Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Jesus myth hypothesis (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 > 13 >>


Contents

[edit] "... in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John ..." - Gnostic, not Christian view?

Anyone know if this true? I think this is a Gnostic view and not, as far as I know, a 'Christian' one. If so I think this whole section needs to be deleted as you can't argue for a 'parallel' where there isn't one. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following: In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast (a religious epithet written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST) - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John[citation needed], who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser.' As it is not a parallel! Mercury543210 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this not a parallel? It looks like a parallel to me. Horus is to Christ, as Anubis is to John the Baptist. --Skylights76 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Horus was anointed in the same way that a king was anointed, by Anubis, who served as an intercessor between the gods and man. There is no evidence that John the Baptist was seen as serving in the same capacity, so the comparison collapses there, I think. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are all the "scholars" priests and reverends?

The people in the "scholarly response" section are almost all reverends, pastors or Christian scholars. Doesn't that make for a conflict of interest in their view that the idea of Jesus being a "myth" is completely "refuted," and that they can't think of any "respectable" scholars who hold the view today?

Aren't there many historians and scholars who're also atheists? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Four sources are cited stating that JMers are a minority in scholarly circles today (1 - Burridge and Gould, 2 - Van voorst, 3 - Grant, 4 - Dogherty). Two of them were written by Christians. The other two were written by non-Christians. One was by Grant - an atheist - and Doherty - a JM proponent, who may or may not be an atheist (I don't know if he is a deist or posesses some other kind of belief in a deity), but is certainly NOT a Christian.
As for suggesting that committed Christians are somehow extra conflicted, anyone who has studied the subject in depth has a level of emotional commitment to it. TJ (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the anon poster... The statement that they make is the type of comment that one uses to silence one's opponents. The fact that there is "a level of emotional commitment" only increases the likelihood that they are speaking emotionally rather than academically. This is also the type of subject where such broad sweeping statements such as this would be found.Balloonman (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

how is Michael Grant a "reverend"? It isn't even necessary to "silence your opponents" when your opponents don't have a case. For some reason, the "scholarly response" section appears to be mostly about proponents claiming that scholarly refutation doesn't convince them (duh, otherwise they'd hardly qualify as "proponents"). As it turns out, there is one (1) academic proponent (Price), if you count the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" as academia. If you do not, we have zero (0) academic proponents: utter WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Evidentialist apologetics requires that the theologian prove Jesus' existence as the entire basis of their religion's legitimacy. Let's be real - that's one of the main reasons there is a distinction between academics and theologians. Theologians start from the assumption/presupposition that Hayzeus existed, academics tend to let the contentious issue slide - this is why a number of academics do not refer to Jesus but "the Jesus event". Burridge and Gould's statement that they don't know of any reputable scholar probably serves to highlight their limited field of theology - not general academic discourse. Phyesalis (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of no distinction between "academics" and "theologians", and would like to see evidence that such a distinction is recognised within academia.
Even if there is one, Burridge (at least - I don't know about Gould) certainly comes down on the "academic" side. People without expertise in the subject can easily overemphasise the overlap between historical-critical NT scholarship and theology - aside from that they're both taught at undergraduate level, there is a significant (though not absolutely all-encompassing) distinction. Burridge is a NT scholar, rather than a theologian. His first job in academia was actually as a classicist or ancient historian (I can't remember which), and was nothing to do with religion at all!
I have to say, I've yet to read someone refer to "the Jesus event", and would like to see some evidence that a) academics use that turn of phrase, and b) that they do it because they don't want to comment on historicity. I'm familiar with the term "the Christ event", but my understanding of it is not that it arises out of a desire to state Jesus did not exist, so much as a desire to not commit on how specific aspects of primitive Christian belief arose (e.g. how they came to have faith in Jesus in a specific way). I am very happy, though, to be proven wrong, if you have any recommended reading.
