Talk:Christ myth theory

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

Archives

Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc. Archive 10: through Dec 2007: more NPOV, fringy-ness (or not), Bauer, etc. Archive 11: through Jan 31 2008: more NPOV, sources, etc. Archive 12: through Mar 18 2008: complaining about Grant quote, etc. Archive 13: through Apr 28 2008: more of the same Archive 14: through May 24 2008: RfC, neutrality, Grant, etc. Archive 15: through Aug 2008: scholarly response, euhemerization, docetism, circular discussion. Archive 16: more summer 2008: scholarly response, fringiness, hand-wringing. Archive 17: August 2008/September 2008 Archive 18: Sept-Dec 2008 Archive 19: Dec 2008-Jan 2009: Remsburg/-erg, etc. Archive 20: Jan 30 2009-Feb 2009 Archive 21: Mar 11 2009: Name and overall theme Archive 22: Mar 31,2009: Overhaul of Intro

Argument from silence

The main problem I have seen with Argument from silence idea is the tendency to assume that the canonal Gospels are completely accurate historical documents. Some people even go as far as to include all the supernatural stuff (three hours of darkness, all the dead being raised, etc) happened and then ask why didn't anyone note this down at the time?

Not that the counterarguments often presented are any better. Argument from silence is often presented as a logic fallacy but then you see it used to counter ideaa like the Sphinx being 2,000 years older than it is thought to be. The main contention is where is the evidence for the culture that supposedly built the Sphinx if it is that old and yet when the exact same criteria is applied to Jesus it suddenly is dismissed as "Argument from silence"? Something just not right with that kind of thinking.

Another problem with refutation attempts of "Argument from silence" is the tendency to strawman the idea by referring to people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Nero. It gets really silly when comparisons to Queen Elisabeth I, Shakespeare, or Eisenhower are made. Most of the people presented have good solid contemporaneous evidence (statues, coins, mosaics, and in the case of Julius Caesar letter to, from, and about him) showing they existed. Better comparisons as Joseph Campbell did in Hero with Thousand Faces would be Apollonius of Tyana, Buddha, and Krishna whose contemporary evidence is in as bad or even worst shape than that of Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By argument for silence in the to-do list (which I assume is what you are responding to), I meant something like Robertson or Doherty's top 200 (link to top 20). The early Christian writer's silence on aspects of Jesus' biography, where you would otherwise expect elements of the biography to appear. I can change the name in the to-do list.

What we are covering now is things like contemporary writers. What influences the Christ myth crowd it seems to me, is the lack of biography in early Christian writings. In other words during the 1st century and for most writers in the 2nd, Jesus is spoken of like a mythological being not a historical being. jbolden1517^Talk 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There was something like this back when we had a section on John Remsburg who was removed because few scholars make reference to his list or to his ideas on the Christ myth in general. I reworked the relevant parts and put them on the page on John Remsburg and provided it below so you can see the problems it had with regards to this article:

"In recent years a list of names from the "Silence of Contemporary Writers" chapter of The Christ (often called the Remsburg/Remsberg list) has appeared in a handful of self published books regarding the nonhistoricity hypothesis by authors such as James Patrick Holding*, Hilton Hotema*, and Jawara D. King*, as well as appearing in some 200 blog posts on the nonhistoricity hypothesis.

However at best The Christ along with The Bible and Six Historic Americans is regarded as an important freethought book* rather than a major contribution to the Christ Myth hypothesis."

• = a reference is provided for this.

To date I have not found anyone who would qualify under Wikipedia:Reliable sources who even make a passing reference to the Remsburg|Remsberg list. I have found others than those listed above but they also have the problem of not being scholars and being self published:

Norman, Asher (2007); Ashley Tellis Twenty-six reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus Black White and Read Publishing pg 182

O'Hair, Madalyn Murray (1969) What on earth is an atheist! American Atheist Press, Austin, Texas Page 246--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article

I would say that of the four terms we currently have (Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth, and nonexistence hypothesis) nonexistence hypothesis is is the best title for this article as it is the most descriptive of the position. The others have problems in terms of being less clear:

Jesus Myth

We are starting to get some feedback loops here. Toit, Morné Du (2008) Blind Faith Lulu on pg 159 uses a definition that a cross reference to Icon Group International's Aware: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases reveals to have partly come from Wikipedia. Worse unlike Icon, Toit doesn't tell us this. This makes his later "The term "Jesus myth" actually covers a broad range of ideas, but fundamentally, the all have in common is the basis that the story of the Gospels portrays a figure that never actually lived." suspect.

Both Weaver and Mack use this term regarding Jesus Christ in comparative mythology rather than in reference to the ideas presented by Drew or the others. That Wells in a book called Jesus Myth accepts the Q Jesus as historical doesn't help nor does Doherty stating that Wells is still saying a Gospel Jesus didn't exist.

Christ myth

This term is a full blow mess. Sure, it is the English transitional of Drews' book but it is also used to talk about the story that grew up around an historical Jewish preacher named Jesus. Nothing even resembling a consistent definition here.

Christ myth Theory

Has much the same problem as Christ myth only to a smaller degree. Boils down to four versions:

• there was no Jesus in any way, shape, or form in the 1st century CE (Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman)

• ANY deviation from the Gospel account (Bromiley's "story of")

• The idea of Jesus starting out as a myth regardless of connection to any historical person (Walsh)

• Pre existing mythology connected with a historical person who may or may not have lived in the 1st century CE (Dodd, Pike, Wells per Price and Doherty, Farmer read a different way)

Of course we have to ask where the concept of the nonexistence hypothesis as Null hypothesis fits into all this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAME. Christ myth theory is the most commonly used name for the subject of this article. In contrast, "nonexistence hypothesis" is used by one person (Van Voorst) who writes about this. Wikipedia readers are much more likely to be looking for "Christ myth theory" (or "Christ myth" or "Jesus myth") than "nonexistence hypothesis".

