Talk:Jesus Christ in comparative mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 16 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Older

OK starting this new page off. For anyone lurking this conversation is likely to start with bouncing back and forth with Talk:Jesus Christ as myth at least for the time being. jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, please note that this page is the result of a split, and its deeper edit history is found (currently) at Jesus Christ as myth. dab (𒁳) 07:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of France and Grant

OK I guess we are having a factual issue. Why do you consider those books to be scholarship rather than apologetics? jbolden1517Talk 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy. In ordinary Christian usage, apologetics refers to people of religious (esp. Christian) beliefs, defending those beliefs. (I am aware that various non-Christians sometimes use it with different connotations, e.g. to denigrate the writers of them, occasionally to the extreme of "they're just apologists, and thus biased, therefore unworthy of us bothering to engage with their arguments"). Scholars have a habit of defending their own beliefs. Religious scholarship is therefore very frequently "apologetics", simply because scholars are defending beliefs. What I'm taking issue with there isn't the suggestion that the writings are apologetics. By ordinary Christian definition, the question of whether they are "apologetics" or not, is completely irrelevent (and indeed the word has too wide a semantic range to probably be helpful without further explanation, TBH.)
My main objection with that little section isn't so much that it doesn't cite the writers as being scholars, it's that it states that these arguments are "rejected by scholars" - without any citation, and indeed contrary to every instinct I have, as someone who had studied the history of the bible for three years under some very fine scholars (Christian or not).
As for why I think they are scholars - well, basically, because they are written by scholars in fields relating to where the points come up. Grant is cited for a point relating to ancient history, where he was a well known scholar (albeit in classics, which isn't always quite the same field, although they're closely related). RT France, on the other hand, has taught at theological college - including being principle of Wycliffe Hall, which was given the very unusual honour of being made a private college of Oxford University very shortly after he resigned - if his reign was even mildly unscholarly, that would never have happened. 82.36.124.28 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me, accidentally signed out without realising it. TJ 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, a little look at R. T. France's wikipedia page shows that he was a lecturer in related subjects at secular universitys, which I suppose demonstrates that he's 'really' scholarly if one is going to argue that places like Wycliffe were unscholarly back then. TJ 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Jbolden,
this smacks a bit of silencing opposing views by terming them unscholarly. Grant is nothing close to an apologists (which doesn't exclude him being a scholar) but a very mainstream scholar on antiquity. The qualifier apologist wouldn't be relevant anyway, if he's a scholar. If we followed the road indicated above we would also have to remove any supporting views because they are quacks, leaving behind an empty article. Str1977 (smile back) 07:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post merge flag

So how does this differ from the Christian Mythology article? If it does - why? Looks to me that they cover the same ground. Sophia 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is already taking place at Talk:Jesus-myth hypothesis#Post move discussion jbolden1517Talk 13:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

....but needed to be flagged here as we now have two articles. Sophia 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
sigh, this is a sub-topic of Christian mythology and clearly marked as such. Just as Jesus is a sub-topic of Christianity. Are you going to merge Jesus into Christianity now?
It is in fact an excellent reason to keep it as a separate sub-article that it treats material pertinent to both Christian mythology and Jesus-myth hypothesis. And both these article link here openly by {{main}}. The discussion on the split should really be over here.
Could you not tell us whatever it is that you think is "pov" about this article here? Is it not pious enough? Are you irked that it cites Christian authors that embrace Jesus as myth alongside skeptics that argue that "myth" means "fake"? I am sorry, but WP:NPOV means that we want a balanced presentation of opinions, which is precisely what we are doing here, and which is what Jesus-myth consistently failed to do, instead repeating the conflation of the topics of mythography and historicity. For the purposes of this article, it is completely irrelevant whether there ever was some carpenter-rabbi called Yeshua, for the simple reason that this isn't the historical Jesus article, but the one treating mythological aspects of Jesus Christ. Now what part of this is so difficult to follow, or biased. And in what way is it biased? I honestly don't know if the alleged bias is supposed to be pro-Christian or anti-Christian, simply because I fail to see any bias here. As for allegations of OR, I likewise see no problematic statements here, at all. Use {{fact}} to mark claims that are unattributed, and we'll either attribute them or remove them. If you could explain what you are so upset about, maybe I could see your point and there could be constructive and amicable debate. As long as you just keep tagging things and shouting "POV, OR", there will be no understanding here. I wholehearteldy subscribe to both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, but merely repeating the acronyms at me is not helpful.dab (𒁳) 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] OR

