Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

What a turning off article

I have nothing precise to complain of about this article, no POV issue or anything like that, I just wanted to comment that this article (i'm a mythist) gives me the feeling to agree with a extremely small minority of heretics who believe in something based on nothing. Of course, I want the article to be as NPOV as possible, but it'd be better if the anti-mythicism taste of this article could get lost, I mean I'd like to have an article that shows better the points that mythicism makes (idk however how this could be done precisely) --SuperBleda 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and this relates to the unnecessary rebuttal topic above. The point of this article should be to present the Jesus-Myth side with maybe a small section on criticism. It seems to me the proper place for a more balanced view should be the Historicity_of_Jesus article. How many articles on a particular position spends almost equal time refuting it?--Andrew c 02:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the impression this article generates so much controversy because the Jesus-Myth, if true, would pull the rug from under christianity, and that must be a very scary thought for many. Belvdme 13:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good thing its not true eh? :D Homestarmy 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of our own POVs, we should still be fair. WP:VERIFY states that we seek verifiabilty, not truth; in other words, reflect what the proponents of the Jesus-Myth are actually saying. While I agree with Homestarmy on truth, I also agree with Andrew c on the point of this article. It helps to understand what people are actually saying, and to avoid straw-man arguments. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 15:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Umm, well it does need a decent sized criticism section. Any non-mainstream theory gets that, just take a look at Creation Science. Each arguement doesn't need to be refuted but a section at the bottom is needed to talk about general criticisms and issues with the arguement. Falphin 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
My suggestions...
1. Explain that only a small minority of historians adhere to the doctrine in the opening paragraph. It should be made clear at the very get go that this is not mainstream.
2. Summarize and get to the point. The arguments aren’t very clear right now. This is partly due to over criticizing. Try explaining the argument such as "Some advocates of the Jesus-myth theory, argue that NT stories can be traced to Med. mythologies. " Also, I would suggest having a big section called "Pagan influences on the NT" where the conclusion of the argument should be made at the beginning, and the rest used as support in sub-sections only if necessary.
3. Don't over criticize, but if rebuttal arguments are made then create a section below the parent section. This will make it much more clearer, because the argument needs to be constructed properly first, and then the rebuttal arguement. Right now, it seems that every single sentence has to be rebuttled. Thats all I have for now. Falphin 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

As stated previously I think we need some outside perspectives so I've listed and RfC. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we get this darn page unprotected. It's been stuck for a fortnight with serious historical inaccuracies and absurd arguments. Paul B 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Why oh Why is this page still locked? Are we waiting for SOPHIA's RfC, or has no one yet requested that the page be unlocked? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The RfC won't lock the page - in fact having it locked is makes the RfC pretty pointless as noone can add new stuff - maybe we just have to ask an nice admin to unlock - can it be one we know or must they be uninvolved? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It has to be someone uninvolved. An involved admin should only do semi-protection and unprotection, as they are for cases of vandalism rather than content dispute. You can make a request at WP:RFPP. AnnH ♫ 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ann - I've logged a request. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page per the request on WP:RFPP and the apparent consensus for unprotection here. Please let me know if the problems that necessitated protection occur again. --GraemeL (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the RfC request at WP:RFC/REL. Is this it, or is there a more detailed page? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see this post sorry. Yes that's the RfC - unlike a user RfC which is pretty convolved an article RfC just seems to be a flag to draw outside parties in to add their knowledge/thoughts. If we go to mediation then that also is pretty drawn out but I don't think we're at that stage (yet!). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 08:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

minority status

The RfC reads, There are disputes on how minority issues dealing with the non existence of Jesus as a real historical figure should be represented and the levels of competence required to be classed a scholar.

Regarding the minority position of the Jesus-Myth among scholars, I found its minority status acknowledged at http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html, along with an elaborate hypothesis for why it's still a minority. "For more than 200 years a minority of courageous scholars have dared to question the story of Jesus. Despite the risks of physical assault, professional ruin and social opprobrium, they have seriously doubted the veracity of the gospel saga, have peeled away the layers of fraud and deceit and eventually have challenged the very existence of the godman." The list that follows includes a number of pamphleteers, poets, and former priests and monks among its scholars. (Surely if being a former priest or monk qualifies one as a scholar, being a current priest or monk would similarly qualify one?) But my real point is that even a vocal proponent of the idea admits that it is not broadly accepted in academia, though it believes this to be because of "the risks of physical assault, professional ruin and social opprobrium." Wesley 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Maccoby & Spong

From the opening paragraph:

The theory, based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not currently found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians, though in more recent times, few scholars have supported it, such as Hyam Maccoby and John Shelby Spong.

