Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. WaltonAssistance! 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Christ as myth

Jesus Christ as myth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

POV Fork of Jesus-myth hypothesis•Jim62sch• 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Which should all be represented in one article, à la Creation-evolution controversy. That you can't manage to place both into one article is not Wiki's problem, it's yours, and it does not warrant the article split. Hell, if either one were turned in as a term paper, you might get a D for actually turning something in, but since the issue is not covered fully in either article, a D would be considered generous. •Jim62sch• 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Not sure if this "The study of such elements is often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position toward the historicity of Jesus. The claim of a purely mythical Jesus with no base in history, popularly known as the "Jesus-Myth theory", goes back to David Strauss' Life of Jesus (1835) and is now rejected by the majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity.[1] For a discussion of the question of historicity, see historicity of Jesus" is supposed to represent why this article is not a fork, but if it is, it fails miserably. In fact, it proves the opposite. •Jim62sch•
  • POVFORK of what? WilyD 19:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This quote is from the presplit version of the article. It was not authored nor advanced by anyone who argues against the deletion of Jesus Christ as myth. It was authored by persons below who in fact are in agreement with Jim on the deletion long before this article split. Use of this quote reflects a profound misunderstanding of the debate that led to the split originally. jbolden1517Talk 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Article was split off from Jesus-myth hypothesis three days ago in an attempt to resolve a dispute. Near as I can tell, that makes it a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking [1] •Jim62sch• 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
      What dispute was being resolved? The 3 people talking were all agreeing on material. There was no dispute about the material we all were in agreement the old structure was making it difficult to build the right kind of content jbolden1517Talk 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Three people? Wow, and did you intentionally forget or just plain forgot about the 20 other regular editors of the article? Orangemarlin 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That's utter nonsense. It's a POV fork, deal with that fact. Also, see these comments: [2] and [3] and [4]. You're trying to defend the indefensible. •Jim62sch• 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
        Then I assume if its utter nonsense you'll have no problem explaining what POV was spinning off from what POV. So go ahead. jbolden1517Talk 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Right after you explain what the benefit of the split was. Oh, there wasn't one, other than that you couldn't manage to keep the article free of crap? The mere adoption of the term "Christ", and honorific that assumes a value judgment, on the split-off argument is significant enough to lable that article (which is a poorly written piece of fecal matter) as a POV fork. •Jim62sch• 17:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. I note jbolden gives as his entire keep argument that its really hard to keep the two articles already in existance in decent shape, as crap keeps creeping in and making them very long. I fail to see how adding a POV fork to siphon the crap off to helps in any way. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per KC and nom. But should then have a redirect left since it is a likely search term. JoshuaZ 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete . POV fork of an ongoing debate. Get rid of it and integrate any useful material into Jesus-myth hypothesis and/or other suitable articles. Perhaps someone should save the content on a subpage of the talk page for this article so it can be referenced after deletion, if indeed that's what happens. ... Kenosis 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant POV fork. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if you POV-fork an article that is discussing the POV of a group of people, don't you end up with an entirely new article on a different subject? That looks to me like what we have here. I don't think the new article's a particularly good one, for instance it presents the hypothesis it discusses as if it were proven fact while it is in fact disputed, and its title is rather confused -- how is this distinct from Jesus-myth hypothesis? I'm not sure. But assuming it is distinct (which I'm not sure sure about, hence the fact I'm not !voting) I don't think there's anything specifically wrong with having a separate article about this similar but distinct viewpoint. JulesH 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: JulesH raises an interesting point. I think it may have to do with the presentation of it. "Jesus as myth" fails to call it a "hypothesis" in the title. The use of "hypothesis" in the Jesus-myth hypothesis article states the putative nature of the topic and admits more explicitly that it's a hypothesis. Thus the title of the "hypothesis" article is by its title more explicitly NPOV, but no less of a POV fork. So the disctinction is more subtle than I had first thought, and is one of redundancy and having more of a "ring" of