historical Jesus" question being the haunt of crackpots, I suppose it all depends on one's perspective; certainly there are reasonable scholars who say that we can't know anything about the historical Jesus (except that he existed), but we can know something about the development of early Christianity. On the other hand, there are plenty of prominent scholars who think we can know something, sometimes quite a bit, about the historical Jesus--John Dominic Crossan, Paula Fredriksen, and Geza Vermes, to name a few. These folks are solidly in the mainstream of current scholarship. So, at least in terms of how things are portrayed on Wikipedia, they can't be called crackpots. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus on this point (ironically M. M. Mangasarian in The Truth about Jesus is He a Myth? makes a comparison between Jesus and Socrates) but I think the supporters of a historical jesus shoot themselves in the foot when they the compare not believing in Jesus to not believing in Julius Caesar, Socrates, Shakespeare, Eisenhower, and dozens of other strawmen arguments. I leaves you wondering 'if their case is so strong why resort to these kinds of strawmen'?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The publisher of the said book is Westminster John Knox Press (part of Presbyterian Publishing Corporation). Make of that what you will.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In regard to whether the Powell quote is in bad taste--it may well be. It doesn't really matter whether it gets used in the article or not. But, we seem to have a situation here where we could produce twenty quotes from scholars saying that this is a crackpot theory, and some of the editors here would refuse to see this as evidence that this is a fringe theory--because all the scholars are biased! --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic is fringe in the sense that it is not mainstream - I have never tried to portray it as otherwise. That is not the same as crackpot. There are crackpots in the field in the same way that there are crackpot Christian groups who advocate the world is 6,000 years old and armageddon is on the way. Mark Allen Powell does indeed sum up the whole field beautifully in the link that Akhilleus gave: "...In a sense, nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened. History, especially ancient history, deals with degrees of plausibility. Some matters do come to be regarded as facts after careful analysis of evidence, but the standards by which this evidence is evaluated are grounded in beliefs. Honest historians readily admit to the role that ideology plays in their discipline. At the very least, they approach their task with ideas about what is intrinsically likely or unlikely and about what constitutes good evidence. Such ideas are inevitably debatable.

With regard to Jesus, the task of defining what constitutes a historical approach can be especially difficult. For one thing, most scholars who study Jesus are likely to have a personal investment in the outcome of their work. In itself, this problem is not unique, since historians do not usually study people about whom they care nothing. But with Jesus, the level of investment tends to be especially pronounced." Page 3 [4] Sophia

Bad taste, Ad hominem, and straw man all mixed together. it is ironic that Hayyim ben Yehoshua's Refuting Missionaries (which we threw out ages ago under reliable source grounds) points out that unlike Jesus "the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are numerous eyewitness reports." It is kind of pathetic than an unreliable source is more truthful and honest with its audience than a supposedly reliable one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

davigoli, if there were serious authors, it would be WP:UNDUE to discuss the cranky ones. The point is that there are no serious authors here: the topic of this article is very specific, distinct from the general historicity of Jesus article and also from the general mythography of Christ article: it is specifically the combination of "non-historicity argued based on mythography" which we discussed here. And I am confident that if there was any serious material on this, it would have turned up by now. In a sense, nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened is a truism, and a non-starter. We don't have a Julius Caesar myth theory or Otto the Great myth theory or Isaac Newton myth theory simply due to the fact that nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened I fully agree with the rest of Sophia's comment: this is what our historicity of Jesus discusses. It doesn't establish why we need this article on top of that one. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you DO realize the In a sense, nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened nonsense is also come from Powell (on pg 3 in fact), Right? Also are you saying Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) better known for his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden) with Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology) with The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) with The Pagan Christ are all not "serious authors"? Be careful how broad a brush you use as you may get paint on yourself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that there is serious literature on the historicity question, and guess what, we already have a serious article on that. "Christ myth" as a topic going beyond rational assessments of the question of historicity is not serious. And yes, Robert M. Price is most certainly not a serious author. Why are you claiming Price is a "professor"? "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" doesn't even pass WP:ORG, and if you google it, you find it is only ever mentioned in connection with Price. Anyone can call themselves "professor". If I make myself Professor of Theology at a to-be-founded Swiss Cryptotheological Seminary, will you let me detail my views in article space? This stuff has been debunked long ago, and it does nothing for you to copy-paste the references back at me. I insist that whatever has any value here can easily be included under historicity of Jesus, and the rest is of historical (pre WWII) interest at best, the "recent proponents" descending into the absolutely pathetic. --dab (𒁳) 19:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, dab, you seem otherwise such a reasonable editor, one who wouldn't call good-faith editors and scholarly writers "absolutely pathetic". Perhaps you're having a bad day. Anyway, saying "this stuff has been debunked long ago" without telling how (the counter-arguments in the text only offer often awkward, alternative explanations for the raised problems; the remainder are just quotes from people saying that it is all bunk) is straight out of the creationist's handbook, and I don't think you admire their logical methodology. Even if this theory is debunked, it deserves a page, one with quotes containing the arguments that effectively debunk it. It may very well have been argued away logically, but there is no hint of that argument in the current text. Perhaps your issue is semantic though; I get the impression that you are using a much narrower definition than a lot of other editors seem to use. Yours may be one to which most recent proponents don't even subscribe. Afasmit (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that Price doesn't seem to qualify as a serious writer. But also agree that detailing why the theory is now written off seems reasonable as well. I'm assuming that the recent discovery in the past few hundred years of external evidence of Pontius Pilate and others, the fact that there were no (apparent) questions regarding the historicity of the person of Jesus within the first few centuries of Christendom, and that the conspiracy of fraud required to assume the character of Jesus was created would have to be extremely, almost certainly unworkably, large are the prime reasons the question is now considered debunked. And it probably really would help if we could all agree on some scope for this article. God knows there are enough articles already about Jesus, but if it would make most sense to break up this article further, and if the daughter articles met notability standards, I think that might make the most sense. Maybe the best way to do it is to make independent articles on the most notable books regarding the subject, and then have the discussion/response regarding each one's theories in those independent articles? John Carter (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the proposal to detail why the theory is debunked risks turning the article into a series of pro and con arguments. I've said all along that this article should take a historical approach, with sections devoted to prominent proponents of the idea of Jesus' nonhistoricity, as the "History" section now does. If the article gets fleshed out, reactions to each thinker can be put into the History section, rather than being broken out into a separate "criticism" section at the end. Ultimately, I hope the "Arguments" section disappears; as EALacey said in a post that's in the archives somewhere, by compiling a bunch of "typical" arguments, the "Arguments" section creates a composite argument not held by any single individual, and is effectively WP:OR. It also includes a hefty dose of unreliable sources at the moment.

I don't think the article needs to be broken up, either. More detail could easily be provided at articles like Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, etc. Most of the authors covered in this article are notable because they said there was no historical Jesus, so I don't think there would be much point in having separate articles for their biography and their books. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)