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

Issues to be addressed

1. Is the CMT fringe? (Yes)
2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? (It's regarded as such by many scholars. Such information will appear in a sentence in the lead but not in a category tag due to policy concerns.)
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? (The number of scholars teaching at seminaries who appear in the in-line text will be minimized wherever possible to reduce the appearence of bias.)
8. Should non-experts be used to undercut mainstream scholarly consensus? (No)
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? (the section has been in place, unchanged, for a while now, indicating de facto concensus)
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. Add various FAQs. For example: 1) Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position? 2) Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV? 3) (No consensus)
14. Clarify via reliable sources how "Jesus never existed" and "Jesus existed but in a different time (ala many historical candidates for Robin Hood)" are part of the same general theory.
15. Clarify via reliable sources if "Jesus never existed" means that there wasn't a flesh and blood teacher named Jesus or that the "Gospel Jesus never existed" which are really different issues.
16. Explain how "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58) works in the context of the theory there was a pre-existing Jesus myth that Jesus either used or his followers plugged him into after death.
17. Clarify the reference Volney regarding "confused memories of an obscure historical figure". Is this a figure in the distant past or is this a first century figure.
18. 'continue list here (for example, Is the FAQ #x NPOV?)"

POV tag again

I'm once again (for the 100th time) asking that the POV tag not be removed until the issues have been dealt with. There are multiple people with concerns about this article's neutrality. My own concern is the debunking tone in general; the lack of dissenting voices in the lead; the inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics; and the inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears.

Not one of these has been addressed, I'm not the only person with concerns, and any attempt we've made at clean-up has been reverted by Eugene, who also keeps removing the tag. Therefore the tag is being used correctly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on SV, give it a rest. You wanted a dissenting voice in the lead, you put together an RfC, you even posted it to various wikiprojects in a way that would skew the result in your favor and it raised some eyebrows on the ANI, and the RfC still sided against you. Let it go.

Nothing in the lead says that Wells and Price aren't academics; the lead just notes that they have been instrumental in popularizing the theory in recent times. Beyond the fact that this is clearly truw, academic popularize things all the time: think of Richard Dawkins with evolution, Carl Sagan with astronomy, and William Lane Craig with Jesus.

As for your complaint about "smears", it's just counter to WP:V, plain and simple. We have tons of sources backing this up and the information is currently presented in a very even-handed way. If, with these sources in hand, this article can't use the disignation "pseudo-scholarship" or "pseudo-history" or whatever, then no article can. But clearly other articles do (including FAs), so this article may. You've cried foul on this a few times and everytime you've failed to build consensus; again, let this go.

Concerns about "tone" are pretty vague and hard to address, could you be more specific? I and the others here aren't unreasonable, if you have reasonable concerns that don't violate policy or consensus then I'd be happy to address them in the article. But as it stands your complaints seem more like sour grapes than anyting at this point.

So, contray to your claims, your concerns have been addressed and thus your justification for the NPOV tag fails. I'm taking it down again. (Just imagine if all the global warming skeptics could so causually throw the same tag on that page. Eventually the scholarship wins out and the critics, presumably, find a way to live with it.) Eugene (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eugene on this as I'm not sure the problems the article currently has are really POV ones any more. I will admit that are a few hiccups in the definitions and some of the lists but for the most part things seems to hold together. Sure we need some reliable sources to explain the more problematic hiccups and blink and you may miss it Radical Dutch school section but this is more a Refimprove tag than a POV one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank God. Thank you Bruce. Eugene (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an honest evaluation of the situation. If you look at the material 95 to 98 percent seem to be on the same page. The problem is explaining that page along with the occasional wrong page to readers via reliable sources. Such issues of "Jesus never existed" and "Jesus existed but in a different time (ala many historical candidates for Robin Hood)" and people who believe in a historical Jesus in the correct time (Remsburg, Dawkins, Post-Jesus Myth Wells) are called by some "Christ Myth Theorists" really need to addressed and so far not dealing with them just makes this article get POV chargers when the problems are really Refimprove.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Throwing up a POV tag, for the 100th time, and ignoring both WP:RS and WP:V seems like disruptive editing to me. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please sign here if you agree with the POV tag

If I'm the only person who believes the article should be tagged, then obviously I'll withdraw. I don't like to see well-attended articles tagged just because one person thinks so. I'd therefore like to ask anyone who believes the tag should remain to say so here, and to add their reasons in brief. I'll contact people who've commented on the tag in the past to make sure they see this.

• The issues I have include the debunking tone; the lack of a dissenting voice in the lead; the inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics; the inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears. The Wells and Price sections are too short given that they're the major proponents, and the aetheist polemics section is inappropriate. Also, I'm afraid I don't believe Eugeneacurry understands the content policies, and there are too many editors on this page who are willing to go along with whatever he says. He has driven off opposing editors with attacks and aggressive reverting, and that skews consensus. Also noting this discussion on the Fringe noticeboard just a couple of weeks ago, raising all the issues previously raised by others and never dealt with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with keeping the POV tag in place. As I and others have noted in many previous discussions, there are many, many POV issues with this article that remain unaddressed. The hostile and unprofessional attacks from the conservative Christian editor Eugene and his supporters, who collectively WP:OWN this article make it impossible to resolve these issues in a collaborative fashion. (Eugene's creation of an attack page today on a fellow editor is just one example of a long pattern of abuse.) Most of the POV issues that were identified in the last GA review remain unresolved. I do not have the time to fight this battle right now. It is comforting to know that there are many resources on the internet that do a much better job of presenting the Christ Myth Theory than this current article. This article is so disorganized, turgid, and self-contradictory that most readers probably fall asleep or go elsewhere after reading a few paragraphs. Unfortunately, it will remain impossible to improve the article as long as Eugene and his allies continue to WP:OWN it. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Though, my objection is more to its tone and quality. It correctly presents CMT as fringe, and considered to be pseudoscholarship by many academics. So, in these important respects, it is neutral. But its description of the CMT is poor, its explanation of what is wrong with the theory is unconvincing, and importantly for the NPOV question, it uses obviously slanted language and innuendo to discredit the theory and its proponents, which works against that very goal and perpetuates this fun on the discussion page. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree to keeping the tag on. Article isn't out of the woods yet. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