While both Maccoby and Spong certainly have non-traditional opinions regarding Jesus which place them at odds with most scholars, has either one actually supported the "Jesus myth" hypothesis? If they have, can we have a citation? KHM03 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Maccoby, but Spong certainly believes that Jesus was a real historical individual. Like many liberal theologians he dismisses the Virgin Birth, Ressurrection and other miracles - or rather he reinterprets them as mythic, midrashic, symbolic etc. In this sense he is a Christ-myther in Drews's original meaning of the term - that is he believes that the "magic" aspects of the gospels are symbolic stories with a spritual meaning, rather than literal events, and should be accepted as such without invalidating them. But he does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Paul B 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right...so how is he supportive of the "Jesus myth" hypothesis? KHM03 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the claim; anyone can feel free to restore it if we find a citation. KHM03 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus re-inserted it, telling you that you were "out of order" in not tagging it with {{fact}} and giving people time to find a citation. Since you have made a good case for there to be at least doubt about Maccoby and Spong supporting the theory, it seems perfectly reasonable that you made the query here, waited for a response, and then removed the claim, saying that anyone can feel free to restore it if we find a citation. I have therefore removed it again. AnnH ♫ 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Years, ago I read a book by Maccoby in which he portrayed Jesus as a Jewish charismatic-apocalyptic Messiah hoping for divine intervention on the Mount of Olives. That hardly sounds "Jesus-myth"-ish to me. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 waited 22 minutes between making the request and making the removal. This is too hasty. Give people a couple of days to do their research, instead of just deleting their text. Therefore, I am reverting your removal. Alienus 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
14:02 (UTC)[1] to 18:31 (UTC)[2] comes to four hours and 29 minutes by my calculation. There was also a response before he removed it, agreeing with him about Spong.[3] And now there has been another response that seems to agree with him about Maccoby?[4] But it would still be contrary to WP:AGF to take down temporarily a non-essential part of a sentence which two editors question, which two editors think (based on their knoweledge) to be inaccurate, and which nobody has supported? AnnH ♫ 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hastiness aside, Str1977's description sounds more like the Apocalyptic Prophet model a la Albert Schweitzer than the Jesus-Myth model. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I vote give Alienus some time, or whoever "people" is, to find a citation, and tag with {{fact}} in the meantime. At least then it's clear that the sentence seems to have no factual support behind it, rather than simply removing it so people don't realize there are content disputes. Homestarmy 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly content if, after due consideration, we concluded that these two people are not Jesus myth supporters and therefore remove their names. My only concern is that we give such ideas due consideration instead of rejecting them out of hand. In matters as controversial as this, we have to work extra hard to make the editing process fair and equitable. Alienus 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What's with this ridiculous procedurism? As of now, there is no support for the notion that these two writers support the "Jesus myth" idea. Anyone is free to edit wikipedia, and there's no rule that any possible change has to be discussed ad infinitum on the talk page before it can be done. If somebody finds some information to support the idea that these writers should be included, we can obviously then revisit the issue. But as of now, there is no dissent from the idea that they were inaccurately included. There's no reason not to change it immediately in such an instance. john k 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If in fact there is no evidence, then the sentence will be cut in a day or two. However, by leaving it there for a little longer, with the {{fact}} tag, we give people a chance to dig up that evidence. That's the reason we shouldn't remove it immediatelty. Thank you for understanding. Alienus 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor familiar with Spong says the statement is inaccurate about Spong. Another editor familiar with Maccoby says the statement is inaccurate about Maccoby. It does no harm to the article to remove that statement while the probability is that it's inaccurate. And by putting it on the talk page with the promise that it can be replaced if the evidence is found, we are being perfectly fair and giving people a chance to find that evidence. I can't see any reason for insisting that something that's probably inaccurate should stay in the article for a few days, being removed only when people have failed to find evidence. The {{fact}} tag, in my view, is for something that is probably accurate, but that needs a citation. It's not meant to be used as an excuse for leaving a probably-inaccurate claim in an article. Alienus, consider this, if I inserted a claim into the abortion article that women who have had abortions commit suicide at double the rate of other women, and other editors felt that was untrue, and two of them said on the talk page that they had read things that would contradict that claim, and nobody on the talk page had come up with any references that would support it, would you insist that it was "out of line" to remove it, and that WP:AGF required that we should just put a {{fact}} tag on it and then leave it for a few days in order to give me time to dig up sources? There is absolutely no rule that says that dubious claims have to be tagged and left in place for a few days rather than moved to the talk page for discussion. And, in my view, trying to force such a non-existent rule on other editors is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 07:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's citation policy says that any portion that is uncited may be removed at any time. Not that it has to be removed, but it may. Of course if everything not directly cited were removed from wikipedia, it would be much much smaller. But there is no mandatory waiting period. Many times a day or two waiting period may be a good idea, but there's also nothing wrong with editing boldly when something looks particularly questionable, as in this case. Wesley 16:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Polycarp quotes