POV than the "hypothesis" article. Given a strong enough argument that the extra article on "jesus as myth" has a separate justification for existing, I may change my vote to "keep". But on this insight just provided by JulesH, I'm inclined to suggest consideration of a "merge-into Jesus-myth hypothesis". ... Kenosis 21:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh now I see why everyone sees that as "obvious POV fork". Sorry I didn't even think about the titles. Well can we all agree to just change the names of the titles? The titles are similar but the subject isn't (hence the reason for the split). jbolden1517Talk 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment No one uses the term "hypothesis" so why should we? The theories are not hypothetical (they exist but are not widely accepted) caveats do not need to be added to the article title. All that is necessary for NPOV is to make sure there are comments in the lead informing the reader that this is a marginal view rejected by mainstream academia - which is exactly what the original Jesus as myth article used to do. Sophia 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Jbolden1517's comment (just below this thread) that the articles "arrive at different conclusions" settles the issue fairly definitively. That is, in essence, a way of saying "I disagree with the consensus approach of the other article and will create my own new article that arrives at different conclusions". As it appears the Jesus-myth hypothesis does not arrive at conclusions but instead already reports the material and controversy relevant to this topic, I stand by my vote of "delete" on the basis of being a POV fork. if there is a legitimate argument to be made for inclusion of additional materials or additional viewpoints relating to this topic (e.g., ancient Egyptian views of the topic and other such historical perspectives not involving, as Jbolden says, "20th and 21st century ... atheist[s]" ) the argument for inclusion should be made on the Talk:Jesus-myth hypothesis and, if appropriate, included there. .. Kenosis 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. What the heck is wrong with everyone here. Can we AGF for a second. The articles don't arrive at different conclusions, the authors arrive at different conclusions. The articles aren't even addressing the same topic. This is like saying that automobile is a POV fork of train jbolden1517Talk 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ever notice that AGF is most frequently cited by those who have made edits (or splits) in such a manner as to suspend the assumption of good faith. Hmmm... •Jim62sch• 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Another good example of AGF on bolden's part: "(removing mickey mouse (lets see if this was really about the intro)) " •Jim62sch• 21:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- First off I think the article is obviously good enough. So I'm going to argue against merge since delete is plain silly.
    1. For 2 years issues of historicity have interfered with issues of mythicism. Doherty/Wells/Price/Robertson... material has improved little since late 2005. That's in spite of the fact that both published and internet resources have probably doubled since then.
    2. There is simply too much material for a single article. With little overlapping content Historicity = 56k, Jesus-Myth = 36k, Jesus as myth = 37k. (see WP:SIZE#A_rule_of_thumb)
    3. The break is logical. Each article makes different methodological assumptions and examines different issues. That allows the article to address the readership that the underlying books do and thus avoid WP:OR. A unified article (which may need to be written) would have to address a wider audience and thus can't focus on the specific theories in detail.
    4. Finally the older version (what I assume the deletion request is asking for) pre-split was loaded with POV in particular the Frazier editorializing throughout the article. Some of that is still present but its getting easier to remove the POV stuff post split. jbolden1517Talk 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well looks like delete is an issue so:
    The authors in the Jesus Christ as myth range from Christian Saints (like Justin Martyr) to religious protestants (like Lewis) to new age types to atheists to liberal christians... They also range in time from the 2nd century to the current day. Most of them have a very supernaturalist bent. The authors addressed in Jesus-myth hypothesis are all 20th and 21 century and all atheist. They operate completely within a naturalistic, rationalistic and empiricist framework. They are addressing a secular audience and they can be reasonable classified as skeptics. That is:
    • different audience
    • different goals
    • different assumptions
    • they arrive at difference conclusions