I have placed an Original research tag. My reasoning for placing it may be seen in the AfD discussion. In short, this article presents a thesis of its own, based on parallels the writers of this article, WP users, see in other sources. That's quintessential OR. Please endeavor to repair the situation rather than remove the notice, which is rightfully placed. ... Kenosis 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is this article saying that 200 authors haven't said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs)

Very quickly for the moment, given the level of kneejerk controversy that attends topics like this one, it will be necessary to provide citations for the assertions that these myths are parallel. I know they're out there. Once that is done, the superfluous material can be weeded out, and perhaps, just perhaps, one ends up with an article about parallel myths, which can then be appropriately retitled so it more accurately represents the topic actually dealt with, which presently is a series of analogous or parallel myths to such myths as virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, miraculous cures, etc. Note carefully that I'm not making an assertion whether these primarily scriptural stories are accurate or not. But I am making an assertion that if there are asserted to be parallel myths, the assertions that they are parallel or closely analogous, or identical, or whatever, need to be cited, and not just arrived at by the WP writers because it seems obvious. Believe it or not, it's an important WP principle. So if this material is useful and properly WP:A'd, I'm certain there is a place for it in some appropriate article on WP. ... Kenosis 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree this article doesn't cite each individual parallelism. citation needed tags could be put in a lot of places. But that's different than a claim of OR, which is what is being disputed. That's also different than a claim of a POV fork. Incidentally, that content wasn't written by me (almost none of it). My one section has an RS party making the claims so it is self citing. jbolden1517Talk 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis is spot on. Just read "The myth" section. It begins "Jesus is..." no refs no statements attributing this view to any writer. And the next section "Predecessors and parallels" - same again - grand claims but with no authorship to back them up. The "Interpretations" section..... need I go on? Without refs and statements attributed to particular authors this is one big pot of OR. I know some of the content is inherited but what is going on now is making it far far worse and will take ages to sort out. The OR flag at least warns the reader to beware. Sophia 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you know this isn't my content but.... Everything I read in "The myth" seems like right out of the NT. Are you asking for bible refs (I think that is different than what Kenosis is asking for). Pick a sentence that you think is controversial lets work an example. jbolden1517Talk 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And the bible is all true so we don't need to attribute it? Everyone in the world, no matter what their religion will know these statements are authentic accepted universal facts as they have the bible memorised? I haven't got time right now but you need to do some serious reading before you tamper anymore with this content. Not necessarily bcause it is good but because you are currently taking it further down. Sophia 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It says according to the New Testament as part of the title. We can add citations to the specific biblical passages, but you know very well this this is simply a summary of the standard mythos of Jesus according to traditional Christianity. No-one is sayinmg it is true - it is the story according to the NT. Paul B 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I think the bible is a reasonable prereq for comparative studies. In math article on college topics we assume junior high school algebra. And please start discussing in good faith I neither said nor implied memorized. jbolden1517Talk 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, argumentum ad absurbum.
Stop with the AGF bullslop. You blew that with your revert comment. •Jim62sch• 21:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
jbolden - can't you see the problems with just assuming that people will know this stuff is taken pretty much word for word from the bible? Sophia 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly fail to see what you mean. We are discussing the gospel narrative. "Jesus is..." is ostensiblly the "in-universe" account of a myth. If you cannot follow that, you have a lot of cleanup work ahead of you. Maybe begin with Sarruma, which has
Sarruma is a Hurrian god whose name means "king of the mountains". He is a son of the weather-god Teshub and the goddess Hebat.
then proceed to Ishtar, which has
Ishtar is a mother goddess, fertility goddess, the goddess of spring, a storm goddess, a warrior goddess and goddess of war, a goddess of the hunt, a goddess of love, goddess of marriage and childbirth, and a goddess of fate.
zomg POV attack! Wikipedia is being undermined by Bronze Age religionists who try to represent their heathen beliefs as fact. dab (𒁳) 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I restored the OR tag (and do NOT expect to see it removed), I also added a sources tag to the Mythemes of the Biblical account section. (see below on that little misuse of the word) •Jim62sch• 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythemes of the Biblical account

