Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Chart

Despite his complaints, it's hard to tell exactly what changes Jbolden1517 objects to. Perhaps he will tell us, specifically, what he find objectionable. Judging from his latest edit summary, it looks like one thing he's concerned about is the chart that appears at the end of the article. Well, I've got a solution to this problem: let's remove the chart entirely. This article is about an obscure theory dealing with the historical Jesus. The chart, on the other hand, makes an elaborate comparison between three different positions on the historical Jesus and the development of early Christianity. This kind of comparison should be made in an article that deals with the range of opinions on those subjects, not in an article about a specific theory. In other words, the chart is more appropriate in an article like historical Jesus or early Christianity.

In addition, I'm concerned about the content of the chart itself. As I've said on the page before, it appears to have a lot of original research, synthesizing the views of different people into single positions. Also, I'm concerned that the sources used to construct the chart are in some cases misinterpreted--for instance, the version Jbolden1517 prefers uses Walter Bauer as a reference (#224) in the "Christ myth theory" column. Bauer was in no way an advocate of the Christ myth theory! I'm very skeptical that the chart can be purged of OR/SYNTH problems and the misinterpretation of sources, and for that reason I think it should be removed.

It is important to contextualize the Christ myth theory within the larger spectrum of views on the historical Jesus. But that can be done in prose, not in a chart, and it can be done much more concisely. A few sentences will suffice; readers looking for more detail should go to historicity of Jesus, historical Jesus, and other article for more mainstream views. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The chart suffers from numerous problems and I doubt its worth -especially as it attempts to generalise so many broad topics with regard to groups which are by no stretch of the imagination unified. There is clearly a problem with the sources, as a few of us have recognised. Whether it be misleading citations, or citations that don't even have a page number. For these reasons, I doubt anyone would enjoy having it planted on the historical Jesus or any other legitimate page. --Ari (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari89, does that mean you'd be in favor of deleting the chart entirely? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've recently been thinking that the chart was unnecessary too. As BruceGrubb has noisily stated over and over, the Christ Myth theory is a diverse thing, really more of a culster of various Christ Myth theories. The meaningful differences are indicated under the body text connected with each individual author in the history section but the disitinctions are glossed over in the chart--which drips with synthesis in places. Further, it's really big and seems to clutter the article. I vote we cut it altogether. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am for deleting the chart.--Ari (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially that happened in 2007 the last time we had the Christian conservatives here. The idea is an elaborate straw man.. The Christ myth theory becomes narrowly defined as a simple theory. In practice this simple theory has no modern adherents, and possibly no 19th century adherents. Then discuss the "scholarly consensus" regarding this straw man and call it a day. A far better practice was to say the tenants of the theory are the proponents of the theory claim their tenants are. That wikipedia does not deliberately misrepresent author's opinion's and indicate that they hold positions they don't. We don't write articles on Christianity using high quality religious muslim sources, so for example the trinity consists of Allah, Jesus and Mary. Rather we assert the beliefs of the Christian religion are what the adherents state they are not what their enemies state they are. I think the Christ myth theory deserves the same level of honest treatment. Sources which misrepresent the theory should not be the sole voice permitted in this article. jbolden1517^Talk 16:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you simply skim the references given in the article you'll see the works of Robertson, Well, Freke & Gandy, Doherty, and Price cited quite often. The article is not misrepresenting the subject nor are only Christian voices the only one included. Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, I wrote a not insubstantial portion of those. The scrubbing of what they actually wrote isn't complete it has only been happening for a month. And I'm sure when this is finished there would still be out of context and/or misleading quotes by those people. I saw Christianized versions of these articles in 2006 and 2008. It is not like this is new: create a straw men limiting the Christ myth to a fringe cutting it off from the broader movement, then pick a few choice quotes from reputable scholars attacking it and then use this article to discredit the New School (which is very academically reputable) more broadly. What I'm objecting to is the last month of changes to advance that agenda and as far as I can tell lots of others have as well. Far from consensus we have had: Tigar Tallis, Bruce Grubb, King Öomie, Stevie is the man!, Шизомби. The idea that there has been support much less consensus for what has been going on here is very far fetched. You and Ari and Akhilleus (who has been monitoring this article for a year) decide to introduce false and biased information and suppress correct information.

Under the definition thrown around here I don't think Doherty, Price or Freke qualify as believing in the Christ Myth. It is a big article about 0 scholars. jbolden1517^Talk 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the references in the article the early Wells, Freke and Gandy, and Doherty all advocate(d) the Christ Myth as defined in the lead. Price is slgihtly more ambiguous since he allows that some minimal historical Jesus might have existed, and the article indicates this ambiguity very plainly. If anyone is playing a shell game with the subject here it certainly isn't Ari, Akhilleus, and me. Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Walter Bauer not being an advocate of the Christ Myth theory I reject that. I'd say he was one of the fathers of it in its modern form. He was not a believer in the straw man position that is being presented here. jbolden1517^Talk 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No one cares what you'd say; do you have a reliable source that makes this claim? Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I always love being accused of introducing "false and biased information" and suppressing correct information. Pray tell, Jbolden, which scholarly sources define the Christ myth theory the way you do? Or is this your own, original notion of what it is? And by the way, what is this "New School" you speak of? What references are there that define its members and its views? Or is this again something you've come up with yourself? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dallas theological seminary (Bock), NT Wright, Harvard Divinity School / Princeton Theological Seminary (Jones)... This definition isn't something even the evangelicals object to. You know this we discussed it in June. jbolden1517^Talk 19:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Searching the archived talk threads of the page the only references to a "New School" were made (surprise, surprise) by jbolden1517. And then as now no actual sources were provided to attest to the nature or existence of such a thing. (A bare list of names without any documentation or quotes aren't sources, they're bluffs.) Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's cute that the "New School" which is so terrible reputable, according to jbolden1517, is no where to be found. The only reference I can find to it is on this very article, at the bottom of the page, as a dead wiki link. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a reference to the "New School" in this essay. So now I'm confused. Jbolden's post above seems to say that Bock, NT Wright, and Jones are members of the new school. But the essay I just linked to says that Bock attacks the "new school" (which he uses as a strawman)--and its members are folks like Helmut Koester, James M. Robinson, Elaine Pagels. So it's really unclear to me what Jbolden means by "New School", and less clear what relevance it has to this article--because Bock, Wright, Jones, Koester, Robinson, and Pagels are not adherents of the Christ myth theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No Bock, Wright and Jones have written books on the New School. As an aside all of them were hostile. Eugeneacurry was arguing before the new school didn't exist. And Helmut Koester and Elaine Pagels are specifically cited by people like Doherty and Price as holding similar views. That is to say the represent the right hand side of the chart. They aren't adherents to some fictional Christ Myth theory that no one AFAIK was ever an adherent of. jbolden1517^Talk 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"New School" is hardly a common term for Koester and Pagels (it barely shows up in Google or Google Scholar), and it's not one that they seem to embrace. The fact that a handful of writers use it as a derogatory term for scholars they don't like doesn't mean we have to follow suit. What Doherty and Price say about Koester, Pagels, or any other mainstream scholar is pretty much meaningless. You can't say that Pagels is an adherent of the Christ myth theory unless you can produce something from her own writing that says she thinks there was no historical Jesus. (And that's what the theory is--that's not "fiction", that's what scholarly sources tell us.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Doherty, Freke and Gandy, and the early G. A. Wells all subscribed to the view that there was no historical Jesus behind Christianity. In fact, Doherty and Freke and Gandy went further and claimed that the early Christians didn't even believe that Jesus had even been a historical person. Wells himself discusses this: "Some recent critics have gone so far as to deny even that the early Christians believed Jesus ever to have lived on Earth as a man. I refer to Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, joint authors of The Jesus Mysteries (London: Thorsons, 1999), and to Earl Doherty." Now, considering that Koester is already listed as one of the dismissive scholars in the opening section I'm quite skeptical that he actual supports anything even close to the Christ Myth, but if you actually have any sources you'd like to point to (book titles with page numbers and publishing dates or maybe links) I'd love to see it. Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all modern Christians barely believe in a historical person names Jesus. They believe in some sort of fully divine being interacting at a historical point and time, it is only because of the "fully human, fully man" one would even think to claim what they believe in as a human. . Bruce has written hundreds of pages on how Wells rejected that simple characterization that none of the gospel material was historic. Same for Doherty who in Chapter 14 on Q specifically does tie saying to earthly, human cynic philosophers. Freke allows for historical injection. Freke (p8) gives his definition that Christianity evolved from Jewish gnosticism and Pagan mystery rites not a Jerusalem cult. That is the Christ myth theory. You are making up a theory that all the "proponents" would reject. jbolden1517^Talk 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A DM Murdock quote comes to mind: When the mythological layers of the gospel story are removed, there remains no core to the onion, no “real person” to point to as found in the evemerist position. To put it another way, a composite of 20 people, whether mythical, historical or both, is no one. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it seems at this point that jbolden1517 and ^^James^^ have simply chosen to not understand. If all you are arguing is that authors like Doherty and Freke have conceded that early Christians may have plugged a few snappy sayings from a wide variety of cynic philosophers into the mytho-history of a mythical "Jesus persona", then the article already says that--right in the opening section: "Proponents of a mythical origin of Christianity sometimes allow that some gospel material may have been drawn from a historical preacher or preachers, but that these individuals were not in any sense 'the founder of Christianity.'" It's in the article's second sentence, for God's sake! None so blind and he who will not see. Plus, Freke and Gandy absolutely do fall under the banner of the Christ Myth as defined by this article: "Now we are in a position to go further than Bultmann and conclude they [i.e. the gospels] can tell us nothing at all about an historical Jesus because no such man ever existed." Freke, Peter & Gandy, Peter, The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006) 70-71.Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry the line you are quoting from the introduction is one I wrote. So yes I understand it, yes I think it is accurate and the version in the first few paragraphs does reflect Freke, and Gandy.... Which is different from the version that is being advanced here and the version that Christian apologists like Michael Licona (our current ref #35 which I assume is mainstream scholarship) advance later in the introduction. jbolden1517^Talk 01:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, jbolden1517, so Freke and Gandy explicity state that no historical Jesus ever existed; that, according to the reference given in the article, is the Christ Myth theory. Licona mentions a prominent Christ Myther, Doherty, by name, before invoking the specter of Holocaust denial in the article's references. Also, in the full text of the Crossan reference, Crossan likewise mentions Doherty by name before invoking the specter of moon-landing denial. And against your claims that Doherty's views on "Q" somehow distance him from the denunciations referenced in the opening section, the source we have on Doherty that's available online relating his understanding of "Q" explictly states, "there is no need to impute such sayings to a Jesus." It seems that every time you try to offer actual evidence that the article misrepresents the Christ Myth theory or otherwise misdirects readers, your claims are either demonstrably false or irrelevant. Further, your repeated efforts to drag Christian theology into this discussion is a complete non-sequitor. This is an article on a very specifc historical/literary theory developed in the 18th century and developed by a string of specific authors since. If you want to complain about the excesses of some Christian theology, do it somewhere else. Eugeneacurry (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First off you have been complaining about self published websites. I was citing Doherty's book which has later versions of the arguments on the website. That being the case the very paragraph you cite contains speculation of a cynical source for Q1. There is even a positive connect with Burton Mack, Doherty explicitly indicates he considers Mack's theory to be compatible with Christ myth. That is there could be a Jewish cynic or Q1 provided he did not found the Christian community. The very paragraph proves my point that Christ mythers draw a much more wider net than you do.

As for the Christian theology, the quote is from John Piper a leader of a large church and a major player in popularizing reformed theology among the SBA. Given those cites I have no problem claiming this is a religious dispute and not a dispute based on evidence. Same thing with Licona (a professional apologist) Stobel (apologist). The idea that 4truth.net (cite 30) and westminster seminary (the Dunn references) should be treated as authoritative sources on atheist bible studies and not just followers of a different religion is simply beyond being credible. jbolden1517^Talk 04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite; John Piper isn't just some pastor, he earned a doctorate from the University of Munich in New Testament studies, his dissertation was published by Cambridge University Press, and he taught at a fully accredited university for years. Also, "westminster seminary"? Do you mean Westminster John Knox Press? The 170 year old publisher that has published works by such notorious fundamentalists as Gerd Ludemann? Give me a break. Even Licona remains a reliable source despite your insinuations to the contray: he holds a doctorate in New Testament studies from a major university, has been published by mainstream publishing houses, and works in the field. Fail. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said John Piper was just some pastor, " a major player in popularizing reformed theology among the SBA." All three of you seem to think it is acceptable to put words in other people's mouth. I understand you believe the Godsicle has granted you special powers but I can speak for myself. He has been a major leader in all sorts of untruths from the ESV bible to covenant theology. So no I don't think he is just some pastor. What I see no evidence for is that he is an academic and not just an important leader of an alternate hostile religion whose opinions on atheism should be quoted as freely as his opinions on Wicca. jbolden1517^Talk 05:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone's bias is beginning to show. But, regardless, Piper not an academic? And that with his relevant doctorate, his Cambridge published book, and his teaching experience in the academy? Fail. Also, no one is quoting Piper on atheism in this article, where did that come from? Fail, again. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the term "fail" is frankly disrespectful and not conducive to conversation. It is fully consistent with the bullying that went on this last month which resulted the situation we find ourselves in, an 100 changes that people were coerced into accepting. A respectful and conducive way to carry on a conversation is for you to raise a counter point and then await a response, not to declare in advance I don't have one and that I should instantly be blown away by your comment and the debate is over which is what the "fail" structure implies. Assuming the person you are having a conversation with is ignorant does not assist in reaching points of dialogue. I don't see any reason the dialogue in January should look anything like what happened in December so that possibility of real progress is open. But that is going to require that you actual wait for me to respond to your points before assuming I can't and declaring the debate over. jbolden1517^Talk 11:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad I am not the only one who has noticed that pretty much everyone who has criticised the Christ myth theory, including world renowned academics, are branded unscholarly apologists. Then when this is pointed out he begins with the personal attacks against editors. It's a boring and childish repetitive cycle, which has clearly demonstrated that the last thing on his mind is adhering to WP:NPOV. --Ari (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarise the arguments regarding the chart:

Remove:

1. The chart is outside of the scope of the article - (Akhilleus)
2. The chart contains original research (Akhilleus, Ari89, Eugeneacurry)
3. Misrepresentation of sources - (Akhilleus, Ari89)
4. The citations are incomplete (recently tagged, removed by jbolden, retagged) - (Ari89)
5. Categories are too broad, and generalisations too specific to represent the group. - (Ari89)
6. Prose would be far better at placing the theory in context (Alhilleus)

Keep:

1. Unspecified reason, but part of a overarching conspiracy to "Christianize" the article. (jbolden)

--Ari (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The list above constitutes a misrepresentation, possibly deliberate of my position. It is considered unethical to alter other people's talk comments so rather than alter them rather I'll refer to the lengthly conversations Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_22#Another_possibility where I did indicate my opinion. The chart presents the overriding theme for why we can discuss Christ myth authors as a unified whole. In other words why should Freke, Murdock, Doherty, Bauer ... appear in a unified article? Why is just holding one opinion in common sufficient to claim there is an actual theory? The chart ties the article together by providing an outline for what is common among Christ mythers and provides the reader with an understanding of what the authors do and do not assert.

I should mention though this is a perfect example of the problem with the claim there hasn't been any discussion. Ari simply assumed I didn't have reasons. I also should mention that Bruce explicitly cited a reason for wanting to keep the chart in [1]. Now that comment happened just hours ago. I can't see the failure to cite Bruce's argument was anything other than polemical and dishonest. Another example of the bullying that has been going on that is going to need to stop before any progress can be made on edits. jbolden1517^Talk 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that the chart has no problems in another section wasn't a reason to keep. Evidently, you prefer personal attacks instead of providing reasons. Stay on the topic of discussion. --Ari (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is there a reason to keep the chart other than conspiracy theory yet? I see plenty of good reasons to delete, none to keep, and even less than none to revert it to a 6 month old version riddled with factual inaccuracies and false citations. --Ari (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Raising the question again as we can edit - what is happening with the chart? No one seems to be happy with it for numerous reasons whether it be misrepresenting or pigeon holing very diverse groups, to being uncited. Removing it would seem like the best solution. --Ari (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the chart should just be cut. It's hopelessly synthetic and misleading. Everything meaningful in it is/can be presented elsewhere in the article. Eugeneacurry (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to a discussion

My problem with the chart is that it is way too sharply drawn. One can, I suppose, organize attitudes towards Jesus/Christianity into four groups:

• Orthodox belief
• Non-literalists (that is, those who hold to the Nicene outline but who are skeptics about the details of the narrative, up to and including denying the virgin birth)
• Non-Christian believers (e.g. those who say that Jesus was a great teacher but reject the redemptive narrative of Christianity)
• Frank disbelievers

The problem here is that various scholarly attitudes are sprinkled across these categories, and therefore it is inaccurate to assign a belief attitude to the scholarly mainstream. For instance, as discussed in the section that follows, the most conservative orthodox views reject the two-source hypothesis; but the biggest conservative position (namely Catholicism) doesn't reject source analysis on principle. Meanwhile, adherence to the two-source theory and its relations are sprinkled across all four groups, so that it is inaccurate to characterize the supposed mainstream as being hostile to to orthodox faith. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Freke/Gandy

I think Eugenacurry's edit reducing the size of the section on Freke and Gandy is the way to go. (In fact, I'm not even sure why these guys are in the article to begin with; on the other hand, we don't seem to have any clearly articulated standard for including recent writers other than "I think it's popular.") The section on Freke and Gandy should be about what Freke and Gandy think. Instead, the current version of the section consists mostly of an essay about recent scholarship on Gnosticism. Not only does this belong somewhere else (like, say, the article on Gnosticism), it also gives the impression that Friedländer, Bauer, Pearson, and Turner are supporters of the Christ myth theory. Somehow, I doubt they actually are.

In general, I'm not sympathetic to the complaints that this article is a content fork of historicity of Jesus or any other article. Thing is though, there are some parts of the article that seem like they're an alternate history of early Christianity. This mini-essay on Gnosticism is one; the chart is another. Neither needs to be in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Freke and Gandy should be in the article if for no other reason than they published some Christ Myth books through mainstream publishers recently. But, as you said, their section currently isn't really about them at all; it's about other scholars and criticism. I think my reduction was appropriate and should be reinstated, perhaps with another sentence or two. Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

half of Jesus Mysteries is a tie to gnosticism and a lengthy discussion of how gnosticism formed the bridge between the pagan community and the proto-Christian community. For Freke and Gandy Osiris / Dionysis became Jesus through gnosticism. We need to decide in general where are we going to discuss these themes at length. There are good reasons for rejecting any of the authors:

• Acharya S -- Extreme even for Christ mythers (though the only modern writer I can think of that meets the definition we are using). Plays a little fast and loose with her facts.
• Price -- Often to vague. Only a borderline Christ myther (though I myself consider him a clear cut case).
• Doherty -- mainly on the internet. One one author, aspects of his theory are unique....
• Freke -- Too strongly tied into gnosticism
• Harpur -- Not even in the article yet. Marginal.
• Leidner -- Not heavily read.
• (generic) -- ends up reading too much like WP:SYN

The material has to go somewhere. There is a lot to the Christ myth theory and there is a lot of background. I'm all for discussing a reorg. I'm not up for delete huge blocks of information about the people who actually know something about the theory to have more quotes by people who know nothing about the theory. jbolden1517^Talk 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with cutting down Freke and Gandey section. It is poorly written e.g. "They are applying ideas of many authors from mainstream classical studies with a specialization in Gnosticism. The last generation has seen a wealth of new material on gnosticism"; and more importantly, doesn't seem to be about Freke and Gandey but original research and synthesis. It's talking about people who aren't Christ mythers for who knows what reason.--Ari (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We can quote Freke and Gandy directly in this section and not quote academic authorities. But I just want to make it clear you are then going to have F&G making all sorts of claims about the development of religions in the middle east directly, not using alternative reliable sources. I want to wait for a few days and make sure there is a consensus for this before switching that section over to F&G directly.

As far as just cutting it down without moving the content anywhere, no. This article is about the Christ myth. The goal is to describe/explain the Christ myth theory. The goal is not to include 50k of quotes demeaning and degrading the theory but rather to present the theory in an NPOV way, indicate where the mainstream disagrees and let the reader come to their own conclusions. jbolden1517^Talk 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What I want to be removed from the section is the poorly written original research, misrepresnting scholars as if they are Christ Mythicists. That has no place on Wikipedia just as much as it has no place under Freke and Gandy's header. --Ari (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen today I looks like Akhilleus, Ari, and I are all in favor of drastically reducing the size of Freke and Gandy's section, deleting the discussion of non-Freke and non-Gandy scholars from it (along with the various bit of unsourced original research), and (I think) cutting the criticism altogether. One only one objecting is (what a shock!) Jbolden1517. This isn't an attempt to silence F & G; it's an attempt to shrink a bloated entry and format it so that becomes part of a single integrated article and not some disjointed mini-essay on Gnosticism research. Eugeneacurry (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No reasons have been presented to keep the material (and just to remind, I am not talking about removing Freke and Grandy). It is (1) poorly written (many sentences have no meaning in the English language); (2) original research/synthesis of data wp:or; (3) is not about Freke and Grandy; (4) has been shown to be factually incorrect. At best it is misleading. --Ari (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked all of Freke and Gandy's books on Amazon. (All of them make their contents available for internal searches.) Not a single one of them contains even a single mention of Walter Bauer, Birger Pearson, or John Turner--not one single mention. If the defense of the older bloated version of Freke and Gandy's section wasn't already dead, it should be now. Any mention of these scholars in connection with Freke and Gandy without a WP:RS that makes the connection is rank OR. Eugeneacurry (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Walter Bauer

It has to be asked - do the editors attempting to cite Walter Bauer actually understand what Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity is about? Firstly, despite Jbolden's claim earlier that he was a Christ Mythicist - that is not so. His thesis (which is largely doubted by modern scholarship) is about two themes (1) early Christian diversity, where he contended that in many geographical regions heresy preceded orthodoxy. For example, in Egypt the Gnostics were there first; (2) he argues that orthodoxy that came around was Roman Christianity.