Lastly, even if many academics are indifferent about historicity, unless that indifference can be significantly cited, it should not be represented in this or any article - WP:Undue and WP:NOR still apply.TJ (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Also because, with the mindset of academic society, trying to argue academically that the miracles actually happened would get you laughed out of your career. However, I will also say that theologians wouldn't be very likely to try to be dishonest in their arguments - if they knew they had to be dishonest to make their case, they wouldn't believe, would they?
"Limited field of theology" - do you know of any reputable scholars who support the hypothesis? Even according to the article, only two real scholars defend it, and from what I've seen, not well - Doherty, for example, has at least once claimed that Paul believed in some kind of subheaven where he thought Jesus happened because the culture did, and then when presented with the evidence that the culture did not, he put forth that just Paul did. While he may be a good scholar in other subjects, in this one he is grasping.
But I'll shut up now, sorry for rambling.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was poorly phrased. I meant "limited to their field of theology". It's not a question of honesty - but of presupposition. They assume that Jesus existed and search (through that lens) for proof. They assume that the Gospels are legitimate sources which contain legitimate info. This doesn't make them dishonest. It's all logically consistent with their beliefs, it just doesn't make for good objective inquiry (outside of Christian theology). Phyesalis (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That may or may not be the case. I have to say I disagree from my knowledge base - but then I'm sure you'd claim that I'm a christian and therefore biased. I could equally claim that you have some bias against Christianity, which seems more plausible to me, as I know the content of my heart, but not of yours - but I don't want to pretend to know other people's hearts. I find it virtually impossible to believe that someone who cares about any subject enough to be regularly editing an article has no element of emotional commitment to the subject - but I can't claim to know how that person works with that emotional commitment.
However, unless I'm reading you wrong, you're attacking the methods, rather than the conclusions. That's largely irrelevant when it comes to a wikipedia article, as I'm sure you realise. Am I misreading you?
Incidentally, Jesus Myth proponent Doherty himself agrees that the JM is rejected and held in contempt by scholars. He, along with Michael Grant (who I have confirmed through OR was an atheist), can hardly be held to be biased towards Jesus' existence. TJ (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BruceGrubb's edit

Bruce added, more than once, a paragraph sourced to http://jdstone.org/, defending it on the basis that it's a ".org site". No. It abjectly fails WP:RS. It could be .va and still be worthless as a source, the site has no identifiable authority, it's a polemical anti-Christian site and if we can't source that content from a much better authority then we're not going o include it period. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And Guy KEEPS GakuseiDon's Pro-Jesus stuff despite it being self-published MyZoo web site. Guy just destroyed his credibility.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, in that case remove GakuseiDon's Pro-Jesus stuff then - anything on those kinds of sites (whether this self-published pro-Jesus site, or jdstone.org, or infidels.org.) Just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
And please don't make rude and unnecessary comments about other users. TJ (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As per this discussion I have removed the sentence about Hayyim ben Yehoshua's article. This is not a credible source WP:SPS. Mercury543210 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you guys just don't get it. Refuting Missionaries (Better known by the title of its first chapter "Myth of the Historical Jesus" is used by dozens of sites and at least one book (The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold pg 33-34) that claim that the Jesus of the Bible was a myth. Pulling your hat over your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going 'la la la' is not going to make Refuting Missionaries/"Myth of the Historical Jesus" go away. The fact of the matter is that a quick google search showed it to be used by DOZENS of Jesus Myth sites so back in it goes with the caveat that it reliability is questionable. As for rude and unnecessary comments Guy started it by using my name rather the article title so take it up with him.