Do you guys actually know what a mytheme is? •Jim62sch• 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was a musical version of myspace. Sophia 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like the combination of "myth" and "theme". Homestarmy 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mytheme -- essential kernel of a myth. The kind of sharing in this article, the kind Strauss specific mentioned when he coined the word jbolden1517Talk 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it is "an element of myth regarded as an element of stucture". Sharing has nothing to do with it though -- no matter what Wikipedia says. Remember, we don't cite Wikipedia to support Wikipedia articles. •Jim62sch• 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed

Since many of the items listed as mythemes are found in only one or two accounts (for example, a full-blown nativity story only occurs in one gospel), you must source the various "mythemes". •Jim62sch• 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with you? It appears you are just sulking at this point. If you could tell us what statement you find questionable like a grown-up, we could have an intelligent debate. If you just gesture at the article as a whole, including perfeclty straightforward statements like "in the gospel narrative, Jesus is called 'Son of Man'", you are quite obviously not looking for constructive debate. Seriously, what do you dispute? Do you want to see a source that Jesus is called "Son of Man" in the gospel? Care to click on Son of Man? You want to see a source proving that the gospel describes a crucifixion? Care to click on crucifixion? Or do you just want to bicker until we give up in disgust? You are free to state that the nativity is described in Luke. But you cannot be serious slapping {{OR}} on the article because it claims that the gospel describes the nativity, while you prefer to see that it is Luke in particular. Just fix it, for crying out loud. This is a short summary. If you add a bunch of bible verses to each statement, it will become unreadable. Show some common sense. I will not be able to AGF any further if you insist on crying "OR" for a paragraph where each and every statement is linked to a fully referenced sub-article. dab (𒁳) 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] out of reverts

Well I'm out of reverts for today. I've talked to Deb and we've agreed no on the wikified title which means I now have 3 times on the unwikified title version. Someone else is going to have to stop this nonsense but OR without any specifics. jbolden1517Talk 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am too, but then again, I think more people believe that this is OR than not. Thank you for saving me the time of slapping a 3RR warning on you, since you know it, and so do I for me. Orangemarlin 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I don't need to tell you both that 3RR is not an entitlement. Sophia 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
But, I'm pretty sure someone needs to school bolden on deleting tags. •Jim62sch• 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bolden has yet to see any evidence. I think you forgot that part of the tagging process. jbolden1517Talk 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acharya S

I'm wondering where we want to put Acharya S, here or Jesus-myth hypothesis She needs to go somwhere. I think she falls more naturally into this article but its close:

  1. She considers herself part of the Jesus-myth hypothesis group. I think self identification should be given some weight
  2. Doherty... consider her part of their camp (sort of)
  3. A lot of her fans are atheist
  4. She is hostile to Christianity
  5. hypothesis is handling specific authors and this article isn't (far far too many)

On the other hand:

  1. She doesn't write about history or make historical arguments
  2. She is not herself an atheist
  3. She provides enormous detail about the evolution of myth from astrology which would be wonderful for this article

So what do you all think? jbolden1517Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the problem? We can cite her for anything that is useful for the topic at hand. This doesn't oblige us to discuss her entire opus. I do not think she is an academic author though, and if at all possible, we should reference the points needed to more reliable sources. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Finally something we completely agree on! She is a minor player to say the least and I would not regard her as a reliable source for wider theories. Sophia 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "OR", good faith, common sense and coherence

Great. So people insist that this article contains "original research", but they decline telling us where it is. The same people put the article on afd even though it is perfectly obvious that the topic treated is notable. This isn't editing, it's plain disruption. Some people really seem to lose it as soon as the name "Jesus" is involved. You'd expect that this would mostly happen with Christian zealots, but I cannot help but thinking that many of the less coherent and more zealous "atheists" aren't atheists for any rational reason but rather because of some traumatic obsession with Christianity. Sadly, as so often, all the fools are not in the other camp. For the purposes of this article, I refuse to honour the "OR" tag unless and until someone can point out in plain and coherent English how it is motivated, and how we can address the concerns. You cannot just claim random sentences are "original research", in a spirit of relativism or postmodernism claiming that any sentence taken out of its context is a creative act and thus original synthesis, this would make editing any article impossible, and we would be reduced to cutting down Wikipedia to a verbatim copy of the 1911 Britannica. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, come down, we need the wood.
Well, since we don't have a simple OR tag like we have a fact tag, it's a bit hard to point the crap out without a lot of cutting and pasting.
Finally, I don't really care what you choose to honour. •Jim62sch• 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We have inline tags for {{or}}, {{syn}}, and {{fixpov}} to annotate specific flavours of crap, at the exact spot where it happens. --Merzul 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the global OR tag needs to be removed and replaced with localized tags. It sounds like there are some OR issues here. But you can't expect people to fix them if you just c ompain and don't remove. Maybe we can get some consensus to force the use of only such localized OR tags for a couple months? That's probably clean up the problem permanently. JeffBurdges 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New names

