Talk:Christ myth theory

See also
Talk:Christ myth theory/definition
Talk:Christ myth theory/FAQ discussions
Talk:Christ myth theory/POV tag
Talk:Christ myth theory/pseudohistory
Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Sources

Should this article be categorized as "pseudohistory"?

There is currently a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as a historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose inclusion. Categories are incapable of nuance or referencing. This theory has been expounded by some well-known academics, including the historian Bruno Bauer, the philosopher Arthur Drews, and more recently the German professor G. A. Wells. If it's being taken seriously by university academics, even if they're in a minority, it shouldn't be categorized bluntly as pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship, no matter how much some biblical scholars may dislike it.

  Wikipedia:Categorization says "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It's certainly true that the Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus never existed at all) has been expounded by some well-known academics. There was, as SlimVirgin notes, the notoriously anti-Semitic Bruno Bauer who found "the idea that the religion that had shaped western civilization could have been founded by a Jew... impossible... to accept" [1] There was also, as SlimVirgin also notes, Arthur Drews, a non-specialist and Nazi-sympathizer who "in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite, struggle[d] against this materialistic Semitic graft for the religious life of Aryanism".[2] And, lest we forget, there's also G. A. Wells, just as SlimVirgin notes: another non-specialist who pushed the theory "not for objective scholarly reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes"[3]--who, by the way, has now abandoned the theory.[4] Please, before weighing-in, take a look at the FAQ on this issue; it appears as question #2. This is a slam dunk. Eugene (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Advocate Support (per Backtable). The Chrst myth theory is a theory that goes against popular belief, this popular belief being that Jesus is real. Pseudohistory is defined as a theory or set of theories that go against what is widely accepted as a factual aspect of history. Thus, I wouldn't mind this being categorized as such. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. Are you implying that “popular belief” and “factual aspect of history” are the same thing? Using this category implies that the dead reckoning behind one popular belief is somehow more sound than that of the dissenting view. I will not tell you what to believe or disbelieve, only what to avoid presenting as fact. ―AoV² 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  I guess they are meant to be the same thing. I wasn't thinking about the correlation of those phrases when I was writing that. By the way, note that I said "what is widely perceived as a factual aspect of history", instead of stating "factual aspect of history" by itself. Thus, that meant that it didn't necessarily reflect my thoughts. I believe Jesus is real, but that was not a factor in my argument. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. If mainstream scholarship considers it false and the methods by which it is commonly investigated to be inherently unscientific/historical, it is pseudohistory. It is not just an expression of bias, it is the real scholarly opinion. NJMauthor (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. To call this pseudo-history is to take for granted that Jesus existed. If enough evidence existed to prove or disprove that assertion, we wouldn′t be having this conversation. The best answer I′ve found is “maybe”. ―AoV² 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. Did you read FAQ #2? Eugene (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi AoV2, I believe to call it pseudo-history has a lot more to do with disregard for historical method by proponents. In the eyes of essentially all historians, there is clearly enough information about Jesus not just to tell us that he existed, but what he taught, the shape of his ministry and much more. --Ari (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trusting sources penned a generation or two after his estimated death does play the dickens with historical method, I′ll grant you that. ―AoV² 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the place for debate, although Paul writing about meeting Jesus' brother James and apostles in Jerusalem is a lot different to the situation you would like to imply. On the point of source criticism, this links the traditions far closer than penning of the gospels, etc. Anyway, my point stands. They criticise disregard for historical method, not whatever your POV website seems to think. --Ari (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. As our reliable sources have made clear, mainstream scholarship considers the theory pseudohistory. This is backed up by number reputable scholars from all fields of the ideological, many of whom have gone to the extent of comparing it to other frigne pseudo-historical theories. Factors that seem to generally be noted by the mainstream towards this theory is that it is pseudo-historical for disregarding historical method. --Ari (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agreed to the compromised to get the far worse pseudohistory removed. Having reread WP:CAT I can see that my understanding of how cats are used is out of date and this should not be used here as it is controversial and too wide sweeping. Some authors would fall under that cat but there are many others who would not. Sophia ♫ 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. The life and historicity of Jesus Christ are part of academical studies and debates. Michele Bini (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is on the Christ Myth theory, not academic debate on the life of Jesus - see historical Jesus. Your claim that the historicity of Jesus is debated in academic circles is not the case. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose For something to be included in the pseudohistory category, there should be consensus among specialists of the field that it is a false theory, which I don't think exists. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus, and there are no peer-reviewed academic works arguing the case that I am aware of. As Professor Robert E. Van Voorst notes, "The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." (Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.14.) I would ask the people voting here to please make themselves aware of the debate, especially before making statements on consensus. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll further investigate this and come back to it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per this[5] and Sophia. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Per reasons stated by Eugene and others. Personally, I don't believe that we are even taking this vote. As Eugene stated, it is a slam dunk. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, taking a vote seems to be a way to circumvent what scholars have to say in favour of editors personal opinions. --Ari (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely... this is insanity! Did nobody read the FAQ? NJMauthor (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it IS insanity. Apparently, there are some that think a consensus can change facts. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Get enough editors in here unfamiliar with the topic and I suppose a "consensus" out of ignorance is a useful political tool. NJMauthor (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ^^James^^ (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

James, your Oppose vote is meaningless without giving a reason. NJMauthor (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many people looking at this subject seriously without crying holocaust (while not necessarily agreeing). One example is Clinton Bennett in In Search of Jesus. Second, most of the people crying holocaust are dyed-in-the-wool Christians. That does not necessarily make them wrong, but I hesitate to add the tag based on their characterizations. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless someone can make a serious, successful challenge to the sources used to support the claim in the article and in FAQ 2 that this view is considered untenable by the vast majority of historians. The article on psuedo-history doesn't seem to actually define psuedo-history, but I'm going with the assumption that it's the equivalent of psuedo-science, which I understand, and that assumption doesn't seem to be debated by anyone here.Yoshi348 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I spent quite some time searching through peer reviewed journals and couldn't find anything supporting the position that Jesus was a myth but found articles refuting the idea. I trawled through several websites that supported the idea but they did not cite any peer reviewed work. I'm a bit surprised by this and hope that anybody casting a vote that opposes the inclusion will be able to demonstrate that there are historians out there that genuinely consider this a valid proposition. aineolach (u · d · c) 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fringe indeed, but where are the quality sources classifying this as pseudo-history. (That has a connotation of ideologically driven fabrication and a Nazi sting to it.) Sources saying this is refuted are indeed CUP/OUP level, but the pseudo-history rhetoric and comparisons to holocaust denial are at best Westminster Fort Knox. Vesal (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't have a lot to add, but I would point out that at this point serious scholars are starting to question the claims of the Historical Jesus school as extreme, and, as their name suggests, the Historical Jesus scholars never claimed they're wasn't a historical Jesus. Adam sk (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Assume this means this theory is pseudohistory. I seem to recall an unpleasant reference from Jewish writing that supports the fact of Jesus' existence (just not a lot of other things!). Student7 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, a "support" means that the theory IS pseudohistory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  See also Truth in Numbers. ―AoV² 13:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yes, before anyone asks, I have read FAQ 2. No, I can't come up with a comparative list of quotes, although I think that is largely because when I searched JSTOR for Christ myth it came up with over 1,000 results and I honestly don't have the time to go through them all. Having said that, there seems to be a lot of academic discussion regarding this topic, and I was able to find works by Richard Carrier and Alan Dundes supporting this theory. This is admittedly just a start, but I would refer to this as well. I don't think the theory is very robust but labelling it pseudo-history doesn't appear to be warranted. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure that this issue is going to mediation some time in the near future. If you can't provide a comparative list, then 1) You really shouldn't be voting; and 2) Those who oppose the categorization will be forced to provide a comparative list or lose the mediation. It's really that simple. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I just searched "Christ myth" in JSTOR and it came up with "Results 1–25 of 156 for << ("Christ myth") >>". Most of the articles seem to be reviews of Arthur Drews or notes on having received the publication from journals written around 1910-15 and totally irrelevant works such as "The Russian scientist today", Russian Review or "The Primitivistic Aesthetic: D. H. Lawrence", The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. I did not come across any article arguing the hypothesis in any my scroll through the 156 results. --Ari (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you search for "Christ Myth" it comes up with 154 for me, whereas if you search for Christ myth it comes up with 24,152 results. I found that searching for Christ myth actually came up with a lot more results which covered the topic of the historicity of Jesus (although that was by no means the central focus of the articles, it was still a topic of debate).

Bill, surely if this is a minority viewpoint, we're not going to be able to come up with a list as extensive as that in FAQ 2? Otherwise it would be the majority viewpoint, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how the results for searching the database for all entries mentioning "Christ" and "myth" necessitates your statement that "there seems to be a lot of academic discussion regarding this topic". I personally couldn't find any contemporary debate in the academic peer-review on the theory, and I do regularly follow historical Jesus works and journals. Similarly, scholars and advocates themselves are telling us this isn't the case. I would suggest some more investigation into the actual results of your search and what picture of the debate it paints. --Ari (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The fundamental question seems to me to be whether articles in the category 'pseudohistory' should themselves actually be pseudo in nature or if the category should also include articles that are claimed by other historians as being bogus. The latter currently doesn't seem to be the practice amongst pseudo categories. If a small minority of accredited historians are claiming it and debating it with colleagues I don't see how it could be rubber stamped as being pseudo by impartial wikipedians.Chhe (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "small minority of accredited historians" that are claiming/debating it. The amount of scholars in the relevant field who don't consider it fringe are virtually non-existent. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "'Pseudohistory'" stinks of poor quality history. I see no sign of that. What I do see is ad hominem "arguments" and the assertion that, because most scholars think it likely that a Jesus of Nazareth existed, (as do I), it is therefore pseudohistory to argue the case against. This is deeply prejudiced POV pushing .Anthony (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. "Pseudohistory" is a term as strong as "Pseudoscience." It utterly trivializes the subject, and rightly so if deserved. In this case, however, the existence of Jesus is a question that deserves serious attention and continuing debate. Paul provides absolutely nothing of substance about Jesus as an actual person. Everything else written about Jesus derives, originally, from sources within a cult of true believers; every historical reference to him comes from a source describing the early Christians' assertions, and only their assertions, which is not evidence of the histortical existence of Jesus (because the sources are overwhelmingly biased; one might as well write L. Ron Hubbard's biography exclusively via Scientological literature). The only strong evidence is Josephus's reference to James -- but once you strip out all the obvious propaganda added by later (Christian) writers, what's left is an ambiguous reference to a "brother," which could mean anything. Although I've concluded after many years of research that Jesus did, in fact, exist, I still consider it an open question. The enormous amount of history-creation and history-destruction by the early Church throws everything into question. Remember, the Church tried to destroy every source that disagreed with them; if not for, e.g., the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, plus the references in anti-heretical works that were "allowed" to survive, we would know next to nothing other than what the Church, centuries ago, allowed us to know. (In other words, 70 years ago we would be debating without benefit of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls -- think of that.) I can't believe this question is even being debated; it is NOT "pseudohistory" to confront this question. Only the religiously biased, the true faithful, could even suggest that such an inquiry is "pseudohistory" as opposed to "legitimate (if incorrect) historical inquiry." 63.17.94.91 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The so-called "Quest for the Historical Jesus" has been ongoing since the 18th century. In all of that time, with contributions by thousands of scholars and millions of pages published subject to peer-review, the consensus by all sorts of ancient historians stands: whatever else may be said about Jesus, he was at least a historical figure. The few desperate attempts to prove otherwise by almost exclusively non-experts to the contrary, the idea that Jesus is pure myth is pseudo-history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Messing (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Christ myth theory this article talks about is not the same as other uses of the term. Some use the term to that the Jesus of the Bible never existed--something that is mainstream (Wells current there has been called "Christ myth theory" even though he acepts there may have been a historical person involved.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus of the Bible" as distinguished from other Jesuses, like Jesus ben Ananais. Eugene (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually more along the Jesus of the Bible being a born of a virgin miracle working as if he was a one man assembly line come back from the dead after an earthquack and darkness with every non Christian contemporary (like Philo) taking a snooze and missing everything.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I reject the notion that "popular belief" is a criteria. The question is really whether this theory goes strongly against mainstream scholarship. It does not. Church scholars aside, the existence of the person is still a matter of debate and it cannot be said that the main scholars agree that all of those advocating this theory are essentially crackpots (though there are crackpots who advocate it as well). --Mcorazao (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The article itself include amble references to show it t be categorized as a WP:Fringe theories. See Christ myth theory#notes #8-23.

“ I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. ”

The fact that SlimVirgin can only name one historian, and that historian who died more than 130 years ago, seem a very clear sign that this history article should (also) be in the Category:Pseudohistory, a subcategory of Category:Fringe theory. Since we don't do both-- to be clear-- we need only place in Category:Fringe theory if it is (somehow) voted out of Category:Pseudohistory. Please show us any living historian, working as a historian who supports this idea (any "historian" earning money from any professional source, other than authoring books on this one fringe therory subject). ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose categorization. There is a lot of reason to believe Christ did exist, but I have yet to hear of anyone providing direct evidence corroborating this. As such I do not think it can be classified as pseudohistory and doing so would cause considerable damage to the neutrality of this article. You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot prove the positive then it is perfectly reasonable to question it. While this is a fringe theory it can not be fairly considered a false or erroneous one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that a theory (historical hypothesis) is found probable by few scholars does not make the theory pseudohistory. Since nobody has provided a scholarly demonstration that e.g. the works by Wells, Doherty, Price are based on fatal methodological and/or factual blunders, there is no basis for labelling the theory (as such) pseudohistory. (Additional remark: Derogatory comments by themselves do not make the theory pseudohistory either. These remarks can, e.g., mean that we are encountering an example of a situation described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism [... Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind...]. WP editors have no authority to judge this situation, and thus have no basis for using the pseudohistory label.)Jelamkorj (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If "WP editors have no authority to judge this situation", then why are you, as a WP editor, judging it? Certainly, given your hesitation to judge, we should defer to reliable sources... such as the following:

• "Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus."

Michael James McClymond (professor at Saint Louis University), Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 23

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan (professor at Temple University), The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9

• And, finally, "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."

Emil Brunner (late professor at the University of Zurich), The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164 Eugene (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can call any theory you don't like pseudo-history. It does not make it so.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly true. But if reliable sources say that it is indeed pseudo-history, then shouldn't that be seriously considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? I mean, virtually no scholar who has has evaluated the CMT has concluded that it is even being plausible, let alone likely. Shouldn't the casual reader be made aware of this fact? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the same as neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So, we should misrepresent, ignore, and/or hide the facts (i.e., facts which are verifiable) and thus misinform/ill-inform the readers, in the name of neutrality? Verifiability and neutrality go hand and hand and the one does not logically trump the other. In fact, ignoring the consensus of relevant reliable sources is hardly what I would call neutral. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

McClymond, Sloyan and Brunner may hurl insults at their opponents. Do you actually think this "proves" the theory to be pseudoscholarship? You have three quotes in FAQ 2, at the top of the page, that allow there are some serious scholars who hold this view. Ergo, it is not pseudoscholarship. Anthony (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a wiki link to pseudoscholarship (pseudohistory would be good too)? We may be defining the terms differently. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Let's take this to the bottom of the page. This is the RFC. Anthony (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that other people have understood better what I meant by not judging. WP editors surely should judge what the sources entitle them to say. I have expressed my opinion (so I judge if you wish) that we are not entitled to categorize this subject into pseudohistory (nor pseudoscholarship or so). In my opinion, the quotes you are giving do not provide a sufficient basis (not to say a basis backed by scholarly works) for a conclusion that each and every author (in particular Wells, Doherty, Price) who arrives at the plausibility of the JoN nonexistence hypothesis has been using a methodology which can be labelled as pseudoscholarship. (Remark. I am aware that I differ widely with the editors like Eugene on what constitutes a scholarly work; e.g., I find the quote which I mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_32#Crossan.27s_comment as clearly inappropriate to be introduced in the article; I find it also unfair to Crossan himself that somebody [Eugene, in this case] uses his comment as a scholarly response to the work of Doherty.)Jelamkorj (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Slim, who has done useful work in tracing the scholarly debate. Not a clear-cut enough case to be a good example of pseudohistory. Especially not when there are much more obvious examples like the 1412 theory. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the CMT is not itself either history or pseudo-history - rather, it claims that Christianity is based on pseudo-history. What label do you give to a theory that claims something else is pseudo-history, but is then in turn rejected by scholars? Wdford (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Er...I don't think pseudohistory is categorised by how Christ myth theorists see themselves, but how mainstream scholarship sees them and their disregard for historical method. That no ancient historian argues CMT while many argue the opposite may be a big hint about what results historical method yield. --Ari (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Er...I don't think CMT theorists are disregarding historical method - rather, they are coming up with different answers, based on a valid (if unpopular) interpretation of the evidence (such as exists). The fact that a majority of historians (currently) disagree with those answers is not in question, but that doesn't make CMT wrong, merely unfashionable. When one day the historicity or otherwise is proven, then one camp will be seen to have been right and the other will be seen to have been wrong, but meanwhile its merely about "opinions". I don't think "history" and "opinions" is the same thing, hence my "opinion" is that the CMT is not pseudo-history - just (currently) unfashionable. Wdford (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant as to whether or not you think they disregard historical method. Professional historians have criticised Christ myth theorists as disregarding historical method and that is why these verifiable sources brand it pseudohistory and pseudoscholarship. So in short: the misuse, ignorance of or complete disregard of historical method by CMT advocates is the criticism. Not what Wdford thinks is un/fashionable. --Ari (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this belongs in the psuedo history category. The title of the article states it as a theory rather than a fact. I suggest that attempting to put it in the category is POV. It is not an alternative history it simply points to that the only proof offered of Jesus's existence is in the Christian bible. There is no mention of him Roman records. Hypothesis and pseudo history are distinct. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, there are a few things wrong with your reply here. First, Just because a theory is not a fact does not mean that it is not making a claim. Theories are supposed to be supported by a body of evidence and can be wrong or right, just like facts can be. You know this, come on, buddy!

Second, you interject your POV about the validity of the theory. This is irrelevant, because we are only working with established sources here, and not editor opinion. Third, You then say that the Christ Myth Theory is a hypothesis, and thus cannot be pseudohistory; however, you refer to the CMT as a theory in your second sentence. "Hypothesis" is not the same as "Theory." Unless you want to bring an informed view to the table, please refrain from opposing or supporting a topic. NJMauthor (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per Mcorazao and SlimVirgin. In addition, despite the fact that some of the historians mentioned were antisemitic fiends, it doesn't change the underlying fact that its garnered scholarly interest from academics. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

False. NJMauthor (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In your eyes maybe, but everyone has their own eyes. Cheers! --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎}

What you said is an unsubstantiated falsehood. NJMauthor (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It has garnered scholarly interest only in so far that scholars have utterly rejected it as "crazy talk". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Eugene and the documentation in FAQ 2 that it is a fringe theory, rejected by the mainstream of scholars and reference works in the field. Edison (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I don't care about what categories appear in this article. As far as I can tell the category system exists to cause disputes among Wikipedia editors rather than to help Wikipedia readers. However, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, and as such is pseudohistory/scholarship. G.A. Wells is a bona fide academic, sure, but the fact that he is a scholar of German rather than of early Christianity is relevant. Scholars in fields that deal with early Christianity (religious studies, ancient history, and so on) think this theory is a fringe theory; many of the theory's current advocates acknowledge that it's rejected by mainstream academia. Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews were also bona fide academics (well, Bauer was until he lost his university post because of his views on Jesus)--but Bauer was 19th century and Drews early 20th century. The categorization is about how the theory is perceived now, not in 1852 or 1922. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also Robert M. Price, a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, with two doctorates in theology. He's doesn't work in a maintream university, but he's nevertheless regarded as a specialist in this area by those who do. That he's a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and was invited to contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), along with Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock, are both strong indications of that, in my view. I see that both of these points about Price have been removed from the article by Eugeneacurry. [6] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree strongly with your point about categories and disputes. The main purpose of them often seems to be as a weapon against people and ideas that someone doesn't like. It's time we tried to sort it out as a project.SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that Robert M. Price doesn't work at a mainstream university. The Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary is an unaccredited institution; it's apparently not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and it seems to pop up on Google exclusively for its association with Price. [7] This is in fact a great indication that we're dealing with a fringe theory: its advocates come from outside the relevant academic fields (Wells) or teach at unaccredited unknown institutions. Sure, Price is a notable figure and his views should be covered in this article, but he should not be taken as an indication that the theory has become mainstream within religious studies. It's nice that he was invited to contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views, but this is easily seen as a cynical attempt to boost sales by including a "controversial" view in the book; if you read the text, the other contributors are usually polite to Price, but it's clear that some of them are thinking, "Why do I have to respond to this guy?" Again, he is a notable figure, it's worth including him in the article, his membership in the Jesus seminar and his appearance in the book should be noted in the article. But none of this is an indication that Price's views are mainstream, or even representative of a significant minority opinion within religious studies. He's an oddball.