    *: jbolden1517Talk 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to arrive at any conclusions - just report a subject in a NPOV and balanced way. This split makes it harder. Some material from this article does need to go back into the original Jesus as myth article. Sophia 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I still don't know what happened here. One moment there was an article, two days later, all the work was undone by three editors who to have decided to do it themselves without asking or gaining consensus. I'm troubled by what happened here. Orangemarlin 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- But the titles need to be changed. One should be called something like "Fictional Jesus" or "Unhistorical Jesus". The other should be called "Mythology and the Life of Jesus". The point of the split is to separate the discussion of two distinct questions. One is the claim that Jesus is unhistorical. The other is the claim that the figure of Jesus in the gospels contains material of a mythological character. These are separate claims. The supporters of the deletion keep repeating the mantra "POV fork" but seem to be signally unable to explain what POV is being pushed by this alleged fork. Paul B 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. WP:NOR also applies big time. meshach 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Really? What original research? And what POV? Paul B 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a blatant attempt by three editors to force their POV on an article. They did not contact editors who spent time on the article. They did it with 1 or 2 days warning. These editors should explain why they did this? Orangemarlin 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
What POV? Paul B 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm just this side of not giving a crap about violating rules of civility to go truly ballistic. The three of you, Paul Barlow, jbolden and WilyDdbachmann made vast and POV changes to articles without consensus. You are driving your POV on this article, got rid of a lot of good, well-researched information. You have forced your own research onto the article. I think what you have done needs to addressed by admins. Orangemarlin 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, what POV? Paul B 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I haven't been following the wikipolitics here and I haven't read most of this new article, but I've felt for a while that Jesus-myth hypothesis looked like a POV fork of Historicity of Jesus. In principle at least (judging from the opening paragraph), Jesus Christ as myth seems to isolate those aspects of Jesus-myth hypothesis that actually deserve an article separate from Historicity of Jesus; that is, parallels that might be drawn between stories about Jesus and various myths, independent of whether Jesus existed. --Allen 06:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep of course. not a pov fork in any conceivable way. It mentions the theory treated at Jesus-myth hypothesis as one (fringy) interpretation, but it certainly doesn't endorse that or any other pov. It is silly to suggest it is a "pov-fork" seeing that Jesus-myth hypothesis is linked as {{main}} article from one of its sections: to anyone who reads even the intro (as opposed to stopping at the titles), it is perfectly obvious that Jesus-myth hypothesis is a valid sub-article to Jesus Christ as myth (which could arguably moved to the more precise but longer mythological aspects of Jesus Christ.

Also, don't solve your content disputes via afd. I am trying hard to educate people that myth as the subject of mytography does not have the meaning of "made up" it has in popular usage. It is ironic that the nominator here should sport "In nomine rationis" on his userpage, you'd rather expect the sober treatment of mythology in the gospel would be attacked by fundamentalist piety, not by skeptical Darwinists. dab (𒁳) 16:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whatever content disputes might be involved can be solved through the article talk pages and dispute resolution. Mythography/folklore studies of Christ are quite different from the Jesus-myth theory. Mythological interpretation of a figure, or faith, does not mean an assumption of falsity or an assertion that the subject is "mythical". It is an approach of sociology and anthropology. For example, mythography has focused on figures such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, however it is not disputed they were well-documented historical figures. While the title of the article is horrible and it needs to be mercilessly edited, its subject matter is quite appropriate. Treating the broader topic of folklore studies in relation to Jesus is not a POV fork. Vassyana 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've placed an "Original research" (OR) tag on the article, which would be in addition to the above complaints about it being a POV fork. The article presents a thesis, which is that stories about Jesus of Nazareth have parallels in other cultures and mythologies. That is quintessential original research. If there is in the future to exist an article of some kind that describes parallel mythologies to those involving Jesus of Nazareth, such an article would need to be based upon sources that describe such a thesis, not just on the WP editors' asserting parallels they think are obvious. And if there is a topic of this kind, the article would need to be appropriately titled to reflect such a topic. If the perspective being sought to include in an article is limited to, say, "Parallel myths to Jesus" (I don't at the moment know how this would properly be titled, or if indeed it can properly be titled) or some other genuinely separate topic thread, it would appear there may be room in this vast enterprise of WP for that and other perspectives. Unfortunately that's not what I see as being the primary source of dispute here-- but if it is part of the dispute, the solution is to find specific sources that discuss parallel mythologies and include them in an article that discusses parallel mythologies. Additionally, perhaps some of the research being done by jbolden and perhaps others could be put to use in helping out the sad state of the article on virgin birth and other specific myths that have been verifiably shown to be cross-cultural.