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That it is used in that book may make it mentionable in the article - it is pretty useless as an actual source, though. And that many sites use it, while sad, is not a reason to put it in - these sites are well known for parroting outdated and disproven theories. The discussion over whether the Rabbi is right is not the discussion (though the academic field seems to disbelieve him anyway) - it's whether he is a reliable, verifiable source. And he's not at all. Though mentioning that he's been used as a source by the book, if the book itself is notable enough to mention, is perfectly fine in my opinion.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have seen the "these sites are well known for parroting outdated and disproven theories" claim by Jesus Myth books and sites so that is hardly a good reason (the Creationist/Evolution debate is full of that kind of nonsense on both sites) for rejection of a site especially as there are no citations as to who makes such claims. Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit call these 'Weasel words' and they should put up a red flag faster than a 30 car pile up at the Indianapolis 500. Sadly the pro-Jesus side has some real vocal people who have no sense of logic and whose antics effectively poison the well so to speak. The comment by jcr4runner (the promoter of The Forerunner website) in the "Is Josephus' account of Jesus a forgery?" Youtube video is a case in point: "So if was born in Washington D.C. seven years after Eisenhower died and I collected information about him from some of the people who saw him alive, my account would not be accurate?" Good heavens (bad pun I know), unlike Jesus there are mountains of contemporaneous evidence for Eisenhower: the records at West Point, Army records, official and private correspondence about him by both allies and enemies, and let's not forget all the personal papers he left behind. This is all ignoring the coin minted in his honor less then two years after his death. NONE of that exists for Jesus. When the the Pro-Jesus group goes down Non sequitur roads like this they basicly shoot themselves in the foot--with a Thompson machine gun.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
For heaven's sake - we prefer academic evidence, not personal websites and Youtube. Thatgoes for all "sides". A source is reliable because it is written by someine with appropriate qualiifications and expertise. That's all. There are millions of websites out there written by people who haven't a clue. Also, try to learn the meaning of non sequitur. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Was the book cited in any substantial way in "The Christ Conspiracy"? Even if it was, I don't see how it would merit inclusion in this article. On the other hand, an article about Refuting Missionaries might include mention of how it was used in "The Christ Conspiracy". ^^James^^ (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well to be fair the academic evidence on both sides is a mess. Most of it boils down to statements in popular books rather than peer reviewed journals resulting in a he said-she said situation. A related problem is the kind of excluded middle that seems to exist in the debate boiling down to either the Jesus of the Bible existed or he didn't. The problem with that is Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood who in part can linked to a historical people (Riothamus and Sire Johannes d'Eyvile respectively) but so much has been added in that the King Arthur or Robin Hood we know are composite characters with very little (if anything) left of the original historical people. While Refuting Missionaries/The Myth Of The Historical Jesus is not the best example of such a middle area it is by far the most commonly referred and trying to ignore that it is out there is insane and inane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The mainstream academic position, insofar as there is one, is that Jesus existed in some form or another - but most NT scholars would hold that there are significant differences between the traditional and/or biblical account, and what really happened. (That's not my position, by the way, I'm much more conservative than that). The thing is, this article isn't about the mainstream opinion. It's about a much smaller opinion, which (if you read the mainstream scholarly response section, or the relevant the links quoted in it) acknowledges that scholarship has basically ignored them. Doherty, for example, states that almost all the worthwhile literature on the subject is on the internet rather than in academic books. So there's not likely to be masses of academic quality literature on either side in the near future, to be honest... unless we start citing things that don't mention this theory (which we do a lot actually, e.g. citing mainstream scholars when they're not responding to the JM theory.)