Of course, Bruce's contention that there are "four versions" of "Christ myth theory" is wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to non existence. Most of the authors we discuss don't assert full non existence. What they assert is non dependence and the lack of a meaningful historiography. To use a line from the 2007 version which IMHO explained the difference well, The analogy being made here is that Steamboat Willie was the first widely distributed Mickey Mouse feature and it was based on the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill Jr. which while fictional was not mythical. Finding historical persons who were the basis for Steamboat Bill Jr. would not be equivalent to finding the "historical Mickey Mouse" This case really works well since 0 people believe in a historical Mickey Mouse, yet we can clearly see real historical references in Steamboat Willie. I see 3 of the 4 definitions you gave above (good list) as being the same, they all deny the "meaningful historicity" of Jesus. Obviously the Bromley one is an entirely different definition.

Earl Doherty is a super clear case: believes that Q1 might be based on a historic person (a cynic philosopher in Galilee) and Q2 is based on a historic person (John the Baptist). Any title which would seem to exclude Doherty is too strong. Non existence hypothesis then at least verbally describes a position which few if any of these authors hold. I haven't read everyone on your list but, Acharya S and a few of the 19th century authors come to mind. Did the Peter of the Pauline epistles know Jesus? If the author's answer is yes, then they go under mainstream scholarship is they answer no they belong here.

And I think you are overstating the case to argue that Wells in Jesus Myth sees Jesus as historical. Again he is quite clear that the connection between Paul and Q is just that both utilize ideas from wisdom literature. Someone who argues that Pauline Christianity developed without a historical founder is asserting not denying that Paul views his Jesus as a myth not a recently deceased person. And this is the distinction between Mack and Wells that IMHO is really critical.

I hate to go back to the lead sentence but "The Christ myth theory is the assertion that Christianity developed with a historic core" seems to me to unite 3 of the 4 definitions nicely. As far as Christ myth vs. Christ myth theory vs. Jesus myth; I'm neutral. jbolden1517^Talk 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem which shows Akhilleus' claim my contention is "wrong" is itself incorrect is that Horbury and Wiseman expressly state that the Christ Myth Theory is Jesus NEVER existed while Dodd and Pike give vague definitions which are by their nature very open to interpretation. Bromiley definition with its "story of" and use of Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russell is also problematic. As far as "overstating the case to argue that Wells in Jesus Myth sees Jesus as historical" that is NOT me but rather Van Voorst which is totally at odds with the way Price (with more published scholarly papers then you can shake a stick at) uses Christ Myth theorist for Wells' current theory and Doherty (already used 13 times as a reference in the article as I write this) uses the term Jesus myth theorist in direct reference to Jesus Myth. Trying to say Doherty is not a good reference for Wells' position at this stage of the game would at best be POV pushing and at worst hypocrocy and statement PROVES that the term Jesus Myth does vary.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you agree that non existence hypothesis excludes most of the writers we want to talk about (and AFAICT we have consensus on who they are) then why would we want to use it? Forget the secondary literature. Of your 4 definitions would you be willing to accept a definition that includes 1,2 and 4? We can write an intro pretty easily like "The Christ myth theory describes a theory that Christianity originated with a fully mythical Jesus and no historical founder. Many of the writers believe that some of the gospel legends have some vague historical connections but these were irrelevant to the evolution of Christianity". It is only definition (2) that is problematic. The other 3 IMHO are all saying the same thing (see chart). jbolden1517^Talk 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, Bruce is absolutely wrong about Bromiley. He doesn't say anything even remotely like the Christ myth theory is any deviation from the gospel account. All of the sources Bruce brings up here are saying the same thing--that the Christ myth theory is the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and the figure we see in the New Testament is a creation of the early Christians. It's essential that the lead start by saying that the Christ myth theory is the idea that there was no historical Jesus--that's what links all of these authors together. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK good, that's gets us down to the 3 definitions which I believe are true. Would you have any objection to weakening like I indicated above, or what I have in the chart. Many of the writers don't object to vague connections, similar to the analogy of some vague connections between historical people and Mickey Mouse. jbolden1517^Talk 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again the problem with "Christ myth" and "Jesus myth" is that, while they are the best supported by sources, the terms they are composed of themselves have definitions contradictory (or orthogonal) to how they are used in this article, such that a person who otherwise knows nothing about the content of the article might suppose that the article treats an entirely different topic than the one it does. "Christ" is a Greek term meaning "anointed", "messiah" which is a mythological mantle, and suggesting that the theory is about the mythical nature of the "Christ" attributes gets it wrong. Likewise, "myth" is a weak and vague term. I think we should not be squeamish about rejecting sources' terminology when it is ambiguous or potentially conflicts with other established uses of the terms in question. In that sense, it is not about OR - it's about having to make a hard choice between one RS's definition and another's. "Nonexistence hypothesis" has a poorer ring to it but is unfortunately the best option at our disposal. --davigoli (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a policy that deals with how Wikipedia articles are named: WP:NAME. It specifies that we use the most common name in English. That's "Christ myth theory". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Close, but not exactly. Here's what WP:NAME has to say (emphasis mine):

