Talk:Christ myth theory

Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT

section is for references only
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section is for reference purposes. Citations are listed in reverse chronological order: (1) FROM BOOKS AND JOURNALS: One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist. Maurice Casey, Ph.D. Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Bloomsbury 2014), book cover. [B]y the method I have deployed here, I have confirmed our intuitions in the study of Jesus are wrong. He did not exist. I have made my case. To all objective and qualified scholars, I appeal to you all as a community: the ball is now in your court. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2014) p. 618. In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination put the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2014) p. 600. I am not making a Mythicist argument here, but I do think that the Mythicists have discovered problems in the supposed common-sense of historical Jesus theories that deserve to be taken seriously. Stevan Davies, Ph.D. Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity (Bardic Press 2014) p. 4. As Bart Ehrman himself has recently confessed, the earliest documentation we have shows Christians regarded Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial angelic being. Though Ehrman struggles to try and insist this is not how the cult began, it is hard to see the evidence any other way, once we abandon Christian faith assumptions about how to read the texts. The earliest Epistles only ever refer to Jesus as a celestial being revealing truths through visions and messages in scripture. There are no references in them to Jesus preaching (other than from heaven), or being a preacher, having a ministry, performing miracles, or choosing or having disciples, or communicating by any means other than revelation and scripture, or ever even being on earth. This is completely reversed in the Gospels. Which were written decades later, and are manifestly fictional. Yet all subsequent historicity claims, in all subsequent texts, are based on those Gospels.      We also have to remember that all other evidence from the first eighty years of Christianity's development was conveniently not preserved (not even in quotation or refutation). While a great deal more evidence was forged in its place: we know of over forty Gospels, half a dozen Acts, scores of fake Epistles, wild legends, and doctored passages. Thus, the evidence has passed through a very pervasive and destructive filter favoring the views of the later Church, in which it was vitally necessary to salvation to insist that Jesus was a historical man who really was crucified by Pontius Pilate (as we find obsessively insisted upon in the letters of Ignatius). Thus to uncover the truth of how the cult began, we have to look for clues, and not just gullibly trust the literary productions of the second century. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?” Bible and Interpretation (August 2014). [1] (Cf. Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee [HarperOne, 2014]) A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase “the overwhelming consensus says…” Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth. It’s time to rethink our assumptions, and look at the evidence anew.      There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?” Bible and Interpretation (August 2014). [2] ”Genesis is no longer regarded as scientific or historical for the most part. The exodus is mostly a myth. There’s no indisputable trace of David or Solomon from their time, and no trace of Jesus--after centuries of searching in his supposed environment. So, if you look from 1900 to 2014, you’ll see that most biblical scholars don’t believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Solomon, maybe David. . . You can see what a big difference there is.      “So, is it Jesus’ turn now? Well, maybe. See, doubt about Jesus is real, doubt about his bodily existence as recorded in the New Testament. More scholars are [now] willing to challenge this historicity openly.      “There are three possible positions when it comes to Jesus. You can be a ‘historicist,’ you can be a ‘mythicist,’ or you can be an ‘agnostic’. . . An agnostic says: ‘Well, the data are insufficient to settle the question one way or the other.’ That’s where I am.” Hector Avalos, Ph.D. “A Historical or Mythical Jesus? An Agnostic Viewpoint.” Lecture given at the University of Arizona, June 7, 2014. [3] Perhaps no historical figure is more deeply mired in legend and myth than Jesus of Nazareth. Outside of the Gospels—which are not so much factual accounts of Jesus but arguments about His religious significance—there is almost no trace of this simple Galilean peasant who inspired the world’s largest religion. Reza Aslan Ph.D, “Five Myths About Jesus,” The Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2013. [T]he Bible accounts of Jesus are stories rather than history. The accounts are indeed history-like, shaped partly like some of the histories or biographies of the ancient world. Fr. Thomas Brodie Ph.D, founder of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2012) p. xiii. Our conversation was relaxed until it somehow turned to my work, and she asked what it was that most concerned me about the Bible.      Eventually I said, "It’s just about Jesus."      Her questions were gentle, but she did want to know more. I was physically holding myself together, and looking down at the carpet. Then looked up.      "He never really existed," I said.      "Oh, that’s what I believed since I was a little girl," she responded. Fr. Thomas Brodie Ph.D, founder of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2012) p. 41. [Dr. Everard Johnston, lecturer at the Seminary of St John Vianney, visited Dr. Brodie in 2004 and took his time in perusing Brodie’s book. On connections between 1 Corinthians and the Old Testament, he muttered:] "In the same order… the same order apart from minor modifications."      [Brodie writes:]We turned to the gospels, discussing the extent to which they too are a product of the rewriting. Suddenly [Johnston] said, "So we’re back to Bultmann. We know nothing about Jesus."      I paused a moment. "It’s worse than that."      There was a silence.      Then [Johnston] said, "He never existed."      I nodded.      There was another silence, a long one, and then he nodded gently, "It makes sense." Fr. Thomas Brodie Ph.D, founder of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2012) p. 36. [S]urely the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear, or even to work out what kind of historical research might be appropriate. Such a normal exercise should hardly generate controversy in most fields of ancient history, but of course New Testament studies is not a normal case… [R]ecognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability… In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality. Prof. Philip Davies, "Did Jesus Exist?" in The Bible and Interpretation journal (Aug. 2012) [4] So what do we have here by way of evidence for Jesus? No certain eyewitness accounts, but a lot of secondary evidence, and of course the emergence of a new sect and then a religion that demands an explanation. As the editors of Is This the Carpenter rightly recognize (and Mogens Müller’s essay in the volume especially), we really have to go through Saul/Paul of Tarsus. This is because his letters are the earliest datable evidence for Jesus, and because, if we accept what he and the author of Acts say, his writing is almost certainly the only extant direct testimony of someone who claims to have met Jesus (read that twice, and see if you agree before moving on). We need not (and should not) trust everything S/Paul says or accept what he believes, but explaining Christian origins without him is even more difficult than explaining it without some kind of Jesus. But in S/Paul we are not dealing with someone who knew the man Jesus (his letters would have said so). There are three accounts in Acts of an apparition (chs 9, 22, 26), including a voice from heaven. If this writer is correct—and the letters of S/Paul do not confirm the story in any detail—the history of the figure of the Jesus of Christianity starts with a heavenly voice, a word (cf. prologue to Fourth Gospel) perhaps on a road, even to Damascus… Prof. Philip Davies, "Did Jesus Exist?" in The Bible and Interpretation journal (Aug. 2012) [5] The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of independent evidence for an historical Jesus, remain sceptical about his existence. Stephen Law, Ph.D (Heythrop College, University of London). “Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus.” Faith and Philosophy 2011. Vol. 28:2, April 2011. There is one rebuke regularly leveled at the proponents of Jesus mythicism. This is the claim--a myth in itself--that mainstream scholarship (both the New Testament exegete and the general historian) has long since discredited the theory that Jesus never existed, and continues to do so. It is not more widely supported, they maintain, because the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and this evidence has been presented time and time again. It is surprising how much currency this fantasy enjoys, considering that there is so little basis for it. Earl Doherty, Jesus Neither God nor Man (Age of Reason Publications, 2009) p. viii. Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God. We do not know who that someone was, or where he wrote his story. We are not even sure when he wrote it, but we do know that several decades had passed since the supposed events he told of. Later generations gave this storyteller the name of “Mark,” but if that was his real name, it was only by coincidence. Earl Doherty, Jesus Neither God nor Man (Age of Reason Publications, 2009) p. 1. It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press 2007), p. 272. Jesus was eventually historicized, redrawn as a human being of the past (much as Samson, Enoch, Jabal, Gad, Joshua the son of Nun, and various other ancient Israelite Gods had already been). As a part of this process, there were various independent attempts to locate Jesus in recent history by laying the blame for his death on this or that likely candidate, well known tyrants including Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and even Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BCE. Now, if the death of Jesus were an actual historical event well known to eyewitnesses of it, there is simply no way such a variety of versions, differing on so fundamental a point, could ever have arisen. . . Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology. Instead, he is a fiction. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press 2007), pp. 274–75. So, then, Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that (1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. (2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. Moreover, (3) the Jesus who “walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own” is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, (4) ‘Christ’ as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press 2007), p. 279. It appears, as Price suggests, that most of what is known about Jesus came by way of revelation to Christian oracles rather than by word of mouth as historical memory. In addition, the major characters in the New Testament, including Peter, Stephen, and Paul, appear to be composites of several historical individuals each, their stories comprising a mix of events, legend, and plot themes borrowed from the Old Testament and Greek literature. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), cover flap. Why are the gospels filled with rewritten stories of Jonah, David, Moses, Elijah, and Elisha rather than reports of the historical Jesus? Quite likely because the earliest Christians, perhaps Jewish, Samaritan, and Galilean sectarians like the Nasoreans or Essenes, did not understand their savior to have been a figure of mundane history at all, any more than the devotees of the cults of Attis, Jercules, Mithras, and Osiris did. Their gods, too, had died and risen in antiquity. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), pp. 66–67. [H]e may have begun as a local variation on Osiris, with whom he shows a number of striking parallels, and then been given the title “Jesus” (savior), which in turn was later taken as a proper name, and his link to his Egyptian prototype was forgotten. Various attempts were made to place his death—originally a crime of unseen angelic or demonic forces (1 Cor. 2:6–8; Col. 2:13–15; Heb. 8:1–5)—as a historical event at the hands of known ancient rulers. Some thought Jesus slain at the command of Alexander Jannaeus in about 87 BCE, others blamed Herod Antipas, other Pontius Pilate. Some thought he died at age thirty or so, other thought age fifty. During this process, a historical Jesus became useful in the emerging institutional consolidation of Christianity as a separate religious community, a figurehead for numerous legitimization myths and sayings. The result was that all manner of contradictory views were retroactively fathered onto Jesus, many surviving to puzzle gospel readers still today. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 67. [The epistles attributed to Paul] neither mention nor have room for a historical Jesus who wandered about Palestine doing miracles or coining wise sayings. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 68. As Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson have shown in Trajectories through Early Christianity, the compilers and readers of such gospels [as the Gospel of Thomas] dis not revere a savior Jesus so much as a wise man Jesus, a Socrates, Will Rogers, or Abe Lincoln. Theirs was not a superman who walked on water or ascended into heaven. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 68. One of the chief points of interest in [The Generations of Jesus/Toledoth Jeshu] is its chronology, placing Jesus about 100 BCE. This is no mere blunder, though it is not hard to find anachronisms elsewhere in the text. Epiphanius and the Talmud also attest to Jewish and Jewish-Christian belief in Jesus having lived a century or so before we usually imagine, implying that perhaps the Jesus figure was at first an ahistorical myth and various attempts were made to place him in a plausible historical context, just as Herodotus and others tried to figure out when Hercules “must have” lived. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 240. The blunt truth is that seismic research by a few specifically neutral scholars, most notably Orientalists and Egyptologists, has been deliberately ignored by churchly authorities for many decades. Scholars such as Godfrey Higgins (1771–1834)m author of the monumental tome Anacalypsis, the British Egyptologist Gerald Massey (1828–1908), and more recently, and most important, the already cited American specialist in ancient sacred literature Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1881–1963) have made it clear in voluminous, eminently learned words that the Jewish and Christian religions do indeed owe most of their origins to Egyptian roots. Rev. Tom Harpur, M.A., The Pagan Christ (Thomas Allen 2005, Kindle edition) Chapter 1. Whether the gospels in fact are biographies--narratives about the life of a historical person--is doubtful. Their pedagogical and legendary character reduces their value for historical reconstruction. New Testament scholars commonly hold the opinion that a historical person would be something very different from the Christ (or messiah), with whom, for example, the author of the Gospel of Mark identifies his Jesus (Hebrew: Joshua = savior), opining his book with the statement: “The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, God’s son.” Thomas Thompson, PhD. The Messiah Myth (Basic Books 2005) p. 3. The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus’s life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place or attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus. Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the “likeness” of man, “emptied” then of his supernatural powers (Phil. 2:7)--certainly not the gospel figure who worked wonders which made him famous throughout “all Syria” (Mt. 4:24). G. A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Open Court 2004) p. 2. This astonishingly complete absence of reliable gospel material begins to coincide, along its own authentic trajectory, and not as an implication of some other theory, with another minimalist approach to the historical Jesus, namely, that here never was one. Most of the Dutch Radical scholars, following Bruno Bauer, argued that all of the gospel tradition was fabricated to historicize an originally bare datum of a savior, perhaps derived from the Mystery Religions or Gnosticism or even further afield. The basic argument offered for this position, it seems to me, is that of analogy, the resemblances between Jesus and Gnostic and Mystery Religion saviors being just too numerous and close to dismiss. And that is a strong argument. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Prometheus 2003) p. 350. My analysis in this book has led me to conclude that all the earliest Christian documents, first and foremost among them Paul’s Letters, present Jesus as somebody who had lived and died a long time ago. Hence neither Paul nor any of his contemporaries could have had any experience of the earthly Jesus, nor of his death. To them the crucifixion and resurrection were spiritual events, most likely in the form of overwhelming revelations or ecstatic visions. It was this heavenly Jesus that was important to these earliest Christians, just as the heavenly, spiritual world was vastly superior to the material one. Many scholars have considered Paul’s obvious lack of interest in Jesus’ earthly life as surprising and hard to explain. . . Alvar Ellegård, Ph.D. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (Overlook Press 1999) p. 4. [T]he Gospels’ picture of Jesus as a Palestinian wonderworker and preacher is, as I shall show, a creation of the second century AD, when their Church had to meet challenges caused by competing movements inside and outside their church. An important way to meet the new situation was to create a history for that church, a myth of its origin. The central ideas in that myth were that Jesus was man who had lived and preached his Gospel in Palestine at the beginning of the previous century, and that he had been crucified and raised to heaven around AD 30. None of this mythical history is supported by any first-century writings, whether Christian or not. . . Alvar Ellegard, Ph.D. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (Overlook Press 1999) pp. 4–5. There is no credible evidence indicating Jesus ever lived. This fact is, of course, inadequate to prove he did not live. Even so, although it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative, it is possible to show that there is no need to hypothesize any historical Jesus. The Christ biography can be accounted for on purely literary, astrological, and comparative mythological grounds. The logical principle known as Occam’s razor tells us that basic assumptions should not be multiplied beyond necessity. For practical purposes, showing that a historical Jesus is an unnecessary assumption is just as good as proving that he never existed. Frank R. Zindler, “How Jesus Got a Life.” American Atheist journal, June 1992. [I]t is hardly to be denied that in reifying, personalizing and finally historicizing the Christ principle in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian theology has diverted the direction of man's quest for the blessedness of contact with deity away from the inner seat of that divinity in man himself and outward to a man in history. Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D. India’s True Voice (Academy Press 1955) p. 7. The Christians of the third and fourth centuries were plagued to distraction by the recurrent appearance of evidence that revealed the disconcerting identity of the Gospel narrative in many places with incidents in the "lives" of Horus, Izdubar, Mithra, Sabazius, Adonis, Witoba, Hercules, Marduk, Krishna, Buddha and other divine messengers to early nations. They answered the challenge of this situation with desperate allegations that the similarity was the work of the devil! Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D. Who Is This King of Glory? (Academy Press 1944) p. 35. For the heavenly Christ subsequently to receive the name Jesus implies. . . that the form of the salvation myth presupposed in the Philippians hymn fragment [Phil 2:5–11] did not feature an earthly figure named Jesus. Rather, this name was a subsequent honor. Here is a fossil of an early belief according to which a heavenly entity. . . subsequently received the cult name Jesus. In all this there is no historical Jesus the Nazorean. P.L. Couchoud, “The Historicity of Jesus.” The Hibbert Journal 37 (1938) p. 85. [T]he urgency for historicizing Jesus was the need of a consolidating institution for an authoritative figurehead who had appointed successors and set policy.” Arthur Drews, Ph.D. The Christ Myth (1909; rpt. Prometheus 1998) pp. 271–72. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb. Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (Pioneer Press 1884) p. 395. “It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind… there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”   Frederic W. Farrar, Ph.D. The Life of Christ (Cassell, London, 1874) (2) SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST MYTH THEORY: On the inaccurate portrayal of Pilate and Jesus’ trial in the gospels:      The Gospels portray Pontius Pilate as an honest but weak-willed governor who was strong-armed by the Jewish authorities into sending a man he knew was innocent to the cross. The Pilate of history, however, was renowned for sending his troops onto the streets of Jerusalem to slaughter Jews whenever they disagreed with even the slightest of his decisions. In his 10 years as governor of Jerusalem, Pilate eagerly, and without trial, sent thousands to the cross, and the Jews lodged a complaint against him with the Roman emperor. Jews generally did not receive Roman trials, let alone Jews accused of rebellion. So the notion that Pilate would spend a moment of his time pondering the fate of yet another Jewish rabble-rouser, let alone grant him a personal audience, beggars the imagination.      It is, of course, conceivable that Jesus would have received an audience with the Roman governor if the magnitude of His crime warranted special attention. But any “trial” Jesus got would have been brief and perfunctory, its sole purpose to officially record the charges for which He was being executed. Reza Aslan Ph.D, “Five Myths About Jesus.” The Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2013. Showing how Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, about the year 110 CE fought the contemporary opinion that Jesus was not physical: [Jesus] suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who. . . affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting as they do, Him who said, ‘The Word was made flesh’ [Jn 1:14]. . . I know that he was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that he was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 (Eerdmans 1985) p. 87. Showing that Paul probably did not know any historical Jesus: The New Testament epistles can be read quite naturally as presupposing a period in which Christians did not yet believe their savior god had been a figure living on earth in the recent historical past. Paul, for instance, never even mentions Jesus performing healings or even as having been a teacher. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press, 2007) p. 274. On the lack of archaeological evidence for Bethlehem at the time of Jesus: But while Luke and Matthew describe Bethlehem of Judea as the birthplace of Jesus, “Menorah,” the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) describes Bethlehem as an “ancient site” with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus. . . [S]urveys in Bethlehem showed plenty of Iron Age pottery, but excavations by several Israeli archaeologists revealed no artifacts at all from the Early Roman or Herodian periods. . . Furthermore, in this time the aqueduct from Solomon’s Pools to Jerusalem ran through the area of Bethlehem. This fact strengthens the likelihood of an absence of settlement at the site, as, according to the Roman architect Vitruvius, no aqueduct passes through the heart of a city. Archaeologist Aviram Oshri, Ph.D. “Where Was Jesus Born?” Archaeology, Nov.–Dec. 2005, pp. 42–43. In favor of jettisoning the passage known as the "Testimonium" of Josephus (1st century CE Jewish writer) as an early witness for the existence of Jesus: Codex 76 contains Photius' first review of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Although Photius reviews the sections of Antiquities in which one would expect the Testimonium to have been found, he betrays no knowledge of any Christian connections being present in his manuscript. Frank R. Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (American Atheist Press, 2003) p. 48. On the gospel stories being adaptations of Old Testament stories: As for the gospel stories, as distinct from the sayings, Randel Helms and Thomas L. Brodie have shown how story after story in the gospels has been based, sometimes verbatim, on similar stories from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint... [E]ven the account of the crucifixion itself is a patchwork quilt of (mostly unacknowledged) scripture citations rather than historical reportage. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. Deconstructing Jesus (Prometheus 2000) pp. 257–58. On the life of Jesus corresponding to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype: [A]s folklorist Alan Dundes has shown, the gospel life of Jesus corresponds in most particulars with the worldwide pardigm of the Mythic Hero Archetype as delineated by Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, and others. Drawn from comparative studies of Indo-European and Semitic hero legends, this pattern contains twenty-two typical, recurrent elements. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. Deconstructing Jesus (Prometheus 2000) p. 259. On “Jesus” being entirely non-physical in the Book of Revelation: While Revelation may very well derive from a very early period. . . the Jesus of which it whispers obviously is not a man. He is a supernatural being. He has not yet acquired the physiological and metabolic properties of which we read in the gospels. The Jesus of Revelation is a god who would later be made into a man. . . Frank R. Zindler, “Did Jesus Exist?” American Atheist journal, Summer 1998. On the town of Nazareth not having existed in the time of Jesus: Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historicans or geographers mention it before the beginning of the fourth century. The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) and conducted military operations back and forth across the tiny territory in the last half of the first century, mentions Nazareth not even once--although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth! Josephus tells us that he was occupied there for some time. Frank R. Zindler, “Where Jesus Never Walked.” American Atheist journal, Winter 1996–97. On Paul’s silence regarding an earthly Jesus: [The Pauline letters] are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.      These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by him ‘of Nazareth’). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter’s denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)      These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission since, according to the gospels, he worked so many. . .      Another striking feature of Paul’s letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher. . . G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Prometheus 1988) pp. 22–23. In favor of eliminating the "brother of Jesus" passage as found in (the 1st century CE Jewish writer) Josephus, and therefore removing James as a witness to the historicity of Jesus: On Ant. [Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus] 20:200 we conclude by suggesting that the phrase 'the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ' did not originate with Josephus. Rather, a Christian anxious to capitalize on the positive light in which an early Christian was placed, took the opportunity to insert these words. Prof. Graham H. Twelftree (Regent Univ. Sch. of Divinity, Virginia), Ph.D. "Jesus in Jewish Traditions," in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, (Sheffield Academic Press, 1982) p. 300. Doubt regarding the existence of Jesus was current in early Christian times: Justin [Martyr], in his Dialogue with Trypho, represents the Jew Trypho as saying, “You follow an empty rumor and make a Christ for yourselves. . . If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely unknown.” L. G. Rylands, Ph.D. Did Jesus Ever Live? (London 1936), p. 20. Showing that a Christian writer of the 2nd cent. CE (Justin Martyr) himself drew strong parallels between Christianity and Paganism: And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165 CE), First Apology, ch. 21-22. (3) FROM NON-PRINT SOURCES (WEBLOGS, ETC.): Brodie’s book [Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus] doesn’t have to convince everyone. What it does accomplish is help establish that a serious scholar can indeed take a mythicist position. It helps show that mythicism is an intellectually viable position even if not universally convincing. Tom Dykstra, author of Mark: Canonizer of Paul. Blog (July 20, 2014) [6] Throughout Ehrman’s book [Did Jesus Exist?], the one theme that he keeps repeating over and over again is his assertion that no reputable New Testament scholars deny the historicity of Jesus. I pointed out some of the problems with this view already in my last post, and now Brodie’s book certainly blows that assertion out of the water. Brodie is not some half-educated interloper in the field of New Testament scholarship; he is an established biblical scholar who heads an institution devoted to biblical scholarship and has published widely on topics in New Testament studies… A more realistic and constructive approach is to see our coming to terms with a nonhistorical Jesus as the modern counterpart to medieval Christians’ coming to terms with the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe. Tom Dykstra, author of Mark: Canonizer of Paul. Blog (Dec. 25, 2012) [7] Ehrman falsely claims in his book (DJE?) that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity at USCD. . . And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter) and Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself (Richard Carrier) and Robert Price, as fully qualified independent scholars, and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown, that is more than a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus. And most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. That makes seven fully qualified experts on the record, three of them sitting professors, plus two retired professors, and two independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record. We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Philip Davies." --Richard Carrier, "Ehrman on Historicity Recap" (2012 Freethought Blogs,[8] But it's not that Earl [Doherty] advocates lunacy in a manner devoid of learning. He advocates a position that is well argued based on the evidence. Prof. Stevan Davies, CrossTalk post 5438 (Feb. 26, 1999). [9] “We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”  Dr. Constantin von Tischendorf. Codex Sinaiticus. (British Library, London)

RfC: Has the CMT been “annihilated” today?