I removed the earlier false citation from the table, as it had Bauer as (1) a Christ Myhticist and (2) supporting a progression of beliefs contrary to his hypothesis. Similarly, today I removed another misleading citation which is part of an unsourced original research/synthesis section and Freke and Grandy. Through edit warring and violationg the 3RR Jbolden has restored it. --Ari (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Jbolden's edit summary for restoring the removed content was: "This has already been debated in June. If you want to debate it again take it to talk. This isn't a new argument." I could not find any debate on it. In fact, if we read the quote without the editors redaction we find exactly what I said being true - "but in many regions heresy is the original manifestation of Christianity". Similarly, this quote was not made by Walter Bauer. --Ari (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ari 89 is right, and this quote and reference needs to be removed. The quote "but in many regions heresy is the original manifestation of Christianity" comes from Georg Strecker's foreword to the second German edition of Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, found in English translation here: [2]. So, as Ari89 points out, the quote is misattributed. This is careless at best, but we should assume good faith and believe that this is the result of confusion on the part of whoever put this in the article. Ditto with the selective excerpting--Strecker's forward summarizes Bauer's thesis just as Ari89 did above. Once again, we should assume good faith--the misinterpretation of the quote is due to confusion rather than malice--but it does mean that all of the references used in this article need to be checked very carefully.

I will note that this reference is used in the "Chart" section. As I've said above, the Chart doesn't belong in this article--an overview of positions on the historical Jesus, the development of early Christianity, and whatever else belongs in different articles. This article is about one theory on the historical Jesus, not the entire field. Sections like the Chart contribute to the idea that this article a is content fork that tries to present an alternate version of other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of historians are dissmissive of the theory?

The lead used to say “biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive” of the Christ Myth theory. Haldraper changed that to “biblical scholars and historians of Christianity being highly dismissive”. I changed it back, and then jbolden1517 changed to back again, and I changed it back again. I imagine that someone will try to change it back again and I don’t want to get dinged for a 3RR violation so I’ll have to leave it for others. But just so others know why adding “of Christianity” onto “historians” is problematic, here it is: Absolutely none of the references used in the lead refer to “historians of Christianity”; whenever “historians” are mentioned it is always to a broader group.

Van Voorst: “classical historians”

Stanton: “all historians”

Wright: “any historians”

Gerrish: “the historical establishment”, “historical specialists”, and “the historians”

Evans: “no scholar trained in history”

Bruce: “unbiased historian” and “not historians”

Johnson: “critical historian”

Ehrman: “any serious historian”

Further, the references themselves are sometimes from historians that are not specifically “historians of Christianity”, such as Michael Grant and Will Durant. Considering all this, it is incorrect to limit the word “historians” in the lead to the more narrow “historians of Christianity”. Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you need unbiased language and qualifiers. Outside of biblical studies many of the ideas have support. The explicit mentions of the "minimalists" in today's wave of changes is a good thing except for the fact that I don't think the line is quite where you think it is between the minimalists and the christ mythers. (and just so everyone can see here is an example where I'm being explicitly complementary about a Eugeneacurry change). The separation is not whether they think Jesus existed to a greater or larger extent as: Wells, Doherty, Price, Leidner, Hoffman.... show. The difference is whether this minimal Jesus founded Christianity or whether Christianity arose organically and adopted the historical aspects (as per John Turner's work). jbolden1517^Talk 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The central idea of the theory is that there was no historical Jesus, and I don't see how you can say that idea has much support outside of biblical studies. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The way you all have defined the idea it has no support at all. Define it accurately and the ideas enjoy widespread support has an entire school which support it. jbolden1517^Talk 19:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the way *I* define it, it's the way our sources define it. Including the text you just copy-pasted from Citizendium, which says "Jesus mythicism is, put simply, the position that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure, but a mythic figure much like King Arthur or Prometheus." Or like Robert M. Price, quoted further up the page as saying "Here I represent the viewpoint of the Christ-Myth theory, the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, represents a subsequent historicization of a mythic deity, much as the Samson of the book of Judges is a literary incarnation of the Hebrew sun-god myth."

What do you think the proper definition is, Jbolden, and which school gives it widespread support? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly a mythic figure. King Arthur is a perfect example, and an example I wouldn't mind using that example to describe the Christ myth. We have an article Historical basis for King Arthur which discusses there are aspects of the Arthur story which are historical. There may very well have been a 6th century British emperor with the name Arthur. For example there are aspects of the arthur story that tie to Ambrosius Aurelianus. But that is a far cry from asserting that Arthur is a historical figure, much less that excalibur is real.

The proper definition is that Christianity arose organically and did not have a founder, Jesus (note the focus on the origin of Christianity not on the gospels). While some stories about Jesus may nor may not have limited historical basis, the jesus character, the founder of Christianity, is fictional. jbolden1517^Talk 19:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has vered away from the relevant topic. The lead originally said that "historians" (in general) were dismissive of the Christ Myth theory. Haldraper and Jbolden1517 have changed that to "historians of Christianity" without any support for the limitation appearing in the sources cited. Now we have another quote from Ehrman, "I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this." Once more, this is a blanket reference to all historians. The lead should be restored to merely "historians" to reflect the blanket nature of the quotes sourcing the statement. Haldraper and Jbolden1517's attempts to misrepresent the scholarly consensus as more narrow and more ideological than it is must not be allowed to stand. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The - minor and uncontroversial I thought - point I was trying to make with my edit is that the previous version of the lead was seking to claim too much. Only the majority of academics who concern themselves with the question of whether Christ was a historical figure - that is biblical scholars and historians of Christianity - are dismissive of the Christ-myth theory. If the sources actually use "historians" it's clearly a slightly lazy shorthand for historians of Christianity. They surely aren't referrring to Indian historians who specialise in ancient Sri Lanka or Chinese historians who study Korean military development, neither of whom probably have even thought about the theory never mind been highly dismissive of it. I fail to see how I have made "attempts to misrepresent the scholarly consensus as more narrow and more ideological than it is" given I did not write "Christian historians" (even if most of them are) but "historians of Christianity" which is another thing altogether. Haldraper (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, do you have any sources that indicate the lead was claiming too much? Do you have any sources that indicate the references in the lead are using phrases such as "all historians" and "anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method" as a "lazy shorthand" for "historians of Christianity"? If not, your edit amounts to original reasearch--more of a guess really--and doesn't belong in the article. Further, the fact that Grant and Durant both dismiss the Christ Myth theory while not being historians of Christiainity specifically further undermines the validity of your guess. The motivation I attributed to you in my last comment is grounded in your statements that "Holocaust denial is a particularly offensive comparison for Christian scholars to make" despite the fact that Ehrman, a non-Christian, makes the comparison too. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry, if we say 'historians' without any qualification it means 'all historians' and people will (rightly) read it to mean that, and to include the kind of historians I mention above.

Luckily there is no need for me to guess or resort to WP:OR when it comes to describing the historians we are actually talking about as the sentence is heavily referenced and a glance through their book titles clearly backs up what I am saying, not that they are all Christians - although many of them are - but that they are all historians of Christianity:

Burridge, R; Gould, G (2004), Jesus Now and Then

Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.

Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology.

Stanton, Graham (2002). The Gospels and Jesus

Grant, Michael (1995) [1997]. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels.

Wright, N. T., "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", There Is A God, Flew, Antony & Varghese, Roy Abraham (New York: HarperOne, 2007)

Gerrish, Brian A., The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004)

Durant, Will, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972)

Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus.

Dunn, James D. G. , "Response to Robert M. Price", The Historical Jesus: Five Views, James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy eds., (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009)

Marshall, Ian Howard, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, rev. ed. (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004)

Evans, Craig A., Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006)

Sanders, E. P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, (New York: Penguin Press, 1993)

Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th revised edition, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972)

Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus, (San Francisco: Harper, 1996)

Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982)

Allison, Dale C., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009)

Bultmann, Rudolf, Jesus and the Word, (New York: C. Scribner’s sons, 1934)

The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Borg, Marcus & Wright, N. T. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1999)

Powell, Mark Allan, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, (Louisvile: Westminster John Knox, 1998)

Schweitzer, Albert, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. John Bowden, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001)

Perrin, Nicholas, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007)

McClymond, Michael James, Familiar Stranger: an Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004)

Piper, John, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006)

The Case for the Real Jesus Strobel, Lee, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007)

Miller, Robert J., The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics, (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1999)

Funk, Robert, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium, (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997)

Haldraper (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The sources you refer to aren't included merely for the sake of recording their own dismissiveness but also to indicate the dismissiveness of historians generally through their comments that claim as much. Consider this parallel: imagine that the flat-earth page included a line that read "scientists being highly dismissive of the theory". Now imagine that that statement was connected to five citations, all from geologists, which all said, more or less, "All scientist reject the flat-earth theory". In this situation would you alter the article body text to read "geologists being highly dismissive of the theory", or would you allow the geologists' WP:RS claims to stand as a comment on all scientists and leave the body text as it is without further delimitation? I assume you'd take the later course.

Also, you don't seem to understand Grant and Durant. Neither of these men were specialists in the specific field of the "history of Christianity". Take a look at Grant's bibliography, then consider that Durant's magnum opus, The Story of Civilization, spans all of Western history from the dawn of writing to 1840.

Frankly, I'm surprised that I'm having to argue this considering how unanimous the sources are in referring to historians generally and how the phrase "historians of Christianity" appears absolutely no-where in the footnotes. I'll be changing it back. If you revert it again I'll ask for some sort of dispute resolution. Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you seem to be engaging in your own WP:OR here. All the works cited above are histories of Christianity. Unless you can find some general historical works that are dismissive of the theory, the claim is unreferenced. I won't revert but I will place some tags until you do.Haldraper (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact tagging something with a good 20 citations backing it up? Only on the Christ Myth article... --Ari (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ari, pity those refs don't back up what the sentence actually says.Haldraper (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Durant's book is not a history of Christianity, but of (western?) civilization; Grant's book is An Historian's Review of the Gospels, which I suppose one might term as a work of history about Christianity. But if one takes a look at Grant's career, it's clear that it's not accurate to call him a historian of Christianity--he's an ancient historian, i.e. someone who specializes in the history of ancient Greece and Rome. So it's not accurate to say that "all the works cited above are histories of Christianity", or that everyone cited above is a historian of Christianity.

On a more basic level, there's not a good reason to depart from the wording of the cited sources anyway. As the initial post in this section says, the sources say things like "classical historians", "all historians", "any historian", etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"All historians" or "historians", which amounts to the same thing, is clearly too broad whatever the sources say - how can we claim the Chinese or Indian historians I cited above are highly dismissive of a theory they have probably never even heard of? - so we need a qualifier. I think 'classical' is fine and it's supported by a ref. I'll rv my own edit.Haldraper (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with "classical historians". Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would insist on "historians". Saying "historians are dismissive" does not imply that every historian on the planet has commented on the question as Haldraper chooses to suggest tongue-in-cheek. It is sad that an already broken discussion is further sidetracked by such non-issues. --dab (𒁳) 15:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Classical historians" is misleading as it could seem to refer only to classicists. The fact is, there are a number of historians, other than biblical scholars, whose expertise is related enough to the field of the historical Jesus to make a qualifier "biblical historians" to narrow. Even other disciplines (e.g. sociology of religion, which goes a long way to demonstrate the necessity of Jesus in the foundation of the Jesus movement) are capable of showing how much the evidence supports a historical Jesus. The fact that a handful of doubters (and Wells is a scholar of german studies) have written non-academic works for the general public doesn't merit qualifying "biblical scholars and historians."--AD Messing (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AD, it is not misleading unless you don't know what the word means, in which case you can follow the piped link and find out. We can hardly write an encyclopaedic article while avoiding all words that some may confuse with similar words. All I am trying to do is be more precise and given that Classical antiquity sums up its range as from "the earliest-recorded Greek poetry of Homer (8th–7th century BC)...through the rise of Christianity and the decline of the Roman Empire (5th century AD). It ends with the dissolution of classical culture at the close of Late Antiquity (AD 300-600)" I think "classical historians" does that.Haldraper (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral header

Given that the header is the single biggest area where the current version of the article is being totally rejected by the editing community I'd like to suggest we start over.

Citizendium has a header which is neutral and since they only utilize expert editors...

Jesus mythicism is, put simply, the position that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure, but a mythic figure much like King Arthur or Prometheus. Early Christians - including the Gnostics and Marcionites - constructed the Jesus figure out of a variety of sources. Different mythicists point to different parallels: the dying and rising gods Osiris and Adonis, ideas from mystery religions including Mithraism and from Indian ideas about Krishna.

The Jesus mythicist position can be traced back to the nineteenth century with the work of the historian Bruno Bauer and the Dutch radical theological school. More recently, Jesus mythicism has been advocated by scholars including Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, "Acharya S" and George Albert Wells. In 2005, Jesus mythicism was the subject of a controversial anti-religious film called The God Who Wasn't There.

Needless to say, Jesus mythicism has not been widely accepted by the theological establishment or the historical community, and is considered quite toxic to Christian belief. I think this may offer a non biased place to start. jbolden1517^Talk 19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I utterly reject the idea of substituting this lead for the current one. It is nothing more than an additional attempt to minimize the fact that the CMT has no support in the relevant scholarship and to cast the the critics of the CMT as religiously motivated partisans.Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By "header" you mean the lead section? If so, I don't think the Citizendium text is much of an improvement over what we have now--although I will note that it says the idea is not "widely accepted by the theological establishment or the historical community", implying that the idea is not accepted by historians generally. Aren't people fighting about this in a section above? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Akhilleus and Eugeneacurry on this. The current lead in of The Christ myth theory (sometimes called the Christ myth, Jesus myth, or nonexistence hypothesis) is the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person, that the Jesus of early Christianity was a personification of an ideal saviour or mythical being, similar in some respects to Krishna, Adonis, Osiris, and Mithra, to whom earthly events were later attached. works well enough for the majority of the idea (though not all of it) that changing it would serve little purpose and just make things worse. The only issue is where ideas like those of Volney, Resmburg (1909), Dodds (1938), and Wells (1996-present) that accepted there may be a historical person integrated into a preexisting mythology fits into all this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, "a historical person integrated into a preexisting mythology" is actually the mainstream position and has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Jesus myth" stuff. Also, the more contorted the introduction gets, the clearer it should become to you that this article does not have a well-defined scope. It simply does not, and even megabytes worth of hand-waving on talk will not alter that. --dab (𒁳) 15:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann Volney, Resmburg (1909), Dodds (1938), and Wells (1996-present) have all connected "a historical person integrated into a preexisting mythology" to the Christ Myth Theory and trying to say that it has nothing to do with it is just a pathetic attempt to strawman an argument that is more than the 'Jesus didn't exist at all' concept.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 and the Christ Myth theory defined

Let's put this issue to rest once and for all. Jbolden1517, you have repeatedly stated, in contradiction to all the sources listed in this article after the initial definition, that the Christ Myth theory is not what the article says it is, and that there is some "New School" composed of people like Pagels, Koester, and Ehrman who support the Christ Myth theory--as defined by you. Alright, can you produce a SINGLE SOURCE by any of the three authors just mentioned in which they use the specific phrase "Christ Myth theory", define it the way you want, and then state that they support it? If so, then the article should note it. If not, please, please just stop bogging us all down with your inane and obnoxious obscurantism. Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The collection of authors has always been from wikipedia editors. The use of the term "Christ myth theory" in relation to oneself has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Nor is it in contradiction to all the sources, Taylor 1829 defined the theory as the belief that the "Gospel story was essentially in existence before the Christ's purported advent". A theory he held to. He never used the term Christ myth theory for himself, even when addressing people who did like Massey. So I would reject the criteria of using that exact phrase.

But for example Pearson, Emergence of the Christian Religion, "'I use the term "emergence" quite deliberately, for it would be be historically illegitimate to refer to a single "origin" or "founding" of the Christian religion. Some of the religions have their historical founders (Zoraster in the case of Parsiism.... A case could be made for Peter as a "founder" of Christianity, ...." Rejecting Jesus as the founder of the religion combined with a rejection of the historicity of the gospels seems close enough to qualify.

Turner spent a lifetime showing how in the Sethian community an almostChristian religion emerged prior to any contact with Christ or Christians; and then how it became Christianized. jbolden1517^Talk 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll grant you that use of the exact phrase "Christ Myth theory" is perhaps asking a bit much. But you should at least be able it cite where one of the "New School" people you mentioned (Pagels, Koester, Ehrman) use a close varient: Christ myth, Jesus myth, Christ Myth hypothesis, etc. Otherwise we're right back where we always end up with BruceGrubb: the claim that anyone who believes that substantial elements of Christianity have been influenced by myth should be in this article: which covers almost any and all views of Christianity, even those of Christians! Take your nearly two hundred year old quote for example: the "Gospel story was essentially in existence before the Christ's purported advent". Even fundamentalist Christians would accept that that is the case: the "gospel story" was "in existence" prior to Jesus in Isaiah 53 in the form of a prophecy. Then there's your claim that Pearson gives us a good lead. But if all that's required is that one deny Jesus founded "Christianity" then tons of wannabe hipster Evangelical would qualify with their tired mantra "It's not about religion, it's about a relationship," and Erwin McManus' statements that "Christianity" is the greatest enemy of the movement Jesus began. Even adding a denial of the historicity of the gospels to this doesn't help since liberal wannabe hipster Christians like the lefty fringe of the Emergent Church would happily echo McManus' sentiments AND write "unhistorical" across much of the gospels. And as for Turner, so what? The claim that Christianity was heavily influenced by other faiths doesn't amount to anything, Fundamentalists have always admitted that Christianity was heavily influenced by another religion: Judaism! So, again, unless you can find one of your newly minted "New School" guys using some phrase very close to "Christ Myth theory" and then approving of the theory, stop wasting our time. Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First off thank you for constructing a good counter argument and actually engaging rather than just insulting. If you had dropped the last line this would have been a real reply. And BTW Bruce is basically right. Doherty does not deny the historicity of Q1. Wells does not deny that the "other Jesus" of Paul may very well have been something like the gospel Jesus. So I don't think you should dismiss his ideas so lightly.

Your Isaiah 53 point, obviously counters Taylor's definition well, but Taylor is a mythicist even by your strict definition. And this article is supposed to be about them. You have already asserted you don't agree with them. This is why the chart is so important. It provides the real boundaries that mythicists would agree with. Where did Christianity develop, how much of the gospel story is fictional, how much of the story is mythological.... It is not clear cut who is in or out. Draw the line as tightly as you would like to and no one is inside. People black you need to have a definition that includes Doherty, and you need to have a definition that includes Freke and Gandy. Which means you need to be careful. As for the New Schoolers the issue is not so much what the New Schoolers think of the Christ mythers, but what the Christ mythers think of the new schoolers. They self identify as part of that school. Price's Pre-Nicene New Testament makes frequent references to the importance of Pagel's work. Her ideas are important to the Christ myth theory. She herself is a liberal Christian.

Now let your original post. I haven't said the New Schoolers support the Christ myth, what I said was that the Christ mythers were part of the New school. The new school itself supports the Christ myth. The New School is the academic version of the Christ myth. The Christ myth is a popular literary group that is part of atheism, not academia. Christ myth has the same relationship to the New School that Christian apologetics have to mainstream biblical scholarship. That doesn't mean that mainstream scholars consider themselves Christ mythers. I my example of Pearson is one you should address. This is the key point, he is denying the jesus founded the Christian religion.

Forget the new school. Come up with a definition that includes the right people clearly and unequivocally.