By the way, sorry to you all for not responding to comments on this page with any more regularity than I do. I keep missing things and not keeping in touch. Sadly, I don't have enough hours in my day to do everything.TJ (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So let's remove everything that's not JM-specific, stick to quality literature, and end up with a short, incisive article. What's wrong with that? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No it's not inane, it's wikipedia policy. I've just glanced at part 2 of this masterpiece, which says that Saint Peter "is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion". Now what Egyptian god was that? Can you find a scholarly source that there was any such Egyptian god? And why would an Egyptian god have a Latin name? As for middle areas - most scholars who are not out and out Fundies do in fact adopt a middle area, and are generally rather evasive when addressing the miracles, preferring to put them in the context of prophetic and apocalypic narrativeS rather than makes statements about whether or not they actually occurred. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is inane because by this kind of brain dead logic you cannot say the Nazis used the Protocols of Zion because the Protocols of Zion was a fiction. As for Petra being Latin that is total nonsense as a quick look at Ancient Egypt: the Light of the World by Gerald Massey pg 860 will show "The word Petra or Petar is Egyptian;..." and right in the very next sentence it clearly states he is Egyptian god.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Brain dead? Really? Perhaps Frankenstein can help you. You really haven't a clue have you? Massey was a Victorian spiritualist, Druid and eccentic whose ideas have absolutely no value today, except that he's just the kind of obsolete and unreliable source used by the likes of Achayra S and regurgitated in your favourite article. He's part of the typical "myth" models of the time influenced by Muller's Sun Myth theory and other comparable ideas, of the kind that fed fin-de-siecle esotericism. Petra is Latin for "rock", taken from Greek. Hence the name of the rock-carved city in Jordan. Paul B (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
More brain dead arguments using the old ad Ad hominem ploy. Considering John Glover Jackson refers to the Egyptian god Patra on pg 144 of Man, God, and Civilizationand the word also appears in Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary as Pet-ra, Petra, Petra-Ba, and Petra-sen (a river) showing without a doubt the word also appears in ancient Egyptian. Then you have Epiphanius Wilson translating Papyrus of nu (British Musuem 10,447 sheet 7) ...'unfastened for me by god Petra and Ernest Alfred Wallis' Hieroglyphic Vocabulary to the Book of the Dead which on page 154 not only says Petra is "the name of a god" but provides the hieroglyphics that represent the name; there is more evidence from 1912 to the present day that Perta is indeed the name of of an Egyptian god. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There may well be an Egyptian god named Petra. However, petra and petros are common Greek nouns, both mean "stone". There's no reason to go grasping for an Egyptian derivation when there's a perfectly good Greek one staring you in the face. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no god called Petra who was "door keeper of heaven". This is pure fantasy designed to connect a word to role of Peter in traditionial Christian imagery. As I understand, 'Pet' is Ancient Egyptian for "offspring". "Pet ra" therefore means "Ra's child", which, I believe, was used as a honorific. Of course this has no etymological connection to the Greek/Latin Petra/Petrus. Our friend is quoting from Massey, Wallis-Budge and other turn-of-the-century writers whose ideas fed the Jesus Myth theory. Other authors include Jesus-myther and proto-Afrocentrist John Glover Jackson, who all have an agenda to promote this fantasy. It might be interesting to include as part of the history of claims that the Jesus story derives from Egyptian myth, which is the central thrust of Massey's book, and therefore the origin of all those Isis+Horus = Mary+Jesus arguments. But, this is all part of the history of myth-theory. Nothing more. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yet more Ad hominem attacks with not one shred of proof. Who says Petra never existed? A scholar in a peer reviewed journal or some guy with a milled diploma in a popular book? It makes all the difference in the world.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to include this or any other self-published website. Our goal should be to use as much academic literature as possible (difficult for a fringe subject, I know). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when dealing with fringe positions, all sorts of sources are allowed, particularly those that explain the theory itself. The question is - is the belief that J didn't exist a fringe theory? Phyesalis (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
that's not true. "Fringe" is not a binary yes-or-no status. WP:UNDUE says sources will be given screen time in proportion to the prominence of each. That is, the more reliable/academic/serious our most prominent sources, the less the chance of inferior sources to be even mentioned. dab (𒁳) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
""these sites are well known for parroting outdated and disproven theories" " - except that there's a source that in one of the see also's, here. And it's, quite frankly, true - nearly all of these anti-Christian sites have no sources or are grounded in outdated (Acharya S and the 19th century "authorities" she relies on) and disproven (hell, go to [tektonics.org] - it refutes many of these claims, using sources and interpreting them through the context of the culture they were made in, rather then expecting people from thousands of years ago to have the same idioms and style we do) fringe theories. This isn't a critique that is thrown around by unthinking fundies - it's a critique made by the academic scholarship on the matter. I'm not going to fault them academically for not believing in the miracles, but what backing they do have for the "Jesus Myth" is almost completely, well, imaginary.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
