Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] scope!

please! who keeps sneaking the historicity discussion back in? The topic of this article is mythography, not quibbles about historicity. We have a full article, historicity of Jesus, dedicated to the question. The topic of this article is comparative mythography, which I dare say is complicated enough. Why is it so difficult to recognize that these are two completely separate issues? Serious study of "Jesus as a myth" (other than fringy conspiracy theories) will grant with a shrug that there was historically a wandering rabbi Yeshua (4 BC - AD 34 or so) who got himself crucified by the Romans and initiated an eccentric eschatological cult among his followers. It will simply argue that this is nowhere as interesting as the mythological cargo that accreted to the movement over the following millennium. What this article should study is these (1st to 20th century) accretions, not silly bickering about historicity and authorship of the gospel, we really have historicity of Jesus for that. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is that it there really are two possibilities:

A person got mythological "cargo" attached to them
A belief developed that at some point in the past a mythological being had actually acted in history

This article started as a discussion of those scholars who consider Jesus a purely mythological being. That's why for example I linked the mythicist page here comfortably. You are redefining the purpose of the page. Perhaps a "comparative mythography" which has a Golden Bough type slant makes sense.

Say for example that we were trying to write an article about the comparative mythography of Mickey Mouse as contrasted with Bugs Bunny yet millions believed that Mickey Mouse was a real historical personage in a way entirely different than Bugs Bunny. We'd have to address those points. jbolden1517^Talk 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, I realize this is a problem. Hence the "split" suggestion. "Jesus as myth" is ambiguous. It might mean, in the popular meaning of "myth", "Jesus is 'only' a myth", or, in the mythologist or academic meaning of "myth" it might mean, "let's look at the mythemes surrounding Jesus". I feel strongly that the latter deserves a detailed discussion, and I also feel that this discussion is more interesting. The "Jesus-myth" popular literature is basically a product of a hazy understanding of the nature of myth. It exists, it should be covered, but it should not interfere with a serious coverage of "Jesus mythography".

Mickey Mouse is not a good simile, since any claim of a historical Mickey Mouse would be ridiculous. Consider, rather, King Arthur. There can be very little doubt that King Arthur is ultimately based on one or several Dark Age British warlords. And yet what makes King Arthur King Arthur is the accretion of High Medieval legend; if you go back to the historical nucleus, you'll just have a 5th century warlord like any other. And yet it would be completely mistaken to argue that "King Arthur is a myth, hence he cannot be historical", because a myth is something that grows out of history. Yet, it is conceivable that some people hold a quasi-religious belief that Arthur was indeed the "once and future king" that drove the Saxons from this green and pleasant land in the 460s. It is simliar with Jesus. Most secular historians will conclude that if you go back to the historical Jesus, you'll have a wandering rabbi like so many others who got caught up in the "Iudea resistance movement", and it was only the somewhat crazy propaganda of the 1st and 2nd century that merged him with Neoplatonic mysticism and ultimately turned him into "Jesus Christ" as we know him. Add midrash and various folk traditions and you get the classic "dead-and-risen god" myth we are looking at now. But this is completely different from saying "he is purely mythical".

So, how shall we proceed? I do agree that there may well be a separate article called Jesus-myth or Jesus-Myth theory or similar that argues the non-historicity of Jesus based on the exposition of mythemes treated in an article Jesus Christ as myth or mythological aspects of Jesus Christ. My point is that it is only one of several possible conclusions based on the mythographical approach, and exposition of the mythological parallels shold not be unduly conflated with claims of non-historicity. Incidentially, I propose a move of this page to Jesus Christ as myth, because the "Christ" part is essential to the myth. You could even say that "Jesus" stands for the historical bits, and "Christ" for the mythical bits, and that "Jesus Christ" can only be fully understood by studying both. "Jesus-myth" otoh, I agree, is flavoured with the fringy "he's only a myth" proponents. dab (𒁳) 09:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree the first view deserves discussion. It absolutely is the way the mainstream phrases things. I also happen to think there is a lot to say on that issue of myth accretion. If you agree with this decomposition I can rewrite the introduction to present the article in this framework (perhaps eventually splitting pieces off, since I agree that's likely). BTW I understand completely the secular myth accretion view (EP Sandars, Myers, Jesus Seminar... ) which is all essentially Bultmann, I acknowledge that Bultmann's demythologizing program worked and in 2006 people still do speak of the real historical Mickey Mouse (Jesus) behind the legend.

BTW Mickey Mouse was quite deliberate. I have no problem believing that there was a real King Arthur that the legends are based on and the article you want to write would far better fit Arthur. What I think is completely lacking from the mainstream view is any explanation of the documentary record we actually have. The first century record is not describing a rabbi it is describing a supernatural being, merged with the very word of god, that preexisted the universe and engaged in activities which transformed the very nature of reality. The second century record has a person running around performing petty miracles and teaching a semi-Jewish version of cynical philosophy. The second century guy may very well have been based on some collection of actual people (I personally think Q2 is all the teachings of John the Baptist and I do believe he is real). But so what? Those guys were never worshipped at all, and as far as I can tell had no meaningful influence at any point in history. There was a SteamBoat Bill Jr that Steamboat Willie was based on. But I don't speak of the "the real historical Mickey Mouse". SteamBoat Bill Jr. was a minor historical character who Buster Keyton liked enough that 1920's audiences were familiar with him so Walt Disney could ..... He isn't spoken of as the real Mickey Mouse.

So no I don't want to go for Sander's Jesus of history vs. Christ of legend because it assumes the 2nd POV. IMHO I think the issue of one of phrasing much more than one of disagreeing on the facts and what is needed is

An agreement that what is being disagreed with is terminology
A way of writing about it that doesn't sound like an essay.

jbolden1517^Talk 10:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

alright -- I have attempted the split now. For better or worse Jesus-myth is now the article where we discuss the hypothesis that Jesus is a fiction or forgery of Gnostic mythology. Jesus Christ as myth discusses comparative mythology. We can argue about titling, but I really believe these are topics that require separate articles, each featuring a summary section of the other.
your 2nd century "petty miracle worker" is indeed a good summary of the (early) accretion process and certainly does have a place here.
your reference to the 1st century account of "a supernatural being, merged with the very word of god" may need to be unravelled between John (not-quite 1st century) and the synopticists, but it is certainly the core doctrine of the sect after Pentecoste. But it certainly also includes a lot of petty miracles, what with Luke's nativity, cursing of a fig tree or turning water into wine. Historical Jesus needs to return to a contemporary understanding of this mythology, unclouded by later Christian dogma. Lapide argues that what you get is very much a rabbi, your typical Hasidean "holy man", perfectly dedicated to orthodox Jewish law; his 'cult' not very different from contemporary, very much alive figures like Vissarion or Sathya Sai Baba: you can see in these cases that a whole mythology can spring up around a charismatic leader before he is even dead. The leader is "real" (historical), but the mythology (as mythology) is just as real. And just because a few dozen million people(!) believe from first hand experience(!) that Sathya Sai Baba can work miracles doesn't make it a fact to put in history books. dab (𒁳) 11:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm agreeing with the idea and the style of the split. I think that makes sense. It also allows both articles to be more naturally written because they can take an "in universe" view. So the myth article can assume there was a real person accumulating myths not a fictional person accumulating an incarnation (and just mention the other view) Conversely the mythic article can discuss the various people's positions without all the disclaimers. So (assuming everyone else agrees) good so far. Now the next issue I have is regarding who gets what. My feeling is this article started as a discussion of Doherty Wells... it has 3 years of history on that topic. For example here is the article at the end of 2005. You can see where the focus is. All other things being equal I don't think its a good idea to break continuity. I'd go for a flip of sorts from your division. The Sanders stuff goes in "historical Jesus" the mythical accretion stuff goes in a new article and this article remains focused on discussion of the belief that Jesus is fictional. Alternately we do a page move (to preserve history) of this existing page to something like "Jesus Christ (modern Docetism. I'd like broad input on this one from anybody watching this page. I think we need a consensus before we act this abruptly. Finally on the point of which view is actually correct I'm going to fork that off jbolden1517^Talk 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) jbolden1517^Talk 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you now. If I understand correclty, you are mainly talking about edit history now, i.e. which of the two articles gets to keep the longer edit history. This is a problem at every split. I agree you could argue I should have done the move to Jesus Christ as myth by copy-paste, and the move to Jesus-myth hypothesis by move button, not vice versa. I admit I didn't ponder much about this, since infallibly one article will get a truncated history. As long as we can agree on the page content, I don't think the question of where to keep the deeper edit history matters very much. Also, I do not consider this a pov fork. We do not have one page that assumes a historical Jesus, and one that doesn't. This page considers mythological parallels, and is agnostic about (not interested in) the question of historicity. The Jesus-myth hypothesis is all about historicity, and should refer to this page for a detailed discussion of comparative mythology. dab (𒁳) 07:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case I'm going to move history to the other one. Agreed? jbolden1517^Talk 09:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