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

I believe that in the present case "Christ Myth Theory" has a sufficient degree of ambiguity and specialized (unique, non-general) use of common terms ("Christ" and "Myth") to make it a weak candidate for the title. --davigoli (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Look again at the part that says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." We have those sources. They call the subject of this article the Christ myth theory far more often than they call it the "nonexistence hypothesis". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you read farther down in WP:NAME, you find: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." So again, the principle is to use the most common name in English. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that proves the many uses of Christ myth theory are similar and everything points to them being different. I raised this very issue on the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Christ_Myth_Theory_definition under Christ Myth Theory definition and so Akhilleus you are going to have to PROVE your claim that they are identical. Since Akhilleus' previous claim of "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position has been disproven he has to provide that reverence that directory and expressly states that Pike, Dodd, Price, and all the others use the exact same definition or he is doing original research. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Another issue regarding Christ myth theory/Jesus myth/nonexistence hypothesis that complicates matter is that sometime they are used in regards of the Gospel Jesus rather than Jesus of Nazareth not existing. While this may look like hair splitting there is a difference. Wells is saying the Gospel Jesus is a composite character that came out of the merging of the stories of Paul's 100 BE (or whenever) Jesus and the very fragmentary records of a 1st century historical Jesus. By definition a composite character didn't exist as they are actually composed of two or more people. The Paul Revere of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's "Paul Revere's Ride" is a case in point. Longfellow's Paul Revere is actually a composite of the Paul Revere, Jospeh Adams, Samuel Prescott and several other riders whose names have been lost to history. Saying Longfellow's Paul Revere didn't exist or is non historical is way different from saying there wasn't a Paul Revere. The same is true of saying Mason Locke Weems' stories about George Washington are non historical. This is the key problem with the term--sometimes it is not clear if they are talking about Gospel Jesus or Jesus of Nazareth not existing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First off not everyone has to provide identical definitions for us to write an article. How many definitions do you think are out there for Republican Party or Civil War? And Wells does think that the Jesus of Paul is a "mythological being to whom earthly events were later attached". He like many of them thinks that Jesus of Q may have some pieces of historical existence. The intro does describe Wells' position fine. I'm not thrilled with "Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person" myself because it is too vague. I'll throw a line in about Q into the chart with fact tags. jbolden1517^Talk 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad examples as the article you linked to is actually called Republican Party (United States) article; the actual Republican Party article is a (disambiguation) article exactly because it CAN have so many meanings. The article Civil War you linked "is about the definition of the specific type of war" not a particular Civil War and even it has a Civil war (disambiguation) link thanks to differences in definition. If anything these prove my case rather than disprove it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fortunately we have disambiguating qualifiers for "Republican Party". Furthermore, it's a household term that people already associate with something specific (depending on nationality). The problem with "Christ myth" is that it's a) not a household term, so people who don't know what it is will probably try to guess its meaning from its constituent words; and b) that those constituent words are being used in a counterintuitive way - that is, "Christ" as a term typically refers to the Gospel Jesus which is precisely not what this article is about. --davigoli (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Davigoli, you are I are on the same page here. Before it was archived I was saying we needed a Christ myth (disambiguation) page for or that Christ Myth be directed to the Jesus and history page rather than here exactly for this reason. Burton Mack and John Remsburg both use Christ Myth in reference to the Gospel account rather than to the actual man while others use it to refer to the man rather than the Gospel account.

The problem goes back to the fact is that the canon Gospel account is the main detailed record we have of of the supposed life of Jesus bar Joseph. The more of that account you call into question the less you have to work with to finding a historical Jesus bar Joseph. Throw enough of it out and you get what I like to call the "minimalist Jesus" where Jesus is reduced to a 1st century nobody, who came from some small village that few people had even heard of, who preached some philosophy, was executed by the Romans, and whose inspired followers exaggerated what few stories there were throwing in other stories they heard as they went along until we get the the 50 some Gospels of the 3rd century of which 4 are declared canonal and true and the rest heretical nonsense in the 4th century.

The problem with that view as armchair skeptics are quick to point out is you have thrown out so much that the man might have as well not existed at all.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Chart heading (and other bits)

Changed "Orthodox Christianity" to "Traditional Christianity", for two reasons : a) Potential confusion, this being a capitalised title, between "Orthodox" and "orthodox". b) Even if (as we seem to here) we take the RC church as being indicative of 'orthodoxy', many of the beliefs listed are matters of traditional belief rather than dogma / articles of faith. They are believed according to RC Church tradition, but also by a wider audience than those of just the RC communion (which takes a uniquely strong line as to the authority of Church tradition). 80.254.74.16 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (being Tobermory (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

I've lower cased orthodox, due to the potential confusion. "traditional Christianity" is too vague, that could mean Catholic, Latin Rite Catholic, any sect not formed in the last 100 years... jbolden1517^Talk 04:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Still have a problem with "orthodox", even lowered. 'orthodox' implies that an alternative belief would be UNorthodox, but there are items in that column (2,3,5,10,11,12?) that are not required as articles of faith by just about all mainstream groups (RC Church being a general exception due to its unique view of the divinely revealed nature of Church tradition) that nevertheless hold them as informal traditional beliefs. I proposed "Traditional" precisely because it IS more vague, and better fits the column's contents. I have there changed this to "Mainstream" for now. Acceptable compromise? Tobermory (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree they aren't required in orthodoxy. #2,4 A core claim of the Catholic church and the conservative Protestant churches is Apostolic Succession at least for the first several centuries. That's why modern conservative Christians can argue that non trinitarians aren't even Christians or that gnostic beliefs are "heretical" because they can assert the legitimacy of the first 7 (generally) ecumenical councils. #5 is asserting the legitimacy of the Old Testament as a Christian book, a rejection of the doctrines of Marcion. You are right though the table contains opinions that are common to groups intermixed with those that are intrinsic to those groups. I don't have a problem with throwing a sentence like that into the lead for the chart to make that explicit. jbolden1517^Talk 14:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I could go for Traditional/Orthodox/Conservative Christianity. jbolden1517^Talk 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is nonsense. The word "Mainstream" has a meaning: it implies majority, or at least majority of academics. The views under "mainstream" are neither. There is no rational basis for using the term "mainsteam." The very use of the word pushes an unsubstantiatable POV. Pudge (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The title links to Historical Jesus which is our main article on their work. I would also suggestion Fundamentalist modernist controversy starting from the Briggs Affair on, Higher criticism, Textual criticism. Also the conservative article makes no claim that these views aren't the mainstream Biblical_hermeneutics#Christian_biblical_hermeneutics. Just start googling on the term "mainstream biblical scholarship" and you will find the views of the middle column represented. jbolden1517^Talk 13:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And Historical Jesus is not mainstream either. Far from it. I've been studying it for a long time -- you may be familiar with "Jesus Under Fire," a book criticizing The Jesus Seminar; when it was published, I was in college, and two of my professors (Wilkins and Moreland) edited it, and I interviewed both of them on the subject -- and I've never seen a shred of evidence that this viewpoint represents any majority view except in liberal circles. If you have such evidence, cite it. Further, you DID admit that this is liberal scholarship. Either actually cite evidence that it is mainstream -- other than CLAIMS that it is, because you of course know that this does not constitute evidence -- or change it. Pudge (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The book you mention is from Zondervan, an evangelical Christian publishing house, which represents the left column not the middle column. It is an apologetic written by 10 evangelicals regarding the Jesus seminar defending the orthodox view. It doesn't address the topic directly and clearly misrepresents the Jesus seminar.