this has very little to do with "anti-Christian" ideology. If you are "anti-Christian", you have much more sensible avenues open to you than adhering to crackpot fringe theories. After all, you can be "anti-Islamic" and still accept that Muhammad lived 570-632 CE, or you can be "anti-Scientology" and still accept Hubbard lived 1911-1986. The allegation of an anti-Christian agenda is flawed, because it implies that rejection of the JMH corresponds to a pro-Christian agenda. Which is simply silly, as nobody accepting the historicity of Jesus is under any obligation to accept the gospel as anything other than a random propaganda piece. dab (𒁳) 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Good point about being "anti-christian" dab. But, your point about prominence is abut weight - how much of the sources, not which ones are legitimate. I'd also like to point out the absurdity of refuting one web source with another, particularly when the refuting website is tektonics.org - a self-proclaimed apologetics ministry website - good god - this is reliable source? --Phyesalis (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think tektonics.org was presented as a WP:RS - rather, I think it was presented (by KrytenKoro, not dab, incidentally - I wasn't clear from your reply whether you'd noticed that)
Dab, I don't think I actually agree with you re: "anti-Christian". I'm not going to claim that all JMers are anti-Christian - I tend to think that you have to be cautious about thinking you can see into other peoples souls and motives through the internet/on the basis of a small amount you've read by/about them. Certainly, it's almost always the case that when people try to do that to me, they are wrong (unless they've reached into parts of my subconscious so deep that I haven't got any idea about!)
However, having said I'm not saying anyone in particular is motivated by that, I don't think it's beyond reason that some people with an anti-Christian agenda would hatch onto the JM, biased by a desire to promote that agenda. I do agree, though, that not all people with an anti-Christian agenda would, or do. TJ (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"this has very little to do with "anti-Christian" ideology." - while I'm sure there are plenty of sites supporting the JM hypothesis that are not anti-christian, I was specifically talking about those that were - sites like infidels.org, AmericanAtheists, etc., that were earlier being used as sources for this theory, do not interpret almost any of the evidence from a non-chauvinistic view, and use amateurish, non-sourced interpretation to come to their various conclusions that "1) Christians are idiots" or "2) God must be evil, if he exists". They also very clearly state that they are anti-Christian.
I linked tektonics.org because it has links to articles written by students and scholars of the period (I'm not going to claim it's a fully professional source, but it has copies and links to plenty reliable sources) that refute many of the false claims commonly being parroted on the attack sites. That's all - it was meant to be an example of how they had been refuted.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I found tektonics.org's articles full of straw men and non sequitors. For example you get this piece of nonsense: "Needless to say, if a work of Tacitus tells us that Nero opened a refrigerator, took out a burrito, and stuck it in the microwave oven, we have some cause to doubt a second-century author like Tacitus was responsible for that material!" Then they say "he would get governmental terms right" but here is the kicker he doesn't gets the governmental term right in regards to Pontius Pilot--he called him procurator a rather than his correct title of prefect as documented by the famous Pilate Stone/Inscription. Not only do we get an insane straw man on par with jcr4runner's Eisenhower example but they manage to total mess up with their cherry picking. Again when the Pro-Jesus people put insane illogical non sequitor straw men like this they basicly shot their credibility to the four winds--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that old chestnut. The positions of procurator and prefect were commonly combined. So Pilate was probably both. Paul B (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Here we see the cherry picking. Let's ignore the straw man elephant in the room (refrigerator, burrito, and microwave open nonsesence) and beat up on the mouse in the corner.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no elephant. The use of the word Procurator is not remotely comparable to a 'refrigerator' or other anachronism. It was the title used in Tacitus' day. We go with what most scholars say, and almost all of them say these passages are authentic. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are talking about two different things. The anachronist nonsence is the elephant while the procurator/prefect situation is on par about talking about Vice-President John Adams and the Naturalization Act. Yes, John Adams was a Vice-President and there was a Naturalization Act but the problem is that Naturalization Act was when John Adams was president not vice-president. The efforts to make Matthew and Luke agree are full of this kind of nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
BruceGrubb, have you actually looked at the page WP:RS everyone keeps pointing you to? You should. It says you are not to argue biblical exegesis with us. You are to present academic literature where the point you are trying to get mentioned is being made. Comparing the consistency of the gospel with the consistency of records of 19th century US history is nonsense. If you are going to evaluate the consistency of the gospels, you are to compare them to other 1st century sources. And, you are not to do it on Wikipedia talkpages, you are to do it in some academic journal which we will then be able to refer to in turn. Ok? dab (𒁳) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And yet the self-published Pro-Historical Jesus GakuseiDon stuff is kept in edit after edit after edit. There is a word for that that: hypocrisy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the GakuseiDon references, as I suggested you do so when you raised the point earlier. Calling other users hypocrites is personal abuse and contrary to wikipedia policy. Please decist.