I would like to see the community tackle the issue of categories, but I'm not optimistic that it's possible. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm minded to try it, but it's not an area I've ever involved myself in, so I'd need to read up on previous attempts. We've had similar problems with editors adding the "pseudoscience" category to anything they don't understand or like. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you said: "If it's being taken seriously by university academics, even if they're in a minority, it shouldn't be categorized bluntly as pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship". Does that then mean that you oppose the pseudohistory cat on the holocaust denial page because holocaust denial is "taken seriously" (i.e. advocated) by a "minority" of "university academics" like Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson? (I'm not surprised to see SlimVirgin hasn't responded to this.)Eugene (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problems you discuss here are tied to the idiosyncratic definition of article scope. The owner of this article, Eugeneacurry, insists on treating a loosely connected series of opinions on the "nonhistoricity of Christ" as a single topic, but separate from the debate on the historicity of Christ in general. This is WP:SYNTH to begin with, and you end up with an article that is cobbled together from partly pseudo-scholarhsip, partly fringe scholarship and partly bona fide but outdated scholarship. This problem will not go away, nor will this article ever be stable, before the owner condescends to look into its relation to the articles with overlapping scope and try to sort the issues between these articles as a group instead of obsessing over getting an "FA" star for this particular page. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It will amaze you dab but I think you are totally correct! Sophia ♫ 10:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be a case of SYN. People are being lumped together in a way that's not obviously legitimate. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree with this. These authors have been discussed together as a distinct line of thought about the historical Jesus. There are extensive discussions about this in the talk page archives. See this post, in particular, [8], which names Schweitzer, Goguel, Weaver, and van Voorst as scholars who have given substantial discussion to the CMT. There's no shortage of academic sources that discuss this idea and who treat authors like Bauer, Drews, and G.A. Wells together. The scope of other articles about Jesus might be a problem, but this article has an easily defined scope, and we can follow the lead of other sources (such as the ones I just named) in constructing the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. I'm starting to wonder if we are all reading the same article.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

well, I agree with Akhilleus to a certain point. This article is certainly much better than it used to be, and it actually manages to paint a coherent picture of the history of the idea. But I maintain my point that the above discussion on whether this is "pseudohistory" is symptomatic: it is and it isn't. It is an account of a bit of perfectly respectable historical scholarship paired with a discussion of a number of "popular" authors of more recent years who can be considered fringe, or even "pseudo". This remains a problem. It doesn't mean that we need to tear down the entire article, but it does mean that much better integration in our disparate "Jesus and history" articles, each with their own separate history of controversy, is desperately needed.

in recognition of the progress that has been made, you will note that I am no longer calling to split this up among other articles (because it is now one of the better articles we have on this), but there are remaining WP:DUE issues. Especially, since this is about historical scholarship now discredited, the Quest for the historical Jesus article is very relevant, and content needs to be balanced between the two articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you feel progress has been made. (I'm serious, no snark.) What are you proposing now, though? Would you just delete a bunch of the more modern authors? Eugene (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as I see the scientific consensus is significantly in favor of the historic existence of Jesus. But it's not as if the sceptics' theory is fringe. It's still a scientific theory of a minority, pretty much in the same way theories about global warming not happening or not being man made, which are adopted by a 3% of scientists are not considered fringe. List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming: this article is not in any "pseudo" category. --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus on this as it does not conform to the scientific method. If it did the uncertainties of extrapolating back from anonymous data would be acknowledged. This is fringe but a read of WP:CAT makes it clear we should keep the cats on this page as simple as possible. Sophia ♫ 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, it's best to leave threaded discussion out of the comments section, so that people responding to the RfC are free to comment without being confronted. Would you mind confining your comments to this section, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that WP:FRINGE clearly and helpfully indicates what sort of theories can be categorized as "pseudoscience". It lists four different levels of fringiness (1. Obviously bogus ideas; 2. Generally considered pseudoscience; 3. Theories with a substantial and respectable following; 4. Alternative theoretical formulations) and indicates that articles which detail theories that are either #1 or #2 can legitimately be categorized as "pseudoscience". "2. Generally considered pseudoscience" says this: "Ideas which have a following, such as astrology and the subconscious, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may also be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur." Now I understand that this isn't a scientific topic, but no one is trying to categorize the topic "pseudoscience". But I think that it's reasonable to apply the same basic standards when considering whether it's appropriate to categorize an article as "pseudo-history". So, if we apply the above guideline, matatis mutandis, to this article, the question is whether the Chris myth theory qualifies on the following. #2. Generally considered pseudo-history: Ideas which have a following... but which are generally considered pseudo-history by the historical community may also be described as pseudo-history if reliable sources concur." Given the sources listed in FAQ #2, it's very clear that the "historical community" utterly rejects this theory and there are sources that explicitly label this "pseudo-history". With all this in mind, labeling the CMT "pseudo-history" should not be controversial. Remember, this is a question of sources and policy, not the gut feelings of Wikipedia editors. Eugene (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wdford, you said, "Er...I don't think CMT theorists are disregarding historical method - rather, they are coming up with different answers, based on a valid (if unpopular) interpretation of the evidence (such as exists)." The problem here is that we have reliable sourcs which say the Christ myth theory advocates are ignoring the historical method. Here are a few quotes:

• "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory."

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

• "I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this."

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

• "This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p. 54

• "The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence..."

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9

• "Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method."

John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23.

• "I am grateful that Neil Godfrey reminded me in a recent post of yet more parallels between mythicism and creationism. First, it seems that one can never successfully keep one's denial of mainstream scholarship limited to one specific, narrow field. Knowledge is so intertwined that one cannot deny biological evolution without challenging our conclusions about geology, for example. And one cannot deny the existence of Jesus without also challenging (among other things) what we know about ancient Judaism and the variety of 'messianic' beliefs and ideas found in ancient Jewish literature."

James F. McGrath, "More Mythicist-Creationist Parallels: Messiahs, Wisdom and Jesus", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010

Care to revise your vote and your belief that mythicists aren't "disregarding historical method"? Eugene (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding all those quotes can illustrate various things about the respective scholarly community, as I also mentioned in the Comments above. If I understand Eugene and other editors well, their interpretation of these quotes goes along the following lines: Respectable scholars studying the question of the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth as a historical question, are telling us that they, together with the preceding historians, have (already long time ago) demonstrated in their scholarly works that arriving at the plausibility of the historical nonexistence hypothesis of JoN can only be done by using pseudoscholarship (mishandling the evidence, violating the standard historical method rules, etc. etc.). They have demonstrated this once forever, so it automatically comprises each and every way by which one arrives at the mentioned plausibility. My request for Eugene and others is: please, give me a reference to such a scholarly demonstration, I would be really interested to finally learn the scholarly basis on which all these claims are based. And tell me please: when the four hopefully respectable scholars agreed to appear in the book "Five views ... " together with a pseudoscholar R. Price (somebody who performs pseudoscholarship is a pseudoscholar, I suppose) on the same footing, why did they not use this opportunity to expose his pseudoscholarship? Why they haven't recalled the (presumably well known and scholarly elaborated) arguments which would clearly demonstrate Price's pseudoscholarship? Why has Crossan forgotten his moon-landing story and says that he in fact agrees with Price in many aspects, giving mild (more or less psychological) reasons why he disagrees with Price's conclusions? It is an either or question: either Price in his works has arrived at the plausability of the nonexistence hypothesis without employing pseudoscholarship (thus disproving the claim that it is not possible), or he is, in fact, demonstrating pseudoscholarship at work. The four academics, though surely disagreeing with Price's conclusions, haven't assessed it as pseudoscholarship. But you, Eugene, will judge it so and will try to label this subject as an inherent pseudoscholarship anyway?

(Additional remark: We all know that there is a lot of pseudoscholarship going around Jesus. I would guess that much more pseudohistory appeared which supposes a historical Jesus [having a wife and children, going to India, etc. etc.] This, of course, does not make the historicity hypothesis pseudoscholarship. A more personal comment: I was very much interested to find some arguments from mainstream scholars which would demonstrate the supposed fatal flaws in Wells, Doherty, Price. Unfortunately, I have only found such quotes "no serious historian ..., they are all mishandling evidence ..., they are pseudoscholars... " etc. etc. I hope you understand how "helpful" these quotes are when you look for real scholarly arguments; it is quite a different situation compared, e.g., with when you want to find arguments why creationism is pseudoscience ....) Jelamkorj (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead contain a dissenting voice?

The Christ myth theory is the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. This is a small-minority view within academia. Some Wikipedians and scholars say it is a fringe view. There is therefore a disagreement as to whether the lead should contain a dissenting voice, and if so, what it should say. Should the lead contain the following sentence? "The philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University writes that, while the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted by Christians and assumed by the majority of non-Christians and anti-Christians—and anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank—a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it." The source is Martin's The Case Against Christianity 1991, pp. 36–37. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Support inclusion. I thought this had already been settled, but the sentence keeps being removed, or changed so that it says something different, so I have posted an RfC. This sentence is a succinct summary of Martin's view. The lead needs a dissenting voice per NPOV, and Martin is a mainstream and well-known philosopher of religion who has written about this issue specifically. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I have removed the "crank" bit, this does not belong into scientific discourse. For the remainder, NPOV would be much better served by the first two sentences from the Reception section, instead of a particular "voice". Paradoctor (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Should someone want any further comment from me with respect to this page, you'll have to notify me, as I'm de-watchlisting it as of now. Paradoctor (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose above form. I have nothing against the lead including a dissenting voice, but one by an actual biblical scholar/historian and not a non-expert such as Martin. If we are to use a non-expert, his personal amateur opinion should be noted as that. You push the strange point that we cannot use leading authorities within the relevant field because they identify as Christian, but a book entitled The Case Against Christianity by a non-expert is to be granted the highest level of authority. Where else would this be the case? --Ari (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I can live with Martin in the lead as a part of a compromise, but I think it would be better to defer his views until a relevant section in the body. As others have said, Martin is not an expert in the field. Also, Martin himself grants that elements of the Christ myth theory may seem "ad hoc and arbitrary" upon examination (The Case Against Christianity, p. 55) and he opts to "not rely on it" for the bulk of his attempted refutation of Christianity (The Case Against Christianity, p. 67). Eugene (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think the wording of the RfC is inaccurate. This article, which should be understood as a subarticle of historical Jesus, is about a dissenting view. As such, Bauer, Drews, Robertson, W.B. Smith, G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and other advocates listed in the lead all hold (or held) views that dissent with the mainstream. The lead contains plenty of dissenting voices. Now, I proposed a compromise wording that includes a sentence with Martin, and I'm willing to stick to that compromise, but I've said all along that I would prefer not having Martin in the lead. This is not because I want to squash dissent (the whole article is about dissent, after all), but because the secondary sources I've read about this theory do not name Martin as a prominent figure in its history--whereas they consistently name Bauer, Drews, Robertson, W.B. Smith, and G.A. Wells as important figures. If I could rewrite the lead to my satisfaction, I would remove Martin from there and instead find a quote from G.A. Wells to the effect that a strong case can be made for Jesus' ahistoricity. Wells is an academic too, and I'm sure he says something like this in one of his works; and unlike Martin, there are many secondary sources who mention Wells as a prominent advocate of the theory. (This wouldn't mean eliminating Martin from the article entirely, just from the lead.) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per SlimVirgin. PYRRHON  talk   00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Responding to the RfC, I note that the Michael Martin sentence is quite a good summary of one overall position. On the other hand, it does not seem to me that it adds anything to what is already a good lead, and in fact its presence makes the lead slightly more clumsy. Per Akhilleus I suggest - though not strongly - removing Martin's sentence from the lead. Per Eugeneacurry it may well fit perfectly somewhere else in the article. I hope this outside opinion helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose direct mention of particular philosopher in lede. His view, surely shared by others, can be summarized into the lede, but directly quoting or directly attributing him in the lede seems WP:UNDUE. Direct quote and explicit attribution in the article's body would be fine. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support more or less. Perhaps more tersely summarized in the lead (without his name, commenting there that name is used later or whatever) He is notable which seems to suggest his name could or should be used in the text somewhere.

• Oppose per Ari. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this sentence's inclusion in the lede. In fact, I'm seeing a few objectionable sentences. We should avoid direct quotes when possible, especially those not put in quotations, in an article period and certainly in the lede. There seems to already be enough neutral material covering both sides of the issue in the lede, without these direct quotes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose specific mention of subject in lead, as per WP:UNDUE, although no objections to discussion opposing opinions in general in the lead, with possible expansion of data later in the article. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with moving the summary of a particular individual (Martin, but applies also to Stanton and Dunn) from the lead and placing it into an appropriate section within a footnote or further down in the body of the article. The lead is to give a summary of the article, and including a summary of the findings of a particular scholar within the lead is both awkward and gives WP:Undue weight to that particular source. The views of individual writers fit better inside the body of the article. • Astynax ^talk 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Eugene, you agreed to the lead just two days ago when Akhilleus suggested it. What happened? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to Martin in the lead as a part of compromise. Like I said above, I can live with such a compromise. But I made it clear from the beginning that I'd rather not have him in the lead. As you opened a RfC on that particular issue, though, I thought I should indicate my position. Eugene (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're illustrating why this article is unlikely to stabilize. You opposed including the sentence; Akhilleus suggested a different placement for it; you agreed to that compromise in an informal RfC two days ago on this page, as did several others. And now for no reason, you withdraw the agreement even though nothing has changed between then and now. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So the votes seem to be against the current Martin sentence in the lead. I suggest we remove it until we reach a compromise, or find a far better quote by an actual expert. --Ari (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the Martin sentence adds nothing to the lead, and the lead would happily manage without it. I don't see what the fuss is about. The lead needs to mention (briefly) what the Myth actually says and when it started, and that mainstream scholarship supports the existence of a historical Jesus - although not necessarily the divine character on which the modern Christian religion is based. Anything else in the lead is superfluous, and should rather be incorporated into the body of the article. Surely the Martin sentence could be included lower down? Wdford (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your point (which you have also made elsewhere) that the lead here is getting a bit big. I have a strong suspicion that the militant effort in including the Martin quote has a lot more to do with POV pushing in a clear attempt to undercut mainstream scholarship. A dissenting voice is fine but we should not over do it, especially in a manner that gives undue weight.

As a historical article I do not see the need to mention the divinity of Jesus in the lead as it not a testable historical hypothesis. The last thing this article needs is a theological or philosophical debate on the incarnation. --Ari (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs something from an academic, preferably not one of the principle players but an academic giving an overview, who makes clear that a case can be made for this theory. That is required per NPOV. I have no problem shortening it or moving it elsewhere in the lead (its current position was not my suggestion), but it needs to be there in some form, or replaced by an equivalent. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that Hector Avalos would be better than Martin per the specialization concerns mentioned by others. He's said something about Doherty's views being "plausible" in The End of Biblical Studies. I'd still oppose inclusion in the lead on the basis of WP:UNDUE, though. Eugene (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to have a secular academic source in the lead from a mainstream university. And including an alternative voice in the lead is NPOV 101. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you didn't actually read Avalos' page. He's about as secular as they come and he teaches at Iowa State University. As for the NPOV argument, I think we understand this differently, but let's just let the RfC do its work. Eugene (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like removing the sentence is the solution. The only argument I can see in favour of keeping the opinion of Martin is that a dissenting voice is needed. As there is a dissenting voice, there is no reason for every amateur to give their 2cents in the lead. This objection has been raised on numerous places on the discussion page by various editors. In two weeks, this should be one of the first things to go . --Ari (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the "in two weeks" refer to, Ari? Anthony (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Belay that. I just got down to the bottom of the page. Anthony (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

When do these 2 RfCs finally wrap up? Eugene (talk) 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? --Ari (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wells and Price sections

Robert Price

Eugene, could you explain why you removed that Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, that he contributed to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009) with Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock, and that he said in 2009 Jesus may have existed but "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." And why you reverted my edit to the alt text (which doesn't adhere to what's currently regarded as appropriate)? [9] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material on Price's affiliation with the Jesus Seminar as it's clear you're trying to make him look impressive, which is WP:DUNE here. No other person mentioned in the article has a mini-CV attached to their name, why should Price? As for The Historical Jesus: Five Views, I don't know what you're talking about; his section still refers to his involvement in the book. The skeleton quote isn't a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but it seems redundant given that the section already speaks of "complete agnosticism regarding Jesus' historicity". As for the alt-text, WP:ALT calls for a graphical description of the image in question for blind people using text readers, not some unhelpful note calling redundant atttention to the caption which merely states "Robert M. Price". Eugene (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make him look impressive. I'm just trying to describe who he is to counter your efforts to do him down. These have included some questionable edits by you to his article, and to the dab page, even removing that he's a theologian. We need to offer the facts here, not try to persuade. As for the alt, see WP:ALT please; the old guideline is no more, and what you wrote was POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're tilting at windmills here. I haven't removed "theologian" from before Price's name in the current version of the article. The alt text for Price's picture ("An older man with a full beard grimacing playfully at the viewer") doesn't stike me as POV; what precisely do you object to as biased? Based on WP:ALT's comment regarding the Queen of England's picture it seems that you're right about the current alt text being inappropriate, but that then seems to be true of almost all the pictures in the article, so why are you objecting to Price's specifically? To show that I'm not just being obstinate, I'll put an allusion to Price's work with the Jesus Seminar into his section that doesn't look like a mini-CV. Eugene (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Last month you removed that Price was a theologian from the dab page, [10] and replaced it with "skeptic," with no indication of what that meant. In November [11] you added this to his article: "It should be noted though that Price is often viewed as sub-academic, the Society of Biblical Literature's Review of Biblical Literature describing his work as 'not a serious discussion of the issues' so much as 'an extremely bitter rant.'"

"It should be noted though" is an example of language that is really never acceptable in articles, not to mention "sub-academic". It looks as though you're trying to undermine him on several pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Price

Saying Price thinks we shouldn't be swayed by an academic majority is self-evident; if he didn't feel this way he wouldn't support the CMT. As such material is self-evident it doesn't really add to the article. I do recall, however, that Price once said something like (paraphrasing) "We shouldn't be swayed by the academic majority on the New Testament because they're all biased Christians." That would be an interesting addition to the article but someone would have to track down the source. I think he said it in the context of a debate with William Lane Craig, but I'm not entirely sure. Eugene (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to restore the changes I made to the Price section. Please do not remove them again. If you want to expand that section, fine, but do not keep undoing other people's work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your changes to Price's entry. Therefore there isn't consensus. Stop editting against WP:CON. Eugene (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree with yours, Eugene, so there isn't consensus for your version either. Therefore we should both be able to write that section, each expanding on the work of the other, not undoing it. That's how WP writing usually works. And it needs to be expanded more, because Price is a key player. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another revert

Bill has reverted me again. [12] Could you say what was wrong with the edit, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Bill has swung in, reverted quite a bit of work, then disappeared again, leaving no explanation. Reverting is bad enough, especially after all the requests not to, but reverting then going offline immediately is completely unacceptable. As I asked earlier, what can be done about this? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not Bill, but I'll venture a few guesses. First, your edit to Wells' section obscured the fact that his post-1999 position was a drastic revision of his earlier views: "In The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells altered his position, making the case that there were two distinct figures of Jesus" --> "In The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells argues that there were two distinct figures of Jesus". Second, saying "Wells bases his arguments on the views of Christian biblical scholars, who acknowledge that the gospels were written between 40 and 80 years after Jesus's death by authors who had no personal knowledge of him" is misleading. Most scholars don't think that the gospels are completely cut off from eye-witness testimony; granted, the mainstream view is a bit convoluted at times and can't be accurately defined as gospels=eye-witness accounts, but it's more sophisticated than your text implied. Third, when you write concerning the epistles that "There is no information in them about Jesus's parents, place of birth, teachings, trial, or crucifixion", you don't make it clear that this is Wells' ideosyncratic view as opposed to the views of the aforementioned "Christian scholars".

As for your changes to Price, I think they're mostly fine. My only concern is about defining the Jesus Seminar in this article and using the Time article to source it. Since the Jesus Seminar is already wikilinked I don't think it really needs a further explanation. And even if it did need further explantion, there's no need for a ref; the nature of the Jesus Seminar is non-controversial. Please remove those two points. (unless you feel like saying the SBL is a group of 8000+ "writers and scholars")Eugene (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak for Bill, but I noticed two issues with your edit. First, the phrasing "Wells bases his arguments on the views of Christian biblical scholars..." is ambiguous; either it implies that the bliblical scholars in question are Christians, in which case the phrase is incorrect, or it is meant to point out that Wells relies on scholars who study the Christian bible (rather than the Hebrew) in which case it's better to phrase it as "New Testament scholars." Second, I share Eugene's concern that your edit minimizes Wells' shift in views.

I agree, though, that reverting without explanation on the talk page is not best practice. Discussion before reverting is better, and we've had some success already in presenting alternative text on the talk page and discussing it; it might be good to pursue this approach in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, look, if this continues I'm going to request a review of the GA status. The article is incomplete, not well written, slanted, the FAQ is absurd, the talk page archives are full of editors expressing the same concerns, yet the article seems to be under the control of Bill, who has made only 107 edits to articles (653 overall) [13] and Eugene who has made only 673 edits to articles (1,576 overall), [14] neither of whom are familiar with the policies. Yet somehow they've managed to assume almost complete ownership of the page. I don't mind people taking control of pages to improve them if they know what they're doing; a degree of OWNership's inevitable if you want to get to FAC. But controlling to suppress isn't on.

Akhilleus, I'll change the Christian biblical scholar issue. What would you suggest about expressing Wells's shift in views? I'm wondering how we could make it any clearer. He refers to it. A biblical scholar refers to it. And Price refers to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, now you imply that I'm just an inexperienced editor with no right to be taken seriously. What part of WP:Civility and WP:AGF is that under? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Eugene is correct. SV, if you expect a consensus (on this issue or anything else), then you must make it clear in your edits that it's the proponents of the CMT who are making the claim, not mainstream scholarship, rather than seeking to insinuate "what everyone knows". It's the only way to avoid contentiousness. You're obviously are not an expert on these matters, as I'm not an expert, but I know a misrepresentation of mainstream scholarship when I see it. And when you misrepresent mainstream scholarship, you have to expect a reversion pending discussion. If you are truly concerned with reaching a consensus, please do not make edits that are obviously POV until you explain, with supporting citations, why they are not. There are enough disagreements regarding this article as it is.

