Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

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)

We are still waiting for that reliable source that says Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth and nonhistoricity hypothesis are all synonymous with each other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:14, 25 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 states 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)

Reviewing the sources, I would say that people use the terms somewhat differently: non-historicity thesis is a form of myth-theory, but the Christ myth theory is more a rejection of the quest for the historical Jesus than the historicity of Jesus. While "quest" historians try to peal off theology from religious texts to get to a historical core, myth-theorist claim the core is either non-existent, trivially generic, or otherwise completely irrelevant. Contrast this to the mainstream view as expressed by Stanton: "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." Vesal (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be argued that even within the non-historical crowd there are those who would agree with the "gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically" part as they point out conflicts between the Gospels themselves (synoptics vs John, details of the various Gospels of where Jesus when and when, etc) and with history (Mark vs Luke) as basic for there view. Stibbe who is a staunch historical Jesus supporter states in John as Storyteller(Cambridge University Press) "The real issue is therefore not whether Jesus existed but how much the gospel of John actually tells us about the historical Jesus." I should note as far as google books is concerned Stibbe is the only author who actually quotes Stanton's passage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best definition is that the character of Jesus spoken about by Paul and other Christian early epistles is not meaningfully historical. Which is to say that while there may have been an earthly man or men for whom some small fraction of the gospel stories is true, the 1st century epistle writers did not have this person in mind when they wrote of Jesus. They were writing about someone they viewed as existing in the distant past and/or on another plane of existence. The connection between the Christian faith of the epistle writers and any recent (for them) historical person is accidental. jbolden1517^Talk 03:17, 9 March 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 in a 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)

Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, but this lead is far too inclusive. As I've said before, mainstream scholarship on the historical Jesus says that the New Testament figure of Jesus is not "a historically accurate representation"--for instance, very few scholars think that the historical Jesus performed miracles. So your lead would result in an article that could include the position of the Jesus Seminar; in such an article, which would devote most of its space to mainstream scholarship, the figures the article currently covers--like Bruno Bauer, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews--would be eliminated, per WP:UNDUE. This would be especially ironic, as it's Drews' book Die Christusmythe (translated into English as The Christ Myth) that gives us the name of the Christ myth theory.

As I've also said many times, Bruce's contention that there's inconsistency in the definition of the Christ myth is wrong. But at least we're at a point where he recognizes the nonhistoricity thesis is a distinct topic. That's real progess. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus again reads things into editor's comments that simply are not there. I have never denied that the nonhistoricity thesis was a distinct topic; what I have denied is that the terms Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth, and nonhistoricity thesis are always synonyms as the lead in expressly states. If you want to have this article on the nonhistoricity thesis then use that instead of terms that very depending on the author. Trying to say Burton L. Mack's use of Christ myth somehow deals with nonhistoricity thesis which the lead in does by making them synonyms is insane and trying to handwave it away by saying not all uses of Christ myth and Jesus myth are nonhistoricity thesis just confirms the lead in is OR and POVish.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Here is another nail in the Christ myth=non-historical claim of the introduction: "Mack argues that Mark superimposed the Christ myth' onto the tradition of the historical Jesus." Knight, Jonathan (2004), Jesus Continuum International Publishing Group ISBN 0826469817 pg 51. If the Christ myth is the the non-historical position then how can Mark have 'superimposed this on the tradition of the historical Jesus'? Here are some more nails: "The gospel will no longer be the document that accounts for (records, attests, tells the story of) Christian origins generated by the historical Jesus." (Mack, Burton L. (2003) The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy‎ pg 18) "The christos- martyr myth in 1 Cor 15:3-5 has been called the "Christ myth" because christos is the name Paul used for Jesus when he cited the myth." (Mack, Burton L. (2003) The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy‎ pg 112)--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, I added a comment above about the Christ-myth being more a rejection of the Quest than a rejection of historicity. Superimposition would make sense under this. Mack may accept the existence of a historical Jesus, but is arguing that we can no longer access that person from Mark's account. Do you agree? Vesal (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure I agree. If we still had Remsburg here you would see that his definition of Christ myth ranges from the non-historical position to the historical myth: "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth." as well as "That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. A Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed -- have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.". The many meanings of the term myth is explored in "Slippery Words" Myth" by JW Rogerson which I found in Sacred Narrative by Dundes and says the same things Remsburg did.

But and here is the point I have been raising for the last two years and only a handful of editors get: if the connection between the Gospel Jesus and the man he is based on is basically nil then wouldn't the Gospel Jesus be non-historical? Look at the definition Bromiley (1982) gave us for Christ Myth theory: "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek, and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus". Not just that the man was a myth but also the story about that man is a myth as demonstrated by Bromiley's condemnation of Bertrand Russell and Bromiley's later attempt at showing the Gospel Jesus is totally historical starting out with of all things Thallus. Never mind that Wood also charges that Bertrand Russell "toyed with the Christ Myth theory". This all matches the definitions of Dodd and Pike but NOT the definitions of Farmer, Horbury or Jones. Things just go down hill from there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In reading this debate I want to concur with Bruce Grubb's position. People like Crossen are either irrelevant or opponents of the Christ myth crowd. By in large they presuppose a church founded by a historical "Jesus" living in the 1st century that then evolved. That is they affirm that the Jesus Christ Paul writes of "was really and truly crucified under Pontius Pilate". It is the denial of this claim that is absolutely central to the Christ myth crowd. jbolden1517^Talk 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know someone other then davigoli, and now Dbachmann agrees with my point. As I said a long time ago the source material on BOTH sides is a mess. The very term Christ myth is a total disaster varying from author to author and Christ myth theory is not much better. Then you have the "amateur" element (Holding, Acharya S, McDowell, etc) who make both sides look somewhat irrational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the current RFC, and then reposting it to a new section summarizing the issue. I came here from the RFC and it would take me an hour to read the article and wade through all the talk page. BTW, the RFC is double-posted.

My first impression is that the intro of the article was not clear. I would change the article title to "Jesus myth theory" and write the first paragraph something like this (add refs as necessary):

The Jesus myth theory (also known as the nonhistoricity hypothesis or Christ myth) is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians. To support the theory proponents have documented similarities between stories of Jesus and those of Krishna, Adonis, Osiris, Mithraism, and a pre-Christian cult of Jesus within Judaism. Some authors attribute the beginning of Christianity to a historical founder who predates the time Jesus is said to have lived.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's name originally was Jesus myth theory but it was changed to its current title because there is at best one reliable source that uses anything along the lines of Jesus myth theory and it actually uses the term ""Jesus Myth" theory"" and there has not been any evidence that this source is used by any of the others. Futhermore claiming that Jesus myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Christ myth are synonyms when there is evidence that they are NOT always used that way is POV and not allowed. Mack is a primary example of someone who uses Christ myth in a different manner as is Remsburg and several others I have cited over the last two years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:00, 5 March 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)

Your well established practice of responding with emotional outbursts to edits you don't like, and making sweeping statements such as that 'By all accounts this article is effectively dead' speak very strongly otherwise concerning your emotional investment in the subject. I personally think that the quote is over the top, an easy hit at a soft target, like punching someone with Down Syndrome. But Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored, and there are plenty of equally strong (if not stronger), quotes in Wikipedia by atheists commenting on a wide range of religious subjects, including Christianity in general and Christ in particular. Whether I think or you think or anyone else thinks that the quote is 'fair' is irrelevant. I can't remove quotes from Doherty on the grounds that I don't think them 'fair', for example. How absurd to even appeal to such a strange idea. I suggest you revisit Wikipedia's policies concerning content. If the source is reliable and notable, there should be no issue. In this case the source is both notable and reliable. The quote could be prefaced with a note that this represents an extreme reaction to the 'Jesus' Myth' hypothesis, but I don't find anything in Wikipedia which says that quotes can't be used simply because you, Sophia, think them to be 'unfair'. Content is not included or excluded on the basis of what you do or do not like. There are formal policies in place, please read them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 7 March 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)

The Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis effort really went nowhere. As I said exactly the confusion over what the term Christ Myth Thoery and the other supposed synonyms like Christ Myth really mean is this article's biggest problem. Christ Myth could just as easily talk about the story about Jesus being a myth as the man himself; at least with Jesus myth you were a little more focused on the man rather than the story that has grown up around him. I should note that Mack in Who wrote the New Testament? The Lost Gospel, "Rereading the Christ Myth: Paul's Gospel and the Christ Cult Question,", uses the term Christ Myth to talk the story around Jesus while still accepting the existence of a historical Jesus behind that story proving that the term is NOT the same as non-historical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:27, 25 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)

As for the crackpotness of challenging a "historical Jesus" as I pointed out in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19#John_Frum_vs_Jesus some of the points can be seen in the John Frum cargo cult. Richard Dawkins fully accepts that Jesus existed while stating "Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed." God Delution pg 202) and just a little later on saying "Second is the speed with which the origination process covers its tracks. John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all." God Delution Chapter 5. Just as the mythical 1930s literate American GI John Frum replaced the illiterate 1940 native who used that name as far as the cult is conserned in the space of one generation (ie 20 years) it is quite reasonable that the Gospel Jesus replaced the Jesus Paul knew especially given the uncertainty of when the canonal Gospels as we know them came into being. This is ignoring the 40 plus non canon gospels that floating around in the 2nd through 4th centuries. Even Paul acknowledged there was a problem with noncanonal material in Galatians 1:6 (c46 to c54 CE) and that could be just 10 years after the Gospel Jesus supposedly died. If as Wells currently contends the Gospel Jesus is some form of composite character then in one sense he is no more historical than 1930s literate American GI John Frum is even if there a person close to him in time and space.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:10, 23 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)

I fully agree with Akhilleus regarding the structure. The article originally started out with mainly arguments and that just didn't work very well at all. The main reason that the "Arguments" section still exists at all is that we haven't gotten enough detail on the various existing authors or we haven't found a reliable/notable enough source that raises a certain counter point.