As to the specific nature of issue that results in the article being a POV fork (also forbidden under WP rules, specifically WP:NPOV): Well, in simple language, when an editor fails to persuade the participants in an article that the material he or she seeks to include should be included, and goes off and starts another article on the same topic, it's either a refusal to accept consensus in the first article, or a POV fork, or both. Jbolden1517 has asserted that the Jesus-myth hypothesis (which, believe it or not, was originally titled "Jesus as myth") is overly focused on the viewpoints of "20th and 21st century ... atheist[s]". Pardon me, but if there is a strong case to make that additional older perspectives of, say, theists who also regard Jesus of Nazareth as myth, the point should, in my opinion, be made on the appropriate talk page and have some or all of the perspectives that are asserted to be worthy of inclusion put into in the relevant article on the topic, not create a new article. The main POV that is forked into this article is to restate the basic story of Jesus, stating right in the lead that it's been largely debunked, then proceed to draw parallels between certain aspects of the story of Jesus and other ancient mythologies.

To sum up, this article, begun out of a content dispute at Jesus-myth hypothesis, is both a POV fork and virtually all original research, and should be deleted. Assuming it is sourced properly, I'm sure it's possible to find a new home for the material on parallel myths or analogous myths in other articles or in a differently titled article without violating these very basic principles of NPOV and NOR. ... Kenosis 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This timeline is easy to disprove. This is what the article looked like just prior to my first post to either of these two article [5]. You'll notice the material about the older theists is in there. Its in there in a confusing miss mash with 20th and 21st century theories but Kenosis's speculations about the history of the development of the article is provable false. jbolden1517Talk 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Roughly translated: "I created the new article first, then proceeded to argue incessantly with those others about the content of that other article." I think I do get the picture more clearly now, though it took me awhile due to WP:AGF. Mickey Mouse indeed. Have a nice day, OK? ... Kenosis 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh no again provable false. Here is the article Jesus Christ as myth prior to my first post on that article [6]. How about what the evidence does show rather than just making wild guesses jbolden1517Talk 17:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I now see that jbolden made his/her first post to that article after someone else [re]created it the very same day, March 24. Sorry. ... Kenosis 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a concerted attack to diminish the article. Moreover, could someone point to the discussion about it? Is there away to delete the forked article, and return back to the original Jesus as Myth article. Orangemarlin 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I largely agree with what Dab and Paul have said, including that moving the two articles in question would be wise. The split makes sense, and I don't see how it's a POV fork. As others have asked, what POV is being advanced? john k 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment If that is a serious question then the answer has to be that finding the dividing line where mythical Jesus investigations become acceptible/heresy is difficult and prone to ambiguous (often religious based) decisions. The Jesus as myth camp does not spend all of its time trying to prove Jesus didn't exist as you can't do that. They do however spend a lot of time examining parallels, precursor and contemporary ideas, and the prevailing political and religious background from which Christianity and the writings about Jesus grew. For this spilt to work where do we put writers like Pagels, Thompson, Allegro etc? No one supporting this split has ever answered this question. I'm begining to think that is because they don't know who they are or have never read them. Sophia 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
You have again failed to state how this is a POV fork by again avoiding the issue of what POV is being represented. No one ever answered the question because no-one put it. However, there is no reason why particular authors have to be confined to one article. Many writers are mentioned in several articles. Sanders is discussed in many JC related articles, to give just one example. Paul B 07:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The question was put by me on the 26th and ignored [7] until I brought it here. I'm not saying the authors need to be confined - just that their work is intrinsic to both articles so deciding what goes where is a nightmare. Since you seem to ignore my posts [8] [9] I will repeat again that the POV being pushed is the Christian led idea that the "Jesus as myth" camp comes down simply to a question of whether Jesus existed or not. This shows a very "web-based" view of the debate as a lot of the on-line stuff is aimed at answering Chriatian accusations of the theories. This "historicity question" is also the point at which Christians cry "foul" as it is so central to their belief system, but the mythological lead up to it in works that I have mentioned shows this is just one aspect of most of the theories. Most Christians accept (coz it's so obvious it makes your eyes pop) that some stories surrounding Jesus have older mythological counterparts. Most non Christians will smirk at the "demonic imitation" and "pre-echoes" claims as looking pretty desperate. If we confine one article to a question of "Did Jesus exist" we basically have a POV fork of the Historicity of Jesus. Do I need to go on? Sophia 08:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Dab replied to the post you refer to. Of the two I supposedly "ignored" neither state what the POV is supposed to be and one is the very post I replied to! The problem is that you seem to be conflating all non-Christian scholarship with the "Jesus myth" view. You appear include in the Jesus-myth school all scholars who discuss the development of Christian theology, doubt the truth of miracle stories and suspect that some aspects of the gospel narrative were either invented or distorted to make JC fit Biblical prophecies. That makes nonsense of the Jesus-myth concept. Either it is distinct from the mainstream view that he existed and that the gospels record his life (in a very distorted way) or it is not. This is far from being a Christian view. Indeed the Christian view is that JC is, as it were, myth ("the word") made flesh. I can assure you that Dab (who created the split) is certainly no Christian, but a secularist, as am I. Paul B 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply no problem
  • Thomson -> Jesus Christ as Myth since he does comparative work
  • Pagels -> I think she makes sense in hypothesis tied to the stuff on Nelson and Pearson.