Akhilleus, I don't normally revert edits without a full explanation, but SV's edit was patently problematic, because it misrepresents current mainstream scholarship, and for reasons that both you and Eugene mentioned. Also, as I mentioned above, neither SV nor I are experts, and given the contentiousness of edits recently, I think that if we are to reach a consensus on all of the issues, then no one should make edits that are not plainly obvious (such as we are currently living in the year 2010). Do you think that's fair? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I'd appreciate a detailed explanation of what was so wrong with my edit that you needed to revert it entirely, and not make adjustments. I noticed you weren't online at the time, but suddenly came online only to make that one revert, then went offline ahead. Presumably no one asked you to make that revert for them, so you must have had your own reasons. Could you outline them for me please? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Bill

Bill, with respect, you're being somewhat rude in ignoring this question. Last night I expanded the Wells section. You were offline. You suddenly reappeared, reverted the whole section, then went offline again without explanation. I've asked you roughly four times what your objections were. I'm not asking Akhilleus or Eugene (and their points would not have required a revert anyway), I'm asking you. Presumably no one asked you to make that revert for them, so you must have had your own reasons. Could you outline them please? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem anxious to get a response from me (which I take as a complement), but as I've said repeatedly, let's tackle the issues in an orderly manner. We will all have a chance to discuss our concerns and I sincerely want your opinion and support. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an orderly manner. You came online specifically to revert me, then disappeared again. It wasted a lot of my time, expanding the section, seeing the revert, asking why, asking again, trying to work it out for myself. It looked as though someone had asked you to do it, though I'm assuming good faith and that you had your own reasons. I need to hear what they are, or I can't accommodate them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I came online specifically to revert you? Do you have any way of proving that you can read minds? If not, then I suggest you take a break from editing. The stress seems to be causing you to make irrational statements against a person who is trying to edit in good faith. Sure, we disagree on how to proceed here, but is that a reason to belittle another editor? What's next? Are you going to accuse me of anti-semitism, torturing small animals, nuns and orphans, and then top it off with a charge of pedophilia? Like I said, perhaps you should take some time off. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, SlimVirgin asked you several times for the reasons of your reverts. Is it not better to give the reasons, instead of this tirade you made with an (ironic?) comment that personal attacks must stop? SlimVirgin, I wish you good luck with your efforts to improve this article (though I personally doubt you can succeed).Jelamkorj (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jelamkorj, I did give a reason in the label, which apparently was ignored or simply missed. In any case, her comment that I came specifically to revert her edits was WP:Uncivil, especially since I expressed a sincere desire to work with her (see my first comment above). At any rate, if she wants to clarify her concerns, she can use my talk page. I mean, there have been so many edits since the reversion in question, that it doesn't mean anything anymore. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wells, Price, and Doherty

I notice that Doherty now has his own section. Like I said, I think it would be helpful to have some sort of consensus criteria for this amount of notability within the article.

More importantly though, I notice that the Wells and Price sections have been altered over and over and over again recently. Some of the changes aren't particularly problematic (I liked my wording better... but who doesn't feel that way about their own edits?), but I notice that SlimVirgin has consistently removed what I think is a very helpful and very noncontroversial element of wells second paragraph. Namely, she continues to remove the initial reference to the fact that Wells 1999 book was a shift in his views. True, that material follows, but it seems a bit awkward. Why the intransigence on this point? Eugene (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you want over-emphasize it. That's because you've started off with too black-and-white a view of this theory, with people either wholly within it, or wholly outside it. So when Wells sneezed in the direction of a historical Jesus, he was thrown out of the basket. But then Price isn't in it either, in your view. It's not clear that anyone serious is really, which is why I've been arguing that the article as it stood until recently was almost a straw-man position. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wells has a recent book, Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity (Open Court, 2009). I can't find any snippets online and can't see detailed reviews, but what little I've found suggests that he comments upon how he's changed his position over time. It might be good to track down this book and get things straight from the source's mouth (or pen, or keyboard, or whatever). I'll try to do that soon, but if anyone else wants to get the book, I think that might be a good idea. Also, SlimVirgin, the reason why Wells has been "thrown out of the basket" is because we have secondary sources (Van Voorst, for one), describing his acknowledgement of a minimal historical Jesus as an abandonment of the theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"So when Wells sneezed in the direction of a historical Jesus, he was thrown out of the basket. But then Price isn't in it either, in your view. It's not clear that anyone serious is really..." Well, I'd quibble over Price, but how is this a failing of the article? There are all sorts of theories that were once seriously considered by academics and then abandoned and are still peddled only by cranks and amatuers. Powell's quote (which has now been suppressed in direct contravention of WP:CENSOR) indicates that the CMT falls into exactly this category: there used to be meaningful academic support, now it's a total laughing-stock. Why should we try to force the theory to be something it isn't so as to artificially inflate it's modern academic credibility? Eugene (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is dialectically deficient to define a theory in its weakest form by relying only on critics to decide what its true proponents are allowed to argue. Vesal (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(Remove indent)That doesn't really capture the CMT either. Here are the counterexample that shows the CMT is not exclusively the "no Jesus ever existed at all" point:

(1) "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) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17

(2) "This view hold that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..."[Bromiley (1082 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J]. The first paragraph of the related material tells us about the Christ Myth theory, second tells us what it is (using story of), third line talks about the supposed parallels, and the fourth uses Apollonius of Tyana while using Lucian as an example, and the final sentence gives us the examples of Attis, Adonis, Osiris and Mithras. The next paragraph mentions ONE work by Wells and two counterpoints to his arguments. The paragraph after that starts "These examples of the Christ-myth idea..." please note the plural. The paragraph after that talks has the lead in Bertrand Russel leave the question open and the very next sentance says "This negative attitude is shared by P. Graham, The Jesus Hoax (1974)" NOWHERE in any of this are any of the greats (Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, etc) of the non historical concept mentioned. What we get instead is, in order, are Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russel. Hardly a cross section of the non historical idea as Akhilleus has tried to claim in the past. Troy and Vinland are also part "old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes". Last time I check Troy and Vinland (ie North America) existed.

(3) "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." Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions (1951) by Pike, Royston

(4) "At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have)." Wells, G.A. "A Reply to J. P. Holding's "Shattering" of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus" (2000) Please note this post dates Jesus Myth which Wells himself accepted a possible historical person being involved but few if any of the Gospel accounts were historical.

(5) "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 "JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST by Alvar Ellegard"

(6) "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", New Brunswick: Transaction, , p. 58 No WP:RS explanation of how the first part does not fall under Wells' current mythic Paul Jesus + Historical teacher = Gospel Jesus has been provided nor how Meed's 100 BC Jesus does not fit the second part.

(7) "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 I asked again if the Christ-myth theory is an either/or than how do you toy with it?! Never mind the "the gospels give us no reliable information" could fit within Pike's and Dodd's definitions but are excluded by those of Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman.

As for Jesus Myth theory I could only find one very obscure scholarly paper that even used the term and even it used it in the form "Jesus Myth" theory; hardly enough to build an article around. As I pointed out many years the phrase "Jesus Myth" is more of a train wreck than "Christ Myth" being used as much for the myth attached to the man as the idea that the man or the story about him are a myth. John Remsburg whose list in The Christ (retitled the Christ Myth is often cited by non scholars in books and blogs (a fact removed from this page) stated in the same work "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. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this is the thousandth time that you've been corrected on these, I'm not going to spend much time on this. But for the sake of others, here we go:

• 1: Can you quote where Dodd uses the phrase "the Christ myth theory is...", or something to that effect? (We both know you can't.)
• 2: Bromiley's text is being chopped up and presented in self-serving ways here. It's available for viewing online; anyone who actually reads the source can see through your deception.
• 3: Not much of a difference from what's in the FAQ.
• 4: Wells himself disclaims the title "mythicist" later on in that very article. CORRECTION: Whoops, my mistake; I made the age-old blunder of trusting Bruce when he quotes sources. #4 is not, as BruceGrubb labels it, from "A Reply to J. P. Holding's "Shattering" of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus", G. A. Wells' 2000 essay. Rather, it is from material written by J. P. Holding himself. As Holding is not a RS on Wells' views, this quote is even less relevant to the discussion at hand. I hope that those who are tempted to take BruceGrubb's complaints about "ambiguous sources" seriously take this example to heart; it is a routine occurance. Eugene (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• 5: Doherty is not a RS for anyone's views but his own; he cannot be used to define Wells.
• 6: Again, Wells explicitly distances himself from the term "mythicist" in his 2000 essay; just like Doherty, BruceGrubb is not a RS for defining Wells views.
• 7: "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"

QED. Eugene (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Cleaver word games to get out from the fact a university press says the definition is something else.

2) I provided a direct link Bromiley's text do how this is chopped up is beyond me.

3) Ignoring the actual point.

4) Actually if you read it in a NPOV way Wells disclaims "mythicist" as Holding defines it

5) Price says basically the same thing on the very back of Can We Trust the New Testament?

6) Again read from a NPOV the 2000 is only disclaiming "mythicist" as Holding defines it

7) Again if the Christ-myth theory either or how can you toy with it?

8) "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." (Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125) But "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412 Care to explain this oh wise one without resorting to other sources?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem: (8)- I don't see the phrase "Christ myth theory", or any variant thereof, anywhere in Schweitzer's quote. Just put down the WP:STICK already. Eugene (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you "don't see the phrase "Christ myth theory", or any variant thereof" you must be blind as that variant is the very next sentence: "It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. May I remind you back when this article was called the Jesus Myth Hypothesis 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 THAT is how we can call it original research, Akhilleus. Schweitzer can't even agree with himself much less anybody else. Sheesh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting once again

Eugene, please stop reverting what I wrote. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I think the way you have attempted to structure Wells' and Price's sections are inferior to the way they were. Your preferred presentation of Wells' change of mind is awkward and Price's entire entry seems bulky and clumsy in your hands. You could always agree to the mediation and we'll come to a consensus there. I think I've already included these points on the list. Eugene (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably phrase this a bit differently, but I share Eugene's concerns with the presentation of Wells and Price. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if you could let me know what your concerns are, I'll take them into account. Eugene, I don't think you should be editing sections related to living persons that you disagree with. And please do not add again in WP's voice that Wells changed his mind. It needs attribution. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, I think I have a basic disagreement with the way you think particular attribution should be used. In this case, it's obvious that Wells has changed from thinking there was no historical Jesus to believing that Q springs from the activity of a historical preacher. We have several authoritative sources saying so, including Wells himself. So there should be no problem with the article simply stating this. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that he means it, except in the sense that "I should no longer be associated with that straw man theory," which could be tongue-in-cheek. The safest way of dealing with this is simply to use in-text attribution, which is what we always do on WP for anything that can't be in WP's voice. Is that your only objection to that passage? What is your objection to the Price section? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking around at reviews of Wells, I'm not seeing people identify the recent fracture Eugene wants to emphasize. Wells himself calls it a revised position, but says he makes it clear in the last two of his books, not just in the most recent, and several other writers seem to concur. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Looking around at reviews of Wells, I'm not seeing people identify the recent fracture Eugene wants to emphasize." Come on, this is silly. Just in this article we have a sympathetic reviewer (Price) who "identifies" the shift, an unsympathetic reviewer who does so (Van Voorst), and a quote straight from the horses mouth (Wells) that says the same thing. I really do not see why this is contentious. As for saying I want to "emphasize" this, like I said in an edit summary, how is moving two inline quotes to a footnote referencing a clause "emphasizing" this? If anything, I'm advocating for giving his change of mind less space in the article. Why are you opposed to this? Eugene (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wells himself says that his position is reflected in his two most recent books. Please read what he says in the source material, and don't add your own views in WP's voice. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting continues

Eugene continues to revert my edits wholesale, particular edits I make to the Price and Wells sections. He must have done it over a dozen times, including three times between 19:03 April 21 and 03:30 April 22, taking his edits right up to 3RR. A recent edit summary of his illustrates the attitude:

19:43, April 20, 2010 Eugeneacurry (talk | contribs | block) (106,805 bytes) (Undid revision 357244016 by Wdford (talk) this is under discussion on talk; I'm out of reverts now, blast!) (undo)

I don't know how we can proceed if everything other people write is going to be undone. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, couldn't I say the exact same thing about you? Haven't you also been reverting me over an over again, including three times in the last 24 hours? As for my "attitude", I reverted an edit by another contributor who had deleted something that you strongly want in the article; I don't see how this makes me a bad guy, if anything this should be a sign of good faith on my part. I want Martin out of the lead, but I've committed to let the RfC do it's magic, per the Wikipedia policies. And as for your lament, "I don't know how we can proceed", of course you do; mediation is pending. Please sign up--it's a bit revealing that only one side of this content dispute is willing to allow referees into the conversation. Eugene (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Eugene because he messed up the section headers and didn't sort them out. I don't like the implication that reverts are an entitlement in his edit summary above. As for the mediation - I've been through one experience of you being very rude an dismissive while someone watched mildly on - not going there again soon. In the end it added nothing to the article. Sophia ♫ 06:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How did I mess up the headers? If your terrified I might be incivil in mediation, tell the mediator that so he can be extra vigilant regarding such matters. Again, it's quite revealing that only one side of this dispute is willing to allow outside oversight into the discussion. Please re-agree to the mediation and we can sort all this out. Eugene (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For Eugene: I've been trying to edit the article, add in-text attribution, make it stick more closely to the sources, remove commentary i.e. move forward a little. You are just reverting to a version that multiple editors have a problem with. It's also not correct that I reverted you three times in the last 24 hours. Here's the first, and the second. Then I stopped, but you didn't. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, sort of, SlimVirgin. I suppose I should have said that "you have also been reverting me over and over again, including three times in the last 26 hours."[15][16][17] My point is that you have been hard at work removing and reverting material you think is unhelpful and low-quality, as have I, so either we're both bad guys or neither of us are. Take your pick. As for the in text attribution, given your enthusiasm for wikipedia policies, I'm confused by this. WP:FRINGE defines a fringe theory in a way that clearly includes this topic and that guideline discourages in-text attribution. So, were you not aware of that, or is your enthusiasm for policy merely selective and self-serving? Eugene (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well! It seems that a clarification is in order. WP:FRINGE discouraged particular attribution in the past... but no longer! SlimVirgin recently drastically changed the guideline to be more sympathetic to her agenda here! [18] It must be nice to be able to rewrite wiki-policy in the middle of a dispute to favor your own position. Does this qualify as disruptive editing? Eugene (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wow at the lengths some editors go to push their personal opinions. Why build consensus when you can get users blocked, change WP policies and constantly revert to your heart's content. --Ari (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are both wiki editors, instead of playground bickering here go change the policy back and see if the community agrees. Sophia ♫ 15:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good advice. Done. Eugene (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

G. A. Wells

G.A. Wells, Cutting Jesus down to size: what higher criticism has achieved and where it leaves Christianity (Open Court 2009), pp. 327-28:

[Eddy and Boyd] go on to distinguish (pp. 24f) three broad categories of judgement, other than their own, concerning Jesus:

1. that "the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional."

2. that Jesus did exist but, as Bultmann argued, "the reports we have of him are so unreliable and saturated with legend...that we can confidently ascertain very little historical information about him."

3. that a core of historical facts about the real historical Jesus can be disclosed by research...

Eddy and Boyd are particularly concerned to refute the standpoint of those in category 1 of these 3, and classify me as one of them, as "the leading contemporary Christ myth theorist" (p. 168n). In fact, however, I have expressed stated in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004 that I have repudiated this theory, and now really belong in their category 2. If the reader wishes a brief statement concerning my change of position and the reasons for it—briefer than I give in those three books or in the present one—I can refer him or her to my article "Jesus, Historicity of" in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Tom Flynn."

Sorry for the length of this quote, but I believe it can bring some clarity to at least one of the ongoing disputes here—we now have G.A. Wells unambiguously saying that he has "repudiated" his earlier belief in the Christ myth theory. If we are worried about hostile characterizations, we can just use his own words. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, Akhilleus. It illustrates my concern. Wells made clear in the source we're using in the article, [19] and in the quote you found above that he "stated in [his] books of 1996, 1999, and 2004 that [he had] repudiated this theory ..." Eugene has been trying to say something different: that the 1999 book represented a fracture of some kind, and kept changing the section to: "In The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells revised his position ..." [20] But there's no sign of Wells himself saying that. In the source we were using in the article (written in 2000), Wells made clear that his 1996 and 1999 books took the same position : "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books ... it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court (my emphasis)". [21] Despite the clarity of that, Eugene has reverted over 12 times to the section expressing his own opinion.

Again, it raises the issue of this article describing something of a straw-man position (the extremist position, category one above) that even the best-known recent proponent has not held since at least 1996. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking through the Encyclopedia of Unbelief that Wells referenced. It says that another source who took the Christ myth theory seriously, though he did not embrace it, was the French biblical scholar Charles Guignebert. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never been interested in labeling Wells' 1999 book specifically the turning point in his thinking. I'm interested in clearly and concisely indicating that Wells altered his position. Rather than do that with three distinct in-line quotations, I think it's better to use a simple phrase (e.g. "blah blah blah, Wells revised his position..."), sourced with the Voorst and Price quotes, then followed by only one in-line quote--Wells' own. I'm perfectly content to use this alternative to accomodate Wells' statements and SV's concerns: "In the late 1990s, Wells revised his position, ..." Is that okay with you SV? Eugene (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

pp. 14-15: "When I first addressed these problems, more than thirty years ago, it seemed to me that, because the earliest Christian references to Jesus are so vague, the gospel Jesus could be no more than a mythical expansion and elaboration of this obscure figure. But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, the personage represented in Q (the inferred non-Markan source, not extant, common to Matthew and Luke; cf. above, p. 2), which may be even earlier than the Paulines. This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus." --Akhilleus (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, we have a primary source in which Wells uses the phrase "the mid-1990s"; let's use that then: "In the mid-1990s, Wells revised his position, ..." Eugene (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I mention this in a section below, but I'll mention it here as well. Popular, academically respected historian Michael Grant, in his 1977 book, Jesus, states the following in Footnote 12 for the book's appendix: "The latest book supporting the Christ-myth theory is G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (Pemberton, 1975) criticized by G. Stanton in The Times Literary Supplement, 29 August 1975, p. 977." Clearly someone thought G. A. Wells held this position (Grant is quite clear that by "Christ-myth theory" he means the position that Jesus didn't exist), and Wells' own description of his position, quoted above, doesn't seem to contradict it, since he's said to have adhered to the theory in the '75 book. Stanton's review must be available online somewhere, and that book by Welles must be available somewhere. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That Stanton article would be a very useful source, John. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreement on Wells?

With the new sources I think that we can accomodate both those editors emphasizing clarity and brevity and those emphasizing verifiability:

"Wells revised his position in the mid-1990s, arguing that the canonical gospels represent the fusion of two distinct Jesus narratives: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus whose teachings were preserved in the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Wells wrote in 2000: ..."

We can either retain the full quotes provided in the footnotes or we can just keep the citations, but the in-line text would appear the way it appears above. What does everyone say? Eugene (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Eugene, please do not say that he revised his position in Wikipedia's voice. We must use in-text attribution for anything contentious in this article. If Wells says he revised it and when, we say so. If someone else does, we paraphrase what they say very carefully. Van Voorst is not a good source for this, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"We must use in-text attribution for anything contentious in this article." Why? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is this contentious?! Wells says it, his ally Price says it, and a hostile source--Van Voorst--also says it. I simply do not understand why you're making an issue out of this. Fine, SV is intractable on this point; what does everyone else think? Consensus doesn't have to be strictly unanimous. Eugene (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If Wells says it, we can use his words. We don't have to put it in WP's voice. There is a nice long quote from him below, which we can paraphrase. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to put it in WP's voice... but we should, for the sake of brevity and clarity. I honestly despair of making any headway if you are unwilling to bend on even such a minor issue. So that we don't just bicker back and forth, what's your proposed alternative? (I'd also still like others to comment on my proposed wording.) Eugene (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the Wells section

Could you address the Wells example, then? You have reverted over a dozen times to your Wells section, where you wrote in WP's voice that Wells changed his position in 1999. But Wells himself says in numerous quotes that he didn't, but that he had revised it several years earlier. This was in the source in the article, and also in the source Akhilleus found, and I kept rewriting that section to reflect the source, but you wouldn't allow it.

Could you address that one point only, please? I see it as OR, but perhaps you can explain it differently. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed it above; it seems I was mistaken and I'm willing to adopt a different phrase: "In the late 1990s, Wells revised his position,..." Fair enough? Eugene (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you reverted me over a dozen times without reading the source, or any of my posts? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that I thought Wells' comment in his online essay wasn't clear enough to correct Van Voorst's comment published in a book. Now that I've seen Wells' statement repeated in print, I concede that the article should indicate the shift came in the "mid-1990" as Wells says. Eugene (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What was unclear about Wells saying: "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books ... it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court" (my emphasis), which is in the source, [22] and which I added to the article (but you kept removing it), and stressed in some of my posts to you?

And please don't continue to do OR. If you want to say that he really changed his position, you will have to quote him saying that with no ambiguity, and not "well, sure, if you want to call that changing my position, then fine." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The quotes I've provided aren't ambiguous. Neither is Van Voorst. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What Wells said in the source already used in the article wasn't ambiguous either, but for some reason Eugene wanted to make it say something else. Part of Editing 101 is that we use in-text attribution for anything about which there's disagreement. That's particularly important here, because there's such contention about the most basic of points. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wells is surely the best authority on what Wells said. If we can't agree on what he is saying, let's just quote the relevant lines and let the readers decide for themselves what he meant. Wdford (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What he's saying seems very clear, so we can simply paraphrase it. I'm bewildered by the resistance to this. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've written up a brief summary of what Wells says about himself here, based only on the sources we've mentioned so far. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that your section is moving in the right direction. There are a couple points though that I think still need to be addressed:

• (1) "Graham Stanton writes that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out in several books and papers by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London, including Did Jesus Exist? (1975), The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009)." This makes it sound like Stanton refered to all these books. Considering that Stanton's book was published in 2002 and the list of Wells work includes books published in 2004 and 2009 this is obviously impossible. Also, including the books (at least at this point in his section) from 1996-2009 is a bit misleading considering Wells' change of mind.

• (2) "Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he argues that he should not be dubbed a 'mythicist tout court', but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to 'a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.'" This should be slightly altered for clarity to something like this: "Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he argues that he should not now be dubbed a 'mythicist tout court', but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to 'a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.'" It's a minor change, but it helps, and Wells uses the word "now" in the sentance from which the quote is drawn.

I don't want to be a jerk though; this section you're recommending is an improvement and it's encouraging. Eugene (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So how about this: SlimVirgin's basic text with my small changes...

Graham Stanton writes that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out in several books and papers by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London, including Did Jesus Exist? (1975).

Wells writes that there are three broad approaches to the historicity of Jesus—(1) that Jesus is almost or entirely fictional; (2) that he did exist but that reports about him are so saturated by myth that very little can be said of him with any confidence; and (3) that he not only existed, but that a core of historical facts can be disclosed about him.

When Wells first addressed the issue in the 1970s, he saw the Jesus of the gospels as no more than a myth, but in the mid-1990s moved toward the second position, seeing the gospels as traceable to a Galilean preacher of the early first century whose teachings were preserved in the hypothetical Q document, the inferred source common to Matthew and Luke. This is the position he adopts from 1996 onwards in books such as The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009).

