Talk:Christ myth theory

Critics of the historicity of the Christ

"Christ myth" means that there has not yet been a "Christ" (or messiah), or that Jesus the man was not the "Christ", and this position is widely accepted by scholarship.
— User:Wdford

The "Christ myth theory" is not a fringe viewpoint. Virtually every biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the living Christ holds that the "Jesus the Christ" figure is a myth. WP should therefore have two articles "Christ myth theory" and "Jesus mythicism".

1835: David Strauss

It appeared to the author of the work … that it was time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of Jesus, in the place of the antiquated systems of supernaturalism and naturalism.… the recent attempts to recover, by the aid of a mystical philosophy, the supernatural! point of view held by our forefathers, betray themselves, by the exaggerating spirit in which they are conceived, to be final, desperate efforts to render the past present, the inconceivable conceivable. The new point of view, which must take the place of the above, is the mythical. [Strauss 1983, p. 21.]

"New Foe Of Religion Arises". Chicago Tribune. February 6, 1910.

[Arthur Drews] laid down his theories after the classic manner of old time university disputations. The gist of his position in large measure was like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held there was verity in the historic Christ, but that the vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.

1842: Bruno Bauer

[W]hether Jesus is the historical Christ, we have answered by showing that everything that the historical Christ is, what is said of him, what we of him is know, belongs to the world of the imagination and indeed to the Christian imagination, thus also with a person who belongs to the real world has nothing to do with. [Bauer 1842, p. 3:308. "Die Frage, mit der sich unsere Zeit so viel beschäftigt hat ob nämlich Dieser, ob Jesus der historische Christus sey, haben wir damit beantwortet dass wir zeigten, dass Alles, was der historische Christus ist, was von ihm gesagt wird, was wir von ihm wissen, der Welt der Vorstellung und zwar der christlichen Vorstellung angehört, also auch mit einem Menschen, der der wirklichen Welt angehört Nichts zu thun hat. Die Frage ist damit beantwortet, dass sie für alle Zukunft gestrichen ist.]

1904: Albert Kalthoff

A Son of God, Lord of the World, born of a virgin, and rising again after death, and the son of a small builder with revolutionary notions, are two totally different beings. If one was the historical Jesus, the other certainly was not. [Kalthoff 1907, p. 28.]

1906: Albert Schweitzer

That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus came to birth … Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus. [Schweitzer 1910, pp. 3–4.]

1909: John Remsburg

[T]he Christ is understood [as] the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth. [Remsburg 1909, p. 9.]

1997: Robert M. Price

[I]n the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. [Price, Robert M. (1997). "Christ a Fiction". Internet Infidels.]

2021: John W. Loftus

The Jesus [Christ] pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed. If there was a real human being who was the basis for the Jesus character in the New Testament, he is dead now. [Loftus, John (26 July 2021). "My Talk at the GCRR e-Conference on the Historical Jesus". Debunking Christianity.]

--2db (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC) && update 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Bauer, Bruno (1841). Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (in German). Leipzig: Otto Wigand. 2 vols.; 3rd vol. under the title Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes (in German). Braunschweig: Friedrich Otto. 1842.
• Bauer, Bruno (1850–1851). Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs (in German). Berlin: Gustav Hempel. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) 3 vols.; 4th vol. under the title Die Theologische Erklärung der Evangelien (in German). Berlin: Gustav Hempel. 1852. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kalthoff, Albert (1907) [1904 in German]. The Rise of Christianity [Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem]. London: Watts & Co. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Remsburg, John Eleazer (1909). The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence. New York: The Truth Seeker Company. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schweitzer, Albert (1910) [1906 in German]. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede [Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung]. London: A. and C. Black. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) translated by W. Montgomery
• Schweitzer, Albert (1913) [1906, 1st ed.]. Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (in German) (2nd revised and expanded ed.). Tübingen: Mohr. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schweitzer, Albert (2001) [1913 in German]. The Quest of the Historical Jesus [Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung]. Fortress Press. ISBN 978-1-4514-0354-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) translated by John Bowden et al.
• Strauss, David (1983) [1835 in German]. "The Life of Jesus | PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION". In Stepelevich, Lawrence S. (ed.). The Young Hegelians: An Anthology. CUP Archive. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--2db (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WP guidelines state you cannot do your own survey when defining "fringe theories" or saying "virtually all scholars." If you could find a scholarly source that says something like "Christ myth theory is no longer a fringe theory," or "Christ myth theory is not supported by many scholars," that would be the most helpful to your case. I must say though, that would be difficult to find as the majority of scholars (even Price himself has) have stated Christ myth theory is fringe. EternallyNow (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Arguably every modern biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the second-god called Lord Jesus Christ, holds that the living Christ and lord of the Christian community is a myth, and per said myth: historicists argue that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage and biblicists argue that the literary protagonist (sc. Jesus) of the gospel series (a debated genre of "historical bios" v. "historical fiction") was inspired by a real historical person in the same manner as Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, Santa Claus, etc.. --2db (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pattenden, Miles (19 January 2022). "Historians and the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion & Ethics.

Professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.

--2db (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Christ myth theory → Jesus mythicism – In current popular usage "Jesus mythicism" is the most common terminology used. "Christ myth theory" has been deprecated (i.e. made obsolescent) in current popular usage. Per this talk §.Critics of the historicity of the Christ the christ (i.e. the lord of the Christian church) is a myth as held by virtually every secular person on the planet. To call someone a "Unicorn mythicist" for denying that Unicorns exist makes as much sense as to call someone a "Christ mythicist" for denying that Christs exist. WP policy is to name articles so as to distinguish them from similar sounding topics. WP policy is also to name articles with names appropriate to finding modern academic scholarship that engages with the topic's current academic debate and therefore cites modern scholarship. 2db (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, to this, sure most people do not believe in Christ, but then they do not believe in many religious figures. Sorry, but Christ myth theory is the theory that Christ was a myth. That seems to me to be perfectly in keeping with the idea most people believe he was one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The topic of this article is about the current academic (a)historicity debate for Jesus not Christ and the history of said debate --2db (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • They are the saem.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Obvious oppose Request makes no sense and is dangerously close of violating WP:NOTAFORUM. What is more, 2db's continued use of Wikipedia to push their personal conspiracy theories is starting to become downright disruptive. I have no problems with people having different opinions, but when one user spend years on end arguing that they are right and all academics are wrong, that the academics are biased, and that WP editors standing up for an academic consensus are all biased, it does become disruptive. I'm sure 2db thinks they are right and that I say this because I'm part of the conspiracy/the cabal. Well, nothing I can do about that. WP is not the place for people pushing their own agenda over academic consensus, regardless of whether they are anti-vaxxers, Trump apologists, flat earthers, creationists, or CMTs. Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have said this before - a lot of this friction could be avoided if this article simply stated that mainstream scholarship holds that the human Jesus was a real historical person but accepts that the "Christ" divinity claims are unhistorical/mythical (or whatever word you prefer). How hard would that be? Wdford (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course, that is perfectly reasonable; I doubt any serious historian would accept divinity claims. I think Ehrman makes this distinction quite well in some of his books, making it clear that Jesus' divinity (which he himself does not believe in) is purely a matter of faith and not outside the realms of historical research. Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The flaw there is Ehrman himself stated that Jesus who existed but didn't found Christianity (ie either coopted a pre-existing movement or it was formed by Jesus' followers) would be a "mythical" Jesus. Carrier points to John Frum as one of his examples and yet we have records of three natives taking up that name 1940-1946; so John Frum both did and did not exist. There have been suggestions that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character formed out of various would be messiahs but composite characters by their very nature of fiction ie do not exist. 174.99.238.22 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose The proposal make no sense and is not far short of gibberish. Several assertions are made without a shred of evidence. Reject out of hand. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as was the consensus on the first attempt to move this page just 2 weeks ago see section "Requested move 1 October 2021" above This is getting ridiculous. This was just proposed 2 weeks ago with consensus being against this move. If the proposer of this move, 2db, attempts to defy consensus again, we may have to report to an admin. As it becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose & close, for the same reasons as above & before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Christ myth theory is the wp:COMMONNAME in scholarship for this theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the argument earlier for "Jesus myth theory" is more compelling than this one. As far as I can tell, Ehrman recently created the neologism "mythicism" and it isn't in common use. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't quite the Shakespeare authorship question (and thus those Discretionary Sanctions aren't relevant here), but the meta-history may be interesting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is ridiculous. The Christ Myth theory has always had two sides to it: The Gospel Jesus didn't exist (Volney) and there was no human being that would reasonably fit the descriptions in the Gospels (Dupuis) camps. New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall pointed out in his 2004 I Believe in the Historical Jesus that the meaning of historical Jesus had a huge range. If Christ myth theory is the opposite of historical Jesus than it logically also has a huge range. Carrier had to actual define what was meant by a non-historical and historical Jesus and even his definitions have issues. The Jesus described by John Robertson (Gospel Jesus was a composite character), Remsberg (Jesus preached a form of Judaism that his followers turned into Christianity), G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend on (mythical Paul Jesus + 1st century teacher), and Dan Barker (there was a first century preacher but his name need not have been "Jesus") all fall between Carrier's to definitions - neither historical nor Christ/Jesus Myth. 174.99.238.22 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"largely mythological"