if you like. I take it you want to move things around so that the current titling remains unchanged, but the 2005 history will be that of Jesus-myth hypothesis? I've no problem with that. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In THREE DAYS, without consensus from any number of editors, someone takes it upon themselves to screw up these articles? Who gave you permission? Did you maybe think to look back in the edits to see if a couple of us are around to discuss this travesty???? I cannot believe this BS. Orangemarlin 06:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've stated my concerns back in February [1], and the article remained plastered with merge and cleanup tags since then. I've cleaned it up. Glad to be of service. No content was lost (except some unsourced claims, I think), but we have untangled the discussion of mythology, and that of "forgery". The article kept falling prey to the naive idea that "myth" means "unhistorical". It kept implying that "mythical Jesus" is a position somehow opposed to Christianity, a patently false claim, as is well referenced in Jesus Christ as myth now, there are notable positions within Christianity that embrace the Christ narrative as myth. You are now free to make whatever point you like regarding "fake Jesus" theories without descending into comparative mythology, or you can make any point you like regarding comparative mythology without constant conflation with "fake Jesus" conspiracy theories. Two topics, two articles. dab (𒁳) 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to check if and which rules were violated in this blatant attack on the article without consensus, especially of editors like myself who have spent a lot of time on this article. In no way do I own it, but I feel that the right thing to do is to gain consensus. If necessary, I am going to ask for intervention from admins to this situation. This is despicable behavior on two, yes two editors part. What is this place, a fascist organization where two editors can dictate what the rest may or may not want? If I have no rights to revert this abomination, then so be it. Orangemarlin 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Likely vio is POV Fork.

Dab, do you really think you cleaned it up? •Jim62sch• 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post move discussion

Surely the input from grown-ups with full time jobs is valued at Wikipedia? In which case why has such a drastic change been made in such a short space of time? Will the people who did this please undo the mess, read the Christian Mythology page and explain why they have not expanded that article rather than mess with this one. I agree this article needs work but everytime we start we get all the bagage from the "It's all true and you're morons" brigade and we spend weeks going round in circles (I do AGF but see the archives for the number of times we have been called loonies for not accepting the bible version as completely plausible). This is not concensus - it's railroading. Sophia 13:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sophia, good to see you back here. OK lets get started. If you read from the above the article had a deep structural flaw. It is very difficult and confusing to present Jesus mythical material simultaneously from the 2 POVs:

A person got mythological "cargo" attached to them
A belief developed that at some point in the past a mythological being had actually acted in history

No one (AFAIK) here is arguing for the biblical view or religious view at all. However it is possible to discuss mythological aspects of Jesus without addressing historicity at all. Thus we have 2 pages:

focuses on mainstream mythological aspects. That is stay within mainstream scholarship (Golden Bough type stuff)
focus on the Doherty / Wells camp. This may also begin to develop in a neoplatonic / gnostic direction

As for Christian Mythology that article by and large address mythology that developed within a Christian context (like Dante) it doesn't address the topic of either article that occurred within a Roman pre Christian context. Anyway you all had stopped discussing anything during the month of May. If you want to come back I'd love input. I want to write an article with real depth on Doherty, Wells, Docetism etc... Finally cut the "grown up" crap. I'm likely older than you. jbolden1517^Talk 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as myth is a subsection of Christian Mythology - read the intro of that page. The problem with this split is that this subject is not that clean and easy to divide - most theories are an amalgamation of of threads. Some dispute the total historicity and others say it is irrelevant as it's impossible to prove Jesus didn't exist. Anyway I don't have time for this as I have a major project to complete. I think this split is a POV based mistake (unintentionally I'm sure but the net result is the same) which I do not agree with but do not have time to argue. Sophia 14:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ as myth is a subsection of Christian Mythology - read the intro of that page." No it isn't, nor - from a quick glance - has it been for months. Don't you think you should check before making such assertions? I'm agnostic about the move, but it's not POV in any meaningful sense. Paul B 14:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Christian mythology can also be taken to refer to the entire mythos surrounding the Christian religion, including interpretations of the various narratives of both the Old and New Testaments." - taken from the Christian Mythology article intro. Since the only details we have of Jesus' life come from the early Chrsitan writings, the writings of Paul and the New Testament, and some of the proposed mythological aspects are identified as OT prophecy fulfilments I struggle to see how this should be separate article. I did check. Sophia 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such subsection as you wrongly claimed there was. The passage you quote makes no reference at all to Jesus, but is nothing more than a vague generality about the Bible as a whole, so I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. You may as well claim that there should be no separate articles debating the mythological aspects of the Book of Esther, Tobit or Book of Daniel. Paul B 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We are talking at cross purposes as my post was not particularly clear (although a GF reading of it may have helped). I am arguing that it should be a subsection as it deals with the mythology of a man regarded as Christ. Also the names of the articles themselves are POV - why does this one have "hypothesis" tacked on it and the other doesn't? Why do we need to create an article to avoid having to discuss the historicity aspects of Jesus when these are often discussed within the mythological theories.? To split them between "does think he existed" and "doesn't think he existed" is going to be difficult and arbitrary and I can see no advantage of doing it. It also smacks of OR as I have always seen these theories treated as a whole. Sophia 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always seen these theories treated as a whole That's actually the first real objection of substance so I'll address it. So my question is by whom?

Mainstream scholarship (life of Jesus) asserts that Jesus was some combination of: preacher, teacher, guru, anti roman activist, Pharisee, Essene ... running around the 1st century who very quickly had stronger and stronger claims of divinity made about him. The Jesus myth people like Wells, to Doherty to Acharya S argue that nothing particularly interesting actually happened in 1st century palestine, that the claims of divinity predate any person. That is not a minor difference, and for this reason their works are treated as simply outside the mainstream and their scholarship is by and large rejected. People who do work on gnosticism and neoplatonism (like Pagels) dance around the issue of the incarnation not really taking a position. So who is treating their works as a unified whole? jbolden1517^Talk 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

what does it even mean to say that "the claims of divinity predate any person"? Of course they do, they're in Isaiah etc. The historical guru-activist filled the Messiah's boots, but the boots were there way before him. I mean, even a Biblical literalist would agree to that, that's the whole point of fulfilling a prophecy. The Jesus myth people need to claim that there never even was such a guru-activist: even the guru-activist part is made up. That's difficult to believe, since we happen to know of a whole bunch of similar guru-activists, and if they had decided they needed one at some point in AD 50, there is no reason why they should not have picked one of those rather than rolling their own fictitious one. I fail to see how the splitting off of Jesus Christ as myth can be construed as "POV". All it does is isolate material pertinent to both this article and Christian mythology in its own sub-article. Where is the "mess"? We have cleaned up a long-standing, and long-tagged, conflation of issues. You have now your own dedicated article for treating theories that argue "there is myth in the narrative, hence it cannot be historical". That there is myth in the gospel is completely undisputed, and I see no reason to conflate discussion of undisputed fact with an idiosyncratic interpretation of the facts. Even Justin Martyr in the 2nd century could see the myth of Dionysus and Christ are practically identical, for chrissake. But, not wholly unexpectedly, that fact did not inspire him to formulate a "Jesus myth" theory. dab (𒁳) 16:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not helpful to respond to several people making opposite points at the same time. Anyway the issue of myth is a very simple question. When Paul is talking about dead to adam and reborn in Jesus Christ is he thinking of someone who still has smelly shoes lieing in Mary's closet, along with some of his carpenter tools? Does Peter actually remember the time Jesus cut his hand on a fishing net? Did Jesus and Matthew have conversations about the right way to deduct all those loaves of bread and fishes his annual tax form? That's what the mainstream position is essentially arguing. jbolden1517^Talk 16:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

that's right. we have three positions, (a) "true myth", (b) historical nucleus plus myth accretion, and (c) complete forgery or daydream. If you like, (a) is the "pious fringe" and (c) the "sceptical fringe" (the Jesus-mythers) of a sliding scale of (b), and mainstream opinion is somewhere in mid-(b). We can certainly have an article about (c) in particular, but it will not do to pretend that (c) is in fact the same as the premise to all of (a), (b) and (c). dab (𒁳) 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash) Pagels dances around the edges because a definitive "did or didn't exist" is not relevant or possible to prove. So where would Pagels fit in your scheme? John Allegro was also somewhat ambivalent as to the existence of "Jesus" (as opposed to a teacher of righteousness) living at that time, as again, you cannot prove a negative so where will he go?. Where will Thompson sit? As to nothing interesting happening then, Allegro in particular points to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem as a powerful driver for a much need Messiah. The common thread is that some or all aspects of Jesus as recounted in the Christian writings are mythological. "Some" is accepted as mainstream and "all" is considered the lunatic fringe. The acceptance of the ones in between depends on who is offended by them. Some links [2][3][4] that do lump them together but I haven't got time for any more at the moment - sorry.