In The Jesus Myth, he argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus. Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he states that he should not now be dubbed a "mythicist tout court", but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to "a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

I can live with this and I think it meaningfully improves the article and lessens the disagreements simmering on this talk page. Eugene (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to include his publications upfront. The danger of the sentence you wrote is that there may be papers prior to 1996 not mentioned. I'm wary of the extent to which you want to emphasize a change of mind. I think we should give it the emphasis Wells gives it. My suggestion at this point (this is based only on the source material mentioned so far):

Graham Stanton wrote in 2002 that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London, and author of Did Jesus Exist? (1975), The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009).

Wells writes that there are three broad approaches to the historicity of Jesus—(1) that Jesus is almost or entirely fictional; (2) that he did exist but that reports about him are so saturated by myth that very little can be said of him with any confidence; and (3) that he not only existed, but that a core of historical facts can be disclosed about him.

When Wells first addressed the issue in the 1970s, he saw the Jesus of the gospels as no more than a myth, but in the mid-1990s moved toward the second position, seeing the gospels as traceable to a Galilean preacher of the early first century whose teachings were preserved in the hypothetical Q document, the inferred source common to Matthew and Luke. This is the position he adopts from 1996 onwards.

In The Jesus Myth, he argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus. Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he argues that he should not be dubbed a "mythicist tout court", but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to "a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly comfortable with this, my only reservation is that the wording could be taken to mean that Wells feels he never should have been labeled a "mythicist tout court". I think this could be easily fixed by including the word "now" (he used the word in the relevant sentence in his 2000 essay), either before "accepts", or before "be dubbed". Either one is fine with me. Eugene (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the section you're composing, but bears on the definition of CMT: Wells is saying he is a mythicist, but one who allows some historical veracity to Q. A qualified mythicist. Anthony (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So do we have agreement here SV? Can we add "now" in one of the two places I mentioned and finally strike something off the list of things to discuss? We coud have BlackKite add it in. Eugene (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't say now in the quote. I don't understand this need always to go slightly beyond what the sources say, according to your own understanding of what they meant. I read him more along Anthony's lines. So let's just say what the man himself says and leave it there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books... it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court." Pretty please, with sugar on top?Eugene (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Hello? Eugene (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on SV, we seem to be a single one syllable word away from agreement. How about including "now", as part of the paraphrase of his above quote, and asking BlackKite to replace the article's current section on Wells with this new one? Eugene (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, SV hasn't responded to this and it's been a couple days now. She's made over 300 different edits across dozens of articles since I asked this question so it isn't like she's been unable to reply. On the basis of the principle Qui tacet consentire vidétur, I'm going to ask Black Kite to replace the article's current section on Wells with this one:

Graham Stanton wrote in 2002 that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London, and author of Did Jesus Exist? (1975), The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009).

Wells writes that there are three broad approaches to the historicity of Jesus—(1) that Jesus is almost or entirely fictional; (2) that he did exist but that reports about him are so saturated by myth that very little can be said of him with any confidence; and (3) that he not only existed, but that a core of historical facts can be disclosed about him.

When Wells first addressed the issue in the 1970s, he saw the Jesus of the gospels as no more than a myth, but in the mid-1990s moved toward the second position, seeing the gospels as traceable to a Galilean preacher of the early first century whose teachings were preserved in the hypothetical Q document, the inferred source common to Matthew and Luke. This is the position he adopts from 1996 onwards.

In The Jesus Myth, he argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus. Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he argues that he should not now be dubbed a "mythicist tout court", but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to "a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

So there. Eugene (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you've returned SV, care to respond to this? Eugene (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some kind of reply here. I'd be nice to cross something off the list. Eugene (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting. Come on SV, if you've got time to hard-time me below, you've got time to respond here on a point that actually relates to the article. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} When the page was locked, one of the major issue was how to write G. A. Wells' section. SlimVirgin preferred one option, I preferred another. Over the last week we seem to have reached an agreement based on a new block of text largely of SlimVirgin's creation. In keeping with Wells own comments (indicated above) I've added a single word to SlimVirgin's text. I've asked her what she thinks and, while being very active on Wikipedia on both other pages and this very talk page, she has declined to respond despite numerous requests for her to do so. On the basis of the principle of Qui tacet consentire vidétur I'm therefore assuming consensus (the alternative is that SlimVirgin is just stonewalling here) and I request that G. A. Wells' section in this article be replaced with the following:

Graham Stanton wrote in 2002 that the most thoroughgoing and sophisticated of the proponents' arguments were set out by G. A. Wells, emeritus professor of German at Birkbeck College, London, and author of Did Jesus Exist? (1975), The Jesus Legend (1996), The Jesus Myth (1999), Can We Trust the New Testament? (2004), and Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009).

Wells writes that there are three broad approaches to the historicity of Jesus—(1) that Jesus is almost or entirely fictional; (2) that he did exist but that reports about him are so saturated by myth that very little can be said of him with any confidence; and (3) that he not only existed, but that a core of historical facts can be disclosed about him.

When Wells first addressed the issue in the 1970s, he saw the Jesus of the gospels as no more than a myth, but in the mid-1990s moved toward the second position, seeing the gospels as traceable to a Galilean preacher of the early first century whose teachings were preserved in the hypothetical Q document, the inferred source common to Matthew and Luke. This is the position he adopts from 1996 onwards.

In The Jesus Myth, he argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus. Because he accepts some minimal historicity, he argues that he should not now be dubbed a "mythicist tout court", but nevertheless maintains that the historical evidence refers to "a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

Thank you. Eugene (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As no one has opposed this, I have replaced the section as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

New lead

Section II

We are going in circles again. I propose the following as the opening paragraph, wherein I try to make it abundantly clear what is and is not included in the CMT.

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed, in any form at all. Any theory which holds that a historical Jesus did exist, regardless of the level of influence the historical character may have had, is not considered to be part of the Christ myth theory.

If you wish to tweak it, please do so. If you have a different proposal, please state it. But let's try to make actual progress. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't fit with Dodds definition nor Drews "...no opening exists for seeking an historical figure behind the Christ myth" in the online version of Christ Myth I found. Here is how I would word it:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth was largely if not entirely based on a pre-existing "Christ"/son diety mythology. The theory ranges from Jesus not existing in any shape, way, or form to him at best being a composite character for whom key events of the Biblical Jesus (such as the crucifixion) did not happen.

This address things like Dodds, Drew's reference of a historical person non being behind the Christ Myth and why Price called Wells a "successor to the Christ myth theorists" on the back of a book that has both a mythic Paul Christ and a somewhat historical Gospel Christ. In short this addresses all the terminology and definition problems that have plagued this article form the get go.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Bruce. Folks, does Bruce's wording fit with all the various sources previously discussed? If not, what further alternative wording should we consider please? Wdford (talk)

No, it doesn't work. Bruce's assertion that there is a range of theories is incorrect. The essential element of the CMT is the argument that there was no historical Jesus; this is obvious from the large number of sources cited in FAQ #1. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it seems that different reliable sources have different understandings of what exactly the CMT actually is. Seemingly the majority of them hold that there was no historical character at all, but a few understand the CMT to include the possibility of a historical base figure. How do we word the opening paragraph so as to properly reflect this situation? Wdford (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"OK, so it seems that different reliable sources have different understandings of what exactly the CMT actually is." This isn't correct. The sources have the same understand of what the CMT is; a theory (or group of theories, if you like) united by the idea that there was no historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On that basis, how about the following:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a specific historical character. A minority of proponents believe in addition that some of the non-key events currently ascribed to the Jesus figure may have actually happened to various historical but completely unrelated individuals.

Is that a better summary of the various sources? Wdford (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus is not going to agree to anything outside of the Jesus didn't exist in anyway, shape, or form definition no matter what indication from any reliable source that that is not the case. Three years ago I threw the gauntlet of a source that directly and expressly explained how Dodd's and the other non complient definitions fitted into this and to date nothing has been provided.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I won't agree to a definition that doesn't say that the CMT is the argument that there was no historical Jesus. That's because we have plenty of reliable sources that define it in exactly that way. Dodd's definition fits exactly, but even if it didn't, there's still far more reliable sources that define it in this way. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Akhilleus, but the the above doesn't agree with your interpretation of Dodd and addition that even if it is being read the way I and several other are reasin it ides not valid despite being a university press is getting very close to POV pushing. --BruceGrubb (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, are both of you willing to accept the lead paragraph as I have worded it above, or is further modification required? Wdford (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid the use of "specific historical character" since the word "character" could be misunderstood. I'd try "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person, ..." The second part of the sentence needs to explain what the CMT puts in the place of the historical Jesus. "but is a fictional/mythological character created by the early Christian community." might work. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. So now we have:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person, but is a fictional/mythological character created by the early Christian community. A minority of proponents believe in addition that some of the non-key events currently ascribed to the Jesus figure may have actually happened to various historical but completely unrelated individuals.

Bruce, Akhilleus, Eugene, SlimVirgin, Anyone - your further improvements, please? Wdford (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth was largely if not entirely based on a pre-existing "Christ"/sun deity mythology." and just throw out that somewhat awkward second sentence. If you honestly look at every version of what has been referred or called "Christ myth theory" this is likely the best fit. The "largely" addresses stuff like Dodd and Price calling Wells' Jesus Myth (1998) and later mythical Paul + historical Q "Christ myth theory" twice (1999/2000 and 2002)--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this minor rewording of the second sentence to make it flow better?

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person, but is a fictional/mythological character created by the early Christian community. Additionally, a minority of proponents believe that some of the non-key events currently ascribed to the Jesus figure may have actually happened to various historical, but completely unrelated, individuals.

I think it reads better this way. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill's language looks like the best so far, and this improves on the current lead. I'd rather remove the slash mark and replace it with "or" (fictional or mythological) and I don't like "non-key", which is ungainly. I'm not sure why we need to use it or any other word to characterize "events". Rather than "currently ascribed" I'd say "ascribed in the New Testament". And why say "a minority of proponents" rather than "some proponents"? It should be all right to use "some" when we give their names further down in the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. We now have:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. Additionally, some proponents believe that some of the events ascribed to the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have actually happened to various historical, but completely unrelated, individuals.

Can we agree on this as the opening paragraph, or are there any further suggestions for improvement? Wdford (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is pretty clear and reads well. Certainly covers my reading on the subject. Allegro does talk about a possible historical character at the basis of christianity. Sophia ♫ 07:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Except it just move the problem to another place. "Mythological" has a layman definition (false story) that does not always mesh with scholarly definitions. Kirk, Geoffrey Stephen (1970) "Myth: its meaning and functions in ancient and other cultures" Cambridge University Press goes into great detail on this but if you are not up to reading the whole book Remsburg wrote much the same thing in his The Christ. I should mention that G. R. S. Mead and Ellegard have also presented historical characters at the basis of Christianity though about 100 to 200 years earlier then the time the Gospel Jesus supposedly lived and even Wells "mythical" Paul Jesus has possible historical underpinning c100 BCE.

Even people who feel there was a "historical" Jesus feel nothing useful can be pulled from the Gospels about what he really did or said ie the Gospel Jesus is a myth. For example, Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion flat out said "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all. [...] Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testaments (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history..." and a little further on the same page he states "The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (pg 97) Worsley, Peter in his "The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia" (1968) which was quoted and sited in the University of Wollongong Thesis collection said "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum" ("The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia" (1968).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

However, the "different place" that the problem will be moved to is the wikipedia article on Mythology, where this can be thrashed out in separate detail, and to which this sentence can be wikilinked. Apart from inserting that wikilink on "mythological", is everyone now happy with the wording of the opening paragraph? Wdford (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the change is fine. For the sake of clarity though, should we add the phrase "at all" to make things as obvious as possible for the drive-by reviewers of the article?

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person at all, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. Additionally, some proponents believe that some of the events ascribed to the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have actually happened to various historical, but completely unrelated, individuals.

Two different university published books use the phrase "at all" (Meynell & Bacon in FAQ #1). Eugene (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In serious argument, belief doesn't come into it. Some proponents assert, or some proponents propose, maybe. And did/do some proponents propose (some of) the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth may have originated with an anonymous person, or do they just allow some events? Anthony (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some CMT advocates think that a few of Jesus' teachings were drawn from a random grab-bag of hellenistic witticisms. See my comments on Bart Simpson in FAQ #1. Eugene (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. And "some proponents believe"? Anthony (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think objecting to the phrase "some proponents believe" is straining at gnats. This use of the word "believe" is quite common in academic literature and I just don't understand why some of the editors here are so leery of it. This just seems like one more non-issue that distracts from more meaningful conversation. I don't really care if you swap "believe" for something else, but the word "argue" appears so many times already in the article that I'd rather not throw another instance of it on the pile. Eugene (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wells' with his Q-Jesus was historical but Paul's Jesus was mythical or at best dates form some 100 years previously position "is eminently successor to radical Christ myth theorists" (Price, back of Can we trust the New Testament?) so the at all clearly doesn't belong. Furthermore Wells position on Paul's Jesus being a mythical person fit both Dodd's and the Welch's ("The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory") definitions. If fact, Welch gives us a headache because the full quote is "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." but Wells gives us BOTH-- a Jesus that was originally a myth (Paul's) and an historical individual with Q.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, Wells' current position is complex in relation to the definition. But his section in the article already notes the complexity so I don't think that anyone will be confused. As for Price's comment you mention, one can be a "successor" to a movement without being the scion of the movement; to take some extreme examples: the Third Reich was the "successor" to the Weimar Republic, just as the Soviets were the "successors" to the Romanovs. In any event, Price himself defines the Christ myth theory, on multiple occasions, in very stark terms:

• "Though [Charles Guignebert] could not accept either the Christ myth theory, which held that no historical Jesus existed, or the Dutch Radical denial that Paul authored any of the epistles, Guignebert took both quite seriously."

Robert M. Price, in Tom Flynn, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007) p. 372

• "...the pure Christ-Myth theory: that there had never been a historical Jesus at the root of the full-blown mythical Christology."

Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000) p. 220

Now I've resisted mentioning this (it seems a bit unsportsmanlike), but even if you could produce a quote by Robert Price saying exactly what you wanted--something like "the Christ myth theory is the belief that Jesus wasn't very important and most of the gospels are made up but that there's probably some guy buried down there somewhere"--I'm not really sure that would affect how the article defines the theory. After all, WP:IRS states that "questionable sources", that is "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature", are "generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties". Given that Price is not an academic, that his views are widely considered extremist, and that Prometheus (his go-to publisher--but see note) is certainly a publishing house with a decidedly "promotional" nature (it's essentially the Freethought equivalent of Harvest House), I'm not even sure that most of his relevant published stuff qualifies as a reliable source. So while I'm fine with letting him define himself, I'm not at all willing to allow him to contradict a major-league university professor publishing through a major-league university press on something as fundamental to this article as the definition that appears in the lead and the definition section. Eugene (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: To be fair (*snicker*) I've found one place where Price sketches out his views on the Christ myth theory in a book by the mainstream publisher Macmillian. If you'd like to use this source in Price's section, (please oh please) go right ahead. Only, I think that in that case there are some better pictures we could use as well. (Man, N. T. Wright's got to be jealous of that mitre.) Eugene (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Eugene, if I see you disparage a living person again, I'm going to consider asking that you be topic-banned. I'm thinking in particular of your upload of an unflattering Price image, then pretending it had been released when you knew it hadn't. Plus all the rest. Time to stop, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I covered this previously [23], but since you have a way of not hearing me, I'll go over it again: I didn't upload the picture of Price to "get him" or anything like that. I uploaded it because it was the only one I could find that was sharp, was clearly connected to someone I could ask to use it, and wasn't cartoonish. The ostensible owner (the person who put it on her personal webpage) said I could use it in Wikipedia. If that isn't enough then fine, my mistake, but pretending that I consciously lied about it (or something) is nonsense. Further, the photo's ostensible owner herself was happy to let the picture in question appear on Wikipedia--and she thinks that Price is "awesome"; apparently even such a fan didn't feel the picture "disparaged" the man.

Consider that you've violated WP:AGF over and over and over by putting the worst possible spin on my actions so far. Also consider that WP:GAME takes a rather dim view of "[m]ischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction". Consider further still that you defended Slrubenstein on the ANI when he called me an anti-Semite, were instrumental in restoring Jbolden1517 to active editting after he made IRL threats against me and indicated off Wiki that he wasn't really sorry, disregarded WP:CON with almost breathtaking ease [24], that you've been blocked a couple times previously [25] and even desysopped once [26]. Given all this, I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to be worried about possible administrative action over my behavior here.

Now I had hoped that your editting lull here over the last few days meant you had moved on. Apparently I'm not that lucky. Nevertheless, I'm perfectly willing to work constructively with you to improve this article. But the inane and obnoxious attempts at wikilawyering and the assumptions of bad-faith... well, as you said, "Time to stop, please." Eugene (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang Eugene!!! Those images just about burned out my video card. You could have least provided a warning that those images could cause hardware failure.  :) This image (for the guys) is much more...pleasing to the eyes. I'm guessing the lady editors here would like something like this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs)

Price has had articles published in Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"), Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"), Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"), Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"), Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Journal of Unification Studies and a few other I am likely forgetting an Eugeneacurry is saying saying he is not an academic?!? GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK HERE!! The man has more likely has more articles published in scholarly journals in the relevant field than anyone else in this whole freaking article!!! I should mention that in Archive 22 you can see Akhilleus and in Archive 30 Ari pull the Price doesn't work at an accredited institution handwave garbage to try and down play Price as well.

"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..." (Price, Robert M 1999)

"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." Price, Robert M (2005) ["Review of Can We Trust the New Testament?"]

...the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain, no longer bothering to attempt refutations as their predecessors had thought necessary. But it still had lone torch bearers here and there. George A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians, 1971; Did Jesus Exist? 1975; The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1988; Who Was Jesus? 1989; The Jesus Legend, 1996; The Jesus Myth, 1999) championed the theory, adducing many new arguments and refuting numerous conventional objections." The pre-Nicene New Testament: fifty-four formative texts pg 1179. Please note that Price clearly lists The Jesus Myth as part of Wells' championing the Christ Myth Theory--the very book Voorst said "moved away from this hypothesis" and Wells himself states in "Can we trust the New Testament?" that he had stepped away from the Jesus is entirely mythical as early as The Jesus Legend and yet Price lists this book along with The Jesus Myth as part of Wells championing the Christ Myth Theory. This is the smoking gun that pulls the whole not a historical person at all into the garbage can. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well shoot. I had a snappy little response all typed up with humor and sarcasm and ton of links. But my window crashed and then "recovered" and I hadn't hit "preview" yet so it's all been lost. Ugh! So here's the readers digest version; sources can be found at FAQ 2.

*(1) WP:IRS doesn't allow "extremist" sources to serve as 3rd party sources. Price's CMT advocacy has been specifically labeled extremistl; his writing therefore don't qualify as RSes.

*(2) Price has elsewhere defined the CMT more strictly and has said that Wells abandoned the theory--an interpretation Wells supported in his 2000 essay. At best you're only demonstrating that Price is inconsistent and thus futher invalidating using his recent work as reliable sources.

*(3) Price has a habit of trying to inflate his academic standing. He often states that he works at the "Coleman Theological Seminary" and sometimes the "John Coleman Theological Seminary" when the school's real name is the "Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary". The school's webpage never uses the shorter "Coleman Theological Seminary". This isn't a huge deal, but it shows that Price is eager to come across as respectable as possible (hence dropping the un-serious "Johnnie"). Given that Wells was the only actual academic actively promoting the CMT, it's not surprizing that Price would try to add a little wiggle room to the definition when needed so as to still claim Wells as an ally and make the CMT look marginally more mainstream as a result.

For all these reasons Price cannot be used to define the Christ myth theory. He can define his own views, but not the views of the article. Trust me, this all sounded more impressive the first time around. Eugene (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

By this loopy logic ""There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (main text body) in Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 is valid. Drews himself makes comments about consciousness making Fischer relevant: "Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this "unique" and "mighty" personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness. "; "These, too, in a short while obtained their place in the consciousness of Western humanity."; "This was the reconciliation of the supernatural loftiness and aloofness from the world of their God with the demands of the religious consciousness that required the immediate presence of Godhead."; "before this faith obtained a definite shape in the religion of Jesus, and its adherents became conscious of their religious peculiarities and their divergence from the official Jewish religion. The first evidence of such a consciousness, and also the first brilliant outline of a new religion developed with Jesus as its central idea, lies in the epistles of the tent-maker of Tarsus, the pilgrim- apostle Paul."; "Christ" is for the latter. What is there called Eros — the mediator of the unity between the world of ideas and the sense-world, of Being and Conscious Being, of objective and subjective thought, and at the same time the very essence of all objective thought — is here called Christ.; "Theologians commence with the conviction that the historical Jesus was a kind of "anticipation of modern religious consciousness.""; and I think everyone gets the idea. So the only comment regarding the historical nature of Jesus in a peer reviewed journal published by the American Anthropological Association I could find was negative. Wonderful.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

section IV

If I AGF, it seems we are close to a consensus. (If I don't AGF, then some people have merely withdrawn from the consensus-process until the protection is lifted before they start up again where they left off, but let's rather AGF.)

SV has a good point about the lead being unbalanced if it includes quotes against the Theory but without any quotes in favour. However, there is also a lot of editorial opinion against including the Martin quote. How about we solve this by not including any quotes in the lead, leaving the quotes to the history sections below, and instead slimming the lead down to the following:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person at all, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. Additionally, some proponents believe that some of the events or sayings ascribed to the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed around that time, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

Proponents of the Theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime, and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians. They contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and they also draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, Roman and other pagan gods.

The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. More recent advocates include Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty.

The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, nearly all whom today accept that Jesus existed, and that the canonical gospels "contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically".