Let's just pick someone we both agree is clear cut, on the extreme, Acharya. She considers the core issue of the mythicist position to be primarily linguist, are you willing to consider an amalgamation of historical people to be a historical person, "The evemerist or euhemerist perspective, named for the Greek philosopher Euhemerus (4th cent. BCE), who posited that the gods of old were in reality kings and assorted other heroes who were deified, remains one of the most commonly held opinions regarding Jesus Christ, along with the believing and mythicist perspective. Although many people believe evemerism to be a "reasonable" position, often expressing that, while they do not believe Jesus was the Son of God, they do believe he was a "real person," the fact is that there simply exists no valid, scientific evidence for this "real person," such as any historical record or archaeological remains. Moreover, when the mythological layers are peeled, there remains no "historical" core to the onion. To paraphrase Massey, a composite of 20 people is no one. Evemerism is generally the result of skepticism as concerns miracles, yet lacking an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the mythicist position." [3] jbolden1517^Talk 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that we have secondary sources saying that the Christ myth theory is the idea that Jesus isn't a historical figure. Those same sources tell us that the theory was advocated by Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J.M. Robertson, W.M. Smith, G.A. Wells, etc. As far as I know we don't have any secondary sources telling us that the "New School" says that Jesus isn't a historical figure, or that their ideas are similar to Bruno Bauer's et al. The reason for that, of course, is that the "New School" is doing something quite different. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Darrell Bock's use of the "New School" refers to how people have used Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, generally against the greater knowledge of scholarship. These scholars attempt to legitimise all "trajectories" (as Koester puts it) as equal. This theory has nothing to do with the Christ Myth theory. --Ari (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course that has a lot to do with the Christ myth. If Christianity evolved in Alexandria and not Palestine the debate is over. jbolden1517^Talk 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so we are no longer using the definition of the single(?) source that uses the term, but Jbolden1517's new definition? Stop treating this article as a polemic for your own personal hypothesis, but maintain wp:verifiability. Do provide verifiable sources about the so-called "New School" proposing the Christ myth.--Ari (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean New School I've named 4 sources from 3 authors. Back in the archives of the talk pages I hit another dozen or so refs. If that's not you mean, I've lost you. As for my personal polemic, I'm not the one who named this section "jbolden1517 and the...". And I would love to drop my "personal polemic" if it is present. But right now the problem is fight obvious attempts to remove everything pro and expand everything con, in line with WP:NPOV. jbolden1517^Talk 02:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So that's a no on a verifiable source that the so-called "New School" has all of a sudden become Christ Myth theorists or support the theory? (Of course, without appealing to secondary sources or original research). --Ari (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I never asserted that. Eugencurry asserted that was my contention and I denied I've made that assertion. jbolden1517^Talk 02:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurth, Elisabeth (2007) Between Faith and Unbelief: American Transcendentalists and the Challenge of Atheism Brill. starting on page 55 give a very long talk aobut the connection between Christ myth and "new school"

In looking for things on this I found this little bombshell: "But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press) So again here again (Dodd being earlier proof) in a university press book that the Christ Myth theory is NOT just the idea that Jesus never existed and this expressly states it so the people trying to strawman this argument can't engage in their usual song and dance.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, BruceGrubb's sources aren't as advertized. Between Faith and Unbelief by Hurth does indeed speak of a "new school" (not capitalized), but this "new school" has nothing to do with the purported "New School" (capitalized) that's been the subject of conversation on this page so far which is supposed to contain Pagels, Ehrman, and Koester. Instead, it's a reference to a particular group within 19th century Transcendentalism, a group that included Ralph Waldo Emerson. Also, his second source is entitled Christianity and the Nature of History, and it's difficult to get a clear idea of what it says since it's only available in Snippet View on Google Books. But, even so, the quote that BruceGrubb gives implies a distinction between the "Christ-myth theories" AND "all theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure". But alas, given the obsurity of the source and it's very limited availability on the web, we simply can't know for sure. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Bruce makes the error of thinking that this article is about particular phrases--"new school", "Christ-myth theory", whatever. This article is about an idea--the idea that there was no historical Jesus.

Hurth's book is about American Transcendentalism; when she talks about the "new school", she means the Transcendentalists. Only someone who uncritically dumps Google search results onto talk pages could equate Hurth's "new school" with Jbolden1517's "new school". When Hurth talks about "myth criticism" or the "Christ 'myth'" (never "Christ-myth theory"), she refers to the work of David Strauss, who doubted the historicity of much of the Gosepls, seeing them as myth--but he didn't say that there was no historical Jesus. (Strauss is important background for this article and should probably be covered briefly, though.)

As for the quote from Wood, Bruce may find it instructive to read Grammatical conjunction and review the meaning of "and". It's not an equals sign. If one looks through Christianity and the Nature of History, the book from which Bruce quotes, it's plain to see that Wood thinks the "Christ-myth theory" is advocated by Arthur Drews and J.M. Robertson--in other words, it's the theory that this article talks about. This quote on page 54 is apposite: "No form of the Christ-myth theory can survive this test. As Dr Schweitzer observes, 'It is no hard matter to assert that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, infallibly works round to produce the opposite conclusion.' This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert M. Price

Our current bit on Price states that he doesn't consider himself a Christ Myther. Do we have a source on this? His statement in The Historical Jesus: Five Views implies he simply supports the theory and a few secondary sources say as much too. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Can anyone find a decent Wikipedia approved photo of either Wells or Price to put in the article? We've got one for Bauer and we've got one for Drews; if we could get one of either Wells or Price that would give us one for a major advocate from each era recounted in the article. Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what a Wikipedia approved photo is, but if you go here [4] and here [5], there are a whole bunch of photos of Price and Wells, respectively. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those pictures are great. Only, Wikipedia is strict about copyright laws so we can't just use them. Don't worry though, I tracked down some private photos and got permission to include them. They'll be up in a bit. Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments Section

To further distance this article from changes of being a content fork for historicity of Jesus, I think that the arguments section should be shortened significantly, possibly so that it can all fit on the screen at once (it now occupies 4.5 screens worth of space; holocaust denial sums up the arguments of it's subject in two paragraphs). We can move the various bits of counter-argument to the "Scholarly reception" section to help facilitate this. As it stands currently the section seems less like an encyclopedia article and more like a battlefield of promotion and criticism. Any thoughts? Eugeneacurry (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Standardization

I've noticed that the article refers to the Christ myth theory in a number of different ways. Sometimes it's "Christ myth theory", other times it's "Christ Myth theory", other times it's "Christ-myth theory", and still other times it's "Christ-Myth theory". I understand that the sources cited also reflect this range of capitalization and punctuation, but it seems like the article's inline text should adopt a single style. Any preferences? Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with "Christ myth theory", simply because that's the current title; if it seems better to use a different capitalization/hyphenation style then the article title should be changed to match. (Direct quotes, of course, should preserve the style of the source, no matter what the article style is.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman's The Infidel Guy Show interview

I've been able to locate three online recordings of Ehrman's interview on The Infidel Guy Show.

(1) the official The Infidel Guy Show podcast

(2) a YouTube video by a third party individual

(3) a podcast by a third party organization

Each of these sources has a problem though: The official podcast is only available to paying subscribers; the YouTube video might disappear at any time, and the third party podcast is full of apologetical commentary.

So far the article has linked to the third party podcast because it is freely accessable and presumably stable, but I was wondering if one of the other options would be more in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Any thoughts? Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure podcasts are great sources to begin with. However, if the article links to one of these sources, it should be the official podcast. The fact that it's subscription-only doesn't matter; many articles use journal articles as sources, and those are typically only available from subscription-only sites such as JSTOR. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've switched the links over to the official page. Wikipedia: Reliable Source states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Given Ehrman's standing in the field I think that his comments on the podcast meet this standard. Also, Id rather keep the source as it helps forestall the constant objection that the scholarly consensus cited by the page (or the negative comparisons made by some in it) are nothing more than Christians doing damage control or something. Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Ehrman isn't the publisher here--the Infidel Guy is. There are already many other sources that make the comparison Ehrman makes, ones that are published print works, and not podcasts. There's an inherent difference in quality because the podcast is extemporaneous, whereas the print material has gone through a process of editing and review. If you're worried about objections from other editors, they're going to happen whether or not Ehrman is there, because the complaints have not been based on genuine evaluation of the source materials but on editors' opinions about the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think quibbling over who the publisher is here is a bit nit-picky: Ehrman is an established scholar in the field expressing his views in the context of a self-published source; I think that passes. I certainly agree, though, that, as a source, a podcast isn't on the same level as mainstream print sources. But consider that the podcast isn't ever used as a stand-alone reference; it always only appears as a part of a larger cluster of sources used to establish a claim in the article. Given this "restraint", I suppose the question I'd put to you is this: Do you think that the article would be better without the source, or with it? A while back you indicated that you saw the value of including this source ("You seem to have decided that these quotes are poorly sourced because of your personal feelings. But someone like Bart D. Ehrman looks like a good source to me..."), have you changed your perspective? Eugeneacurry (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I was being nit-picky; on the other hand, it's good to be nit-picky when dealing with bibliographic stuff. The more important point is that the Ehrman quote is "part of a larger cluster of sources"--with such a cluster of print material, there's really no reason to use a podcast. And yes, I think the article would be better without the podcast, and in general would be better with fewer sources--it's natural for an article that's been fought over as much as this one has to have masses of footnotes buttressing individual points of contention. But a good article shouldn't have 8 footnotes supporting a single contentious sentence, or 37. And the footnotes shouldn't be used as a {{quotefarm}}, either. It's good to remember that this article is supposed to explain what the Christ myth theory is, and to describe its place in the larger context of thinking about Jesus--it's not supposed to be an argument pro or con. If there are so many footnotes and quotes saying that it's fringy, it looks more like the article is bashing the theory. I would like to sharply reduce the number of footnotes in the lead paragraph--well, since the footnotes have been cleverly set up so that the footnotes cite other footnotes, I suppose it's not exactly right to say there's many footnotes in the lead. But you know what I mean--a limited number of sources should be cited for the definition, and a limited number of sources should be cited to tell us that the CMT is disregarded by mainstream scholarship and regarded as a haunt of crackpots. Certainly far fewer than 37. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot to respond to your question about my opinion re:Ehrman. I think Ehrman is a well-regarded scholar and therefore a good source for Wikipedia in general; however, when I wrote "someone like Bart D. Ehrman looks like a good source to me..." I hadn't thought carefully about the fact that he was appearing in a podcast. Now that I have, I think it would be better not to use the source; and I would pick 2-3 print sources to support the sentence, rather than using 8 print sources and 1 podcast source. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, how about this. I'm planning on finishing the bibliography, then converting the references to shortened Harvard links, and then either cutting the "further reading" section altogether or pairing it down since the bibliography will be so very substantial on its own. After this I'd like to submit the article for good article evaluation. I think the article avoids the charge of quote farming since few actual quotes are used in the body and since, as you noticed, I've already nested the bulk references for aesthetic purposes. But if the powers-that-be deny us good article status on that basis, I'll go back and trim it down a bit. Sound good? Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Eugeneacurry: the "powers-that-be" are editors just like you and me; if you like, you can start reviewing articles for GA status right now. Because of this, whether the article is deemed a "good article" is pretty much useless for determining what would actually make it good. (And in case it's not clear, I meant "good article" in the ordinary language sense, not whether it passes some arbitrary Wikipedia set of standards. GA status has almost nothing to do with whether an article does a decent job of explaining its subject.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the distinction you are making between GA status and a "good article". According to WP:GA,

In short, they should be well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses.

Isn't this a definition of both WP:GA and a "good article"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bill, that's a nice definition of a good article. However, if you read the articles that have passed the GA process, you may find some that don't meet the definition. The process does very little to ensure quality, in part because the reviewers generally aren't experts in the subject they're reviewing. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your point about the GA process, Akhilleus, but I think that it's worth trying. After all, if the GA people agree with you in thinking that the Infidel Guy podcast detracts from the article I'll just concede right then and there and we can avoid a longer argument. (I'd still probably link to it though, but in the FAQ on this page instead of the article itself.) But even if they don't agree with you, then we haven't added any more work to our plates, we'll just have the argument then that we'd otherwise have now. I don't see how we risk anything. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That YouTube video (audio) is funny. Bart Ehrman crushed the Infidel Guy. The second part was good too. Here is the 2nd part The Infidel Guy got testy in the 2nd part after Ehrman accused him of grasping at straws. Priceless. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of an insult is encyclopedic?

This is regarding the text "with some going so far as to compare the theory's advocates with Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, and people who believe the moon landing was faked" in the lead. This isn't about whether scholars made such a statement. I just wonder whether a line like this can be considered fit for an encyclopedia. What justifies its inclusion? After all, one drawing the conclusion of Jesus' nonexistence may well be factually wrong, but not wrong in terms of ignorant denialism. It is, after all, within the area of rational thought that perceives a lack of accepted hard evidence outside the Gospels. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One would think it sufficient to note the "Christ myth theory" is evidently not what the majority of those writing about Jesus recognize without piling on the ad hominem attacks that have been made (some of them by people who are themselves controversial like Crossan). When people believe that Jesus is the best man ever to have lived, the son of god, god himself, and their only way of getting into heaven who will send them to hell if they don't believe in him, they're probably going to take great offense at anyone questioning not only those beliefs but whether he even existed at all, and will sometimes vent that rage rather than follow the golden rule or turn the other cheek. The analogy is a poor one given the evidence that exists for the other things, compared to the forged relics attributed to Jesus and late date of composition of the New Testament texts. Somewhat ironic too, since Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers are usually people who believe in Jesus (indeed, the modern flat earth movement is rooted in Biblical belief); I don't know what percentages of moon landing deniers do or don't. I'm not sure what might explain the belief in Jesus' existence by those who don't believe the majority of things attributed to him in the same documents they consider evidence; Crypto-Christians, maybe. Given the lack of proof for the existence of Jesus, trying to shift the burden of proof to those pointing out that lack is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. What can be done about the inclusion of the believers' ad hominem attacks on the Jesus-as-myth position in the article? Realistically, I don't know: possibly nothing. Шизомби (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is neither an ad hominem or shifting of the burden as the arguments have been evaluated, responded to and universally rejected. Similarly, the burden of Jesus' existence has been reasonably met. --Ari (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The critical remarks in the opening section are included precisely to illustrate the point that the relevant scholarship regards the Christ-Myth as "ignorant denialism". Eugeneacurry (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "Christ-Myth" doesn't just mean Jesus didn't exist in any shape way or form. G.R.S. Mead and Ellegård both held there was a historical Jesus but that he lived 100 years before the time alluded to in the Gospels. Dodd's definition in a university publication fits Well's current Mythical Paul Jesus + vague historical 1st century Jesus = Gospel Jesus. Then you have Hal Childs' The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness (Dissertation Series (Society of Biblical Literature)) from Society of Biblical Literature which was reviewed in "Revisiting the Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness" Pastoral Psychology Volume 51, Number 6 Page 487-490 saying "The historical and psychological are the international myths of our time. We take for granted that history and psychology provided accurate and true access to reality. [...] History and psychology are modern myths of meaning with explanatory power to convince us of their truth." Compounding matters is Alan Dundes and his "The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus" paper reprinted in In Quest of the Hero by Princeton University Press that takes a good look of how well the story of Jesus fits into the Hero cycle.

The most recent work I found mentioning Christ Myth is The Historical Jesus: Five Views By James K. Beilby, Paul Rhodes Eddyand put out by Intervarsity Press ("Christian publishing company dedicated to serving the university, the church and the world.") has Bauer, Drew, Robertson, Wells and Price all in the section on Christ Myth with Price being called "one of the most provocative Christ-Myth theorists writing today" (pg 32). The nail in this is James Dunn's "Response to Robert M. Price" beginning on Page 94 that clearly connects Drews, Wells, and Price with "serious scholars who put forward the whole account of Jesus' doing and teachings are a later myth foisted on an unknown, obscure historical figure" (my bold). But we have been told that Drews didn't hold to a historical Jesus at all from 3rd edition on--clearly something is haywire here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Drews denied that Jesus was historical in every edition. Something is going haywire, alright--it's your habit of tendentious interpretation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Akhilleus but it was pointed out in Weaver, Walter P. (1999). The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity. ISBN 1-56338-280-6 pg 50: "In the preface to the first and second editions of his work Drews noted his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus had a mythical character and thus it was not necessary to presuppose that a historical figure ever existed." Besides we have Volney under "Early proponents" who felt there were "confused memories of an obscure historical figure" involved which echos "Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) under the heading "Christ-myth Theory" History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17)

I have repeatably asked for the reference that ties the varied definitions provided together or at least explain why the definitions used Dodd, Pike, and Price and Doherty when applied to Wells do not exclude a historical person while those used by other references in this article. So far nothing has been provided. Then you have William Henry Fitchett's 1908 The Beliefs of Unbelief that echos what Remsburg called the historical myth and pure myth in that Fitchett has two separate chapters called "The theory that Christ never existed" and "The theory that Christ is only a Myth" when the very extreme of the Christ myth theory is that Christ never exist because he is only a myth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting pretty pathetic, BruceGrubb. You cite Hal Childs in an attempt to rehabilitate the Christ Myth but to no avail. First, Childs is using "myth" in relation to the historical Jesus in a highly flexible way (Childs draws a distinction between "historical" and "historic" in which the later term refers to concrete events of the past, a status he concedes to Jesus) so, once again, if he is a Christ Myther then so is C. S. Lewis--which is clearly absurd. Secondly, Childs' entire approach is undergirded by a radical postmodernism which ultimately leads him to declare "Ί affirm Nietzsche's assertion that there are no facts, only assertions." (pg 92) Third, in the preface to his lastest article in Pastoral Psychology, Childs thanks Mark Allan Powell--a man cited in this article comparing Christ Mythers with Holocaust deniers. And lastly, when defending his wacky views in Pastoral Psychology, Childs himself refers to Holocaust denial: "In a world where the Holocaust can be denied, false memories can be believed, and fantasy can replace reality, we are ethically forced, in my commitment to move within that ontological, epistemological, and methodological dialectic of fact/interpretation."Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think including asinine comparisons to holocaust denial is at all useful or encyclopedic. Nor does taking the most extreme statements from a few "scholars" (I don't accept such comparisons as scholarly; they sound aggressively partisan to me) accurately portray the general view. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