Regarding Price, His Phd is from Drew University which is accredited by Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and it is out of the Theological School which has the additional accreditation of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada so it's not like he is on the same level as "Dr." Kent Hovind whose degrees seemed to come from diploma mills. Furthermore, professor is simply defined as someone who is a member of the faculty at a college or university; it doesn't make any distinction between accredited and unaccredited institutions. Finally, we still have Ellegard, Zindler, and Harpur being called non "serious authors".--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article gives "authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells" as the main proponents. Neither Ellegard, nor Zindler, nor Harpur are listed as endorsing this "theory". They have written about Christ and mythology, yes. That doesn't make them "Christ-mythers". Although I am not sure I would accept Zindler as a "serious author" on this. The question doesn't arise, seeing he isn't as much as mentioned in the article. You are being disingenious. Also, if I see "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" or "Drew University" once again mentioned with a straight face in an attempt to give credibility to Price, I think I will have to open a window and scream.

And yes, I am prepared to stand by my judgement that neither Doherty, nor Price, nor Wells are "serious authors" on this topic by any stretch of WP:RS. Whatever merit is in Wells can be discussed in h3 paragraph at historicity of Jesus, and in greater detail on his own page. No need for this one. I have already stated that I accept this topic as valid for the purposes of the history of biblical study, the same way phlogiston is relevant to the history of physics. It belongs in the same category as Panbabylonianism, Urmonotheism and friends: a question that has seen heated debate a century ago, but which has been pretty much settled and is only contentious in books written by and for lay readers, not in academia, making it a trope of popular culture.--dab (𒁳) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Drew University is a legit school (unless there's something I'm missing). Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, on the other hand, has only slightly more credibility than the Royal University of Upper Saskatchewan. So I agree with the other editors that Price is not a serious writer. That wouldn't mean that he needs to be entirely removed from the article, of course, since this is a haunt of crackpots--but we shouldn't think of his self-published internet essays as a WP:RS. This renders quite a bit of material in the talk page archives moot; I wish I had known that Johnnie Colemon was unaccredited before... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Drew is an ok school, or "private university", or preparatory school for Methodist ministers. I don't want to attack Drew, and I think we are agreed in any case that Price is a fringe author. It's just that Price pretty much appears to be the chief ratio essendi for this article. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, just because Ellegard, Zindler, or Harpur are not listed in the article doesn't mean they are not Christ myth theorists as Akhilleus defines the term.

The very title of Ellegard's book is Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ which alone should tell you something and if you had actually been paying attention you would see that it is listed in the Further reading section. Ellegard's book is a modern version of Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? using not the Jesus of the Talmud but the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea scrolls. Unless you are with my contention that historical means Jesus in any time period regardless of it being 2nd century BCE or 1st century CE then you have to agree with Akhilleus that anything not within a reasonable temporal distance of the c4 BCE to c36 CE of Gospel Jesus has to be non-historical. These two authors are in fact where the "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." in the lead in come from; they just don't happen to be credited. (I have fixed that).

Regarding The Jesus the Jews Never Knew here are Frank R. Zindler's own words:"The historical Jesus has always been made to stand on two legs: the New Testament and Jewish literature. The New Testament leg I consider to have been sawed off long ago. Amputation of the Jewish leg has been, I hope, the achievement of this book. With both his legs missing, the figure of Jesus must now either hover in the air -- like the 'god he started out as in the Christian mysteries or like the Yeshu he became in the Toldoth -- or he must fall to earth like a deflated balloon." --Frank R. Zindler.

I refer you to Welsh's definition of Christ Myth theory: "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" Zindler's position by his own words clearly fits that definition.

As for Harpur: "The Pagan Christ asserts that none of the bible happened in history, yet all of it happened/happens within us. [...] "Instead, his discoveries cry out to proclaim not Jesus but Christ, the suffering and risen God incarnate: the spiritual reality of every human soul who is destined for union with God. The Christ myth of the Gospels is our deepest human meaning and truth. Is Harpur right in abandoning the Jesus of History for the Christ of Faith?" (Blackburn, Barry (2004) "Pagan Christ or historical Jesus or both." Catholic New Times Sept 12, 2004

Again the Historical Jesus is thrown out just as Drews did nearly a century before. The term Christ myth is expressly used by reviewer and this is in the Catholic New Times so they certainly wouldn't be using some non standard definition of Christ mythnow would they? Now if they are using this term to say something different then everyone will have to finally admit that as I have been saying for nearly 18 months Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth, and nonhistoricity thesis are NOT always synonyms with one another as the lead in expressly states. I should mentiontwo other authors (Loschiuk and Porter) expressly state that Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ position there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth but neither use the term Christ myth regarding it. Now admittedly Loschiuk used Vantage Press but Porter used Clements Publishing so we have three indepent source saying the same thing--Harpur supports the non historical position.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that Robert M Price does have an insane list of Theological Publications but one get mammoth overload just looking at that list.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

well great, then if, according to you, there are serious supporters of this "theory", why does the article only discuss the non-serious one, and cover the serious ones only by mentioning them under "further reading"? This is silly. The article as it stands doesn't make a serious case. You are saying that this may be the case, but if the article would discuss other authors than the ones it does, it could be shown that the theory has some merit. Then why the hell don't we throw out Price & friends under WP:UNDUE and discuss the real literature instead? Since you seem to view this theory in a favourable light, the burden would rather rest on you to establish that there is anything worthwhile to it. I would tend to agree that the list as maintained by RMP is aptly described as "insane", but I would not of course want you to "get mammoth overload" (whatever that is). One decent reference is worth more than a couple of dozen crappy ones. I think it would be a great step forward to stop discussing Price already and begin looking into the potentially worthwile literature. --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you do understand this article has major POV problems right? The article as it stands tries to say that Christ myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Christ myth, and Jesus myth are synonymous with each other which can be proven though other source to be total POV nonsense. Mack certainly doesn't use Christ myth that way and then you have Remsburg and the 1911 Bibliotheca Sacra By the Xenia Theological Seminary of the United Presbyterian Church used it to refer to he myth surrounding the man as well as the idea that the man himself may be a myth. The Pacific Unitarian (1916) talks about but Drews book Christ Myth and the idea of the Christ Myth "Not only in its origins, but throughout its history, the Church has found the center of its faith in the Christ myth, and not in the historical Jesus." Johnson, Roger A. (1974) Brill Academic Publishers, Netherlands pg 106. shows again that Christ myth does NOT always mean non-historical showed that the "also known" claim is a OR statement with no support.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light Walker & Co., 2005, ISBN 0802714498, 9780802714497, 246 pages[5]

The book is "A provocative argument for a mystical, rather than historical, understanding of Jesus, leading to a radical rebirth of Christianity in our time."

The argument goes like

"What had begun as a universal belief system built on myth and allegory was transformed, by the third and fourth centuries A.D., into a ritualistic institution based on a literal interpretation of myths and symbols. But, as Tom Harpur argues in The Pagan Christ, 'to take the Gospels literally as history or biography is to utterly miss their inner spiritual meaning.' ... His message is clear: Our blind faith in literalism is killing Christianity."

This appears to be a perfectly serious book. The gist is clear. Harpur is not trying to disprove the historicity of Jesus, he is saying that the question is irrelevant for the Christian faith, because it is the myth that counts, not the historical details. There can be a Christian religion with or without a historical Jesus, but there cannot be one without the Christ myth. The "historicity of Jesus" question is of interest to historians, but not necessarily to Christians.

I have a lot of sympathy for this position, and the flap blurb on "our blind faith in literalism" also makes clear that this is directed at the North American bible thumping demographics, because I can't think of anyone else who is suffering from blind faith in literalism. Certainly not the Vatican.

Harpur is thus pointing out why the the "Christ-mythers" are cranks: it isn't possible to discredit Christianty by proving that "Christ is a myth". Indeed, you could only discredit Christianity by establishing that Christ isn't a myth. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the historicity question is irrelevant for faith is a serious argument. I haven't read this book, but it looks like Harpur does concern himself with the historicity question (at least if the reviews are right), and relies on such eminent Egyptologists as Gerald Massey in doing so. The Pagan Christ was a best-seller in Canada, so the book is clearly notable, but I'm not sure that it's serious... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This review of Harpur is worth looking at. It may well be that Harpur combines a serious theological argument (the part dab discussed above) with some shoddy history/mythography. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for takes on this position, there are plenty of established authors who assume that Jesus is an obscure historical figure blown greatly out of proportion and mythologized beyond recognition after his death. In Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, John Shelby Spong, starts with Paul, the earliest canonized Christian writer, and moves on to discuss the Gospels - actually products of differing schools of thought who give a variety of conflicting biographical details - and discusses how concepts like Jesus' kerygma evolved, Matthew and Luke reached back into Old Testament prophecy to add stuff about the virgin birth and the Bethlehem account, how things like Herod's Massacre of the Innocents were fabricated, and how the resurrection was incrementally distinguished from the ascension (they were apparently, in Paul's mind, the same event). Spong makes the case against a literal reading of the Bible, pointing out at the same time the timeless spiritual themes in the mythical elements. Other writers such as Karen Armstrong take the same tack: they don't bother to question Jesus' historical existence, as it's simply not a fruitful line of inquiry, but always with statements like "Jesus remains an enigma" or "Not much can be known about the historical Jesus". Most writers in this vein leave aside that question, wisely recognizing it as tangential. Writers who harp on it are probably not adding much. But I'd say it remains a valid question to ask, along the lines of "Not much can be known about the historical Jesus, if he existed at all". Unfortunately, I don't know of any writers who take this moderate position. It seems like if there were any, they might belong in this article, but until I can produce some, I'll have to sit on my hands. --davigoli (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with both Akhilleus and Davigoli. Just to be absolutely clear on this: I never disputed that historicity of Jesus is a serious article, which we should definitely keep and improve. But it is also a fact that Christ myth theory is currently a separate article, different from historicity of Jesus. I argue that it has transpired that this is untenable. Christ myth theory is just a pop-culture content fork of historicity of Jesus.