How about that? Wdford (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It still has problems as it doesn't address either Wells mythic Paul Jesus + historial Q Jesus = composite character (ie non historical by definition) Gospel Jesus, Dodd's "Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him.", Bromiley's use Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russel which not mentioning (Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, etc) for his "These examples of the Christ-myth idea...". Until the lead in addresses these sources and the questions they raise it will NEVER be right.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the particularly attributed Stanton quote from the lead, but if we leave the quote (with quotation marks and all) it probably needs to be particularly attributed. As for your concern, Bruce, you've brought this up over and over and over again over literally years and you've never been able to build anything even close to consensus. Like I said earlier, put down the WP:STICK. All this distraction does is bog down the discussion, temporarily confuse new-comers, and prevent us from reaching consensus on other issues. WP:DISRUPT lists just such behavior as an example of disruptive editing under the heading "How disruptive editors evade detection". Let this go. Eugene (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the sentence "Additionally, some proponents believe that some of the events or sayings ascribed to the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed around that time, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity" specifically covers the minority of sources who lean towards obscure holy men and a single Q source. I'm sure that issue is covered appropriately, seeing as how this is just a summary and you can have a whole section lower down to expound on this to your personal satisfaction. As far as mentioning additional proponents, please submit a full list of those you would like to see added, and we will happily include all those that qualify as reliable sources. I am happy to remove the quotation marks from the last sentence and paraphrase it further, in the interests of not including competing quotations in the lead. Wdford (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce,

"It still has problems as it doesn't address either Wells mythic Paul Jesus + historical Q Jesus = composite character (ie non historical by definition) Gospel Jesus,"

does seem to be addressed in the section quoted by Wdford. But you're right, the intro makes explicit, detailed assertions about what these people argue. You are pointing out that the lead's present formulation of the CMT argument is inaccurate because Dodd's (CMT) position doesn't fit that description. And Bromiley describes Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russell as examples of the Christ myth idea, yet they, too, seem to be excluded by the intro? No? Anthony (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Bromiley doesn't describe Lucian or Bertrand Russell as examples of the Christ myth theory. Bromiley starts out with a very clear definition of the CMT, saying "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 cites Lucian as an early parallel to the idea that Jesus was a miracle worker like Apollonius of Tyana, but doesn't say that Lucian doubted Jesus' historicity (and in fact Lucian didn't, he was arguing that Jesus wasn't as amazing as the Christians made him out to be). By the time Bromiley gets to Russell, he's moved on to a different form of skepticism about Jesus—one which leaves open whether there was a Jesus as the Gospels portray him. Bromiley uses Wells as an example of the the theory, but this article was written in the 1970s, long before Wells changed his mind about Jesus' historicity.

Also, Dodd's definition fits perfectly well with the lead. There's no problem with the definition at all, it follows the wording of the majority of our sources (including Bromiley). The problem is that it doesn't do enough to fit the theory into the broader context of views about the historical Jesus, and this is leading to confusion among many readers of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus is side stepping two facts: Bromiley does NOT use Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith or any clear "great" of the non-historical position and the first thing Bromiley trouts out as evidence for a historical is Thallus which is really Eusebius in the 4th century quoting what Julius Africanus of the 2nd to 3rd century was reporting about what Thallus wrote near the end of the 1st. The problem is Eusebius claims that Thallus wrote a history of the world Fall of Troy until the 167 Olympiad which is c112-c109BCE and yet also claims the "on the whole world there pressed a fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down." provided by Africanus refers to Jesus. The reference has so many problem that no historian serious about showing Jesus was historical would use it even in a weakest to strongest argument.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My response to both of these "facts": who cares? This article is not about Thallus, and if you think that Bromiley's use of him somehow impairs his credibility, that means you should probably stop using him to question the definition of the CMT. If Bromiley doesn't mention Bauer, Drews, Robertson, or Smith: so what? He mentions Wells' 1971 book The Jesus of the Early Christians and also mentions Coneybeare's 1914 book, which focused on Drews, Robertson, and Smith; this is the the same non-historical position we talk about in our article here. By the way, as I've already noted, there's no reason to think that the particular article we're talking about ("Jesus Christ", in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) is by Bromiley, who's the general editor of the encyclopedia, but not the author of every single article inside it. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Section V

So far we have arrived at the following as the new lead section:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed as a historical person at all, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community. Additionally, some proponents believe that some of the events or sayings ascribed to the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more preachers who actually existed around that time, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

Proponents of the Theory emphasize the absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime, and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century. They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians. They contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and they also draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, Roman and other pagan gods.

The history of the idea can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s. More recent advocates include Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, Robert M. Price, and Earl Doherty.

The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, nearly all whom today accept that Jesus existed, and many of whom regard the Christ Myth Theory as pseudoscholarship.[new ref]

Have we reached a consensus yet? Wdford (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with "pseudoscholarship." Eugene has convinced me that most mainstream scholars accept a Jesus of Nazareth existed and was the brother of James. So, if Christ myth theory is accurately defined as "the belief that JoN never existed" (and that definition is still in dispute), then it is fringe - accepted by few scholars. He has by no means demonstrated the nature of the methodological flaws of CM theorists that qualifies them as pseudoscholars. Some "scholars" use the term against them, but I have come to realise this field is rife with name-calling. So far, all I've seen is different weight being assigned to evidence, which makes the position fringe, not fraud. See above, Is CMT pseudo.
Anthony (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the quotes provided above by Wood and Case. Further, as I said above, whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such an identification should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. Further, given that the sentance in question reads "many of whom [i.e. scholars] regard the Christ Myth Theory as pseudoscholarship.", it isn't necessary for me to convince you that the theory is pseudoscholarship, merely that many scholars regard it as such. Given that lower standard then, do you really still object to this sentence in the lead? Eugene (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said before it certainly doesn't help when you have pro-historical Jesus non-scholars like Holding throwing Christ Myth theory labels around willy nilly such as in "Dawkins’ Ironic Hypocrisy" or that Christ Myth and Jesus myth seemed to be used for other things more often then they are for this particular subject. On the matter of "pseudoscholars" I agree that label is also thrown around way too much and there is no real support for it; sure you have the extremist cranks but you have them on the Jesus is historical person side as well where they say every event in the Gospel must have occurred as written--no matter how illogical that may be.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, your continued disruptive postings here are draining my patience. You've been obstructing on this talk page, trying to frustrate the emergence of meaningful consensus, for a long, long time. Please, stop. You object to the emerging consensus here because J. P. Holding is "throwing Christ Myth theory labels" on Dawkins? So what? Holding's article isn't a RS so it's irrelevant here, and further, even if it were an RS, the identification wouldn't be that striking since--as the article here had long indicated--Dawkins has stated "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all". (I hear that he backed off that view in his second debate with John Lennox, but that's not immediately relevant either.) This is the last time I'm going to ask you, stop bogging this talk page down with irrelevancies, distrations, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and your own commentary on the theory. If you keep it up I'll just grit my teeth, do the work, and put the diffs together for a AN/I report to have you topic blocked for disruptive editing. It's one thing to have to rehash these issues over and over again with different people; it's quite another to have to rehash them over and over again with the same person. Stop. Eugene (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion about the meaning of CMT belongs under Definition of Christ myth theory. Can we take discussion of "pseudo" up to Is CMT pseudo? Anthony (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Price image

Note: To be fair (*snicker*) I've found one place where Price sketches out his views on the Christ myth theory in a book by the mainstream publisher Macmillian. If you'd like to use this source in Price's section, (please oh please) go right ahead. Only, I think that in that case there are some better pictures we could use as well. (Man, N. T. Wright's got to be jealous of that mitre.) Eugene (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Eugene, if I see you disparage a living person again, I'm going to consider asking that you be topic-banned. I'm thinking in particular of your upload of an unflattering Price image, then pretending it had been released when you knew it hadn't. Plus all the rest. Time to stop, please. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I covered this previously [27], but since you have a way of not hearing me, I'll go over it again: I didn't upload the picture of Price to "get him" or anything like that. I uploaded it because it was the only one I could find that was sharp, was clearly connected to someone I could ask to use it, and wasn't cartoonish. The ostensible owner (the person who put it on her personal webpage) said I could use it in Wikipedia. If that isn't enough then fine, my mistake, but pretending that I consciously lied about it (or something) is nonsense. Further, the photo's ostensible owner herself was happy to let the picture in question appear on Wikipedia--and she thinks that Price is "awesome"; apparently even such a fan didn't feel the picture "disparaged" the man.

Consider that you've violated WP:AGF over and over and over by putting the worst possible spin on my actions so far. Also consider that WP:GAME takes a rather dim view of "[m]ischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction". Consider further still that you defended Slrubenstein on the ANI when he called me an anti-Semite, were instrumental in restoring Jbolden1517 to active editting after he made IRL threats against me and indicated off Wiki that he wasn't really sorry, disregarded WP:CON with almost breathtaking ease [28], that you've been blocked a couple times previously [29] and even desysopped once [30]. Given all this, I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to be worried about possible administrative action over my behavior here.

Now I had hoped that your editting lull here over the last few days meant you had moved on. Apparently I'm not that lucky. Nevertheless, I'm perfectly willing to work constructively with you to improve this article. But the inane and obnoxious attempts at wikilawyering and the assumptions of bad-faith... well, as you said, "Time to stop, please." Eugene (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are the facts about the Price image. You could easily have written to Price to ask him to release an image that complied with BLP and the image policies. Instead, you found one on the Internet in which he was grimacing during a social function, a function you're ridiculing above. You knew that he was grimacing because you pointed it out in the alt text: "An older man with a full beard grimacing playfully at the viewer."

The woman whose website you found it on (who didn't own the copyright) gave permission for it to be used, which you acknowledged in your upload, but she didn't release it. The image was deleted after I nominated it, but admins see here for the permission. During the first FAC, I told you it wasn't policy compliant without a release. Someone else wrote to the woman asking for a release, but she didn't reply, and you knew that. Nevertheless, shortly before the second FAC, you changed on the image page that she had given "consent via email to use" the image to "consent to release"; admins see here for the diff. It would have been an easy matter to ask Price for a free image, but you preferred to use that particular one that you knew had no release.

Combine the above with your various edits that disparage him (e.g. removing from the dab page that he's a theologian [31]), and your numerous insults of sources and editors you disagree with, and I think a strong case could be made for a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, can you please return to trying to enhance the article and stop making threats? Are your arguments so weak that you have to try to get a good and knowledgeable editor banned rather than address the issues? The image was funny, as all cosplay is funny. But that doesn't mean it's disparaging. And just for the record, I too have engaged in cosplay, so I don't think there is anything disparaging about it. It is simply FUN and funny, in a good nature sort of way. Please move on. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, your efforts to read my mind have failed. The picture I uploaded was added to this article in perfect good faith and the alt text too. I changed the permission because I thought that you were being nitpicky about vocabulary (as I think you were being nitpicky about the PD status of the Christ puppet show picture) and I didn't want to give you any more ammunition for your tendentious criticisms of the article. If that was a no-no, then fine, but I wasn't trying to "get" anyone. Not everyone is as familiar with this site's policies as you believe yourself to be, as you ceasely remind us. Eugene (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The policy issue was explained to you during the first FAC. I wrote on February 21: "File:Robert M Price headshot.jpg is being used with permission, which isn't allowed. You could write to the author to ask if he agrees to its release under a Creative Commons Attribution licence." And "For Price, you need to find out who took the image and ask that person to release it. The person who took the image may not be either of the people who are in it." The woman who owns the website didn't write to you again after this, or to the other editor who approached her, so nothing had changed. Yet on March 13 before you nominated the article again for FAC, you changed "consent to use" to "consent to release" on the image page, [32] which I'm having a hard time seeing as an honest mistake. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we please stop rehashing this issue here? Any ongoing licensing issues with the image should be discussed on the image page, issues with a particular editor's behavior should be addressed on that editor's talk page or through mechanisms such as a WP:RFC. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at Eugene's post at the top of this section, Akhilleus. You're an administrator. It would be great if you could put your POV to one side and join me in asking that the BLP problems cease. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think SV is engaging in WP:Wikilawyering, trying to build a case against Eugene because her arguments are very weak. That is, rather than engaging, and making an attempt to counter Eugene's evidence with reliable sources, she seeks to bypass them by getting him blocked, thus shutting down the conversation. If I've assessed it correctly, I find such an attempt despicable and unworthy of a person who should continue to be an admin - and if ANYONE needs to be topic banned, it is you SV, for your frequent disruptive accusations and threats.

At any rate, Akhilleus, I agree with you that licensing issues with the image should be discussed on the image page, and not here. Therefore, let's continue to address the issues that are relevant to this page. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that my snarky comment at the top here may not have been in the best of taste. I didn't try to include any such material in the article itself though and I stand by my assertion that all the material I've added to Wikipedia articles concerning Price has been done in good faith. SlimVirgin disagrees; on the basis of my changes relative to my dim veiw of her she assumes I must be motivated by a dim view of Price. Not so. But in any event, the photo in question and its alt text have been removed from the project. This is a moot point and I won't pursue it futher unless asked to by an outside admin. Eugene (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your editing of material about him has been poor, on this page and elsewhere. For example, in the article about him, this edit: "It should be noted though that Price is often viewed as sub-academic ... " Unsourced, and even with a source that's not the way to write about a living person. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is a topic ban? Anthony (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's where an editor is required not to edit a certain article or in a certain area. It can be imposed by the community or by ArbCom if there are continuing problems with an editor's participation, or if there's a COI. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, can this discussion please take place elsewhere? Eugene has acknowledged that his comment was inappropriate and collapsed the section. If you want to press for a topic ban, SV, this isn't the place to do it. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, this behavior is not becoming of someone with your experience.Your overapplication of wikipedia rules only serves to subvert relevant discussions, whether you intend it to or not. I know you are intelligent enough to realize this if you take a step back. I think maybe you should ask one of your peers to take your place as "watchdog" of this page. NJMauthor (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Eugene, please avoid snarky comments that just rile up editors in an already tense atmosphere. I've asked you on your talk page to try to work more collegially with editors who disagree with you on this subject. I think you need to improve your manners here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Wikiproject Atheism" again

I thought consensus was to remove the Wikiproject Atheism tag, but it seems to have been restored to the talk page. Once again, does anyone object to removing the tag? NJMauthor (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't object. I wonder who restored it though. It even jumped a level in terms of "importance". Eugene (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate anyone's help in removing it, I'm not quite sure where it's been placed on this page or any linked to it. NJMauthor (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to edit the entire page (all 375k of it) to see the Wikiproject tag. Near the top of the page you'll see {{wpa|importance=mid|class=GA}}, that's the code that inserts the tag. Since the tag has been removed and reinserted already, it's probably a good idea to post at the project's talk page before removing it again: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism. It really doesn't matter whether the tag is there or not, so if someone from the WikiProject feels that it should remain, there's no harm in indulging them. Indeed, someone from that WikiProject might be able to supply valuable information and perspective here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done! NJMauthor (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

References

References

Issues to be addressed

1. Is the CMT fringe? (Yes)
2. Is the CMT pseudo-x?
3. Is the FAQ #2 NPOV? (Moot; the FAQ was deleted.)
4. Should the scholarly response be one major section (as it currently is) or should it be distrbuted throughout the article?
5. What is the notability/publication criteria for including a CMT author among the advocates? (3 scholarly mentions specifically connected to an advocates CMT advocacy)
6. What is the criteria for determining if an included advocate warrents a separate section apart from the "other authors" sections? (a dedicated rebuttal or major section in a scholarly work contentrating on the advocate's CMT work or something like 10 passing mentions)
7. Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable?
8. Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus?
9. How should the article indicate that Wells changed his stance in 1999? (Done)
10. How should Price's section be structured?
11. Should the definition section include a "background" related to the NT documents, and if so, how should it be crafted and which authors should be included?
12. Should we delete the FAQ page, and move the valuable info into the body of the article, as most readers won't see it? (The FAQ was deleted.)
13. 'continue list here (for example, Is the FAQ #x NPOV?)"

Individuation Criteria

One of the issues on the list is what criteria entitles a mythicist to inclusion in this article and what criteria entitles such a person to a separate section.

SlimVirgin offered probably the best and most commonsense idea for the first issue: to be included, a mythicist must be discussed extensively in secondary literature. I like it. But what about the second point, that of getting a separate section? What objective criteria applies here? Eugene (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Extensively = ? One scholarly mention? Two? Eight? Or something more nuanced? Anthony (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with 3 mentions specifically connected to their CMT advocacy as the bar for mere inclusion. I think for a separate section it should be more like a dedicated rebuttal or major section in a scholarly work contentrating on them or something like 10 passing mentions.Eugene (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Anthony (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Does any one object to this? If not, we can cross another item off the list. (I think it goes without saying, but let me say it anyway to prevent future problems: the books the mention a mythicist must themselves be RSes, not self-published books by other mythicists quoting "in-house".) Eugene (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-X

Eugene and Bill. Although nearly all historians accept that Jesus existed, a handful of scholars do not... according to reliable sources. If I ignore your protestations, it is not that I concede the point. On the contrary. I will respond when I see one good argument for this being classed pseudohistory. I am using the OED for "pseudo-". Should I be using something else, Bill? Anthony (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a typical dictionary definition is fine with me. I was only wondering if there was a wiki "approved" definition of pseudo history and pseudo scholarship? If not, which is what I suspect to be the case, then how is pseudo history/scholarship used in other articles? Maybe we can use those (if they exist) as a guide. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One good argument?! What about the argument that we have three different reliable sources, written by three different professors at major universities, which label this pseudoscholarship/pseudo-history? Isn't a Wikipedia article supposed to be written in accordance with reliable sources? Eugene (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you have three reliable sources in FAQ 2 saying there are some scholars who reject the historicity of Jesus. And three reliable sources here who fling pseudohistory at their opponents. Anthony (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Which three reliable sources in FAQ 2 say there are "some scholars" who reject the historicity of Jesus? Eugene (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No answer? Eugene (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the scholarly arguments of your reliable sources, Eugene? No answer? And what precisely do they label pseudoscholarship, and on which grounds? Does it include the works by Wells, Doherty, Price? Jelamkorj (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The scholarly arguments against the CMT are already included in this article under the "Against the theory" section: multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, non-Christian attestation, the failure of attempted pagan parallels, and serious methodological problems with the CMT (arguments from silence, fundamental ignorance of mystery cults, etc). "What do they label pseudoscholarship"? Well, look at the sources:

• "Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus."

Michael James McClymond (professor at Saint Louis University), Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 23

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan (professor at Temple University), The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9

• And, finally, "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."

Emil Brunner (late professor at the University of Zurich), The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164

As for the grounds upon which these scholars have made these pronouncements, again, see the "Against the theory" section of this very article.

As for how the scholarly mainstream views men like Price, I think Price can tell us that himself through a rather tongue in cheek quote: "The following piece of straight-faced pseudo-scholarship (the only kind I'm good at!) first appeared in Nyctalops #17." (The Azathoth Cycle: Tales of the Blind Idiot God, Chaosium, 1995, p. 223) Now, of course, Price doesn't think that he's only produced pseudoscholarship, but this statement indicates that he's aware of how the mainstream views his work--much as when he sarcastically referred to Christ myth theorists as "cranks". (The Historical Jesus: Five Views, InterVarsity, 2009, p. 80)

When it comes to Doherty, James F. McGrath has said "Rich, for about as long as you have been asking for peer reviewed refutations of Doherty, I've been asking you what Doherty himself has published in a peer reviewed venue, which might then have been responded to. I have pointed out that peer reviewed journals do not waste their time on pseudoscholarship and thus asked you to provide even a single legitimate piece of scholarly published work by Doherty." ("Mythicist Misunderstanding", Exploring Our Matrix).

G. A. Wells doesn't fair much better. First, remember that he's abandoned the theory in its pure form. But even so, back when he was promoting it, as serious a non-Christian as Morton Smith remarked, "When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels." (Jesus in History and Myth, Prometheus, 1986, p. 48)

But as I've said before, including something about the theory being pseudoscholarship (whether as a part of the lead or as a cat tag) doesn't just depend on scholars using that exact phrase. It can also be justified on the really ugly denialist comparisons other scholars have made about CMT. Even further, it can be justified on the basis of the thundering condemnations of the CMT made by people like Rudolf Bultmann, Paul L. Maier, and Bart Ehrman that attribute the CMT to insanity, stupidity, and greed respectively. As I've said in the RfC, this is a slam dunk. So I'll ask again, Anthony, which three reliable sources in the FAQ indicate that there's some respectable minority of scholars advancing this thesis?Eugene (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up, Eugene. You have vividly demonstrated to me how all these "reliable sources", the scholars from major university as you say, are far, very far, from reasoning which I know from my working in science close to mathematics. To be honest, I now find myself inclining to call your sources pseudoscholars; on the other hand, I have found Doherty's texts as solid scholarship ... So I have realized that I am probably a stupid man of shallowest intellect etc. etc., and thus I should refrain from trying to engage here. Jelamkorj (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. Eugene,

"Which three reliable sources in FAQ 2 say there are "some scholars" who reject the historicity of Jesus?":

• If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

• Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

*[T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988, p. 218

• In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few...

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

As for your "pseudoscience" quotes above, they're just petulant insults.

As for "(the only kind I'm good at!)", the only thing it shows is Wells is aware he has been called that. It is by no means an admission it is the mainstream view.

As for James F. McGrath, he is equating "pseudoscience" with not published in peer-reviewed journals. Where does that definition come from? It is just another insult.

As for"G. A. Wells doesn't fair much better. First, remember that he's abandoned the theory in its pure form." All you have shown me in this regard is him saying you can't call him an unqualified mythicist, that he is now a mythicist of a certain variety - one that allows Q possible historicity. And Morton Smith, of all people, is just throwing insults.

I respect Wikipedia and I want this to be a good article as much as you do. The trouble is you don't get what that is. I'd like you to understand the problem is your tone. I know you take this apocalyptically seriously. I don't. It's just counting angels on the head of a pin. Now the MMR-vaccine-causes-autism theory, that killed children and left tens of thousands of children exposed to illnesses they should have been spared. Look at the measured tone of that article. Spot the difference?

And if I don't answer you in 7 minutes it is because I have other things to do. Anthony (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the article on JFK assassination cover-up and conspiracy theories for a model. There is no mention at all in that article of any criticism of any of the theories. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm grateful for the response, Anthony. I think your line of argument fails for a number of reasons though.

As I suspected, you weren't able to produce any sources (let along three) from the FAQ that made the positive statement that a few scholars support the CMT. Rather, you produced a number of sources which were arguing the exact opposite point and which qualified their statements for caution's sake. The two are not the same.

