Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)

Assessment comments

Jesus myth hypothesis is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

For more information and how you can help click Show →

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus myth hypothesis article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Archives
Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc. Archive 10: through Dec 2007: more NPOV, fringy-ness (or not), Bauer, etc. Archive 11: through Jan 31 2008: more NPOV, sources, etc. Archive 12: through Mar 18 2008: complaining about Grant quote, etc. Archive 13: through Apr 28 2008: more of the same

[edit] This article has major problems

First off, and most importantly, the article was very, very, off the scale a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, in that it tried to stack opinions into the lead itself.

Second, the cites/references in the lead that supposedly supported the idea that scholars and historians as a whoile reject the theory were not written as references but as lists of quotes of single authors stating their own personal opinions.

Third, upon removing these bogus citations, other citations throughout the article lost there references, because whomever originally made the tags put them together incorrectly. A reference to a specific quote in one location cannot be a reference used for a person or book in general in later references. If someone wants to go back in and restore those in the proper places, great, but be aware that citations are only for others stating opinions and not for trying to prove what "historians" say (especially as most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources).

Fourth, it's very clear that we have people looking for rationalizations to put their own opinions into the article and to remove opinions they do not like, which violates the core foundation of how WIkipedia is supposed to work. Someone removed a whole sentence because he claimed to object to the use of the word "notes" in it and recommended "argues" or some other variant... fine, "notes" is a POV-loaded word. The problem is that the person did not just change it to "argues" but removed the entire section... and also left a number of other sections in the article in which authors he/she agreed with were said to "note" certain things that were only those authors opinions and should also have been "argues" or "claims" in order to be fair and consistent.

WP:NPOV policy is absolute and must be followed. It shouldn't matter if editors or disagree or agree with a theory, the article still needs to be written to reflect the topic fairly. Putting the claim that scholars and historians all oppose it into the lead and even the proponents section is not only inaccurate but a clumsy attempt to push views onto the article every chance the editors had. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is a very old, and tiresome, argument. This article is about a fringe theory; there are quotes from several different scholars that illustrate that this theory is not accepted within academia. The statements you've edited out may well be "personal opinions", but they are the opinions of authoritative scholars, found in reliable sources. If you think that scholars dispute that the JM hypothesis is a fringe theory, find some scholars that say so (and I mean biblical scholars and ancient historians who have published their opinions in peer-reviewed journal articles or other reliable sources, not people who have to start their own journals to get their ideas published, or self-publish on the internet). Your statement that "most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources" mischaracterizes the sources you're removing; Grant, Van Voorst, Burridge/Gould, etc. all hold (or held) academic positions.

As for your last paragraph, I agree that NPOV must be followed, and I agree that some editors are editing according to whether they agree or disagree with the theory that's the subject of this article. Unfortunately, what I see is that people who agree with the JM theory are constantly arguing that the theory is a mainstream part of the academic discussion about the historical Jesus, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Most fringe theories get no discussion in academic literature; for this subject, we're lucky enough to have statements such as that of Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." Since we have authoritative statements that the JM theory isn't accepted in academia, I can only conclude that when an editor removes such statements, they're motivated by their personal opinions. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus.

Secondly, there are a number of citations in this article that show pretty conclusively that JM theory is a very marginal view among scholars, and therefore that deserves to go in the lead. I suggest you read WP:Undue if you're in any doubt about this. The references we cite come from Christians, atheists, and even the most prominent JM proponent.

Thirdly, please WP:AGF, and don't assume that my commitment to WP:NPOV is any less than yours, simply because I am religious. If any person ever thinks they're unbiased, that only shows they have an unusually low self-awareness. TJ (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this particular quote from Doherty belongs in the article. Doherty is notable as a proponent of the JM theory, and the article should therefore refer to him and explain why he thinks Jesus isn't historical (something which the article does a poor job of at present). On the other hand, I don't think that Doherty is an authoritative or reliable source on why the theory is rejected in academia.

What's more, the imputation that scholars are unwilling to accept the JM theory because they're apologists, is wrong; as has been noted many times on this talk page, Michael Grant does not profess to be a Christian, and rejects the JM theory on the grounds that it mishandles historical evidence. For him, it's a question of historical method, not religious belief; and if you look at the work of the other scholars quoted on this issue, they're saying things that are similar to Grant. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Doherty does belong BUT the link to "http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/" that keeps getting used as a reference is a frameset and the actual content comes from jesuspuzzle.humanist.net or someplace else and I can't verify all of that which is quoted that he says.

We must remember that questioning the authenticity of Jesus is tantamount to blasphemy and it is only on the 6th May 2008 (i.e. just a week or so ago) that even in the UK the last of the blasphemy laws in the UK were abolished. Any debate in any country on the authenticity of Jesus prior to the abolition of blasphemy laws in that country is inherently a biased debate. Same applies to debate on Islam in Muslim countries: does anyone here honestly think that a debate could take place in say Saudi Arabia on a critical point about Islam and expect that to be neutral ? Same applies to Western thought and "Jesus".

Given that inherent bias (forced by law) I think that any published source that posits the obverse is more than acceptable here (given the difficulty in publication) but please at least give us a good link to where to verify that what was said was true. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. the Stalinist censoring of anti-historicist views (even, now, from this talk page itself! -- see the previous version for what has not been allowed to be expressed), I have to declare that what was deleted of Doherty's statement was not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem is when someone claims that Professor Yaffle's condemnation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis can be ignored because he beats his wife at home. What Doherty is saying is quite different: he is saying that Professor Yaffle's condemnation of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis needs to be considered in the light of the fact that Yaffle and his friends exist as part of an academically institutionalised faith community whose very basis would not survive the discovery of Jesus' historical non-existence -- and that as a result, for them the Hypothesis is a literally unthinkable proposition.

Seriously: nothing deomstrates the essentially religious nature of objections to the JMH than the way fact and logic and definition are twisted to tilt the playing field. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? No. You spent four paragraphs ranting on how those who disagree with the quote are Stalinist, and trying to censor any claim that doesn't agree with them. Doherty's claim, while not as extreme as to claim wife-beating, is indeed an ad hominem - instead of attacking the arguments of his opponents, he is attacking them - trying to throw out their arguments due to personal qualities. It may try to disguise itself as questions about credibility, but not only is it blatantly false, but it is still an ad hominem. You, again, are engaging in the very same ad hominem attack. Please cease the personal attacks, or I will have to give you a PA warning.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooh! I'm scared! But for the benefit of future readers, here is the supposedly 'ad hominem' and 'blatantly false' statement by Doherty:

"An important factor ... has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se."

'Blatantly false'?? You have got to be joking!! Pfistermeister (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

1) You have failed to explain what the quote does for the article besides trying to say "Well, they're just theists, so why listen to them?" As I said before, the reasoning for keeping the quote would also allow us to find and add quotes along the lines of "it must be considered that only atheists and those with a grudge against Christianity support this theory" - and I doubt that you would so whole-heartedly support such a quote, hmm?

2) Then where is this majority of scholars that are not historians?

Richard Burridge, Graham Gould, Van Voorst, Graham Stanton, R.T. France are heads of theology departments. I can not find whether they were taught in a divinity school, though.
Michael Grant is an atheist and a full-fledged historian.
James Frazer studied myth and religion in general.

An excerpt from online, detailing some of those who oppose the hypothesis:

"Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11] Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes: The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus! Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote: "I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation." "...he argues mainly from silence." "...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space." "(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels." None of these scholars, we emphasize, are friends of fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestations of the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based on evidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their own imagination.

Again, the fact is is that the complaint isn't relevant. The mainstream historian position, which would hardly be mostly Christian, supports the claim that Jesus was a historical person. All that quote does is try to attack the speaker's instead of the evidence, and it would be blatantly dishonest to try to include it. Provide all the arguments for the claim that you want - but this isn't one of them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough we do know quite a bit about John the Baptist from Josephus (in response to the "know very little about any Jew pre 70CE). As for the picture woven in the gospels - what about all the "gospels" that didn't make it. You have the classic blinkered view that the bible is somehow special and not the political work of a council trying to secure its power base. Your only interest in this subject seems to be to annihilate it - not the basis of an interesting informative article.

So I ask you - what do you personally know of this subject? How many of the books on this page have you actually read? This article is being stamped to death for fear that it may do the devil's work and somehow present the Jesus Myth as a rational (all be it very small) line of academic enquiry. Two years on from my involvement in this article and I have seen no real progress as wave after wave of uniformed editors turn up who "just know this is wrong". Sophia 06:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What? First off, I'm just providing quotes to show that the dissenters are not all the products of Christian programs. I'm not saying I personally agree with them all. Furthermore, I've reverted many changes intended to remove pro-myth lines from the article. I'm not so obsessed with wiki as to believe it to be a front on the last crusade. As stated multiple times, the reason I disagree with including that specific quote (that the dissenters are all biased), is because it provides nothing but an ad hominem attack. And again, I would like to ask you group of editors to stop resorting to personal attacks. It does nothing to help your case, only aggravates any aggressive behavior that actually exists, and can get you blocked if done persistently.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think would improve this article? Sophia 20:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to cut back as much as possible on quotes that do nothing but attack the debaters, and we need to include as much of the actual arguments from both sides as possible. The section just listing that the opponents dislike the theory needs to be rewritten to focus on their actual critiques, and less on the character attacks.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So how would this article differ from the historicity of Jesus? What you describe is pretty much what goes on there. Sophia 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, then I could support a merge decision. I honestly can't think of why they would be separate in the first place, besides size concerns.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out before this is an area that really needs an expert on historical anthropology involved as there are anthropological issues involved that need to be addressed to truly evaluate the documents available. Based on what I read under the late Fred Plogg at NMSU for my masters most old school historians don't know how to anthropologically evaluate documents and most old school anthropologists barely know how to properly use historical documents. The problem is historical anthropology is insanely new--perhaps not even 30 years old. In fact very idea of the urban legend which is what is really at the heart of the JM is itself only 30 some years old. Scopes shows just how fast these stories can spread and for some believed. The 19th and 20th centuries are filled with urban legends like Spring Heeled Jack, that c1800 there really was a revenge crazed barber named Sweeney Todd, John Frum, and the biggest of the 20th centuries urban legends: the Bermuda Triangle.

The biggest problem on the pro historical Jesus side is this 'we think this way now so the Roman's must have thought this way' mentality. That is something for an anthropologist to determine as most historians are ill suited to the task. Questions about how the Roman's viewed history (did they use it as a political tool, for example) and their willingness to believe supernatural stories must be answered. Very little of that is actually addressed on the pro historical Jesus side--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

actually, I don't think we need an anthropologist here; maybe more of a couple's therapist. :-) the difficulty with this article (and a lot of articles like it) is that it starts to tweak at some very deeply held beliefs on both sides. Christians will naturally find the idea that Jesus is a mythological amalgam offensive, and non-Christians can't help but think that the full story of Jesus has large elements of mythology in it (because they have no other accounting for miraculous events except mythology). I think if everyone keeps in mind that the issue is not going to be (and is not supposed to be) solved in Wikipedia, and that all we need to do is report the theory and its status in the world, things will go a little smoother.

that being said, I'm going to put up a Proposed Merge banner with this page and Historicity_of_Jesus, with a link to this page for discussion. let's see what people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While a merger would get rid of the excluded middle nonsense that keeps cropping up in this article I worry that the result would not only one insanely long article but the periodic mayhem that this article suffers from would get transferred along with the merger.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Request for comment: Are the references in this article stating that the Jesus Myth theory is a minority in scholarly circles sufficient for the purpose for which they are used? Note: I believe this RFC is worded in such a way as to not address the actual concerns under dispute. Whether this hypothesis is a minority opinion or not is NOT at issue. See comments below.