All the arguments we keep hearing on why this article is valid do in fact go to defend the historicity of Jesus article, which isn't under dispute in the first place. They all gleefully ignore the actual question of why this article is justified as standing separate. To add to this, we even have historical Jesus as an article separate from historicity of Jesus. I would argue that this is already pushing WP:CFORK. This means that Christ myth theory is a third article on a topic already fully exhausted elsewhere.

I don't have access to the Harpur book, but based on both the blurbs and the reviews, it is an accessible (i.e. popular, aka dumbed-down) account of an actual grown-up position, "transcending" both redneck bible-thumping and annoying told-you-so-sucker teenage atheism. Which means I am glad to hear it was a bestseller. But obviously we are an encyclopedia and we do not base our articles on "for dummies" literature, so the question is rather moot. But I may be doing injustice to Harpur, as I said, I haven't seen the book and perhaps it is excellent. Either way, it is about explaining grown-up Christian spirituality to the bible-thumpers and the atheist nerds, not about expounding the "Christ-myth theory". --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff does belong in the Historicity of Jesus article. However as this is a fringe area, any attempt to explore it in detail there has problems with undue weight. This is a topic that is of public interest so deserves an article. Go into any large bookshop (in the UK at least) and you will see "The Jesus Mysteries" or "The Messiah myth" or some such books. People like Thompson, I think, come the closest when he describes the historicity of Jesus as an assumption, not a finding of history. Unlike Socrates, Julius Caesar or others mentioned here, the only written accounts come decades after the supposed events, the letters of Paul by someone who never met Jesus, and the Gospels written by unknown authors for an unknown purpose. Josephus wasn't born when Jesus died and all other external mentions are even later or smack of making the evidence fit the facts. I never have understood the resistance to admitting that the facts are thin, and open to great interpretation (to say the least). With the physical evidence it is just as cranky to state that he existed for definite as it is to say he didn't - however Christianity is real and has changed the world. I never saw this article as documenting attempts to "discredit" Christianity - just to have a balanced counter view to the apologetically driven over interpretation of meager evidence. Sophia 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd largely agree. While the Christ Myth pursuit is theologically bankrupt and largely the haunt of cranks, I don't think it's correct to infer that the historicity question has been settled. (Perhaps a better - though more extreme - analogy than Socrates might be the historical Gautama Buddha, who is a believable enough historical figure but who is not documented directly until hundreds of years later; he is largely assumed to have existed, though it is also possible that he is a fabrication.) Historicity remains a working assumption, not a settled question, and that's a line this article needs to walk. I suppose my qualm is that the Van Voorst addresses an argument from silence: the fact that scholars are not pursuing the question does not necessarily imply that it has been definitively solved. I'm perfectly happy with an article that deals with fringe authors on a misguided mission, provided that it doesn't reach too far in discrediting them to make claims that aren't actually true. --davigoli (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be honest the historical Jesus pursuit can be just as "theologically bankrupt and largely the haunt of cranks" as the Christ Myth side is and not just with the 'NT Jesus is entirely historical' crowd either. As for Gautama Buddha Western scholars have long used terms that really don't apply to Buddhism. Buddhism was and is more interested in the message rather than the messager. Unlike Jesus it is not critical that Gautama Buddha be the son of a deity, that he performed miracles or many of the things regarded about Jesus. Another critical difference between Buddhism and Christianity is skepticism as well as self discovery. In Buddhism it is not claimed that there is one way to Enlightenment--it is mostly a path of self discover with few if any markers along the way. In Christianity the message IS the messager; if Jesus was simply a human man and not a demi-god who rose after death then as Paul himself said your faith was in vain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind that some of the reviews of and comments on Harpur's book expressly state he rejects a historical Jesus (Loschiuk, Porter, and Blackburn) and even among the reviews Akhilleus posted point to "Christ Myth Theory": "For Harpur, both literalist and modern critical attempts to locate the Jesus of history are dead ends. Transcending both positions, he believes that the real Christ is a universal archetype; a classic, pre-existent myth, known essentially by all humanity." (Holst) matches Welsh's definition of Christ Myth Theory. Nenonen's beginning statement effectively says the same thing. Then you have "In 2004, former Anglican priest and New Testament professor Tom Harpur wrote a book called The Pagan Christ, in which he argued that there was no historical Jesus..." (Bedard, Stephen J. (2009) "Unmasking the Pagan Christ: The Documentary")

To put it bluntly HOW MANY AUTHORS EITHER EXPRESSLY STATING OR IMPLYING HARPER ARGUED AGAINST A HISTORICAL JESUS DO YOU FREAKING NEED?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a review of this crackpots scholarship. [6] Hardyplants (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Harpur is a crank, but Gasque is a crank too. Cranks left and right in this field. Harpur's sources are indeed suspect, but many prominent mythographers, anthropologists, and other scholars of myth and religion agree there is a very strong correlation of Egyptian mythemes carried into Jewish and later Christian mythology - in fact, the Hebrews in their long years of exile in both Egypt and Babylon picked up many, many themes from both Sumerian and Egyptian mythologies, re-contextualizing them for their own culture. So while on the one hand I'm tired of the Blavatskian/Da Vinci Code intrigue around "what the Church doesn't want you to know", I'm equally tired of timid people who are shocked - shocked! - at the suggestion that Christianity is less than completely original. This review is actually a good example of the general tenor of the discussion, as sloppy work rises to counter sloppy work. It's really hard to find solid, even-handed writing that cuts through the murk. --davigoli (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree he is far outside the mainstream and belongs to this article. Dbachman, if Harpur is pointing out that "Christ-mythers" are cranks because they think historicity is important to Christianity, then they are in good company; see The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith, where the importance of the historicity is defended by an interesting twist: "The Christ who is the object of faith must be seen as historical; the Jesus who is reconstructed by historical scholarship is always shaped by commitments to faith." Vesal (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Gasque conveniently ignores Alvin Boyd Kuhn supposedly got his Theosophy from no less than Columbia University in 1931 and fails to tell his readers what his own PHD is in, and History News Network is NOT run under the auspicious of George Mason University I take his review with a little bit of salt. This does bring up an important point--why does so much of the material on BOTH sides of this issue have problems? As I said elsewhere Creationism and New Chronology get better treatment than this and they are even more off the wall.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading over WP:CFORK I have to agree with Dbachmann that this article as it stands does seem to have little validity on its own. IIRC Davigoli has also suggested eliminating this article as the subject is a disjointed mess--which is in large part due to the way Christ myth is used by some authors. A related problem is the difference between saying Jesus didn't exist in any way shape or form and idea that the relationship between the Gospel Jesus and historical Jesus is basically nil is not made very clear in this article. The simple logic that if the relationship between the Gospel Jesus and historical Jesus is basically nil other than name and being in the right time and place then the Gospel Jesus is for all practical purposes non historical seems to have been missed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to explain this WP:CFORK business to me, because I don't see how it applies here. This article treats a distinct trend within the study of the historical Jesus--and as such should be considered a sub-article of Quest for the historical Jesus. Sadly, that article doesn't even mention this one, but it should contain a section summarizing this article, in accordance with summary style. Even in the present state of affairs this article is not a content fork, but a sub-article of Historical Jesus, summarized at Historical_Jesus#Criticism_as_myth.