"I'll contact people who've commented on the tag in the past to make sure they see this." How is this not yet another violation of WP:CANVASSING on your part? And, as I hinted at before, if I were to canvass, how many editors skeptical of global warming do you think would sign up for a POV tag on the global warming page? I imagine a lot. Clearly that's not the best way to proceed. Eugene (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You've driven people away who would otherwise see this, so they need to be informed. I'll make sure my post is neutrally worded, and I won't ask many. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

But you'll be asking people whom you suspect of agreeing with your position, that's textbook vote stacking... again. Eugene (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only interested in finding out for this section whether anyone else agrees with the tag, so obviously there's no point in asking people who don't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense: you've staked out a position in a (faux) controversy and now you are actively seeking out support for your position under the guise of a survey. As I said, such an approach could manufacture support for a POV tag on any article that deals with a controversial subject: global warming, intelligent design, Israel, Barack Obama, etc, etc, etc. And if it would would "legitimize" a POV tag for any article then clearly it can't meaningfully be used at all. Eugene (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the procedures being used here are sub-optimal. I can't get that worked up about a POV tag, really, but if this issue is to be resolved we need to get more people involved, especially people who haven't been involved in the article before and so won't be looking at the article through the lens of long-running disputes. So, SV, if you're going to post messages to user talk pages, could you post to some WikiProjects too? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I think at least part of the reason for keeping the POV in place may be that it prevents the article from going to GA and then to FA status. Doesn't a POV tag do that? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the article would be promoted with the tag in place. But I can't get that worked up about the GA/FA process either. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bill, my support for the POV tag is purely based on my above vote statement. I'm involved because I'd like it to be a good article; a motive I share with you, SV, Eugene, , PLH, Vesal, etc. Anthony (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, more than any other POV "vote" I respect yours. Setting aside the quality issues, as they're not immediately relevant, if you could enumerate a few specific instances of "innuendo" then we could meaningfully discuss them with reference to reliable sources and so on; which I would be happy to do. Eugene (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I believe you. However, SV and others clearly don't want the CMT presented as fringe. I, too, am happy to work with you, but what are we supposed to do when SV slaps on a POV tag and then refuses to discuss the issues in a way that we can come up with result that represents the vast majority of reliable sources?

And now that I think about it, I can't even remember the last time (if there was one) SV has replied substantially to any of my points. She seems to accuse me of this or that and then "strongly suggests" that I do what she tells me. A little while ago, I took the time to rebut her objections (see "unindent: response to Akhilleus" below) point by point. Let's see if she responds and is willing to dedicate some time in going through the issues to be addressed point by point.

My last point is this: compare the reasoning you gave above in your vote with that of PLH and Itsmejudith. Neither of them even bothered to list valid reasons for their vote; both you and SV listed your concerns and we can work with that (assuming SV is willing to be actively involved in the discussion). At the very least, they should have said "Agree - per SV". I mean, where do we go with "It's not out of the woods yet?" It doesn't say anything. Or how about PLH's remark, which once again violates WP:AGF, "The hostile and unprofessional attacks from the conservative Christian editor Eugene and his supporters...."? I would ask for the basis of PLH's antipathy towards "conservative Christians" but 1) this is not the place for it; and 2) it's most likely a waste of everyone's time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent: repsonse to Akhilleus) Well, neither do I get that worked up if this article doesn't achieve FA status (and I've said as much in the past). However, trying to prevent it from happening for personal (spiteful, vengeful, or whatever) reasons and attempting to do so by canvassing seems to me to be disruptive editing and, obviously, against wiki policies.

At any rate, let's take SV's allegations of POV one by one (from above)

• Debunking tone - none of the editors here have debunked the CMT. the vast majority of scholars have done a thorough job of that and we should note that according to WP:Fringe. This is the main problem of SV's argument. SV wants portray the CMT as a valid, minority opinion. We both know that the CMT is almost universally rejected by scholars as bogus and it should therefore, according to WP:Fringe, be noted as such. Thus, attempting to detail the verifiable level of acceptance by the vast majority of reliable sources in the article is not a justification for slapping on a POV tag.

• The lack of a dissenting voice in the lead - I see five dissenting voices (i.e., CMT advocates) are mentioned in the lead, so how their "voices" should be heard is a stylistic/prose concern, and not an indication of POV.

• The inappropriate description of Wells and Price in the lead as though they're not academics - No such thing is being done, as Eugene as noted above,

Nothing in the lead says that Wells and Price aren't academics; the lead just notes that they have been instrumental in popularizing the theory in recent times. Beyond the fact that this is clearly truw, academic popularize things all the time: think of Richard Dawkins with evolution, Carl Sagan with astronomy, and William Lane Craig with Jesus.