section copied from Jesus-myth hypothesis page:

So what would potential articles be named? Some suggestions (bad I know but I'm hoping to get the ball rolling).

  • Jesus as myth → Jesus as a mythological construct.
  • Jesus as myth → Theories of Jesus as mythology
  • Jesus as myth → Mythological Jesus
  • Jesus as myth → Narratives of Jesus as mythology
  • Jesus as myth → Jesus as mythology
  • Jesus as myth → insert your better idea here!

I'm taking a stab at what I think the "Jesus Christ as myth" article is supposed to be from what has been written by its proponents here.

  • Jesus Christ as myth → Parallels between naratives of Jesus and other mythology.
  • Jesus Christ as myth → Syncretism of Jesus narratives and mythology.
  • Jesus Christ as myth → Proposed accretion of the Jesus Christ narratives.
  • Jesus Christ as myth → Good grief this is hard - someone help me out!

If we went for a split I would see the "Jesus Christ as myth or whatever" article as the parent one with the "Jesus as myth or whatever" as the daughter article. I still don't quite see how they are going to be much different as all that I have read starts off pretty much the same way - (i.e. some of this must be made up or borrowed) but then some of it steps that bit further (i.e. there are too many similarities this must all be cobbled together). However I can see how one article could get too big and would need to split into subtopics. We also need to decide where we would draw the line between the two articles and this should be easy to keep to as we will need to make sure the intro paragraph makes the distinction very clear. I would appreciate suggestions for opening paragraphs for the two articles if this is what we decide to do. I still feel we need to backtrack first before doing any of this. Sophia 08:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We should make the names as clearly distinct as possible. For a long time this article was called Jesus-Myth. No-one seemed to have a problem with that until someone (user:TrumpetPower! I think) objected on the grounds tht this is a Christian term (!). He created another mirror article called something like "Jesus as mythical creation" which was deleted. Of course now Str1977 objects to Jesus-Myth on the opposite grounds - that it implies that it is true that he's a "mere" myth. Personally I'm happy with "Jesus myth hypothesis" or "Jesus myth theory" for the name of the article that discusses the proposition that he was essentailly non-historical. The main problem is the other article. We need to remove some of the material, which overlaps too much with this one, and expand the material on the theorisation of mythemes etc. I think the second one should be something like Mythological aspects of the figure of Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ understood in the light of mythography, but these are incredibly clumsy and prolix. However shorter ones are just too ambiguous. Paul B 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with "Jesus-myth hypothesis", but given the history of the article, maybe the title should return to "Jesus myth", and we can see how many people start complaining about POV in the title.
"Jesus Christ as myth" is a definite problem, though, and I think Sophia has illustrated that there's no obvious alternative to the current title. I'd weakly suggest something like "Comparative mythology and the gospels". Whatever it's ultimately called, that article needs a thorough revision to make clear its difference from "Jesus-myth hypothesis". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion: "mythology" is very different from "myth" in most persons' understanding of the word. "Myth" tends to imply something completely made-up, not true, and "mythology" certainly tends to refer to a more in-depth, possibly scholarly, study. So there's one way to divide all this. Jesus-myth means one thing. Jesus Christ as mythology tends to say something else. The use of "jesus Christ" in the comparative mythology slant, assuming that article is kept from the AfD or resurrected in some other form, might help as well, in my opinion. Any additional proposed articles, if implemented, should of course be linked to from here with a brief disambig clause (e.g., "For further parallels drawn in published sources between narratives of Jesus and other mythology, see ________"; "For a more in-depth descriptions of Jesus from a mythological perspective, see __________)" This of course assumes that the validity of such additional articles can gain agreement, which doesn't appear to be a sure bet at this stage in time. If the editors here are able to collectively articulate what the articles are about and why they were so named, the chances of a stable article are, I should think, greatly increased. ... Kenosis 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think mythology is better for the current Jesus Christ as myth one - it also links with the broader Christian mythology article. Much of the stuff that was taken from this article needs to be moved from the other one - not all though, as it still has to refer to the themes of this one. I'm not too happy about the structure either. I think the central arguments should be placed before the listing of parallels. Paul B 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. If the parallels over there in that article are properly cited to reliable sources that've made these analogies, it appears to have much better potential than appeared to be the case at first. ... Kenosis 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the title of Jesus Christ as myth to Mythographic perspectives on Jesus, which was a suggestion made in the RfD. It's not ideal, but it is at least a more precise description. Paul B 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think "Jesus myth hypothesis" (this article) should cover the whole range and history of this particular view. It might include details about the parallels or it might not.