Some time ago, the sentence

the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact."

was changed to

the view that the story of Jesus is largely mythological, and has little basis in historical fact.

References

paraphrasing Bromley; later, it was moved beyond the Ehrmann-definition diff. In the past few days, the sentence was removed diff "simplified, removed duplication", and then merged into the overview of stances diff "These two sentences are identical - why duplicate them one after the other?" Well, because it first was not there, and beacuse they give a slightly different definition.
I've re-inserted the original sentence. The first sentence is the most accurate, directly quoting the source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, but now it is just as bad as before – only differently bad.

I still don't understand why we all accept that there are at least three different "strands of mythicism", which we actually describe in the very next paragraph, but only the most radical version thereof – as defined in the words of a Christian clergyman 38 years ago – is elevated to the opening sentence? What makes this particular definition/source so special, and why does it receive this exalted treatment over the other sources and definitions?

Perhaps a better opening sentence would be something like this:

"The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[1] is the view that the Bible stories of Jesus are not historically factual. There are three strands of mythicism. A moderate view is that there may have been a historical human Jesus, who was dimly remembered and who was subsequently fused with the mythological Christ of Paul.[3][4][q 2] The most radical view is that there was never a historical Jesus at all, only a mythological character, who was later historicized in the Gospels.[q 1] A third view is that there may have been a historical Jesus, but if there was one, nothing can be known about him."

I am also not sure what is the difference between the "third view" and the other two "views"? How did Price specifically differentiate a third "view"? It seems that the three views can be boiled down to (a) there was definitely a historical human at the base of it; (b) there was definitely no historical human at the base of it; or (c) there may have been a historical human at the base of it, but we can't be sure. If this is what it boils down to - as seems to be the case - why don't we just say so?

What about the "view" that aspects of various Jesus-type gods/persons were stitched together by the early churches to create a novel composite figurehead for their proto-Christian religion, and that one of those component figures may have been a historical prophet or teacher named Jesus, but that we can no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. Is that not the "third view" of Price, or is it perhaps a fourth view?

Wdford (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Bromiley gives a somewhat 'softer' definition, less polemical; Ehrmann's definition is more straightforward. Matter of tone, given the contentous nature of the topic. The sentence the Bible stories of Jesus are not historically factual is unclear and not to-the-point; the main thesis is: 'Jesus did not exist'. The differenc between "there was never a historical Jesus at all" and "there may have been a historical Jesus" seems quite obvious to me. If you want to know how Price reached ths conclusion, c.q. possibility, just look-up the source. Which source discusses this 'stitched together' thesis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ehrman's definition is more accepting of the important nuances, as well as more accurate. Again I ask – why do you think that Bromiley's definition deserves special prominence in the lead?

I also question your view that "the main thesis is Jesus did not exist" – especially because the article openly reports that there are three (?) theses, and does not give any of these "views" any prominence over any other view. Why do you choose to give such prominence to the "radical view", rather than to the "moderate view"? Why give any view prominence over the others?

Of course there is a difference between "there was no Jesus" vs "there might have been a Jesus". My question is – how is the "third view" different? I have read the work of Price – that is why I raise the question. Price accepts that there "might have been" a historical Jesus, i.e. basically the "moderate view".

Price also reports the hypothesis that the Jesus story closely parallels the various "dying and rising gods" of that time period, and that the Jesus story contains variations of almost all of the 22 recurrent features of the "mythic hero archetype". Price calls this "The Third Pillar of the traditional Christ-Myth Theory". [Source: Jesus at the Vanishing Point, by Price, pages 75-80; in The Historical Jesus: Five Views; see at [1]

Wdford (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Price again - Deconstructing Jesus - page 23 : "The Jesus Christ of the New testament is a composite figure." see here [2] Wdford (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Both Bromley and Ehrman are saying similar things. They are placing emphasis on the radical view since it is clearly the most common one espoused in both the literature and most well known in public debates (Maurice Casey in his "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" (2014) does the same emphasis on the radical view). Price on the other hand, breaks down the threefold arguments of the "Traditional Christ Myth Theory" used by mythicists in his entry of "Historical Jesus: Five Views" (2009). They are two separate claims.