A user has requested comment on religion or philosophy for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCreli list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

A user has requested comment on History and Geography.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFChist list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Yes - There are about seven good references for this in the article. Most of the references are from scholars with notable academic credentials (Burridge, Gould, Grant), at least one is an atheist (Grant), and they even include a quote from a prominent JM proponent (Doherty). The only one who doesn't have a PhD is Doherty, and almost all the others have or have had teaching positions (only one if I recall at a religious institutions, though I may been be wrong), have been published in peer reviewed journals, etc. TJ (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

More than sufficient. This isn't the first time this has been discussed, either--there's endless wrangling about this in the archives. But, as I say above, it's often difficult to establish something is a fringe theory precisely because academic sources usually ignore fringe sources. In this case, we've got several prominent scholars who have looked at this and said that there's no validity to the theory and that most scholars find it implausible, unrespectable, absurd, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably - I didn't read through everything, but got the gist of it. This is the hypothesis that Jesus was entirely a mythical character, with no historical person attached (greater degree), and the hypothesis that the narrative of Jesus, a real person, was augmented with mythology borrowed from other cultures -- for example Buddhism (lesser degree). I would think either way it's fringe to varying degrees. Completely mythical is definitely fringe because most scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus sans-story. The Jesus narrative being based on other cultures has more support, but still fringe, because it's not the generally accepted account. One has to argue that other cultures influenced the early Christians. The necessity of persuading or argument on the part of scholars is a good duck test for the fringe label. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for that, it's interesting. It's not clear, though, what you thought about the strength of the sources themselves, rather than your opinion of the subject matter. Anyone who has studied early Christian history knows that Jesus' existence is always assumed (even someone, like myself, who studied it primarily under non-Christians, insofar as I was aware of their beliefs.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologyJohn (talk • contribs)

Concerning the sourcing, you don't have to be a theology scholar to apply the "principle of least astonishment". You go to the Jesus article and see that weight is first given to the orthodox mythology, then to the historical views of Jesus as a historical figure (and in the linked off article Historical Jesus it's similarly weighted to orthodox views). In none of these sections/articles is the alternate mythology (story borrowed from other cultures) or the non-historical Jesus given much weight. Upon encountering this article, it can thus be assumed that it is a fringe view, regardless of what sources are actually listed here. It's a process that doesn't require evaluating the sources directly. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sources. I have noticed that some of those references were from Christian theologians, and at least one other seemed to have a close Christian affiliation. To me it seems rather unlikely that such scholars would support the Jesus myth hypothesis (rather it seems they would be predisposed to oppose it), so there would be a stronger argument if the sources were not ministers or priests. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - several of the scholars have christian affiliation, although I'm not aware that any are a theologian in the sense of a scholar of Christian doctrines, rather than a Christian scholar of the historical texts of Christianity from a historical-critical point of view (perhaps van-voorst, I don't know much about the guy). I don't see this as a problem, though. While it's true that religious people are generally biased to believe their religion, they are normally capable of being aware that people disagree with them. If the Jesus myth theory were held by even a reasonably-sized minority of scholars, I can't see that many professional scholars wouldn't be aware of them. If they've devoted their lives to studying the subject, including reading enormous quantities of their works, and attending many academic conferences with fellow scholars, and yet aren't aware of any notable numbers of scholarly mythicists, one can draw only two conclusions: that there aren't any notable number of scholarly mythicists, or they are insane. Ordinary bias doesn't explain it.

Furthermore, I think it's a fairly biased assumption (one which I'm not sure you're making, but without which your criticism seems not to make sense) to assume that religious scholars are biased in a way that non-religious scholars are. Anyone who understands christianity (or pretty much any religion) in any more than a superficial way, would realise that it's a system of thought that has enormous implications for how someone should live their life. It should lead to some kind of emotional response, otherwise you don't understand either Christianity or your emotions. If you're a Christian, to challenge christianity is to challenge the person around which you orient your life. If you're not a christian, to proclaim Christianity is to challenge the things around which you orient your life.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, I think it's a fairly moot point, seeing as there are non-Christians cited. These include the atheist Michael Grant, and the prominent JM proponent Earl Doherty. TJ (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue the point here, but I did think about this seriously. There is an RfC, and I commented; but I did not necessarily expect agreement, or applause. Certainly, I am sorry if I offended you, or anyone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I didn't take any offense from your comment, and also did not mean to give any. My language was evidently too strong if it could be interpreted in that way, and I'm sorry for that error.

I think that, because I'm someone who likes playing with words, I often use stronger language than I actually mean, simply because I enjoy using language in that way. In any case, I didn't mean to indicate any kind of anger or disapproval against you, only disagreement - and we all disagree with people all the time.

I did request comment on the subject, and I'm grateful for any one doing so (particularly if they come from outside of the normal kind of people who visit this page, which is generally very emotionally committed to the subject, from one side or the other - and if they stick around, become more so in response to the things the other side do), and would be a complete jerk if I only wanted comment that agreed with me. TJ (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The REAL issue

I don't think anyone here is disputing that the theory is a minority theory, so as such asking that question in an RFC is at best a waste of time and at worst totally misleading as it could be used to try to justify unrelated edits. Let me track down the SPECIFIC statements I most objected to first, which I will include below, and then I will give further thoughts on NPOV in general. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFC wasn't actually entered primarily in response to you, there's been a lengthy discussion involving several people (and indeed comes up a lot) and I've been feeling for a few weeks that it would be wise to try to get some outside comment in, because the people who turn up on this article tend to have strong opinions and feelings about the subject already, one way or the other. I just needed a bit of spare time to have the time to do so, and it was largely unrelated that your edits happened at the same time.

I look forward to discussing these specific statements that you disagree with - hopefully will have some time tonight, but I have a few chores so might have to wait up to even a few days if not - alas, life is busy, and today is my only full day off. TJ (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's about me or not is immaterial. I don't know of anyone who argues that this hypothesis is a majority view, and that's what the RFC was worded as. RFCs need to be worded in an objective and need to cover the actual topic under dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to break this down:

[edit] Scholarly discussion OPPOSES

This line was removed: "However, modern scholarly discussion and support opposes the hypothesis." This line is way over the top POV-pushing in my mind. Saying that something is a minority opinion is one thing, saying that scholars as a whole oppose it is way beyond pointing out relative weights to taking a full side. Merely quoting a number of authors claiming that the field as a whole rejects it suggests that those people are somehow allowed to talk for the entire field, and that anyone who says otherwise isn't a scholar. That's completely unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed that edit myself, so I don't have much gripe with you disagreeing with that wording. TJ (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "RESOLVED"

"Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity, that is, that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than completely made-up myth." Again, this is nothing more than going beyond saying it's a minority view to taking a specific side. It also claims that ALL scholars and historians believe this, which is certainly not true. The people who have the other view are also historians and scholars. DreamGuy (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If there's any significant following of the JM theory in the scholarly community, this challenge shouldn't be too hard for you. Name ten scholars (ie people with PhD's and proper research posts at accredited universited) who affirm the Jesus Myth theory.

I have been following this page for two years, and at best I've heard of two (Price and Pagels). And neither of them are clear proponents, either - Price feels the burden of proof is on jesus' historicity but doesn't strongly propose it in the same way as Doherty, Freke, etc, and I've never heard any evidence - beyond assertion - that Pagels holds to the Jesus myth (and indeed have read her saying things that are quite difficult to square with that.)TJ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson - from The Messiah Myth "the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding" (something like that - I don't have the book handy but can find it). I have mentioned this one more than a few times. Sophia 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I evidently forgot that one. You haven't been around much lately, so you probably haven't mentioned it since then.

Given that, I guess it's plausible that there might be a couple of others from a while ago that I've forgotten. TJ (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We had a discussion about Thompson earlier, somewhere in this section in the archives, and no one provided any definite evidence that Thompson thinks Jesus wasn't historical. The quote "the historical Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding", as far as I can tell, is not from Thompson's book, but from this review on someone's blog. I haven't read Thompson's book, but my impression is that The Messiah Myth doesn't argue against Jesus' historicity. On p. 16, (the full text of the book can be found at Amazon) Thompson says: "The purpose of this book is not historical reconstruction. Nor is it centered in the problems of the historical Jesus. It is about the influence of the ancient Near Eastern figure of the king in biblical literature, and this has much to do with how figures such as Jesus are created." Thompson's argument is that the biblical figures of David and Jesus are shaped by literary tropes that are shared throughout Near Eastern literature, as far back as 3rd millenium BCE Egyptian texts. One could argue that, if the Gospels are based in shared literary/mythical tropes, there's no historical figure behind them--but it doesn't look like Thompson takes that step. One could also argue that the Gospel writers took a historical Jesus and portrayed his career in terms of the traditional Messiah figure--but I don't think Thompson says that either. As far as I can tell, he's not interested in whether Jesus was historical or not, but he is very critical of methods used by members of the Jesus Seminar to reconstruct the historical Jesus.

So, I don't think it's correct to say that Thompson is a proponent of the JM--at least, not from what I've seen so far. If Thompson does say somewhere that there's no historical Jesus, I'd be happy to be corrected. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From the blurb on the inside cover: "Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed". As per usual too much opinion here and not enough reading of the sources. Sophia 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That's not at all fair - Akhilleus explicitly stated that he was only saying that he hadn't heard anything conclusive, and was happy to be corrected. He wasn't dogmatically stating anything about something he hadn't read, he was just stating what he at that point believed.

Equally, you frequently state a length your opinions on various subjects, without similar qualifiers. TJ (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what your attempt at distraction from the point is referring to. If you are implying I have not read Christian authors to counter my obvious bias then I'm afraid you are wrong. Not as many as you I'm sure as I found them samey and based on inconsistent arguments that were frequently just appeals to authority (the basis of the disputes here not surprisingly). One thing I do try to do is only argue from my own knowledge base and am genuinely sorry if I have not done this. The point in question here is whether Thompson throws his hat in with the Jesus Myth lot - the answer has to be he considers the Jesus of the Christian faith to be based on older myths and prophecy fulfillment from the OT and other Jewish sources. We split enough hairs here (and good grief no one can doubt his scholastic credentials in the area) that I'm sure he will get thrown out so the Conservapedia "no reputable sane person would ever dare think this" mantra can continue. Give it a month or two and I'm sure he will be forgotten again. Sophia 16:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I stated, in response to Akhilleus IN THE EXACT SAME DIFF, that I agreed with you about Thompson. My only issue with that post was that you were being unfair on Akhilleus. Please do not Assume Bad Faith against me like this ("your attempt at distraction from the point is referring to"), especially when it's BLATANTLY untrue.

I have no idea, nor do I care, how many Christian or non-Christian books you have read. I wasn't intending to insult you by that comment at all, I was merely defending Akhilleus's right to have opinions. TJ (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A Dilbert cartoon comes to mind.....but I won't. Sophia 17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The blurb? Come on. That doesn't show that you've read the text either. Give me something from inside the text. "the Jesus of the gospels never existed" could easily mean that there was a historical Jesus, but the Gospels don't tell us anything reliable. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it would show that early christianity doesn't say anything reliable. I don't think anyone is disputing that there were first century people called Jesus - what's at stake is whether any of them is who Jesus is based upon in any significant way. TJ (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While Akhilleus is right that dust jackets are useless (many times they are written by people who don't know the book's constants) the book is available through Google book in limited preview format. "The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified. Even though a historical Jesus might be essential to the origins to early Christianity, such a need is not obviously shared by the gospels." (Thompson, The Messiah Myth pg 8) Thompson represents that part of the JM idea the scholars have not even touched: that while there might have been a historical Jesus the Gospels tell us little perhaps nothing about this man. Mead held this view in his Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? and Alvar Ellegard does the same thing in his Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ using the (unknown to Mead in 1903) Dead Sea Scroll's even earlier Teacher of Righteousness. It is one thing to say Jesus never existed in any shape way or for as Doherty does and a totally different thing to to say he has been so mythologized we can't tell much if anything about the true historical man these accounts are based on as Mead, Ellegard, and Thompson do; the second position is a lot harder to ridicule or dismiss. Especially when you have some 200 scholars of the Jesus Seminar throwing out about 82% of the sayings attributed to Jesus as not being actually from him. So far not one scholar has been put forth to show the middle of the road version of the JM is fringe; if anything the Jesus Seminar would indicate that version is pretty mainstream. Remember I said there many months ago was no excluded middle in this theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the emotion and money/power involved, scholars have to be exceptionally brave, or stupid, to step outside the accepted norms - just look at what happened to John M. Allegro. His work was never judged on its merits but by the offense it caused. On a lighter note I remember The Life of Brian being banned from my local cinema for the same reason.