I agree with others that the existence of Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus raises eyebrows, but there is at least a rationale for their separation--historicity of Jesus deals with the sources, while historical Jesus deals with the reconstruction. The material covered by this article warrants no more than a sentence or two in those articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a discussion going on if Quest for the historical Jesus should be be merged into Historicity of Jesus so the lack of a link here makes sense. Looking over historicity of Jesus again I can say a LOT of what is in this article under Arguments can be eliminated with a link back to that article and that article is far better regarding NPOV. As for Historical_Jesus#Criticism_as_myth there is still an excluded middle regarding Jesus didn't exist at all and there simply is not enough reliable information to reconstruct a truly historical Jesus. While not a scholar JohnLArmstrong does give a good illustration of just what kind of mess the Jesus Timeline is in; some part of the Gospels must be said to be in error to get everything to work and if inerrantcy gets into the argument you can kiss that idea goodbye.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's post of 21:35, 26 February makes clear what I had implicitly assumed all along, this user's interest is not in an objective disussion of the historicity question, but rather a "debunking of Christianity" based on the opinion that Christianity places too much importance in the "messenger". This is a respectable opinion, but an opinion nonetheless, and belongs on Criticism of Christianity with proper references. Here, it is simple "coatracking". The statement if Jesus was simply a human man and not a demi-god who rose after death then as Paul himself said your faith was in vain not only makes undue assumptions on the religious convictions of another user, it also, again, implies a theological opinion as fact. Paul is of course saying that the Christ myth is essential to Christianity. This is exactly the point: assuming that Jesus was a historical rabbi doesn't make you a Christian, only spiritual attachment to the Christ myth will. This is undisputed. But it seems to be too much for some people to grasp that it is possible to suppose a historical nucleus for the Christ myth regardless of the religious importance of the Christ myth. Is Obama unhistorical because his biography illustrates the "American dream" myth, which can be shown to predate him? No, he is notable because his biography happens to align with a pre-existent myth. Illustrating a myth and being historical are two completely orthogonal qualities. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you're saying (though I can't speak for Bruce); for my part, I don't really claim to know, but my hunch is there is a historical figure behind the Jesus myth. But there is a real problem with a lack of primary, eyewitness evidence: we simply don't have firsthand evidence of Jesus. I don't think this leads to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist, but it is likewise going too far to conclude that his existence has been proven. Even Paul, who wrote that contentious statement about "if the resurrection was a myth, your faith is in vain", never personally saw Jesus: his writing was an example of the importance of faith that he sought to emphasize. I find the whole thing to be a moot point anyway: Christianity had its influence and took its course with or without a historical founder. I actually don't care, but do think the question remains open, probably to never be solved unless some new evidence turns up. My chief concern - as I've said here before - is that it should be clear that the "myth" around "Jesus" is what is key, not the historical person who may or may not have existed. "Debunking" the claims of the most extreme Christ-mythers does not invalidate the strong influence of pre-Christian Greek, Egyptian, and Sumerian mythological themes upon the mythological process of the early church, which almost certainly did take place. I would be much happier with this article if it provided non-Christian writers who dismissed the claim of non-historicity while acknowledging the dynamics of syncretism that get caught up in the CMH arguments, which is the baby that gets thrown out with the bathwater by writers like Van Voorst. --davigoli (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in "debunking of Christianity"; I am just relating the fact that claimed events of Gautama Buddha's life is not as critical to Buddism as those of Jesus are to what became 'mainline' Christianity are. Even today the debate about Jesus Christ tends to go into a myth, madman, or messiah mindset with most of the weight on the messiah end. The problems with taking either the myth (historical or total) or a madman tacks all the while still subscribing to Christianity as it generally is practiced should be self evident. As I said before given how common the name Jesus was and the number of would be messiahs appearing during that time odds are that likely was a man Jesus who thought he was the messiah.

The real issue is how accurate a record are the Gospel records we have of that Jesus. The less accurate we say they are the more of a disconnect we have between the story of Jesus and the actual man; if enough of a disconnect occurs then the Gospel Jesus is non historical because his relationship with the actual man is effectively nil.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one way to resolve some parts of the disagreements about the lead would be to attribute the equivalence between the terms "Crist myth theory", "nonhistoricity hypothesis", and "Jesus myth" to some reliable source that explicitly states that these are the same ideas. I believe BruceGubb has at least made a sufficient case that I at least doubt these are the same, hence a reliable source for this claim would be useful. Vesal (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is as I said two years ago is that the reliable source material is a mess with each author effectively using his own definition. Now having said that I have no problem with nonhistoricity hypothesis and Jesus myth being given a tentative equivalence as the very term Jesus myth implies that the man Jesus is thought to be a myth. What I do have a problem with is Christ Myth theory (and previously Christ Myth which another editor threw out agreeing with my point regarding it) being made into a synonym for "nonhistoricity hypothesis".

Sure you can find some sources that say Christ Myth theory is the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" BUT (and here is where the problem is) you can find other sources that use Christ Myth theory in a DIFFERENT WAY as the citations in Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Christ_myth_theory_definitions Christ myth theory definitions shows. Even the term non-historical has problems as saying that the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree or many other legends are non-historical doesn't mean the people at the core of those legends didn't exist. I know it sounds like hair splitting but saying the story of Jesus is non-historical is a quite different thing from saying the idea of a 1st century would be messiah (ie Christ) Galilean Jew called Jesus is non-historical. It is quite possible to say the Gospel Jesus is non-historical while admitting there was a man behind the story but he has been so obscured nothing of the actual man remains.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure you can find some sources that say Christ Myth theory is the "nonhistoricity hypothesis"... Well, yeah. That's what "also known as" indicates. It doesn't imply complete equivalence. This is a non-issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, what the also known as indicates is a synonym between Christ Myth theory and "nonhistoricity hypothesis" something that cannot be proven from the source material. All that can proven is some authors use Christ Myth theory for "nonhistoricity hypothesis" but not all. The fact Welsh's definition would include Wells' current position (this is not OR as Price uses the term Christ myth theorist for Wells and Doherty calls Wells a current Jesus myth supporter while directly referring to Jesus Myth) shoots your claimof non-issue full of holes given the quote by Van Voort. And don't whine about Synthesis of published material because that is what the current lead in is doing and has been doing nearly from the get go.

Given Wikipedia:No_original_research ( "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.) unless provide a reliable source that connects all three current definitions together your constant claims of this being a non-issue are totally meaningless per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. If you have a problem with my literal reading of this policy there is the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard where the issue can be thrashed out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)DIgging around some more I found some more reliable source material that shows other definition for Christ Myth theory outside of the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" used in the lead in: The Princeton Theological Review‎ (1914) by Princeton Theological Seminary p 512-513.

On a side note if anyone has the complete text of Christian Apologetics‎ by Alan Richardson 1955 pg 105 and J.R. Arkroyd (1922), “The Christ Myth Theory,” Review & Expositor 19 : 182-187 seeing some relevant quotes would better flesh out what is going on with the term.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well gee whiz, the Princeton Theological Review piece you mention starts here, and is a review of a book entitled Jesus the Christ: Historical or Mythical? A Reply to Professor Drews' Die Christusmythe, whose author is Thomas Thorburn; the reviewer is William Hallock Johnston. This is clearly talking about the Christ myth theory in the sense used in this article. A relevant quote: "Jesus Christ has been the centre of controversy in every century of our era, but it has remained for our own to frame the question, Did Jesus live? as a proper subject for academic discussion. The controversy is not an edifying one from any standpoint...It is apparent that the 'Christ-myth' theory is more than an eccentricity of criticism, or the frenzied attempt of a reckless scholar to attract attention to himself. The mythical theory is indeed the direct outcome--although parenthood may not be acknowledged--of that quest of the historical Jesus which has sought to find within or behind the Gospels a peasant-prophet reduced to the dimensions of mere humanity." It's obvious from the title of the book and the preceding quote, but if one reads through the full review, there's no question that the Christ myth theory in question is that of Drews and J. M. Robertson--i.e., the subject of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So that's your quote that shows that the nonexistence hypothesis and the Christ myth theory are the same thing--Johnston refers to the ideas of Drews and Robertson as the Christ myth theory, Van Voorst refers to it as the nonexistence hypothesis, Bennett calls it the Jesus-was-a-myth-school. Of course, the quotes that you keep on trotting out also refer to the ideas of Drews, et al. as the Christ myth theory, so I'm not sure why this keeps on coming up.

By the way, Richardson's Christian Apologetics does not name Drews, nor any other specific person as an advocate of a Christ myth theory, but rather "Marxist historians": "It is an official dogma of Marxism that Jesus never lived; Marxist historians have often convinced themselves of the truth of the 'Christ-myth' theory, and they quite sincerely believe that they have arrived at this conviction as the result of a completely disinterested and 'scientific' examination of the historical facts and sources." (p. 105) Though no specific Marxists are named here, this resembles a point I've seen made in several sources, including Van Voorst--Marx was a student of Bauer's, so supposedly Bauer's ideas about the non-historicity of Jesus made their way into official Soviet doctrine through that connection. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"The mythical theory is indeed the direct outcome — although parenthood may not be acknowledged — of that quest of historical Jesus which has sought to find within or behind the Gospels a peasant-prophet reduced to the dimensions of mere humanity." is the passage I an talking about and I would point out in the same issue of that publication there is this little gem: "The "real" Jesus is the "historical" Jesus, and the "historical" Jesus is the Jesus of the Gospels--the Jesus of primitive Christian faith as set forth in in the documentary evidence." pg 140. which creates all kinds of problems regarding the meaning of Christ Myth theory especially given Wells' current position so you are right back where you started. And we are still waiting for that publication that links all three terms together.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that creates no problems whatsoever. Pointing out that the "mythical theory" is an outcome of the quest for the historical Jesus (in its 19th century German liberal Protestant form) is standard; see Schweitzer and Weaver.