The purpose of this RfC is to gather opinions on what to do with the first sentence of the Grant citation at the end of the “Criticism” section: “[The CMT] has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'” (which is itself a citation from the non-academic Roderic Dunkerley’s 1957 book Beyond the Gospels).

Even if it were true in 1977 (and how could it have been, since nothing that is “annihilated” survives another 40 years?) this statement by classicist Michael Grant is evidently not true today, for the CMT is very much 'alive' as we see from the section “Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT”[10] and from the section of the article "21st Century."[11] For these reasons, either this part of the Grant citation must (a) be deleted; or (b) if retained, then information must be added clarifying why it is not true today.

As we have recently been reminded through our recent lengthy feuding over the “no serious scholar” part of the Grant citation, it is never a good idea to advocate for known false content, or to deliberately retain such content in Wikipedia (even if the content is from a scholarly source)--especially through persistence, reverts, and edit warring. The strongest sanctions can be the penalty for such cases of ‘editing in reverse.’ In the final analysis, Wikipedia does its best to deliver up to date, verifiably correct information.Renejs (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Grant paragraph is out of date and misleading and should go. I've clarified for the reader in this edit who said what when, but unless I hear a good argument for this anachronism to sit in a current description of the scholarship, I'll be deleting it in a few days. It now reads, accurately,

  Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant said, quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion and Otto Betz's 1968 opinion, the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars' (Dunkerley). In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' (Betz) — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[215][216][217]

Seriously? Who cares what Grant thinks in 1977 about what other writers said even decades earlier? This is a tendentious misuse of an out-dated source. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, Anthony, and certainly believe that the whole paragraph is indefensible today. But (as you see from the next entries) not everyone is on board. . . So we may have to go one statement, phrase--even word--at a time, taking the elements individually. It's a longer procedure, but more thorough.Renejs (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is Dunkerley specifically labelled as 'not an expert' and unlike Rene Salm, Earl Doherty etc.? Especially as Grant, who undoubtedly was an expert, apparently accepted Dunkerley's views. As for 'misleading', are you suggesting that there are more than a 'very few' scholars who posit it? I can find, on this whole page, Thompson and Brodie who can be considered 'serious scholars'. I'm doubtful that the revisions by Mr Cole meet NPOV as he seems to be trying to say that only non-scholars suggest it is a fringe theory, which is clearly not the case and is not tenable even using recent sources (Casey, Ehrmann). As for being annihilated - the mere fact that some people refuse to engage meaningfully with scholarship and repeatedly dismiss things that don't fit their worldview as lies does not mean that their arguments have not been annihilated. (Edited on mature reflection, because I've been quite worried on doing some research on Cole's behaviour - he has even suggested that Salm has 'subject expertise', which is not something I think most experts, would agree on although I admit I found only this on a Google search without plundering JSTOR for rebuttal articles). 109.156.156.186 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond to the part of the above comment which addresses the point of this RfC. The anonymous writer uses the famous double negative: the above "does not mean that [CMT] arguments have not been annihilated." I disagree, but that doesn't matter. What we need is somebody to show evidence that the CMT has been annihilated.Renejs (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Grant quote is accurate. If you want to replace it with a quote saying the same thing, be my guest. Also, keep in mind that the CMT is fringe and that Rene is attempting to make it into a minority view, which it cleary is not. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

'What we need is somebody to show evidence that the CMT has been annihilated.'

It has been repeatedly shown. Casey, Ehrmann, Dickson, even Carrier have shown that normal historical methods dispense with the Christ Myth Theory (Carrier, of course, didn't let that stop him inventing a whole new, wildly implausible historical methodology to try and support his ideas). Merely refusing to engage with reality is not a refutation to that annihilation. But there - I am talking to somebody who thinks that (1) Earl Doherty is a scholar (2) Tom Harpur has a PhD (3) Maurice Casey wrote in support of mythicism (those three on the evidence of this talk page) and (4) that archaeological evidence that doesn't fit his pet theories doesn't exist (on the evidence of Ken Dark, whose work you claimed to be using). I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering, except insofar as I know how much wikipedia is used today and therefore I think it important to try and fight pseudoscholarship wherever I see it.

Most of the above is total POV: "Carrier uses "wildly implausible historical methodology"; the CMT refuses "to engage with reality". . . And yes, the writer is correct that Harpur lacks a PhD though he taught religion at the college level. But no, I never thought Casey "wrote in support of mythicism".

The only sentence which might address this RfC is: "It has been repeatedly shown. Casey, Ehrmann [sp], Dickson, even Carrier have shown that normal historical methods dispense with the Christ Myth Theory." In fact, they have not shown this at all. Carrier is a historian and also a mythicist, so his name in the foregoing list is a mystery to me because he certainly does not "dispense with the CMT" but actively espouses it (for the last several years, at least).

As for Ehrman, Brodie (Beyond, p. 229) faults Ehrman precisely for using unscholarly methodology in Did Jesus Exist? Brodie accuses Ehrman of not taking advantage of research since the 1980s and for basing his writing on research of the 50s--exactly what some people wish to do with the Grant citation today!Renejs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

'The anonymous writer uses the famous double negative'

True, but in some cases a double negative can be correct, as in this case. Your arguments have been annihilated. I believe you are a musician - it is a bit like a G double flat. Not used a lot, but remarkably effective in the right context (Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music springs to mind - that wonderful 'dark as Erebus' moment).

109.156.156.186 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment _{tl:dr It is accurate, balanced, in the correct section and should stay.} I don't know that the positions on either side of this dispute have articulated their concerns very well. As best as I can tell, it seems that the objections lay in whether the quote is an accurate description of the current state of scholarship on the Historicity of Jesus and the CMT. While I personally find the arguments of Ehrman, Carrier, and especially Price compelling, it is my understanding that their views (and mine as well) are best classified as fringe. I don't have a citation on the issue but, as a personal rule of thumb, if one can name all the proponents of a particular position in a large topic area, then that position is certainly fringe. As a percentage of the scholarship, I would suspect that CMT proponents have convinced fewer people than the creationists have, and that is certainly a fringe position. I think the quote meets wp:weight, via it's accuracy, dating and placement in the article. --Adam in MO Talk 09:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I note your opinion on "fringe" (a different topic) etc. But the question here is: Has the Christ Myth Theory been "annihilated" in scholarship today? 'Annihilated' is one of the strongest words in the English vocabulary. It is very different from 'dispensing with something' (above) or "fringe." One notes that the Dunkerley quote in Grant uses the words "answered and annihilated." I think a good case could certainly be made that the CMT has been "answered" by mainstream scholarship. But how could it be "annihilated" if the CMT is still around--openly professed by a few scholars and increasingly taken seriously by others? Sure, there are lots of little bible colleges and places like Liberty University where everyone will say that the CMT has been "annihilated." But that doesn't make Carrier, Brodie, Price, Eisenman, Lemche, Thompson, Davies, et al just disappear! These scholars are still walking around and writing, even if conservatives wish to "dispense with" them. An objective view on this matter will take us out of the Bible Belt and will dispense with the word "annihilated."Renejs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The prose of the proposed addition doesn't present the quote as if it were he were speaking for all scholars. The proposal, as it stands, communicates the findings of one author 40 years ago. Obviously CMT hasn't been "annihilated".--Adam in MO Talk 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The same ad hominem attacks as usual, I see. The repeated inisuations that people disagree because they are "conservatives" from "the Bible Belt". I don't think there's anything particularly conservative about relying on actual scholarship and trying to adhere to standard Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't let this pass, Jeppiz. . . Standard Wiki practice is first and foremost to ensure up to date, verifiable content. I strongly suggest you give this some thought. The bottom line of this RfC is simple: "Annihilated" does not reflect the current state of the CMT. Adam has acknowledged this obvious fact. It's time for others to do so as well.Renejs (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone in this discussion (the title of which you set) said we should use 'annihilated'? It's a very strange weird in an academic discussion. CMT has been thoroughly debunked, though. It's an opinion almost exclusively held by non-experts in the face of almost unanimous academic consensus to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that Renejs is referring to "conservative" Bible scholars. That is an accurate usage of the term. As far as I know CMT proponents are all described as "liberal" scholars. The term is different than it's usage in politics. For example Robert M. Price is a "liberal" Bible scholar and a Mythicist but he is politically "conservative". I think this talk page could use a little good faith from everyone.--Adam in MO Talk 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Adam. I was not being ad hominem which means to attack a person's character. In fact, I didn't mention anybody in the note of which Jeppiz accused me of being ad hominem--just places like Libery Univ and Bible Belt colleges. I was being very objective by saying what actually happens in such religiously conservative places.Renejs (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, your claim is just downright dishonest and you know it. I don't think there's a single US or UK university, conservative or liberal, Christian or atheist, where CMT has anything even close to majority support. There are literally a handful of academics in favor of CMT, which is precisely why the article devote most of its space to "non-experts with opinions". Trying to imply that this is a debate between "religiously conservative places" and "liberal places" (no matter how the terms are used) is quite simply wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CommentI think that my view is somewhere in the middle here. "Annihilated", is not an accurate representation of the current scholarship. But the proposed addition is not presented as though it were. The addition is in a criticism and accurately reflects the citation. Take for example two statements: "Creationism has strong scientific support." and "Ken Ham wrote that Creationism has strong scientific support." The first statement is patently false, the later is supported by sources. It seems that this is the same situation. CMT has not been annihilated but the statement "...Michael Clark claims..." is true. He did claim that. This is why it should be included.--Adam in MO Talk 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not enough to say, "Well, we're just quoting Grant and he really said that in 1977." Why? Because this section is supposed to reflect the contemporary criticism, not that from 1977! This is not a "history of the CMT section." Why should anybody today be interested in what a tangential scholar (Grant was not a biblicist) thought about the CMT forty years ago?

And here we have a problem. Until the very recent urging of myself and a few others, the Grant citation has always read as if it were from today. That's of course very misleading. Grant's statement slams the CMT so beautifully that a lot of people will fight hard to retain it--that fight is what's happening now. People have also fought to keep it as misleading as before--it's taken three weeks of fighting just to get the words "Writing in 1977. . ." added!

Since the "annihilated" part of the Grant statement is NOW patently false, it has to either (a) be deleted or (b) amended with some sort of additional explanation to bring it up to date. Here's one example:

Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant asserted that the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'.[212] However, today a few scholars espouse the Christ Myth Theory (see above)[12], and an additional few describe themselves as “agnostic” in this regard. Grant also stated. . .