• The inclusion of any pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or other smears - That's not our opinion or smear. That is the judgment of almost every scholar in the field. That is, that is the level of acceptance, according to WP:Fringe, which says (underline added),

...ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

• The Wells and Price sections are too short given that they're the major proponents, and the aetheist polemics section is inappropriate - Once again, these are stylistic/prose issues, and not an a reason for a POV tag.

• I'm afraid I don't believe Eugeneacurry understands the content policies, and there are too many editors on this page who are willing to go along with whatever he says - I'm not sure how well Eugene understands the content policies, but he knows the policies involving vote stacking and WP:Fringe better than some folks.

• He has driven off opposing editors with attacks and aggressive reverting, and that skews consensus - LOL. What's that saying about the pot calling the kettle black? :)

Anyway, that's my $1.50 (used to be $0.02, but with inflation and all...). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I see people responded before I'd asked anyone to, and the tag is restored, [1] so there's probably no need to let anyone else know. I strongly suggest in future that neither Eugene nor Bill remove the tag again; the frequent removals have become disruptive. If consensus is reached to remove it, please let someone else do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, I'm willing to leave it there for a few days to give everyone an opportunity to discuss the issues you mentioned. However, if you don't want me to remove the tag in a few days, then I strongly suggest you respond to my rebuttal of your points in my comments at time 20:58, 18 June 2010 above in an active and substantial manner (i.e. no "drive-by" accusations and complaints). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether the tag remains isn't up to you and Eugene. It needs to be left to a consensus of editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss the issues while others reach a consensus (which I have no doubt will happen), then don't be surprised that I, or someone else, removes the tag is removed in a few days. And by the way, saying that the article is POV and not giving a reason, or saying "just because", is meaningless when it comes to a consensus. Such tactics will be ignored. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV: I implore you, please do not resort to canvassing again. For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia, do not do this. It makes any progress on articles like this one impossible. Do you recall last time, when you canvassed on the atheism wikiproject and not the Christianity, Ancient Near East, Judaism, or any other relevant wikiprojects? It's simply ethically wrong from a scholarly perspective to do what you did. You attempt to flood votes with uninformed editors through these canvass appeals. NJMauthor (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never canvassed in relation to this article; posting a neutral note about an RfC to Wikiproject Atheism and Wikiproject Religion at the same time is not canvassing. And I did not ask anyone to comment about the tag. Please don't buy into Eugene's propaganda. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Buy in?" I was the one who pointed your canvassing out to Eugene, and called it as I saw it. Like I said down below, this isn't a mindless puppet show. NJMauthor (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't keep repeating the canvassing claim; it's wrong and there's no point in trying to turn it into a meme. No one was contacted about the tag, so it's pointless mentioning it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV, can you prove that no one was contacted about the tag? Until you can do that, NJMauthor has a valid point. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That's silly - how exactly do you prove a negative? She can't prove a negative therefore she is guilty? --B (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In an oddball way that is in essence one of problems with some of the challenges to the Christ Myth Theory--the idea is presented as somehow trying to prove Jesus never existed. Boyd-Eddy's "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" is IMHO a much clearly and more correct definition. I still say incorporating this exact quote from a recent reliable source would be a major step in trying to clean up some of the issues the article has had since day one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Bruce. I don't think I've seen one instance of an author who claims to have proven Jesus was just a myth - only authors who argue he may not have existed, given the poverty of historical evidence, and that he need not have existed, as the stories were already in circulation.

Bill, from where I sit, you and SV both have the best interests of the article in sight. Anthony (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, the most egregious and self-defeating use of slanted language is "fringe" and "pseudoscholarship". You know where I stand on that. The theory's status can more effectively be communicated by using words like "virtually no support in mainstream scholarship." "Fringe" and "pseudoscholarship" stink, stink, stink, stink, stink, stink (ad nausium) of bias. It doesn't matter how many RS's you point to. They stink of bias. Stink. Which means they undermine the credibility of the article. Sorry for the shouting. They add nothing to the article. They weaken it. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. The idea that the evidence that exists is not enough to show the Gospel Jesus existed is fringe. Remsburg the darling of so many armchair researchers (and who believed in a historical Jesus in the correct time but has gotten the Christ Myth Theorist label slapped on him anyhow) like Boyd-Eddy some 100 years later separated what this article calls Christ Myth theory from the more moderate "Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." Even in Remsburg's time (1909) the idea was pretty far out there and time has not changed that.

As for sources themselves having bias WP:NPOV covers that: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." If this article does have any POV failings it is in the "analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence." part but this can also be a Refimprove issue or finding that one reliable source that explains a confusing point about the concept.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, do you think the article lacks neutrality, Bruce? If so, which aspects of the subject need clarifying? (I may not respond for a day or so.) Anthony (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I addressed this in what the FAQ (if we ever brought it back) should be addressing:

• "What separates the Christ Myth Theory from the idea that Jesus existed but the Gospels tell little to nothing about him?" (Both Remsburg and Eddy-Body make this distinction but neither really adequately explains it.)
• How does the Christ Myth Theory differ from the idea that King Arthur and Robin Hood are composite characters with a possible historical core?" (This is to address varies points such as Jesus Under Fire lists B. L, Mack with Robinson and Funk and vague unclear statements that we have seen in or about some reliable sources. It is partly inspired by Price's Christ is a Fiction article. Most of the historical Arthurs were never knight in the sense of the stories, likely never even heard of a place called Camelot, and most of them were not even named Arthur! Robin Hood is even worse.)
• If the Christ Myth Theory is the idea Jesus never existed why are theories he may have lived a century earlier sometimes considered part of the theory?" (In of light of Robin Hood this is the most poorly explained part of this article. Historical Robin Boods a full century after the events of the stories have been suggested but a Jesus 100 years before is not historical? How does that work?)
• I've seen an author call someone who accepts there may have been a first century Jesus a Christ Myth Theorist and am confused regarding the definition. (address the Remsburg, Dawkins and Post-Jesus Myth Wells ala Price problems head on)--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading

Well it seems that since SlimVirgin returned she's finally decided to weight in on the "Further reading" section. A section, I might add, that was only deleted after no one bothered to defend it--including SlimVirgin, even though she was informed of the discussion![2]

So here we go again apparently:

A little while back I removed the "further reading" section of this article. My thinking was that since the article already cites a huge number of high-quality sources--all of which appear in the references section--a further reading section was unnecceary. Recently another editor put the further reading section back in, though. I'm inclined to cut it again for my original reasons. What does everyone else think?

Further, if certain editors are inclined to retain such a section, what do you think about the books and articles that currently appear there? Some of them are far too outdated to be of any more than historical interest and others are clearly qutite marginal.

I also note that many of the books currently listed are in French and German; SlimVirgin, do you honestly think that the average reader of this page is going to really pick up a book in French or German for some "further reading"? Isn't this sort of thing discouraged by some wiki policy or other? Eugene (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to the Australian Broadcasting Company debate? [3] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the mythicist wasn't notable and I thought that three was enough. But I see that you reverted it. So much for my serial reverting; it seems to be a common aliment. Eugene (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Any defense of the "Further reading" section, SV? Eugene (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it servers a purpose like providing links to public domain versions of Drews The Christ Myth: Evans, Elizabeth Edson Gibson "The Christ myth", Mangasarian, Managasar Mugwiditch, (1909) The truth about Jesus. Is he a myth? Independent religious society; contributor: Princeton Theological Seminary Library., Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon) (1917) The Jesus problem; a restatement of the myth theory, and Rossington, Herbert J (1911) Did Jesus really live? a reply to The Christ myth. This put some of the material in the hands of the readers in contrast with the newer (and therefore copyrighted) versions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those links have already been integrated into the bibliography. Again, once you delete the redundant puplic domain stuff, delete the foreign language works, and once again separate out the previously independant "external links" stuff, all that's left is a bunch of marginal works that don't really add much. I'm still waiting on that defense of the section, SV. Eugene (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The connections are a little mess as it is not always clear what is going to a PD version or Goggle books. I will fix this right now but it shows such broad statements are full of peril.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship

I'd like to propose that we remove any reference to pseudoscholarship or pseudohistory from the lead. Its placement there has caused a lot of dissent, and it makes the lead appear POV by using language that's insulting. Could we have a straw poll here to see if removal has support?

• Support removal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment do we have a reasonable number of reliable sources directly and explicitly saying this If so we need to keep it in. If on the other hand it is like one or two dump it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the old FAQ #2. It contains a whole host of quotations. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of those show the CMT as fringe. Few of the quotes say anything about pseudoscholarship or pseudohistory and that can be a problem.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. It is not POV for something that is viewed by the academy as pseudo-scholarship to be identified as such. To remove it would be POV. --Ari (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Ari. It also goes against the Fringe guideline. In addition, obfuscating reliable and verifiable information because someone, or a group of people, find something insulting or offensive is clearly indicative of a POV. See FAQ #2 on Muhammad for an example - Shouldn't the images be removed because they might offend Muslims?. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal. NathairNimheil (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• I don't understand this vote. This has been a circular debate for at least two years. How is a bunch of "support"/"oppose" going to solve anything. We have discussed this in much more depth than a simple "yes/no" question. The fact remains that inasmuch this article has a scope at all different from historicity of Jesus, it is because it discusses the recent touting of the idea in pseudo-scholarly or popular books. I would still prefer merging this article and removing the "pseudoscholarship", but as long as the merger isn't possible, the existence of the article is in fact only justified because it focusses on pseudoscholarship. I do not keep slapping "merge" tags on the article because I think the discussion has completely derailed even without trying to push any drastic moves, but this doesn't take away from the fact that I remain unconvinced that this article is anything other than a glorified WP:CFORK. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support removal. I am not able to check all of the sources, but this looks very much like a case of WP:SYN. Is anyone able to verify that any one of the sources given supports the claim "most (biblical scholars and classical historians] regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship"? The first source says "There is a good deal of psuedoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print", which is not the same thing at all. Two of the other sources are far too old to be of use (if they mention any academic consensus about pseudoscience then the academics in question will be long dead). --FormerIP (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the other two cites are "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position" and "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth". None of this tells us anything about "most" scholars or their view on CMT as pseudo scholarship in general. The strongest claim that can be made on the basis on these sources, I think, it that some scholars have considered some examples of CMT to be psedoscholarship. --FormerIP (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support removal. For the reasons stated above by FormerIP. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I'd like pseudoscholarship removed. I think it's accurate, but I'm still not convinced it's a real enough word for us to use it. Not sure about pseudohistory, but if it is pejorative, then it should probably go as well. The fact that it's pejorative isn't referenced, so I'm not sure that's true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And in fact, I think what FormerIP says about pseudoscience should be included in the article, with attribution and which types of examples are considered to be pseudoscience. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That could be a solution. One thing that occurs to me, though, is that it looks like a number of proponants of CMT are serious academics, even though they may be persuing a minority sport. Think we need quite stong sourcing for any implication that bona fide scholars are engaged in pseudo-scholarship. On the other hand, there seem to be authors who write "potboilers" on the subject. These might count as pseudo-scholarship (although I have not read any of them - they may well be excellent), but they are also less noteworthy, I would suggest, so less space should be spent on discussing them.