I'll state again that I do not claim this is an academically widespread view - it is a minority interest that has captured a lot of popular attention. What bugs me is the fight by some to include extreme quotes from Christian theologians who question the sanity of those who challenge the status quo - not based on the arguments - just trying to destroy the reputation of any individual who dares to "go there". The drive here seems to be to make this article echo how Conservapedia treats this subject [1]. Over the last two years I have never seen this article move forward, the same fights keep going round and round. Sophia 09:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John M. Allegro's work claimed that Christianity was the descendant of a fertility cult based on the use of amanita muscaria. In The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, Allegro said: “This is the basic origin of the stories of the New Testament. They were a literary device to spread the rites of mushroom worship to the faithful…" I think this idea got as much attention from the scholarly establishment as it deserved. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

His "Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christan Myth" is a better read and does pull up the problems with the crossover with the Nazarenes and Essenes who get swept under the carpet in the normal Christian history of the region. Sophia 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. From the description on Allegro's website it looks like Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth might be worth covering in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you haven't read it - you would find his views on communion rather hard to swallow. Sophia 20:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to YOU to decide what a "significant following" is, and neither is it up to people who oppose it to declare it either. Frankly, from looking at the sources already on the article it seems significant enough to me. But, more importantly, scholarly disputes are not "resolved", they are based upon the evidence, and evidence in history can and does change, and for anything with limited evidence it's all going to come down to a judgment call. We know what *your* judgment is, but NPOV policy isn;t about that. Insisting that it is resolved is not only POV-pushing, it's downright naive. DreamGuy (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

...and neither is it up to you to declare schism where it is not shown to exist. NPOV policy specifically adds that fringe views with no mainstream academic support should not be treated as if they were on equal footing with the accepted view. You were specifically challenged to prove that professional historians and scholars throw in with the myth theory - quibbling about philosophies of academia is not relevant.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"The people who have the other view are also historians and scholars." I don't think so. With the notable exception of Robert M. Price, the proponents of the JM theory don't hold academic positions in religious studies or ancient history, which is what I think the label "scholar" is supposed to denote. Price isn't exactly a proponent of the JM theory--rather, he claims to be an agnostic about Jesus' historicty. JM proponets usually say that Jesus is definitely ahistorical. Another person who's not currently listed in the "recent proponents" section (but probably should be) is G. A. Wells, who is a scholar--but of German. Not of biblical studies or ancient history. In other words, Wells is as much an expert on 1st century Palestine as someone who's spent their scholarly career writing about Shakespeare is an expert on Presocratic philosophy. My point here is that the authors who espouse the JM hypothesis almost always come from outside the academic fields of biblical studies (and ancient history). I don't see why anyone disputes this, especially since a frequent argument from proponents of the JM theory is that academia is deeply biased against the JM theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think so." That simply isn't so. I've looked at the list of authors cited in the pro-theory articles, and some I recognize as scholars and historians in fields that give them just as much right and ability to give an informed commentary on the topic as a bunch of Bible scholars. Hell, more so... most of the Bible scholars became Bible scholars in the first place for religious reasons. Biblical archeologists, for example, are first and foremost trying to prove the Bible and not to provide objective archeological research that might undermine their own beliefs. Topics in fields of history and religious studies and mythology can approach the topic in a LESS biased and more informed way. And, while I admit that some people would disagree with this argument, NPOV policy is very clear on this. Editors don't get to pick and choose which authors, researchers, scholars and so forth THEY consider to be knowledgeable (especially not when it so clearly is being done to advance one side of an argument). This article cannot take a side, and to directly state or imply in the article itself (as compared to quotes) that the Jesus myth proponents are not scholars or historians is a massive and undeniable violation of the very foundation of NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you name some of these authors you recognize as being scholars and historians. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We went over this back in December of 2007 when john k stated "we have yet to name any currently living academic who has actually written a peer-reviewed book or article to make the argument that there was no historical Jesus- we seem to be stuck with people who died more than 100 years ago and non-academics like Doherty and Wells." I promptly pointed out that Doherty had published in the Fall 1997 issue of Journal of Higher Criticism a peer reviewed publication. I also mentioned Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) better known for his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden) with Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology) with The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) with The Pagan Christ are in the Jesus Myth camp. We have been down this road before and it is really annoying to have to go down it again. At least somebody had enough sense to get rid of the flawed Grant reference that was in the lead--it was very misleading having Grant just quote two other author who credentials we didn't know from Adam without anything cited on how he came to agree with them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] historians versus religious leaders

The follow line was removed. The person who removed it had previously removed it claiming that "notes" (as the verb used to be instead of the "argues" in the present version) was too loaded of a word but that "argues" would be preferable. I can't see any possible reason to object to it: "and argues that "An important factor ... has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se."^[1]"

Certainly this view is a view that is sourced, and directly relates to the question of reliability of sources. Including this person's views is not taking a side but merely presenting his side. Removing it would unfairly underrepresent this side, and hugely so if the sections arguing that scholars and historians reject/oppose/refute remain. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've reponded to this above, I'll simply copy paste what I've said there.

On why I continuously removed it - because it serves nothing to the article, and isn't about the theory. It's a blatant ad hominem attack, designed to discredit the position of adhering to Jesus' historicity. I could provide quote's from prominent historian's (maybe not one's with a clear record of npov, but then, neither is this quote) declaring something along the lines of "what do they know? They're just atheists." And I can bet that the line wouldn't last two seconds in the article. That we have quotes from atheists as prominent refs on this page should show the lie to the claim, at the least.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "respectable"

"Richard Burridge and Graham Gould stated that they did not know of any "respectable" scholars that held the view today." -- This lines seems especially inflammatory, consisting of nothing but a major personal attack/poisoning of the well. Certainly the scholars who disagree think they are respectable, and might believe that Burridge and Gould are not worthy of respect. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just citing what some people said, per WP:NPOV - the word "respectable" is quoted precisely to enable people like you to interpret it in that way! TJ (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV policy doesn't say that just citing what some people say automatically means a statement is neutral. How such statements are presented, how many, where, in what context, etc. makes a lot of difference (this is the basis behind WP:UNDUE weight and other aspects within the NPOV policy). This statement in a list of reasons to oppose the theory sounds like an endorsement of the claim. If it's paired (in the same section, not split up) with a proponent of the theory pointing out that most of the people most strongly opposed to the hypothesis are theologians then both sides get their say in context. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you had a reliable source for that quote, and it was referenced accordingly, I might well agree with you! TJ (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a quote, and it seemed like a reliable source for the opinion, and it was referenced... yet you yourself removed it. You can't pick and choose who you consider reliable solely to suit your own agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I did already insert his response there, actually - the bit about interests both secular and religious (thereby confirming that a lot of non-religious people disagree) campaigning against it - I think it's balanced already, and I'm not sure I see the point of citing everything he's ever said on the subject. TJ (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would add here that with the section above, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to - arguing for both sides of the coin, so long as they agree with you. I believe that the intent of the word in their quotes is to apply to professional historians and scholars, with PhD's and recognized in their field as such, instead of crank's or mere students.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So instead of addressing the arguments they direct their comments to the "respectability" of the persons putting them forward. Is that an ad hominem attack I wonder? Hmmmmmmm...... Sophia 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could be considered such, though to be fair it does have the uniqueness of having numbers to back itself up. Happy? I don't believe I ever zealously argued for those quotes to stay in, anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

By the standards the late Carl Sagan put for in his book Demon Haunted World there is plenty of baloney on both sides go around but a good hunk is in the Pro historical Jesus side. Weasel words such as those quoted by Grant abound. The one thing Carl Sagan warned against which is at the heart of this issue is appeal to authority. I have mentioned before how simply on the merit of his impressive credentials Lavoisier was able to ram his flawed caloric theory down the throat of science and the few who were able through experimentation were able to show Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory were dismissed simply because their credentials weren't as good as Lavoisier. In his series Day the Universe Changed James Burke correctly pointed out how when a sea change is just about to occur in a scientific view of how the world works or view on a historical event 'you see some scientists clutching to the old theories like grim death'--216.234.222.130 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "states"/"notes" versus "argues"/"claims" and other loaded words

As mentioned above, one editor had claimed that "states" implies that they are stating a fact and that "argues" is more accurate. I think any rule we pick on what word is used where has to be applied fairly. An editor cannot complain about one source (especially one he disagrees with) using "states" while another source (especially one he agrees with) can use it without complaint. For example, "R.T. France states that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure." Here "states" goes with the first part, but "stating" that a religious movement would have been utterly discredited if blah blah blah presumes that this person has the ability to state what would or would not had to have happened under certain circunstances. It's only an opinion, an argument used in debate, not a statement of fact. Any wording here has to apply fairly and evenly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I made no such claim about "states", in fact wikipedia policy RECOMMENDS states, I made that comment about 'notes'. Please don't falsely accuse me of hypocrisy. Please Assume good faith. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. If we apply "states" fairly it shouldn't matter. That's the important part. I think "states" sounds more like advancing a fact than an argument. "Argues" is nice and nuetral. But whatever we decide upon it should be applied FAIRLY. By pointing out POV problems I am not suggesting you did so intentionally. People can make edits in good faith but still end up pushing a POV. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am applying states entirely fairly - if you read my edit summary when removing the part including "notes", I actually SUGGESTED "states" as an alternative to "notes". You really need a variety of words (states, argues, believes, writes etc), none of which imply that a scholar is right or wrong, but which prevent constantly using the same words again and again! TJ (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think states actually does imply that a fact is being stated, or it has that connotation anyway, but certainly not as strongly as "notes". I think anything that is an opinion advanced as an argument should be "argued" "claims" "believes" etc. DreamGuy (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to that view (on states), and actually I am somewhat sympathetic to it, but wikipedia policies disagree with us. :)

I really don't like claims, though - it implies the opposite. (And needs to be removed from this article, along with many others.) TJ (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that people like Robert L. Wilken in his The Christians as the Romans Saw Them says the exact opposite thing as France: "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society." (pg xiv) The real fun thing here is Robert L. Wilken is a Fellow of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology as well as a Professor of the History of Christianity at University of Virginia. Clearly the positions are not compatible. This highlights another problem with the way the Pro Historical Jesus side is presented--as if all the scholars are in agreement regarding the supporting "evidence". The reality is they differ on the quality of that evidence. For example, Van Voorst says there is enough to use Thallus while France states "we do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus' crucifixion, or whether this was Africanus' interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus." (France, R.T. The Evidence for Jesus, p. 24). While the most extreme this shows there is some bias in the 'refuting' evidence presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actively discussed on the Internet

The line "The theory is actively discussed on the internet, both on websites and on Usenet. However," seems calculated to try to belittle the theory. Books have been written about it, and articles, and so forth, but the implication (pushed into the lead of all places) was that these are all just jabberers online and real people oppose it. The fact that people discuss things on the Internet should be assumed for anything notable enough to get an article. It doesn;t belong here, especially not as an excuse to toss in an "however." DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and I may not), that line was inserted by a JM proponent. TJ (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so. I can see a supporter thinking that online support somehow helps his case. "Calculated" was a poor choice. Wither it was intentional or not, I think the end result belittles it. Certainly we don't say that evolution is much discussed on the internet, or so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I put that in, and it comes straight out of Van Voorst. I'm sorry it comes across as an attempt to belittle people; Van Voorst is commenting on the fact that there's no serious interest in the JM idea in academia, but there's active discussion of the idea in other fora, especially online. He's pointing out a disconnect between the way scholars and amateurs deal with the idea, which I think is an interesting aspect of this topic--the fact that lots of people are interested in this idea despite the fact that you won't find it taught in school. Someone I read, I think it might be Van Voorst, mentions that he often gets asked about the JM hypothesis when he gives public lectures--and he finds it strange.

If people don't think this belongs in the lead, that's fine with me, but I think some variation of the "no scholarly interest/active amateur interest" contrast should be stated somewhere in the article, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't seem condescending.