If the parallels are split off to another article, this other article should be termed something like "Paralells between Jesus and mythology".
I opt for retaining the word "hypothesis" in the title as any article is ipso facto on the hypothesis. "Jesus as myth" "Jesus myth" can be made redirects. Str1977 (smile back) 08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
More on this: when I say Jesus we could also put Jesus Christ.
Syncretism is no way to go as it already assumes a certain reason for parallels.
"Comparative mythology and the Gospels" is a completely different topic, a) restricting itself to the Gospels, b) broadening itself to the field of comparative mythology (which is much broader than any Jesus myth discussion can ever be).
I am also not sure whehter "Mythographic perspectives" describes properly what the article is about right now. Str1977 (smile back) 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The main reason for making the change was simply to emphasise that they are different topics. As I said, the new title is not the best solution. It was just calculated to stop this page degenerating into semi-deranged rantings, get the debate back on track, and clarify once again why the new article was made. The very reason for splitting off in the first place was that numerous - sometimes rather absurd - claims were being added to this article about alleged parallels between Jesus and myths from a variety of cultures around the world. Dab and jbolden wanted this article to concentrate on the rational arguments of recent skeptical writers that Jesus was mythical being, not an historical individual. From what I could gather jbolden is a supporter of this hypothesis. Dab supports the more mainstream secular view that Jesus was a real healer/teacher who got crucified, but not a God-Man. So the idea was that a new article on "Jesus parallels" could be created. This would allow us to discuss all the perceived parallels from a variety of perspectives - without sullying the Dohery/Wells views with a lot of idiosyncratic stuff that is either fringy New Age speculation, Christian theology, Jungianism, Hindutva fantasy (Jesus was a Hindu or Buddhist) or whatever. So the idea is that the synchretism goes in the other article, which will explore all the various reasons why writers might see and interpret parallels. These would include "diabolic imitation" (Justin Martyr etc), Archetypes in the human mind (Jung), Mythemes (structuralism applied to myth/folk culture), Christianity existing on other continents (Mormon interpretations of Quetzelcoatl), a Divine Masterplan (C.S. Lewis) etc. These ideas are associated with a variety of positions which emerge at different points in history. For example the Lewis argument is a Christian response to the Frazerian/Jungian theories about universal myths, but it draws on older theological thinking about providential provision for Christianity. This is of course why this article was cut down in size - in order to concentrate clearly on presenting the Wells/Doherty theory as they and their supporters articulate it. At the moment the new article is clumsily construted because it was initially cobbled together and because improvement has been crippled by the disruptive behaviour of editors - leading Dab to leave in disgust and jbolden - seemingly - to retreat in shock because of the abuse he has received. Paul B 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't get into mud slinging Paul but I think some of the most disparaging comments about fellow editors have come from you. Orangemarlin chose to reply to a post I considered too spiteful to bother with, but I will admit to being hurt as your comments were obviously aimed at me and others who have tried to make something out of this article in the face of hideous faith driven onslaughts. I prefer to look forward at the moment and have held of adding anything until we know what is happening. I wish you had done the same. The last thing this article needs is another crap title so any changes should have been proposed here - which is what I tried to do by starting this thread. We will get nowhere if everyone is going to be "bold", make sweeping changes and accuse others of knowing nothing about the subject if they disagree. Sophia 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Jim and Orangemarlin have been abusive from the start. See the comments at the very beginning of the AfD from the former in particular in which he talks of a "poorly written piece of fecal matter". That is not how to write an AfD. What is most dismaying is the amount of effort that one has to make to get straightforward points across. My comment to Orangemarlin followed from losing my patience after numerous messages from him which constituted nothing but sarcasm. Also, it is fairly obvious that I was more or less right about his assumptions, but of course he can't ever admit that. This is just the kind of attitude that creates problems and it needs to be addressed. And no, I didn't have you in mind. Paul B 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What is it about Wikipedia that makes it (1) so damn addictive, and (2) so incredibly emotionally important? I recall how I totally flipped because of a certain editor's POV-pushing (SOPHIA probably knows what I'm talking about), but I mean, it's not like I'm in any sense responsible for the correctness of our article on say the argument from love, and yet I got more upset about that than the fact that my own academic career is going down the drain because I spend time doing WP:NOR when I should spend my time doing Original Research for my thesis. :O --Merzul 21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Deal with real life first Merzul - I've just finished a 6,000 word literature review which is why I have added no real content to these pages. I've got a few more weeks work then I have some time to do as I wish - do the same - get the real stuff done. Sophia 22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for a new name