According to Price, the first pillar of the traditional Christ myth theory is "Virtually everyone who espoused the Christ-Myth theory has laid great emphasis on one question: Why no mention (a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources?" (p. 62), the second pillar is "The second of the three pillars of the traditional Christ-Myth case is that the Epistles, earlier than the Gospels, do not evidence a recent historical Jesus." (p. 63), and the third pillar is "The Jesus story as attested in the Epistles shows strong parallels to Middle Eastern religions based on the myths of dying-and-rising gods. (And this similarity is the third pillar of the traditional Christ-Myth theory.)" (p. 75).

At the moment, the way the lead is written looks fine to me. It emphasizes the most common overarching view (radical) that scholars have rebutted (e.g. Bromley, Ehrman, Casey), then mentions the other two overarching views that also exist (moderate and agnostic), then breaks down the threefold arguments commonly used by mythicists of the radical, moderate, and agnostic positions. Perhaps the sentence "A third view is that no conclusion can be made about a historical Jesus, and if there was one, nothing can be known about him. should switch the "third view" for "another view" to not confuse Price's third pillar. Perhaps that is the confusion?Ramos1990 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that there are more than three different "views" to this complex issue, and that the way these three "views" have been summarized in the lead is a bit arbitrary, and doesn't properly summarize the info in the main article text. Furthermore, the so-called "third view" as per the current lead is basically the same as the "moderate view".

I think the confusion really stems from the fact that there are indeed three "stances" overall:

1. There WAS NEVER any historical human Jesus, and the entire gospel saga was always just myth and fiction, which was then historicized;
2. There MAY HAVE BEEN a historical human Jesus, and then many layers of myth and fiction were added to his life story, and historicized;
3. There CERTAINLY WAS a historical human Jesus, and then many layers of myth and fiction were added to his life story, and historicized.

The problem for the myth-critics is that the third stance above is actually the view of mainstream scholarship, leaving only two "mythical" stances. I think somebody may have been trying to find a "third mythical view" to fill the unexplained void?

If we replace the "three strands of mythicism" paragraph with my wording above, rather than use the incomplete "summaries" as it stands presently, I think it will solve the problem.

Wdford (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The three stances described in the lead are a summary of the stances described in the article, based on sources. Your third stance is not what's included in the CMT, nor is it described or explained as such in the article. And the moderate view and the agnisticist view are not the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"My" third stance is not part of the CMT, it is mainstream. However if we explained this properly in the lead of this article, it would resolve a lot of the confusion. I keep asking what is the difference between the moderate view and the agnostic view, but nobody else seems to know either. The so-called agnostic view is ascribed to Price, but Price clearly follows the moderate view. Wdford (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Moderate: "Some moderate authors, most notably Wells, have argued that there may have been a historical Jesus, but that this historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul."
• Agnosticism: "whether there was a historical Jesus is unknowable and if he did exist, close to nothing can be known about him."

Wells c.s. have propoesed theories about their supposed historical and mythological Jesus'es (how do you spell that?); Price c.s. say that we can't know if there was an historical Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps change the word "moderate view" to "minimalist view" or "reductionist view" or something like that? On G.A. Wells, Robert Price says "Some mythicists (the early G. A. Wells and Alvar Ellegard) thought that the first Christians had in mind a Jesus who had lived as a historical figure, just not of the recent past, much as the average Greek believed Hercules and Achilles really lived somewhere back there in the past. Others, like Earl Doherty? believe the original Christology envisioned a Jesus who had never even appeared on earth (except in visions to his believers) and whose sacrificial death amid the angels had occurred in one of the lower heavens, where these beings were located in ancient belief." (The Historical Jesus: Five Views p. 65). None of these reflect mainstream view. Mythicists do not actively argue for the existence of Jesus and never actively provide evidences - definitely not at the level that "There CERTAINLY WAS a historical human Jesus". I have yet to see mythicists argue with each other over whether or not Jesus existed. They argue over each other's methods perhaps, but not on that point.