I should mention that the Van Voorst reference just has a page number. But he didn't write just one book so which book does this quote come from? Without a book it might as well be a citation needed there because there is no way to know WHERE the thing came from. I should also mention Robert, E. Van Voorst's PHD is in Theological Seminary; his very degree depends assuming that the Jesus of the Bible is a historical person. That he currently teaches for a University with tight ties to the Reformed Church in America doesn't help as that mean his very teaching position is dependent on supporting the idea of a historical Jesus. Also some his statements make NO logical sense. Take this little gem for example:

"What can be gained from Thallus? Some fog of uncertainty still surrounds Thallus's statement: its extreme brevity, its third-hand citation, and the identity and date of the author. While this fog prevents us from claiming certainty, a tradition about Jesus' death is probably present. Like Christian tradition as found in the Synoptic Gospels, Thallus accepts a darkness at the death of Jesus." (Van Voorst, Robert E., (2000) _Jesus Outside the New Testament_, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 23).

Ok the first part admits that Thallus is third hand and yet later Van Voorst says "Thallus accepts..." How the sam hill can anyone say Thallus accepts anything?!? You have Eusebius in the 4th century supposedly telling us what Sextus Julius Africanus in the 3rd century supposedly said quoting Thallus of the 2nd. That Eusebius also is the first to quote the Testimonium Flavianum in the early 4th century should send up a red flag faster than 25 car pile up at Indianapolis Speedway and yet Van Voorst goes happily along as if nothing is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hammering a message home

The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can;t be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is a problem. The lead needs to state that the JM hypothesis is not widely accepted in academia, and there can be a longer section in the body that deals with the (relatively few) scholarly responses to specific authors (e.g., Van Voorst's criticism of Price). But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What cites actually support

The article opens with the claim that support is limited... which is fine, right now it is. But the cites don't support that claim, the cites just site what a bunch of religious authors claim, and of course the religious authors are going to make that claim. In order to say something is actually limited, minority, etc., it would have to be something entirely agreed upon -- so that the opposing view also says it -- are supported in some meaningful source documenting overall opinion of a field instead of individuals in it. See a bunch of footnotes of people bashing an opposing view doesn't cut it. If you can find a proponent of the view documented somewhere as admitting to be in the minority, which should be too hard, source that, and then save all the true-believers' statements for the criticism section. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have that - Doherty! It is in the scholarly response section.

Anyway, I think all the people cited there are scholars, and not all are religious. TJ (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's immaterial whether they're religious or not. Grant, Van Voorst, Stanton, and the others who are cited hold academic positions (or held, since some are dead). They're perfect examples of reliable sources on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if they quote people like Otto Betz (Protestant theologian) and Roderic Dunkerley (all Wikipedia has about this guy is a list of the books he wrote and that "This article about an English writer, poet or playwright is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."; nothing about him being a scholar or even when he died-I hardly think he is 120 years old)? I have heard of standing on the shoulders of giants but here it looks like Grant is standing on midgets and slapping his substantial credentials on the works of two other authors that may not be worthy of them. Scholarly it looks insanely sloppy and unworthy of Grant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be immaterial whether they are religious or not for the purposes of citing them as experts on *their own conclusions*, but declaring that any position is a consensus etc. requires EVIDENCE of consensus, not just some people who have agenda to push claiming that there is one. Furthermore, the fact that these people come from a highly Christian apologist mindset absolutely makes a huge difference in whether their claims are objective or merely reflecting their religious beliefs, so the reliable source already included earlier making his argument that these people are operating out of a mindset of advancing their religion over advancing history is certainly a point that that side is capable of making and should not be hidden because *you* think that the religion of the person claiming it is irrelevant. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this argument that religious scholars are so biased by their religious convictions that they can't treat the theory objectively is actually an argument in favor of treating the JM hypothesis as a fringe theory. If biblical scholars are so biased, there's no way they can accept the theory, therefore it has no place in biblical studies, and therefore it's fringe--it's entirely outside the relevant academic community.

Of course, the argument that these scholars are excessively biased by their religious convictions is wrong. First of all, there's no necessary connection between studying Christianity and being a Christian. One can go to, for example, Harvard Divinity School without being a Christian, or a member of any faith. There's no necessary connection between teaching in a religious studies department and being a Christian, or a member of any faith at all. It is unwarranted to assume that everyone who rejects the JM theory is a "theologian" or an "apologist". These are academic scholars of religion. Some of them may well be Christian, but you can't assume that just from what they study--and even when they are Christians, the people we've cited are writing as historians of religion, not as theologians.

When we turn to the specific set of people cited in the article, we know that at least one of them--Michael Grant--said he was an atheist. Grant wasn't even a religious scholar at all, actually, he was an ancient historian, and that's another problem with this argument. The historicity of Jesus is a topic within ancient history as well as religious studies, so the statement that "these people come from a highly Christian apologist mindset" is flat wrong--Grant is coming from a different field of study entirely.

The biggest problem with the argument is that it assumes that people of a particular religious faith are incapable of rationally evaluating statements about that faith's history. We could make the same statement about proponents of the JM theory--they're atheists, therefore we can't trust what they say about the historicity of Jesus, because their beliefs (or lack thereof) have made them so biased against Christianity that they're operating out of a mindset of destroying religion over advancing history. But that's a bad argument, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This counter example is flawed because it relies on the excluded middle fallacy. Most religions have enough skeletons in their closets that an atheist who want to discredit most them would have a wealth of material to work with without even touching on the religion's supposed founder. Then there is always the option of 'the founder was delusional' or 'he was a nobody that was elevated via all these already existing fantastic tales and events being attributed to him'; why give yourself the added headache of trying to say the founder never existed at all? Never mind that the JMers are a nice mixture of atheists, deists, and at least one self claimed former fundamental Christian. Another thing I notice is that there don't seem to be any Asian views present or sighted by either side; is that because both sides prefer to ignored any scholarship or there is not much to be had from that quarter?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grant as a source

I have a problem with using Grant as a source. From his whole body of work, he basically devotes a couple paragraphs to the subject, essentially to let his readers know that nobody important takes the subject seriously. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But remember what we're using him as a source for. He's one example of scholars who say that the JM theory isn't taken seriously in academia. If he's right, why would he devote more than a few paragraphs to the theory? He's already paid more attention to it than most scholars who write about Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that Grant comes off as a very poor example. The majority of the quote is actually Grant quoting two other authors: Otto Betz ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from 1968 and Dunkerley from 1957 ("again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars") with him throwing in things like 'In recent years' (Recent?! Last time I checked 20 years was considered a generation!) and 'or at any rate very few' (Basically Grant hasn't even bothered to check in the 20 years since Dunkerley wrote this and so doesn't know) around the Dunkerley quote. If anything Grant would seem to to support Doherty's position that that no body even thinks there is enough merit the Jesus never existed part of JM to even check to see if perhaps it might have some validity. I find it amusing to see Akhilleus still defending a quote that he knows to be partly in error.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant may be a reliable source for a number of topics, but having mentioned some personal opinions in a minor way on this topic does not make him either a reliable or notable source on this topic. Furthermore, his claim that the entire field rejects the topic *might* be relevant for whether he and many others at the time he said it think on the topic, but it in no way *proves* that there *is* a consensus, so the wording has to be very precise on these things. Quoting five authors trying to speak for an entire field only proves their opinions, not the opinions of the entire field, and certainly not for "scholars" and "historians" in general, which would include the people supporting the Jesus myth hypothesis. The whole slant of this article right now isn't trying to cover the topic objectively, it's try to savage the idea. And we can certainly see that intent in the comments of posters here on the talk page and in edit comments. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The statements of academics in a given field are certainly reliable sources for the state of the field. If you disagree with the source, or believe it to be incorrect, then produce a reliable source to the contrary. --Haemo (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if there was actually an attempt by the supposed "academics" to shows why the Jesus myth is flawed then to use weasel words or quotes for other other authors whose research seems to be minimal at best.--216.31.14.232 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the sources in this article are fine, but I think the article as a whole has gotten a little bent out of shape. it seems to me that ideally the article should be a discussion of the Jesus Myth itself - its historical roots, variations of its basic beliefs, evidence that is used in its support, and etc. The fact that it is a minority (or fringe, or discredited) belief should be mentioned in the lead and discussed briefly in the body, but only to a limited extent. as it stands now the 'discrediting' portion is starting to overwhelm the discussion of the topic (particularly with the repeated use of the same quotations near the end of the article). it feels like the article is being shaded to make sure everyone knows that these theories are passé; but I don't think that should be the purpose of the article.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually many of the sources are anything but 'fine' because they are being used to slant the neutrality of the article. Grant's quote of two other authors is a prime example. To see if Grant's arguments actually have merit you have to go to these earlier authors and see what they say and how good their research was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dunn quote

The Dun quote looks dodgy and I want to look it up but there isn't enough info there - how do I find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.29 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any quote by Dunn. I do see a sentence that is cited to Dunn (2003)--this is in footnote 63--and Dunn (2003) is listed in the "Books arguing for a historical Jesus" section as Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Christianity in the Making Vol 1: Jesus Remembered. Wm B Eerdmans Pub Co. That's the source you want to be looking at, I think, unless I've missed something. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly response

The "Scholarly response" section of this article is a quote farm, and should be deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add wiki-links for the scholars quoted in "Scholarly response", but can't find much. Is the Michael Grant who is cited this Michael Grant (author)? If so, I note that he is called a "classicist and numismatist", indicating that his specialty is not theology. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He's an ancient historian, as has been said many times on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. Is Michael Grant (author) his article? If so there is nothing there that says that he is an historian, or that he is particularly ancient either (rather he seems to be dead). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's his article. "Ancient historian" means someone who works on the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Grant is indeed dead, so perhaps I should have said that he was an ancient historian. If his article doesn't say that he was one, it should--actually, a quote in the beginning says that he was a classical historian, which is the same thing as an ancient historian. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. To me "ancient historian" just means a very old historian. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm in favor of removing this section for the time being. (I'm actually in favor of removing most of the article, and starting over from scratch.) Where scholars have commented on the specific aspects of the theory, that can be integrated into the article--for instance, there are quite a few discussions of Arthur Drews in the secondary literature, and there are a handful of discussions of Wells' ideas. Citing those in the article is a good way of illustrating the scholarly consensus on this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible to keep the section, and maintain its effectiveness, while reducing the dependence on direct quotes. But if you want to do it differently, that should be OK too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other sources

It seems that Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, also subscribed to a version of Jesus myth hypothesis.

H.P. Blavatsky stated that the story of Jesus was invented after the 1st century. Jesus, she says, "is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples, and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. . . . Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac. [2]

It seems to me that writing this article based only on scholarly sources is a mistake. The idea has a much wider grounding, and would the subject would remain notable even without the academically based discussion.

Thomas Paine also seems to have held a version of the Jesus myth hypothesis, which he discusses in The age of Reason,

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground. [3]

I am sure there is much more on this subject than has been included, so far, in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's notable, no one's disputing that. The attention this got in the old days definitely establishes its notability. But whether or not we give it a favourable report in terms of "likely truth" depends on modern academic sources (not 19th century ones), because it is an academic hypothesis. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to "give it a favourable report", or otherwise. It is the job of editors to present what notable discussion has occurred, in its various facets, in as neutral a way as possible. If you feel the necessary to comment on truth (as you see it), you need your own web site; because Wikipadia is not interested in truth, but verifiablity.

Paine's is a fairly standard rationalist/deist position. The first sentence clearly implies that Jesus was a real person (how else could he write "no account of himself, of his birth, parentage"), whose life was built up into an aggrandised myth. Blavatsky is taking the standard Aryanist model of the Jesus myth of the time, derived ultimately from the writings of Ernest Renan and Max Muller, culminating in books like Aryan Sun Myths. Yes, all this history should be in the article. It should cover the evolution of these ideas in their context, up to the modern day, including orthodox Christian reactions and mainstream scholarly opinion about it. It should not be a list of arguments in an attempt to prove or disprove it. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You will note that in the first paragraph of this article's introduction it says: "There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." Paine's version falls well within that parameter. Also he introduced the idea that the Jesus myth had pagan characteristics -- particularly that the father of Jesus was God (it was common for pagan gods to father children with mortals, a concept foreign to Judaism).