Also, the fact that works of pseudo-scholarship may exist on a subject should not be confused with that subject being pseudo-scholarship per se. For example, lots of popular and not-very-acadmic books are written about the Dead Sea Scrolls. This does not mean, though, that studying the Dead Sea Scrolls is pseudo-scholarship. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP is right that just because some people engage in pseudo-scholarship in relation to this doesn't mean that everyone does. It's arguably a BLP violation to name the living academic proponents in the lead, then to say in the next paragraph, in Wikipedia's voice, that most scholars regard it as pseudo-scholarship. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A BLP violation? I see absolutely no justification for suggesting that calling a fringe subject fringe violates that policy. Can you please elaborate on this, or could you please not try to scare people into believing that we can't accurately reflect reality. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can reject it as a BLP vio without knowing what we're actually dealing with. I did a (very) quick gBooks search and didn't come up with much, but I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Griswaldo, the lead says that academic X and academic Y are proponents, then we proceed to call it pseudo-scholarship, without in-text attribution. We are therefore saying that academic X and academic Y are engaged in pseudo-scholarship. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) "We" are doing no such thing. It is the reliable sources who characterize the CMT as such. And to include that in the article is simply following the WP:fringe guidelines. Thus, there is no BLP violation at all. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Except the sources currently cited do not support the statement in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you click on reference #3, it will take you to the bottom of the page where the sources are listed. Also, if you want a whole host of quotes from reliable sources, here is a link to the old FAQ #2 (Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position?). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any source that tells us that most such scholars regard CMT as a whole as pseudo-scholarship, only a succession of sources that tell us something about the attitude of an individual to some example or aspect of CMT. What's needed is not not 10, 50 or 8,000 sources from which a conclusion can be drawn and included in the article. Instead we need just one source, as long as it actually supports the statement in the article (see WP:SYN). --FormerIP (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the number of sources is indicative of what most scholars think. I've heard William Lane Craig, in one of his debates, say that the non-existence of Jesus doesn't even appear on the "map" of NT history. I can look up the debate if you want to listen to it. In the mean time, try this link. It is an interview with Bart Ehrman (who is an atheist/agnostic). The relevant portion is around the 6:20 to 7 minute mark, but I suggest you listen to it from the beginning for purposes of context. I promise you that it is well worth your time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be an interesting listen sometime, Bill, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion, which is specifically about the term "pseudo-scholarship". --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You said that you had concerns with using the term "pseudo-scholarship" because you weren't convinced that it represented how "most" scholars regard the CMT as a whole. I gave you a list of abundant quotes and an audio link that confirms how great the rejection of the CMT is among the relevant scholars. If the quotes and the link do not adequately answer your concerns, then perhaps you can rephrase and elaborate exactly what your concerns are. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about whether I am convinced, Bill. It is about whether there is a source to back up the claim. How great the rejection of CMY amongst scholars is also not the question. The question is whether most of them consider it to be psuedo-scholarship, which is a strong claim not supported by any sources at present. --FormerIP (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are sources. Abundant sources, in fact. And those sources are in the article. What exactly are you looking for? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me Bill, but I don't think you are following. No source is provided that links a phrase such as "most scholars" to CMT in general to the term "pseudo-scholarship". For example, we have a source that says "There is a good deal of psuedoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print". But this does not mention CMT and it does not mention "most scholars". No number of such examples will do. You just need one source that supports the statement in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The subject itself is fringe. Call it pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, fringe, or whatever you want but it isn't an accepted perspective on the historicity of Jesus even if some of people involved are otherwise respectable. Respectable scholars publish weirder and more out there stuff than this all the time btw. If you don't like the term pseudoscholarship find a better one that labels this for what it is.Griswaldo (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support taking it out of the lead unless it is incredibly carefully worded. I am mindful that some scholars have described it in extremely hostile terms. But (to simplify somewhat) there are strong and weak versions, and it is not always clear which are intended to be covered. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Find less hostile alternative --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC) While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2] could be too soft. Perhaps While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[2] many of whom contest its scholarship.[3] is stronger, but less hostile.
• Keep Slimvirgin is attempting to usurp discussion by calling these silly do-or-die polls. It is my personal belief that Slimvirgin should be removed from the administrator position on wikipedia for abuse, canvassing and unethical behavior regarding the scholarly process. NJMauthor (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