It seems that no matter how many sources I produce which call the CMT pseudoscholarship you'll just dismiss it with a wave of your hand as nothing more than "insults". I'm curious, what would a source need to say in order to label the CMT pseudoscholarship whilst not prompting you to in turn label such a comment an insult? Is it even possible? Or have you just made up your mind that any source calling the CMT pseudoscholarship must be un-serious and therefore no matter how many sources I produce you just won't budge on this issue? Ditto for the mainstream view of Price. Ditto for the mainstream view of Wells. (A small item, McGrath's arguement isn't that Doherty's never had a peer reviewed publication and therefore his stuff is pseduoscholarship; it's that Doherty's stuff is pseudoscholarship and therefore he's never had a peer reviewed publication. Again, the two are not the same.)

Also, as I've said elsewhere, your attempted comparison to the MMR vaccine controversy (or the JFK conspiracy theory, Barrett) article is irrelevant. That article hasn't achieved GA status, let alone FA status, so I don't see how it can be used as a guide here. On the other hand, intelligent design has achieved FA status and therefore can give us some direction on what a FA article detailing a fringe theory should looks like. And when compared against that article's "tone", the Christ myth theory article seems far more reasonable, gentle even.

Finally, you didn't respond to my question about your claimed 3 sources for a full 48 hours, not a mere 7 minutes. (You were even active on this talk page in the interim.) Once again, the two are not the same. Eugene (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Eugene. I was addressing other issues, addressing other pages, doing things in the real world. Not paying attention to you. Anthony (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What was that about tone? Eugene (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you? Wasn't that your complaint? Anthony (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your first second paragraph. You are saying black is white. What am I meant to say? Anthony (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the second fourth, I was showing you a neutral article. Anthony (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying black is white? What on earth are you referring to? And, once more, the "neutral article" isn't FA and therefore carries no weight as an examples, whereas intelligent design is FA so it does. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I said "first" and "second" when I should have said "second" and "fourth". Anthony (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand; you weren't able to produce any sources (let alone three) from the FAQ that made the positive statement that "a few scholars" support the CMT. Rather, you produced a number of sources which were arguing the exact opposite point--that scholars don't support this theory--and which qualified their statements for caution's sake. The two are not the same. I stand by that. Could you please address the arguments? Eugene (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very useful to your point of view to interpret these authors as not meaning what they say. I know you'll understand that I can't accept your twist, though.

• Stanton says not all historians accept that Jesus existed.
• Wells Grant says a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus.
• Gasque thinks he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

Intelligent design looks like a good article, I like it's tone. What does it have to do with the polemic you're trying to concoct here? If CMT were pseudohistory - without any scholarly support and employing deceptive and fraudulent methods - the term should be employed here. But 3 reliable sources allow there is some scholarly support and it seems to me the proponents are simply distributing the weight of probability differently from their opponents (and you and me). Anthony (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design is indeed helpful here. That FA article uses the word "pseudo"-X (or a variant) something like five times in the lead. I'm only asking for such a phrase to be used once here in this article's lead. Considering that ID enjoys the support of quite a few more academics that the CMT, if ID can be labeled pseudo-X five times in its lead, certainly the CMT can be labeled pseudo-X once.

As for the sources in queston, it is you who is saying that black is white.

• Stanton does not say "not all historians accept that Jesus existed:; he says "Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed."
• Wells does not say "a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus"; he says "the view that there was no historical Jesus... is today almost totally rejected".
• Gasque doe not say "he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine"; he says "it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine".

In every case you have completely reversed the thrust of the statements made to support a notion none of quoted authors are trying to support. As such, you have yet to find a RS (let along three) that makes the positive statement that a respectable minority of scholars support the CMT. So even if this were a good defense against the pseudo-X label (I don't think it is, BTW) your argument still fails. Eugene (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. I wrote Wells, above, when I meant Grant. I really shouldn't edit here when I am tired and rushed.

• Stanton says not all historians accept that Jesus existed: Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

• Grant says a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus: In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few...

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

• Gasque thinks he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era: If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

I understand the above comments were made as part of an effort to explain the fringiness of CMT. But each is careful to allow that there are a few recalcitrant scholars. Of course, I can't name them - I'm not abreast of the field like you. But I read English well and know that "difficult to find more than a handful", "nearly all historians", and "very few" contradicts those authors who say CMT has no scholarly support.

ID is pseudo, it does not use the scientific method. CMT uses standard historical method but assigns probability differently to other historians. This makes CMT fringe, not pseudo. Claims it is pseudo are just more of the ad hominem rife in this "discipline".

Quoting Eugene: "I'm only asking for such a phrase to be used once here in this article's lead." If that gets into the lead, do you intend peppering the text with such insults and including CMT in the Pseudohistory category? Anthony (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to correspond to the body text. Nevertheless, I think that the body text currently expands on the pseudo-X label in the "methodological concerns" section. Given that, I've no intention of adding additional dismissive comments to the body.

As for the cat tag, I think that's a separate issue that, apparently, has a number of policy based issues associated with it. I'd prefer the tag, but the RfC on the matter doesn't provide me with much encouragement.

Also, I think using Gasque in the way you do is a bit much. In the very next paragraph from the one you quote he writes this:

Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ [(i.e. the focus of the article)] on the work of self-appointed "scholars" who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words. In short, Harpur's book tells us more about himself than it does about the origins of Christianity (or Judaism).

That sounds like pseudoscholarship to me. Eugene (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is CMT pseudo-?

(Moved from Historicity of Jesus:)
Eugene, Bill, why don't you just explain the nature of Wells', Doherty's and the rest's fraud? That is, explain what makes their work fake, not actual history. So far, all you've said is they attribute probability differently to their opponents, which makes this fringe, not pseudo. That would be much more useful. Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:UNDUE in this article. The specific problems with the views of men like Wells and Doherty should be detailed in the Christ myth theory article--which they are, in the "against the theory" section. Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But that section you pointed to does not explain the nature of their fraud, why their work is not history. It is just a litany of people who disagree with them. Work. Don't just quote their opponents "It's pseudohistory! It's pseudohistory!" You're happy to believe them. Obviously. I and most open-minded readers am not. Show me the fraudulent, non-historical method. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the CMT article does a poor job of this then add it to Bill's list. Eugene (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already there: 2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. But let's discuss that on that article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(Discussion resumed at Talk:Christ myth theory:)

Below, under New lead section V Eugene said:

Please see the quotes provided above by Wood and Case. Further, as I said above, whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such an identification should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. Further, given that the sentance in question [in the proposed new lead] reads "many of whom [i.e. scholars] regard the Christ Myth Theory as pseudoscholarship.", it isn't necessary for me to convince you that the theory is pseudoscholarship, merely that many scholars regard it as such. Given that lower standard then, do you really still object to this sentence in the lead? Eugene (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You have definitely made the case that a lot of scholars call the theory that Jesus never existed pseudoscholarship or similar. But I am so disgusted by the name-calling rife in this "discipline" that I don't trust your "scholars". And I wouldn't have to, if you can show the pseudoscholarship.

Wood, above, says "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of... the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities." Well, that is the essence of disagreement in this field, opponents assign probabilities differently. And "...and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence." One man's "evidence" is another's "surmise" in this field. "Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretense would be sheer intellectual dishonesty." Here he says (1) they haven't done the work and (2) they are dishonest, while he is hard working and honest. He goes on to assert "you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Does he explain what he means by that. I.e., examples of fraud or poor scientific method applied to this historical inquiry? There are only two or three notable current proponents. Would you be able to do a paragraph or two outlining clear instances of breaches of scientific rigor, where the breach is not simply a difference in attribution of likelihood, for each current proponent? Because I, an average, open-minded Wikipedia reader, require convincing. Anthony (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, before doing this I want to call attention to the fact that you concede that "a lot of scholars call the theory that Jesus never existed pseudoscholarship or similar". Since that's all the proposed sentence for the lead would state, you seem to therefore agree that the sentence in question is factually accurate and can be well referenced. That should be the end of the discussion. But just for fun I'll indulge you further.

You seem to believe that all that sets CMT proponents apart from mainstream scholarship is "simply a difference in attribution of likelihood" based on Wood's comment that "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence". I suppose that, technically, that's true. But you go further than this, you think that since the division can be thus characterized the word "pseduoscholarship" doesn't really apply. But that's clearly nonsense.

Let's take an extreme example: the Hol... uh... I mean, the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovars. We have statements from Serbian military leaders indicating mass murders, we have mass graves, we have photographic evidence, we have first-hand accounts from surviors, etc, etc, etc. It's an open and shut case of ethnic cleansing/genocide. No reasonable, legitimate scholarship done on the matter would come to any other conclusion. But, at the same time, it's possible to construct a competing explanation of the data that is not itself, strictly speaking, impossible.

Let's say that Dr. Bonkers publishes a paper through some ultra-fringy journal on the matter in question. In the paper Bonkers correctly notes that all historical reconstruction is a matter of probability, and Bonkers further states that, in this case, he happens to assign the probabilities differently than the united consensus of his scholarly peers. Bonkers argues that the Serbian officers who made videotaped confessions were really just Albanian Agent provocateurs masquerading as Serbian officials. Those mass graves? Nothing more than the mass disposal of cholera victims. Sure the corpses were riddled with bullets, but that's explicable with reference to the old Eastern European practice of mutilating the dead to prevent them from returning as vampires. The photos? Doctored! Whipped up by Western media outlets hungry for a lead that bleeds. The testimony of survivors? All lies, a coordinated plot intended to drum up support for an independant Kosovarian state.

Each of these things is possible, they're just extremely unlikely; and when taken together, the total probability becomes vanishingly small. But so what? It's not exactly 0%. So Dr. Bonkers (whose doctorate is in chiropracty, by the way, not history) says that his conclusions, while perhaps fringe, are legitimate scholarship.

The historical establishment disagrees. Numerous professors (some of them, admittedly, with pro-Kosovar sympathies) publish books (some through university presses) labeling Bonker's thesis "pseudoscholarship", comparing it to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, and so on.

Now imagine that a handful of plucky go-getters try to write a Wikipedia article on the Kosovar Liquidation myth theory. One group of editors wants to include a sentence in the lead that states "The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among Eastern Europe scholars and modern historians, nearly all whom today accept that war crimes were committed against the Kosovars, and many of whom regard the Kosovar Liquidation myth theory as pseudoscholarship." But another couple editors object. While these editos conceed that scholars have made these sorts of statements, the theory can't legitimately by labeled pseudoscolarship since, after all, the KLMT advocates just assign the probability differently.

In my hypothetical situation--in which I assure you that any seeming similarity to the current situation is purely coincidental ;)--which "side" of the editting discussion should prevail? Would you try to block the inclusion of the sentence into that article given those reasons?

If after all this you still demand personal convincing, I'l try to get paragraphs on the authors you mentioned together. Eugene (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, your Kosovo analogy was brilliant, and I congratulate you on the effort involved. However, the analogy is not an exact match, because:

1. We have statements from Serbian military leaders, but Pontius Pilate is long dead – and he left no mention in his diary etc of “the day I executed the Christianity founder” – and neither did any of his officers or officials;
2. The Serbians left mass graves, but there is no surviving physical evidence for the historical Jesus;
3. There is self-evidently no photographic evidence of Jesus, or anything claiming to be a portrait of the true face of Jesus – the Turin Shroud is probably a photograph, but it's medieval;
4. There are no first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses to Jesus life – the gospels were written many decades later, by non-witnesses based on hearsay, with much additions and glossings, and it's accepted by many scholars that significant portions of the gospel accounts are either heavily “revised” or outright fake.
5. While Kosavar is clearly an open and shut case of ethnic cleansing/genocide, much like the Nazi’s genocided the European Jews, the American settlers genocided the Native Americans and the Australian settlers genocided the Aboriginal Australians (including using atom bombs, can you believe), the existence of Jesus is derived from the “historical method” alone.

While the majority of scholars do accept the historicity of Jesus, the probabilities are thus far more doubtful than in the Kosavar analogy.

Nonetheless, well done indeed.

Wdford (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford. I never intended to imply that the quality of evidence and probabilities against the Christ myth theory is equal to those against my hypothetical Kosovar Liquidation myth theory. As I said above, the KLMT is an extreme example. My point, rather, was that objection to the word "pseudoscholarship" here on the grounds that the CMT is "simply a difference in attribution of likelihood" is impotent. All revisionist history--even the most outrageously pseudoscholarly--could be described as scholarship in which a "difference in attribution of likelihood" is made. Hence Dr. Bonkers: "I know that the historical establishment thinks the likelihood that the bullet wounds in the bodies found in the mass graves were inflicted post-mortem to prevent vampirization is extremely unlikely; I simply disagree, I think the likelihood is much greater--I mean, have my colleagues even read Dracula? That stuff's scary!"

Also, while this isn't immediately relevant, it bears on the "background and definition" section, so I should probably mention it: the notion that "There are no first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses to Jesus life – the gospels were written many decades later, by non-witnesses based on hearsay" is not at all a consensus view of NT scholarship. Many serious scholars believe that The Gospel According to John was written by an eye-witness--either the Apostle or some lesser known figure with the same name. Eugene (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a "no," you're not able to do a paragraph or two outlining clear instances of breaches of scientific rigor, where the breach is not simply a difference in attribution of likelihood, for each current proponent?

Break

I'm against including any mention of "pseudoscholarship" until someone can show me some instances of it for each scholar you are tarring with that brush. It can't be that hard, surely. Anthony (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you're aware that numerous scholars have made this claim and, despite that, despite the fact that the very first sentence of WP:V reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", you are still demanding that I convince you that the CMT is pseudscholarship? Eugene (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or do you want to spend the rest of your life defending this page against its dissatisfied and unimpressed readers? I think it was you who pointed out the majority of non-scholars think historicity is still an open question. These "scholars" have been intemperately flinging these epithets at their opponents since the 2nd century and you expect your readers to just take their word for it without being offered clear examples. You think you don't need to convince them. You're dreaming. Why don't you just knock off a couple of paragraphs enumerating the most blatant methodological errors and frauds of Doherty and Wells? Since it is claimed by so many august worthies that they are no better than skinhead holocaust deniers, there must be dozens of places you can copy and paste the juiciest from. That would shut me up and make this a stable page. Anthony (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, we are dealing here with textual criticism and interpretation. This field requires a high degree of discipline and training. So, there is no magic bullet that is going to convince a casual reader that the various Christ Myth Theories are completely bogus. As one scholar put it:

In the most various departments of science it happens from time to time that assertions are put forth which at once strike the experts in the science as untenable, and yet cannot easily be shown to be so.—"Was Jesus a Historical Character?" / C. Clemen. In American Journal of Theology, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1907), pp. 327-330.

In order to obtain satisfaction on this question, an interested casual reader has to stop being a casual reader, and make himself something of an expert. Barrett Pashak (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree very much with Barrett's last remark. The problem is that the reading isn't worth doing if we're going to be reverted. Ideally when a specialist article is going to GA or FAC, you have to be able to trust the writers to have bent over backwards to represent all views, including those they strongly disagree with. Then every editor and reviewer doesn't have to read everything for themselves, but can focus on advice about structure, writing, formatting etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think that there is any chance at all of the CMT being presented in anything but a positive light here at Wikipedia. There are just too many social forces at work that support and require it. It is good enough to register some protest of this, and to indicate in the article some sources for opposing viewpoints. We must accept that the CMT is rapidly assuming the status of the default position, and it will not be long before this is true not only in popular culture, but among professionals as well. It is simply asking too much of people that they familiarize themselves sufficiently with this subject so that the CMT appears to them as the absurdity that it is.Barrett Pashak (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has not been presented in a positive light on WP, but in a very negative one. We shouldn't try to present things positively or negatively, but wherever possible should simply write up carefully what the best sources are saying. After reading an article on WP, the reader shouldn't be able to tell which side the Wikipedians who wrote it came down on overall. That's the ideal position. This is why it's so very important that we should be able to trust writers who bring articles to GA or FAC, because we want to feel that they have milked every high-quality source, for and against, and have presented those sources' strongest arguments to the best of their ability, even if they personally disagree with the sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The CMT is presented in a negative light due to the work of a single editor. If he were to stop, or be stopped, the article would drift into becoming the playground of the theory's fans, under the protection of the WP administrative apparatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett Pashak (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The case against pseudo-X

First, there is the concern that Pseudo-X is only mentioned in books by Christian publishers. Maybe New Testament scholars consider this pseudo-scholarship, but having at least one source calling this "pseudo-X" in a University Press or non-Christian publishing house would really help. Consider Louis Jacobs: "Jewish attitudes towards the personality of Jesus, and on how Jews should view Jesus from the point of view of Judaism, vary from the belief that Jesus is not a historical figure at all to the acceptance of Jesus as an ancient Jewish ‘Rabbi’ or profound ethical teacher, a view rejected by all Orthodox Jews and by many Reform Jews." If an eminent Jewish scholar writes this, and then finds it necessary to qualify the other position, it seems that among Jewish scholars this is not as outrageous as it is in Christian academia.

Second, Historical Jesus studies has too many unresolved meta-questions for pseudo-scholarship to be at all meaningful. On the one hand, Bart Ehrman argues that a historian cannot (in his position as a historian) defend the historicity of the resurrection. Thus, on his view, people that eschew methodological naturalism, such as N. T. Wright, would be engaged in pseudo-scholarship. On the other hand, Bloomquist writes that it is precisely such lack of an "imaginative approach that leaves the study of the historical Jesus confined to the ideological and theological pseudo-history of positivism." Accusations of methodological violations are so abundant here that it is hard to take this as anything but rhetoric. In contrast, for intelligent design and holocaust denial, the sources actually explain what the proper method is and how the offending theories violate that method. In Denying History there is an entire chapter about pseudo-history; it isn't merely used as a rhetoric device or insult. Do we have even a paragraph that explain why this theory should be considered pseudo-history?

This was not as succinct as I had hoped :) Vesal (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting approach. First, I'd not give too much weight to Jacobs' quote, he's describing the opinions of Jews as a whole and not Jewish scholars specifically (the article references at least three of those and none of them are supportive of the CMT).

Second while it's technically true that the only books using the phrase "pseudo"-X are from Christian publishers, N. T. Wright has published something just as good, if not better, in a book from OUP:

"A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."

N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48

Like I said, the specific word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear, but come on, could anyone reasonably deny that's what he means? Also, Herbert George Wood's makes a similar statement in his book published through CUP:

"In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xxxiii & 54

Again, the word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear, but it might as well, his meaning is identical.

And third, Nicholas Perrin's book Lost in Transmission goes into serious detail discussing why the CMT is pseudo-scholarship, showing that it simply cannot be maintained unless a person resorts to a sort of historical double standard. As for a paragraph describing why the CMT is pseudoscholarship, I think the "arguments against" section does a pretty good job of that--maybe too good considering all the flack it gets. Eugene (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I find Herbert George Wood's reasoning quite compelling, and if you relied on such sources, I think you'd find much less opposition. N. T. Wright, on the other hand, is just disdainful, and for those of us working within the framework of methodological naturalism, it is really hard to take him seriously as a judge on what is proper method. More importantly, you are yet to produce a non-Christian source that would go so far as to declare this pseudo-X. While this is certainly rejected among Jewish scholars, they do not call it pseudo-history or compare it to holocaust denial, obviously; that kind of characterization comes from decidedly Christian sources. Vesal (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why some people have a bias, and obsession, against "Christian" scholars, but Bart Ehrman is NOT Christian. He is an atheist/agnostic. Also, "methodological naturalism" is irrelevant to this discussion and to this article. We are only talking about the mere historical existence of a normal human being. Vesal, as I've said elsewhere, this is NOT about the divine/miraculous claims of the NT, but some (which I respectfully submit that you are included, since you made a reference to "methodological naturalism") think that accepting the historicity of JoN automatically means that they must also accept every other divine/miraculous NT claim about him. That is NOT the case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with Christian scholars. I get nervous when only Christian scholars are used to make overall categorization on a topic that is supposed to be about history. This is like using books published by Prometheus Press to put the resurrection of Jesus in the pseudo-history category. Vesal (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]The German-Jewish thinker Constantin Brunner in his critique of mythicism identifies it as pseudo-scholarship. He further identifies this kind of pseudo-scholarship as responsible for the rise of antisemitism, and predicts (in 1921) that its outcome will be the massacre of Jews. Barrett Pashak (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This was quite difficult reading, but you seem to be right here. Isn't there also another source that identifies the antisemitic connections. As they seem to be mostly in reaction to Arthur Drews, it should be added to his section. I am not sure you can extend such political motivations to all myth-theorist though. Vesal (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, you've moving the goal posts here. You initially said "Pseudo-X is only mentioned in books by Christian publishers... having at least one source calling this 'pseudo-X' in a University Press or non-Christian publishing house would really help." So I provided you with two examples that are functionally equivalent to what you requested: Wright's comments in a book published through Oxford University Press and Wood's comments in a book published through Cambridge University Press. That should satisfy. But oh no, now that's not good enough, now you want something by a "non-Christian source", by which I assume you mean a non-Christian author. Tisk tisk.

But even with my faith in your fairness here a bit bruised, I'll still oblige you: both Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan have made very ugly denialist comparisons regarding the CMT which clearly indicate they see it as pseudoscholarship, and neither of these scholars are Christians.

• "If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying."

John Dominic Crosson, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000

• "Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?"

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", he Infidel Guy Show, 2008

You wanted non-Christians; there they are. So, at the end of the day, we have several RSes that explictly label the CMT "pseudoscholarship"--using the very word--plus a coulple of comments published by major university presses that say essentially the same thing, plus a couple prominent and scholarly non-Christians also supporting the notion. I really don't think your "case against Pseudo-X" has a leg to stand on... unless you intend to move the goal posts again.