I agree with Paul B that it would make a better article to present all this as history, rather than to get into arguments over story of Jesus being true or false. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to establish truth. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition in the lead is quite poor, and I don't think it's a good idea to use it to decide what belongs in this article. The quote: "There are also variations of the theory that contend that Jesus may have been a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." picks out versions of the theory where the Jesus of the Gospels is based on figures like Jesus ben Pandera (1st century BCE)--this was the argument of John M. Robertson. An editor on this talkpage has mention Alvar Ellegard as another example of this variant of the JMT. Both Robertson and Ellegard deny that Jesus was a historical, 1st century CE person. The central component of the JMT is the argument that Jesus was a historical person. Paine doesn't say that there was no historical Jesus.

There are good scholarly sources on history of the JM hypothesis from its precursors through the first part of the 20th century. One is Van Voorst's book; another is Walter Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950. These are useful sources with which to cover the history of the JMT up to the mid-20th century--and neither mentions Paine nor Blavatsky. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think that Van Voorst's book and/or Walter Weaver's book are important enough, you should write articles for them; but I see no reason why the content of this article should be limited by what they have written.

I think there are editors who are trying to impose too narrow limits on the scope of the article to make it easier to maintain their POV. The definition from the lead is excellent, and it gives the basis for an interesting article on the history of the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially when in the body of the article there was this passage: "Presently, New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity, that is, that the weight of historical evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person rather than a composite of more than one person or a completely made-up myth" with references that supposedly back this up this statement but in fact only back up the rejection of the completely made-up myth part. Despite this reference in the body of the text putting the "composite of more than one person" in the lead was a struggle until I gave a verbal smack down that basically said 'if it is poorly worded then reword the blasted thing rather than delete it'. KrytenKoro did this with the comment "this is how it should have been reworded, instead of throwing your awful hissy-fit". Calling people on deleting poorly worded passages that shows the theory is more than it really is because they were lazy to reword them is not 'throwing a awful hissy-fit' but is pointing out that the theory is being portrayed in a strawman like manner and the the editors in question seem to be more concerned with their own personal agendas than with FACTS. The FACT is the the JM does contain more than the Jesus never existed idea; one only need to look at "History of the hypothesis" and "Early proponents" for JMer who supported a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] actively discussed on the internet

I've already said above why I think this sentence should remain, but to remind people, I'll just quote myself:

It looks like I forgot to sign the first time--sorry about that! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that, because Van Voorst wrote it, it belongs in the introduction? If you think it important, find someplace aside from the introduction to put it. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I already said why I think it's important. I think it belongs in the lead because I think the lead sections of articles should place the subject of the article in a wider context--here, the lead should say where the JM hypothesis fits into the history of religious studies, and how it's received in academia and by the public at large. The citation from Van Voorst gives us a way to do that without straying into original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has everything necessary to establish notability without that sentence. The subject could go elsewhere in the, for instance in its own section, but Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. Whatever the case, that sentence does not fit with the rest of the intro, and sticks out like a bandaged toe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever. The sentence was not about "trivia", but a possible way of establishing that the theory is popular outside of academia. Now the intro contains no mention of the theory's popularity. If people are happy with that, that's fine with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I must pop over to the Resurrection of Jesus article and add that it's popular outside academia - and much discussed on the internet. Sophia 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you say above that the JM is not "an academically widespread view - it is a minority interest that has captured a lot of popular attention"? Do you have a suggestion about how the "popular attention" part of the equation should be phrased? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Popular" is pretty subjective. Maybe we should stick with notable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new lead

I think this is an improvement in the definition of the theory, but not as good in contextualizing its reception. The lead currently says "though as yet it carries little weight among mainstream historians and scholars" which seems to predict that some day the theory will be accepted--predictions such as this should be avoided.

Also, a bunch of references have disappeared, and this is causing some problems later on in the article--look at footnotes 64 and 65. The footnotes/references to this article are in a state of confusion--the formatting is inconsistent, and the use of refnames causes problems when editors shift material around. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, good points. I'll remove the 'as yet' from the lead, and I'll recover the references. though for consistency, I'll reattach them at later points in the document - having 4 'anti-' references in the lead (compared to one pro/descriptive reference) struck me as unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone fixed the "as yet" part already. I agree that it's undesirable for there to be so many footnotes on that sentence, though not quite for the reason you say.

In fixing the footnotes, I would prefer to avoid using the "refname" syntax entirely. I would much rather see the footnotes formatted such as Price (2005), p. xxx, and have the full bibliographic info in a "bibliography" section separate from the footnotes. This would make it much easier to cite different pages from the same work, and we would avoid the errors caused when the "refname" text is removed.

No matter how the footnotes are handled, the split between pro- and anti- references in the "further reading" and "external links" sectiosn should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

yes, I see. I've re-made three changes for the following reasons:

I've removed passive voice statements. as a rule, I think saying 'it argues against' is better writing that the equivalent but passive 'it is an argument against.' I think that's generally accepted in grammar circles, but I'll leave it open to debate.
I've placed descriptions before jargony words. personally, I find it easier to deal with a word like euhemerisation when I've already read its description, than to run into the word and have its description follow. matter of taste, maybe...
I've reinserted the word similarity. there is no debate, really, about whether a similarity exists - that is a matter of observable (err.. readable) fact. the debate is about whether the similarity is significant or mere coincidence.

I'm going to go rationalize the footnotes as best I can now - we'll see what happens. :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Euhemerisation is actually misused here, because that's making a mythical figure out of a historical figure. Euhemerus, for instance, argued that Zeus was originally a (mortal) king of Crete, and the myths that he was the king of the gods, etc., were poetic fictions. In contrast, the JM argues that there was no historical Jesus, or in the variants mentioned, that the "real" Jesus was someone who lived much earlier. A "euhemerist" account of Jesus might argue that he was a historical person (a revolutionary, a teacher of wisdom, an apocalyptic prophet) around whom a mass of mythic accounts coalesced after his death. So, I'd like to remove "euhemerisation" from the lead and rephrase, but if you're actively working on the notes I don't want to edit conflict. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro: ok, I take your point on the similarity thing. :-)--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually wrong, originally, I forgot that support for "parallels" (whether of supernatural cause or true "Jesus-myth" nature) is as in agreement as it is. Sorry.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do no agree with removing Euhemerisation, because many who have supported the Jesus myth hypothesis take exactly that position. It seems to me that Akhilleus is trying to limit this article to the smallest possible parameters. For instance, in the quote I took from Tom Paine, it seems to have been his position there may have been some individual the it started from, but the Biblical account showed many mythological additions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not averse to re-adding Euhemarism myself, so long as it's in proper context. I think the original objection was that the Jesus Myth theory (strictly speaking) implies there was *no* historical figure Jesus, whereas Euhemarism (in general) implies that there *was* a historical figure who was magnified and mythologized by later story-tellers. can someone clarify how loose or strict various versions of the JMT are on this point?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a well-defined topic with clear lines. The article is about the theory that Jesus never existed as a historical person. This is a very distinct position in the study of the historical Jesus, with a clear line of development from Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews to contemporary proponents like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty. There are good sources such as Van Voorst and Weaver that cover this as a distinct theory.

The problem is that the name of the article, "Jesus myth hypothesis", is an ad hoc term ultimately derived from Arthur Drews' book The Christ Myth. There was a dispute about what the name of the article should be awhile ago--it's in the archives somewhere--and we ended up with what we have now, I think more because people were tired of arguing than because they agreed this was the best title. Van Voorst and Weaver use terms like "denial of Jesus' existence" and "nonhistoricity thesis". Perhaps because of the ambiguity of the word "myth", people want to bring in other authors--like, say, Thomas Paine or James Frazer--who believed that Jesus was historical, but the New Testament accounts of him were influenced/shaped by pagan mythology. But that's not the same thing as saying that the Jesus we see in the Gospels is formed from pagan mythology, therefore there was no real, historical Jesus. (See, e.g. Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, which isn't a great article, but lays out some other senses in which Jesus is "mythical".)

It might be instructive to look at Earl Doherty's website, [4], which asks the question, "Did Jesus Exist?" on its front page, and uses the terms "Jesus mythicism" and "mythicism" to characterize his own position and well as that of G.A. Wells. For Doherty, "mythicism" is the position that Jesus didn't exist. Another webpage worth looking at is Robert Price's "The Quest of the Mythical Jesus" (cited in our article as footnote 20), which describes how he came to embrace the "Christ Myth Theory"--for him, it's clearly the theory that there's no historical Jesus.

So, in response to the accusation that I'm trying to restrict the parameters of the article, I suppose I can only agree--I'm trying to restrict the subject matter of the article to the theory as defined by its proponents and by treatments of the theory in reliable sources, particularly academic sources. I'm always happy to change my mind, so if someone has some sources that say that there are versions of the JMT that don't deny the historicity of Jesus, please bring them forward. Until then, though, I'd say that neither Euhemerization nor Thomas Paine belong in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you are right, you had some concerns about the naming of this article as early as 2007. In Demember 2007 I had this to say:

"There are various myths attached to people who we know beyond any doubt existed. George Washington and the cherry tree is a well known example as are the various myths associated with Davy Crocket, Jesse James, Wild Bill Hickok, and many others of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps "non-historical Jesus hypothesis" as an alternative title might better separate this from "The mythologization of Jesus hypothesis" where Jesus is thought to be historical but many of his deeds were embellished on for decades or even centuries after his death."

I also pointed out a month later that there is a kind of excluded middle that seems to exist in the debate boiling down to either the Jesus of the Bible existed or he didn't. Frazer who is already in the body of the article seemed to support Euhemerism and then you have Bruno Bauer described as who is presented both as a JMer and one who basically believed in Jesus was a Euhemerism of Philo; ok if JM and 'Jesus being based on a historical person' are mutually exclusive which is it? Bruno Bauer can't be both. Furthermore when you go to Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian paper you find out that the summation does not quite accurately reflect what Russell actually felt (that I did replace-if we are to quote use full sentences rather than just two words). Another problem is how does [Docetism] fit into all this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

interesting... ok, for the time being I will add a line to the first paragraph of the lead that says this article specifically excludes Euhemarism and Docetism as separate theories. I think that will work pro-tem for clarification, and we can adjust things as needed as we discuss further.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Docetism being excluded (it still says that Jesus of the Bible was a historical figure) there is a problem with excluding Euhemarism. Bruno Bauer, Mead with his "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?", Alvar Ellegard with his "Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ" proposing the Dead Sea Scroll's even earlier Teacher of Righteousness, and Thomson with his "The Messiah Myth" all basically argue Euhemarism because they all argue there is a "historical" person behind the Jesus stories but the Jesus of the Bible is a myth. Also unless I am missing something here Euhemarism by definition would seem to include "mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons". Based on these examples why is Euhemarism excluded? I would say unless a good argument can be presented Euhemarism should be considered part of the Jesus Myth idea as there are those Jesus Mythers who argue that the Jesus of the Bible is a myth with origins in an earlier living breathing man.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... it seems to me that (at least) we need to deal with both ahistorical and euhemarist positions. I say that because I suspect the RT French quotes are euhemerist in nature, and I think it would make some of the critical perspectives more sensible-sounding if it is made clear that they are not necessarily supporting an a-mythological understanding of Jesus, but rather opposing a strict ahistorical understanding.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is the "non-historical Jesus hypothesis" and Jesus Euhemarism hypothesis tend to get thrown together especially on pro-historical Jesus sites. For example James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel) specifically calls G. R. S. Mead "Christ-myther" in at least two articles at the tektonics.org site. But Mead did NOT disavow a historical Jesus but rather said that Jesus lived far earlier than the Gospels claimed and the stories in the Gospels were effectively Euhemarisms. By putting Mead in the Jesus/Christ Myther camp the Christian Apologists themselves have put the euhemarist position on the table and as part of the Jesus myth hypothesis as a whole.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

lol - well I can see how (from their perspective) that would make sense. if you are a devout Christian, anything that suggests that Christ is not the God-in-Flesh of Christian belief would be objectionable. I'm not agreeing with them, mind you, just saying...

well, no matter. If the article makes a clear presentation of the ahistorical position, separates it nicely from the Euhemerist position and explains why, that will sidestep any effort to combine the two.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sometime the historial Jesus people do go overboard and try to prove every detail of the Gospels requiring them to explain the historical inconsistencies with unrecorded Censuses and as many as three people overseeing the Syrian provence. That said Frederick Engels in 1882 in the May 4-11, 1882 issue of Sozialdemokrat states "Bauer studied this question until his death. His research reached its culminating point in the conclusion that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle." Since Bruno Bauer is stated as probably being "the first scholarly proponent" you cannot separate the Euhemerist and ahistorical positions because the Jesus Myth began with a Euhemerist idea that Jesus was actually Philo, a man who is indeed a historical figure.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "euhemerist" is leading some people down wrong tracks (aside from being difficult to spell). Again, the key point of the JMT is that it denies that Jesus was historical; in other words, the Jesus who was born sometime around 4 BCE and was crucified sometime in the 30s CE never existed as an actual person. There's no necessary contradiction between denying that Jesus was historical and holding a "euhemerist" theory. E.g., if you believe that the Jesus we see in the Gospels is based on a figure who lived ~100 BCE, you are simultaneously denying the historicity of Jesus (the one who got crucified in the 30s) and holding a euhemerist theory.