  • Allegro -> In the article on Allegro. If he goes anywhere hypothesis.
But that's my $.02. Others may have different opinions and that is what talk pages are for. Yes there may be problems on the boarder so what? Worse comes to worst we pick one and cross reference. jbolden1517Talk 18:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I rest my case.... Sophia 18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So I assume. Truck and Automobile need to be merged since General Motors makes both jbolden1517Talk 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. Profound. •Jim62sch• 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Jesus-myth hypothesis is largely the original Jesus as Myth article, and deals with a fringe hypothesis. Jesus Christ as Myth deals - quite badly at present - with a much broader question of how far ancient mythology correlates to Christianity, in a much more mainstream way. Most scholars would hold that Christian traditions about Jesus were influenced to some extent by mythology - e.g. in terms of language like "Son of God", etc - but wouldn't see it as undermining the knowability of history so much as the mythicists. There's also the "Jesus as true myth" types . If the article were to try to deal with all these kinds of people, the Jesus-myth theory would (or, at least, should) be barely mentioned, per our Undue Weight policies. An article devoted to those kind of ideas can enable people to find this material much more easily.
There is a need for some content on the relationship between Jesus and mythology on wikipedia. I don't think it can easily be fitted within Christian Mythology, although there is a case for that. My main problem with saying keep, leading to me saying week keep, is that I think the article as it now stands doesn't do this very well. I'm not sure how much force that objection should hold when it would be improved over time.
(Please note: I haven't been following the details of this split enormously effectively). TJ 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete There should be only one (article on this topic). Str1977 (smile back) 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) -

or turn it into a sub-article title "Parallels between Jesus and myths", anything is better than "Jesus as myth" Str1977 (smile back) 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep -- This article was good for my report. Exactly what I was looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.194.214 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete There was no consensus for this content fork, and I still have no idea why there are two articles on this subject. --Filll 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Guettarda 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The two articles don't coincide. Jesus Christ as myth deals with a raft of views on the mythological nature of Jesus. Jesus-myth hypothesis is a more specific article, dealing with just one facet of the phenomenon. The current titles tend to be confusing and need to be modified. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've been looking at the talk pages of these articles and I'm having trouble understanding the dispute. In particular, I don't think the POV/OR claims are very well explained. At any rate, these are separate topics: Jesus Christ as myth is about (scholarship on) parallels between the Jesus narrative(s) and other bodies of mythology, Jesus-myth hypothesis is about a particular theory that early Christians made Jesus up. These are different subjects, linked by the use of the word "myth." But they're using "myth" in different senses: in Jesus Christ as myth, "myth" means "traditional narrative about the gods", in Jesus-myth hypothesis, "myth" means "false story". Obviously this leads to a different attitude about the historicity of Jesus: generally, the scholars cited in Jesus Christ as myth take no position as to historicity, but writers who hold the Jesus-myth hypothesis attempt to prove that there was no real Jesus.
These articles should be engaging different bodies of scholarship--Jesus Christ as myth should deal with the examination of Christianity from the perspective of comparative mythology, and there are contemporary, mainstream academic sources for this--the influence of mystery religions such as Mithraism on Christianity is intensively studied. On the other hand, the Jesus-myth hypothesis was the creation of 19th-early 20th century academics such as Bruno Bauer, but it is now a definite fringe theory, and its recent adherents are popular authors such as Earl Doherty, John Allegro, and Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. As currently written, though, there's a lot of overlap between the articles, probably left over from the split, so there's a lot of refinement to be done; but it will be easier to improve these as separate articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Richard Norton's suggestion. Bulldog123 16:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.