In other words, I'm not opposed to keeping the "annihilated" part in the Criticism section IF we also tell the reader how and why this has changed. (BTW, the rest of the Grant citation still has to be looked at.) Renejs (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Rene wrote "Why should anybody today be interested in what a tangential scholar (Grant was not a biblicist) thought about the CMT forty years ago?" I can see some merit in that argument. So keeping in line with Rene's idea that we're not interested in "tangential scholars" or people writing "40 years ago", I move we remove all those people in the article who aren't scholars, only "tangential scholars" and/or wrote earlier than 1980.Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to take Grant's quote out of the article, because a longstanding concern raised by some editors here is that the work of biblical scholars is biased and should therefore be disregarded. I don't think this is true by any means, but since Grant was a classicist, not a biblical scholar, he is a good illustration that by the standard methods of ancient history, there is no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been such a long wrangle over the definition of "expert vs non-expert", I think it would benefit the encyclopedia to reword the sentence "quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion" to read "quoting author Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion". Otherwise I can live with the Grant statement as it has been corrected - it is clearly wrong, but by quoting it in full and stating clearly that it is 40 years old, it accurately reflects the source and the reader can see how old it is and what it's made of. Wdford (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Remove "non-expert" - where are we getting this from, anyway? A non-academic book does not imply a non-expert author. It's not clear what constitutes an "expert" in this context, and in any case we would need a reliable source for the claim that Dunkerley is not an expert. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree - can we remove the words "non-expert" ASAP? Does anybody object? Wdford (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In this particular context, I don't see the point in keeping it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The words "non-expert" serve no purpose and only show an obvious bias.Lozen8 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comments, moving forward

To make the article more readable and informative, I would suggest removing both outdated proponents and opponents, except in a brief "History" section. Furthermore, I suggest removing all "amateurs with opinions" and focus the article on the views of academics in the field (again, both proponents and opponents) in line with WP:RS and WP:NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning

This is my somewhat longer explanation to the RFC above, which I've tried to keep strictly neutral. I think everybody can agree that this page has stalled, and even the slightest edits lead to long discussions, arguments, and accusations of POV thrown at anyone who disagree with one or the other user. It's also safe to say that no "side" (so to speak) has without fault. It seems everybody agree that sources they don't like should be removed if they are too old. Similarly, everybody has expressed misgivings about non-experts who don't share their opinion. I would also hope everybody could agree that Wikipedia is about neutral and general principles, so an argument to remove old sources or non-experts should be equally valid whether we agree with that source or not. Based on that, I'd like to propose the following changes:

• Removing all old sources (including Grant, who has been debated, but also all other sources that are from the 70s or earlier) except in a History of CMT where the most notable early proponents are identified, their views summarized and, when applicable, refuted in case later research has done so.-
• Removing all non-experts. Articles should build on reliable sources, which means people with an academic reputation in the relevant field. There is no reason to include "amateurs with opinions" regardless of whether they support or reject CMT. Wikipedia operates under WP:RS (sources should be reliable) and under WP:NPOV (articles should give an accurate picture of the academic balance in the field). Opinionated amateurs, no matter whether they are Christian apologetics or atheists, whether they are pro-CMT or anti-CMT, should be removed. Possibly a short section could make a brief mention of the 2-3 most famous non-experts, but in a very brief format and clearly labelled as such for the reader.

I think these changes would improve the article quite a bit, as it's in rather poor shape and leading experts and complete amateurs are mixed together in a way making it hard for the reader to get an accurate picture.Jeppiz (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Since it is based on well-established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose One big problem is that anybody who propounds the CMT (even today) is immediately pushed out of academia (cf. Brodie as the latest example, Bauer as an earlier, many other names possible). So, the standard definition of "expert" as an "academic with a reputation in the relevant field" doesn't cut it with the CMT. Ever wonder why the major proponents of the CMT are and have been OUTSIDE academia? They may even have relevant PhD's (Price, Carrier, many others) but they don't get a job, publishing contracts, prestige, etc. Doherty's a great example of someone who has played a major and pioneering role in the modern development of the CMT. But, by all conventional standards, his opinion shouldn't matter at all--he a self-published "amateur" with no PhD. Three strikes. However, I strongly support your first point: "removing old sources" (e.g. Grant). We should be able to do better. Renejs (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Renejs has a major conflict of interest as he is one of the "opinionated amateurs". It's perhaps understandable he does not want to remove himself, but once again, the conflict of interest is immense. As for Brodie, he wasn't pushed out of academia. He is a priest, I could understand why a Christian order felt it could not have a spokesperson claiming Jesus didn't exist. And in case I was unclear, of course I meant that both Price and Carrier should remain. More than that, I think a revised version of the article with all the amateurs taken out could even provide some more room to develop Price and Carrier. So yes, Renejs should be taken out of the article (and that should happen in either case given his active involvement) alongside other amateurs with opinions (once again, we have WP:RS for a reason) but the actual article should remain and should of course present an overview of CMT as put forward by WP:RS proponents. The idea here is to make the article better for the reader, not to censor any view.Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I think you need to read up on the details re: Brodie. He was pushed out of academia. He was founder and for many years Director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Ireland until the appearance of his 2012 Beyond the Quest of the Historical Jesus. "Immediately after the book’s publication Brodie was (for the first time) forbidden to teach" ([13] by yours truly--with embedded link).

As for your weird ideas about culling out of the CMT article whoever you choose to call a "non-expert," I've already given my opinion: oppose.Renejs (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not whom I call non-expert, it's following WP:RS. But ok, you've voiced your opinion. Renejs opposes removing Renejs from the article, true to WP:COI-form. Your opinion is clear.Jeppiz (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Tgeorgescu, however I wouldn't be opposed to a section on "CMT as a cultural phenomenon" or something along those lines. My gut feeling is that discussion of notable non-expert works which advocate CMT need to be referenced somewhere in this page. De Guerre (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The big problem is working out who is an amateur and who isn't. I assume you are including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens among the amateurs. What about Richard Carrier? StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevant standard is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. By that standard, Carrier is an expert. De Guerre (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite know what part of that guideline you mean - in any case, it's more about identifying publications than identifying people. Certainly, we could cite Carrier's PhD thesis, but I wonder if he is an expert in this area. Nothing comes up in Google Scholar. It doesn't look lie his work has been published in "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Incredible. Simply incredible. You're POV is greatly showing, Anselm. Richard Carrier is an "amateur" on the CMT? Wowie.Could you give some rationale for that astonishing declaration? It would be difficult to get much more ridiculous--like saying Muhammad Ali was an amateur at boxing. Renejs (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Wikipedia doesn't really have the concept of an "expert", merely a "reliable source". Reliability is a property of a source, not a person. Nonetheless, surely On the Historicity of Jesus is a peer-reviewed book published by a mainstream academic publisher? De Guerre (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes - thank you, that's what I was after. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: This appears to be another in a succession of attempts to make the CMT article disappear. The “history of the theory” needs to stay in full, for two overlapping reasons: a) the article is about the CMT, so it needs to describe the CMT properly, and b) the CMT is not one simple theory but an assembly of slightly different theories from different proponents, ranging in scope from Wells to Carrier, so for the reader to get a proper understanding of the CMT we need to include all facets. Secondly, the issue of “reliable sources” is a poisoned question – as discussed previously, the people who are the best sources about the CMT are those who invented the CMT, not the critics with a strong contrary POV. There is no such thing as a PhD in CMT, and having a PhD in mainstream biblical studies does not make one an expert in the CMT – probably quite the opposite. For example, Carrier is a leading proponent of the CMT, but an editor has now questioned whether Carrier can be considered to be an expert in his own theory. It seems some editors want to deny the proponents of the CMT a voice in the article about their own theory, and allow only comments from the opponents. How could that possibly be in line with Wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is extremely well written. Thank you. Wdford. Those trained in standard Biblical Studies curricula have no exposure at all to the CMT--if they've ever even heard of it. Even Ehrman is woefully unaquainted with it's literature and wrote a very poor book attempting to combat it (see here for CMT rebuttals:[14]). Renejs (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment In case I was unclear when writing the RfC, of course I meant that both Price and Carrier should remain. More than that, I think a revised version of the article with all the amateurs taken out could even provide some more room to develop people like Price and Carrier. Amateurs with opinions should be taken out just as in any other articke (once again, we have WP:RS for a reason) but the actual article should remain and should of course present an overview of CMT as put forward by WP:RS proponents. The idea here is to make the article better for the reader, not to censor any view.Jeppiz (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure by including only experts is really the way to go. Almost every person writing pro-CMT books are non-experts and, as WDFord says, the people who are the best sources about the CMT are those who invented the CMT. I think it would be best if we take WDFord's approach and then make it perfectly clear that the CMT is fringe and that proponents of it don't get teaching positions in accredited universities because of it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe it, Bill. I agree with you! Wow. See, I also agree with Wdford's approach. Renejs (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not opposed to a short section about notable non-scholars who advanced CMT, written according to WP:FRIND. As an overview of who counts as a scholar, we could start from Ehrman's review of notable CMT proponents: he counts two New Testament scholars and some more historians. If he is somewhat outdated, his list of scholars could be amended by consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! I suggested that already in the first post, but unfortunately Renejs chose to misrepresent what I had written and then attack his own misrepresentation of what I had said. We should mention some prominent non-scholars, but we should not mention everyone who has commented on it, as we're currently doing.Jeppiz (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment On reflection, I think that part of the confusion is that this article is trying to do two things. CMT is both an academic position (in the sense that even though it's clearly WP:FRINGE, there is WP:RS, some of which is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which advocates it) and a cultural phenomenon (in the sense that there is notable WP:QS). Everything I said in my support above I still agree with, however, I'm framing this debate in terms of "removing non-experts" probably isn't helpful. The goal of a reorganisation should be to clearly separate RS from notable QS (and, of course, historical opinions, which is a third category), and to remove only (and all) non-notable QS. De Guerre (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Figures who were part of academia and then "shoved out" would qualify as scholars. They would be included (if possibly labelled as fringe), while those who were not a part of academia before and after making their claims should be excluded. Going through just the 21st century section, and assuming that an appropriate scholar would be one who has a degree in New Testament history, Classical history, or something similar, Brodie, Carrier, Doherty, Harpur, Thompson, and even Price would be appropriate to be included -- But Hitchens, Murdock, and Salm are about as appropriate to include as Ken Ham. That wouldn't drastically cut down the article, but would turn this from a piece of CMT evangelism into a neutral article about the actual scholarship instead of the crackpots. If any of the cranks merit their own article (like Acharya S), we can link to their views in some section clearly labelled "non-academic views." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support [15]. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Highly confusing

It's really impossible to do anything with this article, as some users change their claims as it suits their arguments. When we discussed whether to mark this as a fringe theory, some people shouted No!!! and argued that there is WP:RS support for CMT. When there is a discussion to remove amateurs and focus on the WP:RS sources, some of the same people again shout No!!, and now arguing that we cannot do that because there is no academic support. You quite frankly cannot have it both ways. Either there is no WP:RS support (and we should therefore mark this as a fringe theory, any theory with no academic support is a fringe theory) or there is WP:RS support and we can write an article based on those sources without needing to resort to people who fail WP:RS. As Tgeorgescu wrote, it really seems that some users use this article Right Great Wrongs, convinced that they represent the WP:TRUTH and it must be defended against an evil conspiracy who try to silence all opposition.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Jeppiz is equating "academic support" with "reliable sources." That doesn't work for the CMT which, simply put, for the past 200 years has been deliberately--and very tendentiously--excluded from academic curricula. Umm, that's POV not from Wikipedia but from the whole academic world. Yeah, you heard it here first. . . Renejs (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't work for the CMT. Academic support considers the CMT like the theory that the moon is made of green cheese (among other derogatory conclusions). Do you have a problem with academics excluding such nonsense from the curricula? So, what exactly is your point? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I might suggest a radical alternative: deletion of the entire page. You read correctly: delete the entire CMT article. Why? Because it does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. (See also: [16].) There we read: "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." IMO, this does not exist for the CMT--or arguably so (the operative words are "significant coverage").