As for Bauer, at some point in his career he believed that Philo was the true father of Christianity, yes. But he's talking about the philosophical basis for Christianity; he was not saying that the Gosepls are a based on the life of Philo (or Seneca). Just check out the quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that Malcolm posted below. Of course, a part he left out is: "The third volume of the series denied the historicity of Christ. The Christian idea that God and mankind share the same essence appeared as the religious representation of a single empirical individual who assumed the universal power of spirit."

Probably it would be best to avoid the term euhemerist. As Ludwigs2 said it's "jargony" and it seems to be a potential source of confusion. It would be enough to clearly describe the versions of the JMT that are out there--all deny that the gospels are based on a real person who was crucified in the 30s, but some versions argue that the gospels are based on an earlier figure who lived ~100BCE.

I don't really see why the lead mentions Docetism, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If the term euhemerist is confusing then perhaps we should not use it. However some counter arguments still in the article do not even look at the more moderate euhemerist of an earlier figure aspect of the Jesus Myth theory. "Richard Burridge and Graham Gould note that the Jesus Myth hypothesis is not accepted by mainstream critical scholarship" has a reference "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all" However as stated before that certainly is not Mead's position nor is it Ellegard's or Thompson's.--216.31.14.232 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

the problem here involves a belief gap, which is why I think adding euhemerism in some context makes sense. a person with moderate beliefs can easily distinguish between a completely ahistorical perspective and a historical but mytjologized perspective. however, a person with strong christian beliefs is likely to see both euhemerist and ahistorical assertions as a denial of the existence of Jesus-as-God, and won't distinguish between them. likewise, a person with strong a-religious beliefs is likely to see euhemerism as an assertion that Jesus did exist and so really was God. I think the distinction has to be drawn overtly to make sure that everyone is starting from the same perspective.

and I think Docetism was included because some people confuse the theory that Christ was an illusion with the theory that Christ was mythological. however, an illusory Christ would still be historical.--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing is the way the article is written now it seems that some level of euhemerism is part of the overall range that composes the Jesus Myth. Also look at how Euhemerisation is defined in this article: the belief that Jesus was a real person whose life was later mythologized. As I said about six months ago Jesus could be like King Arthur or Robin Hood where you can get a 'historical' candidate like Riothamus or Sire Johannes d'Eyvile but when you look you realize that the relationship to the mythological character is basically nil because so much has been added. Sire Johannes d'Eyvile (Sir John de Evill) is another issue because he became outlaw under Henry III's reign-long after both King John Lackland and Richard I were dead and gone. Then you have the fact that like Jesus you have variants of the Robin Hood story that put him in different times frames than the 'canonal' stories. Furthermore one has to remember that Christianity was no more monolithic in is beliefs in the 1st century CE then it is now. The Jesus we know was what one particular sect of Christianity in the 4th century thought was valid.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

no disagreement, but my point was that (for a devout Christian) saying that Christ was an embellished historical figure is just as bad as saying that Christ wasn't historical at all. any admission of embellishment risks reducing his miracles to myths

however, I think this would all be cleared up with better quotations and explanations of the actual position of various JMT arguments. the two 'proponents' sections and the 'specific arguments' section, maybe, need some revision to explain exactly where each author stood on the historical reality of jesus, so that there is no longer this confusion about what they are saying. I'm not (at present) qualified to do it, but I can see that it needs to be done. volunteers?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the very term "devout Christian" is misleading because Christianly has such a wide range of beliefs. It is akin to those that try to say Mormonism is not Christian faith because of their beliefs regarding the Trinity and they believe that there are other gods each of who has their own world to look after are polytheistic (they are actually Henotheic) or that Gnostics were not Christians because they believed in two 'gods'. They are (or were) as devout Christian as any fundimentist who takes every word in the KJV of the Bible as the literal truth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Criticism Section

Since we have a criticism section, perhaps we should have a section for responses to criticism.

Also, as DreamGuy pointed out, a number of criticisms suggest that people who support this hypothesis are not 'respectable', and are not 'serious'. I think criticisms should refer to arguments, not to the persons making them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

re: your last point... it is normal in academic circles to distinguish between reputable and disreputable sources (where 'reputable' is usually judged in terms of scholarly achievement and/or evidentiary support). I don't think we can disallow these kinds of statements completely, unless we can differentiate (acceptable) rejection of unscholarly work from (unacceptable) ad-hominem attacks. perhaps if someone can reselect the quotes to give the actual arguments against the JMT, and remove questionably personal or overly-broad statements?--Ludwigs2 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where would the following statement by Robert Van Voorst fall? "Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays--by my count, over one hundred--in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 6) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

well, what I would do, personally, is edit out the less-than-proper elements of his quote, like so: "[...] [M]any books and essays in the past two hundred years have [...] denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically [...] relegate[d] them to footnotes, or often ignore[d] them completely." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 6). This captures his substantive point, while eliminating the biased language, that is, of course, assuming (a) that this point is a necessary one to make in context, and (b) that there is not a more analytic passage in that book that could be used instead.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the quote make the point that NT scholars usually find the JMT "weak and bizarre"? Why is this something that should be left out? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying this quote should be used in the article, just trying to make the point that if the general scholarly attitude towards the JMT is one of disdain, disbelief, or disrespect, that's a fact worth reporting. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

except that scholars themselves (invariably) would feel that disdain, disbelief, and disrespect have no real place in an academic debate. I mean, it happens, particularly when there is something personal between two scholars (or sometimes when a scholar finds herself arguing with a belligerently uninformed opponent), but an academic reputation stands on reasoned argument and evidence. too much disdain can mark you as a prima donna (and that, not incidentally, can hurt your chances at getting grant money...). scholars might let it slip out, but they'd never defend it as a valid move in an argument.

--Ludwigs2 (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs2, you have touched on an important thing. When one looks at the criticism of the nonhistoricity hypothesis in the article, it turns out that these are only claims - but what can only count in academia is scholarly work which would respond to the _arguments_ by Wells, Doherty, Price. I did not find any such work. This does not say that these authors are right but the article should not give an impression that the arguments of their works are somehow "academically annihilated" by a few paragraphs in Grant from 1970s (quoting authors from 1950s) or by a claim of Van Voorst or so.

I wanted to say that I respect Akhilleus for trying to make the article objective: he seems to be afraid that some people who "like the JM theory and find it convincing" (as he phrased it) try to downplay the fact that it is not the mainstream theory. In my opinion, this is not a basic problem.

(Sorry that I will use a personal digression which might hopefully help to clarify this point. I myself would not say that I like the theory: I was a heart-felt Christian and encountering Doherty's arguments lead me to my own reading of the early Christian literature, and I really found this theory very convincing. You can imagine that such claims like that of Van Voorst, Grant etc., and similar personal reactions by doctors of theology in my country who I contacted, could not help. I asked in vain for scholarly arguments, not just for claims that the theory is not accepted in academia - I wanted to learn why, where are the supposed methodological flaws of Doherty and Price (their thorough and solid works I have studied) ...)

Trying to summarize: It is clear that the wiki-article cannot argue if the theory is true or not. (In fact, also here we should be more precise with the terminology. In historical research we only deal with probabilities. The right question would be if a concrete theory is feasible and has a good probability when we take all our knowledge into account. Then we can also compare various theories etc. E.g. R. Price makes this explicitly clear.) The wiki-article should report that this is not the mainstream theory but it should be precise when dealing with a "nonacademicity". In particular, it should not pretend that there exist scholarly works which "refute" Doherty's and Price's arguments.

I apologize that I will not read (and thus not participate in) this discussion in near future. I just felt a positive impuls from Ludwigs2's comments, and I tried to clarify the thinking of people like me to Akhilleus and others. Best regards.Jelamkorj (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If what you said about Akhilleus is true - that he is afraid that some people will "like the JM theory and find it convincing" - I have to point out that that is not something that can influence editing in a wikipedia article. I think it's perfectly appropriate for the article to point out that this is a fringe theory without a lot of supporters in mainstream scholarly circles (for instance, I think the Graham Stanton is a near perfect quote for this article), but trying to shade the article so that it is less convincing seems like a clear violation of NPOV to me. please don't take this as criticism; I understand the concern, I'm just looking for fair and balanced. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, that's not quite what Jalamkorj was saying. What he said was that I seem to believe some editors who favor the JMT theory "try to downplay the fact that it is not the mainstream theory." He's referring to a quote in /Archive_13, where I said that "If you like it, and find it convincing, that's fine, but if we're going to craft anything close to an NPOV article, it's also necessary to say that it's not a mainstream theory by any means." --Akhilleus (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

gotcha, and really, the comment cuts both ways, so no worries. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to add I don't think the theory has ever been claimed to be mainstream so I have no idea where Akhilleus is getting this idea from.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Disagree entirely with merger. WP:UNDUE would be used to make this subject effectively go away. Job done some might say but this is a notable enough topic for it's own article. Sophia 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with SOPHIA on this one. There are upwards of 20 books on this topic, at least 1 movie and about 100s of articles. It unquestionably deserves its own page. jbolden1517^Talk 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. This topic is notable on its own, and if we properly document its history, the article will be lengthy. I note that there's already a section in the Historicity of Jesus article that refers to this article, in accordance with WP:SS. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

oppose. This is a main article which is summarised in the Historicity article, as is normal practice. It's a subtantial topic in its own right. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merger. This is merely an attempt to marginalise and 'hide' a subject that is 'uncomfortable' for many. The evidence (or lack of) for Jesus' historicity is clearly a substantial subject and should not be obscured by merger in to a 'side-branch'. If anything, the Jesus myth hypothesis should be merged with this one. MonoApe (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

'Oppose Its a no-brainer - Didn't even need to be discussed, both pages are huge as it stands. I have removed the tag. Chendy (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure that size is the issue here (since there is considerable overlap) but since the consensus seems to be 'oppose' I think that's the way to go. I've removed the tag from 'Historicity of Jesus' as well--Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Scholarly" response

Does anyone else agree that this is a pretty poor showing considering the JM is so clearly annihilated and unrespectable?

Richard Burridge – Rev Dr Richard Burrage Dean of Kings College [5]

Graham Gould – Church warden and treasurer [6]

Robert E. Van Voorst – ordained minister [7]

Graham Stanton – Divinity faculty Cambridge (the best of the bunch but hardly impartial) [8]

Michael Grant – scholar but very broad base (the gospels were not his speciality) – can’t find confirmation of the atheist bit. [9]

R. T. France – Anglican rector

None of these sources can claim to be impartial - there MUST be better ones out there. All these do so far is confirm the accusations that the quotes currently used are not really representative of academia but serve to push a particular POV. Sophia 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving out the fact that all of these men hold or held academic positions. Graham Gould doesn't currently hold a teaching or research position, but was a lecturer in theology and religious studies at King's College London from 1990 to 2003, according to his webpage, and is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Theological Studies, an international academic journal published by Oxford University Press. This is a prestigious journal, and Gould's co-editorship is a sign that he's regarded as an expert in the field.

Robert Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, specializing in the New Testament.

R.T. France, according to his Wikipedia article, "is a New Testament scholar and Anglican Rector." He was also the the Principal of Wycliffe Hall from 1989 to 2005--in other words, he was the academic leader of one of the colleges at Oxford for over a decade and a half.