MJ, this is not a platform for you to voice your opinions of other editors. Please refrain from doing so.Griswaldo (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what platform would you prefer? NJMauthor (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The ones that deal with editor behavior. Take your pick. I don't think this poll is productive either but that's all that needs to be said on the matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Anthony (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support removal. The exact same point can be made using non-inflammatory language. These terms just perpetuate this circus. I advocate the intelligent use of language to achieve the same or better communication without creating discord. Anthony (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support We can easily refer to it as a minority position within biblical scholarship without using POV terms such as Pseudo-history. If specific scholars refer to specific historians as 'pseudo-scholars' or the theory as 'pseudo-history' then this can be referenced in the body in appropriate sections if it is noteworthy. As an aside, this seems obvious to me and people really need to take a step back and read policy as well as reevaluate their reasons for editing.--Woland (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about a minority position. That is, this article is about a fringe theory. Virtually no relevant scholarship exists that take the CMT as being in any way valid. In fact, the degree of rejection of the CMT is so overwhelming by scholars that calling it "pseudo-whatever" is being kind. If you want a whole host of quotes from reliable sources, here is a link to the old FAQ #2 (Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position?). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I read that faq before I posted here. I simply disagree with the some of the POV terms in the lead. As an example look at the Aquatic ape hypothesis. It is an idea that is certainly in the fringe category but doesn't delve into POV language in the intro. The body of the article presents the theory as well as the overwhelmingly mainstream consensus against it.--Woland (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. So, we have mainstream scholarship calling the position, which is beyond the fringe of scholarship, pseudo-history/scholarship. I am yet to see a reason raised as to why we should reject what mainstream reliable and verifiable sources state on the matter. WP is about verifiability. --Ari (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The actual statement in the article ("most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship") is not currently supported by any source. All we have is three individual contemporary scholars (plus two pre-war) calling individual examples of CMT pseudo. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Removal per FormerIP. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support removal People, fringe is NOT the same as pseudoscholarship or pseudohistory. Take a look at White dwarf for the brilliant response of the scientific community in 1914 as documented by Sir Arthur Eddington regarding the discovery of the first white dwarf: "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense." A white dwarf was fringe in 1914 but was NOT pseudoscholarship or pseudoscience-the conclusions of the observations were based on good solid Newtonian physics. A modern example would be the age of the Sphinx debate where the idea that the Sphinx predates its supposed constructor by centuries if not thousands of years is considered fringe. This is where this article keeps getting into trouble; it keeps assuming fringe = pseudoscholarship, pseudohistory, or pseudoscience. Fringe is just that--fringe; nothing more nothing less.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not in this section, but I'd like to maybe discuss this more, if it's true. It sounds important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see Category:Fringe_theory. A piece of scholarship can be fringe in either its conclusions, its methods or both. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And this differs from my point, how?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of "pseudoscholarship". It is pseudoscholarship. Keep it. -- JALatimer 17:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, reliable sources call it pseudo-scholarship; reliable sources note that no historians in any peer-reviewed or academic work argue it. Reliable sources note that it abandons historical method. etc. It seems that editors prefer their personal biases to what the reliable sources say on the matter. --Ari (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Except no reliable source defines the word pseudoscholarship. It's not whether CMT is not accepted by scholars, it's whether we're using a word that we shouldn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, fringe is not always pseudoscholarship.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New addition to the context section

This strikes me as inappropriate—presented as fact, which begs the question. Are there objections to its removal?

He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, he began his own ministry, preaching in Galilee. He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery and was renowned as a teacher and a healer. Many scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations that the gospels attribute to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature. He sent his apostles out to heal and to preach the Kingdom of God. Later, he traveled to Jerusalem in Judea, where he caused a disturbance at the Temple. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem. The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution. The movement he had started survived his death and was carried on by his apostles who proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about attribution. I like your recent edits, by the way. Explains it pretty clearly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more than appropriate. It places the theory within the context. I.e. mainstream historical Jesus scholarship. --Ari (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I got curious, so I decided to see what the notes said. Strangely, that section uses notes that are offline, not in the references section, and the first three don't have page numbers. That part needs work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So I went to Historicity of Jesus to see what it says about a few of these things, and the word "temple" is only used once, and doesn't shed much light. The word "baptized" is not in that article. The only thing it says about Galilee is "Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself." Etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the page numbers so I'll chase those up later today. Not quite sure what the word baptism not being in the Historicity of Jesus article has to do with anything? However, for the baptism: Sanders Jesus and Judaism p.11; Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 231. --Ari (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is sourced it is WP:OR. John 2-3 makes it clear Jesus started his ministry and Jesus was baptizing his followers and John heard about it "For John was not yet cast into prison" (John 3:24 KJV) In fact, John has as many chronology headaches with the synoptic gospels as trying to get Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born in the same decade does if not more. You also have the problem that John the Baptist was killed c36 CE and Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome c36 CE. Try fitting John's three passovers into that! The only thing truly consistent in the Gospel account is Jesus was killed under the rule of Pontius Pilate--everything else is somewhat of a continuity morass as to what happened when.

Peregrine Fisher, go to Bible Gateway and search for "baptized"; the passages you need to look at are Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9, and Luke 3:21. As stated above John is the oddball in this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Wikipedia's voice, it says "He was baptized by John the Baptist". That means that that part is unquestionably true. We don't want a primary source (the Bible) for that kind of thing. We want to know what scholar(s) say it's true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The text in question is in a paragraph that begins: "Most scholars on the historical Jesus believe that a number of historically certain details can be said about the life and ministry of Jesus." The baptism by John the Baptist, etc. are the details that scholars think are historically certain. If it is unclear to readers that the entire paragraph lists bits of Jesus' life that scholars (in general) think to be historical events, then perhaps the paragraph should be rewritten; but how to do that without beginning every sentence "most scholars believe"?