Your second quote is from here, a review of The Life and Teachings of Jesus according to the Earliest Records by Charles Foster Kent. This book is not about the Christ myth theory, and the review barely mentions a "mythical" view, so why are you bringing this up at all? Besides, you have misinterpreted the passage, which says--quite transparently--that the Gospels give evidence of a historical Jesus. This has nothing to do with Wells' position, but I suppose it's hard to get that when one sees the world through Wells-colored glasses. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And despite all this we STILL don't have that source that connects all three terms together or that shows that Christ myth theory is always used for non-historial. Also, it is not Wells colored glasses but the fact Wells' fits Walsh's definition so well (supported independently I might add) and yet not some of the others; all we have gotten is a bunch of OR nonsense claiming all the uses for Christ myth theory are the same. Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. That means you cannot claim Welsh's use of Christ myth theory is the same as Farmer, Horbury or Jones or that Bromiley's story of somehow relates to Wiseman's usage without an article that says so. All we can site is what is directly supported, not a OR Synthesis that tries to match some definitions with others despite their clear ambiguity (Dodd case in point).--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Walsh is not a prominent scholar of religion (just search for academic reviews and citations of his book if you don't believe me), so I'm not sure why you attach so much importance to him. In any case, "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" doesn't conflict with what this article says at all. As far as OR/SYNTH, I would submit that without a source that says explicitly that "Christ myth theory" means different things in different authors, it's you who are reaching conclusions that are not stated explicitly by any of the sources; for instance, you've just synthesized your interpretation of Walsh and your interpretation of Wells. (Both of which, I would say, are faulty.) We have several sources that say explicitly that the Christ myth theory is the line of thought carried out by Bauer, Drews, Robertson, et al., and none that say explicitly that the Christ myth theory is not what these guys proposed, but a theory proposed by an entirely different group of thinkers. So I'm having difficulty figuring out what the heck you're going on about. Are there any actual changes you think need to be made to the article, or are you just here to fill up the talk page with complaints about terminology? If you're so convinced that there's OR here, why don't you go to the no original research noticeboard? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Walsh used Transaction Publishers which qualifies as a reliable source and and we have seen no evidence that any of the sources you have produced are "prominent scholar of religion" either. Walsh clearly conflicts because "Jesus was originally a myth" up to the 1st century AD when that story was attached to a contemporary would be messiah is the Christ Myth Thoery by definition and flies in the face of non-hiostorial. You can't interpretate or handwave to make it fit but only use exactly what Walsh give us. As for my conclusion about Walsh and Wells being a synthesis this ignores the statements of Price and Doherty which support that position (and I noted above). I would remind you that by the logic above the reasoning you and EALacey used to keep Fischer out of this article could qualify as synthesis because no reference saying that he isn't relevant has been produced. Neither has the source linking all three terms together and I have noticed you have not tried to put Christ myth back in the list either as you can't or won't defend it being synonymous with non-historical despite Akhilleus saying "Bruce's contention that there's inconsistency in the definition of the Christ myth is wrong" (which I proved with various sources like Mack to be totally incorrect and Cuñado agreed with me as he threw Christ myth out as part of the lead in).--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)I should point out that Akhilleus doesn't realize that his statement of "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" conflicts with Wells current position which agrees with Welsh's definition as independently stated by BOTH Price and Doherty. Akhilleus has provided no reliable source evidence showing his interpretation of Welsh is the correct one nor any regarding the definitions that don't exactly fit. As I mentioned elsewhere to which Akhilleus replied I brought this up in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_reliable_source_conflict and no one cared Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#academic_sources_at_Jesus_myth_hypothesis and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis were certainly more lively but nothing came of those either. Three noticeboards and no resolution yet and yet Akhilleus somehow taking this to a fourth will somehow magically fix this mess?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason "no one cares" is that your dispute is difficult to understand: "Wells current position which agrees with Welsh's definition as independently stated by BOTH Price and Doherty." What?? Anyway, I suggest leaving the difficulty of the terms aside for a while. What do you suggest that this article should be about in terms of content? Should it include Wells' current position?? (Maybe, Wells is simply no longer a true myth-theorist.) Really, what should this article cover, and if it is to include superimposition theories, how does that differ from mainstream accounts? Yes, it may be a more gradual spectrum from literalism to non-historicity, where Wells current view is somewhere between the Jesus Seminar and non-historicity theories; but for the purpose of an independent article, the scope has to be somehow specified. Where do you suggest to draw the line? Vesal (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Price calls Wells a Christ Myth Theorist in 1999 after Jesus Myth was published and described the premise in that book; Doherty called Wells a CURRENT Jesus myth supporter while directly referring to Jesus Myth so claiming true myth-theorist doesn't apply.

As for what the article should cover I am not sure thanks the variations in the definitions. Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman expressly deal with the Jesus NEVER existed position (which by definition would excluded the Jesus existing in the 1st century BE or earlier theories per the Robin Hood and John Frum examples I have previously given). Jones expressly states that the idea is the man being called non-historial.

Then you have Bromiley who expressly states story of rather than the person in his definition. Pike's definition is annoying vague as it not clear if he means the man or the story of the man. Dodd's is so vaguely worded that it could include a historical Jesus as he give no time frame. Welsh's definition is an eluded middle with its own set of problems.

Trying to say all these different definitions somehow define Christ Myth Theory the exact same way with no references that link them together to back up that claim flies in the face of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. The material as it stands doesn't support the lead in's premise that Christ Myth Theory is used in anything even resembling a standard way. It certainly doesn't help that Christ myth by itself is used in an even broader context (as demonstrated by Burton L. Mack, Remsburg, Fitchett, Knight, etc) or that even among scholars (JW Rogerson) and non-scholars (Remsburg) the very term myth has different meanings. As I said a long time ago the literature here on both sides is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

everyone agrees this is a mess, but what is to be done to fix it? Imo, what we have here is a blatant violation of WP:SYN and WP:CFORK. The article should be redirected to historicity of Jesus until we have literature about the "Jesus myth theory" phenomenon, i.e. authors reviewing the history of this phenomenon, as opposed to a bunch of primary literature by "Jesus myth" apologists. The reason we cannot come to a solid conclusion here is that the very article topic is flawed from the outset. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, we have such literature, and it's cited in the article. There are two chapters in Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus that deal with non-historical theories. In the 1910s and 1920s, when Arthur Drews and others attracted public attention, several books were written about the Christ myth theory--including Shirley Jackson Case's The Historicity of Jesus, F. C. Conybeare's The Historical Christ, or an investigation of the views of J.M. Robertson, A. Drews and W.B. Smith, and Maurice Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?. There are several recent scholars who do indeed review the history of this phenomenon: van Voorst (the first chapter of Jesus Outside the New Testament), Walter Weaver (two sections of The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950), and Clinton Bennett (a big section of In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images--the page introducing the section is not part of the Google books preview). None of these sources are primary literature by "Jesus myth" apologists; the modern sources treat the Christ myth theory as a (distinctly odd) trend within the study of the historical Jesus. This is much more complete scholarly treatment than most fringe ideas get. This article simply needs to follow the treatment given in these sources--and, in fact, it basically does, up until the "recent proponents" section. After that, it's all a garbled mess.

If this topic has become obscure, it's because of discussion on this talk page, which seems to be taking place in some universe other than that of the secondary sources, in which the subject matter that this article should cover is clearly defined--instead, here, the opinions of guys like Doherty and Price reign supreme, and BruceGrubb's misinterpretation of a straightforward statement by George Walsh somehow threatens the existence of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is what I think. Since this topic is primarily of historical interest, one should probably flatten the structure, so that the body of the article is primarily the current "history" section. The "argument" section should be incorporated into that kind of a structure. When discussing recent proponents (e.g., Wells), it should be placed in the context of current scholarship. It seems to me that Wells' theory is like an extreme position on the Gospel of John. Quoting again from Stibbe's John as Storyteller: "The real issue is therefore not whether Jesus existed but how much the gospel of John actually tells us about the historical Jesus". Here, the mainstream position would say there is much to be learned from John, while someone like Wells would claim a complete disconnect. Am I right? Vesal (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call Wells's current position a total disconnect; he certainly was saying there was something to Q as early as Jesus Legend a view that has grown stronger with each successive book (Jesus Myth and Can we trust the New Testament?) on the topic. Wells current position agrees with Welsh's definition of Christ Myth theory with Paul's Jesus being a quasi mythical person belonging to a previous century but accepts the Q Jesus being historical with the merging of the two producing a non historical composite character called the Gospel Jesus (Jesus Myth directly referenced by Doherty and Price reiterates the position in general)

Again we see the attempt to strawman other editors point by applying generalities that are not there. I never claimed "Doherty and Price reign supreme" only that they use terms Christ Myth Theorist and current Jesus myth supporter with regard to Wells current position and the best Akhilleus has come up with is Wells arguing against Holding's use of the term (clearly WP:SYN as Wells is not debating the use of the terms used by Doherty and Price).

Despite his claims Akhilleus still has not produced the reliable source that shows Christ myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Jesus myth as always meaning the exact same thing. WP:SYN is quite clear on this; you cannot have one source say A=B and another source say B=C and in the article say A=C (This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research) One should note that Akhilleus no longer defends Christ Myth as a synonym as he did for months before Cuñado threw it out effectively agreeing with the points I had made. Per WP:SYN and other requirements is NOT required by wikipedia that I prove the terms are not synonyms but rather the burden is on the editors who claim they are synonyms.

I fully agree with Dbachmann claim of WP:SYN with regard to the lead in. I should point out Shirley Jackson Case's book make NO reference to Jesus myth or even uses the exact term non historical and mentions Christ myth only once and does it in such a vague way it not clear how she is using it.

In search of Jesus By Clinton Bennett is even more of a disaster as on page 205 as I pointed out 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009. And yet on 12 February 2009 Akhilleus stated "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research."

Well for one, Schweitzer does NOT present a coherent position between 1906 (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) and 1931 (Out Of My Life and Thought) regarding Frazer. Second, Schweitzer in 1931 and Weaver conflict regarding where Frazer stands so the "coherent position" takes some more lumps and finally who points out these conflicts? Why Bennett. So much for a coherent position. More like WP:SYN out the wazoo.