The people listed above are experts in the fields of theology, religious studies, new testament studies, and ancient history. These are exactly the kinds of sources we're supposed to use in writing Wikipedia articles. They're certainly in an excellent position to judge the question for which they're cited--is the JMT a mainstream part of academic discussion on the historical Jesus, is it a minority position with some support, or is it considered a strange idea which you'll rarely (if ever) see discussed in a college classroom or academic journal?

Obviously some (perhaps all) of the people listed are practicing Christians. I don't see how this impairs their ability to judge what the consensus in the field is. And, as I've already said, if you really believe that Christians are so biased that they can't evaluate the JMT objectively and you believe that the field is dominated by these biased "apologists", then the theory is necessarily fringe--for according to this idea, the field can't allow the theory to be discussed. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possibly a conflict of interest that is involved for some of these sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, not anymore than it's a "conflict of interest" for a climate scientist to say that there's a consensus in his/her field that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case its more like an Exxon executive saying that he does not see any signs of global warming. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a scientist funded by Philip Morris whose studies show that smoking does not cause lung cancer? ^^James^^ (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about, it's a scientist voicing a position respected by the mainstream, and without specific evidence and examples of the bias corrupting their work, you're all engaging in conspiracy-mongering? I mean, you do realize that people who accuse scientists who support evolution or global warming of similar "conflicts of interest" are almost universally ridiculed and ignored, right?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bring science into this. One thing I have learned is that the scientific method and historical methods have no common ground. I would love to see error bars on some of the statements made by historians! We have been told and are given quotes that show that the JM has been "annihilated" and is not "respectable" amongst scholars. The quotes used for this seem old and do not follow through as others have shown. The situation we seem to be getting to (which is one I have suspected for a long time) is that Jesus' historicity is assumed by most scholars and the JM is therefore ignored as an academic dead end. The criticism section is also unduly dominated by RT France which should seem to all editors to be incorrect.

One day I truly hope this article will be what it should - a history of the idea with it's main points outlined, along with criticisms of the ideas and methods used. We need good quotes without the burden of "faith" turning them to emotive words - that does not mean we should not use Christian scholars but we should avoid anything that uses terms such as "annihilated" or "respectable" as these have crossed that line. Sophia 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that science has always had a problem with strutual/cosmological bias coloring the gathering, evaluation, and interpretation of information regardless of the science being social (soft) or physical (hard). I have previously mentioned how Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory was brushed off as crack pottery until the mid 1950's. Gregor Mendel had much the same reception of his Laws of Inheritance and they would not even be seriously looked at by the scientific community until some 50 years after they were first published. Aristotle's cosmology filled with flaws that simple experiments could show to be false held sway for nearly 2,000 years. These biases are even more pronounced in the social sciences like history and anthropology. Of the two only anthropology has actually made the bias problem part of the discipline and then only within the last 30 years. This is why I keep saying a historical anthropologist is really needed here as they are the one profession that has the needed skills to determine the social dynamics of period and region Jesus supposedly lived in and then evaluate what documents exist within that extrapolated framework. What little I have read that does involve some historical anthropology work is very primitive even by the standards of Binford and Dunnel early 1970's works.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the RT France quotes are ambiguous, and way too prolific. half of the criticism section is quotes from this source, can someone more familiar with France's writing clean that up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is aboutr ther scholarly response, not about the "Christian response" (which could include the views of Church leaders etc), but which is not what this section is about. If you have scholarly evidence that the JM theory is supported by more than a tiny minority of historians then add it. Please try to improve the aricle by adding good sources and quality information rather than taking the easy way out by switching words to suit a POV in a way which make nonsense of the article. Also, it is clear that the scholars listed here are not all Christians, notably Michael Grant. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grant looks like he is old school historian and his parroting of two earlier author one of whom wrote them some 20 years earlier without much presented as why he agrees with them is hardly "scholarly". Even worse is having the book reprinted 20 years later and having these quotes applied to subsequent research that the original authors had no knowledge of. Calling this sloppy beyond belief is being kind to Grant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Bauer

The article seems to have Bruno Bauer's view completely wrong. Below is a statement from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an excellent source) [10]

Bauer likened the present crisis to the end of the classical world in Roman imperialism. His studies in the 1850's located the origins of Christianity in the second century A.D., concluding that the first gospel was written under Hadrian (117-138 AD), though slightly predated by some of the Pauline epistles. Bauer traced the evolution of Christian ideas from Hellenism and Stoicism, deriving the logos doctrine of John's gospel from Philo and neo-Platonic sources. As in Herr Dr. Hengstenberg, he denied that Christianity had emerged directly from Judaism. More than in his early work, though, he now stressed the revolutionary power of the early Christian religion, as a source of liberation for the excluded and impoverished elements of the Roman Empire. His final book described Christianity as the socialist culmination of Greek and Roman history. Responding to this argument in his very positive obituary of Bauer, Friedrich Engels acknowledged the importance of Bauer's late work for the socialist critique of religion (Sozialdemokrat, 1882). In 1908, Karl Kautsky's book, The Origins of Christianity, applied Bauer's thesis.

The presentation of Bauer needs to be re-thought. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that a better presentation of Bauer's--and everyone else's--views needs to be made. Unfortunately, Bauer's work seems not to have been translated into English, so unless someone who's fluent in German steps up to the plate, we'll have to rely upon secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Bauer's theories can be better presented, which is why it is all the more puzzling that you have cut out entirely the summary of them! What Engels says is not contradicted by what the quotation says, which also refers to Philo as the source. It's just a matter of when one places the concept of 'origin'. Paul B (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have it completely wrong about Bauer. As the source above says, Bauer thought that much of Early Christianity was formed by Stoic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, and the only importance of Philo in that was as a source of Stoic and Neo-platonic thought -- because so many of the other Hellenistic texts had been lost. It is well know, for instance, that the early Christian philosophers Clement and Origen were strongly influenced by both philosophical traditions. This seems to have been Bauer's point, and not that Christianity was somehow founded by the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo (which would have been an absurd claim). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd, and it's perfectly consistent with what all sources say about Bauer's views. Read the 1911 EB. I can't really make sense of what you are saying here. You seem to forget that this is a quotation from a contemporary of Bauer's. Here's a useful summary [11]. There is also a newish book on Bauer, which I've just looked at and which I've footnoted. Paul B (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul B, this is the paragraph you excerpted in so unfortunate a way:

In his paper Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity, Frederick Engels writes, "Bauer studied this question [the origin of Christianity] until his death. His research reached its culminating point in the conclusion that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about 40 A.D. but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle." Into the Genesis account of creation, Philo interposed Ideas between God and the material creation: God first created his blueprint, as Platonic Forms; then, using them, he created material reality. The Platonic God was synthesised with Yahweh, Reason with Revelation, the Bible providing insights into God's Blueprint (Forms) which were often not attainable through Reason. The Aryan Vedic concept, which was also that of the Greek "heroic" age, is of linear time, in one's personal life, but without the whole of human history being seen as a linear, teleological salvation-history culminating in a utopia. The notion of time as cyclic, both on a cosmic scale and through personal reincarnation was accepted into later Aryan thinking, like the god Shiva, as an influence from the subject non-Aryan population of India. From there it spread to the Pythagoreans, whom Plato followed. With Philo's fusion, the Platonic tradition abandoned the concept of time as cyclic, expressed in its acceptance of reincarnation, for the Judaic (originally Zoroastrian) linear concept of time as "salvation history". The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion says that Philo's contribution to the beginnings of Christian theology led to his being ignored by later Jewish scholars. Augustine continued the synthesis pioneered by Philo.

Clearly what is being said is not that Philos founded a religion now called the Christian religion. (Philo was a religious Jew and had no interest in founding a new religion.) What is said in this paragraph is that Philo, because he tried to reconcile his Jewish religion with Greek philosophy (particularly Stoicism and Neo-Platonism) gave a model for the early Christians to work with. The founding of Christianity was not the work of Philo, he simply gave a means to fuse Jewish thought with Greek pagan philosophy....which, to Bruno Bauer, was the actual nature of Christianity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know perefectly well what the passage says. That's why I linked to it. Nowhere does this article say that Philo "founded" the Christian religion. Engels says that, according to Bauer, Philo was the "father" of it. The argument is that Philo created a link between the Greek concept of logos and Jewish tradition, which was the basis for the ideas that became Christianity. The whole point is that in this version Chrisianity starts essentially as a philosophical, ethical and political ideal that later gets a mythic story about a founder woven into it. I don't believe this, of course, but that's what Bauer argues. He's developing the Hegelian model initiated by Feuerbach and mixing it with Aryanist myth-theory of the time. What I find difficult to understand is that you say you want more information abot Bauer, but all you have done is delete a perfectly accurate quotation. I readded it and added more explanation. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what is said in the article:

...Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who concluded "that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle".

The wording gives the impression that Philo founded the Christian religion, and that needs to be changed. Is that asking for too much? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he was a Hegelian, and the rest is a quotation from Engels, a contemporary. It's not contradicted by any other source. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also when the passage is read in context of the paragraph it is clear that Bruno Bauer didn't think Philo founded Christian religion only that Philo's idea were used in its formation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what the current text in the article says. So what's the problem? --Paul B (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only "problem" is people reading meanings into words that are not there in first place which is easy to do if the sentences they are part of are taken out of context. This is what worries me about some of the supposed references we have in this article. Do they say what is claimed about them or when put back into context do they indicate something else?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the person who's complained for months about the Grant quote without ever bothering to go to the library and read the passage where it came from?----Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, may I remind you were the one who had to be informed that Grant was in fact quoting two other people and even after being told that you continued to defend the quote even though you had been told that fact by Peterdgi. Right before that 24 November 2007 post but below your signature is this statement "Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grant, so I cannot say what page the quote comes from, or who he's quoting." (have no idea who really wrote that). Later on, E4mmacro on 4 February 2008 provides a better quote showing where each part and you, Akhilleus, on 4 February 2008 stated "BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else." If you didn't know that then clearly you hadn't read Grant either. Also given I kept pointing out that part of the Grant quote seemed to come from Betz and you still defended it even though it stated both quotes came from Dunkerley even though you had responded to a post clarifying which quote came from whom was irresponsible. The fact of the matter was Grant didn't reference who the 'first rank scholars' and given no one to date had produced a single name whose these 'first rank scholars' were.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee Bruce, you are the one who added the quotation from Engels in the first place without giving any context whatever to it. Malcolm then insisted that I'd done it ("this is the paragraph you excerpted in so unfortunate a way") and all this after explanatory detail had been added that no one had bothered to read before arguing the toss. This is the most bizarre page I've ever known for conspiracy mentality and contradictory accusations of POV, in which the same action can be seen as POV for or against the JMH; adding criticisms in one section is a POV attack/quotefarm and distributing them is a POV attempt to constantly undermine the theory. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Paul, since you're a "Christian religious nut", everything you've done must be POV. That seems to be the way things work around here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice selective memory there, Paul Barlow, but the quote from Engels was to replace the totally erroneous statement regarding that the "true founder of Christianity was an Alexandrian Jew, Philo". The early passage totally misrepresented Bauer's position by calling Philo the "founder" of Christianity rather than its "father"; the former implies a far more active role for Philo.

As for conspiracy mentality both sides have a good dose of that especially at the more extreme edges the the debate. There were certainly political and social agendas in play as to which books (and which versions of those books) became part of the Bible's canon in both the Old and New Testaments.