I gave you a 1/2 dozen sites above, if you want some more take a look at who is listed under Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus#Contemporary_scholarship. That article shows that "mainstream scholarship" is in the Albert Schweitzer Rudolf Bultmann Martin Dibelius mold not conservative Christian. Which is why those positions get 2 different columns on the chart. If you don't agree with who is mainstream on Historical Jesus then take it up there. This is subarticle about a niche group of scholars, you want to debate the main articles on the topic and argue that N.T. Wright, or Karl Barth or whomever you are arguing for is the mainstream you should debate them on their talk pages. This article is a subarticle of Historicity of Jesus and thus we follows their lead, they don't follow ours. I have yet to hear a single person on this forum agree with you that conservative Christian depictions represent the mainstream. jbolden1517^Talk 02:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

creation of universe

As an aside, "Jesus was a normal human being, who had no part in the creation of the universe" under the 'mainstream scholarship' heading ought not be there. That is a position of faith in the same way that "Jesus is the Logos of God through whom all things were made" is a position of faith. Scholarship cannot possibly comment on that, because neither position can possibly be tested for historical accuracy. Instead of asserting "Jesus was a normal human being, who had no part in the creation of the universe", this ought to be changed to something akin to, "Jesus acquired his divine attributes through synthesis with Greek philosophical thought" (or something similarly factual). Just because a scholar makes an assertion, does not mean that assertion is scholarly. 80.254.74.16 (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (being Tobermory (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

As for the creation of the universe, you need a counter site. Something like a mainstream scholars asserting a belief in divine creation through the logos who became flesh in the person of Jesus or a secondary source saying this is this is a mainstream scholarly viewpoint. And all 3 columns are scholarly just in very different ways. jbolden1517^Talk 04:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My other change was not (to quote you) stating "mainstream scholars asserting a belief in divine creation". That again would be a position of faith, not a position of testable historical fact, and therefore has no place in a "mainstream scholarship" column (even if it is a faith position expressed by individual scholars, it remains a position based not in fact - it is wholly untestable either way -, but faith). But what is universally accepted by mainstream scholarship is that the language and ideas of Greek philosophy - to include terms such as logos - were borrowed by early Christianity to describe teh doctrine of, and give academic rigour / acceptability to, the fledgeling movement. I could provide any number of 'mainstream' references in support of such an assertion. Thoughts? Tobermory (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your example of logos, the point about mainstream scholarship is that it does take a faith position. The very last row the chart does that make explicit that the scholarship schools started with: Conservative Christians vs. Liberal Christians vs. Atheist. All 3 are coming from positions of "faith" in how they weigh the data. The right column asserts that Yahweh is no more real than Zeus, the middle often does believe in a God that has revealed himself to man through the person and acts of Jesus but rejects a great deal of the supernaturalism of the early Christian community and the left fully embraces a belief that Jesus was involved in supernatural events.

As for your specific about how ideas about a logos got into Christianity actually that's a major point of debate between the 3 and within mainstream scholarship. We don't have great articles on this but Signs Gospel has some of what Bultmann argued for in Das Evangelium des Johannes (his study of the book of John). The logos material came in later to christianity, after 100. Other mainstream scholars have these ideas among the god fearers that Paul was drawing on so it comes in around 50. What I've never seen a mainstream scholar assert is that these ideas were part of Jesus' message about himself. For example did Thomas actual use "theos" in reference to Jesus directl (john 20:28) the columns answer: yes/no/there was no Jesus nor a Thomas but yes. That's the key point.

I'm totally cool with a rephrasing but their attitudes towards the divinity of Christ is a very important for understanding the Christ Myth theory. Mainstream scholarship write about Jesus the way scholars would write about other figures from the Roman empire while Christ Mythers write about Jesus the way you would write about other Gods in the Roman empire. That's the main point that needs to be captured. Christ Mythers aren't denying Jesus' divinity they are denying his humanity.jbolden1517^Talk 14:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Something needs to change with the layout of the chart, then, as I read it to be Traditional Christianity vs Mainstream (academic) Scholarship vs Christ Myth theory. To be honest, I really do think that is what this chart should be showing even if it doesn't at the moment (for Liberal Christianity is definitely not the same as mainstream (albeit Christian) scholarship : the former takes a faith position sympathetic to the academic studies of the latter - and indeed this is what is behind our logos/divine creation misunderstanding, I think. There is no place modern academic study of historical matters for a priori faith-based assumptions). I'd suggest the final line is brought up to be the first line as it is essential for understanding the content of columns (I'll do that right now).