Also worth considering: is all of this text necessary? It seems like enough to say that most scholars believe Jesus existed, and the gospels provide valuable evidence about his life and deeds... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't look closely enough. But, if "Sanders 1985, p. 11Crossan 1991, p. 234" says that "most scholars believe He was baptized by John the Baptist...", and if "Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)" says that "most scholars believe He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using pithy parables with startling imagery" then I think that's great info to have. It may be overlapping with the historicity article, but that's OK with me, because I don't think a reader should have to read too many other articles to understand the one they're at currently, especially if it's a GA or FA. If they don't say that, then that's another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And looking a bit closer, I doubt most scholars believe that he used "pithy parables with startling imagery", so that section is not using it's sources right, or the "Most scholars believe" part should be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the logic here. You contest that most scholars believe Jesus used "pithy parables with startling imagery" therefore instead of removing that you argue we should remove "Most scholars believe." That said, like the baptism most scholars do believe Jesus taught in parables. Even the most critical form critics would argue that the parables are the best preserved sayings of Jesus.(E.g. Bultmann.) Even Mack defends the aphorisms and parables. On this point I. Howard Marshall writes, ""It can be said with confidence that theere are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical scholars." --Ari (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I had it backwards. Let's figure out what most scholars believe and add that. Starting with the John the Baptist part, what does the source say? Can you give me a bit of a quote? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From what was cited and quoted in the article: "Two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent. They bracket the three years for which Jesus is most remembered, his life's work, his mission. One is Jesus' baptism by John. The other is his death by crucifixion. Because they rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts'..." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered p.339.) --Ari (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great info. I'll try and work it in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I made an adjustment [4]. Hopefully it's OK. So, what does the ref say about "After John was executed, he began his own ministry, preaching in Galilee"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunn's comment raises issues again with Wells' current theory which expressly states "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." (Wells (2003) Can We Trust the New Testament? pg 43). Also Islamic religion holds Jesus existed but was not crucified so there are problem with religious bias in his statement. This is the problem with using this and similar comments to show the CMT is fringe--they have other problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything you said is totally irrelevant to Dunn's comment. Dunn (a scholar) made a note on what historical scholarship believes. This has nothing to do with imagined claims of religious bias or what some non-experts (you or Wells) believes. Engaging in OR will not change what the majority of scholarship believes. --Ari (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And Dunn's quote unless it is in connection to this matter is also WP:OR which was my point.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Original research is not reporting exactly what the source says. Original research is your proposal of changing what historians agree upon to what you personally believe. WP doesn't care for that. --Ari (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But that is not what you are doing, Ari89. What you keep doing is WP:SYN a form of WP:OR: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to assume that you have no idea what I am talking about. It is the only way to make sense of whatever you are trying to dispute, as I have absolutely no clue what it is.--Ari (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) We should probably summarize all those things as well. We need sources that explicity say what the consensus is for this section, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To save from more unfounded claims of OR, the citation provided is I. Howard Marshall p.215-7. Here Marshall discusses the "bare minimum" historical scholarship says about Jesus. In fact, he states that "It can be said with confidence that there are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars." These are what he quotes as what most scholars agree on:

"He was baptised by John the Baptist, and the beginning of his ministry was in some way linked with that of the Baptist. In his own ministry Jesus was above all the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and who challenged his hearers to respond to the reality that he was proclaiming. The authority and effectiveness of Jesus as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God was reinforced by an apparently deserved reputation as an exorcist. In a world that believed in gods, in powers of good and evil, and in demons, he was able, in the name of God and his Kingdom, to help those who believed themselves to be possessed by demons. A fundamental concern of Jesus was to bring together into a unified group those who responded to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God irrespective of their sex, previous background or history. A central feature of the life of this group was eating together, sharing a common meal that celebrated their unity in the new relationship with God, which they enjoyed on the basis of their response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom. In this concern for the unity of the group of those who responded to the proclamation, Jesus challenged the tendency of the Jewish community of his day to fragment itself and in the name of God to reject certain of its own members. This aroused a deep-rooted opposition to him, which reached a climax during a Passover celebration in Jerusalem when he was arrested, tried by the Jewish authorities on a charge of blasphemy and by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and crucified. During his lifetime he had chosen from among his followers a small group of disciples who had exhibited in their work in his name something of his power and authority."

BruceGrubb, I get it - you personally don't agree with what scholars believe. You have your own hypothesis that you have presented as an alternative to, for example, Jesus' baptism. However, we are reporting the verifiable views of what mainstream scholarship believes about Jesus. --Ari (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ari, how about toning it down a notch and commenting on the contributions, not the contributors? Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the article. I do not why that should stop me replying to the criticisms of myself... --Ari (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides this quote says nothing about how this relates to the CMT which was my original point. Taking this or any similar passage that doesn't expressly and directly reference at least the concept of the CMT and saying it demonstrates CMT's fringeness is WP:OR. We have plenty of reliable sources that say the CTM is fringe even if you include the borderline Jesus may have not existed concept that we don't need this from of WP:SYN nonsense. I would like to point out there are as many (if not more) fringe ideas about Jesus that also don't fit the above but (and here is the important part) THEY ARE NOT CMT. The above would be good for the Historicity of Jesus article but for this article it serves no purpose.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That was never your point. Your point was constantly trying to undercut what scholars believe with your own personal hypothesis. And now you go on another irrelevant tangent. No one said that what the mainstream believe is meant to be about establishing the CMT as fringe. The CMT is beyond fringe and the discussions for that are above under the pseudo-scholarship. This is about setting the context and giving meaning to the diagram. --Ari (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are very close to violating WP:Civil by implying I am a lier. Where does this quote involved the CTM?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed a para

Here it is:

Biblical scholars and classical historians believe that a number of statements about Jesus's life and ministry can be made with considerable certainty. It is widely held that he was a Galilean Jew born between 7 and 4 BCE and crucified around 30 CE. He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, he began his own ministry preaching in Galilee. He was perceived by his contemporaries as a teacher, healer, and exorcist, preaching about the kingdom of God using parables and startling imagery. He chose from among his followers a small group of apostles whom he sent out to spread his message. It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were running high in Jerusalem. The gospels say the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to Pontius Pilate for execution by crucifixion. After his death, the apostles proclaimed his resurrection and continued his ministry.