The BBC/A&E show "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" showed how these factors can color the view of something even during height of its power. To ignore that some form of editorial process likely went on with the New Testament's books and that certain Church leaders had agendas that would encourage them to exaggerate or even outright lie is insanity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, so no selective memory at all. The previous sentence was not ideal either - but it was derived from Drews' own summary of his precurors, so it actually came from a JMH proponent. The point is that improvements can be simply made without instant resort to fantasies about hidden agendas. As usual, the rest of yo comments simpy meander off topic about irrelevancies to do with "certainly political and social agendas in play as to which books (and which versions of those books) became part of the Bible's canon" and the Spanish Inquisition! Paul B (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were familiar with Binford or Dunnel you would know that what I am doing is similar to what is used in system theory anthropology to draw analogies between certain aspects of events. If you think I meander you should read Binford sometime; the man has great ideas regarding system theory anthropology but could due with a refresher English course mainly the part concerning the introductory paragraph. Back to the main point, 'hidden agenda' is a loaded term. It implies a conscious effort something Miner (1956) and later Cole, Dunnel, Kirch, Wenke, Charlton, Meltzer, Davis, Naroll, Simmons, and Schroder (1960's through 1980's) showed may not be the case. Sometimes as demonstrated by Miner the very model you use will bias your results (taking the Gospels as accurate historical documents would be one such biased model and this one shows up a lot). Cole's paper on Cult Archeology is especially relevant as it contains statements that can be applied to BOTH sides of the Historical Jesus issue even though it focused on other aspects of Cult Archeology and Anthropology then popular (ancient astronauts and seemingly every Old World culture before Columbus discovering the New World). Looking around I stumbled on "The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity" by Professor R. T. France. However the whole paper depends on the Gospels being 1st century eyewitness accounts something the Pro Historical Jesus site Jesus Police has issues with citing an interesting mixture of both Pro Historical Jesus and Jesus Myth authors and putting the Gospels as being authored in the 2nd century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this self-regarding bombastic tosh is getting to much for me. It has long been apparent that you are mostly here to luxuriate in the sound (or rather sight) of your own voice. For all your name dropping you seem to know rather little about the actual history of this theory. Quote from reliable sources, realise that reliablity is not determined by you, but by the status of the source. If you have something useful to add about France do so. But note that other authors that you don't like cannot be rejected because the Great Bruce has decided against them. Comparisons with theories about the discovery of the New World and whatever else that may come into your head may satisfy your own sense of your mental acuity but do nothing and tell us nothing unless those comparisons have been made by reliable sources. Of course France is firmly within standard scholarly norms, as his conclusion clearly asserts: "The four canonical gospels will not answer all the questions we would like to ask about the founder of Christianity; but, sensitively interpreted, they do give us a rounded portrait of a Jesus who is sufficiently integrated into what we know of first-century Jewish culture to carry historical conviction, but at the same time sufficiently remarkable and distinctive to account for the growth of a new and potentially world-wide religious movement out of his life and teaching." Paul B (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, resorting to name calling is not going to change the fact that most of the so called Pro Historical citations are vague quotations with not a lick of real evidence, full of weasel words that wouldn't last 10 seconds in a true peer reviewed article, depend on unproven assumptions, make utterly insane leaps of logic (Van Voorst regarding Thallus: He admits Thallus is third hand but he uses him anyhow), or so insanely out of date as to be laughable. Then you have the extreme edge trying to prove everything in the Gospel as historical all the while violating the key aspect of Occam's razor. Finally you have for lack of a better term the minimalists who in a nut shell say the Gospels are wild exaggerations with a few mythical elements thrown in for good measure. The problem with that view is you are left with the question of how much is historical fact and how much is added from else where or was simply made up. As far as reliability is concerned as I have mentioned before what is really needed in this area is a historical anthropologist. A good hard look at how the Romans viewed history (like how political was it) and how easy they were to accept claims of supernatural powers needs to be done. Any information regarding how oral tradition was handled is also needed for a proper evaluation of the Gospels both canon and otherwise. There is a lot that really needs to be covered before anything can really be said about Jesus as a historical figure. Also we really need to clean up the references so that we don't have a cascade of broken ones if the wrong one is removed.--216.31.14.233 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on scholarly response

The problems with the "Scholarly response" section of the article here [12]. You will notice that Akhilleus was in favor of removing it, and there were no objections. It is a quote farm, and POV too. It had been my hope to save it by improving it, but I have not had the time. There is no justification for leaving it the way it is, so I am removing it. If an editor wants to restore it to the article, after improving it, that is OK with me. (There is also more discussion of that section here [13]) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be perfect but to simply excise it is absurd. Correct it or leave it to others. As for POV, well that's been very heavily discussed and settled in this page. Mercury543210 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been heavily discussed, and although the section is known to be problematic, it remained unchanged. Basically it is a collection of Christian scholars saying they believe in the core story of their religion, and pretty much saying the same thing. I am not interested in claiming one side is right and the other side wrong, but I do object to the effort to portray the sources on one side as "scholarly" and the sources on the other side as "fringe". It is exactly that which is POV. The fair approach would be to refer to scholars on one side as representing the majority, and the other as the minority. Is that asking for too much? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change it to "critical response", then there's not much justification for keeping out any prominent responses, whether they are academically supported or not. If we leave it as "scholarly", it encourages the addition of opinions from reputable scholars from both sides of the argument - if it is too difficult to find those for one side of the argument, that's not POV, that's simply evidence that that side is badly supported.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually such a section would be called "Criticisms", and many articles have such a section. The sources for the criticisms must be qualified sources. On the other hand, Akhilleus said that he thought it would be better to disperse the criticisms to various parts of the article where they best apply (without a separate criticism section), and I think that would be OK too. What is not acceptable is to have a section called scholarly response, as though there are no scholars who support one version or another of the Jesus myth hypothesis. That is POV. But I have no interest in an article in which this subject is protected from criticism, and that is not what I am trying to do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, if you intend to distribute the criticisms as Akhilleus suggested, then why haven't you done so? So far as I can see almost your only edits to this article have been deletions of chunks of referenced text. All you have done is chop out things you don't like by claiming consensus based on one comment, the recommendations of which you have not even followed. It's easy to slash and burn, but more difficult to make real improvements. However, on the centeral issue, this section is about general scholarly attitudes to the central claim of the JMH, not specific criticisms of specific arguments, so as far as I see it can't reasonably be disributed and it is not comparable to "criticisms" sectionsPaul B (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus was going to do that, not me. As far as I am concerned it is OK with a criticism section too; as long as it is called a criticism section, and as long as it is not a quote farm...which it now is. It had been my intention to add more to the article, but do not now have the time to work on an article that is of secondary interest to me, nor do I enjoy the editing environment of this article with Christian religious nuts who are not embarrassed to behave badly in an effort to poison this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider the phrasing "Christian religious nuts". It's not exactly a good way to characterize your fellow editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For your information I am not religious at all. I am certainly not a Christian believer. I am a historian interested in ethno-religious ideas in the 19th and 20th century. I didn't see you adding a single useful word about Bauer's theories, for all your argumentiveness on the talk page. And now apparently it's down to Akhilleus to recover information you just wanted to eliminate ("Akhilleus was going to do that, not me") and distribute it. I see. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think it justified, take it to the administrator's notice board. In any case, I have no doubt that the religious views of some editors are such that they present a WP:CONFLICT, and prevent rational editing, no matter what they say to the contrary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this section as a quote farm. It can use some copyediting to transform it into a few paragraphs that call out prominent authorities and summarize their points and reasoning, instead of a bulleted list of quotes. But the essence of the content, i.e. the names of the scholars, their points, and the citations, should be retained. Bertport (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance:

Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."

Graham Stanton writes "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

James Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ...", [71], and, 'It would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules or Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events, especially the crucifixion of Jesus, at a particular time and place."

R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost"

The above, in a relatively short section, is more than enough to qualify the section as a quotefarm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Only France is useful. Michael Grant has been shown to notoriously sloppy using quotes from two previous authors and not supporting their quote with evidence. Doherty has this to say about The Gospels and Jesus: "Graham Stanton's 'case' against Wells' position is little more than a citation of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny (discussed below)—and an appeal to the authority that comes with the majority's acceptance "that Jesus existed."". James Charlesworth uses weasel words with NO supporting evidence to his claims. This renders them as useless as the quote by Grant originally used in the lead in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Scholarly whinge section

Each of the comments referred to particular aspects of the JM so are better in their respective sections. Criticism sections are not of much use to a reader - it is better to balance each topic as it is covered. Sophia 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sophia. You have improved the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sophia, though I prefer to read the pros and cons separately, in this case this does seem to resolve the arguments. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a movement earlier that having the criticisms in those sections (such as "Early proponents") was detrimental to those sections and seen as an attempt to "destroy the argument at each turn and poison the article against it", to grind it into the dust? Is this no longer a problem? What is the position on having anti-myth quotes throughout the article, now?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Each section should be a balanced explanation of the JM case - not quite sure what your point is. If you see this as a green light to "apologetics" it out of existence then I would suggest you stick to Zelda. Sophia 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can't be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status."

...sooo...I don't quite get why you're trying to attack me here again. Earlier arguments had claimed it was POV to have criticism in each section, and now they are claiming it's POV to have all the responses in one section that also happens to end up being only criticism. Again, what is the position on having anti-myth quotes dispersed throughout the article?

However, I would like to say thanks for taking my confusion on the pro-myth side's shifting demands as an attempt to censor you guys. Very good at assuming good faith.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what this argument is about? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. As I said - each section should be balanced. If you don't understand the argument that the editor made above that this is not the same as finding every straw man quote that you can to show it's not "respectable" "accepted" or "academic" in any way, then you are editing the wrong article. If you think my AGF is wearing thin in having to deal with editors who obviously have never read any of the JM books and only appear to have a web search based apologetics "lets stamp this theory into the ground" understanding of the topic then I would have to agree with you. Sophia 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your AGF is "wearing thin"? Right, because you haven't been attacking me nearly this whole time. Bloody hell...my question is is it still in argument to have criticisms of the various positions throughout the article? Not too long ago it was claimed as POV to have any criticism in such places as the Recent Proponents section, as it "has nothing to do with the proponents". Then, pro-myth editors split up the section the criticism had been primarily corralled in, and split it throughout the article. I'm just trying to figure out if we're going to have the "no criticism throughout the article" complaint pop up again, because you guys seem to have greatly changed your mind. All I'm asking you to do is to answer if this is still a complaint, or if the sections are allowed to have arguments from both sides of the debate.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You bring way too much emotion to this page where some more reading would be helpful. Also a "Us vs Them" attitude is counter productive and indicative of the apologetics attitude that causes this article to suffer so much. I have never liked separate criticism sections and have always felt that each section needs to be balanced. The JM authors make points about lack of documents, parallels with older myths etc., and the mainstream view should be presented at the time to allow the reader to see the different sides of the debate. The lead section and "History of the theory" is where the whole area should be put into context within academia (ie this is where it should say it is a minority view). This is NOT the same as putting in every section that it is "rejected" "not respectable" and not a suitable topic for "serious" scholars. Please reread the previous comment that you pasted above. If you still don't understand the difference I suggest you contact me on my talk page so I can try to make it even clearer without clogging up this page. Sophia 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, that's all I was asking - above it had seemed like the consensus was with Akhilleus' "But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section" (which is not specifically about the general "proponents are not respectable" thing), and it had seemed like your edits were the opposite of that. All I was trying to ask is what the situation on that was, and you've answered. Thank you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I have removed some external links that were either blogs, or self published, or dead. WP encourages going light on external links, but if I mistakenly removed something that is acceptable, or missed something that is not, just correct my mistakes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historicity of Jesus (background) paragraph reworked

I did some restructuring of this paragraph dealing with the origins of the subject at hand - with the purpose of neutrality in mind. I have read only descriptions and excerpts from the writings of the men involved, so I based my edit mostly on the article as it was, and the references I had at hand. My big concern was not only the POV, but also that this crucial paragraph be easy for the average reader to comprehend. Of note is that I used some different terms - I thought that what was written seemed to be a deliberate placing and emphasis on the "sun" - leading readers to see a correlation with "son" - without any concrete reference or excerpt from work of the men discussed that would give that emphasis any credibility. I also added a cite for references - and if the original wording was based on any existing text, it would be more credible to have some actual quotes with reference to the works from which they were drawn. No agenda whatsoever on my part - just an attempt to smooth the paragraph out and give it more objectivity with less use of potential "word pointing." Dmodlin71 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I confess that I don't really understand what POV you are referring to (pro or anti JMH?). The Sun Myth theory is from Max Muller. The fact that sun sounds like son is only true in English (and to a much lesser extent in other Germanic languages). It's not true in other languages ('fils'; 'soleil' in French for example) or in ancient languages. I will add a citation from Muller shortly, since I have several of his works and books about him here. Paul B (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)