So to be concise, I believed the central column to be stating an academic position. And therefore this central column cannot possibly assert matters of faith, but of testable fact. I suggested removal of a faith position, and replaced it with something testable. Perhaps before going further we ought agree on what, exactly, this chart is trying to compare! :) Tobermory (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree here strongly, but I do think we've found the root problem. All 3 columns think they are doing scholarship and the other two are asserting things based on faith. The orthodox see the "mainstream scholars" as ignore mounds and mounds of evidence and church tradition and pulling their theories almost out of thin air, to make Jesus conform better with Liberal Christianity. The Christ Myth people constantly assert that "mainstream Scholarship" is done by members of liberal Christian churches, and their theology biases their weighing of the evidence. Liberal Christianity embraces "mainstream scholarship", atheism embraces "Christ Myth" and history of religions scholarship, orthodox Christianity embraces conservative / orthodox research. So no I don't see the middle column as being qualitatively any different than the other 2. To assert that the middle column has some unique claim to scholarship, is IMHO not being NPOV. I think wikipedia can assert that all 3 do scholarship they just start out with very different presuppositions. jbolden1517^Talk 20:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum take a look at Liberal_Christianity#Liberal_Christian_theologians_and_authors and see how many of the big names in mainstream scholarship are there. jbolden1517^Talk 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that this is not mainstream scholarship, but liberal scholarship. Now please change the headings in the chart to be more accurate. Pudge (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Partly with you on this, Pudge. But its the chart that needs to change a bit, not the headings, imo. Much of it is accurate as it is now, simply because liberal Christian scholarship is all about rooting and harmonising Christian belief in the modern academic method. The difference is that modern academia deals in facts (rather, probabilities) while the liberal movement additionally (NOT exclusively) applies these conclusions to faith-positions. On an historical (factual) topic, there is a huge overlap. There reamin a couple of faith-positions in the chart, though. I'm going to take my reply to jb's to his talk page, as it brings up issues not directly relevant to this article. Tobermory (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page in about 30mins, jb.(another time ...!) Writing something there now. Regarding your list: There is an overlap between liberal Christian scholarship, and (mainstream) modern academic scholarship. An individual scholar can be in both categories at the same time. They are not equivalent but they need not conflict. There is no reason why personal faith should affect modern academic endeavours; but when it does, you tend to be dealing with an atheist or a conservative. There is also no reason why modern academic endeavours should affect personal faith; but when it does, you're almost certainly dealing with a liberal. And this is why the centre column should show the mainstream academic position, rather than the derived liberal position: to be a contrast against the two faith positions. Not NPOV? Well only insofar as I'm arguing scientific method is preferable (when interested in actual events, rather than justifying a faith that needs no human justification) to preconceived conclusions :) Tobermory (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tob -- Tried a slight rephrase compromise. Tell me if you think that is OK. jbolden1517^Talk 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Jesus is spoken of". But by whom? This is only going to get solved, I think, if we decide on this column as representing liberal or academic first. I'm happy either way on that (with a preference for academic), but it must be consistent and explained. Tobermory (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Explicit essene/pharisee identification

Regarding this quotation, "The first Christians were Pharisees or Essenes in Palestine" : Although referenced, these are two explicit identifications amongst several theories. In reality, we're dealing with a religious continuum with certain named factions. Making a specific identification with an explicit group, whilst useful from an academic perspective as a model to stimulate further discussion of similarities and differences, is likely to always be inaccurate in fact, (especially here as our knowledge is far from complete about what these factions themselves actually believed). I really think we should tell it as it is, rather than choosing two specific model candidates when the majority of scholarship would be hesitant to make an exclusive identification with either camp (whilst recognising shared features). I believe this should be reworded to, "The first Christians were a group with similarities to Pharisees and Essenes in Palestine", or similar (NB got caught in edit conflicts here ... feel free to split this again, but I didnt want to lose changes made on my version on account of a split) Tobermory (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand about the edit issue, that's why I stopped. Wikipedia isn't designed for real time dialogue. I basically agree with your point here. But many scholars do in fact identify early Christians with one of these 2 groups. Moreover I'm not exactly sure what you are asserting here. Are you arguing that there was some class of Jews like the Pharisees that were not in fact Pharisees or like the Essenes that were not in fact Essenes or that there were hybrid groups ..... Can you be a bit more specific with what your claiming the theory is? But again the main point is to contrast:

• mainstream scholarship which talks about the Jewish sects of the 1st century
• Christ Myth which talks about the Jewish sects of the 1st century but identifies the early Christians with entirely different sects.
• orthodoxy which talks about "Judaism" in terms of God's revelations through the prophets and doesn't speak in terms of sects.

That's what the chart is trying to capture. I'll rephrase the chart as above jbolden1517^Talk 14:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% to your three bullets, and that is the distinction the chart needs to show. My point was that the box for mainstream scholarship should, however, reflect the doubt involved in identification: it should be absolutely clear that firm identification is not possible. So, add to the first bullet a shred of doubt ... :)

"Are you arguing that there was some class of Jews like the Pharisees that were not in fact Pharisees or like the Essenes that were not in fact Essenes or that there were hybrid groups" - Yes to all of it! Palestine was an angry melting-pot of all sorts of religious influences, and differing opinions. We have the names to a bunch of factions. And eg. in the case of the Essenes especially, what we know for certain is very, very little: our sources are problematic and sometimes contradictory (some of them - eg. potential Mishnah references - didn't really know, or care, about what they meant by the terms themselves!), so any argument using these sources is already based on assumptions. And that there can be two main camps in this debate shows that there are problems with both models. While academic identifications will be made, they are but models to be used as a starting point, upon which further arguments can be advanced. No scholar is going to say "Early Christians were, as all the evidence indicates, wayward Pharasees/Essenes/whatever", because there are problems with all positions, and a single definitive statement like that is simplistic. It all depends how the pieces of evidence are weighed up. Tobermory (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy with your latest version. Tobermory (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Heresies?