Even fringe articles need to be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (same link above). Is this the case with the CMT? So, I leave it up to consensus. We could start an RfC on "Does the CMT article meet WP:NOTABILITY or should it be deleted?" Renejs (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Aw, is someone upset that their pet theories don't merit inclusion in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do, however, have sources that, subject matter ignored, would otherwise be appropriate to cite on the field of Classical or Early Christian history. The majority of the 21st century proponents have some sort of relevant degree -- removing the rest just happens to cut out Rene Salm, which is the real reason why Renejs has a problem with it. Narrowing the article down to proponents who have relevant degrees should satisfy both sides: it makes the CMT side look respectable while also not over representing its prominence among scholars by allowing every Tom, Dick, and Rene with a type writer to pretend they're a massive minority. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More specific proposal of what should be kept and removed

The following figures must be removed from the 20th and 21st century sections (or at least merged into a one-paragraph "other authors" section that introduces them as not being scholars of the relevant field):

Old list

G.J.P.J. Bolland - "Autodidact" is an overglorified term for individuals we now call bloggers. Francesco Carotta - Not a historian. Paul-Louis Couchoud - Physician (not a professor of philosophy), not a historian Alvar Ellegård - Professor of English, not history. Christopher Hitchens - Journalist, not a historian. About as appropriate to include as Jack T. Chick in the Evolution article. John E. Remsburg - School teacher, not a historian J.M. Robertson - Journalist, not even a historian W.B. Smith - Mathematician, not a historian Dorothy M. Murdock - Including Murdock as anything more than a conspiracy theorist new-ager has to be a joke. René Salm - Overglorified blogger who happened to be mentioned in passing by a few bigger names. Also, WP:COI, WP:RGW, and WP:NOTHERE issues. G. A. Wells - Professor of German, not history. The following figures absolutely must be kept in the 20th and 21st century sections: J. M. Allegro - Archaeologist and Philologist who worked with the freaking Dead Sea Scrolls. Thomas Brodie - PhD in theology, taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament studies. Richard Carrier - If I were a CMT proponent, I'd push for undue weight on Carrier. Tom Harpur - Theologian, taught New Testament studies. Robert M. Price - PhD in Systematic Theology and New Testament studies. Thomas L. Thompson - Professor of Theology. Were the article left entirely to me, I would also include the following proponents, but will not cry if consensus is against me: Arthur Drews - Professor of philosophy, popularized Bauer's ideas Earl Doherty - I'm willing to include Doherty because Price and Carrier speak of him favorably, and his degree is mostly in the right direction (just not a PhD). Alexander Jacob - Professor of philosophy, focuses heavily on India but does touch on Greece and the Middle East Alvin Boyd Kuhn - BA in Ancient Greek, PhD in Theosophy G.R.S. Mead - Studied the Classics, Greek, and Latin at Cambridge, and his translation of the Corpus Hermeticum was the English standard until Copenhaver's 1992 translation.

That eliminates about half of the current sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As previously noted, I think that the standard should be whether or not the proponent has published WP:SCHOLARSHIP on the topic, not necessarily what their degree was in. As luck would have it, a rough sample of the names in the list suggests to me that this proposal looks pretty close to that standard. De Guerre (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with some of this list, but people who have made a substantial contribution to the theory should be retained even if they do not have a PhD in biblical studies. It again comes back to the question of "who is a reliable source about the CMT - surely the people who invented the CMT are the most reliable sources about their own theory?" For example I would particularly suggest that Wells has to be retained - Ehrman spoke glowingly of him, and referred to him as a senior proponent of the CMT. Wdford (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A big thanks to Ian.thomson for this list! Like De Guerre and Wdford, I too find it very helpful. I would also agree with Wdford that an argument probably could be made for mentioning Wells.Jeppiz (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought we should follow the lead of secondary sources on the CMT when deciding who to include as a proponent. In other words, take a look at the treatments of the CMT by sources such as Albert Schweitzer, Maurice Goguel, William Weaver, Robert Van Voorst, and Bart Ehrman--who are all academic experts on the study of the historical Jesus--and see who they list as important proponents of the theory. They all treat J.M. Robertson, W.B. Smith, and Couchaud as important proponents, so our article should too. Expert sources like Weaver, Van Voorst, and Ehrman treat G.A. Wells and Robert M. Price as important proponents, so our article should too. Ehrman treats Carrier as an important proponent of the CMT, so our article should too.

On the other hand, writers like Remsburg, Hitchens, Salm, Murdock, are not treated as important proponents by secondary sources and so ought to be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Per suggestions above, and going with whether or not the section has secondary sources, the list would look more like:

New list

(20th century) J.M. Robertson - Name mentioned in 20th c. intro based on Voorst ref John E. Remsburg - List's use by others mentioned in 20th c. intro W.B. Smith - Either merge to Arthur Drews section (as influence), or to 20th c. intro, either way a two sentence explanation discussing Smith's claims of Hindu solar-cult claim and influence on Arthur Drews in intro based on Voorst and Weaver refs Arthur Drews - Mostly left alone (beyond merges) Paul-Louis Couchoud - Merge with Arthur Drews, since he was mostly just elaborating on him G.J.P.J. Bolland - Name mentioned in 20th c. intro (maybe Bauer) based on Biographical Dictionary of 20th c. philosophies G.R.S. Mead - Left alone J. M. Allegro - Left alone Alvar Ellegård - Name mentioned in 20th c. intro or Allegro (since his claims were based on an interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls) G. A. Wells - Left alone Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Left alone Francesco Carotta - Drop completely (21st century) Thomas Brodie - Reduce second paragraph's reliance on primary sources. Richard Carrier - Left alone Earl Doherty - Reduce to a sentence in the 21st c. intro Tom Harpur - Reduce to a sentence in the 21st c. intro, or Kuhn section Christopher Hitchens - Drop completely Alexander Jacob - Drop completely Dorothy M. Murdock / Acharya S - Name mentioned in intro, maybe a sentence explaining views while noting criticism from even other CMT proponents Robert M. Price - Reduced but kept. The bit about his personal beliefs (former Baptist, taking part in the Eucharist, Episcopal church attendence) is not relevant to this article and should be dropped. Everything beyond that cites primary sources, and should be reduced to the shortest explanations possible. René Salm - Name could be mentioned in 21st c. intro, otherwise dropped completely Thomas L. Thompson - Name mentioned in intro. That would result in the article contents looking like: 20th century Arthur Drews (and other) G.R.S. Mead J. M. Allegro G. A. Wells Alvin Boyd Kuhn 21st century Thomas Brodie Richard Carrier Robert M. Price

That reduces those two sections by about two-thirds, but we would need to follow it by expanding with additional secondary and tertiary sources (which might restore a few of the cut sections). Per User:Bladesmulti's suggestion on my talk page, I'll do a rough draft of this and self-revert so we can get a better idea of what that looks like for discussion. It would not be the final version, as the remaining sections would need additional expanding from secondary and tertiary sources.

P.S. Just before I saved this, I noticed that the books section has a number of books that don't have articles, even though the section explicitly states the books are those we have articles for. I'm going to trim that first and not self revert on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall good, but I would not mention people who have only been mentioned briefly. As Wdford said, someone like Wells who is discussed at some length by WP:RS sources should most probably be kept in. But mentioning people like Ellegård just because they have been referred to in passing seems excessive (let's keep in mind that Ellegård was largely ignored and almost entirely dismissed by the few scholars asked to comment).Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If I wasn't going to self-revert, I'd check for sources outside the article (and actually check the sources in the article) to see what merits more/less inclusion, but otherwise I'm going to try for minimal effort. As it is, since we've got an article about Ellegård, I'm (just) guessing (perhaps incorrectly) that there might be secondary sources about his CMT work (or else I have to ask why we have that article). A bit against WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I didn't sleep well last night (had to prevent an electrical fire in my room at 2 am ...and about an hour later the cat finally smelled the ozone and decided to try to rescue me). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We have an article about Ellegård because he was a notable academic in English philology, but that does not make him an WP:RS in history or anything else related to CMT.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The way to characterize the CMT is by impact on the field, not by credentials, peer-reviewed publications, etc., because the CMT (more correctly, "Jesus mythicism") is a phenomenon which has exclusively taken place outside of academia. I would propose two broad categories: (1) Proponents of the CMT (those who have publicly espoused the CMT AND who have had a considerable impact within the field--regardless of academic standing and degrees); and (2) Notable agnostics (non-related figures from any field who have publicly stated their openness to the CMT). I would further subdivide each category into: (a) those alive today; and (b) in history. I don't have time to set up a separate section for this, but basically would present it as follows:

(1) Proponents of the CMT (a) Alive today: • Earl Doherty - Probably the most influential CMT proponent alive today. Details the thesis that Jesus was an immaterial being executed in the spiritual realm. • Robert M. Price - PhD in Systematic Theology and New Testament studies. Argues in many books that the early Christians adopted the model for the figure of Jesus from popular Mediterranean dying-rising savior myths. • Thomas Brodie - PhD in theology, taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament studies. Publicly endorses the CMT in his 2012 book. • Richard Carrier - His 2014 book concludes that it is more likely that the earliest Christians were not inspired by a real person named Jesus but instead considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations. • Tom Harpur - Theologian, taught New Testament studies. Argues that Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt. • Frank Zindler. ("The Jesus the Jews Never Knew"). Examined the Jewish texts demonstrating that they had no knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. • Dorothy M. Murdock - Much maligned, but she has a vocal following within the field today and should be included for that reason. • Michael Paulkovich ("No Meek Messiah"). • René Salm - No comment per COI.

(b) In history: • C. H. Dupuis. Author who considered Christianity “a fable with the same foundation as all the other solar religions.” • Bruno Bauer. The first "academic mythicist." • Allard Pierson. Founder of the Dutch Radical School, for whom the non-historicity of Jesus was obvious. • J.M. Robertson - The most incisive Jesus mythicist of the early 19th century ("Christianity and Mythology," etc.) • W.B. Smith - Wrote ground-breaking books on the CMT, but arguably less important than Robertson. • G.J.P.J. Bolland. ("De Evangelische Jozua") Argued that “Jesus” was derived from the Old Testament figure Joshua, son of Nun. • Arthur Drews - ("The Christ Myth"). The most famous CMT proponent of a century ago. Argued that no independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus has ever been found outside the New Testament writings. • G. A. van Eysinga. Dutch "radical" who rejected the historicity of Jesus and also concluded that the Pauline writings were produced by disciples of Marcion. • Salomon Reinach. Endorsed the docetic view of Jesus: he was a spirit. • Samuel Lublinski. Argued that Christianity arose out of a syncretism of Judaism, mystery religions, gnosticism, and oriental influences. • Arthur Heulhard. Maintained that it was John the Baptist, not Jesus, who proclaimed himself the Christ. • Paul-Louis Couchoud - Had a major impact on the development of the CMT. Argued that Marcion wrote the first gospel after the Bar Kochba revolt (133 CE). • Prosper Alfaric ("The Problem of Jesus and Christian Origins"). Prof. of religion, excommunicated from the priesthood for his publications. Argued for Essene origin of Christianity and against the historicity of Jesus. • E. Dujardin, ("Ancient History Of The God Jesus") in four volumes. • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - American scholar of comparative religion. CMT author who influenced Harpur greatly. • Georges Ory. Influential French mythicist of the mid-19th century. Concludes that “Jesus Christ is a composite god.” • Alvar Ellegård - The principal proponent of the "Jesus lived 100 BCE" thesis. Identifies Jesus with the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. • J. M. Allegro - Archaeologist and Philologist who worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the scrolls.

(2) Notable agnostics sympathetic to the CMT: (a) Alive today: • Hermann Detering. German academic, Pauline mythicist with radical views on Christian origins. • G. A. Wells- A major British writer in the field, once a CMT proponent who has shifted his view to that of "agnostic" which is why he is in this category. • Thomas L. Thompson - European "minimalist." Co-editor of an important commentary on mythicism ("Is This Not the Carpenter?") • N. P. Lemche. Minimalist who is open to the CMT. • Philip Davies - States that the evidence for the historical Jesus is "fragile" and needs to be "tested." • Alexander Jacob - Professor of philosophy, focuses heavily on India and argues the mythological basis of Christianity. • Robert Eisenman. Redates the DSS to the first century CE and assigns James as the leading figure in "Christianity."