James, I know this is a little late, but in addition to Ehrman (whose credentials I think we'd both accept) Mark Allan Powell makes the comparison and he is currently chairman of the Historical Jesus section of the Society of Biblical Literature. That seems pretty scholarly to me. Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you don't think the comparisons are useful, they embarrass the Christ Myth position and, given your history editting D.M. Murdock's article, that's something you seem eager to prevent. Further, putting the word scholar here in scare quotes is ridiculous; the credentials of many of the detractors listed vastly exceed anything the Christ Myth community has going for it. Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem here is that some people are unwilling to see that scholarship treats the Christ myth theory as crackpot nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the sources of these quotes. They are partisan and not representative of disinterested mainstream scholarship. Personally I think it is disgusting to try to associate mythicists with holocaust deniers. I am surprised to see some people defending this. ^^James^^ (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion board for whether the Christ myth makes sense or not. And I don't care about embarrassment. The problem is that the Wikipedia is being utilized to document an ad hominem attack but doesn't add to any understanding of the subject. Further, it is within reason that many who adhere to the Christ myth are not Holocaust deniers or flat-Earthers. The comparison, even if presented by a scholar, is merely an attempt at a broad-brush insult with zero informative value. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have decided that these quotes are poorly sourced because of your personal feelings. But someone like Bart D. Ehrman looks like a good source to me... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An offhand remark from an obscure internet radio interview by a single "good source" does not warrant inclusion here. Please refrain from the personal remarks. ^^James^^ (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you'll stop referring to your personal opinions ("Personally I think it is disgusting...") I'll follow suit. Ehrman, of course, is not the only scholar who has made the connection... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Akhilleus, but Шизомби, TigerTails, King Öomie, 81.253.50.76, TechBear, myself, and now ^^James^^ have all said the holocaust quote adds little if anything to the article. I have even pointed out that logistically the premise of comparing the evidence of holocaust to that of Jesus or a round Earth is not only asinine but borderline idiotic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lay Christ Mythicists don't like that reputable scholars place their idiosyncratic thesis in the same category as other conspiracy theories. Stop the press.--Ari (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Akillues - Expressing an opinion (which is what a talk page is for) does not void WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The other sources listed for that quote are also very poor and are aggressively partisan. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Christ Mythers are conspiracy theorists. The article had this figured out like two years ago. All that has been achieved since is that they have been waving their hands about it here on this talkpage, and people have been indulging them. Why do you propose this talkpage should continue going in circles, and for just how much longer? --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See my 18:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC) comment above. This isn't about our personal conclusions on the subject. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked here after a while, and I can see that the discussion is similar all the time, hardly coming to a consensus. Thus I should probably refrain from recalling my own comments from the past (since they will not change anything), but I cannot help reacting to Akhilleus who says “The basic problem here is that some people are unwilling to see that scholarship treats the Christ myth theory as crackpot nonsense.“ I do not think that this is the basic problem. I myself find Doherty’s and Price’s books scholarly written, with solid arguments which I find well-supported by the early Christian literature etc. At the same time, I can see (so I am not unwilling to see) that some official biblical scholars denote the idea that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth as crackpot nonsense, and other biblical scholar just ignore the idea. Since I have studied for myself the Christian literature and Doherty’s and Price’s arguments, I would be very happy to see some systematic scholarly treatments by those official biblical scholars which would demonstrate why Doherty’s and Price’s reasoning is crackpot nonsense. Unfortunately, I have nowhere found such treatments; I only found bold claims and quotes that all this is “crackpot nonsense“. The reality thus seems to be that the official mainstream scholarship ignores or even mocks the nonhistoricity idea, but without providing any scholarly arguments for this mocking. I think that the wikipedia article should somehow reflect this reality. So when the wikipedia readers are informed that “ … some going so far as to compare the theory's advocates with Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, and people who believe the moon landing was faked“ etc., it is appropriate to inform them explicitly that the authors of such quotes are not adding references where one can find scholarly treatments on which their condemnatory comments are based. (But I do not intend to fight with Akhilleus or anybody else, so I will not try to modify the article …)Jelamkorj (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Price gets slaughtered by James D.G. Dunn, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan and Darrell Bock in The Historical Jesus:Five Views. If Price or Doherty had solid scholarly arguments, they would be published by academic press - not self published (Doherty) or by polemical press such as Price.--Ari (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to try to boil down my objection. This has nothing to do with the validity of the subject. This talk page is not a discussion board for the subject, so I refuse to go there. My objection is simple: With the text I referred to, the Wikipedia is being utilized to document a comparative broad-brush insult, where there could not possibly be any evidence to support it. Just because a scholar expresses their irritability about people with whom he disagrees, that makes it informative in an encyclopedic manner? Further, has anyone conducted any studies that have determined that the vast majority of Christ-mythers also adhere to the other things in the list? Within reason, I think not. I just don't think that the venerable Wikipedia should be utilized as a storage hub for ad hominems that have no hope of ever being proven, the same way we should treat other controversial subjects, such as the 9/11 attacks and George W. Bush. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Stevie, you say, "the Wikipedia is being utilized to document a comparative broad-brush insult, where there could not possibly be any evidence to support it." The documentation is the evidence. You seem to have misunderstood what the text actually says. No one is saying that Christ Myth advocates are Holocaust deniers or moon landing skeptics (though some are, e.g. Revilo P. Oliver, and some of the "sensitive gentlemen" at Stormfront). The text says that some scholars go so far as to compare Christ Myth advocates with Holocaust deniers and so on. And for that statement the article has substantial evidence in the form of the references given. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the informative nature of including this text? How does it aid in anyone's understanding of the subject? Why is the inclusion of this text necessary? Do we really want an encyclopedia that documents such things? I don't agree that this discussion is over with. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I also am not denying that anyone made these comparisons. But that doesn't mean that these comparisons are encyclopedic. My objection is that documentation of things like this belong in no Wikipedia article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a new guideline, if not covered by an existing one: Do not use the Wikipedia for documenting the dramatic, unsupported statements of irritated individuals, even if scholars. An encyclopedia is about disclosing facts surrounding a subject, not outbursts or ad hominem attacks that are tangential to the subject. This should apply to all Wikipedia articles. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship sees this theory as a crackpot idea. That's one of the facts surrounding this subject, and one worth documenting. For some reason, this upsets some Wikipedia editors, but the content of articles is based on what reliable secondary sources say, not the personal feelings of Wikipedia editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why not say something like that then? Saying the Christ myth theory is crackpot is one thing, but comparing its adherents to adherents of other ideas is preposterous. I don't accept the text in dispute as documenting anything but the ravings of individuals. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the documenting of tangential nonsense. Let's keep to the actual subject in the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this comparison is an "ad hominem attack" since it's not even directed at one particular person. Also, if this is the opinion of a significant number of scholars, then it is arguably informative for wikipedia to tell us so. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories clearly states, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." The quite negative comparisons made by scholars in the opening section of this article do exactly this. So, again, let's be done with this. Eugeneacurry (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The words need to be removed, as they are an emotional expression of individuals rather than anything informative. The comparisons are not merely "negative". They are outside of rational thought. It shouldn't matter what bias any of us have on this subject. The comparisons are outrageous and unproven. I am never letting go of this. No Wikipedia article should contain crap like this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't let go of it. What happened in December was simply unacceptable. Just to confirm I understand this properly you, Bruce, Шизомби, TigerTails, King Öomie, TechBear, and ^^James^^ all objected to what you perceived as hate speech and incitement being included in the article. The response to this overwhelming number of people rejecting this December edit was that you were mocked (for example [6] and the material stayed). Is that a correct assessment of what was occurring in December in your opinion? Because if it is, I think it clearly indicates that what I've been saying about the conduct in December was true. jbolden1517^Talk 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, jbolden1517, with the major exception of BruceGrubb, none of the other Wikipedia editors you mentioned above have been seriously involved with this article. Looking at the history log for this article going back to April, some of them haven't made a single edit, others only popped in for a single day or two. I hardly think that this sort of motley coallition can be described meaningfully as an "overwhelming number of people rejecting" the edits of the last month. Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of the text could well be incitement from those biased against the subject. But I think what it is at its base is a misreading of what can and should go into a Wikipedia article. It would appear that those wanting this text to remain seem to believe that any tangential utterances can be added just so long that they can be documented. If that were true, the entirety of the Wikipedia would become at risk for unraveling as a useful reference for gaining knowledge of the various subjects contained herein.

I haven't reviewed all the December changes to express an opinion about them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You should also focus on the inclusion of Oliver as the first link, Christ_myth_theory#Other_writers_2. This is an active anti-semite, another one of those edits (though this one from November) that is frankly shocking. The first "other writer" is a person no one has ever heard of and has had no influence. I think it is pretty clear there is an attempt to bias this article to create a link between the Christ myth and modern anti-semitism. This article has been completely trashed by these injections. jbolden1517^Talk 23:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll cop to the Oliver material. I initially included a reference to Oliver that eventually made its way to the Other Writers section. It's true that Oliver hasn't had much of an impact, but I felt that since he was one of the very few genuine academics (professor of philology at the University of Illinois: Urbana-Champaign) who's recently advocated the Christ Myth theory he deserved inclusion. Before the article was locked I was in the middle of a major streamlining tour that had just made it to G. A. Wells. Had I been given another week or two the Oliver material would likely have been reduced to a single sentence that didn't mention his political/racial views. He currently appears first on the list of other writers because he is chonologically first (by birth) among the writers of that section. If others editors think he should be resequenced according to the date his relevant material was posthumously published, I'm fine with that. Eugeneacurry (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've already said I don't think Oliver should be in the article at all. There are hundreds of writers who have contended that Jesus never existed; the article can't (and shouldn't) cover them all, it should only cover the most important ones (i.e., the notable ones. Oliver is notable on his own for various crackpot ideas (including his testimony before Congress about the JFK assassination), but he isn't notable as an advocate of the Christ myth. We seem to have a pretty stable idea of who should be included up to the 1950s or so (except for Remsburg, I guess), it's the more recent proponents that get disputed. Personally, I'd stick with Wells and Price and maybe Doherty, and not include anyone else, but I suppose that other editors will want Freke/Gandy, Acharya S, maybe Tom Harpur...but it would be good to come up with some kind of standard for inclusion, so there isn't a constant addition of marginal advocates to the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is documented in many places where scholars (of some sort) or famous people have compared those who believe in God to those who believe in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Are comparisons like that appropriate for an encyclopedic discussion of God? Or would their inclusion be tangential and designed to piss people off? Think about it. If the objectionable comparison text is left in here, in many articles about religion/spirituality (and perhaps other subjects), we shouldn't be surprised to see other artful comparisons being added, and those in favor of keeping this text here won't have an argument to make against them (as long as they are sourced!!!). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The current lead doesn't just document random scholars or "famous people" comparing the Christ Myth theory to holocaust denial, moon landing skepticism, and so on. Instead, the lead indicates that the relevant scholarship views the theory with utter contempt and then gives examples of just how far this contempt goes among some in the relevant scholarship. If essentially all professional philosophers of religion, metaphysics, or ontology utterly dismissed the idea of God as fringe nonsense and then some went so far as to compare belief in God to belief in the tooth-fairy then I would support the inclusion of those comparisons in the God article. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Willful disbelief

Regarding the following paragraph:

"Additionally, advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief,[46] their views not being amenable to counter-evidence.[156] As such, attempts to prove or disprove the existence a historical Jesus often degenerate into a methodological "black hole" in which all would-be evidence for a historical Jesus is deconstructed into irrelevancy.[157]"

Does anyone else think this is rather subjective and generalised? The sources cited are from books, so it's not easy to assess the original statements and whether they are valid. I wouldn't really object to most of this paragaph, but the first statement, "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief" is too subjective to have any value, in my opinion. How do you quantify an impression, and whose impression is this anyway?

Thoughts?

ShotgunFrank (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ShotgunFrank. I was the one who added that paragraph so I should probably be the one to defend it. The statement, "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief," is directly sourced with reference to a book by Robert J. Miller which states "We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced)". This statement is further supported by the next statement, that mythers' views are not ammenable to correction by evidence, which is connected to an article by William Lane Craig in which he says that Christ myth theorists, "are impervious to scholarship". Finally, there is an even more damning bit of commentary to support the line in question. Someone (Robert M. Price?, Darrell Doughty?) tried to get the views of Earl Doherty, a Christ myth proponent who's mentioned in this article, published in the Jesus Seminar's journal The Fourth R. Unfortunantly for Doherty, the editor of even this very liberal journal refused, declining what amounted to a $5,000 institutional bribe in the process. Doherty quotes the editor's correspondence on his web page: "If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind." The article doesn't reference this statement because Doherty's site doesn't qualify as a WP:RS concerning other people's views--even if it's hardly credible that Doherty would make this up(the criterion of embarrasment at work). But I'm glad you provided me with an opportunity to refer to it nevertheless. Eugeneacurry (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eugeneacurry. Thanks for your reply. These statements still seem like the kind of statements better described as opinions, or perhaps the observations of individuals, rather than facts, and so I can't quite see how they belong in the article. Robert J Miller and William Lane Craig no doubt have their perspective on mythers, but why do their perspectives deserve to be given the status of facts? I wouldn't object to "RJM and WLC have stated..." At least then no-one would be tempted to think that these highly subjective opinions qualify as facts. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to change the sentence. The wording already conveys a less-than-scientific-fact feel by using the expression "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief" as opposed to the starker "advocates of the Christ myth theory engage in willful disbelief". Also, citing specific scholars who get this "impression" seems unneccesary: William Lane Craig, Robert Miller, and the editor of The Fourth R all basically argree. When you factor in the basic agreement of even such radical skeptics as R. Joseph Hoffmann ("'mythers,' people out to prove through consensus with each other a conclusion they cannot establish through evidence... I was asked by one such “myther” whether we might not start a “Jesus Myth” section of the project devoted exclusively to those who were committed to the thesis that Jesus never existed. I am not sure what “committed to a thesis” entails, but it does not imply the sort of skepticism that the myth theory itself invites... I think the historicity question, as I have said many times over, is an interesting one. But it is not a question that in the absence of a 'real' archeological or textual discovery of indubitable quality can be answered... The issue is not merely that such a discovery would not persuade die-hard mythers...") this perspective seems to be more than just the isolated opinions of a couple scholars but a general "impression" felt across the scholarly spectrum. Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be, Eugene. What you describe as a "less-than-scientific-fact feel" is in fact an entirely nonfactual feel, resulting from the fact that this is simply not a fact. It's the equivalent of putting "ice cream tastes nice" on the wikipedia page about ice cream. This proposition would be met with almost universal agreement, and yet it is not a fact that can be cited or proven. Similarly, your paragraph about mythers is not factual but is an appeal to common experience. It's basically saying "if you've ever debated with a myther, you'll know exactly what they're like", and this is not appropriate for a wikipedia page, in my opinion. The fact that these sentiments are shared by experts in the field does not somehow transform them into facts. I don't know Eugene, this seems like a pretty open and shut case to me, but clearly you don't feel the same. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It "is simply not a fact" that "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief"? I disagree whole-heartedly; I defer to the sources mentioned in the article and in this very thread to establish the fact that advocates of the Christ myth theory have given the impression of willful disbelief--often. I think that your example of the taste of ice cream is helpful, but it backfires against your position rather badly in multiple ways. First, saying "ice cream tastes nice" is certainly an opinion; it blurs the fact/value distinction in an obvious way and the statement can be contested. But saying that "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief" doesn't obviously blur the fact/value distinction: it's simply a flat fact that Christ myth advocates often give this impression, just as it's simply a flat fact that people often think that ice cream tastes nice. Secondly, even if the line in question were an opinion, Wikipedia records statements of opinion all the time. Just take your example of tasting nice: Nigerian cuisine states, "Efo soup or tabot stew is a stew made from leafy vegetables and tastes nice when eaten with fish." Were you to search "pleasant taste", there are literally dozens of hits on Wikipedia. So, again, I'm inclined to keep the sentence as it stands. Eugeneacurry (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Eugene makes an excellent point. I'm also inclined to keep the sentence as it stands. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eugene. Okay, so we're focusing a bit more on the nature of the statement itself, which is what I wanted to do. I have looked up "pleasant taste" and you're quite right that it is used more than once in wikipedia pages. Perhaps taste wasn't the best example. I also do see where you're coming from in saying that this phenomenon of mythers creating a certain impression has definitely occurred, on more than one occasion. It's not a made up idea that certain people have gone away from talking to mythers thinking "God, there's just no reasoning with those people, is there?" It's clear that this has actually happened, and I'm not trying to argue with that.

However, there are still problems with treating this as a "fact" in the way that you would treat certain other statements on wikipedia. I fear I'm going to have to go into more detail here than I have previously. Firstly, let me explain my perceptions of how wikipedia does/should work. You seem to be better acquainted with it than I am so you can correct me if I have misunderstood anything. My understanding is that wikipedia deals in facts. Nothing should be stated on a wikipdia page which cannot be directly sourced.

Certain uncontroversial statements may often be allowed to pass by, but when push comes to shove, a source should always be provided for any statement that is contested. If the statement is made that "x happened", then a reliable source should be posted confirming that this is the case. If the statement is made that "x person said y", then again a reliable source needs to confirm this. Where is your source confirming that "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief"? We have a single source which includes a reference to "a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced", which is close enough to the sentiments of the statement on the page, however if this is one person's impression, then all we've established is that this impression has been given once.

Perhaps I would be happier if there were maybe half a dozen sources all expressing sentiments similar to these, instead of just one which is taken to be representative, and a few more up the editor's sleeve if anyone happens to ask. The trouble is that making sense of this statement is not easy as a casual reader. Having exchanged a few comments with you, I'm a bit clearer on why you've chosen to word this statement the way you have, but that's only because I now understand where YOU'RE coming from a bit better.

Should it be necessary to understand eugeneacurry in order to understand what's written on a wikipedia page? And if it is, doesn't this suggest that this statement more reflects YOUR understanding of things than what can be plainly seen? You have given three examples of people coming away with this impression of mythers (in your initial post), which to me is not really enough to establish that this impression is given "often", even if we're once assuming that an impression created is a fact worthy of mention on a wikipedia page.

It seems that your willingness to jump from "these three people think so" to "this impression is often given" is more indicative of how authoritative you consider these particular sources to be. Obviously, these people conform to the WP:RS, or else they wouldn't be included, so they can't be completely mickey mouse. However, when it comes to a subject this controversial (I'm speaking not of Christ myth theory specifically but of religion in general), don't we have to be more careful than usual about considering people's particular biases?

Doesn't anyone who feels passionately about something tend to feel that anyone who can't see things their way is just being deaf? Isn't it plausible that William Lane Craig, for example, partly views mythers as "impervious to scholarship" because he is so deeply invested in a particular version of events? I'm aware that WLC himself has said that even if all the scholarly evidence went AGAINST Christ then he would still believe on the basis of the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, although the scholarship may seem to be going in his favour in this particular debate, it's fairly clear that he would make himself "impervious to scholarship" if that's what was required to support his belief.

Therefore, regardless of his academic credentials (which are admittedly impressive), it's clear that he has a strong emotional investment in the issue, and therefore he is likely to be quicker to dismiss those who would seek to undermine his cherished beliefs. This is not an argument in FAVOUR of Christ myth theory by any means. It's simply an argument in favour of not treating WLC as an authoritative source on a subject which he is so heavily invested in. Granted, in the article you linked, he spends a great deal of it discussing the issues at hand, and only at the end comes to talking about his attitude to mythers.

Therefore I'm not suggesting his article is insubstantial (actually it's a reply to somebody's email, and it reads as such at times, therefore describing it as an "article" is perhaps overstating the case). It's not, and it does address the issues at hand. I don't know whether he's right in what he says, not being an expert myself, but he does seem to be addressing it seriously. However, his remarks at the end about mythers for me have no obvious link with the arguments he has made during his response.

Frankly, these comments seem unnecessary even in the context of what he has already written, which makes me even more uncomfortable about this being used as only one of three sources to support the statement that "advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief". The trouble is, Eugene, that clearly being a very articulate man yourself, you've managed to summarise these sentiments in a very appealing way, and one which does make one inclined to say "yeah, those bloody mythers".

That's what rang my alarm bells when I first read the statement, and why I have made such an issue of it. Your statements in this paragraph, in my opinion, make the matter sound more decisive than it really is, when you actually look at the sources provided, and kudos to you for having that gift. However, that gift is being misused in this instance, in my opinion. Hence why I think the statements in this paragraph should be revised so that they more accurately reflect the strength of the sources given to support them.

And please bear in mind that I read the whole of the rest of this page, and found it interesting and well written, and found nothing else that I particularly objected to, so I'm not just being a naysayer here. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SF, please, please use multiple paragraphs for large posts. I went ahead and broke it up to make it readable. I'm sorry if this is considered inappropriate Wiki behavior, but it had to be done. Please check it over. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if my last post was a bit bulky, and no I have no problem with you breaking it up, although you don't have to say "please, please" as if I was a repeat offender. This is the first long post I've made on this page. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean "please, please" as if you were a repeat offender. It was more of a whiny, begging tone on my part.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries :) --ShotgunFrank (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi ShotgunFrank. I'm glad that you concede that the sentence in question has at least some support. I'm afriad I remain unconvinced by your argument, though, despite it's reasonable and respectful tone (a nice change from some of the criticism of the article logged on this talk page). A procedural matter is in order here: considering how often various editors object to elements of this article based on their personal opinions of "how wikipedia does/should work", more than just gut-feelings are required. While I don't want to drift off into wiki-lawyering, if you think there's a problem with the article that conflicts with the intended nature of Wikipedia, please cite an official Wikipedia policy or guideline. As for your contention that "making sense of this statement is not easy as a casual reader", I simply don't understand. The statement in question ("advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief") seems pretty straight-forward to me; what about it, specifically, do you find confusing?

As for including additional sources to support the statement, I'm not opposed to that, but I seem to be caught in a Catch-22. Specifically to forestall the sort of objection you're registering here regarding other material in this article, other editors and I have included huge amounts of sources (see notes 49 and 53). For some, even these enormous lists are inadequate, for others, they're excessive. I'm not sure that the same variegated dissatisfation wouldn't apply here too, but, like I said, I'm open to the idea.

It also seems you've misunderstood my use of specific sources here. I don't include WLC as a source because I think he's super-awesome (I do, BTW), I include him to illustrate the ideological range of scholars which have made this evaluation of Christ mythers. If WLC and members of the Jesus Seminar (Robert Miller and the two other guys not yet cited in the article--including Hoffmaan!) agree on something, that agreement is pretty significant and likely reliable. Consider a political parallel: if the Wikipedia article for some piece of legislation included the line "the legislation's supporters often gave the impression of self-interest," and then sourced that contention with statements by both Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky, the very great range of ideologies involved in the citations would lend the statement credibility. How often do Palin and Chomsky agree, after all?

Finally, thanks for the compliments regarding my writing. Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, firstly - more than gut feelings are required. Absolutely. I am fairly new to wikipedia and although I have read some of the guidelines, I'm not yet in a position to cite chapter and verse. I'm just explaning my perceptions, and I thought you might be able to reference some guidelines that would help clarify whether my views are in line with Wikipedia's or not. Obviously you're not obliged to though. It's my job to get to grip with the guidelines, even if they initially appear to be an endless string of links with no obvious beginning or end.

As for my statement that it may be hard for a casual reader to understand what's meant, I'm just saying that without taking the trouble to come to this discussion page and explore what was meant with the author, I would have assumed that it was just the opinion of someone who didn't much like mythers and had found a reference or two to support that dislike. Having spoken to you, I see that you've given the matter a lot more thought than that, but I'm not sure this would be obvious from merely reading what you'd written. This has really been my issue.

I understand your point that people on different ends of the spectrum agreeing on something is certainly notable, I'm just not convinced that this notable agreement is necessarily wikipedia-worthy unless it concerns something fairly tangible. As I've said, my issue has been with the inherently subjective nature of the statement, no matter how wide a range of persons can be found to support it (although more people supporting it is obviously better than fewer). However, it's becoming increasingly clear that you and I are looking at this matter with some fairly different assumptions, and ultimately, wikipedia policy must be the guide, as you were saying.

So what happens when I suggest an edit and it is not agreed by the person who wrote the original statement? Is there some kind of hierarchy operating here, or is it just a case that majority agreement wins? I'm assuming it's not the latter, as I've seen a number of people making arguments against the opening statement re. holocaust denial etc, and they were overruled by specific people who didn't necessarily outnumber them. Forgive me if I'm being ignorant here, but this is my first time suggesting a change to a page, and I'm not sure quite what the endgame is. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guideline that would rule this statement out of court, but you are welcome to look for one. Apart from such a thing, though, all we have to go on is consensus. And so far it seems there is a 2:1 agreement to not change the wording. I've added Hoffmann's quote to Craig's though and I'll ask about using Doherty's page as a source for the The Fourth R's editor on the relevant notice board. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Eugene. I think our discussion's run its course. However, I would note that although billthecat7 clearly agrees with you, he hasn't really explained why. On that basis, I could ask a few of my friends to log in and just write "I agree with Shotgun Frank". I wouldn't do such a petty thing, but still, seems like the system's wide open. Maybe that's just in the nature of wikipedia though. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend my last comment as a rebuff. While I'm not aware of any official Wikipedia guidelines that prohibit the sentence under discussion, I'd like to be aware of it if such a guideline actually exists. In any event, Bill the Cat 7 has indicated why he agrees with me: he stated that my response to your proffered ice cream example made an "excellent point". As for enlisting the support of your friends, well, I am at least aware of the Wikipedia policy against that: Wikipedia:Canvassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneacurry (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence under discussion is prohibited by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, because it presents an opinion as if it were a matter of fact. The section overall appears to suffer from this quite a bit, and there are similar problems throughout the article from what I can see. Opinions can be included, but they should be attributed (eg "According to x, y is the case"). I've added an NPOV tag to the section. I think this should be taken care of, or else the section should be deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree (assuming I'm following you correctly, of course). The part that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV references says:

A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation.