Regarding this quotation, "Non canonical works are generally 2nd and 3rd century written by heretics under the influence of Hellenism. They should not be treated as informative of anything other than alternate fringe views.". Minor quibbles here: calling heresies "fringe views" implies heresies were minor movements. In some cases they certainly were not (eg. Arianism). Also, it is absolutely wrong to suggest non-canonical works can tell us nothing useful of mainstream early Christianity. Take, for example, the Gospel of Thomas (non-canonical, unorthodox doctrinal outlook, yet shared tradition with the canonical gospels) and The Shepherd of Hermas (non-canonical, but broadly orthodox and often quoted in early orthodox writings). Will reword accordingly. Tobermory (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed "non canonical" to Gnostic. You certainly are right that non canonical is much too vague. I was aiming for a word to capture "rejected works (not rejected from the canon) and seen as heretical" and that was bad phrasing. I may switch too something else but I'll agree non canonical is bad. jbolden1517^Talk 14:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely prefer "non-canonical" to "Gnostic", as Gnostic is a designation of a spectrum of doctrines that can be applied to much - but not all - of the surviving texts. It's really not an easy problem to solve in one word: anything that might be used is either inaccurate or perjorative. How about this rephrase? "2nd and 3rd century non-canonical works often contain heretical leanings. However they can still provide useful information on the context for, and influences on, the development of early Christianity." Tobermory (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What pejoritive ones can you suggest? Pejorative may not be a problem. Go ahead and brainstorm. jbolden1517^Talk 14:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a standard historical term for extra-canonical works in both OT and NT is "Apocrypha" ("hidden" knowledge, from Gk, cf eg 4Ezra14 wrt OT additions). The historical usage of this term when applied to these works is quite complex and inconsistent: cf Rufinius/Jerome/Cyril of Jerusalem. Sometimes the term is used where we would term something "pseudepigraphical" (Jerome - 'apocrypha are not written by those to whom they are ascribed' and to be avoided, and yet elsewhere he sees some of them as valuable edifying literature). In a modern sense, something that is apocryphal to one group might very well be holy writ to another, and the term has the scope to cause offence. But even a modern fundamentalist Christian would see some value - but no authority - in some of these extra-scriptural works. I suppose at least there is an article on NT apocrypha on Wiki, so it would be reasonable to use it here with a link. But it also doesn't cover some of the beliefs of more 'distant' heresies, like Manichaeism that nevertheless had some effect on the formation (or at least the emphasis) of mainstream Christian doctrine. Better to be simple and stick with "non-canonical" (define 'canon' ... heh) , than technical and run into problems with "apocryphal" ? Undecided and rambling! Tobermory (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But no I want to avoid the terms 2nd and 3rd century. Dating of gospel material is very different between these groups. They don't agree on what came when at all, they don't even agree on the order of dependency. I'll pick an example. The orthodox would assert that Luke was an early work written by a single individual and the Gospel of the Lord came it. Mainstream scholarship has the GoL coming from Canonical Luke or L2. Christ Mythers often have GoL being L2 and canonical Luke coming from it. jbolden1517^Talk 14:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Instead of c2/c3 (were there before I got to the article, anyway), why specify at all ? From a traditional standpoint its generally the canonical books that are the earliest, and the rest are later imitations or falsities. That would make the second column read, "Non-canonical works often contain heretical leanings. However they can still provide useful information on the context for, and influences on, the development of early Christianity". Incidentally, the Iranaeus referenced in support of the first column certainly did not mean to say that all religious writings other than those of the Canon are works of Satan; not even the most rabid fundamentalist would seriously argue that! We'd be better citing a more nuanced view (Bernard? Anselm? will dig something out from the monastic tradition, as this concept is central to Christian learning): basically, anything that contradicts the teaching from canon of scripture may be said to be the work of Satan (cf Polycarp on the Antichrist), but anything else may be of spiritual value to the individual according to its merits Tobermory (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What about just focusing on early non canonical gospels? That limits the scope enough to get rid of stuff like shepherd or hermes and didache. The relative importance of these works is a key point of comparison. Mainstream scholarship pays very little attention while Christ Myth considers extremely important. Mainstream scholarly works very very rarely choose things "events" from Jesus life that occur in non canonical literature. This is showing up in "alternative minority" vs. fringe. I see no evidence that mainstream scholarship sees the views of the gnostics as legitimate views. jbolden1517^Talk 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream scholarship pays very little attention" - Mainstream academic scholarship pays significant attention to all writings, but its aims are different. They are of less interest to liberal scholarship because - even if they provide context - they are not particularly relevant when forming faith-positions. What must be clear in the comparison is how these texts are seen to relate to a historical Jesus (as per article title). It is not disputed by anyone that very little of this entire body of literature holds any clearly historical information about a Jesus figure (as opposed to the beliefs of early Christian sects). When narrowed down to early gospels in the context of an historical Jesus, academic scholarship is dealing with potential historically accurate material (or, at the least, a dual literary tradition from a potentially common accurate? source): eg. the Gospel of Thomas contains sayings of Jesus, some of which share parallels in canonical gospels. Tobermory (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"I see no evidence that mainstream scholarship sees the views of the gnostics as legitimate views". I don't understand that sentence. Gnostics had views, and these views are known through interpretations of their surviving texts. Academic scholarship does not judge the legitimacy of faith, and is only interested in the content of those views. Tobermory (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggested text would be :

1) Con : Non-canonical writings have no spiritual authority, and any contradictions to the Canon are errors. Where there is common ground, they may be of spiritual value to individuals. Whether or not non-canonical writings contain shreds of historical accuracy is irrelevant to Christian Faith.

2) Aca : Non-canonical texts were written by many disparate sects, at a generally later date than the canonical texts. For this reason they are less interested in a historical figure than religious matters defining the author's particular beliefs. Some contain useful data for comparative purposes, and all help place the development of early Christianity into a wider philosophical context.