Another problem not really touched on here is saying the Gospel Jesus is non historical the same as saying Jesus the man was non historical? Wells current position is that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character created from Paul's semi mythic Jesus from an earlier century and some 1st century teacher named Jesus. When someone says Jesus Christ didn't exist are they talking about the Gospel Jesus or the actual man?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK some quotes addressing WP:SYN. Hector Hawton May 1966: Ties Volney & Bruno Bauer leading to Thomas Whittaker, W.B. Smith & Arthur Drews leading to J.M. Robertson. The thesis they advanced, "the alleged historical events that Christianity were based on had never occurred" Price, Acharaya S and Doherty cite one another as working on the same themes. Doherty and Wells cite each other as working on the same themses. Freke and Gandy define the Jesus Mystery thesis, "Orthodox Christianity was a derivation of Gnosticism and Gnosticism came from a synthesis of Judaism and Pagan Mystery religion" which includes most of the authors. I think we can put this argument synthesis argument to rest. jbolden1517^Talk 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No because the WP:SYN issue is the claim in the lead in that Christ myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Jesus myth always mean the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with synthesis in the way Freke and Gandy are using the term. Besides Jesus Mystery thesis is not even listed as an alternative for Christ myth theory in the lead in. Again WP:SYN is quite clear on this; if source 1 says A=B and source 2 says B=C you canNOT combine the two and say A=C. The only thing valid for that is a source that directly states that A=B=C.

Nevermind none of this explains why Price calls Wells a Christ Myth theorist after Jesus Myth which describing the position Wells held in both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth nor explains why Doherty called Wells a current Jesus myth supporter while directly referring to Jesus Myth. "G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference to Can we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover of Can we Trust the New Testament?) Here is total refutation that Christ myth' theorist only means non historical as the term is used in reference to a book that accepts the Q Jesus as historical (but not the Gospel Jesus). This is driven home by this full review of Can we Trust the New Testament? by Price which states "In every volume Wells reiterates his case for a mythic Jesus, but this is hardly "vain repetition." [...] No, the chastened Wells admitted, there had indeed been a historical wisdom teacher named Jesus, some of whose sayings survive in the Gospels via Q. But this historical Jesus had nothing to do with the legendary savior Jesus whom Paul preached about."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See, Price reigns supreme! We don't care what Price says about Wells. Price is a "professor" at an unaccredited theological seminary. His self-published essays are not reliable sources; what he says about Wells is irrelevant. Your complaints about synthesis, as jbolden1517 said above, are groundless. So please stop typing the same thing over and over again. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Strawman reigns supreme! "We don't care what Price says about Wells." Right because this shoots your straight jacked definition of Christ Myth theory clean out of the window. And we STILL don't have that source that links the three definitions together only unsupported OR attacks on the authors that prove the lead in to be so much WP:SYN nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Like me just throw this out. What about using Hawton's definition? (Orthodox Christianity was a derivation of Gnosticism and Gnosticism came from a synthesis of Judaism and Pagan Mystery religion)

• I think this captures what we are looking for,
• it explicitly ties together the earlier authors,
• It is a statement that the later authors would concur with
• It separates off people like Crossan (who for example believe in the crucifixion as a historical event of key importance)
• It allows to reference an author
• It allows us to discuss people like Pearson, Turner, Brauer which provides the context for Freke

jbolden1517^Talk 15:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some others (this is from the May 2007 version): The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus". The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered.[1]

or The approach of the Jesus-myth hypothesis towards historicity is that, literature which can be dated should be used to show the evolution of the development of a legend. In particular the best earliest sources available are the epistles. So they should constitute the primary source of knowledge about early Christianity. This contrasts with the mainstream approach which holds that since Jesus is the "founder" of Christianity an understanding of early Christianity requires one to focus attention on the gospels even though dating is far less certain jbolden1517^Talk 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me who Hawton is. Do you mean Hector Hawton's introduction to J. M. Robertson's Pagan Christs (University Books 1967)? If you're going to advocate including this, we need a better idea of what he says--"Orthodox Christianity was a derivation of Gnosticism and Gnosticism came from a synthesis of Judaism and Pagan Mystery religion" seems totally off-topic to me. Yes, some of the Christ myth authors talk about "Gnosticism" as a/the origin of Christianity, but as a definition of the Christ myth theory, this isn't that helpful. But, as far as I can tell, Hawton didn't hold any academic position (see the preface to his Philosophy for Pleasure. So I'm not sure why we would regard him as more authoritative than the secondary sources the article already uses--particularly Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver, who are all academics. And their work addresses all of your bullet points above (except that I'm not sure who Crossen is, and who some of the people mentioned in your last bullet point are).

As for the older versions of the lead you've quoted, I think they are inadequate. "The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus" is an unclear statement, and could include the ideas of a broad range of thinkers, including some who think there was a historical Jesus (e.g., Rudolf Bultmann). In contrast, saying that "The Christ myth theory (...) is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians" is much more clear. It makes it clear that the Christ myth theory includes two ideas: 1) that there was no actual, living Jesus of Nazareth who inspired the New Testament, and 2) the stories about him develop on some basis other than history. These are defining characteristics of the Christ myth theory that we find named over and over again by secondary sources (many are quoted on this very talk page). As I keep on saying, we just need to follow the lead of our secondary sources! The current version of the lead does that. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while is may be clearer saying "The Christ myth theory (...) is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians" that statement is NOT supported by all the source material. Bromiley expressly states story of, Walsh says it is simply the idea Jesus started out as a myth, Pike is annoyingly vague (man or story about the man? don't know), and Dodd's "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" fits the minimal Historical Jesus approach because it give no time period to this person. Wood certainly doesn't help with his comments regarding Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson. Again, unless a source can be found that ties Bromiley, Walsh, Pike, Dodd, and Wood together and with the other uses of the term Christ Myth theory the lead is is basically WP:OR as there is effectively cherry picking of certain sources over others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what this section is doing. It seems to be presenting an alternate timeline of the development of Christianity, based not on the work of a single author, but employing bits and pieces of a bunch of different writers. Isn't this synthesis? And what's the point of it anyway? This article is supposed to be the history of the idea that there was no historical Jesus. Instead, it's starting to look like the Bizarro World version of historical Jesus, with a fully developed timeline of the alternate history of early Christianity. It's this kind of thing that justifies Dbachmann's characterization of this article as a content fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles have subarticles. I think this is a subarticle of historical Jesus, dealing in detail with one particular theory. Orthodox Christianity presents another theory. John Dominic Crossan,E. P. Sanders et. al present yet another theory. Raymond Brown, Meirs, yet another (liberal Catholic). Morton Smith (Christianity emerged out of the Jewish magical cults) presents another. If we wanted infinite length articles on history of Christianity this all could be merged but History would be much to long. We are trying to describe as best as possible a family of theories proposed by a diverse group of authors of two centuries.

This is encyclopedia writing in the classic sense. Taking a body of sources and providing a reference to them which is contrastive. In terms of avoiding WP:OR you'll notice Wells is cited throughout. This is his timeline, the table format is original but there is no policy against reformatting from authors. jbolden1517^Talk 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Its turning into a coat rack for arguments against the "orthodox" understanding of Christianity. These are off topic and synth, plus based on very biased sources. We are not here to argue a position but report what legitimate sources say. Hardyplants (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is a reliable source on what they themselves think. Policy is clear on this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. I'll leave the table out for now to give you time to respond why Wells and Doherty are not reliable sources on Mythicist thinking. jbolden1517^Talk 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Doherty isn't a reliable source. Most of what gets cited in this article is self-published stuff from his website. He has no demonstrated expertise in early Christianity, ancient history, classical languages, etc. etc. It's possible to use such sources according to the section of WP:V that you linked to, but that doesn't mean that he's actually a reliable source. Wells is better, in that secondary sources have actually covered his writing. But that doesn't mean that the article should suddenly turn into "The Origins of Christianity according to G. A. Wells."

As for the table, why do we need it? As written, it was definitely synthesis. If it were written so that it was presenting only one author's ideas (e.g., the entire chart laid out how G.A. Wells thought Christianity developed), I still don't think it should be there, because I don't see how it assists the reader in understanding the article's topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Doherty is a reliable source on Doherty and a well respected expert on the Jesus myth as verified by the other writers and a popular following. What you are arguing is that he isn't a reliable source on history, and ancient languages which is completely irrelevant to this article. This article is about a theory, not about the correctness of the theory. In other words what you are arguing is that Doherty cannot be cited as an authority outside of this article, so for example the middle Platonism article couldn't say "Pauls depiction of Jesus is classic Middle Platonism" (ref Doherty....)

As for the table, it is there because the article doesn't actually describe the theory in any depth. For example Special relativity actually describes the theory, explaining the main ideas of the theory to the reader. This article simply provides a history of authors it doesn't actually describe the theory. The next step is to actually explain to someone what those authors believe and why. jbolden1517^Talk 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point quite well. Doherty can be cited to explain what Doherty thinks. This is an exception to the rule that we're supposed to use reliable sources; it doesn't mean that Doherty becomes a reliable source. It also doesn't mean that Doherty becomes an authority on other proponents of the theory; we cite him to explain what he thinks, and nothing more. (But that first requires a decision whether the article should describe what he thinks, or not.)