Also at the moment we have an article that opens with an OR analogy which is scary if that is the standard to which this article will be reworked. I have argued for a long time that the obsession with the black and white stance on the historical Jesus is a Christian POV as it is an easy point to dispute - you cannot prove Jesus did not exist - hence the ambivalence of pagels/allegro/thompson etc. Not quite sure what you are driving at with the "now you have your own dedicated article" - smacks of "go off and play somewhere else". Sophia 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the Mickey Mouse thing is OR and may need to go.

you seem to imply a (false) dichotomy between "historical" and "mythological". You should properly say that some of the aspects of Jesus that receive mythological significance may be historical, while others are not. There is no contradiction between an event being historical, and its receiving a mythological significance in later tradition. If we reduce "Jesus-myth" to saying that "nothing interesting" may be recovered of the historical Jesus, or "another teacher of righteousness of the same name", this becomes not a claim but a subjective opinion. I did not tell you to "go off and play somewhere else", incidentially. I took the material that didn't belong here and took it somewhere else. You are still welcome to play Jesus-myth at this article as always. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is a false dichotomy - and the current article split exaserbates the problem by forcing us to choose which theory/author/book to put in which article. Sophia 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Mouse

I'd like to split off the Mickey Mouse metaphor discussion. I don't think its original research since its a metaphor not an actual fact (and the facts underlying the metaphor) are cited. However, it is somewhat non encyclopedic in tone. Does anyone have a suggestion for a better phrasing which captures the idea as quickly for the intro? jbolden1517^Talk 17:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic and OR. You cannot make that analogy - you can only quote those that do (and I've never seen it used before). Sophia 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that language is covered by OR (and I'll freely state that the metaphor is mine). But we aren't at WP:OR. Everyone agrees on replacing the language so, there is nothing to debate... What's your suggestion? jbolden1517^Talk 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You personally are drawing a metaphor that is your interpretation of the scope of the debate - what isn't OR about it. As for alternatives - I can't get my head around what point you are trying to make with the article split so can add nothing. None of the reading I have done supports this arbitrary division of theories. Sophia 19:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jbolden: Whether "everyone" agrees on replacing the language or not is irrelevant. The point that it violates WP:OR remains valid.

Sophia's point re the split article is quite accurate. Of course, you (as the splitter) will no doubt dispute her argument. I'll be damned if I can fathom the "logic" you use. •Jim62sch• 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think analogies are OR, but this one is a problem because of the tone rather than the point. The splitter was user:dbachmann. Paul B 08:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] methodology

I'd like to propose that the entire pro and con counter argument section be reconstructed as a methodology section. Essentially I think the article should take the slant that the issue is one of methodology and terminology not a disagreement (too much) on fact. jbolden1517^Talk 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you are placing so many passages in italics? Paul B 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick way to mark what's a quote from what is being written in wikipedia's voice. I could use blockquote to mix it up a bit. Feel free to change style if you have a better way. I'm not married to the style at all. jbolden1517^Talk 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very confusing - one whole section is in italics. Paul B 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That whole section won't be in italics for long. I just started it and the first things was a good quote. The section right above it started the same way. jbolden1517^Talk 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure what you are doing. There are great chunks of text that appear in italics, but they are not clearly attrivuted, so I've no idea who they are quotaions from. Paul B 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully its clearer now that I got a chance to add more material. You OK with the direction? 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~

[edit] As opposed to meaningless?

"meaningful historicity of Jesus" is gibberish. •Jim62sch• 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The point is that there may have been - say - some very strong bloke whose deeds were the kernel for the legend of Hercules, but there comes a point when there is no meaningful differece between a purely fictional figure and one whose legend is built on so slender and unexceptional grounds that it might just as well have been pure fiction. Paul B 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] focus on gospels vs. focus on epistles

TJ -- If you look at the chart below, you can see where This contrasts with the mainstream approach which holds that since Jesus is the "founder" of Christianity an understanding of early Christianity requires one to focus attention on the gospels even though dating is far less certain was going. I think the reader needs to understand this point. That is why Sanders, Vermes... arrive at different conclusions. Could you rewrite this in a way you would find acceptable. jbolden1517^Talk 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and OR tags

This article requires significant upgrades. Three editors nave taken upon themselves to destroy the original Jesus as Myth article, and put together this POV travesty. Comparing the myths to Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse is an underhanded method to destroy the hypothesis. This is ridiculous. Orangemarlin 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the comparison being made. I suggest you stop throwing a temper tantrum about the split and just read what's been written. jbolden1517^Talk 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

indeed. It doesn't appear you have read either the articles, nor the discussion above. The Mickey Mouse simile may be OR, but it is OR in support of the theory, so it really doesn't figure how you could say it is being used to "destroy the hypothesis". Unless, of course, you haven't understood it. Once you are at it (reading and trying to follow the debate), you could explain what gave you the impression of a "POV travesty". I am unsure even in what direction our alleged POV would be tending. I am really at a loss if I am being accused of pro-Jesus or anti-Jesus (pro-historicity or anti-historicity) bias, since I am really perfectly agnostic on the matter and simply setting right the presentation of various opinions. dab (𒁳) 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Temper tantrum? Where's the civility? OH, that's right, you changed the article without consensus or discussion, so maybe you don't understand civility from Wikipedia's standpoint. You were wrong here bolden and bachmann. Orangemarlin 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] afd

could anyone explain why on earth you would want to afd Jesus Christ as myth, as a pov fork of this article? That's completely irrational. Preferredly, explain your reasons on that article's talkpage. Oh, and please look up "myth" in some good dictionary first. The article here for months laboured under the misapprehension that "myth" has anything to do with historicity. It appears that this article is about a theory that argues against the historicity of Jesus. It may or may not be a pov-fork of Historicity of Jesus, but how on earth can you allege a sober discussion of the mythology in the gospel is in any way a pov fork of this? I am especially confused since the people protesting do not appear to be victims of fundamentalist piety but self-describe as skeptics. I am used to having problems getting plain reason across to religionists, but I am a little bit at a loss on how to recommend plain reason to rationalists... dab (𒁳) 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted and tags removed

I've reverted the article back to its form of a week ago, prior to this whole fracas the most recent outgrowth of which was the creation of, and AfD for, the new article on Jesus Christ as myth. Accordingly, I've removed the POV and OR tags.

Previously, as of today, the lead of this article read:

The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus," anymore than finding historical persons who were the basis for Steamboat Bill Jr. would be equivalent to finding the historical Mickey Mouse ^[1] The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered. ^[2]. That is while the mythological parallels in the gospel narrative are widely recognised, a claim of non-historicity must make a case that biographical details reported in the gospels rather than the historical core of the narrative are secondary embellishments intended to create a fictitious impression of historicity.

Presently the lead reads, once again, as it did a week ago and has read more-or-less this way for some time now:

The Jesus-myth hypothesis, also commonly called Jesus as myth, refers to the idea that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels is not about a real person, but a construct of Christian mythology, which parallels mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities. The study of such elements is often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position toward the historicity of Jesus.

The theory was first proposed by historian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century; it is supported by a small minority of scholars, some of whom are outside the historical discipline. The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject the thesis.[1]

I made a minor clarification to the hypothesis being commonly referred to as "Jesus as myth", which represented the last reasonably consensused version. ... Kenosis 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That intro however simply isn't true anymore. I have questions as to whether it was ever true. It represents the content of this article pre-split. This article simply no longer discusses most of those topics. I understand people object to the Mickey Mouse language, and welcome changes to it. I would love to start discussing content in good faith in a cooperative manner. So far people have been unwilling to do so. Even excluding the mithric comments, the narrative of Jesus in the gospels is not about a real person is probably too strong a statement. "Is about a real person" is rather vague. Real people don't raise the dead, turn water into wine and walk and water. So what does it even mean? jbolden1517^Talk 20:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"in good faith in a cooperative manner" Here we go again. You mangled the article by splitting it...maybe you'll begin to see why the split was a bad idea. •Jim62sch• 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest it be taken point-by-point. One could start by reading the intro above (the top one of the two just above, after Dbachmann and Jbolden got done rewriting the article with some 150-200 edits in less than a week), then go from there. The version I reverted to was the last version that could reasonably be said to have obtained consensus prior to the complete rewrite. ... Kenosis 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash)Get real - mickey mouse - whatever posessed you? Don't revert to that version until you get rid of the stupid analogies - it is not other people's jobs to put right your poor edits. Also even by Christian standards Jesus was a "real man" as well as being "God made flesh" - otherwise there is no point to the crucifixion etc. You are displaying a horrifying lack of understanding of this topic - please leave it alone until you have read more. Sophia 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You reverted the entire article to its presplit form in the middle of a discussion on AFD about whether or not the split-off article and this article are too similar. That going to make an excellent case for DRV and you know it. jbolden1517^Talk 20:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tut-tut, AGF, remember? •Jim62sch• 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on the unsplit version of this article on and off for the best part of 18 months. It has been slow going to get some things changed and it needs a lot more work as it's a topic that raises strong passions and objections. The biggest problem is alway not falling into the trap of phrasing the argument from the perspective of the critics - something this split exacerbates badly. Quite frankly - how dare you make such assertions that I am deliberately hi-jacking due process. Especially from someone who started all this mess with virtually NO DISCUSSION at all. I never usually use block capitols but I feel it is the only way to get you to notice the point that you have consistently ignored. You are throwing accusations of AGF around but as the bibe says "Take the plank out of your own eye". Sophia 21:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sophia -- This article solves the problem its about authors not about Jesus. For a evangelical/fund to argue they don't have to argue what happened but rather what Well's theory is (or Doherty's or Nelsons or...). This article doesn't say anything about what's true but rather what a school say is true. The other article is likely to have an easier time of it as well. It no longer has to argue why these similarities developed or in what order they developed but rather just prove they exist. Both cease being apologetics and instead cover distinct subjects. jbolden1517^Talk 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But the Jesus as myth camp is not just about disputing the historicity of Jesus. That is the one aspect of it that Christians fix upon as it is so central to their faith. The majority of any book on the subject is devoted to the parallels, myths, external contemporaneous records etc. You cannot prove Jesus did not exist - you can NEVER prove a negative. Quite frankly the lingual abilities you are displaying here are not good enough anyway - let alone you grasp of the subject. So - let me ask - what have you read on this subject (and I'm talking books here not websites)? Sophia 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