3) Myth : The very diversity of writings indicates that early Christianity did not begin with a historical figure (like Jesus), but adapted beliefs of other religions. The NT canon was chosen because it can be interpreted to be internally consistent, rather than because it is historically accurate.

Further to this, I think a line needs adding in the chart explaining the motive for this whole investigation differs for each of the groups. Tobermory (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Davidic messiah

Regarding this quotation, "He did however believe that God would provide miracles to fulfil the military function of the messiah." : Evidence? Cannot think of anything textual at all. Should be scrubbed, I think. Tobermory (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Meier synthesis (vol 2) of "A marginal Jew". Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium Erhman, The Quest of the Historical Jesus. But it does combine two ideas here military role and end of history. I'll think about a rephrase jbolden1517^Talk 19:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

General discussion about inclusion

JBolden, you need to read up on your Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, and Joseph Campbell, at least. Gnosticism is absolutely considered legitimate, and even quite an important influence on early Christianity. --davigoli (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I might point out, however, that in terms of Biblical scholarship appreciation for Gnosticism is relatively recent, as the Nag Hammadi texts were first made widely available in the mid-1970s; before that time, almost everything that was known about the Gnostics was from second-hand reports from the likes of Iraneus, who considered them heretics. That's why a general negative disposition about them persisted for a long time. --davigoli (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I cite Pagels in this very block (currently footnote #51). Campbell I think essentially is a Christ myther. Erhman I would be happy to use but I know him mainly from his NA27 stuff not his gnosticism stuff. jbolden1517^Talk 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Campbell is a wildcard; where do you put this position? "Zoroaster, the Buddha, and Christ seem to have been historical characters. ... But whether fictional or historical, the names and figures of the great and little heroes of the world act irresistibly as magnets to those floating filaments of myth that are everywhere in the air. [Citing Prof. Charles Guignebert]: 'Jesus the Nazarene disappeared and gave place to the glorified Christ.' It could not have been otherwise. ... Through such a process history is lost; but history also is made". (Campbell: Occidental Mythology, p. 347) I think given the current strict definition in use in the article, he would not be a Jesus-Myther, but in all respects but the most strict he regards the historical figure of Jesus to be so unimportant that he might as well not have existed. --davigoli (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I put it right into the 2007 definition "Jesus is not meaningfully historical". There may be some historical basis but it has little to do with the myth. The key is not really Campbell's attitude towards Jesus' historiography but rather the the fact he is part of the "history of religions" movement who sees Christian myth as being qualitatively little different than Greek, Egyptian, Assyrian... myth. Myth for him is myth. He doesn't spend years agonizing about whether there are still any remaining elements of the historical Osiris which can be recovered. jbolden1517^Talk 01:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I think the chart in general is somewhat problematic; remember the ONLY thing that cleanly distinguishes the Jesus Myth school from mainstream scholarship is the contention that there was no historical Jesus. That's it. That's the only thing. All the rest of the stuff in that chart can and has been proposed and held by mainstream scholars - so I'm suspicious that the chart may give the misleading impression that a lot of this mainstream stuff is actually fringe. For example, Joseph Campbell is either a mythicist or he's not - and based on past discussion, the editors have concluded that he isn't. Yet he would most definitely agree with statements like "Jesus was associated with savior gods, who are frequently ascribed unusual births in mythology" and "Jesus is a creation of scriptures and thus fulfills them. Resurrection is an integral component of a life-death-rebirth deity.". I think the chart actually muddies this issue by trying to categorize things too aggressively. --davigoli (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim of no historical Jesus doesn't work that cleanly. That's what Bruce has been saying for 5 months. Most everybody we think of as being in the "Christ myth" school do believe in the possibility of some historical basis. That's why I keep pushing Jesus as the founder of Christianity as the "clean definition". That does IMHO work. jbolden1517^Talk 02:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruce has been saying that for longer than 5 months. And he's wrong. The people whom scholarly secondary sources tell us are part of the "Christ myth" school deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Jbolden, you seem to be most interested in people like Doherty, Freke/Gandy, Acharya S--more recent authors. For all I know these folks may allow that a 1st century CE Jesus of Nazareth had some role in the founding of Christianity. But that's not what Bauer/Drews/Robertson/Smith were doing--and those are the people that scholarly sources talk about as being the "Christ myth" school--Doherty and Freke/Gandy are not even a blip on the radar in scholarly sources, and Acharya S is barely noticed. Scholarly sources are very clear in making historicity/non-historicity a firm dividing line. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply claiming I'm wrong doesn't cut it. To date Akhilleus has failed to produced ANY reference that prove his contention that the uses of Christ Myth Theory are describing the same thing. You will notice that once I challenged it in Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Christ_Myth_Theory_definition he couldn't back off from his original position fast enough. He did this same kind of song and dance with a quote from Grant (actually it was Grant quoting two other authors we didn't know from Adam) for months. The fact that that quote is no longer used in the article PROVES that it was as the majority of editors contented essentially useless.

The fact of the matter is few scholars use the term "Christ Myth School" constantly either. In his Jesus Legend (1996) the preface by Hoffmann talks about "the old Christ Myth School" implying of course that there is a new Christ Myth School. Hoffmann goes on talking about Wells being "the most contemporary defender of non-historicity thesis" pg xii and yet in "Can We Trust the New Testament?" on pg 50 Well himself expressly states that he had abandoned the Jesus is entirely mythical position in Jesus Legend going to the Paul's Jesus psudo-mythical 1st possibly 2nd century BCE would be messiah called Jesus + historical Q Jesus = non historical (by definition) Gospel Jesus. This is backed up by statement by Price, Doherty, AND R. Jusoeph Hoffmann (Westminster College Oxford) in FIVE difference sources two of them differently in the books involved. The more I dig the more Akhilleus' claim falls apart like a cheap suit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue that the theory has evolved somewhat, and I agree with you it has. The 20th century was a watershed in bible reconstruction. It is hard to read the bible the same way after Rudolf Bultmann as people did before. It may turn out that he has changed how humanity reads the bible as greatly as Saint Jerome we will have to wait a few centuries to see. But it is almost impossible for modern writers not to see the layers. The early Christ Myth authors talked about how these might exist the modern ones make this front and center. They aim to describe the mechanism and discuss the history by which people came to believe the events described in the gospels actually happened. The early authors worked in terms of analogies the modern ones in terms of specific document histories.