Instead they minimize everything until you have a phantom or a vague historical shadow of him at best and he is nonexistent at worst. Robert Price falls under Jesus did not exist or if he did he reached the vanishing point. Even the "Deconstructing Jesus" book verifies it in the dustcover flap which summarizes that book "This is no surprise, Price demonstrates, since the Jesus Christ of the gospels is very likely a fictional amalgam of several first-century prophets and messiahs, as well as of purely mythic Mystery Cult redeemers and Gnostic Aions. To show this, Price follows the noted scholar Burton Mack's outline of a range of "Jesus movements" and "Christ cults," showing the origins of each one's Jesus figures and how they may have finally merged into the patchwork savior of Christian dogma. Finally, Price argues that there is good reason to believe that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and that responsible historians must remain agnostic about a "historical Jesus" and what he stood for."

Through all of this jumping back and forth that mythicists do, I think that the 3 overarching views (Jesus never existed, he may have existed but was mythologized, and we cannot know much about him) in the lead are good enough without bloating the lead. The article flashes out all the nuances. But in general these are the main mythicist conclusions found in the literature.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's true that different CMT proponents hold different views on a similar theme. The lead should explain this properly and neutrally, but concisely and without bloating. I'm not sure that "three strands" is the correct number - is there a source for this number?

The lead currently describes the "moderate view" as a historical Jesus who was fused with "the mythological Christ of Paul." This describes the views of Wells, but not Price, who also accepts a potential historical Jesus with added mythology, but who posits particularly that the gospel Jesus was largely a composite of Old Testament characters and contemporary pagan gods and hero's (i.e. the Mythic Hero Archetype). This view is not mentioned in the lead, but is replaced for some reason by the "agnostic" view. Since Price is one of the most qualified myth theorists, how can we leave out the main part of his views and say this is "good enough"?

Price actually wrote: "It doesn’t prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionised, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype. But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing." (Deconstructing Jesus, pg 518)

If we use my suggested wording that the moderate version states "there MAY HAVE BEEN a historical human Jesus, and then many layers of myth and fiction were added to his life story, and historicized;" it would cover all the proponents who hold some version of "historical human person onto which myths were grafted", including both Wells and Price. The other extreme would be those who hold that it was all pure myth, with no historical person at all, which is already covered.

I did say very clearly that the view of "There CERTAINLY WAS a historical human Jesus, and then many layers of myth and fiction were added to his life story, and then historicized;" is actually "the view of mainstream scholarship". This should be mentioned in the lead for clarity, instead of a paragraph that repeatedly states the CMT is not the mainstream view, without explaining that the mainstream view also accepts that much of the gospels is not historically accurate (and that Jesus was not the Christ or divine messiah), and that the difference really comes down merely to whether or not a historical human Jesus existed underneath all the myth and fiction.

Wdford (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The current wording does say "there may have been..". Perhaps just widening the last part of that sentence to "who was later mythologized" would cover the variants of mythologizing. I would switch the current Price ref from 1999 with Decosntructing Jesus and your page 518 since it lays out his thesis much more clearly. But to clarify, Robert Price's view is actually agnosticism from what you quoted and from Robert Price's main wiki article. Also I checked "Jesus is Dead" (2007) and that clearly shows his agnostic view: "Having got that straight, let me say that I think there are four senses in which Jesus Christ may be said to be a fiction. First (and, I warn you, this one takes by far the most explaining): It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological Christ of faith a synthetic construct of theologians — a symbolic Uncle Sam figure — if you could travel through time, like Superboy, and you went back to First-Century Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there." (271-272) He also did an interview espousing the same thing [3].