I removed this from the article, from the beginning of a paragraph:

The belief that Jesus was not real was so wide spread among early Christians that Polycarp (c 69-155 A.D.), Bishop of Smyrna, lamented that it was the belief of "the great majority" of Christians. As a result, counter arguments sprung up. For example, ...

This appears to be at best a twisting of what Polycarp actually said, and at worst a fabrication. The closest quote I found from Polycarp's letter to the Philippians reads, "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; " and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation ," as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."

In context, Polycarp includes in the "vanity of many" together the beliefs that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, those who do not confess the "testimony of the cross," and those who deny the resurrection and coming judgment. Depending on the interpretation, the first item could include those who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah in the flesh; the next two categories could include people who thought Jesus was just this guy, but didn't value his death on the cross or who didn't believe he rose from the dead. Even taking them together, those who believe these things are hardly called a "majority of Christians."

Earlier Polycarp writes, "Wherefore, girding up your loins," "serve the Lord in fear" and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and "believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory," and a throne at His right hand. I hope it's clear that the "multitude" isn't necessarily a multitude of Christians, and that what is at issue here is Jesus' resurrection and glory, not his existence.

I trust this justifies removing what I did. Wesley 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, any statement about whether or not Jesus "came in the flesh" from early church fathers is almost certainly referring to docetism, not to Jesus' historical existence. john k 19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So how should the rest of the statements in the "Background" section be handled? Wesley 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we note that advocates of the Jesus myth have used a number of quotes by early Church Fathers that are normally taken to be statements against Docetism as statements defending the existence of a historical Jesus, and substantially shorten it. john k 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No Criticism Allowed

I thought this [link removed] might be of interest to some of you on this page: Just Thought Id Mention It 11:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(external link edited, as it made this page uneditable) -- Eugene van der Pijll 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the double blue page, although I wasn't aware of this discussion forum. Thank you for mentioning it. For the record, User:KHM03 retired from Wikipedia because the personal information revealed about him led to harrassment of his family and colleagues. After the incident was reported, the site removed the personal information, but the harm was already done. This is a matter not of censorship, but of privacy and security. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think doubleblue included any information that the editors hadn't included on their own userpages. I think some are protesting too much. 86.137.36.128 12:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore. They did when the incident was reported. KHM03 did not include a photo or his name on his user page, but doubleblue did until the incident was reported. I don't think it's protesting too much to object to cyberstalking. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

See also meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Wikipedia Review. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The heart of the debate...

is, in fact, not as old as Christianity itself. Docetists did not believe that Jesus was not a historical figure. They believed that Jesus was not human, that his body was an illusion. But it was an illusion seen by specific actual people in an actual time and place - 1st century Judea. It is highly misleading to pretend that docetism was an early version of the Jesus myth. john k 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But that is what the proponents of the Jesus-Myth do which is why it should be mentioned here. This article is not titled Why the Jesus-Myth is wrong or wasn't when I last looked. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Cite sources. It's worked so well in other places. Please, let's not get into another dispute over who is and is not a scholar ;) Proponents should definitely be mentioned here, but see above: "a section at the bottom is needed to talk about general criticisms and issues with the arguement (sic)" --Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I've never had a problem with calling them authors/minority/etc but the way John K writes above he's arguing with what they are saying not reporting what they say and then putting it in context. A counter response is of course called for to balance the article but I'm just highlighting how it should be done. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 12:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As the Jesus Myth is untrue shouldn't we simply state that in the intro and be done with it? Why bother wasting time with these atheist types? RobSteadman 13:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Note: This user was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Robsteadman. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I was only referring to the material in the first paragraph: the heart of the debate is as old as Christianity itself; even some early Christians who subscribed to a docetic Christology rejected the notion of a corporeal Jesus, though they still accepted his divinity. This is stating, as fact, that the debate goes back to docetism. It is true that people like Freke and Gandy have argued this. But it is blatantly POV to claim as fact that the "heart of the debate is as old as christianity itself." This is a minority opinion rejected by most scholars. I don't have a problem with saying that Freke and Gandy believe this. I do have a problem with the article saying this is true. john k 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, cite Freke and Gandy. I know SOPHIA has a copy of their book. Is there anything else that is "totally disputed"? (Man, I hate to see that tag on any article). Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think this material should be discussed in the intro at all, and I've removed it. It's cited to Freke and Gandy in the main body of the article, which is fine. john k 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Removed Material