Remember, at this particular point I'm only arguing for the inclusion of some sort of comment in the lead saying that historians and New Testament scholars regard that CMT as pseudoscholarship. I'm not currently advocating for the tag which, it seems, must be non-controversial since it cannot be footnoted. But the lead can be footnoted, and it would be trivially easy to reference such a statement with the 6 or 7 relevant sources.Eugene (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we might have saved some time if you had reminded me earlier. Of course, I don't see any objection to mentioning that a large number of eminent scholars consider this pseudo-scholarship. But you simply have to accept that I do not interpret the sources as so unequivocally equivalent to pseudo-X as you do. Take Ehrman's comparison to holocaust denial: I completely agree with Ehrman there, but I'm not sure all myth-proponent in this article show that kind of disregard for historical evidence as the host of that show did. And I completely agree with Crossan and Wright that arguing with someone, who is sticking to their less plausible explanation when a far more plausible explanation exists, is a complete waste of time. While I personally do consider this a clear case of pseudo-scepticism, I do not want to apply any wide-sweeping labels to something that covers outdated good-faith scholarship and perhaps a respectable position within orthodox Judaism.

Anyway, I guess Anthony asked the critical question above. Will you be satisfied with one mention in the lead that many historians and New Testament scholars consider it pseudo-X? Vesal (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm only advocating for one mention in the lead. (I personally think the five or so "pseudo-X"es in the ID article's lead is a bit over the top; one should be suffient there too.)Eugene (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add Case's university published book to the discussion:

The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question.

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269

Eugene (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Current conclusions on pseudo-history

I thought a bit more about whether you have a point in saying that many of the dismissals above are effectively equivalent to charges of pseudo-scholarship. I always thought of pseudo-scholarship as much worse than merely piss-poor scholarship: either outright bad faith attempts to fabricate knowledge, or complete violations of the accepted methods of a field. On the point of methodology, I think you have made a good case, especially with Wood and Case; perhaps, we are being overly demanding. What do other people think? And is the sentence in lead but no cat, an acceptable compromise to other people like SlimVirgin and BruceGubbs? Vesal (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lead could read:

The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[43] many of whom regard the theory as pseudoscholarship.[new ref]

Or some such thing. Eugene (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can happily live with this sentence. Can we also blue-link pseudoscholarship, to assist the 99.98% of readers who might not have encountered the term before? Wdford (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Eugene (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have any of you checked the Wikipedia entry on pseudoscholarship? It's fun. Vesal (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal: that's funny. I reverted to an older version, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed

Earl Doherty

Here is some material from two scholars, Ben Witherington III (PhD from the University of Durham, England; currently Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland) and Paula Fredriksen (PhD from Princeton University; currently William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University), who have addressed Earl Doherty's work. Witherington's stuff is from a blog artcle he wrote concerning Doherty, Fredriksen's stuff is from private correspondence which Doherty has put online.

Fredriksen on Doherty (organized in categories of pseudoscholarship tactics)

Self-serving redating

Around the year 107, the Christian bishop of Antioch made a last, doleful journey. Under military escort Ignatius travelled by land from Antioch to Rome, where in its brutal arena he was to die a martyr's death. Along the way he wrote to several Christian communities.

These letters are now dated c. 98-100

And yet when we step outside those Gospels [Doherty dates them all to the second century] into the much more rarefied atmosphere of the first century epistles, we encounter a huge puzzle...

I assume that this means "apart from the gospels." Ignatius is generally held to have been writing after some of them had been written.

"...Ignatius the martyr of circa A.D. 110"

Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: a study of an early Christian ... (2006) By Allen Brent (A. prof. History, University of North Queensland, Member of the faculty of Divinity University of Cambridge) Page 98

"Writing between A.D. 108-117, Ignatius can take this structure for certain..."

Antioch and Rome: New Testament cradles of Catholic Christianity By Raymond Edward Brown, John P. Meier (1983) Page 77

"This study exegetes the passage in the second-century letter of the bishop Ignatius of Antioch to his fellow bishop Polycarp in Smyrna."

"Ignatius, Ad Polycarp. 4.3 and the Corporate Manumission of Christian Slaves" By J. Albert Harrill. Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 1, Number 2, (1993) Page 107

"...what the listeners or readers of Ignatius in these cities of Roman Asia (c. 110 C.E.) would think of when Ignatius used these analogies..."

"Christ-Bearers and Fellow-Initiates: Local Cultural Life and Christian Identity in Ignatius' Letters" By Philip A. Harland Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 11, Number 4, (2003) Page 481

I don't understand the second quote/critique. Do I need more information, or is it just because I'm tired/stupid? I'll look at it again tomorrow. Docherty dates the gospels into the 2nd century? and all after Ignatius' epistles? And that contradicts the more mainstream chronology? Is that it? Anthony (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The second quote is not a critique. She is just clarifying that when Doherty writes "when we step outside those Gospels" he means "apart from the Gospels". ^^James^^ (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Anachronisms

In all the Christian writers of the first century, in all the devotion they display about Christ and the new faith, not one of them expresses the slightest desire to see the birthplace of Jesus, to visit Nazareth his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he held his Last Supper, the tomb: where he was buried and rose from the dead. These places are never mentioned. Most of all, there is not a hint of pilgrimage to Calvary itself, where humanity's salvation was consummated. How could such a place not have been turned into a shrine?

Pilgrimage is a late third-fourth century phenomenon. This just is not odd.

Is there indeed, in this wide land so recently filled with the presence of the Son of God, any holy place at all, any spot of ground where that presence still lingers, hallowed by the step, touch or word of Jesus of Nazareth? Neither Paul nor any other first century letter writer breathes a whisper of any such thing. Nor do they breathe a word about relics associated with Jesus. Where are his clothes, the things he used in everyday life, the things he touched? Can we believe that items associated with him in his life on earth would not have been preserved, valued, clamored for among believers, just as things like this were produced and prized all through the Middle Ages? Why is it only in the fourth century that pieces of the "true cross" begin to surface?

It has a lot to do with the Constantinian church. This isn't a huge mystery: it's been treated in many studies.

Is it conceivable that Paul would not have wanted to run to the hill of Calvary, to prostrate himself on the sacred ground that bore the blood of his slain Lord?

Yes: he was not a fourth-century, relic-conscious Christian.

Evidence Denial

...Before Ignatius, not a single reference to Pontius Pilate, Jesus' executioner, is to be found.

Is to be found where? I'm not certain of what he's trying to say here. [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all refer to Pontius Pilate and precede the writtings of Ignatius. Also, the Pilate Stone precedes the letters of Ignatius.]

And yet there is a resounding silence in Paul and the other first century writers. We might call it "The Missing Equation." Nowhere does anyone state that this Son of God and Savior, this cosmic Christ they are all talking about, was the man Jesus of Nazareth, recently put to death in Judea.

He's exaggerating the disconnect between Paul and the historical Jesus.

Paul and other early writers, however, seem to speak solely of a divine Christ.

According to Paul, Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the Law," (Gal. 4:4); and he was "son of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3).

In passing, it must be noted that those "words of the Lord" which Paul puts forward as guides to certain practices in his Christian communities (1 Corinthians 7:10 and 9:14) are not from any record of earthly pronouncements by Jesus.

The no-divorce stuff in 1 Cor 7 resonates immediately w/ instructions in Mt's Sermon on Mount.

What could possibly explain this puzzling, maddening, universal silence?

It's only a "universal" silence if you bracket out the gospels—and there were many more than the four that made it into the canon.

In the epistles, Christ's anticipated Coming at the End-time is never spoken of as a "return" or second Coming.

But that's what the word "parousia" means.

In both Paul the impression conveyed is that this will be his first appearance in person on earth.

Paul's got all this blood imagery in Romans connected with the crucifixion—that certainly requires a first, earthly, embodied appearance, doesn't it?

Misc. False Disconfirmation

Both Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:9) and the writer of 1 John even attribute such love commands [a central pillar of Jesus message] to God, not Jesus!

? But the Jesus of the Gospels also attributes it to God, since he's quoting Torah when he "says" it.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is anxious to convince his readers that humans can be resurrected from the dead. Why then does he not point to any traditions that Jesus himself had raised several people from the dead? Where is Lazarus?

Paul writes before John writes. The resuscitations of dead people are NOT what Paul is talking about with cosmic transformation in 1 Cor 15.

*Concluding Remark*

[Doherty] seems to be working very hard to create a straw man that he can then begin to knock down.

Witherington on Doherty

The blog article is longish and should probably just be read in its entirety. Here are some of the more pertinent points Witherington makes about Doherty's work:

• [re. Doherty's claim that the Testimonium Flavianum is universally recognized by scholars to be bogus] DOHERTY'S CLAIM THAT IT IS 'UNIVERSALLY' RECOGNIZED IS SIMPLY A CANARD, WHICH SHOWS HE HASN'T BOTHERED TO EVEN READ THE SCHOLARSHIP AND TEXT CRITICISM ON JOSEPHUS' WORK.
• [re. Doherty's claim that Paul and others originally thought Jesus was only a mythical being] THIS MUST BE SEEN FOR WHAT IT IS-- A BALD FACED ASSERTION WHICH COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EVIDENCE. GAL. 4 IN PAUL'S EARLIEST LETTER WRITTEN IN A.D. 49 OR SO WE HEAR THESE WORDS " BUT WHEN THE TIME HAD FULLY COME, GOD SENT HIS SON, BORN OF WOMAN, BORN UNDER THE LAW TO REDEEM THOSE UNDER THE LAW." IN ONE OF HIS LATEST LETTERS WE HEAR: "FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS, THE MAN JESUS CHRIST, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL."

  IN SHORT, DOHERTY SEEMS TO HE CHANNELING THE MISINFORMATION OF THE LATER GNOSTIC GOSPELS, NOT THE EARLIER AND FAR MORE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED CANONICAL ONES. NOT ONLY DOES HE BADLY MISREAD PAUL, HE EQUALLY MISREADS THE CANONICAL GOSPELS ON THESE VERY MATTERS. IT IS PRECISELY THESE SORTS OF REMARKS WHICH SHOW SUCH IGNORANCE OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN SOURCES WHICH LEAD NT SCHOLARS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH, JEWISH FAITH, AND NO FAITH TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE PURE POLEMICS OF DOHERTY--- HE IS NO HISTORIAN AND HE IS NOT EVEN CONVERSANT WITH THE HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE VERY MATTERS HE WANTS TO PONTIFICATE ON.

• [re. Doherty's claim that early Christians thought Jesus died in a heavenly realm at the hands of demons] HERE AGAIN THIS SORT OF ASSERTION BETRAYS A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF PAUL'S WRITINGS, AND INDEED OF EARLY JEWISH DEMONOLOGY. IN EARLY JUDAISM DEMONS AND EVIL SPIRITS ARE INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN SPHERE AND IN THE HUMAN REALM, AS WELL AS IN THE HEAVENLIES. IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR MATTER. PAUL CERTAINLY DOES NOT SUGGEST JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED AND ROSE IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM. TO THE CONTRARY, PAUL RECITES THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CREED IN 1 COR. 15.1-5 THAT JESUS DIED AND WAS BURIED LIKE ANY OTHER MORTAL, AND THEN WAS SEEN ALIVE ON EARTH AFTER HIS DEATH. SINCE TACITUS AS WELL STRESSES JESUS DIED A MUNDANE DEATH AT THE HANDS OF PILATE, ON THE BASIS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROMAN RECORDS, IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO DISMISS SUCH EVIDENCE, OR PROJECT IT INTO A MERELY SPIRITUAL REALM. FURTHERMORE, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT JESUS SUFFERED AND DIED IN JERUSALEM, NOT IN SOME SPIRITUAL REALM ( SEE E.G. HEB. 13, OR HEB. 7-11). IT DOES REFER TO JESUS GOING TO HEAVEN AFTER HIS DEATH AND ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN. BUT HIS DEATH IS SAID TO BE A SACRIFICE ON EARTH, LIKE THAT OF A PASSOVER SACRIFICE. ONCE AGAIN. DOHERTY HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO INTERACT WITH ANY OF THE EXPERTS ON EITHER PAUL OR HEBREWS, AND CHOOSES TO MAKE UP HIS INTERPRETATIONS AS HE FEELS LED.
• [re. Dohery's veiws on the relationship between mainstram Judaism and Platonism] MOST OF WHAT IS SAID ABOUT HEAVEN AND EARTH AND SALVATION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ARISES NOT OUT OF REFLECTION ON THE WORKS OF PLATO BUT OUT OF EARLY JEWISH APOCALYPTIC THINKING WHICH BEGAN IN EXILE BEFORE ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR THE AFFECTS OF HELLENISTIC THINKING ON JEWS. IT IS TOTALLY ANACHRONISTIC TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. THE SOURCE OF OTHER WORLD AND AFTERLIFE THINKING IN THE NT AND IN MOST EARLY JEWISH LITERATURE IS CLEARLY ENOUGH BOOKS LIKE DANIEL, EZEKIEL, ZECHARIAH AND OTHER JEWISH APOCALYPTIC PROPHETS. THE 'HELLENISTIC' EXPLANATION OF THEIR OTHERWORLDLY THINKING COMPLETELY IGNORES THE EARLIER JEWISH LITERATURE
• [re. Doherty's understanding of the New Testament documents] THIS COULD BE SAID TO BE A FAIR SUMMARY OF GNOSTIC THEOLOGY, THAT GOD WHO IS SPIRIT WHO CAN HAVE NO CONTACT WITH THE MATERIAL WORLD, BUT IT BADLY MISREPRESENTS THE THOROUGHLY JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE NT WRITERS WHO NOT ONLY AFFIRM AN INCARNATION OF JESUS THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION ON EARTH BUT STRESS HE WILL RETURN TO EARTH TO BRING IN A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NT REFLECTS THE OT THEOLOGY ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF THE MATERIAL CREATION. THERE COULD HARDLY BE A MORE STRONG AFFIRMATION OF THE GOODNESS OF CREATION THAN THAT GOD'S SON WOULD TAKE ON A PHYSICAL AND GENUINE HUMAN NATURE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ATTEMPT TO READ A RADICAL SPIRITUAL/MATERIAL DICHOTOMY INTO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA AND ITS FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENTS SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, AND AGAIN REFLECTS A TOTAL FAILURE TO ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES AS THEY EXIST.
• [re. Doherty's belief that all the Gospel are exclusively dependant on Mark] I MUST STRESS THAT WE NOW HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ACTS BEING A FIRST CENTURY DOCUMENT. I HAVE SEEN THE FRAGMENTS OF A COPY OF ACTS IN SYDNEY AT MACQUARRIE AND THEY DATE TO NO LATER THAN 125 A.D. IT IS CLEAR AS WELL THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT, BUT ONE OF MANY LATER COPIES. SO THE ATTEMPT TO LATE DATE ACTS WILL NOT WORK (SEE MY ACTS COMMENTARY). FURTHERMORE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF NT SCHOLARS THINK THAT JOHN IS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL STORY, INDEED IT CLAIMS TO BE AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (ON THE TRUTH OF WHICH--- SEE MY WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH JESUS?). WHAT IS ESPECIALLY ODD ABOUT THIS TENET OF DOHERTY'S IS THAT IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE THREE SYNOPTIC ACCOUNTS. THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST THEY ALL ONLY HAD ONE VERSION OF THE STORY. IT SUGGESTS THEY HAD SEVERAL, AND INDEED THE PROLOGUE IN LK.1.1-4 MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY--- LUKE CONSULTED BOTH EYEWITNESSES AND EARLY PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL, AND INDEED HE ADMITS VARIOUS PERSONS HAD WRITTEN ACCOUNTS OF THE GOSPEL STORY BEFORE HIM, NOT JUST MARK. I WOULD TAKE THIS TO BE A REFERENCE TO AT LEAST MARK AND MATTHEW'S ACCOUNTS.

  NOTICE AGAIN THE DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF THE USE OF GLOBALIZING LANGUAGE--- "NOW ALMOST A UNIVERSAL SCHOLARLY CONCLUSION". HE CANNOT BE TALKING ABOUT NT SCHOLARS, OR CLASSICS SCHOLARS, OR ANCIENT HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD. SO WHAT SCHOLARS IS HE REFERRING TO. SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER BALD ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF THIS SORT OF BRAZEN POLEMIC WHICH DOES NOT DEAL EITHER WITH THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, OR WITH THE CAREFUL SCHOLARSHIP DONE FOR CENTURIES UPON IT.

• [re. Doherty's understanding of Q] I KNOW OF NO Q EXPERT WHO SUGGESTS THAT THE Q COMMUNITY INVENTED A JESUS FOUNDER FIGURE. IN FACT EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL Q SCHOLARS WOULD REJECT THIS ASSERTION AS PURE NONSENSE AND WISHFUL THINKING ON DOHERTY'S PART.
• [re. Doherty's belief that early Christianity was radically diverse] THE ATTEMPT TO PREDICATE THE LATER DIVERSITY FOUND IN THE LATE SECOND THROUGH FOURTH CENTURIES BACK INTO THE FIRST CENTURY JEWISH SECT CALLED CHRISTIANITY IS BOTH BAD HISTORY WRITING AND POOR RESEARCH. IT ONCE AGAIN COMMITS THE SCHOLARLY SIN OF ANACHRONISM-- READING THE TRAITS OF A LATER AGE INTO AN EARLIER PERIOD. WHAT IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS ABOUT THIS WHOLE APPROACH IS IT IGNORES THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SENSE OF ORTHODOXY AND ORTHOPRAXY IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY FROM THE START. THIS IS HARDLY A SURPRISE IN A MOVEMENT FOUNDED BY DEVOUT EARLY JEWS. ALL THE NT BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY SUCH JEWS, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF LUKE-ACTS AND 2 PETER.
• [re. Doherty's explanation of how the mythic Jesus was transformed into the historical Jesus] IGNATIUS I AM SURE WOULD BE TRULY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER HE WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SPEAK OF A HISTORICAL FIGURE NAMED JESUS WHO LIVED AND DIED UNDER PILATE. NO, THIS WAS ALREADY WIDELY KNOWN FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE. NOTICE FOR EXAMPLE PAUL'S WORDS IN 1 TIM. 6.13-- "IN THE SIGHT OF GOD WHO GIVES LIFE TO EVERYTHING, AND OF CHRIST JESUS, WHO WHILE TESTIFYING BEFORE PONTIUS PILATE MADE THE GOOD CONFESSION..."

  MR. DOHERTY UNFORTUNATELY IS A MERE POLEMICIST. HE HAS NOT DONE HIS HISTORICAL HOMEWORK, HE CLEARLY HAS NOT BOTHERED TO READ THE BROAD RANGE OF NT SCHOLARSHIP, AND OF COURSE HE COMES AT HIS STUDY WITH A STRONG AX TO GRIND.

Conclusion

Both of these scholars point out Doherty's pseudoscholarship. They call attention to his tendentious, self-serving late dating of certain texts, his willful ignorace of Christianity's initial cultural milleu, his denial of certain strands of evidence, and his glaring anachronisms. It's for these reasons that John Dominic Crossan compared Doherty to a moon landing skeptic and even the somewhat sympathetic R. Joseph Hoffmann labeled Doherty's work "qualitatively and academically far inferior to anything so far written on the subject."

G. A. Wells

Voorst on Wells

Robert E. Van Voorst (PhD from Union Theological Seminary, an institution affiliated with the Ivy League Columbia University; currently Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary) has helpfully summarized the many problems associated with Wells' earlier work. He includes a list of seven of these serious issues in both his Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdmans) and the article "The Nonhistoricity hypothesis" he contributed to Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia(ABC-CLIO). Here's a summary of the list:

1. Wells based his argument largely on silence, specifically Paul's relative silence regarding Jesus' life, which is inherently dubious.
2. Wells radically late-dated the synoptic gospels and just assumed that they were written outside Palestine despite their many referenece to that very place.
3. Wells jumped from a belief in development among the gospels to a belief in their non-historicity
4. Wells has no explantion for why early opponents of Christianity didn't mention that Jesus was a myth.
5. Wells employs a contrived skepticism when dismissing the scholarly consensus regarding the value of early non-Christian references to Jesus
6. Wells denied the historical existence of Jesus "not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes"
7. Wells failed to advance a credible susbstitute hypothesis which would "fill in" for a historical Jesus.

Dunn on Wells

James D. G. Dunn (PhD from the University of Cambridge; currently emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham) also notes in The Evidence for Jesus (Westminster John Knox) that #1 (the argument from silence) was Wells' primary justification for his early denial of Jesus. Dunn further commented in Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans) that Wells "displays an unyielding determination to interpret all data in favor of his thesis, whatever the probabilities... such a tendentious treatment is less deserving of the description 'historical' than Jesus."

Conclusion

These serious problems (especially #1, 2, 4, 5 & 6) are enough to label Wells past advocacy pseudoscholarship. They were indeed enough to motivate even as unsympathetic a scholar (unsympathetic to Christianity, that is) as Morton Smith (PhD from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and ThD from Harvard; late emeritus professor of ancient history at Columbia University- him of the gay sorcerer Jesus theory) to say, "When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels."

Wells' response

In reponse to these sorts of criticism (especially Dunn's) Wells came to abandon the Christ myth theory--at least in its unadulterated form--declaring that he now accepted that a historical Jesus stood behind the earliest Christian community and that now "it will not do to call me a mythicist tout court."

Meta-Conclusion

As I've said, WP:V clearly indicates that no one (Anthony presumably included) need be personally convinced of some bit of material for that material to be included in an article. Rather, all that's required is verifiability. Given that it's cleary verifiable that many scholars consider the CMT pseudoscholarship, there's no good reason against indicating as much in the lead, especially considering that WP:FRINGE warns against making a fringe theory seem more mainstream than it is.

Even so, I've taken the time to humor Anthony. Here it is, this is why Wells' old stuff and Doherty's current stuff is psuedoscholarship. You've said that this might help in the future, but I sincerely doubt that. New critics of the page will just demand further proof and further argument. As Johannes Weiss once observed in relation to the Christ myth theory, "It is the most difficult task in the world to prove to nonsense that it is nonsense". But there it is.