Both sentences, as well as the entire section have citations. Also, these are not mere opinions (like the example "John Doe is the best baseball player", given in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - they are the scholarly conclusions of multiple well-respected scholars. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. They are still opinions rather than facts. Provided it is accurate, "Multiple well-respected scholars think..." could be okay. This is what is meant by an identifiable point of view. You have to identify the people who hold it. But just stating unattributed opinions breaches WP:NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, FormerIP. This article falls under the special rubric that pertains to Wikipedia:Fringe theories. That guideline indicates, under the heading "Evaluating claims", that "Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact." Further, the section on "Particular attribution" states that "Proper sourcing is vital when writing about criticism of fringe theories. However, since many fringe theories are relatively obscure topics it may be the case that there are only a small number of sources that directly dispute them, though, in fact, almost no one supports them. Alone, the fact that only a few sources actively dispute a fringe theory does not imply that the general consensus is neutral or favorable toward the topic. In such situations, care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying or stating that only a small number of people dispute a fringe claim. For example, a statement that someone is 'the only scientist who says this idea is untenable' is impossible to verify, and is an obvious case of inappropriate particular attribution. However, other phrasings can still inadvertently imply that only one person is critical of the fringe theory, for instance, stating that a particular person 'says this idea is untenable' when there are actually others (including experts) in addition who hold the same view. In a fringe topic, it is possible, even likely, that more people share misgivings about a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject, and such phrasing can therefore be misleading as to how many people actually share those views." Considering that scholars ranging from the quasi-fundamentalist Craig to the radical skeptic Hoffmann make the claim (and we've seen no WP:RS that disputes it) as an article on a fringe theory, the statement can be presented as is. Eugeneacurry (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, we are not dealing here with "claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources" (there clearly are sources which support the idea of Christ-as-myth, whatever you think of them), so we are not dealing with claims that may be presented as fact. It may well be the case that the claims are held by a majority of scholars and if this is the case it should be made clear in the article. Even with regard to Holocaust denial, we should not say "the views of (Holocaust denier) are wrong and founded in racism", but instead "according to (sources x, y and z), the views of (Holocaust denier) are wrong and founded in racism". This both conforms to NPOV and provides more useful information to the reader. --FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How about,

Christ-as-myth [or whatever] is generally viewed as an act of willful disbelief, their views not being amenable to counter-evidence.

Is that fair?

By the way, can everyone please (note the non-use of a 2nd "please" :) ) divide their comments into smaller, readable paragraphs? I'm starting to go crazy trying to read single, huge paragraphs...and I'm out of anti-psychotic medication.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't be supported by the source, which doesn't even appear to suggest anything about wilful disbelief. The source would support a statement "According to Robert Miller, a few highly motivated sceptics refuse to be convinced". --FormerIP (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on the phrase "willful disbelief". It's simply a synonym for "impervious to scholarship" and/or "not being amenable to counter-evidence" (at least, that is how I interpret it). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very obvious that the two are synonymous. Better to stick more closely to the wording in the source. The important part is the attribution, though. The source does not establish that any view is generally held, only that one scholar holds it. --FormerIP (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what does "not being amenable to counter-evidence" mean to you? Let's pretend I say to someone, "It's raining outside" and that person say's, "No, it isn't". If I then say, "Well just look!" but the person then covers their eyes, what am I to make of that, other than "willful disbelief"?

Also, how many sources are required to justify the use of the word "generally"? I mean, this entire article list tons of references that clearly spell out how much of a fringe theory this is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, your evasion of the second (and far more substantial) section I quoted from WP:FRINGE is dispiriting. This sort of thing makes the presumption of good faith difficult. But in the hopes that you were simply rushed by circumstance and thus avoided the more menacing obstacle to your argument unintentionally, I pose it to you again.

You seem not to understand that that normal guidelines regarding WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are seriously nuanced by WP:FRINGE, specifically the section on "Particular attribution", when it comes to articles like this one. Whereas normally statements not widely accepted as simply "the way things are" must be attributed to a specific individual in the body of an article, WP:FRINGE states that a proposal such as yours can "inadvertently imply that only one person is critical of the fringe theory... when there are actually others (including experts) in addition who hold the same view. In a fringe topic, it is possible, even likely, that more people share misgivings about a fringe topic but weren't concerned enough to write a paper on the subject, and such phrasing can therefore be misleading as to how many people actually share those views." As such, given that the statement regarding the impression of willful disbelief is already presented as an impression, and given that multiple critics representing a range as diverse as William Lane Craig and R. Joseph Hoffmann have evidenced the impression, and given that this impression is indeed attributed to known authorities in the references, in keeping with the specific strictures of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV--as modified by WP:FRINGE--the statement may stand as it is.

Your claim that the NPOV tag is necessary because "[t]here clearly is a dispute" is unfounded. I could conceivably contest any sentence in any article on Wikipedia (no matter how well supported) and then include a NPOV tag on the page, but my own idiosyncratic concerns should not prevent another more reasonable editor from simply removing it if it is manifestly unwarranted. Further, considering that you've registered concern regarding not just this sentence but the entire section in which it appears--and that despite the in-line particular attribution of the more provocative claim (i.e. Ehrman's use of the word "crazy")--even calling for its possible deletion, one wonders if this is simply one more attempt to suppress the unflattering comparisons made in the section.

I'll remove the tag again, but so as to avoid a 3RR violation, that will be it on my side. If you intend to restore it again, though, first consider whether the disreputability the tag normally implies to its host article is justified by what you say is simply a matter of attribution--especially considering attribution is already made in the footnotes. Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I find that the article in this place, subtly twists the sources so that "an attitude of skepticism" becomes "willful disbelief". As William Warburton said: "Orthodoxy is my doxy - heterodoxy is another man's doxy." --Bejnar (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As the FAQ for this talk page states: "While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Alan F. Segal are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy." Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been interesting to read further discussion in this section, although I'm sure I posted a comment prior to this discussion which isn't now showing. Not sure what happened to that one.

The WP:FRINGE quotation is a significant addition to this discussion, and does make me inclined to be less opposed to the sentence under discussion. I would still think it could be improved, but Wikipedia's guidelines are clearly showing here that the demand to support a particular statement should not be used to lend credibility to theories which are not generally supported. These are wikipedia's guidlines, and not the opinion of one person on this page. Therefore they're that much harder to argue with.

As I said before, I think my problem is, and always has been, with the basic subjectivity of the statement itself. That's why I focused on the first statement in the section I quoted more than the others. It's been suggested that using the word "impression" ensures that the statement is not taken to be more factual than it should be. To me, it slightly compromises the factual feel that an encyclopedia should have, and it's for that reason as much as anything that I think this point of view should be attributed in the section itself. This page is long enough, for goodness sake. Why not expand the paragraph to list the sources in full, since the matter seems to be somewhat controversial? Noone's trying to censor this point of view (or I'm not, at least). I would just rather it was described in more detail if it's going to be described at all, so that people can understand what it's based on (as I said before, I initially took it to be a simple anti-myther sentiment until I came to the talk page and came to understand what it was based on).

Billthecat7 said "Let's pretend I say to someone, "It's raining outside" and that person say's, "No, it isn't". If I then say, "Well just look!" but the person then covers their eyes, what am I to make of that, other than "willful disbelief"?"

Do you really think this is helpful? The existence of Jesus or otherwise is not something that can be seen by looking out of a window. It's something that needs to be studied to come to the correct conclusions, and although scholarship may generally support one conclusion over the other, that doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't agree should immediately be judged as wilfully disbelieving, which is what you seem to be implying. You might at least acknowledge that the subject is a little more subtle than that.

And finally, there are no paragraphs in this section that I found too long to read. Maybe you should accept that this is something of a personal thing for you, and perhaps copy and paste discussions into Word or something so that you can break them up as you please. For me, anything under ten lines is not something to complain about.

--ShotgunFrank (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

ShotgunFrank said,

The existence of Jesus or otherwise is not something that can be seen by looking out of a window.

I merely meant that if one looks at the evidence (i.e., "looking out the window"), as the vast majority of historians have done, then the conclusion is indisputable.

...that doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't agree should immediately be judged as wilfully disbelieving....

That would be true if a person is not familiar with the evidence and historical methodology. But anyone who claims that they have looked at the evidence in an impartial way, and still says that Christ did not exist is not acting in good faith (i.e., willful disbelief). I mean, there are good reasons why Bart Ehrman and many others have compared the CMT (Christ Myth Theory) with Holocaust denial.

And finally, there are no paragraphs in this section that I found too long to read.

It was perfect. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the evidence and historical methodology, Bill the Cat 7? I presume you must be if you're willing to come to such a strong conclusion. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not about me. It's scholars that have come to that conclusion. See reference 156. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence currently reads: "Additionally, advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief, their views not being amenable to counter-evidence." I am willing to consider this alternative: "Additionally, scholars often note that advocates of the Christ myth theory seem to be engaged in willful disbelief, their views not being amenable to counter-evidence." I prefer the former for the following reasons: (1) the alternative sentence is longer and contains more clauses giving rise to an awkward, bulkier style, and (2) the word "scholars" already appears over and over again in this article (three times in the "Methodological concerns" section alone!) and the repetition gets a bit tedious. I'm open to being persuaded though. Eugeneacurry (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Think "scholars often note" is fine in terms of form. If you are fed up with repetition of the word "scholars" then just use an alternative (eg "According to a number of academics...").

However, the more important point is that the wording "give the impression of wilful disbelief" and "not being amenable to counter-evidence" do not seem to be supported by the sources. They are very loose interpretations of statements made by particular persons, rather than things that it is at all clear that "scholars often note".

Basically, your statement needs to be evidently true based on the sources. The sources provided do not actually tell us anything about anything that "scholars often note".--FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, I'm losing interest in rebutting your fastidiousness regarding the sources. I think "refuse to be convinced" is reasonably equivalent to "willful disbelief" and "impervious to scholarship" to "not ammenable to counter-evidence". You disagree. Let's make an end of this: As it stands, two editors strongly support the current wording, one disapproves, and one (SGFrank) is on the fence, it seems. Let's ask SGFrank; if he thinks the sources reasonably support the current text, let's drop it; if he thinks I'm being dishonest with the sources then I won't oppose the inclusion of ,the tag. So Frank, what do you think? Shall it be 2:2, or 3:1? Eugeneacurry (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your comment, Eugene, and I will respond, but I want to re-read the whole discussion and some of the links that have been provided before commenting. I started this discussion, so if my next response is to be the definitive one, I want to make sure it's worthy of it. I'll get back to you in the next day or two hopefully. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to influence your vote, but my challenge to FormerIP regards his contention that the article's in-line text misrepresents the sources connected to it. I think this is plainly nonsense. The issue of whether the sentiments should be specifically attributed in the in-line text is another matter (though I dispute this too with reference to WP:FRINGE). It seems to me that only a genuine controvery over source abuse would warrant the tag; an argument over particular attribution could be carried out without the black mark of the tag on the page which draws the integrity of the article into question (especially considering the article is in the process of a GA review). Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, let me say that I don’t particularly like seeing the NPOV tag on this section. I think most of this section is describing the situation fairly, and that as you said, people might mainly object because it is unflattering to Christ myth theory. Having said that, I still think that the “wilful disbelief” statement is unsatisfactory as it stands, and therefore I’m not sure I can necessarily vote against the tag. I don’t think that the statement is misrepresenting the sources, as FormerIP suggests. I think it is a fair summary of what the sources are saying. I think the problem with the statement, as I’ve said previously, is not necessarily with its content, but with the way that it is formulated.

Let me upfront suggest an alternative wording, and then I will try and explain why I think this is necessary. If we can agree on an alternative wording for this particular sentence then I will vote against the tag being placed against this section.

“It has been suggested by scholars from a range of ideological viewpoints that Christ myth theory is plainly unsupported by the evidence, such that this belief could only be maintained by wilful ignorance of the facts.”

The problem with the statement as it is currently formulated is that it seems to suggest that anytime you bump into a Christ myther (of whom there may be many), you will be likely to see them displaying a certain attitude. This, to me, falls foul of NPOV in the sense that it is arguably disparaging and seems to be taking a side. It seems to be implying that there is something wrong with the attitudes of the people who hold this position, rather than simply that this position is unsupported by the evidence (which scholarship clearly does generally believe).

Also, as I was explaining earlier, I think that your case is stronger on examination than it would be from a casual reading of the section in question. Having read the source from R. Joseph Hoffman especially, and being aware of his sceptical views generally, I would say that your case is compelling. Hence why I think mentioning the bit about “wide range of ideological viewpoints” is important. Frankly you have an ace up your sleeve here which you’ve not played to full advantage.

Of course, there’s the question of whether someone reading the contents of this article as a whole should not come away with the impression that one could only maintain this view through wilful disbelief, if indeed that is what the evidence suggests. If the evidence/arguments in the article don’t make this clear by default, then it’s probably debatable whether it should be stated, as this could be seen to be trying to influence the reader. As I said, the only thing which really makes your statement noteworthy to begin with is the fact that this point of view is held by people of such a range of ideological viewpoints, and this has not been stated in the article. Hence a casual reader might feel that this statement was superfluous or even designed to influence the reader, as I originally did (or, to use the wording of AFAprof01 in the section below, it gives the reader the basis to suspect the writer’s POV).

Our disagreement here is not really over Christ myth theory itself and what the sources are saying, Eugene. Our disagreement is over what it is appropriate to include in the article itself. Therefore it would seem all the more unfortunate if we couldn’t reach some kind of agreement. If anything, my suggested change would strengthen the point you are wishing to express in the article, while expressing it in slightly more neutral language (scholars have “suggested”). As I said though, I do see the statement as it stands as problematic, so if we can’t reach some agreement on re-wording it then I think I will have to vote to keep the tag, even though I think it is overstating the problems with the section. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, having re-read the discussion, I've concluded that my fourth post is unnecessarily long, and with your permission, I'd like to post an edited version which captures the same points but in a briefer fashion, so that the discussion as a whole is easier to read. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the sentence in question with a slightly modified verion of your suggestion. I'm not entirely happy with it, but if that will garner your support to remove the tag, then so be it. As for changing your previous talk page contributions, I don't think there's any rule agaisnt it. Keep in mind, though, that the threads of this page are archived after only 21 days of inactivity.Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with what you're written, and yes, I support removing the tag on this basis. I may not bother changing my earlier post if the discussion's likely to be archived anyway. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Anachronisms and weight in WP:LEDE with the ad hominem arguments.

The LEDE starts by describing the origins of the theory in the French Enlightenment (1790s) and then mentions a few others of which Bauer died in 1882 and Drews in 1935. The post-WW2 people are more modern Authors. It is anachronistic for us to then echo with weaselword ("some") the ad hominem arguments used by those that do not agree with the approach of those that advocate the Christ myth theory by making references to mid-late 20th century events when we say, "...and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism.[53]". How the ad hominem arguments are used can stay in the text (as it is already) but it's just not possible for someone in the 1790s or 19th Century to be accused of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism as these are all 20th century analogies. It's already also in the "Methodological concerns" section so I'm going to trim the text I've highlighted from the LEDE unless there are major objections. I'll paste the #53 i.e. [7] into that "Methodological concerns". Ttiotsw (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to register my major objection. This issue has been raised in the past and has already been addressed adequately. (I'm starting to think that it may warrant inclusion in the FAQ.) Your objection to the current LEDE is multiply erroneous. First, the article nowhere states that scholars believe Christ myth advocates are flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, or moon landing skeptics; the comparison in the article is between the nature of the methodologies involved in these various theories and therefore the charge of anachronism falls flat. (0 for 1) Second, the use of the phrase "some" does not here constitute a "weasel word" (especially given the stipulations of WP:FRINGE regarding "Particular attribution") since the statement is supported by a reference that itself refers to ten different scholars, at least half of which are top-tier experts in the field. (0 for 2) Third, given that the comparisons in the body text are phrased as comparisons between methodologies and not individual people, the comparisons are not ad hominem as expressed in the article text. (0 for 3)

If these are your reasons for wanting to "trim the text", then I think it's pretty clear the lede should remain as it is. But I've worked on this page long enough to know that, given your particular editing history, it's quite likely you'll simply come up with new arguments why the lede needs to be reworked. And when those are shown to be vacuous, there will be new arguments, and new arguments, and new arguments--anything to bury the comparisons deep in the body of the article and out of sight for casual readers.

If you want to avoid this nonsense, make a case that the comparisons should be removed from the lede for stylistic reasons. At least one competent editor has adopted this position recently; you could try to build consensus with the rest of us. I don't think you'll get very far, but you'll have a far better chance if you pursue this approach than if you try some well-worn and duplicitous gambit. Eugeneacurry (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ttisosw said,

...but it's just not possible for someone in the 1790s or 19th Century to be accused of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism as these are all 20th century analogies.

Nowhere in the lead is anyone from 18th or 19th century labeled as being a Holocaust denier, etc. The last sentence in the lead (where the terms Holocaust denier, flat-earther, etc. are used) specifically refers to "modern academic circles."

At any rate I, too, have a major objection to changing the lead. Also, a FAQ is definitely in order. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill - what is your major objection? --ShotgunFrank (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that Ttisosw is reading something into the lead which is not there. When "Holocaust denial", etc. is used, it is specific to "modern academic circles". Ttisosw attempts to clarify by saying,

The LEDE fails to highlight any differences between the methodologies of pre-20th century and post-mid-20th century advocates and so the intent of this section in the LEDE is to demean the contributors to the theory by comparing them with events that took place after those contributors were alive.

First, the lead should present a summary of the theory as it currently stands. How it developed, and the methodologies used, on the other hand, belongs not in the lead but in the other sections (i.e., Early Proponents, Early 20th Century, etc.).

Second, I object to the phrase, "...the intent of this section...." I completely disagree that that is the intent (note that such objections are to be expected when we try to read other people's minds). If the theory is indeed fringe to such an extent that many historians use phrases like "Holocaust denial" and "flat earthers", then I can see how someone would claim to know another person's intent, yet still be wrong in that assessment.

At any rate, I hope that answers your question. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No it specifically refers to the methodology. The LEDE fails to highlight any differences between the methodologies of pre-20th century and post-mid-20th century advocates and so the intent of this section in the LEDE is to demean the contributors to the theory by comparing them with events that took place after those contributors were alive. Even the editor who added the text suggested it was a bit synthesis. That is the anachronism. Some is WP:WEASEL. Nowhere in WP:WEASEL does it mention WP:FRINGE. The reference used is as long as some sections. ref 53 (as it is now) should be brought out into the body to correctly establish the relevance of the comparison. What is "well-worn and duplicitous gambit" in the context of this article ?. I had to use an edit counter to verify this but I don't think I've previously posted much here as my last edit here was on May 2008 (to remove a pile of cats added by an IP which in retrospect of 18 months later are probably reasonably OK but hey ho I was probably tracking the IP). I have a watchlist of over 500 things so can only visit articles infrequently so I have missed vandalism n Peanut butter. Is this a problem for you ? The wall of refs seems to have been added around September 2009 and November by Eugeneacurry by who did admit [8] that there was a bit of WP:SYNTH and in [9] highlighted that it "demonstrates the sort of conspiratorial and over-skeptical mind that the theory appeals to" - which is a good but kind of trips over WP:SYNTH as it is to advance a position. Some other editor [[10]] highlighted the undue weight issue. Further more I would object to your using the FAQ as a chilling effect mechanism. Also you should probably state "another editor" rather than "one competent editor" because you should not be uncivil by comparing editors. Ttiotsw ([[User talk:|talk]]) 08:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So we're really going to do this, Ttiotsw? Okay. First, your reference to my previous concession of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE is grossly misleading. My comments were related to a very different block of text, specifically: "The theory is essentially without supporters in current academic circles, dismissed as ideologically motivated nonsense dependant on an untenable amount of historical skepticism--one of the theory's more notable advocates going so far as to deny the historicity of the Holocaust." As I conceded, this was synthetic, snarky, and undue. But this is not the statement that currently appears in the lead: "The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles, biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship, and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism, Holocaust denial and moon landing skepticism." This latter statement is factual, non-synthetic, and extraordinarily well referenced.

I've already addressed the charge of anachronism, so I'll just refer you to my previous comment on this matter.

Also, WP:SYNTH nowhere says that one may not advance a position, it says one may not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources," but the comparisons in question are explicitly stated in all the references given, that's why the references are given.