As for describing the theory in depth, that should be done in the sections on individual authors. Each one of them argues different things, and the article should not synthesize a single theory that no individual author holds (this is the basic problem with the "arguments" section). You want the article to say in more detail what G. A. Wells thinks, well, fine--but it should go in the section devoted to Wells, not held up as an example of "the theory". Special relativity is not a good analogy here, because it is a scientific theory, proposed by a single theorist. The "theory" that this article deals with is not a theory in the scientific sense, and comes in different flavors depending on which author you look at. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the authors themselves don't hold relatively similar theories. For example

1. Christianity emerged from Hellenistic Judaism, it did not come from Palestine
2. The pseudo christian epistles from about 200 BCE form a continuum with the 1st century christian epistles
3. Gospel material was accepted later than epistle material.
4. Belief in rising dieties in these communities preceded any belief in the existence of an actual historical event

etc.... They differ on minor details, like the actual mixture of mystery cult vs. middle Platonism in their gnosticism. With say Doherty pushing strongly for middle platonism while 19th century authors were heavily focused on mystery cult aspects.

So present a positive case, why don't you believe there is in fact a relatively consistent theory, given that the authors do believe there is one?

As for Doherty for example, not being an expert on Jesus myth. He is constantly cited by the broad community of Jesus myth supports as an expert on the theory. He doesn't have an academic reputation but that is why people like Pearson (who is unquestionably seen as an/the expert on Egyptian Christianity) are important. jbolden1517^Talk 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The authors are consistent in saying that there was no historical Jesus, but their theory of how early Christianity develops can be quite different. The difference between middle Platonism being the major source vs. mystery religions being the major source is not a "minor detail".

First of I said "actual mixture, not major source. And actually it is in the last generation or two since we've put together what the gnosticism of 100 BCE - 100 CE looked like. That it had both middle Platonism and mystery components. And again the writers i this theory don't agree that they have substantially different theories than one another. They believe they are quibbling over details. jbolden1517^Talk 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Doherty, when you say "He is constantly cited by the broad community of Jesus myth supports as an expert on the theory" you seem to be referring to the fact that a lot of websites and popular literature refer to him...but we have scholarly literature on the history of this topic, and Doherty makes little to no impact on that literature. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What scholarly literature do we have on the history on the "Christ myth theory" that is recent? (Genuinely asking). The only writer I can think of who has done a comprehensive study is Murdock and if you won't accept Doherty I don't see how you accept her. jbolden1517^Talk 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaver (1999); Van Voorst (2000 and 2005--the latter is Jesus: a Guide, ed. Houden, basically the same material is found in Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia); Bennett (2001). I mentioned each one of these authors in the "secondary sources" section above; none are advocates of the theory, but scholars placing the theory in historical context. Full cites for each are in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good list. Well Weaver stops in 1950. But he does link to Robinson, and Robinson links himself to people of the previous century who were doing this sort of exploration. As for Voorst, Voorst IMHO is agreeing with me. He outlines 6 objections to Wells (p14):

1. Argument from silence
2. Dating of the gospels
3. Invention vs. evolution apparent on the gospel tradition.
4. What the earliest people believed (1st and 2nd century literature about Christianity)
5. Non Christian witnesses and the theory of their construction
6. implications of the non historical argument

I would be willing right now to accept that list as the structure of the article to avoid claims of synthesis. That is definitely close enough to where I want to go. Addressing the evidence (pro and con) on those 6 points and some material as to how the fit together is perfect. Would using Voorst's list solve your issue regarding synthesis?

As for Bennett I couldn't find the relevant definition. jbolden1517^Talk 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside your original objection to my table was that Wells, Doherty, Robertson didn't have theories that were substantially the the same. Your sources above, are linking them. jbolden1517^Talk 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the Jesus Project, which is an ongoing but slow-moving survey. They just had their first symposium in December 2008. I honestly don't think the academic heavy lifting has been done in this area that a) its proponents believe they have done, and b) its detractors believe has failed. That seems to be the working assumption of this project: attempting to start "tabula rasa" with no assumptions about Jesus' existence or nonexistence, then working from the contributions of a range of established scholars. But until they have something to show for it, it'll be something to keep an eye on. --davigoli (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but we can't use stuff that isn't written yet. jbolden1517^Talk 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious why I removed this section. This article is about the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The removed text says nothing about the theory that there was no historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Those writers demonstrated an example of a Christian community (the Sethians) which developed a Christianity the absence of historical input and then later came to believe that there were historical events. That is positive evidence for the case. That is a proven example of exactly what the Jesus myth supporters claim happened more broadly.

Moreover even excluding the example of the Sethians things like the development of Egyptian Christianity back the basic thesis of people like JM Roberts. This btw is why we need a long description of the theory. There is more to it than "there was no historical Jesus". There are a huge number of details. In the same way that the thesis for special relativity is "all observers see the same speed of light" but the details require quite a bit more explication. jbolden1517^Talk 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that demonstrates this alleged connection, or is this your own argument? None of the secondary sources I mention above mentions the Sethians in connection with the Christ myth theorists that this article covers. "things like the development of Egyptian Christianity back the basic thesis of people like JM Roberts", unless there is a secondary source that explicitly makes this connection, also sounds like an original synthesis. Without a secondary source that makes some kind of connection between Birger A. Pearson and the Christ myth theory (a connection which the text does not even try to make), this material needs to stay out of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure the entire book on Freke and Gandy advances this thesis. Plotinus considers Christians to be heretics from Neo Platonism (Plotinus#Plotinus_and_the_Gnostics) not from Judaism. Hans Jonas argues that Christianity emerged from a synthesis of Egyptian, Hellenic, Babylonian and Iranian influences. He specifically discusses how the "violently anti-Jewish biases" of Judaism could emerge from a Jewish context (not Palestinian Jewish though). Turner is actually documenting a case of exactly what people like Doherty are talking about. Schmithals "Gnosticism in Corinth" has Paul encountering a pre-existing gnostic Christian sect.

Robertson advances a more primitive form: Rhodian rite + mystery play + historical rephrasing = gospel account.

I can keep going. jbolden1517^Talk 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is Pearsons take on the issue of Gnosticism and Earely Christianity in Egypt - [7] He favors the idea that Chistianity came first and then later Gnostisim in Egypt. Hardyplants (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree you have the right book. Though I would suggest Chapter 13 where he addresses this connection directly in terms of Baeur. He discusses the Epistle of Barnabas which is early in Egyptian Christianity to argue for a non gnostic group of Christians in Alexandria prior to the 2nd century. He also agrees with Bauer that the Gnostic Christians were dominant until Panteus (180) which is Doherty date as well. He asserts that Valentinianism comes from Sethianism (which predates the "historical crucifixion"). The point of all of this is that Pearson is documenting the evolution of early Christianity using a literary not a historical model. He talks very freely about proto-Christianity associated with books from 0 BCE and earlier. In other words he doesn't assume anything interesting about Palestine happened in the year 30 CE jbolden1517^Talk 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So clearly he does not belong in this article, unless you are doing original research and synthesis. Hardyplants (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of synthesis does not require that we not document multiple authors. If person X says A depends on B and person Y proves A then it is not synthesis to show both. It is synthesis to then say B is proven if neither X or Y said it. "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." In our case X does say that B is proven.

The article on special relativity is not written in German and uses late 20th century math. People are freely synthesizing Einstein with later differential geometry he didn't use. I think you and Akhilleus are trying to apply standards to a theory that basically we can't apply any intelligence at all which not what WP:OR says. jbolden1517^Talk 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JBolden, from what I'm piecing together from your statements I see "X says A depends on B", then "Y proves B", not A. There is clearly and uncontroversially a heavy neoplatonic/mystery cult influence in early Christianity. It's clear that the Mithras/Adonis cults were closely related to Christianity, and such cults were springing up all over the place at that time (indeed going back to Tammuz/Osiris). Whether the first Christians interpreted the life of a historical man through that lens, or whether the man himself was fabricated (as were so many other "real" figures in so many other legends of antiquity), is the concern of this article, not the secondary arguments used to support it. All this stuff about gnosticism and mystery religions is supporting evidence, but does not itself stand or fall with the Christ Myth Theory. The latter depends on the former, but not the other way around. It's very important to keep that point clear in this article. Also, we have articles such as Life-death-rebirth deity and Jesus Christ in comparative mythology as main articles for this information. --davigoli (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish we had threading, this is a response to Davigoli. Lets take Bauer as a specific. I would agree that the arguments for Bauer don't depend on non historicity of Jesus. Bauer does depend on Acts being false. He does very much depend on things like the fact that Paul encountered a pre-existing gnosticism which was at least proto-Christian. Jesus myth in arguing that Christianity emerged not from historical events presents evidence for Bauer. Conversely, Bauer presents evidence that Acts' version of how Christianity developed is false. Chapter 13 of Doherty (a Riotious diversity) quite literally quotes Bauer against Crossen and makes use of Bauer's ideas with respect of Hebrews. So in that direction the tie is absolutely explicit. I think it is obvious and defendable that Freke and Gandy are using Bauer (and I'm sure I can find sources). That is an explicit link in one direction and an implicit link in the other. jbolden1517^Talk 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JBolden, I am a little confused by what you are trying to say here. WP:SYN says is a major no-no to use Source 1 saying A=B and combine it with Source 2 which says B=C to say A=C. You can cite both points independently (ie A=B, B=C) but by WP:SYN you cannot directly combine them (ie A=C) unless you can find a source that does it for you. That is why you cannot combine Dodd's or Welsh's definitions of Christ Myth theory together or with those Farmer, Horbury, or Wiseman nor any of these with the definitions used Jones, Bromiley, or Pike. All you can do by WP:SYN is say what they directly and explicitly state. So if Bromiley uses story of in his definition then you have to go with that and nothing else as far as Bromiley is concerned. Similarly if Welsh simply says "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" that is ALL you can use Welsh for unless you find a source that directly and explicitly links his definition to any of the others. Similarly if a well known author calls someone a Christ myth theorist and directly references a book that includes a historical Jesus then you cannot use other sources to continue to claim Christ myth theorist=non historial--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First off I didn't say that. I said if source 1 says A=B, then source 2 about A is on topic. A different situation. As for a source, About as authoritative source as they come, The apostle's creed:

born of the [virgin] Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

Or the Nicean Creed:

came down from heaven, and was incarnate [by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary], and was made man;