POV from these guys is just insulting. Although I don't personally believe that Jesus ever existed, that's not the point of what was this article. I'm about to find the edits from before these POV pushers entered this article and revert back. I'm done with this discussion, and I hope you help out Sophia. We worked too hard to clean up this article to let it become a giant POV mess. Orangemarlin 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Sophia, hallo you others, do I get this right? This article is supposed to cover the view or rather a bunch of related views that consider Jesus Christ to be a myth concocted out of various igrendients and not a person that walked the earth 2000 years ago and/or not a person about whom knowledge is attainable by historical research? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Str - so glad you are here as although we won't agree ;o) I know we will have a proper debate based on real information! My understanding of the subject is that the Jesus as myth camp start from looking at the writings about Jesus' life and try to determine what has been accrued along the way to the formation of the Christian doctrines and mythology as we know them. They are looking at parallels from older myths, current (ish) events such as the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, and the mix with the Greco-Roman ideas present at the time the NT was being written and Christianity was being formed. The furthest extreme of this is that it is all made up but that is not really what they are trying to prove. In fact they are not trying to prove anything other than looking at what they feel are the more probable reasons that a huge religion about a guy who did amazing things grew up as it did. Unfortunately people like Acharya S are proponents of this conspiracy theory and Freke and Gandy have used this central fact as a tag line to sell books. The truth is that even The Jesus Mysteries spends most of it's pages looking at the conditions that gave birth to Christianity. You can never prove a negative which is why Pagels/Thompson/Allegro don't get hung up on the "did he or didn't he" question. "Jesus" was such a common name at the time that there is bound to be some wandering rabbi who got himself crucified for saying stuff either the Romans or Jews didn't like - in fact as you know crucifiction was the classic punishment for sedition at the time. The real questions this camp looks at are why this religion grew up and where did it get it's ideas from? Also are these ideas unique to Christianity? I am soooo busy at the moment I really don't have time for this but in a couple of weeks I get a break when I was intending to catch up on my reading. I hope then to be able to add what stuff I have and work with people like you Str, from the "opposing camp" so to speak to make sure it's NPOV and balanced. Sophia 08:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The article was devised to discuss the view that JC is a mythical figure in the sense that he either did not exist at all, or he if he did exist, he existed in such a shadowy form (like Hercules) that there is nothing meaningfully historical about the stories told about him in the documents we have (ie. the NT). Dbachmann split the articles in order to have one that discussed this claim, and another that discusses mythological parallels - on the grounds that the mythopeic aspects of the Jesus story are worth an article of their own. Paul B 08:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sophia and Paul for your summaries.

I agree with your carving of the topic's boundaries, noting however that though "the Jesus as myth camp start from looking at the writings about Jesus' life and try to determine what has been accrued along the way to the formation of the Christian doctrines and mythology as we know them", the Jesus myth is not this entire field but rather one camp deducing from their analysis that practically everything about Jesus is myth (a flawed view, in my humble historian's opinion).

I am not quite sure what the dispute is about? What is the opposing view to the definition given by Sophia and Paul? Is there any opposing view after all or is this fight about other issues?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fight is about whether there should be a split at all. It's not at all clear to me what the objection is, but this discussion page has been bedevilled by the view that editors all have a secret agenda of some sort. Bizarrely, from my point of view, the anti-split faction seems to believe that splitting off the mythological parallels is part of some attempt to undermine the strength of the Jesus-myth claim. Both Sophia and Orangemarlin seem to believe that it is inspired by an urge to preserve Christian orthodoxy (despite the fact that dab made the split). It is certainly true that the split was made in part in order to accommodate the views of early theologians who argued that mythic parallels to the life of Jesus were either part of demonic plans to sow confusion or the divine plan to prepare the way for the reception of Jesus. Other arguments have been made by more recent Jungian and other writers that parallels emerge from the essential myth-making propensities of the human mind, and thus represent archetypes without necessarily arising from direct influence of gnostic sects etc. These views don't sit fit neatly with the specific "jesus-myth" claim that the Jesus of history either didn't exist or was an unknowable nobody. Paul B 09:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In the old version of the article, we have two theories mixed.

One theory which is a subset of archeology, comparative religion, theology which asks how does Christianity (and Jesus in particular) compare to other similar pagan gods? It also concerns itself with Christian adoptionism. The main thing is that the theory of parallels is essentially undisputed. There are disagreements how closely the materials parallel one another, but there is little disagreement there are some substantial similarities. There is also some disagreement about how to interpret those similarities, and that disagreement occurs inside of Christianity. If you are looking for a good example of the discussion Justin Martyr's first apology address this issue well (he supports the idea of demonic imitation as the cause), while C.S. Lewis in Miracles argues an opposite case that the parallels are mythic fulfillment (Jesus is the reality on which Krishna is based....). So they are making literary and theological claims

The second group of scholars are all atheists. It is accepted without argument that supernatural events simply don't occur. They have a focus on the history of literature as it develops. That is they are asking, how did the literature develop and how did it come to be believed as historical? Again unlike religious authors they are assuming anything supernatural could not have occured as written. In light of the mythography above (and similar studies with aspects of Hellenistic judaism) they argue that the legends about Jesus most likely evolved almost entirely from the surrounding myths. In other words they are making historical claims about these events. Moreover these ideas are not widely accepted as being true, either among scholars and certainly not among the religious. By focusing an article on their views (which are not well known or understood) their ideas actually be discussed and explained. The Theory of Christian Development section in the new version while very rough presents an example of where this is going vs. the older article.

The idea of the split is that the article should not have combined these two groups in the first place. They each deserver their own high quality article. The people who originally decided to combine these two ideas have decided that no one could actually believe their whole structure was a bad idea and thus claims of ignorance, hidden agendas, trolling, etc... jbolden1517^Talk 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say I am sorry I seem to have set off such a mess, but it does appear it was inevitable and waiting to happen. The article as I found it was in such a poor state that I did not imagine that anyone would feel attached to it, and I thought I was doing straightforward, detached cleanup work. That much GF everyone can A, I hope. The article began with

"Jesus as myth refers to the idea that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels is not about a real person, but a construct of Christian mythology"

which is already patently flawed, continuing with a half-assed attempt to set it right, often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position which plunges the very lead paragraph into self-contradicting confusion. There can be two approaches. (a) keep a single article, discussing the mythography of Jesus Christ, with a minor section addressing nonhistoricity claims, or (b) a full article about the non-historicity claims of the "Jesus-myth camp", separate from a non-commital article on comparative mythology. I opted for the latter because I assumed this would accommodate the sceptics (sheesh, I am a sceptic myself, but I like to detachedly lay out various positions, not mix them up in a confused mish-mash and 'refute by misrepresentation'), as Paul says, "bedevilled by the view that editors all have a secret agenda of some sort", turning what could be a pleasing intellectual debate into a frustrating rubbing of fragile egos. I do realize at this point that at least Sophia was attached to this version, and I recognize that my cleanup burst must appear uncivil to her, for which I apologize. That said, the article as it stood was so poor, rife with self-contradiction, misconception and plastered with cleanup tags, and Sophia's defense of that state, I am sorry to say, so incoherent, that I have little hope that earlier parley would have made much of a difference. My interest in all this is a clean and scholarly article on mythographical aspects of Christ. I wouldn't dream of "undermining" or hindering a discussion of non-historicity claims, but I don't want the mythographic discussion hampered by offtopic discussions on historicity. There is a lot of fringecruft involved in the historicity debate, but I certainly recognize there are also serious proponents. The serious ones belong on historicity of Jesus. The dilettants probably shouldn't be discussed at all, but inasfar as there is a separate "Jesus-myth" school within the proponents of nonhistoricity, "Jesus-myth hypothesis" would be the place to discuss that. dab (𒁳) 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGF?