There are many reasons why editors. Chiefly, there are lots of things that are wrong with this article, and editors cannot edit all of them at once. If you cared, you should have removed it yourself, rather than attacking other editors for not doing so. In any case, two wrongs do not make a right, and lacking this is no excuse for flagrantly ignoring wikipedia policy by insisting other policy violations go in - and constantly insulting and abusing any editor who disagrees with you. TJ (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not insulting and abusing to call editors on their biased removal of material. Also unlike GakuseiDon Refuting Missionaries IS used in at least one book never mind that is all over the web including several .org sites. Furthermore, the article itself already stated "that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than a composite of more than one person or a completely made-up myth" with no less than three references at the end of the sentance. Yet, the Grant, Burridge, and Van Voorst references quoted only seem to cover the completely made-up myth part. So why was the composite of more than one person there to begin with? It certainly is the middle ground between the Jesus the total made up person and the Biblical Jesus as a historical character but I cannot see how anyone could disprove a composite of more than one person theory. SO why claim that such a position is discounted by the historical evidence?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you actually read the Gakuseidon site, Bruce? I don't like being rude, but you are being a quite literal blowhard. Not only is the Gakuseidon actually sourced and written non-"sermonly", but it is not pro-historical. Who's the one engaging in ad-hominem attacks here? You. The Gakuseidon site says, over and over, that research into the Jesus Myth theory "is a valid line of study and [he] supports the endeavor". The site is not anti-myth, it is anti-Flemming, pointing out the many mistakes that Flemming made. I know we're to assume good faith, but I can't at this point, because it's quite clear that you didn't read the site. In fact, with the amount of ridiculous self-congratulating claptrap you keep spewing, I might venture that you've never read anything that didn't immediately stroke your ego. So hopefully you won't finish reading this comment and I won't get in trouble for being rude.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Gakuseidon page is a self-published joke. The Early Christianity, Roman Gods, Bad History, and Liberal Christianity links simply say "in progress" and the What's New link barfs a 404 error. As for references Joseph Wheless has references out the wazoo though out his Forgery In Christianity book but that doesn't mean that every thing he talks about is accurate. Also Earl Doherty went into two very long articles about the way Gakuseidon critiqued his work. Never mind that when you do check Gakuseidon's work as he suggest it can be shown that his research was lacking. For instance he says "With that in mind, let's go through that list again, and I will add the names of saviour gods that Flemming later lists that match the criteria." and yet for this list all he can find for Descended into Hell is Dionysusis despite the fact that Balder is clearly listed and Orpheus less so (this list actually is played while the parallels list scroll down and the background changes making it harder to read some names without hitting the pause button a lot). A quick trip to Edith Hamilton's Mythology can show these figures descending into domain of Hel/Tartarus respectively. Richard Carrier on http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-165230.html give a much broader overview of the points in FLeming's movie both good and bad without trying to take on two lists whose relationship to each other is tentative at best. Sadly it is a blog and therefore useless as a reference in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Balder did not "go down into Hell" in any sense that can be equated to Jesus - he was killed on accident, without any intent to rescue, and more importantly, did not come back. Furthermore, he was not a savior god. Merely dying in a legend does not make one at all equatable to the Jesus story, and you're being quite the fool if you truly believe it to be a valid comparison. Orpheus, also, is in no sense a savior-god, beyond that he played the harp to overcome the Psirens - he not only utterly failed his mission into the underworld, but was completely un-divine.