... he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate

That is the crucial denials are: born of a human mother (i.e. a real person), existed at a particular place and time. Someone who denies that the Jesus Christ of Paul/the epistles fulfills either of those two criteria is a believer in the Christ Myth. We can come up 200 variations on this theme (and you can see some above and in the archive) but in the end that's the definition. The gnostic writers are showing that people who did not believe in a historical material Jesus believed in "epistles". That is the original "Christ myth writers" from 1900-2100 years ago. The people these very words were directed at. If you are saying that the other writers don't actually uses the term this way. Well first off understand, we made it up 2 years ago when we split historicity material off from the more general article on myth. Wikipedia essentially invented the term, "Jesus myth hypothesis". It was our term. The organization of material existed because we needed to separate off things that are mainstream (Jesus story contains mythological elements), that say C.S. Lewis would have no problem agreeing with, with things that were a niche historical theory that a C.S. Lewis would unequivocally deny. For example last month we broke off Hospice Care in the United States from Hospice and Palliative care. Ultimately that separation came from Wikipedia need to organize material not from the underlying literature. The real reason for the split was because historicity and theology had already split and were mirroring that split. We have to organize the material somehow.

If this article is not about people who deny the historicity of Jesus then what is it about? jbolden1517^Talk 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article is about a "niche historical theory". The thing is, we have scholarly literature that defines what this theory is and who advocated it (see my post above in the "Theory of Christian Development" section). They make it clear that this is a theory of the 19th-20th (21st) centuries; they do not say that Gnostic writers are Christ myth theorists. So putting them here is an act of synthesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You replied to me before I had a chance to reply to your comments above. Do my comments above change anything? jbolden1517^Talk 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to do with the "Gnostic writers" section: part of my problem is that it's simply not clear what that section is doing in this article. But it seems to me that you're saying that the Gnostics didn't think there was a historical Jesus, and that therefore they belong in this article. My position is, this article is about a theory that has antecedents in 18th century writers, but is really a 19th-21st century phenomenon. And that opinion comes straight out of the secondary sources. So unless we have secondary sources that say the Gnostics are in the same category as Bauer, Drews, et al., they shouldn't be in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First off I realized the confusion with Bauer. I meant Walter Bauer not Bruno Bauer. Sorry about that. As for the rest of your point, whether there were ancient people who denied the historicity of Jesus goes directly to your 6 points of disputes above. Further while not in the secondary literature, the primary literature focuses heavily on the methodology by which myth came to be confused with history. So in some sense this article:

1. A bunch of 19th -21st century authors who make the chase against the historicity of Christ (includes Gnostic writers)
2. A bunch of people who deny the historicity of Christ (includes the Gnostics themselves).

jbolden1517^Talk 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is no secondary source that says these two groups are advocating the same theory, right? None of the secondary sources I named above say, for instance, that Bruno Bauer was influenced by Sethian Christianity, or that Arthur Drews continued the thought of Valentinius. If there are no secondary sources that say this, combining these two groups in one article is synthesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doherty says he was influenced (chapter 13) by Meeks, Braur (Walter). He sites Braur's followers: Pagels, Pearson as influences. So there is an explicit site. Freke and Gandy make the case that gnosticism was the original Christianity, and again site Braur, Schmithals and Pagels. Ellegard sites Pearson, Pagels, Schmithals, John D Turner directly. You want sites of a connection the authors themselves assert the connection. And Robertson does the same thing going back 100 years with all the predecessors.

The secondary literature your are quoting from doesn't present a fully developed version of the myth case, you have to go to the authors themselves. jbolden1517^Talk 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with bolden1517 that the secondary literature is in places a mess. Schweitzer supposedly says one thing about Frazer in 1906 (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) and yet in 1931 (Out Of My Life and Thought) says the exact opposite. Bennett even points out that Schweitzer in 1931 puts Frazer in the same category as John M Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews despite Frazer never saying there wasn't a historical Jesus a fact that some editors continue to ignore.

I have also pointed out that Christ myth by itself is used in an even broader context than Christ myth theory (as demonstrated by Burton L. Mack, Remsburg, Fitchett, Knight, etc) and the use of myth varies even among scholars (J.W. Rogerson) and non-scholars (Remsburg). By normal standards of English Christ Myth theorist should refer to a theorist who holds to the Christ Myth but it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the very term Christ Myth varies. Burton L. Mack, Remsburg, Fitchett, Knight, etc all use Christ Myth in a way that includes a historical Jesus while other authors use the term to talk about non historial theories. If you look at Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Christ_myth_theory_definitions you can see that variations in Christ myth theory do exist and to date not one source tying all these variations together has been produced.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Bruce. I think the definition we had 2 years ago solves this problem, by use of the term "meaningful historicity".

The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus". The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered.[1] (note the article at the time was called Jesus-myth hypothesis)

It ties everyone together. If you are disputing that they should be tied together, they think they should be tied together, popular culture ties them together, their opponents tie them together.... jbolden1517^Talk 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

jbolden1517, are you saying that A) ancient Gnostic writers are Christ myth theorists, or that B) modern writers about Gnosticism are Christ myth theorists? Whichever one it is, you have (implicitly) acknowledged that the secondary sources don't say that Valentinus, Schmitals, Turner, Pearson, and Pagels are proponents of the theory. So this article should not mention them as such--but the section we have in the text right now implies that Birger A. Pearson and John D. Turner believe there was no historical Jesus. Somehow, I doubt these scholars hold this position, and for the article to imply that they do is undesirable.

If Doherty/Freke/Gandy say that the Gnostics didn't believe in a historical Jesus and draw upon Gnostic writers in crafting their own version of the theory, then that can be mentioned in sections devoted to Doherty/Freke/Gandy (if we include these guys--I really don't think they warrant more than a couple of sentences). But the article shouldn't present the Gnostics as advocates as the same theory as Bauer/Drews/Robertson/Wells--our secondary sources make it clear that this is a theory of the 19th-21st centuries. A full exposition of Gnostic views on Jesus belong in a different article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Akhilleus. I'm saying that (A) is true (for 1st century gnostics). I'm also saying that Walter Braur, Schmitals, Turner, Pearson, and Pagels are proponents of the theory because they provide evidence for it. For example if you look at Special Relativity you'll see discussion of Galileo who explicitly denied the relativity of time. He is still listed because his notion of the relativity of velocity was a crucial step in the development of the theory. I don't you need to personally believe a theory to advance it. On the other hand I have no problem with adding a disclaimer that there is no evidence that Pearson or Turner has directly advocated the Christ myth theory if we stay with this definition.

I personally happen to believe they do believe it in the more limited sense the term was used originally. But as currently defined you all have tightened the definition to the point that virtually no one qualifies. For example Doherty believes that Q3 is historical, which one could argue means he doesn't meets the definition as written.

I like the idea of a decomposition in theory and tracing the writers. If there is general agreement I'd be happy to do that. So for example the table goes under Wells, the discussion of Gnosticism under Freke and Gandy. We can put Doherty as a mediating figure and detailed informational source. So agreed. Should I go ahead and start implementing? jbolden1517^Talk 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

John E. Remsberg, Chapter 9 [8] (books is published but now public domain):

Gives a 4 fold breakdown

• 1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.

• 2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.

• 3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.

• 4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth -- that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.

He goes on to say the real difference between 3 and 4 is which came first. I think that gives us exactly what we are looking for, a secondary source that includes everyone we want and excludes everyone we don't. jbolden1517^Talk 13:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively--just look in the archives, starting with Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19#Remsberg. BruceGrubb thinks that Remsberg is an important source, for reasons that are not clear to me. I think that we should not use Remsberg at all, because

1. He was not an academic, but we have several scholarly sources on this topic

2. There is no indication that Remsberg had an influence on the authors whom academic sources call Christ myth theorists (Drews, Robinson, Wm. B. Smith, Wells, etc.). The only source that says Remsberg was an influence on the theory is J. P. Holding--and we've decided that Holding, as a self-published author, is not a reliable source.

3. Secondary sources (and primary ones, for that matter) define the "Christ myth theory" as the theory that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth. That's Remsberg's #4. BruceGrubb has been arguing, repetitively and at great length, that Remsberg defines the Christ myth theory as #3 and #4 together. Using Remsberg in this way dilutes the article topic such that the article could include anyone who believes that there was a historical Jesus, but the New Testament gives us nothing useful to reconstruct his life. But that is not the way that Van Voorst, etc. describe the topic of this article--it's about the "niche historical theory" that Jesus didn't exist as a human being.

So, as I have said many times, I don't think we should use Remsberg--he's a marginal figure at best. We have good secondary sources written by academic experts in the study of the historical Jesus (Van Voorst, Bennett, Weaver)--we just need to follow their lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Seems reasonable. I do agree with Bruce (and Remsberg) that 3 and 4 form a continuum and that we can't cut the line on the edge of 4. My Doherty example above. But I absolutely want to exclude the pure #3s. I included davigoli's suggestion which I think accomplishes this. jbolden1517^Talk 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I restructered the info in the "Other Writers" section. The original kept flipping back and forth and I thought it would read better as one unit. jbolden1517^Talk 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)