"rvv Kenosis. This is an attempt to prejudice a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth to make the two article appear similiar and influence votes"
Funny, Jbolden, weren't you the person who brought up AGF on the deletion page? Thank you for proving my point. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional reversion

I've again reverted back to the article-form of a week ago. There was a mass edit here which was implemented with the edit summary "Gnostic oriented writers". I regarded this edit summary as somewhat mistleading, as it changed the whole article from the last reasonably consensused version. I've reverted it back to the earlier version here. ... Kenosis 05:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the AFD debate I am going to continue to work on the post split version. There was a previous consensus (among a different group of editors) to overhaul this version and another debate arriving at similar conclusions on AFD. jbolden1517^Talk 10:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the debate about possible splitting. Sophia, Jim62sch and Orangemarlin objected to the type of split that was proposed. Then this article was totally rewritten with an obvious biblical apologetic slant starting right in the proposed new intro. Now I object too. So, it would appear it's back to square one until this is settled or reaches a compomise of some kind that's workable and within WP rules.

Note the longstanding lead, for example (with a couple minor adjustments to the terms or operational definitions to clarify the terms a bit):

The Jesus-myth hypothesis, also commonly called Jesus as myth or the Jesus myth,[1][2] refers to the idea that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels is not about a real person, but a construct of Christian mythology, which parallels mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities. The study of such elements is often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position toward the historicity of Jesus.

The following, in less than a week inclusive of a holiday weekend in the US, is what replaced the above:

The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus". The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered.[1] That is while the mythological parallels in the gospel narrative are widely recognised, a claim of non-historicity must make a case that biographical details reported in the gospels rather than the historical core of the narrative are secondary embellishments intended to create a fictitious impression of historicity. The authors addressed in Jesus-myth hypothesis are all 20th and 21 century and all atheist. They operate completely within a naturalistic, rationalistic and empiricist framework. They are addressing a secular audience and they can be reasonable classified as skeptics. Their differences in methodology to lead to differences in historical analysis. [2] [3]

I'm sorry, but this newly proposed intro and description of the topic is not NPOV, rather it is fairly flat-out biblical apologetics. ... Kenosis 14:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is biblical apologtics in the sentences beginning "The authors addressed...", but not before. Your reasonable NPOV complaint is not really about one version versus another, but some specific sentences. That's separate from the debate about the scope of the article and whether or not it should concentrate on the "no historical jesus" theory. The last sentences you quote should certainly go. It is not true that they are all 20th century or that they are all atheists or that they all operate "completely within a naturalistic, rationalistic and empiricist framework". Indeed some of the early ones were associated with movements like theosophy. I doubt that a clique of editors were waiting for you to go on holiday. Paul B 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather we had the concise article to work from, but I'm certainly not arguing that either of them were NPOV. I've no idea what the Dali picture with its whacky caption is doing there, for example. Paul B 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the interpretation of what I do and don't object to. To make it clearer, I object to the complete rewrite of this article, which was done without consensus. Additionally I object to the content, form, and organizational approach of the proposed rewrite. Is that sufficiently clear? The onus is on he, she, or they who are proposing the changes to discuss those changes point by point, not the other way around. As I said, it is clear there is not a consensus for taking the new approach advocated by Paul Barlow, Dbachmann and Jbolden, but rather a very strong disagreement about this. But either way, WP:NPOV always trumps a local consensus-- it's one of two basic WP rules that cannot be overridden by any consensus, even if one were to be gained for such an approach. ... Kenosis 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not clear, becase it's far too generalised. Object to specific aspects of content, or specific issues of content. There is no rule that consensus has to be achieved on the talk page before any alterations are made, even large scale ones. But certainly where disputes exist, we should seek to achieve it. The key to that is distinguishing the specific matters under dispute. Paul B 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, right now the whole new approach is under dispute by many participants, not just myself. Given that this article took a long time to reach its admittedly very imperfect state, the onus is on those making the affirmative changes. Two or three editors took it upon themselves to completely rewrite the approach and start a new article too, both of which are heavily disputed. Read that: "no consensus". As I also said, even if a consensus were to be gained for such an approach as was just taken, consensus never trumps NPOV (read that: "At some point other participants get into the picture, analyze it, and say 'that's not NPOV', which trumps the local consensus").

Gotta go for now. If I may, I think there is excellent potential for an article of some kind which discusses parallel or analogous myths to those of Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know whether it will end up being in the newly created article Jesus Christ as myth, which would depend on the outcome of the present Afd. In my opinion Jbolden made a very useful point much farther above on this talk page, in reference to the "Jesus as myth" approach as compared to the "historicity of Jesus": He said: "The problem with this approach is that it there really are two possibilities: 1. A person got mythological "cargo" attached to them; 2. A belief developed that at some point in the past a mythological being had actually acted in history" I agree this is part of what is going on, but disagree completely that the solution is to completely rewrite this article. The issue of historical evidence for the person to which additional mythical cargo may have become attached is squarely within the "historicity of Jesus" and/or what is increasingly referred to as "the historical Jesus". As I said, there's room for the comparative mythology slant, assuming the comparisons are properly WP:Ad. In order to potentially succeed with such an approach, though, the mythological comparisons themselves must be attributed, not just the myths being compared across cultures. And of course it must have a suitable title. And if a consensus can be reached for using the title "Jesus Christ as myth" for this purpose, then cross linking to it from this article, disambiguating, etc., ought be simple enough. But thus far there is not such a consensus, and especially not one for a radical rewrite of this article here. ... Kenosis 14:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

Why do we have a section "5.1 Jesus in non-Christian sources" as a subsection of "5 Mainstream scholarly reception", when the very same range of non-Christian sources is already included under "4.1 Early non-Christian references to Jesus"? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the article has been turned back to chaos due to reversion wars. Paul B 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. I'd recommend against working on this version of the article at all. jbolden1517^Talk 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and combined the two as just indicated by Str1977. It's a straight cut-and-paste from the latter to the former section. The present second paragraph of "Jesus in non-Christian sources appears to be reasonably compatible as a follow-up to the first-- for now at least. Mentions Josephus and Tacitus explicitly, probably not too much more need be said I would think. Isn't there a useful quote from Josephus's work where he refers to Jesus having been crucified and the followers being something of a nuisance for the Empire? Or was that Tacitus' history? Anybody have handy access to that quote? ... Kenosis 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See Josephus on Jesus. Paul B 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I also now see the companion article Tacitus on Jesus, which offers the full quote I was thinking of, from the perspective of the Empire. ... Kenosis 18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For Orangemarlin: here is where this has been discussed.

Kenosis, could you please explain the changes to my edits?

I especially object to the translation of Josephus currently used - "so-called Messiah" is too narrow a translation - Josephus might have intented this or he might not, it is better to say "who was called the Christ".

All the rest retains the redundancy and only shifts the place where it occurs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had several objections to the copyedits, including the replacement of "so-called messiah" in a work written by a Jewish writer of the late first or early second century. I also objected to the removal of the reference to "Grammatical analysis indicates significant differences with the passages that come before and after it...". But these are not, in the end, major big deals. I'd sure like to see, at some point in this editing process, another brief paragraph summarizing Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. In my opinion, that paragraph more-or-less worked as an overview of what's explained a bit more in the material presented below it. ... Kenosis 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis,

the trouble is that Josephus is not saying "so-called Messiah" with the connotations that this phrase carries in English. Sure, Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah. But in translations we should always opt for the broader translation - otherwise it is putting interpretation into the translation and thus patronising the reader. And there is a broader and thus more accurate and better translation avaiable. I can't and won't accept the bad translation.

I understand your concerns about the "grammatical analysis" - I thought this too detailed but will not revert it. However, it must be noted that it is not just grammatical analysis - that the Testimonium affirms Jesus being the Christ and having risen from the dead and doubts whether one should call him a man is not a matter of grammar but one of content. If Josephus had written all of this, he would have been a Christian.

Finally, the version reverted to does not reduce redundancy but replicates it. Moving a redundant section up so that it stands next to the section it is redundant with makes the problem more visible but doesn't solve it. If you see anything in the section moved-up that is not included in the other section and should be included, please make according changes instead of reverting to a mess.