I also see the problem that the secondary sources over simplify the issue greatly mainly because they don't want to deal with it in depth. I want to buy In search of Jesus By Clinton Bennett because he does deal with the range (though none of them really in depth). And there is no question you know the secondary literature better than I do. That being said... when I read the 19th century / turn of the century stuff the focus of evidence is always on Paul and the other writings, not on the gospels. The mainstream writers tend to view epistles as a questionable source about Jesus, the myth people agree with the orthodox Christians that the epistles are a primary source. I don't see anywhere near the focus on the gospels from the early writers that the article implies. Both the mythers and the orthodox assert that we do have a good written record for how early Christians viewed Jesus in the various theological works they wrote and thus focus on the epistles in their analysis. Bruno Braur mainly attacks the historicity of Mark, and really is attacking the apologists. That Jesus cannot be lifted from the supernaturalist world of the gospels. Which is why I push for "meaning historical" rather than "historical". Because I don't think they deny everything even going back 150 years. jbolden1517^Talk 03:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Jbolden, I agree with you that views of Christian origins have changed dramatically over the 20th century. The publication of Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls means that a lot of theories from the 19th/early 20th century now seem obsolete. But Bauer/Drews/etc., working with the data they had available, really were saying that there was no historical Jesus, in response to liberal protestant attempts to reconstruct a human Jesus of Nazareth from the Gospel accounts. If Doherty, Freke/Gandy, Acharya S are saying something different, fine. If you want to add something to the lead that says "Recent proponents of a mythical origin of Christianity such as Earl Doherty allow that there may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth who contributed to the origin of Christianity, but the epistles and Gospels largely chronicle a mythical, non-historical Jesus," that's fine, as long as this accurately represents what more recent proponents are saying. But the secondary sources are clear that Bauer/Drews/et al. say that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I actually can say something much weaker (which IMHO also applies to the 19th century guys) but compromise accepted. Lets agree on the wording and then I'll include: Recent proponents of a mythical origin of Christianity such as G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty allow that some gospel material may have been drawn from a historical preacher or preachers. But they hold that these preachers were not in any sense "the founder of Christianity" rather that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, the epistles and Gospels largely chronicle a mythical, non-historical Jesus. Is that acceptable? jbolden1517^Talk 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While I like it and it agrees with the vague definitions of Dodd and Pike, and possibly Bromiley, and the statements of Price, R Joseph Hoffmann, and Doherty it has problems with Horbury, Jones, and Wiseman who all expresslly state that the Christ Myth Theory is that Jesus NEVER existed. We again hit the problem Akhilleus refuses to accept and that is the PROOF that various definitions of Christ Myth Theory don't match (he has failed to produce a reference that shows all the various definitions we have found DO match). Heck, Hoffmann shows that even the term non-historical may vary (I really don't want to open that can of worms). Furthermore at least one of the references Akhilleus himself has presented (Weaver) puts Drews in a totally different light:

"In the preface to the first and second edition of his work Drews noted that his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus had a mythical character and thus it was not necessary to presuppose that a historical figure ever existed." (Weaver (1999) The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950 pg 50) That doesn't read like saying that Drews was originally saying Jesus didn't exist but more along the lines of what Tom Harpur is currently saying. Did Drews change his mind in later editions? Is Drews position being misrepresented? What exactly is going on here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if I have Bruce and Akhilleus to agree that's progress I'll put it in.  :-) As an aside I do agree with you that Drews also held this position, it is my contention that with a few exceptions this has always been the contention of everyone in the CM school (that is the 20th century stuff is unneeded). Acharya who IMHO does the best survey of the 19th century literature and she contends that the definition of the distinction (which she takes from Massey) is "It was human history that accreted around the divinity, and not the human being that became divine" (CC p 20). And she is working from primarily older sources. As an aside in terms of modern sources, she is (I think everyone would agree) at the absolute extreme of the Christ Myth school. But even she agrees that a lot of the Q preaching material is common to 1st century preachers. So yes I don't think there is anything modern about this definition. But I don't have a strong opinion about the secondary literature which is where the stronger definition is coming from. jbolden1517^Talk 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do with Chart

On another note, I agree with Davigoli that the chart is problematic because it tries to categorize different positions too neatly. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I throw in a disclaimer to say that. I just want focus the general article on the generalities of the theories. I figure the individual author articles can handle their specifics. So for example Archarya's focus on Astro theology vs. Wells focus on wisdom literature should be mentioned here but focused on their own articles. This article is already getting really long. jbolden1517^Talk 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an additional stylistic problem--the chart is trying to explain graphically things that really ought to be explained in prose. Readers aren't coming to an article like this to be confronted with a multipage chart as the first section. They're coming here to read an explanation of ideas in connected prose. Charts should supplement body text, not replace it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The chart was mainly to make it clear there is an underlying unified theory. There was a lot of concern about artificial synthesis even though the primary authors themselves agree their works supports each other. I'd be thrilled to start converting the chart to prose. jbolden1517^Talk 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It being Easter Sunday, I'm a bit busy with other things today to add to this discussion at the moment. That being said, I'd really like to voice my opinion that the chart should stay IF it can be made to present accurate information rather than forced contrasts. For those new to a subject, having the differences between camps clearly set out in the chart is, I think, more help than harm. Tobermory (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)