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. A.J.A. 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Such huge multi section changes should not happen without ANY discussion at all on the talk pages. With controversial subjects such as this may I suggest you actually propose on the talk page what you wish to so before making sweeping changes. You probably have some valuable points to make but you need to outline specific issues here. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Sophia. When you say WP is not a soapbox, did you mean to suggest that the removed material was original research, or that it lacked sufficient references, or... ? Wesley 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sophia and Wesley - A.J.A., you're going to need to explain your perspective here and tell why you think all that material should be removed. I happen to agree that some of it (the material about all the authors who don't mention Jesus, in particular) should probably go, but it needs to be hashed out and discussed, not just deleted unilaterally. john k 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean that the material is polemical rather than encyclopedic and largely consists of generic arguments against Christianity. Looking through the article history, at one point there was a section with arguments in favor of the theory and one with arguments against. Someone took out the arguments against, and then people over time just kept adding objections to Christianity (many of which are unrelated to the specific objection this article covers), to absurd length. A.J.A. 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Remember that the article is not about "arguments against Christianity" - it is about arguments against the historical existence of Jesus. I am not a Christian (I'm agnostic and was raised vaguely Jewish) but I believe the arguments which have been made against the historical existence of Jesus are entirely specious. I agree that the article as it is now is problematic, but it would be better to specify objections than to remove wholesale. john k 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Obviously, arguments against the historical existence of Jesus are arguments against Christianity.
  2. No, the article is not about arguments against the historical existence of Jesus, it's about one particular such argument, that Jesus was an adaptation of pagan mythical figures. All the other arguments have no bearing, except to extent the article makes the implicit claim that the Christian account is false and therefore that the mythicist one must be right, which is both very biased and a logical fallacy. A.J.A. 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily true to say that this is only one particular such argument - pretty much every argument that's ever been made that Jesus didn't exist as a historical personage tends to include the argument that Jesus was an adaptation of pagan myths. Furthermore, the idea that Jesus never existed has been broadly termed "the Jesus Myth" - that is, it is used more broadly than just to mean the idea that Jesus was based on pagan myths. I would add that arguments against the historical existence of Jesus are made largely as attacks against Christianity, but they are much more than just attacks on Christianity. john k 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the changes in detail, but I think it's only to be expected that such large changes in a controversial article would be reverted. I'd point out that it's not appropriate to call the changes "vandalism", as TrumpetPower! did in his edit summary. WP:Vandalism says: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. A.J.A., if you discuss your proposed changes here, you'll probably find some editors will agree with you. AnnH ♫ 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A has reverted again so I've requested page protection until we get this sorted. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, let's discuss it already

I discussed it. It was reverted for not being discussed. Now the most recent reversion gives the reason that I need consensus. That's it -- he won't consent because I don't have consensus. So what, if anything, do you want?

If there a substantive objection? Or will you just keep reverting on the grounds of a social faux pas? A.J.A. 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to state what you want changed and why or ask others to reference or explain certain specific parts. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. A.J.A. 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Explain the reason for your changes, point by point. If possible, convince other editors. Also, it's always best to cite sources. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That still doesn't make sense. A.J.A. 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

When editing controversial articles, it's always best to discuss changes to avoid edit wars with people who may not agree with you. If you want your edits to stick (and not be reverted), you have to convince other people that you are correct. To convince others, you have to answer three questions:

  1. What do you want to change?
  2. Why do you want to change it?
  3. Why should other editors agree with you?

The other guidelines to consider involve Citing reliable sources. Wikipedia relies on Verifiability, not truth. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So I change it. Then it gets reverted because I haven't "discussed" it. So I come here and discuss it. In reply, I'm told to discuss it. So I discuss it some more. In reply, I'm again told to discuss it. So I ask if there's any discussion anyone is willing to have other than telling me to discuss it. The reply is another request to discuss it. I object that this makes no sense. I get a rephrased instruction to discuss it. I reply that it still doesn't make sense. And what do you give me? A longer instructrion to discuss it.
You know what? Screw discussion. As soon as I can, I'm reverting back to my version. And if you don't like it, you discuss why.
The ball's in your court. A.J.A. 02:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What discussion? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jesus-Myth#The_Removed_Material
Does anyone say it's not absurdly long, not biased, and not off topic?
(Why yes, telling me to discuss the changes before making them is a perfectly reasonble answer to the above question.) A.J.A. 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think what everybody is telling you (and many of us are not terribly sympathetic to the article in its present form) is that you need to provide more specifics about what you think needs to be changed and why, and you can't just go and delete half the article with no discussion. john k 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, this should become this, because it's bloated and irrelevant. Maybe later some other stuff should be done, but my version right now is already an improvement. A.J.A. 05:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As the editor who wants changes you have to be the one to explain why when your edits are contested as in this case (and by quite a few editors). We have al indicated that we can see the article needs work so no one has refused to make any changes but you are trying to make so many at once and change the whole nature of the article that you need to take it bit by bit. Maybe tackle a section at a time.

Note to other editors Could you support my request for page ptotection [5] if you agree it's necessary as I'm concerned at the attitude shown above. We will be force to discuss changes here and it will save a potential edit war/3rr violation mess. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 08:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was too late. Your request has already been refused. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 14:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say about the actual content? A.J.A. 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you? All you've said so far is that you disagree with a large chunk of it and find it illogical, biased and off-point (but you refuse to give details, and we've asked). That's not far from original research. It's also not far from POV pushing to place your own point of view above those of the cited authors. Also, large-scale unilateral deletions are not far from vandalism. All we've done so far is discuss the need for discussion. AJA, you're the one who wants to make large-scale changes, so in fact the ball is in your court. The whole point of discussion is to build consensus. So far, you seem to be trying to bypass that process. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"All we've done so far is discuss the need for discussion."
Exactly. What you haven't done, and give no appearance of ever doing, is actually engage in some discussion.
I give reasons for changing the content. You respond with yet more about the need for discussion. So discuss, hypocrit!
You say you don't like the article as it stands -- but actually doing something about it is "not far" from all kinds of bad things. So it just has to stay the same. A.J.A. 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
"I give reasons for changing the content." Details, please (and not personal POV). Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Define "personal POV". A.J.A. 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

AJA, what people are asking you to do is to go through your changes, point by point, and explain your reasons for them. Not merely saying "my version is better", but in what regard and how. Str1977 (smile back) 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Discussion of changes

I decided to get things started by addressing the introduction. I think AJA's version is in general a more accurate description of the theory, but I also think it's worth mentioning up front that it's based on a paucity of historical sources (or at least the belief that there aren't any). So, is the new intro ok with everyone? (I'm also hoping to illustrate making a small change to one paragraph and listing specific reasons. Suggestions for doing this better are welcome. :-) Wesley 16:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also reinserted the section of arguments against the Jesus Myth. To find it, I sampled different versions of the article's history until I found where it had been removed on March 12 by an anonymous IP, with an edit history comment that something like "For and against sections don't make good articles." There is some truth in the comment, and it looks like at least some of what I just restored had already been integrated into the rest of the article, so there's probably some duplication now that needs cleaning up. However, I think the section's removal probably lost some content, and for this article I think at least having that section to collect some of the counter arguments might make sense. It does a better job of explaining why more scholars haven't bought into the theory. And now I'm going to stop for a while and give others a chance to comment. Wesley 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The word "amalgamation" in the intro is a bit clumsy as what is proposed by some is a 1st century Jewish based reworking of the dying resurrecting god made man myth. So they don't lump everything together - just reinterpret the old myth in what was then a modern context. I can't change it at the moment myself as if I understand 3RR the way it's currently being interpreted I'll be in violation. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like some pretty fine hairsplitting, but I don't think I have any real objection. It's a new day, so go ahead and make it better. I would myself, but I'm not quite sure what you're aiming for. Wesley 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Good to see things moving

The topic seems to have changed to the actual content.