(b) In history: • G. Higgins. Argued that many religions are based on pseudohistory. • D. F. Strauss. ("The Life of Jesus"). Demonstrated the strong mythical element in the Jesus story. • G. Massey. Self-taught Egyptologist drawing parallels between the Jesus story and Egyptian antecedents. • Albert Schweitzer. Famously concluded that the the Jesus of history evaporates upon close examination. • G.R.S. Mead - A significant writer with an agnostic stance who, to my knowledge, did not openly argue the CMT but suggested that "Jesus" may have lived c. 100 BCE. • Bertrand Russell. Wrote that "historically it is quite doubtful that Jesus existed." • Christopher Hitchens. Maintained that "there is no reason to believe that [Jesus existed]."

The above is not exhaustive but more defensible than the Thomson lists. Renejs (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins should be added to the (2a) category: Notable agnostics alive today. Renejs (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The Thomson list is based on Wikipedia's rules, your suggestion is (as usual) preceded by a disclaimer about why we should ignore Wikipedia's rules. And it's not true that CMT has taken place outside academia, there are good academics who are CMT proponents. We should base the article on their work, and that is actually doing CMT a favour. Currently the serious work on CMT is drowned among a mix of well-meaning non-experts and outright conspiracy theorists. A good article on CMT based on the Thomson list benefits every reader. It would exclude you, which explains why you oppose it, but that is not a reason to cast aside Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Except that the clear motivation for your list is to turn the article into a puff piece that makes arguments from naming famous names and lots of other names. Wikipedia favors secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, because anyone can create primary sources, and so they are no indication whatsoever of how important a proponent is. The second list I've provided goes with proponents who are written about by other people, including other proponents!

Honestly, Renejs, I'm just going to do my best to ignore anything else you have to say since you're not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, but preach and crusade for your religious beliefs. ("But I'm not religious!" Then why are you acting just like a Young Earth Creationist that insists we cite Ken Ham in the Evolution article?) I recommend others do so as well until you make enough of a disruption to get you topic-banned, if not blocked, since the only consensus you'll accept is one that presents CMTers as prophets of the truth about Jesus. This is exactly what I would recommend if we were dealing fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A version of the article with the proposed changes mostly in place (or rather, a starting point for such an article) can seen here in this link I'm making longer just to be easier to find. It reduces the article by about 21,861 bytes, down to 111,387 bytes. These are only the minimal changes I think need doing. Pictures could be trimmed (especially Harpur's), Price's three point argument could be merged into the key arguments section, W.B. Smith, Paul-Louis Couchoud, and the 20th and 21st century intros could be more concise. I'll note that this was only a half-can of Mountain Dew's work (less caffeine than I thought, and still suspect, was necessary to do this properly). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we definitely need to keep Doherty as well - he is a major CMT proponent as was acknowledged by Ehrman. We cannot exclude Doherty from an article on his own theory just because he doesn't have a PhD in a rival discipline - that would be like insisting that only Catholic Cardinals are reliable sources for an article on birth control. I prefer the suggestion that we include all authors who contributed substantially to the theory, irrespective of their academic standing in the eyes of their enemies. Remsburg's work was also very influential - it will need a mention somewhere, even if just in a summary section. I don't see the need to divide between living and dead authors. Overall I would prefer that we have sections based on "facets of the CMT" rather than "proponents of the CMT", so that we group the points and then add a list of those authors that support that particular facet, but there are so many facets which vary slightly from the other facets. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My main concern with Doherty is that if his article is accurate, almost much everything he's written on CMT is WP:SELFPUB under his own (vanity?) imprint. First edition of The Jesus Puzzle is an exception, so I would rule him in. But it's still something to watch. De Guerre (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Books by authors who neither are scholars in the field nor published by any major publication house is the very definition of something that fails WP:RS, and one of the reasons the policy was developed in the first place. I still think Doherty is sufficiently covered in good sources. True, they almost all dispute him, but what we discuss here is notability, not agreement. I would definitely keep Doherty in the article, but try to focus as far as possible at writings that aren't self-published.Jeppiz (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And here we have yet another illustration of the fundamental problem in this article. To suggest that Doherty is not an expert "in the field" is complete nonsense, since the "field" in question is the Christ Myth Theory, which Doherty helped to create. A scholar who is a published expert in a diametrically opposed field does not automatically qualify as an expert in the CMT field - just as a fundamentalist Christian is not automatically an expert in Islam. The article has long been bedeviled by the argument over how to define a "CMT Expert", and several editors have argued long and hard to exclude many of the people who invented the theory on the grounds that they cannot be experts in their own theory because they do not have doctorates in the rival theory. Established experts in biblical studies certainly disagree with (and often deride) the CMT, just as many fundamentalist Christians disagree with (and often blatantly misrepresent) the teachings of Islam, but established experts in biblical studies are not automatically experts in the CMT. The very people who created the CMT are surely the most competent to explain the theory they created, yes? After all, nobody can have a PhD in CMT if no university offers such a qualification? Wdford (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As a nit, CMT isn't a field, but neither is "Historical Christ Theory" (or whatever). The field is almost always referred to as "Christian origins". Christianity and its early texts indisputably didn't exist at some point in the past and indisputably existed later. The goal is to understand how they came to be, and "expertise" means expertise in studying that topic (be it from the perspective of ancient history, classics, ancient literature, or whatever). I would rule Doherty in not because of qualifications, but because he has published at least one good source and is covered by other good sources. De Guerre (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

CMT certainly is a field in its own right, just not a field that is popular with many "recognized scholars" who are experts in rival theories about Christian origins. Here again we have a case of the supporters of one field trying to deny their rivals the right to exist. If this article was about "Christian origins" then I would whole-heartedly agree with De Guerre, but since this article is about the Christ Myth Theory we need to find experts on the Christ Myth Theory. Who would know the CMT better than the very people who created the CMT? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On a separate point - is there an existing article on "Christian Origins" - it sounds like something that could be very useful indeed? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Found it already, my bad. Wdford (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been five days, and there seems to be a general consensus for Ian.thomson's draft as a first step. I think we all agree that it's not the final version, but it really does a good job of removing irrelevant aspects (self-published amateurs) to focus on the more serious and well-known proponents. Like Wdford, I think Doherty should remain, as is the case in Ian's draft, and I have the impression De Guerre also thinks that that version is a step forward?Jeppiz (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am still concerned that this proposed purge could delete info that is relevant to understanding the broad scope and variety of the various nuances of the CMT. I am also concerned about the use of terms like "self-published amateurs", since there is no official qualification in the CMT itself, and the "qualified professionals" are thus by definition people who have doctorates in the rival theory. Perhaps a better way forward would be for an editor to propose removing a specific section or author, and then for that proposed removal to be discussed and agreed upon, before moving on to the next. If there is real consensus this won't take long, and it will help to avoid a POV-purge and the consequent drama. Jeppiz, who would you like to delete first - please state your case? Wdford (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to delete what Ian.thomson removed in his draft. If you think that there is relevant information that that draft removed and which is needed, what would you like to keep and why. And "self-published amateurs" is a very real problem, as we have WP:RS. If I may say so, Wdford, I have a feeling you haven't taken the time to go through the draft. All of your comments in the last days have been about we should keep Doherty and why we should not limit ourselves to official qualification. I agree with you on all of those aspects, but Doherty and a large number of proponents are as present as ever in the proposed draft, so I'm a bit unsure what in the draft you oppose.Jeppiz (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, it's not "what would you like to keep and why?" but "what would you like to remove and why"? The burden of evidence is on the person changing the status quo. Wdford is correct. Dawkins stays until someone makes a case (by consensus) for removal of content. Renejs (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea here is for a discussion between serious users, not edit warring WP:SPAs. That a conspiracy theorist continues to violates WP:COI to use Wikipedia to push his self-published books is of no relevance whatsoever to how the article should look, but should definitely be a topic for ANI. There is a reason for COI, it's not just an empty statement.Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am working on Ian’s list called “New List”. Am I on the wrong list?

I am happy to merge sections, as the focus should not be on individual authors but rather on the shared views, which obviously are overlapping in places. My concern is that we should not lose valuable content about the Theory.

I do think we should reduce the long lists of each author’s background and works, and focus only on the ideas as they are relevant to the CMT.

Working from “Ian’s New List”, my comments are as follows: (20th century)

• J.M. Robertson – there is a lot of important content here
• John E. Remsburg – the list is important, and needs to be properly explained
• W.B. Smith – agree to merge to Arthur Drews section
• Arthur Drews - Mostly left alone (beyond merges)
• Paul-Louis Couchoud – agree to merge with Arthur Drews,
• G.J.P.J. Bolland – agree to merge with Bauer
• G.R.S. Mead - Left alone
• J. M. Allegro - Left alone
• Alvar Ellegård – agree to merge with Allegro
• G. A. Wells - Left alone
• Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Left alone
• Francesco Carotta – some of this looks useful – I'm not happy to delete the content entirely

(21st century)

• Thomas Brodie – agree to clean up.
• Richard Carrier - Left alone
• Earl Doherty – this is an important proponent – keep in full for now, and probably expand further
• Tom Harpur – merge into a combined pagan-gods section
• Christopher Hitchens – agree to delete
• Alexander Jacob – merge with Harpur pagan-gods section
• Dorothy M. Murdock / Acharya S – maybe mention her name in the Harpur section for completeness
• Robert M. Price – agree to clean up heavily, but keep the main points
• René Salm – agree to reduce to intro
• Thomas L. Thompson – also merge into Harpur pagan-section.

Thoughts? Wdford (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford. I would place myself somewhere between your proposal and Ian's proposal. I agree with you that Doherty should be in, a notable proponent. I agree with Ian that Robertson and Carotta should go. Robertson was a notable politician, but had no competence in this field and (perhaps more important) it's been almost 100 years and his ideas have been thoroughly disproved. Allegro is more modern, but definitely represent the more extreme conspiracy part of CMT and (as far as I know) is not taken seriously even by most CMT proponents.Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can live with reducing Allegro to a mention in the intro or somewhere. However Robertson's views were significant at the time. The fact that some critics claim he has been disproved doesn't alter the fact that his views were significant to the CMT. The Pandera issue is significant on its own, and is part of the core plank that "there may have been a Jesus but it was a different Jesus to the guy in the gospels". This article is about the CMT, not about what the CMT's enemies are prepared to concede. Wdford (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I did make some changes from the New List to the actual draft, based on responses to the new list. Doherty got a paragraph (not just a sentence) in the 21st century intro, just not given his own section. I need to grab some lunch, otherwise I'd try to list some of the additional differences. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. That's why I originally suggested a "History of CMT" section, precisely to include people like Robertson. In general, I'd like to see the article more readable and less "list-like".Jeppiz (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that does look a bit better from a content-completeness perspective.

I really don't like the list-of-authors-basis that we have now. I also don't think the current "Key Arguments" section is appropriate, as this section is far from complete and it contains more commentary refuting the CMT than describing it.

I don't think a "History" section would work either, because there is no clear linear progression toward an agreed current state - rather there are many facets which were/are held by some proponents but not necessarily by all.

I therefore propose again that we scrap the list-of-authors-basis and the Key Arguments, and that we try to present the content (i.e. ALL the main facets) with very brief mentions of who made each proposal and when, and who supported each facet.