How about Jesus and comparative mythology? or Jesus Christ and comparative mythology? Sophia 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just change it to one of them, then. Seems like everyone else just changes titles or splits off articles without talking about it.  :-/ •Jim62sch• 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I did consider it ;o) but have decided that like King Canute I can hold back the tide of changes by telling them so. Let's see whether I have more success.... Sophia 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The title I used was suggested by User:Carlossuarez46 on the AfD. It seemed the best (or maybe least worst) of the options that have so far been proposed. I guess the "Jesus and..." formula is OK too. Paul B 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to change this title - Mythographic is such an obscure word. I propose Jesus Christ and comparative mythology for this one and for Jesus-myth hypothesis going back to Jesus as myth which echos what else is out there on the internet and in the books I have read. Even the Christian sites don't call it a hypothesis. Sophia 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
So obscure (or really specialised) that no one is likely to search for it. Both titles look good to me. •Jim62sch• 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the title Jesus Christ in comparative mythology or Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. The use of "Jesus Christ" suits this topic because the mythological issues are closely tied into the word "Christ", for numerous reasons most of which I think are beyond the appropriate scope of this discussion. But among the main ones would be, very roughly stated, the distinction between the "pre-Good-Friday" Jesus and the "post-Easter" Christ as it relates to Christian theology. ... Kenosis 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course no-one will search for "Mythographic perspectives on Jesus", but I think that's rather unimportant in itself. Articles are found by following blue links, categories or by google and other search engines which don't just use titles. Paul B

Sophia, it's so refreshing to see someone actually asking for opinions and consensus prior to just doing whatever they want. Thank you Sophia for not attempting to own this article. I'll tell you what, whatever name you choose, I'll support, because I trust you on these points. I'm nearly having a coronary because someone for once in this article is trying to get consensus. I just hope that other editors learn from your skill set, although Carlos Suarez, Kenosis and Jim of course already understood that point. Thanks Sophia!!!!! Orangemarlin 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best option is Jesus Christ and comparative mythology as it acknowledges the messiah aspects of the topic and by using "and" rather than "in" it is neutral as it does not presuppose that such comparisons exist. I suggest we leave it 5 days from now and if no one protests we change. Sophia 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the statement in the first sentence of two presented by Sophia immediately above is necessarily granted by the participants here. The statement that "[the title 'Jesus Christ and comparative mythology'] does not necessarily presuppose that such comparisons exist" appears to me to assert that the words "Jesus Christ" are not necessarily comparable to mythology. If I may ask, what, insofar as words can tell, is the fear of confusion around here? that the words "mythical Jesus" or "Jesus as myth", or whatever, might be confused with "mystical Christ"? or however one cares to put it? or that those words might be confused with yet something else? or that various persons might co-opt these words for various other purposes?? I mean, this sort of thing is as old as the hills? This is, of course, the year 2007, not 1007 (see, e.g. Anselm of Canterbury). IMO, this article should be called in some way that objectively descibes its content, as dispassionately as possible and as straightforwardly as it possibly can. ... Kenosis 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Mythographic perspectives on Jesus appears to accomplish this, as does Jesus Christ in comparative mythology or Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. Kenosis 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the present title betrays an oblique, and perhaps even unconscious desire to sabotage the topic: we don't like this topic, so let's give it as contorted a name as we can come up with. Jesus Christ as myth is classes better, and perfectly accurate. However, the present name is not wrong, it's just a stylistic accident, and if it buys us peace, I can well live with it. I removed the "unreferenced" tag from the "Biblical account" section though. I do not think this can have been placed in seriousness and good faith. What do people want? Citation of the pertinent bible verse after every sentence? That would have nothing to do with an honest request for sources, and all with making simply making life difficult for others just because you can. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to be perfectly clear that the "Jesus myth article is logically a sub-article to this one, treated here under this section. This article establishes the mythographic facts that are employed by the "Jesus mythers" to build their case. Do not confuse the case with its building blocks. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False comparisons