Orangemarlin, instead of shouting POV you should come here and post your concerns. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't shout. Please review remaining civil. Orangemarlin 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And so should you. You blanket revert without ever addressing the arguments, accusing others of POV and OR without explaining anything. I myself have not been uncivil on this talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, so use "believed to be the Messiah [Hebrew: משיח; Mashiah, Mashiach, or Moshiach, "anointed [one]" translated as 'Chraestus', or 'Christ']" or something that objectively reflects what Josephus was saying. Josephus was a Jew with allegiences that were not even remotely consistent with the translated statement "He was Christ". Please skip, or at least balance for the reader, the glossed-over platitudes used by the later, shall we say, preferred Vatican scribes and translators. This can be done objectively. Josephus, taking the various translations into account, was saying "said to be the messiah", "said to be the 'annointed One [Messiah, or Christ]"' "Jesus, who they believed to be the 'messiah' [the Christ], ...". There is a way to properly summarize the scholarly consensus on this, which is that Josephus was not conceding that Jesus' followers (the "messiah-folk" or "Christ-people", later called "Christians") were correct in referring to Jesus as the messiah or the Christ, but that that is what the followers claimed or wholeheartedly believed, that "Jesus was or is the messiah). Or at least this is what much of the academic debate is about. Or say it explicitly, e.g. "... has been translated in several ways as "He was the Christ" [cite to William Whiston's Tesimonium] and "They believed him to be the messiah [Christ]" [cite to, e.g., Alice Wealey, who's tracked it back to an early Greek translation]. There's a way to do this so it reflects the actual debate. Kudos to you for trying. I recognize it's not an easy task. ... Kenosis 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, this particular issue is quite simple. We mustn't bargain for translating this ourselves - that would be OR - but simply give a standard translation. So far I see two versions here, the one translating "so-called Messiah" and the one using "who was called the Christ". Are there any more? We have to chose from the existing versions and to me it is clear that the better one is the one "who was called the Christ", for the reasons I gave above: it is broader in its meaning and avoids connotations that are not in the Greek (after all, there is a debate about whether the Christ qualifier was an interpolation - if it clearly said "so-called" with all negative connotations that wouldn't be the case).

Maybe you are confusing the two passages: the James passage does not contain "He was the Christ" but refers to James as the "brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" - the statement "He was the Christ" is part of the Testimonium Flavianum - most probably interpolated and one of the elements I talked about above when I said that the reasons for supposing an interpolation of the TF are not merely grammatical. So there is no need to debate Josephus' allegiance as there is no disagreement.

Do you know understand my point? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think I do understand the point here. It is not OR to make clear to the reader that there's a range of translation and a scholarly debate about it and give examples. I gave two examples above, citing to Whiston and Wealey as examples of the two main views. Moreover, making clear what the etymology of Meshiah (Annointed One]->messiah->Chraestus->Christ is not OR-- just cite it accordingly. Same with Messiah-folk->Christ-people->Christian, which can help make clear to the reader what some of the debate and controversy is about. There are many ways to do this objectively without resorting to OR. ... Kenosis 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis,

sure there is a range of translations. We could of course include many translations side by side to show this but I don't think that would help the article. Or we can chose the broadest translation. What I think is OR is to produce a translation of our own or to put one together out of existing ones (At least, that was the view elsewhere when we debated the Nicene Creed text - and there the OR change would have merely consisted of changing a plural "we" to a singular "I") or including such etymological explanations into the quote.

IMHO the etymology of Christ/Messiah or Christian cannot be covered here, but we can wikilink these words. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and I don't want to make it an issue but is has to be said. There are no Vatican scribes involved in this at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to give the whole slew of translations. There's a debate going on that can be readily divided into two camps. One says that the version that says "He was Christ" is accurate; the other says that Josephus, being a Jew with allegiances elsewhere, said essentially "they believed him the Messiah" and cite accordingly. A brief reference, either in the article text or in a footnote, to the etymology of Messiah->Christ could be very helpful to readers, and the citations for that are widespread-- just pick a couple as the etymology isn't even controversial. That's not OR, that's part of writing and editing an article and explaining to the reader, with sourcing, what the particular debate is about. It would be OR if we invented the thesis that translations into Latin and ultimately English didn't accurately represent what Josephus said. Please don't forget too, that Josephus is a vital historical source because he was Jewish with allegiances elsewhere who was commenting from an independent perspective on the increasingly visible "messiah-folk" or "Christ-people", the early Christians. Anyway, two or three representative examples, e.g., variously translated as "He was Christ" [cite], "so-called Christ"[cite], and "they believed him the Messiah" [cite] ought to do it I would think. ... Kenosis 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No No No No. You still haven't figured out what I am talking about. I am not talking about any "He was the Christ" passages. What I am talking about is this passage:

...the newly appointed high priest "convened the court of the Sanhedrin and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Messiah, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned".

vs.

... the newly appointed high priest "convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought them a man called James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

Both are possible translations of the same Greek text BUT the former ("so-called") is narrower, introducing connotations not contained in the Greek text, and therefore worse. That's the whole translation issue involved here. It is not a matter of several legitimate views but one of a better and a worse translation.

"He was the Christ" is contained in the Testimonium Flavianum (the longer passage on Jesus) - and there we have absolutely no translation issue (later correction: except the argument by Alice Whealey) but an interpolation issue. This cannot be translated differently as this is what the Greek Josephus text contains word for word. The interpolation must of course be addressed but fiddling around with the translation is not an option.

But to make this clear once and for all - the issue here is the James passage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see more explicitly what you're referring to now. In other words, vatican scribes were only alleged to be involved in the "Testimonium Flavianum". The reference to James, while it's validity is contested by several writers, has general scholarly consensus as to its validity, having been traced at least back to a fourth century Greek copy of the Antiquities that appears to be authentic. OK, fine.

I don't know what the solution is then. But I'd like to see a bit more of a straighforward summary paragraph or two, such as, for example: Three early writers are typically cited in support of the actual existence of Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus and Seutonius. Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the accuracy of one or more of these sources. Then proceed in more depth, which the article already does, even if imperfectly. Please, though, retain a summary of the three at the top of that section so the reader gets a reasonable picture-- this is why I advocated keeping some form of the paragraph that was brought into the section from the bottom of the article. ... Kenosis 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have raise this issue nonetheless. The Vatican has been the papal residence since roughly 1400 (after the return from Avignon, before that it was the Lateran) but even though no papal scribes have been involved. The interpolations must have occured at sometime between Origen (who quotes Josephus without noticing the TF) and Eusebius (who essentially quotes what we have today). So it must have occured between 250 and 325. And of course, all this happened in Greek. Papal scribes wrote in Latin.

The James passage is hardly contested as it bears nothing objectable (no Christian profession, no grammatical difficulties).

Okay, I can live with a short summary that basically lists the three as your suggestion above does. But nothing more - the actual content should be relegated to the sub-section. Unless you want to do away with the sub-section. The point is that every item of information is included once. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NP. Thank you for your diligence Yes, there was a lot of interpolating going on in the period around 325 to be sure. Anyway, good regards, and look forward to seeing a resumption of your ongoing debates with Sophia and perhaps others. ... Kenosis 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think so (that there was a lot of interpolating going on in this period) - but I is a nice that we can narrow down the date of this particular interpolation (though I'd rather no agree with the thesis that Eusebius himself did it - only very few people would quote something they have forged themselves, especially when everyone could have pointed at their doing). Nonetheless, good regards and cheers. Looking forward too, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Certainly wasn't meaning to imply, e.g., that Eusebius of Caesarea was going around telling people to burn all the old copies of Mark and such, or altering things himself, or whatever. Plainly he was as diligent a historian as would have been possible back in that day. Agreed that 325 was mainly a sort of culmination of many events that preceded. By "a lot of interpolating", I was merely referring to the workings of the council in attempting to "standardize" the diverse material available at the time. Anyway, my pleasure to have had this exchange with you. ... Kenosis 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. There was no standardizing done by the Council of Nicea, least of all concerning non-Christian writings. IMHO (totally speculative but not unreasonable or without parallel) the interpolation occured because someone added marginal notes to his copy of Josephus and sometime between 250 and 325 took these notes for part of the text, culminating in the text we now have. But never mind my theory. I don't think that antiquity was as obsessed with standardizing as our times - no wonder that we tend to project this leaning backwards in time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doherty epilogue

Why does the section "5 Mainstream scholarly reception" end in a comment by Doherty, himself decidedly not a part of that mainstream, which basically says that someone else should come along. Isn't this akin to a proponent of a minority view saying that one day (oh happy day) the majority will come to see the wisdom of the minority view and change its mind. Revision and changing minds are an essential part of all branches of scholarship but why should we give a platform to any one view in this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... I do see your point... but I think there's arguably validity in assigning a special preference to the view of the subjects of the article, of which Doherty is a notable example, and the only one (I'm aware) that has commented on the subject. TJ 09:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It still seems too be POV pushing to me in as much as it tries to even out the consensus of scholarship by pointing to a possible future change to this consensus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that comment as I think it's inappropriate. As Str1977 said Doherty is NOT part of the mainstream and cannot be included in here. This is an encyclopaedia and not a discussion forum. Mercury543210 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th century

The last sentences you quote should certainly go. It is not true that they are all 20th century or that they are all atheists or that they all operate "completely within a naturalistic, rationalistic and empiricist framework". Indeed some of the early ones were associated with movements like theosophy

Paul --
Good point. I'm thinking of essentially excluding the 19th century people since its my belief they ended up being part of the Jesus myth school. That is they advanced the comparison angle but that their analysis of the data by and large died out and doesn't impact the modern historical analysis. That is they aren't really precursors to say Wells. Given that explanation do you disagree?

[edit] Original research

Reverted it. Thanks. Orangemarlin 08:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain? Blanket reverting is what I call uncivil. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An explanation would be nice, however I disagree that a blanket revert is uncivil, especially in light of the tone and thrust of what was reverted. Did it all need to go? Probably not, but most of it sure as hell did.