Wdford (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We can definitely do that, but it might help if we first discuss whom to include or not even though we change we format (and I agree we should). We know now that a large number of the most fringe persons in the article were added by a disruptive puppet-master and defended through socks. Now that the socks are blocked and the puppet-master exposes, it might be easier to continue. No matter the format, people such as Carotta, Murdock, Salm or Ellegård should not be included. They most certainly don't satisfy WP:RS. There are definitely serious CMT proponents (Carrier, Doherty) but people like Carotta or Murdock are just raving conspiracy theorists who are on the fringes even of CMT. So in short, I fully support changing the format, but we still need to decide which proponents stay (and I'd say the serious/notable ones) and which go.Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Has Renejs really left?

Gmarxx is a WP:SPA focused on:

• Defending Renejs
• Emphasizing the "of Nazareth" bit [17] [18] [19]
• Creating artificial prominence for the CMT
• Generally carrying out edits that Renejs would have wanted [20], even apparently citing Renejs's posts here as he has only made a !vote.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there is enough evidence here for a post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. For the record, the account Gekritzl is also an SPA. Quite a coincidence that after a long silence, both Gmarxx and Gekritzl turns up not only the same day, but almost the same minute at the same article, both of them doing exactly the same edit. Either outright socking or meat-socking.Jeppiz (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You may take off the paranoid hat--GMarxx is not my sockpuppet. And what is "meat-socking"? Must look that up.

And, yes, Renejs has really left. What you are reading is only a delusion--as was JC. Renejs (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of any sockpuppet investigation that may be opened, if you add BLP violations back into the article, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop your edit warring. StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny how he came back just as we started pointing out potential socking. A few days later? That'd be easier to buy that he just checked the page out of curiosity. But right after?

If he had had activity elsewhere on the site (just avoiding this article), I'd totally buy that he just saw this thread. But to say he's going to be leaving the site to complete a book, to return right after we start to wonder about a sockpuppet so obvious that Stevie Wonder could see it from the International Space Station while facing the other way... Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So far this is a minor and enjoyable distraction. Renejs (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued disruption by POV-pushing truth warriors

Two single purpose accounts continue to disrupt the article while showing no intention to actually discuss it. It's a bit frustrating, as we've had long and intense discussions during months trying to find a way forward, yet these two disruptive users who only use Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT continue to sail in from time to time and disrupt all other editors and make sure their preferred version stays. In the process, they manage to violate WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:POV, but of course they don't care about that as these religiously motivated SPAs are campaigning for the truth. Given that their actions render all discussion pointless, and their whole point is to wear down serious users who actually take the time to discuss, I'd suggest ANI should be the next. The combination of being a single-purpose account who ignore WP:OWN to push for a higher truth is probably the most disruptive kind of user there is at Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violations

The edit warring of the WP:SPAs is starting to go a bit too far. We're no longer talking content disputes, but deliberately inserting false information about living persons into the article. This violates WP:BLP, and the edit warring over it using socks does not make it prettier.Jeppiz (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Jeppiz? What "socks"? What "false information"? Renejs (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a funny way of "staying away" René. Listing Dawkins as CMT proponent violates WP:BLP.Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What part of the Dawkins section violates WP:BLP? The whole thing? How so? Renejs (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

I've started this thread on ANI regarding tendentious editing and socking. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have no knowledge on the subject and my opinion below is a general wikipedian's observation. I noticed the NPOV tag, looked into the article, and see three major drawbacks

• My pet peeve: the subject of and controversy must be organized by arguments, not by persons who uttered them
• As a corollary: the article is unnecessarily overburdened by personalia detail of the proponents, and this make is very hard to distill the actual arguments. IMO most of such stuff must be moved into the corresponding bios, leaving only what is directly relevant to the subject
• Now, the NPOV tag. I don't know what the tagger had in mind, but I cannot help but notice that the "Criticism" section is ... (how to say it politely?) inadequate. In essence, it is just several rephrasing of "This theory is bullshit". This is not criticism. Criticism involves arguments. Were there any? -M.Altenmann >t 21:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Good points, all three. I agree fully with the first two, and have pointed them out myself. As for Criticism, we should keep in mind that CMT is about as academic as Creationism. Very few serious scientists put much effort into debunking creationism as they prefer doing research and debating phenomena that aren't known. We're in a bit of the same situation here. Few historians spend much time on CMT. For instance, the quite noted historian Dick Harrison has written a bit about it in columns in newspapers, but nothing in academic publications as there is no academic debate. His argument is a bit more developed than "This is bullshit" but in essence the same, he discards it as a conspiracy theory with no academic support. Biblical historian Bart Ehrman, who has written over ten books debunking several aspects of Christianity, has written a whole book debunking CMT in some detail, and we could of course present his main points in the criticism section.Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, about Richard Carrier: the "probability" conclusion is nonsense (abuse of mathematics, to write politely). Not to say that probability of 1/3 is actually very good, i.e., it does not lead to the rejection of a hypothesis (meaning ignorance of the author in maths). I look at the table of contents of the book (and nothing more, I must say) and would rather guess that its summary in this article looks like more as an attempt to discredit the author rather than to present his arguments. -M.Altenmann >t 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Carrier

(subsection split; the comment below is on my remark in the above -M.Altenmann >t 19:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

In my opinion "abuse of mathematics" is a good description of Carrier's use of Bayesian reasoning. Here's a quote from p. 600-1 of On the Historicity of Jesus (this is from one of the concluding sections): "In other words, in my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero. For comparison, your lifetime probability o fbeing struck by lightning is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Con­sequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus. Nevertheless, as my estimates might be too critical (even though I don't believe they are), I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the probability is better than that. But to account for that possibility, when I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3...with the evidence we have, the probability Jesus existed is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 and 1 in 3. In other words, less than 33% and most likely nearer to zero. We should conclude that Jesus probably did not exist." So I don't think what our article says is unfair to what Carrier argues, though of course it doesn't cover everything Carrier says... --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. I don't see the above is fair to summarize as "where he attempted to compute a probabilistic estimate". It is called "wild estimate" rather than "compute". This math of 1/3 is akin to the old joke: "What is the probability to be hit by the lighting?" - "50%" - "Huh?" - "Well, you are either hit or not hit". If everything else what he says is of the same level of scientific research, I doubt this book deserves to be cited here. Are there any reviews of the book? (If none then probably it is not our job either.) -M.Altenmann >t 23:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really; when dealing with ancient history, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's full of uncertainties. It makes a lot of sense to present it in terms of plausibility, i. e., probabilities. Unlike historians in general, Carrier simply tries to formalise this – a kind of argument that historians use all the time. His assignment of probabilities is of course very rough; it cannot be any other way. The idea reminds me of the Drake equation, which is also very difficult to use due to the large uncertainties in the values to plug in, which in the end multiply. But when plugging in even the most generous numbers yields you no more than 1/3, while that may not be enough to reject the initial hypothesis (JC was a historical person), it is enough to inspire significant doubt: hence, to counter the general opinion that the historicity of JC is beyond question and doubting it is as crazy as creationism, Flat-Earthism or the moon-made-of-green-cheese hypothesis. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

But that begs the question, does it not, Florian, of whether Carrier's estimates are the most generous possible? It seems on the whole to be unlikely. After all, Carrier's numbers are more or less arbitrary. His approach is essentially 'I think these numbers are right, therefore they are right'. I will not deny that Bayes Theorem, under the right conditions, might yield useful results in historical research. Cliometrics, for example, where you have clearly defined data to plug in and are calculating the output based on a known set of parameters as a result. But in textual analysis, there are no numbers, so we rely on judgement. Under such circumstances, Bayesian calculations become garbage in, garbage out. This is particularly true if there is reason to suspect Carrier's judgement is faulty (which, due to his well-known bias, there is) and if there is reason to doubt whether he has interpreted his sources correctly (which, since the only relevant language he speaks is Latin, maybe a little Greek, is also true). Therefore, Bayesian logic fails as a way of interpreting this subject. Somebody else could use it, plug in different numbers based on their judgement and come up with an answer of between 50% and 99% probability (e.g. Bayes himself did...)

And before anyone arbitrarily deletes this, could I please remind everyone that I am not René Salm socking and am therefore perfectly entitled to comment? It would be very unfortunate if due to hypersensitivity leading to an accidental and rare injustice to the obnoxious [thought better of a swearword] the sanctions he so richly deserves had to be rolled back or softened in any way.109.156.158.20 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, he knows Greek very well, better than a lot of other people who feel entitled to speak on this topic; it's part of his education. You're essentially accusing him of incompetence for no concrete reason at all, which amounts to ad hominem and incidentally makes me question your vehement (and suspiciously anticipatory) denial of being Salm. And the "well-known bias" is hardly unique to him: all scholars are biased somehow, nobody is completely neutral and free of prejudice. Yes, the error bars are wide, nobody denies that, but as an ancient historian who has spent years studying this very topic, Carrier should be trusted to be able to judge just how wide they are. (Again, the underlying argument is completely ordinary, and most of Carrier's points are actually well-treaded ground, just not all very well known among biblical scholars, including even Ehrman in some cases; it's the attempt at formalisation and quantification that's new, and amounts to the introduction of a kind of rigour that wasn't there before, as arguments are usually much more intuitive.) Anyway, even a result of 50% or 75% probability would mean that doubts in historicity are very much justified, and not at all crazy. There's a point where the bad faith and the vicious attacks on the slightest doubt in the historicity of JC (or more nuanced views about what the real historical background of the Jesus figure could have been) simply become unreasonable. It's just common experience that religious founders who are said to have lived in ancient times are very shadowy figures; JC is hardly unique in that respect. As Carrier himself points out, there are several other figures of whose historicity there are significant (and very much mainstream!) doubts, such as Homer, Aesop or Pythagoras. As history is becoming a more methodically stringent endeavour, it is also increasingly recognised that many traditional accounts of Alexander's life and feats are dubious. That's simply a sign of progress: historians are less trusting in authority than they used to be, and more willing to question notions, including seemingly common-sense assumptions, that have long been taken for granted. This is all part of a general trend now. That nobody gives two shits about "Homer myth theories" or "Aesop myth theories" and certainly nobody denounces them (or "Moses/David mythicism") as "bullshit like creationism or the Green Cheese theory" kind of calls the whole "mythers are biased and historicist academics are not" argument into question, doesn't it? In light of the above, it sure does look like JC is treated as a special case or – to put it more figuratively – like a "sacred cow". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The ad hominem principle

If you read Carrier's work, you will observe that he (a) criticizes all his adversaries in an ad hominem fashion (for example, saying that their methods are 'fucked') and further, bases his argument on his own qualifications and experience. Which would be legitimate, if there were not doubts about his qualifications and experience.

'he knows Greek very well,'

He says he does. If it is no better than his knowledge of German, to which he has compared it, then it is very poor.

'You're essentially accusing him of incompetence for no concrete reason at all, '

Because I have studied his sources and found he has quoted far too many of them incorrectly - for example, he stated to support one point on German history, 'Irving has never denied the Holocaust, only that Hitler knew of it,' which is completely and utterly wrong and which there is good reason to think Carrier knew was wrong, as on a subsequent page he referred to the famous Irving v. Penguin Books libel case. In fact, in accusing him of incompetence, I am being quite generous.

'as an ancient historian who has spent years studying this very topic,'

Has he? I think you will find that he came to the CMT comparatively recently via the work of Earl Doherty. Previously, his work was on scientific development under the Caesars. Strangely, that's never been published.

'Again, the underlying argument is completely ordinary, and most of Carrier's points are actually well-treaded [sic: trodden] ground, just not all very well known among biblical scholars, including even Ehrman in some cases; it's the attempt at formalisation and quantification that's new, and amounts to the introduction of a kind of rigour that wasn't there before, as arguments are usually much more intuitive'

If it's well trodden, why is it in dispute? I think the real issue is that merely plugging more or less arbitrary numbers into a formula that you don't understand particularly well (again, Carrier is reluctant to say when or where he received his training) may make it look rigorous, but that does not by and of itself actually make it rigorous. Judgement, experience and a detailed technical knowledge are required for that. Does Carrier have it? Arguably not.