Now that we're actually discussing (as opposed to talking about discussing):

  • The parts which have been moved to the talk page should not be moved back, sources or no, and some parts now in the article should be removed, because there's already an article on the Historicity of Jesus. Content about the general question belongs there (if it can be sourced, etc.). Maybe it should all be moved to Talk:Historicity of Jesus.
  • My version of the Background/History is preferable.
    1. If mainstream scholars believe the debate about "Christ come in the flesh" refers to Docetism, why do we need several quotes devoted to backing up a fringe theory? The citation from 1 John is sufficient to explain what they're talking about. And why an argument in favor of it from un-named proponents? And to examine the argument itself: since it cites John the Baptist, it would have to be shown that he was mentioned by any source which fails to mentions Jesus. I doubt any such source exists -- even the Mandaens believe Jesus was a historical figure.
    2. Mine is more concise.
    3. Mine removes the Mythicist puffery. E.g., even calling it "scholarship" is POV because quite a few people would dispute that, it calls Doherty "the noted humanist" (noted by whom? for what?) and "a scholar of Ancient History and Classical Languages" (who says he's a scholar as distinct from a pseudo-scholarly crackpot? where are his peer-reviewed publications? is he cited by recognized scholars?) and says he "infused the Jesus Myth theory with fresh vigour" (says who?).
    4. One addition my version needs: a little more on Frazier.
  • "Parallels with Mediterranian mystery religions" is badly in need of a rewrite. Tons of unsourced claims, POV language, and plain inaccuracies (e.g., the egregious "...in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John..."). If you're not willing to just burn it down and start over, can we at least hide it here in Talk until it's presentable?

A.J.A. 03:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey A.J.A., now that you've actually gotten into specifics, I think I largely agree with you. One of the big problems here is that it's not at all clear why there should be separate Jesus-Myth and Historicity of Jesus articles. I don't think this has ever been clearly resolved. john k 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you read any of these books? I'm happy to edit this article and bring it up to scratch but I am not willing to make up for your lack of knowledge of the subject by having to educate you every step of the way. The Historicity of Jesus is about the documents that write about Jesus (or don't when they should in some cases). The Jesus-Myth is aparticular theory that in some cases does not rely on a nonexistant Jesus as some theories accept a living ordinary man who's life was later embelished to form a mythical god type story. Be honest A.J.A. and John K and save me a lot of time - are you both just interested in trashing the theory and cutting this article down to a stub-like rebuttal. If so say now and I'll bow out as I seem to be a lone voice here (ie the only person who has read these books) so I don't stand a chance and I haven't got the time to be research everything only for it to die a death by reverts. Go for the kill quick and clean now and save us all the effort. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I remember giving The Jesus Puzzle a quick read. I think the way you describe dividing the material between Historicity of Jesus and Jesus-Myth sounds reasonable. As I understand it, most stuff about the actual documents, like the Josephus quotes etc., would be discussed at the Historicity article, while the use of those documents (or lack of documents like you said) to support a Jesus-myth idea would go here. That sounds eminently reasonable, but it may mean some shuffling back and forth between the two to make it work. I wonder if the intro's to both could be clarified to make it clearer what they encompass? Wesley 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Sophia. I have no idea whether this article accurately summarizes the ideas of writers on the Jesus-myth idea, because, as you have determined, I haven't read any of those books. The problem with the article is that it presents what it's saying as though it is true, rather than presenting it as though it is the work of specific people who've written on the subject. We need all these claims to be cited as claims made by specific people, and not claimed as truth by the narrative voice, as they are at present. And it is not enough to simply present the ideas of Jesus myth people. We should try to give some understanding of the ways in which their analysis differs from the mainstream analysis, and shouldn't pretend that all opponents of the Jesus myth theory are Biblical inerrantists, which really is a straw man. I have no idea why I am being accused of being eager to revert here - I have not reverted at all in this business. Wesley is the one who re-removed large quantities of text (some of which, I will note, I attempted to NPOV). In terms of the distinction between Historicity of Jesus and this article, I think we need to document the ways in which the term "Jesus myth" is used, and see whether it is simply used as a synonym for the idea that Jesus was not a historical personage (in which case this article ought to be merged with Historicity of Jesus), or whether it is used to mean the idea that Jesus is based on pagan myths, whether or not there was a historical Jesus, in which case we need to do as Wesley suggests. john k 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I didn't remove that chunk of text because of POV problems, but because it lacked any citations. I was attempting to follow the example Sophia set when she remove the 'Arguments Against the Jesus-Myth' section, not because it lacked citations, but because some of the citations it had were poor. At this point I just want the standard for citations in this article to be applied consistently. Wesley 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)