Also, I would suggest that any edits, other than the cosmetic or grammatical be discussed before making them. Given the turmoil of this article and the two linked to it (especially the POV fork), it would be the civil thing to do. •Jim62sch• 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree. I did not begin complaining about incivity, but if anything was uncivil, it was IMHO the blanket reverting.

I agree that edits should be explained - not necessarily however on the talk page, sometimes the edit summary is quote sufficient - the talk page is for discussing, not for keeping records.

I object that suddenly I am supposed to be the bad guy - "especially in light of the tone and thrust of what was reverted", what is that supposed to mean? Did you read what I changed? And any objections should be made clear in some way even more so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus myth (copied from Orangemarlin's Talk page)

I am copying this from the talk page so that everyone can see Orangemarlin's 
very substantial  arguments and display of civility:

Instead of blanket reverting me under factually inaccurate labels you could move yourself to explaining your objections on the article talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh you mean to gain consensus? Explain actions? Like you and your friends did with the article? You're right, I should spend 15 more seconds explaining myself than you did. Orangemarlin 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are enjoying your condescension. In any case, I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page - explain meaning more than just throwing around acronyms. And note: I have no friends working on the article, the one coming closest is Sophia, which with I do not share a POV, and Paul B. I am not friends with Jbolden, if you are referring to him. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't care who are your friends or not. You could say you're friends with the Pope and how am I ever going to believe you one way or another. The fact is that the article got completely destroyed, and it was done in an underhanded way. I have no clue if you were part of the group that did it, but all I see are POV edits from you and the others. I do not condescend. Do not state what you "think" I am doing. I am matter-of-fact about this. I see POV, OR, and other issues, and I revert. It truly appears to me that you are destroying the article. If you are not, then why so much own research in it? Orangemarlin 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. Sophia 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still completely puzzled about what happened to the article and what the sides are. I wish we could roll things back to how they were.--Filll 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

--- Orange, neither do I care whether you care. It was you brought up this issue. Just because jbolden posted on my talk page and I replied in a friendly manner doesn't mean that we are friends. I don't yet oversee this whole issue with him but I certainly do not approve of his blanket reverting to his preferred version. Neither do I like your unexplaind blanket reversion. Finally, even when you say you do not condescend you are doing it. Unless my senses are deceiving me. Descend from your horse and talk to other people in a meaningful way. It can only help all of us.

Sophia, oh I would love to see this cool down. Only what can I do when I am getting no explanations from Orange? Simply stating POV and OR (first the one, than the other) doesn't help and even after asking I get only condescension.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't mind ugly arguments between POV-pushers, but I can't accept this style of argument between otherwise reasonable editors. It is almost impossible to evaluate the merits of the split with so much noise about editor action and so on. Since the split was done too hastily, perhaps we can revert to the previous state of affairs, and develop the split pages as sub-pages of this talk page. Then, we can perhaps engage in a friendly discussion about how to best cover this topic. I do believe there is some merits in the split. For me, it made clear what distinguishes a Jesus-myth theorist from say any old mainstream atheist historian who denies every religiously significant event in the Bible.

In any case, I think a good case can be made for the split, but in order to do so, can we perhaps turn back time. Let's forgive and forget that this has happened, and then discuss this idea together with editors like SOPHIA, who are deeply upset about this split. I think much frustration is due to procedure, and not the actual content. Would people find this idea acceptable? Personally, I probably even support the split, but I feel it was done too hastily, offending too many people, and neglecting the consensus process that is so vital. What do you people think about this suggestion to turn back time, and discuss this more widely?

Respectfully, Merzul 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem with the split if people don't interpret it as a "split" so much as the creation of a new article looking in detail at the comparisons between the Jesus story and other world myths. It would make this article too long anyway if that were to be done in detail here. In order to be comprehensive pre-19th Century Christian Synchretism (e.g. Jacob Bryant) could also be included along with Jungian ideas etc. This article can discuss what it was always supposed to discuss - the history of arguments from scholars who believe that JC is best understood in terms of a historicised god/messiah figure rather than a real bloke who went around Israel talking stuff about the Kingdom of God and then got executed for irritating the authorities. Paul B 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I cannot see the wood for the trees and would appreciate back tracking. I also would feel much more comfortable with the line that Paul is taking as I think I can begin to see where he is going with this. Not to make this personal but I feel Jbolden has been a loose canon who's uninformed edits have made it very difficult for all to sort out what is really going on. I would much rather start from a properly planned split if that is what the majority see as best representing the subject(s) with article titles that make sense. I'm prepared to hold off article edits and sort things out on talk pages first but I really feel that working from one article would make the most sense so we can sort out the remit of each potential separate article before they are created. I've felt for the last few days that I'm desperately trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted and have been surprised at the amount of support an editor who sees this subject as a theist vs atheist one has received - one and who's version with the Mickey Mouse analogy was defended and reverted to.

The good effect of all of this is that there are now a lot of people with a keen interest on this subject devoting time to it. Let's harness that, backtrack to a point we all recognise and then move forward. The original Jesus as myth article was not good so I have no issue with it being overhauled but let's do it in a considered way rather than "tossing coins" to see what material we put where. Sophia 12:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I still can't oversee the whole issue but I agree that giving all the alleged parallels would be too much for this article. Still "Jesus as myth" is not a good title for any article. I would suggest a sub-article to this article (clearly marked as such) titled "Parallels between Jesus and myths" or the like.

Right now I am concentrating on improving this article but am cut short by stone-walling and (unexplained) blanket reverting. Comments on this are appreciated. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to understand, so I apologise if I misprepresent the situation. But it seems that some editors, notably Orangemarlin and Jim are mainly involved in ongoing wars with Creationists on Intelligent Design and other pages. I get the impression that they tend to take a knee-jerk position that everyone who supports changing this article is part of some furtive Creationist clique. (see dab's comments at the bottom of the Jesus Christ as myth page). This leads to really confused and frustrating debate since they seem to see POV that either isn't there, or, if it is, is a quite different POV from the one they imagine it to be. As a result no-one seems to know who is arguing about what, just that people are really angry about something. Jbolden's preferred version of this page [5] for example was idiosyncratic and given to dogmatic assertions. It needed to be developed, but had the avantage that it was tight and focussed. However, I'm at a loss to see how it can be construed as a POV attack on the hypothesis (if that is indeed how it was construed), rather the opposite. Paul B 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit off-topic don't you think? Creationists and ID have nothing to do with this article. If we are all going to go trawling through each others edits on disparate articles, this is going to get extraordinarily nasty very quickly. Also, I'd suggest you lay off Acsribing motives, when you have little clue what you are on about. Finally, the bone of contention, in case you haven't figured it out, is the splitting off of an article with no consensus have been reached and out of process. Are we clear on this? •Jim62sch• 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly not, Jim. There are two issues here. The one is the split which was contentious before. But the trouble discussed here, involving me, is the reverting of the changes I made. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Paul, your mind-reading abilities are way off, so you might want to consider an alternative career. I have no knee-jerk opinion, you obviously have completely misinterpreted me. I know when a Creationist is creating a kerfuffle. Here, we had two editors, borden and bachmann (sound likes a law firm), who took it upon themselves to destroy this article. There is nothing to misunderstand about that. There motives are unclear to me, but I actually don't care. And Str1977, apparently you cannot read either, because I've made my point 17 times at least. Don't edit until we get back to a stable form. You are editing what may be outstanding points on an incorrect start point. When we get that start back, I think you should add your stuff. But calling me names, inferring that my reverts are against you, etc. is not helping here. I do not care about you one whit (not meant negatively, just that it is not personal). Who knows, you might make this a great article one day. But what I care about is what destroyed this article. That's it, I hope everyone is clear on my points, so there is no further mindreading. Orangemarlin 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I(edit clash) think we've all got a bit "revert happy" as too much has happened too fast for most of us to keep up. I agree that the title need to change but we tried this a few months ago and no one could come up with anything better - there was no disagreement - just no ideas. Hopefully with more people around there will be some ideas that will fly. Please please please can we all slow down a bit and work out how we are going to get back to an article or articles that are worh reading? If the article is in the "wrong version" - so what for a few days? Sophia 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is the dumb similarity of the titles (Jesus Christ as myth and Jesus-myth hypothesis), and the numerous redirects pointing hither and thither (Jesus-myth, Jesus as myth etc) but I am unwilling to change the title while the RfD is ongoing. Paul B 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the title has always been problematic. So's the difference between "historicity of Jesus" and "historical Jesus" and a good few other things. "Jesus as myth" is only problematic because of the "Jesus as man" vs. "Jesus as myth" issue. I'm going to remove the reference to "Jesus as myth" in the lead of the article so as not to unnecessarily confound this discussion. ... Kenosis 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone is posting anywhere without regard to the section I merge the sections again.

Sophia, I think your assessment reasonable. But should we allow those butting their heads elsewhere to take other articles hostage, DISRUPTING the work here. I have other obligations too and am not prepared to wait a few days for the (possible) situation that Orange will then not blanket revert me and treat me as he did (that's not to say I will go away). I would be more than happy to address his concerns re POV and OR but I can't do so if he doesn't talk about these in any way. After all, I explained every single one of my edits, either here in the talk page or at least via a meaningful edit summary. And he hasn't addressed inssues like redundancy, structure etc. at all.