You've misunderstood my allusion to the "well-worn" gambit and your editing history. I meant that this sort of thing has been attempted by many different editors sympathetic to the Christ myth theory in the past, and it eventually proves duplicitous and futile. The reference to your editing history was not specific to this page, but to your wider list of contributions--specifically, your attempt to include the statement "There are no contemporaneous records from the time that Jesus was alive" in the Jesus article's lead.

My reference to "one competent editor" was intended as a compliment for Akhilleus, not an insult for others. Like I said, if you really want a chance at getting the comparisons out of the lead, I suggest you take his approach and make a case based on style, not policy, and try to build consensus.

And finally, as for the "weasel word", the word "some" is hardly being used to over-represent the number of scholars who make these comparisons. And given that WP:FRINGE discourages particular attribution relating to scholarly responses in fringe articles, it seems that saying "some going so far", in the specific context in which it appears, strikes an appropriate balance between over and under representing the ubiquity of these sentiments. Eugeneacurry (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Include a FAQ?

In order to avoid a 3RR, I'm adding this section. It appears to me that there are two editors (Ttiotsw and Dbachmann) who don't want a FAQ on this page. Their reasons differ:

• Ttiotsw claims that the "intent of this FAQ is to not inform but act as a chilling effect to editors."

• Dbachmann claims "this page is quite bad enough without the addition of a misguided, OWNed FAQ page."

Just to be clear, will both of the above editors please state if they have a problem with 1) The entire FAQ, 2) Only a portion of the FAQ, or 3) All FAQs in general.

Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Number 1,2 and 3. We can keep 4. The FAQ was added by the editor Eugeneacurry around 8th January 2010 though looking at the edits I see little to support the inclusion. This article gets few, if any IP vandalism and most named editors are blue-linked on their talk pages (a good metric to show in seconds if a collection of editors are recent or old-timers) so at a glance of the past 1000 talk page edits it is a very tidy page with little concerns (check out Peanut butter for a contrast - that article is locked until 25th April and the talk pages have loads of IPs). Thus my contention that the FAQ is added as a chilling effect as it presents a single Point of View. We're not here to record the "truth" but to record what has been said and done by others. If you look at a recend book which presents two sides, The Historical Jesus: Five Views By James K. Beilby, Paul Rhodes Eddy then a book like that has Price, Crossan, Johnson, Dunn and Bock which shows very good balance. *They* don't cherry pick sound-bites from the few to then ignore, belittle or denigrate the inclusion of the adverse voice, but discuss it in context. So neither should we. An article that . Wikipedia has perfectly good WP:DR processes to address content disputes. This FAQ tries to preempt editor contributions by presenting a serious of fallacies. It is thus an original research, not neutral and unreasonably inhibits editors from contributing in a field which is not fixed in stone. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess, Ttiotsw, 1-3 are bad because they "out" the Christ myth theory as fringe. 4 is great because it advocates for suppressing the entire article and thus further preventing this outing. Am I close? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Bill the Cat 7 what was the scope of my objection and this was the compromise, but now that you have demanded further elaboration then actually I don't want #4 either as I fail to see where it has been a repeated concern in the article talk pages. I thought I was being fairly clear in what I said and I fail to see why you should have to guess. The intent of the FAQ are to help address repeated issues that crop up but with this article this has never obviously happened. The FAQ seems to be pretty much your personal view and I say that they are a mechanism to ring-fence the article from other editors' additions. I concur with the other editor that this is a case of WP:OWN. The accusation of fringe has a hollow ring and is utterly irrelevant for the following reason: In the article Jesus is would be fringe to add excessive references to the non-existence of Jesus but in the article about the non-existence (about the myth) then it is not fringe. The participants in the debate are of equal weight according to their community credentials and how we accept reliable sources. Same with the moon landings - a bit silly to add fake moon landing stuff to the article on the Apollo program but on an article on Fake Moon Landings then it can be described with equal weight. This article is about the myth. The sheer wall of quote-mined references from those paid to promote one side unbalances the article. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstading you, Ttiotsw. Having worked on an article frequented by zombies, I've developed the bad habit of immediately shooting at everyone who walks with a limp. At the same time, though, you've misunderstood me regarding the FAQ and you seem to have badly misunderstood a number of Wikipedia guidelines.

I didn't include the FAQ to intimidate other editors, I included it to save time. Near hysteriacal claims that the Christ myth theory isn't a fringe idea as defined by WP:FRINGE has been voiced over and over and over again on this talk page by zealous editors who make a big fuss for a couple days, finally realize they are wrong (or at least realize that Wikipedia policy believes there are wrong) and then storm away in a huff. Also, the comparisons mentioned have been the target of arm-waving objections that routinely miss the mark ("they're ad hominem", "they're unencyclopedic", "they're wrong"). And, lastly, a few editors have complained about the way the article defines the Christ myth theory, hoping for a more inclusive definition that allows for more reputable scholars to be considered part of the club. Rather than aruge these points all over again, and then again, and then again, I thought a FAQ would help things. I agree with you, though, that accusations of content-forking are rare and generally brought up by Dbacmann alone.

You also seem to be confusing WP:FRINGE with WP:UNDUE. A theory is fringe according to WP:FRINGE if it departs "significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." Articles that cover fringe theories are subject to a number of special guidelines such as WP:PARITY and others. And regardless of whether a fringe idea appears in the context of another artice (like Jesus) or in a dedicated article (like Christ myth theory), it remains WP:FRINGE in either case.

Your assertion (made below) that this article is a WP:COATRACK is absurd. (Though it should be born in mind that WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and therefore has no inherent authority anyway.) The Christ myth article contains huge amounts of information related to the history of the theory's promotion and it's arguments. In fact, the ratio of this material to mainstream scholarly responses exceeds 2:1. Given that this is a WP:FRINGE article, that doesn't seem excessive.

And lastly, the sentence "The sheer wall of quote-mined references from those paid to promote one side unbalances the article," had me thinking of zombies again. If only I had an FAQ I could point you to; oh well, I'll just have to copy and paste since someone felt it shouldn't exist. "The 'academic consensus' cited in the article is just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV! Response: No, it isn't. While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, and Alan F. Segal are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy." Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I like the entire FAQ. Regarding the ones in contention (1, 2, and 3), they are not only reliably sourced, but also exceedingly well-sourced. #'s 1 and 3 go hand in hand, and I consider these two especially important.

Why? Because I can't tell you have many times I've heard people say, "Well there's no proof that Jesus existed". Or simply state flat out, "Jesus never existed, period". With the FAQ in place, good-faith editors (especially of the casual variety), can be quickly and neatly informed of the facts. They are still free to deny it, of course, and start the argument all over again (I mean no one is commanding them not to, and certainly no one has that power anyway), but IMHO most people aren't aware of the facts stated in #'s 1 and 3 of the FAQ.

Number 2 is somewhat less important than 1 and 3, but I still think it's a keeper. Anyway, that's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is this FAQ? I'd be interested to read it. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page used to link to the FAQ but another editor felt it should be deleted. This is the FAQ that had sat here for a couple weeks, this is the most recent version I had made, and this is the version with Dbachmann's latest and contested edits. I've chosen not to make an issue of this at the moment so as not to bog down the GA review process with a trivial edit war. But I support my most recent version on the basis that all four objections have appeared here with some regularity whereas Dbachmann's version (question 4 especially) addresses a question only Dbachmann asks and then presents as a fact a POV that Dbachmann supports but which most other editors disagree. Eugene (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I notice is that the FAQ doesn't contain any questions. It might be better described as FOO (Frequently Offered Objections) or FM (Frequent Misunderstandings). Also, do you think it might not be unnecessarily combative to start every response by contradicting the statement that has been made? I would advise you to consider this FAQ from the point of view of someone who is not familiar with the arguments that you've been frequently engaged in over this page (again, the casual reader), and to consider whether they would consider it to be civil and neutral in its tone. I might feel that the writer was slightly irritable myself. Otherwise, I have no problem with the factual content of what you've written, although I think the word "contempt" is unnecessarily provocative. I also think that the charge of "ad hominem" doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response. There's a page on wikipedia explaining the meaning of this term, perhaps people should read it before road-testing the word. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to moderate the tone of the FAQ a bit. But I think we should wait to do anything with the FAQ until after the GA process is finished; there's no need to foment another edit war over something so trivial. I agree with you about the ridiculousness of the ad hominem charge, but it seemed necessary to address it since three different editors have made the accusation in the last month or so on this page (Шизомби, Stevie is the man!, Ttiotsw). As for the FAQ being more of a FOO, I agree. But the "FAQ" is built into the template. I could reword the objections so that they're technically questions while nevertheless maintaining the tone in which they are generally offered here: "How dare this article claim the Christ myth theory is fringe?!" :) Eugene (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at, the fact that an FAQ should be for questions which a casual reader/average person might wish to pose, without having an agenda. If the questions are generally asked in a tone of "how dare you..." then they probably don't belong in a respectable FAQ. I do understand the difficulty of your position though, having to repeat yourself endlessly to people who refuse to take your explanations at face value. I'm sure you know that including an FAQ won't stop these people coming to the talk page and challenging you though (I think you observed that yourself at one point), so maybe an FAQ should be kept for questions which the average person might ask and answers which the average person would be satisfied with. Anything else may just be taken as a provocation by some without necessarily benefiting those who aren't provoked. I realise though that this is trivial in the context of the GA. Personally, I would be happy to see this article get GA status (much as I'm not familiar with what that would mean on wikipedia, beyond the obvious meaning of the words), as I think it's well-written and informative, and I would hate to see it dragged down by anything petty at this stage. --ShotgunFrank (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dismantling the Article and Parceling it Out to Others

Okay, Dbachmann, let's have the conversation in full. You've demonstrated in the past that you're a reasonable person, so I hope we can have a reasonable discussion here.

You claim that this article is nothing more than a content fork of a variety of other articles and that it should be dismantled as a result, with the various bits integrated with other articles like historicity of Jesus, Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, and others. Clearly I disagree, and so have others (Akhilleus, Bill the Cat 7, etc). In fact, the only people who have agreed with you that this article is a content fork are disgruntled Christ myth theory sympathizers like BruceGrubb who argued the topic wasn't fringe and then, when they realized that they couldn't prevent the article from saying it was, wanted to get rid of it completely. (Jbolden1517 is probably the best example of this, being against your idea... until he was for it.)

The fact of the matter is that this article was considered for deletion in 2006, with the outcome being the that article should remain, OR being removed and sources being added--which has been done. Further, in that discussion only a couple of editors out of more than a dozen suggested the article be merged with another.

Also, as I've pointed out several times, individuating this article from historicity of Jesus conforms to more general Wikipedia practice. I know I sound like a broken record, but so long as you insist on repeating your concerns I'll have to repeat my response: The Shakespeare authorship question discusses the general question of whether "Shakespeare" really was Shakespeare, then a separate article on Shakespeare Authorship Doubters also exists, and, further, additional articles describing very specific skeptical theories also exist such as Oxfordian theory, Baconian theory, and Marlovian theory.

Given this, I just don't see that your complaint carries any weight. The article was deemed worthy of an independent existence years ago through official channels, and it is in-line with Wikipedia precedent; so what's the problem? Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I don't agree it should be merged. There are enough sources that show it to be a separate encyclopaedic concept. My concern is different as I have stated that it would be fringe in Jesus but it is not fringe here. Using fringe as an excuse to WP:COATRACK any invective, from either side, just shows a lapse in professionalism and it would fail weight if one sound-bite in a 200 page book is quote-mined for effect here. As a separate matter I've pinged your talk page on discussing users. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reviewer's edit recommendations

Recommendations are located at Talk:Christ myth theory/GA2.

Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on a paragraph near top

"The origins of the theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s and the first academic advocate was the 19th century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer. Proponents such as Arthur Drews were notable in biblical studies during the early 20th century. And authors such as George Albert Wells, Robert M.

This whole thing sounds like a fallacy Argument from authority, listing off a bunch of supporting scholars when only the originators are really needed...i dont plan to act on this just tossing it out there Smitty1337 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph is meant to list the major proponents throughout history, not to establish the validity of the theory with reference to these men. Eugene (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing Tags

I'm a bit frustrated that this article was quite stable for weeks... right up until it was submitted for GA review. Then suddenly a few editors decided to throw disreputable tags all over it. One gets the impression that some of these editors may be simply trying to derail the GA process. These issues have been addressed, both recently and ad nausium in the past.

In the recent discussion regarding the NPOV tag on the "methodological concerns" section, only one editor thinks the section had a problem and three think it's okay. It's been discussed, the charge of POV has been rejected, I'm removing the tag.

As for discussion of the merger, this has been raised and rejected multiple times in the past. (Dbachmann even said that he'd let the issue rest for the remainder of the year.) In the most current discussion it has become clear that Dbachmann is the only one in favor of the merger and multiple editors are opposed to it. So that's that... again. The issue has been discussed, the idea of a merger has been rejected, I'm removing the tag.

Seriously guys, just let AFAprof01 finish his GA evaluation and we'll decide where to go from there. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You consistently refuse to even admit the problem.

I do not create the problem, I put my finger on it.

You seriously need to stop thinking in terms of FA and GA, these are nice-to-have after you have tackled WP:ENC.

Your claims that "this has been rejected" are completely empty. It has also "been rejected" that this article has a well-defined topic, and it only hangs on because nobody bothered to face the OWNers and merge it where it belongs. As long as you cannot establish that this article has a unique scope, it cannot remain as a standalone article. Please stop the "it's been discussed" and begin addressing the actual problem. YOu bet it "has been discussed". It has been discussed about ten times before you even came to this article. WIth zero result, the problem remains unresolved. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I've run out of patience with your insistence that this article needs to be divided up and parceled out. This article is more focused and better written and better sourced than any of the articles you think ought to absorb it, yet still you protest. It recently achieved GA status, something none of your prefered articles has achieved, yet still you protest. You've never been able to build consensus for your proposal, yet still you protest. I've begun to slowly refine the focus of historicity of Jesus out of respect for your concerns, yet still you protest. You even said that you'd let this issue rest for the remainder of the year, yet still you protest. I'm tired of this. I'm removing the tags, again. If you restore them I'll submit a request for mediation. Eugene (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If Dbachmann can't keep his word to let the issue rest for the remainder of the year, then it seems likely to me that mediation is the next logical step. Continuing the conversation on this discussion page no longer has any reasonable chance of being fruitful. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that it can be shown that the Christ myth theory varies all the mediation will prove is the same conclusion that I have reluctantly come to--the term doesn't have firm enough definition to exist on its own.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

I saw that this article just passed GA. Congrats! I'm not sure it's really NPOV, though. I quickly glanced at it, and it seems to be saying that scholars universally agree that Christ did exist. For instance "Scholars from a range of ideological viewpoints have further suggested that since the Christ myth theory is plainly unsupported by the evidence, it can only be maintained through willful disregard of that evidence." I was surprised by this, so I looked at the refs that back it up. I'm not totally sure, but I don't think that Andreas J. Köstenberger and someone from the Jesus Seminar can be used to represent academia. Maybe I'm wrong. It's a hech of an article, either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim of a scholarly consensus regarding Jesus' historical existence is sourced with a wealth of citations from scholars teaching at schools including the University of Cambridge, Princeton Theological Seminary, and many, many others. Even G. A. Wells, an erstwhile Christ myth proponent, concedes the point. The specific sentence you mention ("Scholars from a range of ideological viewpoints...") is itself supported by citations from conservative Protestants (Köstenberger--of Southeastern Baptist Theological Semianry & Craig--of Talbot School of Theology), a liberal Catholic (Miller--of Juniata College), and a Secular Humanist (Hoffman--of the Council for Secular Humanism's Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion).

Thanks for the compliments on the article.Eugene (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Are they saying what they believe, or are they commenting on the scholarship that's out there? = Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you not actually checked the footnotes? Follow the links at footnote 173 to read the quotes. Eugene (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I spot checked some of the people, and they seem to be priests. I'm wondering about historians who study ancient times, but aren't particularly religious. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Insinuations that priests are inherently untrustworthy aside, the scholarly consensus is supported in the footnotes by non-Christians too: Bart Ehrman (agnostic, another quote too), Michael Grant (atheist), Will Durant (agnostic/panthest; he won the Pulitzer Prize for his history writing), Alan Segal (Jewish), and even G. A. Wells (?), one of the theory's former supporters. Eugene (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The personal beliefs of the people cited don't matter, anyway; what matters is that they are acknowledged experts on the study of early Christianity. Incidentally, is there a source that Michael Grant is an atheist? I've seen this said many times, but never found a source to back it up. (Not that I looked that hard, either...) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a primary source, but James Hannam (PhD, History and Philosophy of Science, Pembroke College, University of Cambridge) calls him an atheist on his site. Eugene (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Way Forward: Notes

As I've said a few other places, I feel like the article is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the lead contains a few citations that themselves link to dozens of other citations. Clearly this glut of references is undesireable and should be pared down. But on the other hand, this article is routinely accused of misrepresenting the CMT--most recently by an admin even who claimed that the given citations don't establish the fringiness of the subject. Now, if these accusations can be made with the dozens of quotations in place, what will happen if most of them are removed?

I'm beginning to realize, though, that the article's critics will object no matter what, no matter how thoroughly documented the article may be. It's disheartening, but when an uber-Admin fact-checks an article on scholarly historical Jesus research with Dawkins' atheistic polemic The God Delusion, and another editor claims that Oxford University Press has no standing here, what other conclusion is possible? So, on the assumption that the citations are irrelevant to these sorts of people and that they'll object equally much regardless of whether this article is supported by two sources or two thousand, let's start trimming the fat.

I think, then, that we should take the two major reference clusters in the lead and trim them down to three sources a piece with a further link to Wikiquote for more if the reader's interested. I've copied all the definitional and critical quotations in the lead to Wikiquote. All that remains is to choose which three sources to use in support of the definition and which three sources to use in support of the dissmissive scholarly consensus.

For the definition I favor Gougel, Meynell, and Walsh. These three sources make it very clear what is at issue, and the publishers are all respectable and ideological diverse: Harvard University, University of Toronto, and Transaction.

The sources for the scholarly consensus seems trickier since it's challenged more often by editors. My first thought is to go with a broad ideological range to avoid charges of POV pushing: maybe Charlesworth, Stanton, and a Ehrman quote? Or Charlesworth, Stanton, and the Wells quote?

Also, using some of the more esoteric citation templates Wikipedia offers, I can distinguish these clusters from the other citations (as is currently the case) and not interupt to numerical sequence of the footnotes.

Any objections or ideas? Eugene (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the extensive notes and references. And although I would not be against paring them down a bit, I think we need to wait a few months so that the article can become stable. Also, you said,

...the article's critics will object no matter what, no matter how thoroughly documented the article may be.

Yes, it looks that way to me too. But if they continue to object, then it's best to have a multitude of evidence that can be brought forth in a formal attempt to resolve various issues. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't participated more in this discussion, since the notes are something I've been raising concerns about for awhile. I like the idea of moving most of the quotes somewhere else--instead of moving them all to Wikiquote, why not put them in the FAQ? Then, when someone brings up the fringiness question once more, there are 40 (or however many) quotes at the top of the page illustrating fringiness, and you just say, "see FAQ #2."

I like the suggestions for cutting down the reference clusters in the lead. I'm hesitant to use Walsh, because he was not a particularly well-known philosopher, and as an Objectivist, he was outside the mainstream of philosophy. I'd rather stick with scholars of religion, and ones from the most prestigious institutions--Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, etc. Although there's a good argument for using Wells--he knows better than anyone how the theory is regarded inside the academy. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't need that many. Just use your top three non-christian scholars who say that it's fringe with attribution. Ideally ones that have wiki articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do they have to be "non-Christian scholars"? Are you bigoted against Christians? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 6-8 possible levels of belief here,

• 1 -those that do not believe that a person called Jesus existed and so supernatural powers are irrelevant,
• 2 - those that believe that a person called Jesus may have existed but explicitly state that it is improbable (or 2b explicitly deny) that they would have supernatural powers,
• 3 - those that believe that a person called Jesus existed but explicitly state that it is improbable (or 3b explicitly deny) that they would have supernatural powers,
• 4 - those that believe that a person called Jesus existed but make no claim about this person and their supernatural powers,
• 5 - those that believe that a person called Jesus existed (though not as per Christian scripture) and had some kind of supernatural powers (e.g. Islam),
• 6 - those that believe that a person called Jesus existed and claim that this person had supernatural powers (according to Scripture or some Canon and are so thus Christian),

Christians must be in the extreme of #6 and as this article doesn't address the supernatural powers (and the references do highlight this omission as a topic that is avoided when discussing the existence of Jesus) then there is a conflict of interest. Ideally we would need someone in the middle who is indifferent to or has no personal need for a supernatural Jesus to exist. This probably goes a long way to explain the language used against those in the #1. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, there are Christians who fall into categories 2-4, and for that matter #5. Check out Albert Schweitzer and tell me where you think he goes. There are also Christians like Robert M. Price, who think there was no historical Jesus and still enjoy going to church on a regular basis. It's not that surprising, I guess, but the editors who show up here and rail against Christian bias seem not to know that much about the varieties of Christianity. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My point was to identify a means of removing the outliers. The Notes were wrong as they did not separate the arguments form the person. The irony of your categorising editors as ignorant whilst we are categorising these scholars is amusing. I think I see the problem for me though. The article is called "Christ myth theory" when really it is about a historical "Jesus" not the messiah. Few non-Christians would deem Jesus to be the messiah ("Christ") whereas most would be OK with an existence of a person known as Jesus. A quick google e.g. "Jesus myth" theory gets about 14k hits whereas "Christ myth" theory gets 11k hits. I'll add a new talk page section for this. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is so emphatic that scholars believe don't buy the CMT, that I figured it would be easy to find lots of non christian scholars who are certian Christ existed. I'm getting the feeling that's not true, from the defensive comments on this talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not start this again, please. See FAQ #3. Eugene (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Which I would say is an example of using the FAQ as a chilling effect on discussion. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't use Christians, just lead of with some big non-Christians with attribution and wikilinks to their wiki aritcls. Can this be done? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(redent) You've probably seen it, but this seems to have some good leads. It says Michael Grant is an atheist. He has a wiki page, so I tried to find an RS on his atheism so I could add it to his page, but I couldn't find one. If I could have though, that would have been perfect. Respected atheist historians who make strong statements against the Christ myth would really bring the point home. In any case, I would still use MG with in text attribution. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening up the old atheist chestnut is not a productive endeavor IMHO. There are deists who don't think the Jesus of the Bible existed or that that version tells us little to nothing of the man who actually lived and then there are atheists who believe there was a Jesus but that the Biblical version has only the barest connection to that man. It also doesn't help there are definitions of "Christ myth" and even "Christ myth Theory" that do not exclude the possibility of a historical person as seen in Dodds (1938). Then you have usages like "But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press) and then you have versions that seem to take any deviation from the Biblical account as part of the "Christ myth Theory" as implied by Bromiley (1982) connecting the ideas of Lucian and Bertrand Russell with Wells back was he was in Jesus didn't exist at all mode.