From what I've seen so far, it doesn't accurately reflect it's references. We need to fix this before we put it back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Marshall included all of those things as widely believed by even the most critical scholars. Although that would suffice for references, additional citations have been provided. As you raised no specific issues I restored this. --Ari (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, you want specifics, so let's look at the first two statements and their refs. After the first few refs of a para I see are invalid, I believe that we should look at all of them and make sure they're OK. They may have gotten mixed up in an edit mistake or who knows, but regardless, things are not right. If you require an explanation for every sentence with an offline reference, and why I think it may not be correct, then just tell me, and I'll take this article off my watchlist and let you do whatever you want. I'm not actually pushing a POV, and am just trying to help improve the refing in this article.

"It is widely held that he was a Galilean Jew born between 7 and 4 BCE and crucified around 30 CE." - This is attributed to "Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993." with no page number, and there's nothing in the "References" section.

"He was baptized by John the Baptist, and after John was executed, he began his own ministry preaching in Galilee." It's ref says "Sanders 1985, p. 11 Crossan 1991". Neither one exists in the "References" section.

Earlier I couldn't find a ref to support a statement, and it was provided by Ari, but the ref wasn't the one used, it was one found at the end of the paragraph supporting something else entirely. While it ended up working, and improved the article greatly with its addition, it wasn't the ref that was used before I asked question. I do not have faith that these refs support these statements. Again, it may just be that things were garbled by a funky edit sometime in the past. I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were pushing a POV, so no need to get defensive and threaten leaving the article. I typed out two pages of what Marshall said most scholars believe above, so I don't see the point in having to defend all these additional citations. It seems that you may have missed that, so here it is again:

"To save from more unfounded claims of OR, the citation provided is I. Howard Marshall p.215-7. Here Marshall discusses the "bare minimum" historical scholarship says about Jesus. In fact, he states that "It can be said with confidence that there are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars." These are what he quotes as what most scholars agree on:

"He was baptised by John the Baptist, and the beginning of his ministry was in some way linked with that of the Baptist. In his own ministry Jesus was above all the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and who challenged his hearers to respond to the reality that he was proclaiming. The authority and effectiveness of Jesus as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God was reinforced by an apparently deserved reputation as an exorcist. In a world that believed in gods, in powers of good and evil, and in demons, he was able, in the name of God and his Kingdom, to help those who believed themselves to be possessed by demons. A fundamental concern of Jesus was to bring together into a unified group those who responded to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God irrespective of their sex, previous background or history. A central feature of the life of this group was eating together, sharing a common meal that celebrated their unity in the new relationship with God, which they enjoyed on the basis of their response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom. In this concern for the unity of the group of those who responded to the proclamation, Jesus challenged the tendency of the Jewish community of his day to fragment itself and in the name of God to reject certain of its own members. This aroused a deep-rooted opposition to him, which reached a climax during a Passover celebration in Jerusalem when he was arrested, tried by the Jewish authorities on a charge of blasphemy and by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and crucified. During his lifetime he had chosen from among his followers a small group of disciples who had exhibited in their work in his name something of his power and authority."

This seems to cover most things in the list, and that is why the citation was provided at the start of the list. What is widely held is coming after + additional citations. If you have a problem with the additional citations, we can remove them; not the whole cited paragraph.

Furthermore, here is another chunk on the "consensus" for the passion narrative: "Overwhelmingly, modern scholars accept as secure the broad outline of the passion narratives, from Last Supper to final breath...there is a strong consensus...that affirms at least the following few facs: Jesus shared a final meal with the twelve during the Passover week of AD 30; he was betrayed by one of the twelve; he was arrested by the Temple guards; he was interrogated by the Jewish authorities and then 'officially' tried by Pontius Pilate; after scourging, he was crucified outside the walls of Jersualem under the charge, 'King of the Jews'." --Ari (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. That was a knee jerk and uncalled for comment about POV. Just wanted to say that before I read what you said. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So, is it Marshall 2001 or 2004, or are there seperate books? I'm trying to tie the Notes and References sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be 2004 (I think at one stage I put 2001 on the basis of the online bibliographical data but that is incorrect.) It is one of those books that went through some expansions and changes with different publishers. --Ari (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My internet is acting up, otherwise I would change it.

Now I'm looking at the quote you provided on Gbooks.[5] It has a lot of good info, but the part you quoted is just him quoting Perrin. It's only after that that Marshall actually discussed what scholars in general believe. And the situation is complicated, what with the "few elements...cosidered inauthentic" part. Our para makes it sound simple when it's not. That book has great info, and when I read Marshall I feel I'm starting to understand the subject, but when I read our para, I don't feel that way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Source request

Could someone post here what the sources say for the claim in the last paragraph of the context section: "The Christ myth theory stands outside this continuum ..."? They are Walsh, George (1998). The Role of Religion in History, p. 58, and Goguel, Maurice (1926b). "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), p. 117–118. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up a while back - see this discussion. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

We can't use a source from 1926 to define a theory that people are writing about in 2010. The 1998 source (Walsh) would be more appropriate, but the question is what does he say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's there too: [W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. 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.

George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998) p. 58

^^James^^ (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)