And lest we forget WP:AGFis a policy too.

As far at the split goes, I have stated my opinion above. And I don't think the title change would be that diffiult. If it is, there might be something wrong with the scope of the article. An article for which an concise title is unattainable either should not exist or cut differently. After all, WP is for readers not for writers and readers will type in titles. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I see Orangemarlin is angry, and so are at least a couple others. Orangemarlin, can you be a little bit less angry please? Paul?

Str1977, I do see that several of your copyedits have gotten reverted in the midst of the larger issue of the basic thrust of the article and its brandy-new offspring presently being debated in an AfD that appears could go either way at the moment. As to this article, the assertions of Orangemarlin, Jim62sch, Sophia, dab, Merzul and myself all appear to agree on at least one thing, which is that the article should be brought back to the form of a week ago before this whole fracas erupted. As I said, two editors, Dbachmann and Jbolden1517, basically took it upon themselves to completely redefine this topic, completely rewrite the article, and start a whole new very controversial article too. I hope the research they did will prove fruitful in one or more WP articles in the future-- nice stuff there on the Egyptian myths and all that. So, I recommend a bit more patience-- and maybe Sophia and Str1977 can get back to a civil debate as before, and so can others. But for now, a complete rewrite plainly lacks anything that can be even remotely viewed as a consensus to change the whole approach of this article from what it was a week ago. Reviewing Orangemarlin's reverts, they were all consistent with going back to the longstanding form of the article which was at least reasonably NPOV, and in that respect I support him 100%. Orange, please don't be quite so angry, OK? ... Kenosis 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I can't agree with your observation. My copyedits were reverted not by Jbolden's reverts but on their own for reasons unclear to me (since Orange didn't explain there is no knowing). I am all for civil debate and AGF and so IMHO is Sophia. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I saw that one. Hey Orangemarlin! We're debating this, OK? Question for Orangemarlin: Was the reversion of Str1977's edits intentional based on an additional disagreement with Str1977's edits, or did they just get lost in the confusion and haste of all this? ... Kenosis 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of haste I've started an essay on Not being hasty User:KillerChihuahua/Haste and while people are noticing what problems being hasty can cause, I would consider it a kindness if you'd take a look and make any additions or improvements you feel are indicated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusion. I want to revert all bachmann and bolden edits, so that we have a clean start. At this point in time, I have no patience for Str1977's edits until we get back to that point. I also am offended by Str1977's one-sided commentary that he's the innocent editor, and I've been "aggressive". Once we're at the agreed-to start point, I'm a whole different person with regards to these edits. Yeah I'm pissed about this. And if you want me to AGF Str1977, then why is he so incapable of noting the reasons for my level of anger, that the article was basically destroyed by two editors, both of whom seem to be friendly with Str1977's agenda. Orangemarlin 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann edited this article because he saw that it was an intellectually chaotic, incoherent mess, that's why. It was a mess because of editors who are incapable of thinking coherently about the topic, and who, I suspect, actually know very little about ancient history, comparative mythology and the history of the theories abut the historicity of Jesus. It needed to be tightened and the debates clarified. Paul B 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to mindreading again Paul B--I've got to admit that you're not really all that adept at it. That other job of putting words into people's mouths might be more up your alley. Yes, Sophia and I, despite our education, study of the subject, and obvious interest in the subject are quite incapable of thinking coherently--and, not only do I know nothing about ancient history, I actually don't know what it is. Never read anything about it. All I know about the mythical christ is what I read at the Atheist meetings I hold in my basement where we sacrifice young Christian virgins. You know we pass out these pamphlets about it. I'll pass them along to you if you would like, because since your mindreading skills lack a certain je ne sais quoi, it might help to review the pamphlet so you can accuse me other acts, such as, since I'm Jewish, I voted for that slave instead of Jesus prior to the execution date. Orangemarlin 07:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding - as well as adolescent-level saracasm - seems to be your forte. Indeed you are so adept at the former that you can't even recognise that dbachmann and jbolden are essentially rational-secularists, as am I. You see Christian POV where there is none. Did you even read jbolden's version of the text? You certainly did not understand it. BTW, Barabbas wasn't a slave. You are demonstrating your deep deep knowledge once more. Paul B 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange, indeed I am the innocent editor when I get reverted not for what I wrote (which would require an explanation) but for the version my edits are supposedly (!!!) based on. However, I did not edit based on jbolden's version which again and again was reverted before I began to edit. If I am mistaken then please tell me which version would

Finally, there is no policy that allows you to suspend patience or that makes AGF conditional on anything. I understand your anger but I cannot accept your venting it at me and my edits.

And again the bad-faith accusation "two editors, both of whom seem to be friendly with Str1977's agenda" - jbolden I never met before, he is an atheist, I am a Catholic - so what do we share. I met dbachman before but I can't remember where or whether we agreed much or not. Just because I respond to them in a friendly way doesn't mean that I approve of their perspective on this topic - or that I disagree - I have no particular view on this yet. What I do not approve of is unilaterally forcing any one view on others.

So, your two stated reasons for reverting me are both non-factual (I did not base myself on that version, I am not friends with J. and D.) and invalid (these are not proper reasons for reverting).

But I am willing to let bygones be bygones if you are giving me the opportunity to implement my edits on an accepted version. Please point me to it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still looking for that information. If I can't find it on the talk page I will have a look what basis Kenosis' edit had and proceed based on those edits built on it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Jesus as myth"

I can see why including this phrase in the lede is a problem, but "Jesus as myth" is a relatively common phrase in describing this hypothesis, so it needs to be in there. Assuming that Jesus Christ as myth survives AfD (which I think it should), probably a better title needs to be found for that article to reduce confusion. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is what some of us have been saying here. I've no objection to reverting my edit, which I described just below. ... Kenosis 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slight change in the article lead

PaulB and I just had the following exchange in the section above, which I'm reproducing here for convenience and visibility:

:The big problem is the dumb similarity of the titles ([[Jesus Christ as myth]] and [[Jesus-myth hypothesis]]), and the numerous redirects pointing hither and thither ([[Jesus-myth]], [[Jesus as myth]] etc) but I am unwilling to change the title while the RfD is ongoing. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, I removed the reference to "Jesus as myth" in the first lead paragraph, so as not to create unnecessary additional confusion, for now at least, until this is all better sorted out. ... Kenosis 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of AKA's and poor titles

The rsults of "goggling":

"Jesus-myth hypothesis" – 66

"Jesus myth theory" – 261

"Jesus myth" – 60,800

"Jesus as myth" – 685

Notice something there? Virtually no one calls it a theory or hypothesis. Kinda odd, no? Also, can we get rid of all the damned AKA's in the lead -- most criminals don't have that many AKA's. Obviously this article has other issues as well, issues that might be partially resolved with the resoration and complete rewriting of the stuff siphoned off to create the POV fork. •Jim62sch• 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I predict that a move to Jesus myth will result in all sorts of complaints about the title being POV. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that Jesus myth alone can be seen as an endorsement. And it is a hypothesis (not really a theory). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not an endorsement, that's what it's called. Hell, the Jesus Christ article can be seen as an endorsement of Jesus' divinity, or at least messiahship (which was not a claim to divinity, by the way). •Jim62sch• 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph from the section on "Early non-Christian references to Jesus", placed here for future reference to any potentially useful content and/or to the sources placed within it. Str1977 and I discussed this in the talk section above on redundancy. ... Kenosis 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first extant non-Christian document that mentions Jesus are two passages by the Jewish historian Josephus. However, the longer of these passages is generally held by scholars to be at least partly interpolated. Suetonius, who wrote in the second century, made reference to unrest among the Jews of Rome in 41 AD caused by "Chrestus", who has been commonly identified with Jesus Christ. The Roman historian Tacitus mentions "Christ" as the founder of Christianity in the context of the Great Fire of Rome. Celsus, a second century opponent of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard child and a sorcerer. He never questions Jesus' historicity even though he hated Christianity and Jesus.^[3] He is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man."^[4] Lastly, there are passages from the satirist Lucian of Samosata^[5], both of whom credit "Christ" as the founder of Christianity. 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

^ The analogy being made here is that Steamboat Willie was the first widely distributed Mickey Mouse feature and it was based on the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill Jr. which while fictional was not mythical.
^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
^ Smith, M (1998). Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God. Ulysses Press, 78-79. ISBN 978-1569751558.
^ Bertonneau, TF (1997). "Celsus, the First Nietzsche: Resentment and the Case Against Christianity". Anthropoetics III 1.
^ Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113 see Slick, MJ (2007). Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people. Retrieved on 2007-04-17.

[edit] too slanted

I see this article and think, why can't it look just like the article on Appollo for example? Why is the language so slanted? Just be matter of fact , not so embarrassingly opinionated. Grrose 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)grrose