The reality is when you look at the literature you get this Humpty Dumpty view of "Christ myth Theory" meaning whatever the author in question wants it to mean with little to no realtionship on how that version fits with that of another author.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #1. Also, the article already quotes Russell's belief that Jesus may not have have existed at all. Further, Herbert George Wood clearly understood the Christ myth theory as a denial of a historical Jesus: Christianity and the Nature of History (which is the book I assume you're referring to) contains this gem, "As Dr. Schweitzer observes, 'It is no hard matter to assert that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, infallibly works round to produce the opposite conclusion.' This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests in the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the thery without mishandling the evidence." Also, see his comments in Belief and Unbelief Since 1850 where he states, "Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him..." Stop pestering everyone with this non-issue, BruceGrubb. Eugene (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on earning Good Article (GA)

Congratulations on earning Good Article (GA) with your diligence, thoughtful editing, and attention to details. As some "outsiders" have already mentioned above, it is a fine article that shows the highest quality. No article is perfect─not today nor anytime in the future. When an article is about competing dichotomous viewpoints with a binary choice of answers (Christ is a myth/Christ is real...choose A or B), obviously there's not intermediate answer. You have chosen the right goal, to properly present both "sides" and work just as hard presenting fairly and completely the view you don't believe as on the view you accept.

I was proud to review and evaluate your fine article, and to be able to provide an outside view and hopefully some helpful guidance with some details that needed touch-up. I wish I could have written more in the final review, but the space is limited.

Should you have any questions about the process or my comments, don't hesitate to contact me. I understand you are soon to apply for WP:FA which I personally believe this article deserves. I wish you the best in that higher process. Thanks for the privilege of working with you and your superior article. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bauer and Drews

Akhilleus, on the article's FAC page you mentioned that the sections on Bauer and Drews need some work. Do you have anything specific in mind? I feel like I've done pretty much all I can do here, so you may need to take the lead on these revisions. Eugene (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this talk page is almost a reasonable size!

The Bauer section needs some background on 19th century NT studies, particularly the influence of D.F. Strauss. On re-reading the Bauer section, it seems pretty good.

The Drews section needs more on contemporary reaction to Drews; it also needs to say that Drews was a monist, and believed that getting rid of a historical Jesus was the path to an authentic form of religion (and this is tied up in a debate about whether Christians need to care about the Jesus of history).

I'll try to do this sometime soon, but I've had this on my to-do list for awhile, and it hasn't happened so far... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor edits to Bauer's section and included a passing reference to Strauss. Given that the sources I've seen indicate most of Bauer's relationship with Strauss concerned disputes over Hegelian philiosophy, I don't think we need to go too much into it in this article. Eugene (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Is this really appropriate? We have physical proof that the Moon landings are real but without documents from the actual time (not decades after) or other archeological evidence, it is not unreasonable to debate the historical assumption of the existence of the jesus of the bible. Other than christian theologians, who calls this pseudo history? 92.24.105.176 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Read FAQ #3 above. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not saying it is mainstream - just don't think it belongs with Holocaust denial and Moon Landing Hoax - HUGE difference. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the points above are real interesting and very cleverly put together, putting OTT opinion and historical views together. However as far as I can see the only people going so far as to link this to holocaust/moon hoax myths are not impartial historians. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just read the article and look up the references. The people who compare it with Holocaust denial are clearly listed. And if you can't find a non-Christian among them, then you're not looking. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well sidestepped on actually answering my point. From the list above the only ones who actually mention Nazi's and the Moon /Holocaust Hoax are: Michael James McClymond (fairly obscure and obviously an evangelical christian), Michael R. Licona (a christian apologist - anyone who would write in a Lee Strobel book should not be taken too seriously), John Dominic Crosson (a former catholic priest), Mark Allen Powell (lutharian), William Lane Craig (christan), John Piper (pastor) and Dennis Ingolfsland (pastor). The Ehrman quote is unclear as to the point he is making. The books these quotes all come from are not scholarly tomes but from the titles look like apologist material. Not really cricket to use such stuff to define a topic. I notice they are all fairly new books too so could also incur the charge of recentism. In short I disagree with your assessment that pseudo history is supported by the quotes. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Christian bigotry on this page gets a bit tedious, but I’ll address your prejudicial comments nevertheless. Can the men cited in the footnotes of the article on this point be dismissed with the mere wave of a biased hand? Clearly, no.

• Michael McClymond, despite your dismissive view of his faith, is a serious scholar: PhD from the University of Chicago, teaching position at the University of St. Louis, and books published through Oxford University Press, John Hopkins University Press, Eerdmans, Greenwood, and others.

• Mark Allan Powell: yes, a Lutheran… just like those other light-weights, Jaroslav Pelikan and Martin Marty. PhD from Union Theological Seminary, endowed teaching position at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, books published through Fortress, Eerdmans, Abingdon, Harper-Collins, Westminster John Knox, SPCK, and on and on. Also, the current chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature’s Historical Jesus Division.

• William Lane Craig: again, yes, a Christian (shiver!). Twin doctorates, one from the University of Birmingham (England), the other from the University of Munich, teaching position at Talbot School of Theology (a regionally accredited PhD granting institution), seemingly limitless works published through Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, Georgetown University Press, Rutgers University Press, Peking University Press, Brill, and on and on and on and on. (Also, the author of what the Secular Web dubbed “The best defense of Jesus' resurrection available”.)

• Nicholas Perrin: PhD from Marquette University, teaching position at Wheaton College (a regionally accredited PhD granting institution), works published through Brill, Walter de Gruyter, Westminister John Knox, and others, world renowned expert of the Gospel of Thomas.

• Michael R. Licona: yes, an apologist, but no more so than the various advocates of the Christ myth theory. PhD from the University of Pretoria and a few published books. And yes, he appears in Lee Strobels books, but so do Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and Craig A. Evans—try to put your bias aside for a moment; are these the sort of men who “should not be taken too seriously” when it comes to historical Jesus research?

• And, finally, John Dominic Crossan: to be sure, a former Christian clergyman… just like Robert M. Price & Dan Barker. Doctorate from Maynooth College, 25 year teaching career at DePaul University, books published through Harper-Collins, Fortress, Westminster John Knox, T & T Clark, and others. (You may find it perversely reassuring to know that Crossan doesn’t believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead and seems to take an anti-realist view of God.)

Now, the article itself doesn’t quote either John Piper or Dennis Ingolfsland on this point (in fact, in it’s current incarnation, the article doesn’t quote Piper at all). But since you mentioned them I feel I should point out that while Piper is a pastor, he was also a professor of the New Testament at Bethel College, has a doctorate from the University of Munich, and has been published by the University of Cambridge Press; Ingolfsland isn’t as impressive, but he nevertheless isn’t a pastor but a professor at Crown College and has been published in a few journals including Bibliotheca Sacra and Trinity Journal.

Also, the identification of this theory as “pseudohistory” doesn’t hang entirely on the denialist comparisons; it also derives support from the slightly tamer insinuations of greed (Ehrman), insanity (Bultmann), stupidity (Maier), and so forth leveled at it, along with the very nearly unanimous scholarly consensus against it.

Just as an aside, there's no official Wikipedia policy regarding "recentism", so don't lose any sleep worrying over that point. And in any event, the sources used to cite the denialist comparisons were published in '98, '00, '04, '07, '08 and '09; that's a respectable spread. Eugene (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem of the IP is one that confused me too and I don't think the article addresses this very clearly and that is that the article is only discussing a "man" called Jesus rather than a "Christ". Few (perhaps none?) of the sources would ever claim that this historical person had any supernatural powers. Where the magic of Jesus is discussed then they will never be so rash as to claim that Jesus did perform supernatural acts but will comment on how what acts were done were observed by crowds which interpreted these acts as supernatural. The problem with the "deniers" is that they see the Jesus Christ as the whole package i.e. the son of god not just the temporal form that the historians study. It would certainly be a foolish historian to then, in the same reference, apply the same certainty that they apply to the existence of the man to Jesus being the Son of God given the paucity of evidence for God and the utter lack of creditable evidence for the supernatural. They are acutely aware they would then risk being lumped into the crank bin (pseudoscience). It's like someone saying that UFOs don't exist when a historian shows without a doubt that UFOs are grey and they have (and quite correctly so) good evidence to support the greyness. Eventually the majority of scholars agree amongst themselves that they are grey but few will ever question that what is grey doesn't actually fly. The UFO deniers are obviously crazy to deny the greyness when they also question how far off the ground it floats. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I was musing on that last night. The page used to be called "The Jesus Myth" (yes I'm a long time editor of this page who got bored and went away) and then it was clearly about a fringe theory about the lack of evidence for the historicity of the Jesus of the bible. The change to "Christ Myth" muddied the waters considerably and it was a change I opposed for all the reasons given in the post above. Back to the original point however. As there is a notable lack of evidence for key points in the new testament accounts of Jesus (take the nativity as a starting point), and absolutely no written documents until at least a couple of decades afterwards, only those with a huge investment in this all being "true" would go as far as to call these people holocaust deniers. That charge is so outrageous and obviously partisan that it cannot be allowed to stand on the poor apologist barbs that have been offered up. I think Elaine Pagels and Thomas Thompson would be surprised to be written off as wackos for toying with the idea. Cue a post from Bruce..... 92.24.105.176 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is named "Christ myth theory" because that is the name that the sources which discuss the theory generally give it. The very first sentence of the article clearly indicates that the topic under discussion is "the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person". As for Thompson, given how often he's lambasted by other scholars working in Old Testament research, I very much doubt he'd find himself "surprised" to be labeled a "wacko". But, in any event, if Thompson, the self-described "Joycean Catholic" who thinks questions of ancient historicity are generally unanswerable, ever gets around to actually denying the existence of the historical Jesus, then this article should probably mention it. Your reference to Pagels is shocking, however, considering that she's written, "what we do know as historical fact is that certain disciples--notably, Peter--claimed that the resurrection had happened. More important, we know the result: shortly after Jesus' death, Peter took charge of the group as its leader and spokesman." How you've jumped from Pagels' belief that Jesus' crucifixion and the claims of his resurrection in its immediate aftermath constitute a "historical fact" to the idea that she has "toyed" with the Christ myth theory is beyond me. Eugene (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sums up why I got bored. I read the Pagels quote in a very different way to you. Your post also betrays your investment in this topic that you would be "shocked" by anyone being tainted with the brush of mysticism. You maybe should read more of her stuff in a new light - by your reading John Frum must be real. Thompson is also right - many ancient historical events are unprovable, as without positive unequivocal evidence you can't establish anything beyond reasonable doubt. Along with being called a bigot by another editor for questioning the breadth of sources for establishing pseudo history as a category - an editorially valid point - not an anti christian attack, I can see nothing has changed. I still disagree that there is a broad consensus of academics (not apologists) who view this topic as akin to holocaust denial and nothing has been written here to show otherwise. Show me one non christian writer who specifically links the christ myth to the moon hoax. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not shocked that some scholar somewhere might be a mythicist, I'm shocked that you would essentially lie about Pagels' views, asinine claims of "reading" her differently notwithstanding. But considering the dissembling so often seen in the mythicists who haunt this page, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised. As for John Frum, I suggest you check a source written by someone trained in at least a marginally relevant discipline and not (wild guess here!) an evolutionary biologist--Wikipedia's John Frum article cites a few helpful leads. Lastly, you want a non-Christian writer who links the Christ myth theory with moon landing skepticism? How about the one given in the footnotes of this very article: John Dominic Crossan. Sure, he was a Catholic priest... before he wasn't. But he's indicated that, currently, he doesn't really believe in God, that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, and that, as far as life after death goes, he neither knows nor cares. He should do. Eugene (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There doesn't have to be a "head count" among historians who use phrases like "Holocaust denial" and "Moon-landing hoax". The point is that the CMT represents the fringe and that some scholars use phrases like those two above to make that point. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the dispute tag to try to bring in more comment. I do like Bill the cat's view above as I could toddle off to the christianity page and add a "mental illness" tag based on that argument - I have quotes by scholars! I must be reading a different Pagels to everyone else. She certainly does not take the life of Jesus as a "verified 100% given" in the books I have - lie is not a very nice word to use about another editor - most unchristian. 89.242.159.206 (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the belief that Jesus never existed at all, not that certain controversial elements of his canonical biography (like his miraculous birth) might be unhistorical. The article makes this very plain in its very first sentence. Given this narrow focus, then, based on the quotation I provided from Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, Pagels' does regard Jesus' historical existence as a "verified 100% given". Sure, lie isn't a very nice word, but to quote A Man for All Seasons, "It's not a likeable word. It's not a likeable thing."

But I don't want to be intractable. As a concession to this article's less discerning readers, I'd be willing to consider changing "The Christ myth theory... is the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person" to "The Christ myth theory... is the contention that Jesus of Nazareth never existed". Also, to diffuse some of our anonymous malecontent's irritation with the pseudohistory tag, take a look at the pseudohistory category page; it contains a number of theories that are not as obviously kooky as holocaust denial and moon landing hoaxes, including the belief that the Chinese discovered the Americas before Columbus, that the French are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, and that there was a cholera epidemic in Chicago in the late 19th century. As for the argument that one could throw a "mental illness" tag (no such general tag exist, by the way) on the Christianity page, last time I checked Christianity wasn't listed in the DSM-IV, so that'd be difficult. Eugene (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"what we do know as historical fact is that certain disciples--notably, Peter--claimed that the resurrection had happened. More important, we know the result: shortly after Jesus' death, Peter took charge of the group as its leader and spokesman". Why the "more important" caveat if she feels there is 100% proof that Jesus and his NT life are indisputable? Anyway this is slightly off point as the only non christian hoaxer you have offered up is an ex priest who would not be considered a prime source in any other article than one on the Jesus Seminar. A quick look round pseudo history does contain a bizarre mix but has no bearing on establishing it here. On the liar front - you said I lied and it is slippery in the extreme to then try to wriggle out of the charge of having called me a liar. In fact the Crossan is less clear than your accusation but I don't want to get distracted by personal attacks. Do you have a consensus of non apologists who specifically link this theory to the moon/holocaust hoax? Or is this an attempt by apologists to discredit by association? 89.243.73.230 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, the naysayer begins to loose traction. You said, "Show me one non Christian writer who specifically links the Christ myth to the moon hoax." So I did. But now that's not enough; now I need to demonstrate that there's a consensus of scholars linking the Christ myth theory to moon landing or holocaust denialism. Can you say "moving the goalpost"? Never mind that though, the article never claims that a consensus of scholars links the Christ myth theory to holocaust denial and so forth, it only says that some of the scholars in the consensus which repudiates the theory go this far. As for Crossan not being a "prime source", I'm not sure what you mean by "prime source"; the phrase doesn't occur in any official Wikipedia policies or guidelines. In any event, Crossan certainly does qualify as a reliable source, which is all that matters here, and his name pops up in literally dozens of Wikipedia articles.

Your interpretation of Pagels is likewise tendentious and irrelevant. Pagels says that Peter's leadership of the early Church is more "important" than his claims concerning the resurrection, not that such a development is more "certain" than Jesus' crucifixion. Also, this article never claims that Jesus' "NT life" specifically is "indisputable". Once more, this article is about the view that Jesus never existed at all, not that his canonical biography may be almost entirely legendary in nature. Please actually read the footnotes in the lead--even the very first one will suffice. Now, please, go away and stop wasting everyone's time with your dishonest misrepresentations of scholars, your self-serving goal-post-moving, and your unwillingness to actually read what you criticize. Eugene (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Crossan is obviously apt to change his mind, and unless we plot his moon hoax quote against his prevailing belief, I think it is you who are actually trying to kick the goal post down. And if he is the best you can produce as a "non christian" source I think you have actually proved the point I was trying to make. If wikipedia has become a rag bag of any biased quote that some editor can source then it is the poorer for it. You won't even allow the POV tag to try to bring in other comment.

(Which of Crossan's "prevailing beliefs" are you refering to, his objective atheism? Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

So my current assessment of the situation is that my original objection of apologist/highly biased data used to support pseudo history has not been addressed. But there are two of you and I can't even highlight the POV dispute to potential readers on the page to try to draw in other comment. Having watched this one play out many times in other places I know it will only take one more revert of the TAG to get me blocked after an appeal to some naive admin. Nicely played guys.

(It seems that you're trying very hard to not hear this point, but I'll make it again in the event that I have to resort to some sort of dispute resolution in the future. The pseudohistory category contains a wide variety pseudohistorical views ranging from holocaust denial to pre-columbian Chinese explorations of North America; the Christ myth theory is very much at home there. Also, the theory's status as pseudohistory is established by the overwhelming consensus against the theory, scholars' insinuations of perversity, greed, insanity, and stupidity related to the theory, and, then, the comparisons to flat-earthism, holocaust denial, and moon landing skepticism. So even if you think that the SBL is nothing but a front for crypto-apologists and McClymond's book isn't a "scholarly tome"--despite the fact that it appears on syllibi from Queen's University and Boston College--the pseudohistory cat tag still stands. Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

I see I have touched a sore point as the previous peer review editor (who I respect as being very thorough) obviously had the same concerns as me.