The progress of the entire site is completely irrelevant, even if that part of the site were important to this article. The actual critique, which is the only thing I put in as a reference, provides sources for its assertions. If that's not enough, then fine, I'll make no tantrum about keeping the source in there - but it is ridiculous to the extreme for you to continue to claim that it's a simple "anti-myth site" with the quality of the sad refs you added.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, Balder's death was no accident as is made clear even in the Cliff Notes version. Finding out that the gods had overlooked the mistletoe Loki gives one to a blind god whose throw (guided by Loki) kills Balder. Because he did not die in battle he goes to Hel's domain and the gods ask her how he can be brought back. Hel replies that she will release him provided that everyone and everything living and dead weeps for him. Loki disguised as a giantess refuses and so Hel keeps him. The story has a prophecy that after the gods and giants have destroyed each other in their final battle Balder will be reborn. As for Orpheus being "completely un-divine" there are versions where he is the son of Apollo (making him a demi-god) and his head and lyre acquired magical properties after death throwing that idea out the window. As for "utterly failing" that is true in most Greek/Roman myths--few of the heroes go off to live happily ever after. Heracles chooses to be burned alive rather than suffer the agonies of hydra poison, Jason betrays his wife who in revenge kills their two children and ends his days as a literal deity forsaken wretch, Bellerophon tries to use Pegasus to visit the gods on Olympus and gets blasted by Zeus and spends the rest of his days as a crippled literal deity forsaken wretch, Theseus thought kidnapping Helen wife of a Zeus was a good idea and got trapped in Hades' domain for a while and later he was tricked into killing his own son through a lie, and well you get the idea. The descending into the underworld and coming back out theme shows up with Persephone and Heracles as well so it is not a concept restricted to 'savior' deities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're oblivious, you know that? It was accidental on Baldr's part, which is the part that matters - he did not mean to go down into Niflheim in any way, and it was not on purpose. While Loki set things up to kill him, he didn't directly killed him, and Baldr didn't save anyone by dying. And Orpheus being semi-divine - even if he was semi-divine, he was not a god, and his one act of saving anyone was very detached from his trip to Hades, which, again, he utterly failed. Don't try to quote the mythology to me, you're the one trying to cherry-pick details and twist the meaning. Baldr was hardly a savior god, and any context in which he was one is completely divorced from his death. The same goes for Orpheus, which was the point being made on gakuseidon's page. Have you actually read it and thought about it? For crying out loud, I disagree with a lot of the things on it too, but I don't try to twist the very explicit and plain words to stroke my ego.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has drifted very far from improving the article, and I suggest that it stop, or get back on track. Hopefully something that we can all agree on is that we shouldn't use any self-published websites as sources for the article. Let's try to stick to academic literature, ok? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. We should probably archive this section to get it off the visible page, since by now it's just a long waste of space.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahystorical composite

"It proposes that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels mythologically parallels the mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities, and that this would indicate that the figure of Jesus is an ahistorical construct of various forms of ancient mythology."

There's one major problem with this, I think - that the ancients (and modern scholars) believed that myths, even about deities such as the Norse gods or Hercules, were built up around quite historical people. Hell, the Norse Eddas outright say it (at least, the version I have), and put it in the context of foreign kings overly bragging about what they've done.

Justin Martyr used part of this thought when he compared Jesus to "what you believe about Jupiter and Hercules" - that it was a real person, and went on to clarify that the demons had imitated prophecies about Jesus in the creation of these legends or supermen.

I'll look for sources (the gakuseidon website mentioned it, but I don't know if it cited sources for that bit), but this is generally a book kind of thing (the internet is very unreliable for this kind of thing), and you guys seem to have much better access to book sources than I do. If any of you could get sources for or against this, that would be extremely helpful.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What you're talking about is euhemerism. Please note that his ideas were not universally accepted and do not represent mainstream approaches or ideas at the time. Phyesalis (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
That's why I'm looking for sources. Thank you for the link, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)