So, does anyone still object to including a comment in the lead indicating that scholars consider the CMT pseudoscholarship? Eugene (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, I suggest you save the above information somewhere. I have a feeling that it will need to be put in a FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle transported to Historicity of Jesus

Just noting here for future reference that, unable to retain the Holocaust denier/skinhead comparison here, Eugene has added it instead to Historicity of Jesus, and he and Bill are reverting to retain it. Eugene adds it 14:38 April 27; Eugene restores it 18:46 April 28; Bill restores it 20:55 April 29; Bill restores it 21:09 April 29; Eugene restores it 21:29 April 30. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you failed to mention that another editor, Paul Barlow, also felt it should stay.[33] You likewise failed to mention that both you (SlimVirgin) and Antothy are also doing a bit of reverting there as well: Anthony removed it [34]; Anthony removed it [35]; Anthony removed it [36]; SlimVirgin removed it [37]; SlimVirgin removed it [38]; Anthony removed it [39]. But let's discuss the matter, if you wish, on that article's talk page, not here. Eugene (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, I agreed to put aside the Holocaust denier/skinhead comparison only in order to address other, more pressing issues. I never said, or implied, that I wouldn't address it again (here or anywhere else). However, if that was your impression, or the impression of anyone else, then I'm happy to have clarified it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please don't drag changes from other pages here. You're trying to build a case against editors and not arguments; your pharisaical ad-hominems have gone too far. NJMauthor (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable?

It looks like we've got something like consensus on the inclusion/individuation criteria. So lets tackle another issue. One of the bullet points on the list is: 'Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable?' Now, I'm guessing that the question was phrased that way for rhetorical purposes, but there's a meaningful issue here. A few reviewers and edittors have voiced concerns that much of the criticism in the article is coming from Christian academics. Now that's not entirely true, as the FAQ once said, there are quite a few non-Christians used to source material in the "arguments against" including Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, and Louis Feldman; Joseph Klausner appears earlier in the article attributing early 20th century varients of the CMT (see Arthur Drews) to anti-Semitism and James Frazer is quoted in a footnote strongly distancting himself from the theory as well. I think that's a pretty substantial list. But is there someone here who thinks it isn't substantial enough?

Then there's the seminary issue. Despite seminaries (mainstream ones at least) holding the very same regional accreditation as universities (at least in the US), some have voiced concerns that having large numbers of seminary professors mentioned in the article gives the impression of bias or polemical motives. Looking over the article again, though, the charge seems a bit weak, weaker than I had thought even. In the "Arguments against" section, exempting the "historical responses" as basically history, the following names appear in the article's in-line text: Will Durant, Ben Witherington, Edwin Yamauchi, Edwyn R. Bevan, Chris Forbes, David Ulansey, S. G. F. Brandon, R. T. France, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Herbert George Wood, and Mark Allan Powell. Of these 11 names, only 3 teach/taught at a straight-up seminary (Witherington, Köstenberger, and Powell) the rest teach/taught at universities of one sort or another: University of Manchester, Macquarie University, University of London, Oxford, Princeton, etc. Again, I think that 3 out of 11 is pretty benign, but is there someone here who thinks it isn't benign enough? Eugene (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course they're reliable sources. This article has to be based on academic writing, and that will include work by scholars who are Christian and who teach at theological seminaries. There's absolutely no intellectual or policy reason not to use such scholars, although there is a pragmatic reason for preferring "secular" academics when possible—it will meet with less resistance from readers who are unfamiliar with early Christian studies. But the rather astonishing conversation at [[40]] suggests that on this topic, some editors will not be happy with *any* sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What matters is that the sources be as mainstream as possible, preferably working or at least trained in mainstream universities, regardless of whether the individuals are Christian or otherwise; though secular sourcing is obviously a good idea too. The issue of what's accredited in the United States is beside the point, because Wikipedia is an international project. The perception is that the article currently relies on too many people working or trained in minor theological seminaries, so an effort should be made to broaden the source base as far as possible. There's no point in railing against that, because it's a perception that needs to be addressed, even if some of you think it's unfair. If the article is full of "dog bites man" (as in "they would say that, wouldn't they?) it will have no credibility. It needs some more "man bites dog" if you want it to be taken seriously. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm clearly sympathetic to Akhilleus' frustrations; it seems some people will object to the article so long as it includes an accurate description of the theory's problems and standing in mainstream scholarship--no matter what, no matter who's quoted. But rather than just throw up our arms in frustration, I think we should try to make every reasonable effort to overcome the impression of bias in the rebuttal. SlimVirgin, do you personally think that quoting 3 scholars (out of 11) that teach at seminaries is excessive? Eugene (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't counted them myself. It might be worth making a list of the sources (on another page) and say which ones are or were working at mainstream universities, and which at seminaries. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to be snarky, but this issue may affect how Robert M. Price is used in this article, since describing the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary as a "minor seminary" is probably being generous. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please no more separate list pages, they're very time consuming and they haven't gotten us anywhere. Besides, I've already provided a list of sorts above: out of 11 scholars mentioned, only three teach at seminaries: Ben Witherington (Asbury Theological Seminary), Andreas J. Köstenberger (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary), and Mark Allan Powell (Trinity Lutheran Seminary). All the rest teach/taught at universities: Will Durant (didn't teach at a university, but won a Pulitzer Prize for his history writting), Edwin Yamauchi (Miami University), Edwyn R. Bevan (University of London), Chris Forbes (Macquarie University), David Ulansey (Princeton University), S. G. F. Brandon (University of Manchester), R. T. France (Oxford University), and Herbert George Wood (University of Birmingham).

This list seems pretty solid to me. We could even remove Köstenberger's name from the in-line text since he's only being used to further support Wood's statement. That'd bring the number of seminary professors down to a mere two out of ten. Again, does anyone here honestly think that this is excessive? Eugene (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Another consideration is what sources are used for what purpose. Graham Stanton was Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University and his book The Gospels and Jesus was published by Oxford University Press. This is essentially as good as it gets in terms of reliable expert sourcing, but when he is used to say that "nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed", it reminds me of an anti-evolution pamphlet I got from our U-Bahn station theist. The point is that if you are really interested in what non-Christian historians have to say about this matter, you would consult a non-Christian historian, not a Christian theologian, right? Vesal (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're saying. Are you saying he's wrong and that his opinion is not an informed one, based on his field of study? NJMauthor (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see why. A scholar working at Oxford is surely in a good position to evaluate the status of opinion in his own field. Perhaps more to the point, no one working on this article has ever supplied a source that contradicts Stanton—precisely because what Stanton says is correct; nearly every scholar who studies the history of early Christianity thinks that Jesus existed. But, you know, if it would help to replace Stanton with Michael White, I'm all in favor of doing something to move the article forward and reduce conflict. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a little odd to use a theologian to tell us what historians think, just as we wouldn't use an historian to tell us what theologians think. The problem is that Stanton was the best source we could find for that point, but that doesn't mean he's the most appropriate. I've been concerned throughout this article, which is about history not religion, about the lack of mainstream historians working in university history or classics departments. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanton wasn't a theologian, he was a New Testament scholar. Eugene (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Many (probably most) scholars who work on the history of early Christianity are going to be housed in departments of religion/theology. This will vary by institution, of course, but there's no reason to think that someone isn't a "mainstream historian" because s/he is housed in a religion department. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But there does tend to be a difference in approach between a historian of ancient Palestine who works within the framework of historical science and those that work in New Testament studies. Historians who work in classics departments tend to lack a certain "imaginative approach" and are thus confined to the "ideological and theological pseudo-history of positivism." This is the difference, and some of us find it easier to listen to those historians that lack the imagination to postulate that a man rose from the dead and levitated up to heaven, so for those of us uncreative souls, please just use a such a historian. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, academic historians don't usually regard history as a science. Social science, maybe, but these days most historians aren't even sure of that. The assertion that historians who work in classics departments are positivists is also quite strange to me. And last, your assumption that historians who work in a religious studies department believe in the resurrection is just that, an assumption. Working in a religious studies department doesn't imply belief in any particular religion. Even those historians of early Christianity who are Christian often don't believe in the resurrection as a historical event. So, as far as I can see, your request for a positivist classical historian is based on a series of incorrect assumptions. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I have to ask what academic historians don't usually regard history as a science? Sure, winners may reshape the details to suit their own ends (Custer at the Little Big Horn), fictionalizations can be viewed as history (Longfellow's version of Paul Revere and Irving's reason for Columbus sailing west), and eyewitness accounts will have bias but there are ways of crosschecking the accounts. The real problem as seen in such papers as Goodheart, Eugene. (2005) "Is History a Science?" Philosophy and Literature Johns Hopkins University Press - Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 477-488 is a misunderstanding of what science actually is. Regarding history Goodheart says "The trajectory of revision is not linear and progressive as it tends to be in science" but if you have watched/read James Burke's "Day the Universe Changed" or read Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought or Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu LI Masters" you know that is wrong--no science has ever been "linear and progressive" especially the social sciences. Archaeology and Anthropology are regarded as sciences even though as Trigger showed the methodology varies across the world with the US using one method the, Brits another, the Russian yet another, and the Chinese something else ie anything but "linear and progressive".

In 1975 Charles Angoff wrote Humanities in the Age of Science (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press) which contained a paper by Mackersen also titled "Is History a Science?" that pointed out "If history is not a science its methods need not be tested against scientific standards of objectivity and evidence. Impressionistic, individualistic methods may be admitted in historical research." and rants on for many more pages lambasting anyone and everyone who thinks historya is not a science. Further back, Dabney in his 1891 "Is History a Science?" paper Papers of the American Historical Association, Volume 5 spelled out what science was and was it was not and he clearly shows that history had moved into the field of science.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this debate, but personally I find it easier to listen to those who take a scientific approach to history, but my talk about positivism was a sarcastic use of what one biblical scholar had to say about historical Jesus studies. Akhilleus, as far as I know, both Stanton and N. T. Wright quite openly defend the resurrection of Jesus. They are both eminent scholars, so you are welcome to use them if it gives you a warm feeling and convinces other Christians that Jesus exists. On the other hand, if you want this article to do something beyond preaching to the choir, you can listen to what I'm trying to say rather than making sure you demonstrate how uninformed I am. Your choice, Vesal (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, thanks for clarifying that your mention of positivism was sarcastic, and sorry for misreading you earlier. If you're saying that the article will be more convincing to the casual reader if sources from div schools, etc. are avoided, that's clear from the voluminous discussions here—but really, the objections are based on misunderstandings of what scholars do. So what do you think about using L. Michael White as a source? He is a well-known scholar on the topic of the historical Jesus, but his academic position is partially in religious studies, and his degrees are in religion, including an M.Div from Yale Div School and a B.A. from Abilene Christian University (see [41] for a link to download his CV in pdf format). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think scholarly rejection is best expressed by not quoting anyone specific scholar, but having a generic sentence along the lines of "the scholarly mainstream not only rejects the theory, but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the mythicist approach". The first claim is backed up with say four sources, one could be a New Testament scholar like Stanton, a Christian historian like White, one Jewish historian like Alan F. Segal with his embarrassment reasoning, and one outright prominent atheist, maybe Jeffery Jay Lowder, founder and past president of internet infidels, from here ("I think there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus. To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus."). The second sentence should be backed up with Wood, Case, and Wright all writing in university presses. Something along these lines would seal the case, I think. Vesal (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I said a long time ago is this whole Christ myth theory needs an historical anthropologist (Ethnohistorian would be the modern term) to take a look at it. Richard Carrier to date is one of the few people actually to try and do this in "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels" (1997) but even by the standard of Binford and Dunnel of the 1970s that work is very primitive. But as primitive as it is it does touch on one thing overlooked by many historians: how did the people of that time view history and how does it differ from our "modern" view? I would like to point out that Richard Dawkins believes that there was a historical Jesus while also believing the Gospels are no more historical then The Da Vinci Code is; but since the Gospels are our only real detailed account of Jesus if they are a fiction then we know little to nothing about the actual man named Jesus who preached in the 1st century. We also seemed to have forgotten Tom Harpur the former New Testament professor of University of Toronto and ordained priest who also holds to the idea of Jesus not being a historical person but he takes a different tack in that he believes the Gospels were never intended to be read as historical accounts but as allegories.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to using White, but I don't see how that would address SV's concerns since, strictly speaking, White isn't a professor of history either. Of course, there are professors of history that have addressed this issue:

• "There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century."

Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009

• "In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation."

Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007

• "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."

Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008

• "An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare."

Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.), London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930, p. 256

• "Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed."

John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎, London: Skeffington & Son, 1933, p. 31

• "Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity…

UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited."

Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166

If SV thinks the article will be better served by using one of these quote in the lead instead of Stanton's, I'm game. Also, I've learned that N. T. Wright will be retiring from his bishopric in August and will become "Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity" at the University of St Andrews, at that point his Oxford Press published comment about a green cheese moon could be used in the lead also. Or perhaps Stanton is fine. Eugene (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we don't put ANY quotes in the lead, and leave it as a summary of the content of the article? I don't see any reason why we have to include a specific quote in the lead, when readers can wallow in quotes in all directions throughout the rest of the article? Wdford (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is actually addressing my question: given that only three of the eleven scholars mentioned in the counter-arguments sections teach at seminaries (and one of those names is just supporting another professor at a university), is this really a problem? If it is, Andreas J. Kostenberger could easily be dropped so Wood stands alone, and Ben Witherington could be replaced by Paula Fredriksen or Geza Vermes who say basically the same thing. That would reduce the number of seminary professor to just one. Eugene (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you can read the climate as well as anyone else here: whenever possible, don't use people who teach at seminaries. Fredriksen and Vermes would be very useful sources indeed, although I doubt they've written much that's specifically about the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fredriksen has reviewed one of Doherty's online essays. But that's not what I'm refering to here. Currently, Ben Witherington appears in the article's in-line text thusly: "Witherington argues that Jesus is to be understood against the backdrop of first century Palestinian Judaism..." Fredriksen has made a similar statement in From Jesus to Christ: "The more we know about Second Temple Judaism, the more we know, if not about Jesus directly, then about his native religious context. No serious work on Jesus places him outside that context." Eugene (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, it is not a problem except for very one or two cases. I objected to categorizing the topic as pseudo-X when there is no source that is a) published by a university press, b) explicitly mentions "pseudo-X", and c) explains the methodological flaws. (I did concede that you have enough sources which each satisfy one or two of these, and together they do warrant a sentence in the lead. Anthony still disagrees though.) Also, I would recommend against, though not object to, using even a top notch New Testament scholar to speak for non-Christian historians. Even if it is true here, such claims of scholarly consensus are often abused even by prominent scholars. A generic sentence backed up by citing different scholars is better than relying on one scholar to speak for them all. Sure, even more generally, whenever you have a source that may be perceived as more neutral and says nearly the same thing, it might be preferable, but as far as I know, this has only caused problems for the pseudo-history and consensus statements, not for the actual criticism. Vesal (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote stacking and Stealth Canvassing for the RfC

I've recently submitted a complaint to the AN/I concerning vote stacking and stealth canvassing related to this article. Eugene (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to have been settled. All future RfCs are to be listed at all this article's associated Wikiprojects, which includes Christianity. Eugene (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did SV add this to the Atheism wikiproject? This article doesn't seem to have anything to do with the philosophy of atheism or criticism of religion. 137.22.11.219 (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To stack the vote, of course. But it's been settled and I don't think it will work anyway. The RfC concensus is pretty clearly against including Martin's quote in the lead. Eugene (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course to stack the vote. Not to ask for fresh eyes from editors with no religious affiliations. Only to stack the vote. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your concern about those with religious affiliations? Also, are you implying that only those without a religious affiliation can be unbiased? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, this is crossing a major line. I am deeply disturbed by your conduct here. Also, is what 137.22 said true, about you being the one who added back the WPA tag? NJMauthor (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this section is going to help us improve the article much. However, at the risk of adding to a distraction, I would like to comment that the assumption that the members of the Christianity Wikiproject have a religious affiliation is problematic, just like assumptions that scholars who study early Christianity or who hold positions in religious studies departments are themselves religious. You can, you know, be interested in and study things that you don't personally believe. For that matter, there's no reason to assume that members of Wikiproject Atheism are all atheists. I sometimes work on articles about ancient Greek religion; using the assumptions often in play on this talk page, that must mean I sacrifice bulls to Zeus... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What is also quite problematic is the assumption that if one does not consider ad hominem attacks the most effective form of reasoning, one must be a supporter of this theory. Vesal (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me, Vesal. Can I ask you to explain that last statement? (P.S., the assumption that scholars who study Christianity are themselves Christian is an ad hominem argument...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it doesn't make sense indeed. I believe I was tired of the assumptions that if one disagrees that the best way to characterize myth theory is by means of comparisons to holocaust denial, one must be a supporter of the theory with an agenda to present this as a respectable minority position. It was not even really related to anything that you have said or done just the general atmosphere here. And my way of improving that atmosphere was to post the above cryptic message. ;) Vesal (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You do have to admit that comparison of the Christ myth theory to holocaust denial does come off as a desperate strawman because the latter is so well documented with contemporary accounts most written while the events were happening. Jesus has no true contemporary accounts--everything about him was written decades after the events happened more than enough time for what fact there were to get muddled and distorted. Furthermore unlike holocaust deniers Christ myth theorists can point to modern version of what they think might have happened in the form of John Frum cargo cult. To date even with all the technology and information at our disposal we cannot confirm that the John Frum the cult describes ever existed; the best we can do is some native some 10 years later who took up the name John Frum some 10 years later form the appearance of the "real" John Frum. As Peter Worsley in his "The trumpet shall sound: a study of cargo cults in Melanesia" (1968) said "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum".--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, we've told you time and time again that this is not a forum. We know you don't think the gospel accounts are accurate or that Jesus did anything special. It doesn't affect the article, it's not relevant. NJMauthor (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)NJMauthor (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce. Anthony (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On what point, anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He only made the one: Evidence for the holocaust is of a different order of quality and quantity to that for the historical Jesus, so equating arguers against one with arguers against the other is sleazy tar-brushing. Anthony (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Christ myth theory

Not being able to spend as much time here as I'd like, I have lost track of the discussion about what is and isn't CMT. Can someone point me to where that is at, or summarize present consensus/controversy? Anthony (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How many times do you need this answered, Anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's not settled yet? Or can you point me to where the definition was agreed in this discussion? Anthony (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing here. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not "on-going". The attempted education of Crum375 is on-going. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm. Anthony (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Eugene, but as Boyd (2007) shows Wells with his historical Q Jesus of Jesus Myth as clearly labeled a part of the "mythic Jesus thesis" crowd with Bauer and Drews with the book later identifying this "mythic Jesus thesis" as the "Christ myth theory"--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wells' newest book complains that Boyd didn't read his 1996 book carefully enough, so you should be careful about this. Boyd is talking about Wells' pre-1996 views; Wells makes it clear that after his change of mind in the 1990s he no longer advocates what Boyd describes as the "mythic-Jesus thesis". See quotes from Wells here and here. The section in which I made these posts is above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory is the position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; Christ Myth Theory is not the position that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but not as the Christ. Christ myth theory is not the position that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but not as the gospels depict him. If someone holds that "Jesus of Nazareth may have existed, but..." and also seperately professes the belief that "Jesus of Nazareth never existed" then the former is not Christ Myth Theory, and the latter is Christ Myth Theory. NJMauthor (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the way some people define it. Others like Dodd say that it includes a obscure by historical person may have been tack on to an already existing myth--which is essentially Wells current position which also fits into Welch's definitions of both "Christ Myth Theory" and historical Jesus.

Please note that Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic lists G A Wells with Bauer and Drews and cites citing "Jesus Myth" (1999) (which per Voorst accepts a historical Q Jesus) on page 24 as part of the "mythic Jesus thesis" and gives a similarly broad view of "Christ-myth theory" on 186: "...the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." and clarifies this in the chapter "The Silence of Paul?" which begins on page 201. Baker Academic identifies itself as "Publisher specializing in scholarly books, reference works, and textbooks for the Christian academy in a variety of disciplines." So here we have a book intended for "the Christian academy" that clearly puts G A Wells Jesus Myth with its historical Q-Jesus with Bauer and Drews as part of the "mythic Jesus thesis" which the book later identifies as the "Christ-myth theory".--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's nice that you recognize this as a definition of the CMT. Here's what Boyd says on pp. 24-25:

Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature (i.e. "legendary" as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch as in common parlance "myth" tends to connote a story that is without any historical foundation, while "legend" tends to connote a fictitious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that we have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back off this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of "Jesus agnosticism" emerges.

Note the sentence "this view holds that we have no good grounds for thinking that any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus." I agree with you that this is a good source, and I like the way it presents Price—not as someone who whole-heartedly endorses the theory, but rather is a "Jesus agnostic".

Also, note (as I commented just above) that Wells has responded to Boyd's book, and complained that it doesn't accurately describe his position post-1996, because he no longer denies that there was (some kind of) historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Akhilleus, but the phrase is perhaps entirely not just entirely. This is just more evidence of possible POV pushing.

Sure, Grubb. I've encountered this in article-crafting before. We can include a little section clarifying that a very small minority of CMT writers define the term differently, and some of the varying terms. In fact, we can make it a "main article: Historicity of Jesus" under the subsection heading. But the whole thing should take up a tiny sliver of the article. For sources, though, you seem to be stretching things a bit. Your quote clearly says "...the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past" if the author wishes to alter the definition of CMT after affirming what the mainstream conception of it is, that's fine, it's his choice. But the article has to reflect the fact that the author has not succeeded. NJMauthor (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, Dodd is not saying that a historical Jesus existed. Dodd is saying that some of the actions or sayings of an "obscure" person were added to the "record" of the mythical Jesus, to give it gravitas or credibility or something. That is not at all the same as saying "there was once a real Jesus". We have covered this in the lead quite adequately. The Q-Source is so far unidentified - it could have been the work of a single sage, or it could have been a collection of wisdom accumulated over centuries by a society or pagan cult, or it could have been cribbed from the Egyptians or something else. The fact that a Q-Source existed does not equate to a "historical Jesus", nor is that Dodd's claim. Wdford (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mention what I first presented this source Dodd doesn't give a time frame for the reports of "obscure Jewish Holy man" nor does he say this man did not exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but actually Dodd does not claim that the hypothetical "obscure Jewish Holy man" was Jesus of Nazareth, merely that some of the possible doings and sayings of a hypothetical "obscure Jewish Holy man" may possibly have been ascribed to the mythical Jesus character - irrespective of whether the "obscure Jewish Holy man" in question lived before or after the Jesus-period. Therefore, the proposed wording of the lead already adequately covers views such as those of Dodd. Why do you continue to have a problem with this, Bruce? Wdford (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)