There seem to be a number of false comparisons, circulating as a kind of urban legends, claiming for example that Dionysus, Horus and Hercules were 'virgin births' and that Dionysus turned water into wine. Is it worth writing a section debunking these, or would that be just feeding the trolls? 199.71.183.2 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What would constitute a "false comparision" between Jesus and any of the figures you mentioned? Comparisons are neither true nor false, they're observations of similarities and dissimilarities.Phyesalis 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but they can be misleading. Zeus's inseminated girlfriends are not normally identified as virgins, because he is portrayed as lusting after them and then having sex with them in various forms. In other words the divine insemination is presented in the myths as a sexual act arising from sexual desire on the part of the god. This is very different from the Christian view. The insemination of Isis is also specifically presented as a sexual act. Paul B 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to forget that the original word that we now interpret as "virgin" just means young fertile woman/girl? It is different from the Christian view, but I don't see how that is relevant. This isn't about the Christian view of Jesus (there are already plenty of pages devoted to that), it is about comparative religion/mythology views and they find such associations significant(the lack of peer-reviewed material to this effect withstanding). This article has an appalling lack of secular peer-reviewed material relating to aretalogy and divine hero scholarship. Way too heavy on apologetics. Phyesalis (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to forget that the original word that we now interpret as "virgin" just means young fertile woman/girl? - Phyesalis
There is an academic theory that it (ie the greek word, rather than the Hebrew of which is was sometimes a translation) meant this several centuries before the New Testament. That has no bearing on the christian belief on the subject. In any case, if one of the parallels between Jesus and Osiris-Dionysius (or anyone) is that both were born of young women, then that really is an absurd argument.
This isn't about the Christian view of Jesus (there are already plenty of pages devoted to that), it is about comparative religion/mythology views and they find such associations significant(the lack of peer-reviewed material to this effect withstanding). This article has an appalling lack of secular peer-reviewed material relating to aretalogy and divine hero scholarship. Way too heavy on apologetics.
This article is about notable opinions on the relationship between . It is entirely irrelevant whether they come from Christians or non-Christians. TJ (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying that apologetics is irrelevant per se, but the fact that apologists/evidentialists don't see it as significant doesn't make it irrelevant. Particularly if other secular scholars see a legitimate connection. Again while comparative scholars' opinions are noteworthy, not all Christian commentary is. This is not a view of Jesus from a Christian perspective (that would be Jesus and Historicity of Jesus). Christian "belief" is not particularly relevant. Only reliable/verifiable and relevant scholarship (that is comparative scholarship) is relevant to this particular subject. Evidentialism should really be left to other pages. Phyesalis (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to be making much sense that I can discern. The point is the meaninglessness of the comparison. To say that the story of Mary can be compared to - say - Danae is as meaningful as saying that her story can be compared to Queen Victoria, since both were virgins before they were made pregnant - by Zeus and Prince Albert respectively. That is not how the story of Mary is presented. The Christian perspective is the story. The "virginity" does not exist outside of the story. Therefore the Christian perspective is exactly what is being discussed. Certainly, if reputable scholars think that there is a meaningful comparison to be made between the Christian story of a virgin birth and pre-Christian myths of divine insemination then it should be discussed here. On the whole they don't. BTW, the Historicity of Jesus article does not discuss "a view of Jesus from a Christian perspective", and the Jesus article only discusses that perspective among others. Paul B (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparatives and the objective psyche

Can we link the comparatives between the mythologies via the objective psyche? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)