(This article has never had a Peer Review before now. Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

This tag appeared on the 9th Jan, put there by Eugeneacurry. At least 5 editors have contested its inclusion. One of whom was blocked under doubtful process wonkery. Huston we have a problem - wait a minute that was never actually said! 92.24.16.27 (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(What five editors, specifically, have contested this cat tag since January 9th?. Also, I know this is nit-picking, but "Houston, we've had a problem", was actually said. So with the John Frum allusion you're 0 for 2 now with the attempted ahistorical paralells. Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

I know what was actually said by Jim Lovell (it wasn't his quote anyway he was paraphrasing something Jack Swigert said to him) hence the attempt at humour. As for the other editors who have challenged this, you were involved with the arguments so should review the archives. 92.24.16.27 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also on the John Frum point, a few decades after his "appearance" thousands of people believe he is real and will return. Not sure how I got that one wrong. 92.24.16.27 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors I have found in the history files (and review pages) who have challenged pseudohistory are; Haldraper, Steve is the man, james, jbolden, slimvirgin, tournesol, schizombie, Ttiotsw and me! Please don't make me add links as that is so time consuming and I think it is best to read the last 4 archives to see how this topic keeps coming back. That would not happen if it was really resolved. If I have misrepresented anyone please put me right, this is not an attempt to score points but to gauge the mood of the editors here. Sophia♫ 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any of these editors objecting to the pseudohistory cat tag specifically. I think you may need diffs since, when I searched the archives for "pseudohistory", I found nothing recent except this very discussion. Eugene (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Quality of the definition

Transcluded from User Talk:Afaprof01

I noticed the GA status of the Christ myth theory and have one major concern—the quality of the definition. As I have pointed out before the very term "Christ myth theory" seems to vary too much to really pull enough of a uniform definition out of the mess and "Christ myth" is even worse.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your concern, Bruce. I am unfamiliar with much of the history. Have you attempted to add a definition and experienced a problem? In addition to the definitions in the lead, what would you like to see? GA evaluators usually have no particular expertise in a topic; otherwise they would have been an editor of the article and therefore disqualified for GA evaluation. That is my case. Being new to the topic, I was satisfied with the definition. However, the article is in no way locked, and it may be edited to include better definitions if you are aware of any. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb has been crying foul on this point for as long as I've been involved with this article, and, according to other editors here, much longer still. Every time that he's registered his objections, though, it's clear that he's playing fast and loose with his sources. In fact, on a couple of occasions, the very sources he claimed support his broader definition of the Christ myth theory have turned out to explicitly support the narrow definition used in this article and have been subsequently integrated into the footnotes. (the invocation of Herbert George Wood was the most recent example: here's his comment, here's the response) Also, see FAQ #1. Eugene (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Eugene. After reviewing the sources in the above input from BruceGrubb, the article as it stands does a more than credible job defining CMT. I don't see how his suggested sources can add anything of substance. This has no effect on the GA and should not negatively impact the FA consideration. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I am aware I have made 3 edits in 24 hours but as the first revert was for incorrect reasons I'm assuming no one will have a problem with this. 89.243.73.230 (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The POV tag is not needed. Your stated rationales for its inclusion have repeatedly been shown to be vacuous. If you add it again I will report you for 3RR violation. Eugene (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The POV tag is there if someone is challenging the POV of the article which I am. I welcome outside views coming in and the tag will alert readers to check the talk page. You may not agree with my reasons but that is what a dispute is! This is begining to look like page ownership. 92.24.16.27 (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed and exposed as baseless. The page has recently been submitted for its first peer review so "outside views" will be forthcoming. Eugene (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like page ownership. This issue has been debated numerous times recently, with some editors getting frustrated and leaving. To say there's no dispute seems disingenuous. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. All issues have been addressed multiple times. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The issues may have been addressed but they have not been resolved. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

They have not been addressed, people have just been worn down and gone away by the look of the archives. 92.24.16.27 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Claiming NPOV because one does not wish to accept the clearly established (and well-sourced) facts is not an appropriate use of the tag. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the dispute IS the sources! I'm the IP btw. Sophia 21:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If the characterizations to the merits of the CMT made by reliable sources is not to your liking, then cite another reliable source that asserts a substantially different characterization. Just putting a NPOV tag on an article because of one's own POV is at odds with the cited sources (which is what is obviously happening in this case) is not acceptable, and is a POV in itself. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that SOPHIA's concerns are clearly groundless once they're spelled out. She claimed that the Pseudohistory cat tag was excessive; it's been demonstrated that the cat page contains subjects more reputable than the Christ myth theory (0 for 1). She claimed that the works cited for the denialist comparisons weren't "scholarly" but were merely "apologist material"; it's been demonstrated that the authors in questions are generally well respected professional academics and that at least one of the sources cited appears on syllabi for major universities (0 for 2). She claimed the sources run afoul of "recentism"; Wikipedia has no such policy (0 for 3). She claimed that the CMT (Christ myth theory) isn't all that fringy because Pagels has "toyed" with it; it's been demonstrated that this is simply untrue (0 for 4). She demanded the name of a single non-Christian author who links the CMT with moon landing hoax theories; she was obliged: Crossan (0 for 5). She then claimed that there is no consensus among scholars that the CMT is akin to Holocaust denial; it was pointed out that the article never makes such a claim (0 for 6). She claimed that 6 different editors have objected to the inclusion of the Pseudohistory cat tag since January 9th of this year; when asked to provide evidence of this, she refused (0 for 7).

This is quite clearly a faux-controversy. SOPHIA doesn't like the cat tag and is merely raising objection after objection in the hope that something will stick. Given this, my refusal to just roll over and acquiesce to her hand-waving complaints is not an example of OWNership, it's responsible editing. If she continues to burden this talk page with her inanities I'll call for some sort of DR; given her history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here, I don't imagine it will go well for her. Eugene (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, your comments tend to be inflammatory--a sign of ownership. You state, "She claimed that the CMT (Christ myth theory) isn't all that fringy because Pagels has "toyed" with it; it's be demonstrated that this is simply untrue (0 for 4)." Pagels has been quoted, "Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence." As for POV one of your minions stated on this discussion page, "It says Michael Grant is an atheist. He has a wiki page, so I tried to find an RS on his atheism so I could add it to his page, but I couldn't find one. If I could have though, that would have been perfect. Respected atheist historians who make strong statements against the Christ myth would really bring the point home.... - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)" If the active editors of this page are trying to bring the point home, there is clear violation of NPOV. I also agree with sophia that the primary reason to have put the psuedoscience and comparisons to flatearth etc. just at the top is primarily for the value of insulting people trying to research this theory. You are backing up this claim with people who have a religious bias. For those quoted, if there were ANY validity to this theory, it would shake their worldview. A former priest who doesnt care if god exists is not a good source for this concern, and only one possible example does not warrant these quotations. jesus has no contemporary evidence FOR his existence; this alone is sufficient to question his historicity. It's also true that if this page is about the historical existence of christ, as in messiah, no atheist would agree. If it's about the historical jesus, as you claim, most nonreligious and many religious scholars would admit that there is no solid evidence for his earthly existence. Literedball (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to complain that Eugene is making inflammatory comments, you shouldn't say he has "minions"; that's an insulting and inflammatory thing to say! It's a good idea to assume that other editors are capable of thinking for themselves, especially when you're making your first appearance on a talk page with a Wikipedia career of 15 edits.

I'm puzzled by comments that Crossan isn't a good source. Last time I checked, DePaul University was regarded as a decent school, and Crossan taught there for a long time. His work is well-regarded in the field, and often cited. On this talk page, the objections seem to be either 1) he was a Catholic priest or 2) he used to be a Catholic priest, and now he's changed his mind...so you can't trust him. Neither of these objections mean that his works aren't reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense). If these objections lead individual Wikipedia editors to distrust Crossan's work...well, who cares? Wikipedia isn't based on editors individual opinions, it's based on what reliable, scholarly sources say.

Literdball said: "most nonreligious and many religious scholars would admit that there is no solid evidence for his earthly existence." Can you provide us with some scholars that say this? If you have some, let's put them in the article.

Also, for everyone who says that Christian belief would be threatened if the theory of a non-historical Jesus was valid, please note that Robert Price says he attends church regularly (at an Episcopal church, I think), and happily recieves the Eucharist. If he's any guide, a historical Jesus isn't essential for a religious worldview. (The converse is also true--one can be an atheist and still think there was a historical Jesus. Try it, it's easy!) --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we are down to threats! "I don't imagine it will go well for her". The charge of moon hoax/holocaust denial equivalence is an extreme one and material from the extreme end of the apologist wedge has been used to defend it. That does not make for a balanced article. Wikipedia used to be about selecting sources to represent an overall picture of a subject, not finding whatever quote you could to make it stick. The charge of recentism is purely that the sources used are new, and this subject is not, so balance is not being maintained. Despite this being "fringe" I have noticed over the last decade or so, an increase in extreme language being used by apologists which is rather surprising since, according to them, there is nothing to discuss. I have the list of editors who have also objected but is on my other computer - will post later with links if you insist but just reading the last 4 archives tells you all. Sophia♫ 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some reading is in order. Also, I propose we begin removing questionable sources for the comparison with holocaust deniers etc. Self proclaimed apologists are an obvious example. Off the cuff statements on some blog, interview or podcast are also questionable. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This talk page has been used by CMT advocates/sympathizers to burden the editing process for long enough. The last time that this page was mentioned on the fringe theory notice board, the first response began thusly: "This has been up on this board at least half a dozen times already. Each time consensus is clear: this is a fringe theory (specifically, the theory that Christ never existed and is a purely mythical figure) of a highly kooky nature and should be written about as such. We are now moving into the stage where discussion ends and sanctions begin." I'm submitting a request for mediation.

As for your claim, James, that some of the sources should be culled from the article, consider that WP:FRINGE expressly states that a parity of sources must exist in this article: "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal" and such criticism may come from "alternative venues". So there's no need to cut the sources in question. If you really want to cull the works of "apologists" and blogs critiquing the theory, however, then, at the same time, we'll have to cull those CMT advocacy sources that appear apologetical or which are blogs promoting the theory to maintain parity. That might be helpful, but it will mean that Murdock drops off the page completely and Doherty is reduced to his single journal article. Think about that for a while, think especially hard since all the denialist comparisons are made by at least one non-apologist in books published through mainstream presses, so they would remain in the in-line text either way. It's precisely this kind of impotent procedural attack on the article that indicates the bad-faith motivation of the critics. Eugene (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing the "fringe" status of this. However lumping advocates with skinheads, nazi's and anti semites is a step too far. The quotes used to support this are too extreme and from vested interests. I welcome mediation. Sophia♫ 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some scholars that question the historicity of jesus: Moncure D. Conway, Gerald A. Larue, Randel McCraw Helms, Pagels. If you want to just pull quotes out of context, we could add David Noel Freedman, "When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards." and many other such christian scholars and bible reviewers. Note: this is a (very short) list of scholars questioning jesus' historicity, not subscribing to jesus myth theory. Literedball (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that you've listed Pagels, a woman I've demonstrated absolutely does not question the historical existence of Jesus, you'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it. Do you have any proof concerning any of these scholars? (Just as an aside, Conway was active in the 19th century, so his views aren't really relevant here either way.) Eugene (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more quotes (taken from Who Was Jesus by DM Murdock): "One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."

~Merrill C. Tenney, "New Testament Survey," p. 203.

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

~ F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" founder of the modern evangelical movement

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

~ John P. Meier, "A Marginal Jew," vol. II, 5. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I question whether your reading of the Pagels quote really proved her belief in a historical jesus 100%, but I dont think it's an important point for me to argue. Here's more quotes, including the scholars I mentioned:

"We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world."

-Gerald A. Larue The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read

"The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong." "Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus." "Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus."

-Randel McCraw Helms Who Wrote the Gospels?

"What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things."

-Robert J. Miller Bible Review December 1993, Vol. 9, Number 6, p. 9

"A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Christianity were cities of the Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome. Although large number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate in the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70 C.E."

-Bruce Chilton, Bible Review December 1994, p. 37

"James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, 'is in fact not historical.' How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical?"

-Daniel P. Sullivan "Bible Review" Literedball (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. None of these quotes indicate the scholars in question support the Christ myth theory. In fact, some of the scholars you list (Bruce, Miller, Dunn, etc) vociferously condemn the theory (See FAQ #2). If this is really how you intend to argue here, I'm perfectly content to ignore you as a WP:TROLL. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, your tone here is really not helpful. Please lets be a little more WP:CIVIL. Thanks. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Scholars from that list have written entire biographies on Jesus (such as Chilton, Rabbi Jesus) yet you are quoting them as apparantly questioning the historicity of Jesus?!? My oh my!--Ari (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes do however demonstrate that those likening this to holocaust denial/moon hoax are willfully disregarding the lack of evidence. Sophia ♫ 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They do no such thing, unless one is biased against the Gospels as historically unreliable on every little detail. Is that where you are coming from? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pastor eugene, if you see above, i was responding to a request for proof that these scholars questioned the historicity of jesus/the gospels, not that they perscribed to christ myth theory. the purpose of this list of quotes is to show that many scholars agree that there is a lack of evidence for the historicity of jesus. Disregarding one's personal faith, it is more ingenuous to say that jesus positively existed based on a thorough study of the evidence than he positively did not exist. Thus, the likening to flatearth, etc is based on statements stemming on those individual's personal faith, and are biased. I see no reason why editors of any wiki page should perpetuate outside bias here. Literedball (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"questioning the historicity of Jesus" = questioning the existence of Jesus. None of the quotes above in the posts by Literedball or ^^James^^ do that. They question the New Testament's reliability as a historical source, which is a pretty common thing to do. But, as several people have already pointed out, that doesn't support the Christ myth theory, and doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at hand. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

I have temporarily full protected the page due to an edit war among several editors of this page regarding the addition of a {{NPOV}} tag. If the NPOV concerns are valid, the editors of this article should discuss the matter here instead of simply reverting it. I don't see too much discussion on how to resolve the issue, but I do see a lot of bickering at each other. Reverting while discussing is still edit warring. If you can't come to a conclusion through discussion here, please follow dispute resolution. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This does force everyone here to talk and also will hopefully bring in some fresh views. Sophia♫ 09:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the admin not only protected the page, but then made the extra effort to follow up by removing the tag. WP:NPOVD says, "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." There was already an active discussion taking place here on the talk page which made it clear that the neutrality of the page was being actively disputed, right here on the talk page. Bertport (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I must have protected the The Wrong Version™ then. The NPOV tag was the source of this edit war. If I had left it there, I would have got a wrong version complaint from somebody else. I simply reverted back to the version before the edit war, so that effective discussion can take place without any one side getting the wrong impression that they had "won". If you would take a moment to read that protection template, it will tell you that it is not an endorsement of the current page. It also states quite clearly that the page has been protected due to a dispute, so I think that will suffice to let readers know that there may be problem with the article. Perhaps it would be easier to understand why I reverted to the earlier version, if you read the rest of the paragraph you have quoted: "... repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Who would "your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag" describe? I understand that a wrong version is unavoidably going to be protected - but in this case, the admin went out of his way to choose a wrong version. Bertport (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nature of the dispute

My understanding is that we are disagreeing on the categorisation of the CMT as pseudohistory, with this being highlighted in the lede and therefore unbalancing the article.

My view -This is a fringe, non mainstream theory which touches a raw nerve so care needs to be shown in selecting material to bring balance. Apologist material (even if it is used on a course that examines the historical basis of Jesus - can't find their flat earth/holocaust denial course!) should be used with care. I can see it being used in the objections to the theory but not in the lede or to categorise this article. Can we all restate our positions so we know where everyone stand please? This should not descend into a PA threat match. Sophia♫ 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldnt have used the word "minion". I was merely trying to draw attention to the fact that he was a less active editor that categorically agrees with pastor eugene. I'm not sure how the amount of edits i have made have any bearing on my input here. This topic is flagged Wikiproject christianity and wikiproject atheism. Thus, if the Christian editors refuse the input and perspectives of atheists and resort to personal attacks and avoid responding to legitimate concerns, it is likely that this page violates POV. Literedball (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rest assured that my "minion" also raised NPOV concerns and only came to "categorically agree" with me after being presented with relevant evidence to the effect that his concerns were unfounded. If only SOPHIA were amenable to such evidence. I'll put the request for mediation in tonight; it's a lengthier process than I had thought. Eugene (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Literedball, you obviously have a level of animosity towards Christians that I respectfully submit borders on paranoia. You seem to think that Christian historians are some kind of second rate historians, that whenever they claim something, there must be a non-Christian, or preferably an atheist, around to give a stamp of approval before something can be reasonably believed.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, should approach the science of history as a Christian, atheist, or whatever, because that is simply practicing bad history. So, if you think Christian historians, as well as the Christians in this discussion, are NOT acting in bad faith, then please say so so that we can move forward. But if you ARE claiming bad faith on the part of "rascally Christians", then please state so explicitly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sophia, this is not as fringe as is being portrayed. For example, Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ was the bestselling non-fiction book in Canada the year it came out. A documentry of the same name was produced by the CBC and aired prime-time. There's also The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist. Regardless of conventional academia, there's a popular culture component that needs to be represented. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

James, not to put words into Sophia's mouth, but I think what he means by "fringe" is different than what the rest of us think. Let me summarize (and, everyone, please correct me if I'm wrong).

A "fringe" theory means:

1. Something which is not impossible, but for which there is better, and more abundant, evidence for an alternative theory. (This is what I think Sophia's position is.)

2. Something which is not impossible--because there is very little, if anything, that is historically impossible in ancient world history--but is bizarre, fantastic, preposterous, and/or extraordinary. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And that (i.e., extraordinary evidence) is something the CMT theorists have miserably failed to provide. (This is my position and hence why I think the comparisons to Holocaust denial and moon landing hoax are valid and justified.)

You (James) seem to think that there is a middle point between these two positions. Please elaborate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Bill the Cat, most of what you have stated or asked has little bearing on this discussion. But let me try to clarify my view. This page is about a theory that is primarily held by atheists, concerning a christian subject. Apologists and, to an admittedly lesser degree, biblical scholars have a biased and understandably extremely sarcastic reaction to this theory. This makes sense because their areas of expertise or study hinge on the existence of jesus. I think this article should not offend anyone, but should be an encyclopedic account of the history of this theory and its proponents. The fact that it is fringe and virtually all biblical historians and most classical historians hold it in disdain is no surprise and need not be confusingly and harshly stated in the leadin to the article. BTW, religious texts are generally understood to be undesirable historical texts. see Abraham, Lord Rishabha, Zoroaster or even the legend of Paul Revere as based on the Longfellow poem for examples of why. Literedball (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill, while I appreciate that language can be a personal thing, when communicating with others I prefer to use dictionary meanings. Bestselling book of the year is not exactly fringe. It's a little closer to mainstream popular culture. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The hypothesis is a fringe theory. Rejecting the use of the word in greater academia and wikipedia policies by appealing to individual booksales will not change that. Most definately not a mainstream view as numerous verifiable sources by well credentialed scholars have made abundantly clear. Are the moon landing conspiracy theories no longer fringe theories because most of the Western world has heard of them through TV specials or popular books? etc. --Ari (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I did not say it was not fringe. You are not responding to what I wrote. Yet it begs the question: where are the sources disputing the popular interest in this subject? I think it's a good idea to use dictionary meanings as guidelines when communicating. Mainsteam: Belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc. Fringe: an outer edge; margin; periphery. Bestselling book of the year falls into which category? Prime time documentry on CBC falls into what category? Let me emphasize what I wrote above: Not as fringe as is being portrayed. (And especially not to be compared to flat earthers, moon hoaxers and holocaust deniers). ^^James^^ (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I did respond to what you wrote and I will again point to the crux - you wish to use a definition outside of what wp:fringe means by fringe and what scholars working within the field mean by fringe. A semantics game to argue that it is mainstream by redefining everything we mean is what I would call a clear case of pov pushing. Although you may personally dislike the fact that the theory is compared to Holocaust denial or Moon landing conspiracy theories, the fact is that scholars do. This is just like how modern historians place Holocaust denial in the basket of conspiracy fringe theories. And this doesn't change because someone decides to write a bestselling book on why the Holocaust/Moon Landing/etc did not happen. --Ari (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I should also remind that there is the section on popular culture already in the article. --Ari (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? WP:FRINGE uses pretty much the same defintion I posted above: ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. Nor am I arguing that the Christ Myth is mainstream or that it is the majority view. I am arguing that the theory is not as fringe as is being portrayed here on this talk page. And I gave examples of how the theory is penetrating the mainstream. (Sorry for the repetition here folks, but apparently it bears repeating). Speculating about my personal likes and dislikes is not appropriate. Simply because something is sourced does not guarantee its inclusion. Especially if those sources are poor. ^^James^^ (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am biased against the Gospels as historical evidence, they make extraordinary claims which should be externally corroborated but aren't (currently - the next set of scrolls discovered could change all that). Pagels makes clear the diversity of early christian belief, and the organisation it required to create an orthodoxy. Historical research seems to be happy to state a far higher confidence interval than science or maths would allow on the same data. That is why I can seem to "not hear" and not be swayed by what has been offered so far (see the difference in evidence burdens in the UK between a civil court and a criminal court). Back to the original dispute however, tagging this as pseudo history would be valid IF, despite new documents from the early first century giving even marginal details of some nuisance teacher called Jesus who caused trouble and was killed, people clung to the "not real" stance. Until then we just have a historical extrapolation, and anyone who calls those who disagree moon/holocaust hoaxers is point scoring. Sophia ♫ 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's content shouldn't be based on whether Wikipedia editors are convinced (or not) by the evidence. It's based on what reliable sources say. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The "reliable" bit is what we are discussing. Sophia ♫ 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what your last comment implied. Why else complain about the standards of historical research? As for the sources, why exactly are the books by Perrin, Powell, Crossan, and McClymond not reliable sources? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, why is Bart Ehrman (who's an atheist/agnostic) not a reliable source? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because he isn't assisting in the POV push of specific editors. --Ari (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

SOPHIA, given that you do inded dispute the WP:RS nature of the sources in question, please ammend your acceptance of the request for mediation to reflect this. Eugene (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Point one is the only one written clearly enough to potentially get a proper answer. Undue weight also comes into this. Sophia ♫ 18:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean you do or you don't dispute the WP:RS nature of the sources in question? If you DO dispute it, then add it in under the "Additional issues to be mediated" section of the mediation page using your own words to make it clear. If you DON'T dispute it, then why bring it up on this page? Am I missing something? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I've submitted the request for mediation. For the sake of comprehensiveness and as an attempt at fairness I've included the name of every editor involved in the recent revert war over the POV tag. But, for whatever reason, ^^James^^ and Bertport have yet to agree to the mediation. Since neither of these editors were the principle advocate of the tag, though, if they don't agree to mediation in the next couple days I'll cut them from the request so that mediation can proceed (mediation can only begin if all listed parties agree to the process). So, ^^James^^ and Bertport, don't drag your feet if you want to be involved in this. Eugene (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a stake in any of the items mentions in the request for mediation. I just thought the tag was an accurate description of what was going on here, so I thought the tag was merited. The request for mediation doesn't even mention the tag. Bertport (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Jay Z

The link Jesus of Nazareth redirects to Jay-Z. Is this a joke or an oversight? Please correct. Thanks - John from Ohio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.23.189 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the page Jesus of Nazareth to redirect to Jay-Z rather than Jesus. It's fixed now. This article never had a problem, but there is a link to Jesus of Nazareth in the lead, so the IP may have thought that this article was vandalized. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

Ok, it looks like everyone has signed up for the mediation. Now what's the next step? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The moderator will make an opening statement on the request's talk page in the near future giving us some direction. Eugene (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory. NW (Talk) 02:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)