'As Carrier himself points out, there are several other figures of whose historicity there are significant (and very much mainstream!) doubts, such as Homer, Aesop or Pythagoras.'

Yes, but if I plug Carrier's numbers into Bayes Theorem for Hannibal, I also find much the same figures for his existence. I could also put up a case (a la Salm) that Carthage never existed until years after the Punic Wars, if I didn't mind disregarding all the inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Does anyone doubt Hannibal existed? Of course not! Because proving his non-existence is not a quasi-religious fetish. With Jesus of Nazareth on the other hand...

'In light of the above, it sure does look like JC is treated like a "sacred cow".'

No, it merely means that until mythicists use proper academic processes and treat their sources using normal historical processes, they will not be taken seriously. Trying to invent new and wildly implausible methodologies in which they do not have the requisite training in order to add a plausible veneer of scientific rigour to predetermined conclusions does not lead anyone to trust them.

'your vehement (and suspiciously anticipatory) denial of being Salm.'

The reason for that is that I had left some information about Carrier on the talk page earlier, including some links to commentaries on his work, which was deleted because one editor thought I was Salm. This action on his(?) part has caused fairly severe complications, which I have had to waste time trying to sort out. So this time, I was trying to prevent it happening in the first place.

'even a result of 50% or 75% probability would mean that doubts in historicity are very much justified, and not at all crazy.'

This is a point that has been made by Davies. However, I reiterate that by and large it's not mythicism itself that is the problem, it is the inept and all too frequently dishonest approach of its supporters that causes them problems. Trimming the article of the worst of them will undoubtedly improve it. However, Carrier is a figure where I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about inclusion/exclusion and that is why I was adding information to try and inform that discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore it!

Have a nice day.109.156.158.20 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised how you guys are taking Carrier so seriously as to discuss him at lenght. OK. If you want it. Let us consider two numbers he gives: 1/12,500 and 1/3. "1/3" cannot be takes seriously because he says: "I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3", i.e., this number is his imagination; enough said. 1/12,500 looks more "impressive" and may make you think "wow, this guy must have done some no shit math!" However the biggest problem with maths for all kooks of all kinds since the Fermat's Last Theorem is that in maths, including probability theory, every step must be strictly proven. Otherwise you can prove that you were not born yet, (no laugh; it is a matter of numerous mathematical jokes). Whereas Carrier's book is full of mathematical nonsense, which you will notice as soon as you start taking his babble seriously. Here is an exercise for you. His major staring point is as follows (my summary) "if you have 10 equally respectable scholars which put forth 10 mutually exclusive hypotheses about the life of IX, then without any other prior knowledge we conclude that the probability of any of them be true is 1/10". Now, if you don't see at least three glaring nonsenses in this "mathematization", you are probably not qualified to discuss the subject. As a result, no matter how much smoke and mirrors is in the book, its conclusions are discredited by a single nonsense. This is the nature of mathematics. -M.Altenmann >t 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So, concluding, the ref to this guy must be removed from the article:

• per WP:RS his book is not qualified as a reference on the subject, since it is clearly of low credibility (and don't tell me it is my original research: wikipedians judge the credibility of sources all the time)
• per WP:UNDUE: one might try to admit Carrier as a representative of the research in the field. But here WP:RS kicks in again: we must have reliable secondary sources which discuss the book and its author. -M.Altenmann >t 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Ehrman, Carrier has graduate training in a relevant field (namely classics, not maths). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

His PhD is in ancient history, actually, and he apparently got pretty upset with Ehrman for saying it was Classics: [21]. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Carrier's most recent book is published by Sheffield, an academic press, so it passes WP:RS. I've only seen one review in an academic journal, by Raphael Lataster, in the Journal of Religious History, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. His latest book is absolutely WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Hell, it's notable if only because it's actually the only SCHOLARSHIP (so far) advocating CMT. Even if his degree was in classics, I don't think this would matter. (I wouldn't use anything by Carrier as RS for the Bayes' theorem article though.) De Guerre (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I also have to agree that Carrier is RS. The quasi-math bit is dumb, but otherwise his work meets WP:RS. We can judge sources according to what other sources say about that source, but not with original research.

Do I think his work better addresses the question "did Christianity borrow more from an independent messianic tradition than second temple Judaism" than "could there have not been a messianic claimant with a dead common name?" Yes. -- But could I possibly oppose it's RS status as a work on the CMT? Not until both mainstream academics and CMT proponents (including Carrier himself) either disproved every point in it or else rephrase the remaining points as research into a pre-Christian messianic tradition (with no assumptions one way or the other as to Jesus's historicity). Even then, we would still have to mention that it was, for a time, regarded as the only mainstream academic work on the topic. Until then, it's RS enough that I suspect the existence portion of the Jesus article needs to be rewritten effectively as "the historicist mainstream vs Richard Carrier." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:We can judge sources according to what other sources say about that source, but not with original research.

Even if you are right, then:

• If other sources say close to nothing about the book, then we have to dismiss the book as not reliable source, right?
• We judge the source in areas where the writer is an expert. Clearly, he is not attested as expert in maths. Therefore all his conclusions about "probability" must be dismissed. You are welcome to cite historical arguments.
• If some statements are provably nonsense or directly contradict well-established theory, then to use such texts as a reference in a tertiary source (encyclopedia) is a mockery of common sense, so I don't buy the "original research" argument. WP:NOR policy applies to article content, not to talk pages. We routinely judge sources regardless high esteem of the publishers: "reliable source" is a triune combination of text+author+publisher. Any of the three may fail criteria of WP:RS, and this is exactly the kind of "original research" wikipedians do 24/7. -M.Altenmann >t 07:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What is your point actually? If you are suggesting that we delete the single paragraph about Carrier's probability calculation, I can live with it. If you are suggesting that the whole of Carrier must be deleted because you don't agree with his calculation, then no I disagree. What actually are you trying to achieve here please? Wdford (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am an occasional visitor here. If he is otherwise recognized as a reasonable historical scholar, then just remove the probability calculation. -M.Altenmann >t 11:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Partial step forward, 20th century

Based on the quite extensive discussions, I've edited the article to partially take into account what we have discussed for several days. Partial, as I've limited myself to the 20th century. Looking at the proposed lists by Ian.thomson and Wdford, as well as my own comments and those of De Guerre, I found that there was still some disagreement over 21st century proponents, but relatively large agreement about the 20th century. Everybody, I think, agree that we should not present it as a list of names, so I did away with that.
I haven't deleted much (see below) but edited quite heavily. As we all agree it should be about the arguments, I've deleted quite a lot of irrelevant personal information for all authors (year of birth, year of death etc.). For details about the persons, we can look at the articles (and I've added links to some persons for whom links were missing), here we're interested in their arguments.
Here is how I've dealt with each person who previously was in the 20th century

• J.M. Robertson – Ian wanted to cut him out, and I agree but Wdford found him relevant. I still think he should go, but I've kept him in for now.
• John E. Remsburg – Same thing here, Ian wanted him out and Wdford in. For now, I've kept him in. There was a long and quite irrelevant list of all books that ever cited the Remsburg list. I removed that list, but kept all information about the Remsburg list.
• W.B. Smith – everybody agreed Smith should go.
• Arthur Drews - I think Drews is important (not least for his influence on the USSR) and I've kept him in as all agreed.
• Paul-Louis Couchoud – merged with Arthur Drews, as all agreed.
• G.J.P.J. Bolland – I really couldn't find anything even close to WP:RS for Bolland so removed completely.
• G.R.S. Mead - Left alone, as we all agreed.
• J. M. Allegro - Left alone as well, also as we all said.
• Alvar Ellegård – Ellegård. Obvious delete, not notable and has not received any following even in CMT.
• G. A. Wells - Obvious keep, the most famous proponent of the 20th century. I'm no stranger to extending this section.
• Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Also a very obvious keep.
• Francesco Carotta – Deleted. Very marginal, far from WP:RS and with no following even in CMT

This is a way to move forward, meant as a first step and not in any way as the final word. The 21st century remains to discuss, and I there could be more disagreement there, but it seems we pretty much agree on the 20th century.Jeppiz (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The draft I did included Remsburg (reduced to a few sentences in the 20th c. intro). I also ended up reducing Smith to the intro to Drews, as Smith influenced Drews. I did reduce Robertson and Bolland to just their names (rather than outright remove either), since we have articles on them. For the same reason of "we have an article on him," I reduced Ellegard to just a sentence in Allegro, but would not object to removing him (since his article, as it stands probably doesn't meet WP:GNG).

Otherwise, it does appear consensus is inevitable.

The idea of an approach based method would be preferable, perhaps only giving sections to figures who were responsible for particular arguments. Technically that could only mean Bauer, but could be broadened to mean "individuals who are known for elaborating on one of Bauer's arguments in a way that most others followed suit in." For example, Allegro's role in claiming that Jesus was derived from the Teacher of Righteousness tradition would make him stand out from Bauer, who places Christianity's origins in Stoicism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. though I say I'd prefer an approach-based article, I think that what we're currently working toward would be a good stepping stone to that. Eliminate the stupid and crazy, and then use what's left to rewrite the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a very positive step forward, and many thanks to Jeppiz for making this initial effort. It need polishing obviously, and I think it can be thinned out quite a bit more without losing anything of value, but its a great start. I'm sure we can do something similar with the 21st century stuff as well. We already have a basic agreement on most aspects - shall we implement those changes meanwhile, and then discuss any outstanding areas of contention a bit further? Wdford (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian and Wdford! Encouraged by your comments, I've attempted a similar thing for the 21st century now.Jeppiz (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Partial step forward, 21st century

Based on the same quite extensive discussions as for the 20th century, I've edited the article to partially take into account what we have discussed for several days, this time for the 21st century. Looking again at the proposed lists by Ian.thomson and Wdford, as well as my own comments and those of De Guerre, I've been quite cautious but edited quite heavily. As it should be about the arguments, I've deleted irrelevant personal information for all authors (year of birth, year of death etc.). I've partially rewritten the intro by including some aspects from Ehrman's book and removed what was mainly a long list of non-notable persons from a non RS. Here is how I've dealt with each person who previously was in the 21st century

• Thomas Brodie – everybody agreed to clean up, which is what I've done. Still not complete. A quote from an Amazon page did not seem to meet WP:RS
• Richard Carrier - Altenmann suggested removing Carrier, but both Ian and Wdford wants him in. I agree with Altenmann that the claims of Carrier that Altenmann has presented are so bad that they verge on being discrediting, but he is still important in the CMT. I've left him in, in full.
• Earl Doherty – Ian said remove, Wdford said keep in full. As I've tried for maximal consensus, I've kept all cases where there was not consensus to remove, so Doherty is kept in full.
• Tom Harpur – all agreed to merge. For now, he'll be with Kuhn but that section should ideally become a pagan-gods section
• Christopher Hitchens – all agreed to delete. A highly notable person, but highly questionable if he was a CMT proponent.
• Alexander Jacob – merged with the pagan-gods section, as all agreed.
• Dorothy M. Murdock / Acharya S – all agreed to remove.
• Robert M. Price – Kept in full, but the section about Price could be further cleaned.
• René Salm – all agreed to remove (well, all except himself). If we have a section on Nazareth, Salm and Zinder could perhaps be mentioned in passing. (I say perhaps as the fact that they are not archaeologists who have not been involved in the diggings in Nazareth, but still consider themselves placed to lecture actual archaeologists who have done the actual work makes it far beyond WP:RS.)Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thomas L. Thompson – all agreed to merge into Harpur-Kuhn pagan-section.