The differences between mainstream views and CMT do not boil down to just whether or not they believe Jesus existed. The differences are many including the methods mythicists use. Maurice Casey mentions for instance that the general lack of expertise or relationship to academic institutions and being unaware of current trends in scholarship; overreliance on arguments from silence, dismissal of what sources actually state, superficial comparisons with mythologies, very late dating of Christians sources (away from mainstream dating), among other things are common among mythicists and lead to very different conclusions than mainstream views (see "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?"). Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?" also breaks down numerous differences between how mainstream scholars view the evidence and how mythicists view it and explains why they are not in line with mainstream scholarship. The article already fleshes out the differences between mainstream and mythicist views so there is not much to add here.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I added a bit more for clarity. Thanks for the extra source. Wdford (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I made few clarifications too. I think it gets the gist of it.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with almost all your edits. However a particular flaw with this article has always been the way that it consistently obscures the fact that mainstream scholarship also regards much of the gospel stories as non-historical (or even "mythical"). If that undisputed point was clarified properly in the lead, a lot of the confusion and confrontation would disappear. I have therefore imported some detail from the Historical Jesus lead section in an attempt to close the gap. This wording is still a bit vague and tentative, but it has been fought over for decades, and represents the current compromise consensus. Wdford (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good edits. They look constructive. I think it was a good idea to bring in the wording from the Historicity of Jesus article here (was thinking of including that myself) since the state of scholarship is pretty divided still with only a few points having nearly universal agreement. Right now it is pretty clear that the range of views go from the theological to the mundane. This wording has caused no issues in the Historicity of Jesus article and is very NPOV. It gets to the point. Considering that many scholars actively interpret historically unverifiable things like miracles and resurrection in diverse ways (e.g historical, real, theological, spiritual, non-historical, real for believers of the day, real for the early church, consistent with biographical narratives of the 1st century, mythical, etc) it would be incorrect to push for any one particular "trigger" term. I will add a neutral historical/non-historical or something like that that I think would not provoke either side. I will also cite Robert Price for the 3 pillars sentence. I think that would satisfy everyone since as you say many have fought over this wording for decades.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Carrier's criteria for what a historical and a mythical Jesus should be our baseline. Right now his work is the only peer reviewed work to clearly define both.

Historical Jesus

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshipping him as a living god (or demigod)

"If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true." (Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5.)

"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite) ... My point at present is that even if we proved proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been Because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped."

Mythical Jesus

1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspi­ration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5. Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).

"That all five propositions are true shall be my minimal Jesus myth theory." (Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press. pp. 53. ISBN 978-1-909697-35-5.)

Note Carrier allows for a Jesus to exist well before the 6 BCE - 36 CE range normally given. The problem is such a "historical" Jesus has also be put into the "Christ Myth" category. Where the line is varies depending on the author and right now Carrier is the only one to give clear definitions of both positions in a peer reviewed work by a reliable academic publisher. --174.99.238.22 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Carrier is not the baseline for what a historical Jesus and what a mythical Jesus is. He is not an authoritative figure, he has no academic standing, most of his works are self-published on Jesus, he has never had any tenure at any academic institution and has made very little impact on research on Jesus - his latest book on mythicism is not even peer reviewed (Jesus from Outer Space). Clearly WP:UNDUE. Mainstream sources are what establishes the historical Jesus, and mainstream scholars have diverse criteria for this. The many mythicists that have written stuff on Jesus also have diverse criteria for what a mythical jesus is too. Both are to be summarized as collections of views, not privileging any one particular author.Ramos1990 (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I was not talking about "Jesus from Outer Space" but rather On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt which is directly sited in the above. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt is peer reviewed by a recognized publisher (Sheffield Phoenix Press) despite the whole bunch of BS to claim otherwise. Heck, even the wikipedia listing for Sheffield Phoenix Press states " All SPP’s titles are peer-reviewed, and authors are promised that their work will be kept in print indefinitely." On the Historicity of Jesus is a Sheffield Phoenix Press title ergo it has been peer reviewed. Carrier on his blog (Killing Crankery with Bayesian Reasoning: The Kooky & Illogical Postflaviana Review) even laid out exactly how the Sheffield Phoenix Press peer review process works.

What have those "mainstream sources" directly said about the information in On the Historicity of Jesus (rather then ignoring its points and arguing the strawman of the month)? On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt has been out since 2014, certainly there has to be something peer reviewed contesting its points, so what is there? As for mainstream establishing the historical Jesus they are all over the place. The rest of your post is just ad hominem attacks regarding something was not even on the table. --174.99.238.22 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is arguing that "On the Historicity of Jesus" is not peer reviewed. The issue is that that alone is not enough to place much of the mythicist weight on that one source. There are many mythicist views of which his is only one (and his really resembles Earl Doherty since Carrier has admitted influence by him in OHJ and elsewhere). Robert price is a more prominent mythicist scholar that regularly publishes with mainstream scholars representing mythicism comprehensively [4] for instance. I was only mentioning that Carrier has not widely published in peer reviewed setting on most of his stuff on Jesus [5]. Most of it is either self published or published by non academic publishers, including his latest mythicist book after OHJ. Furthermore his work has already been critiqued by mainstream scholars for example [6], [7], and of course Bart Ehrman has criticized his views prior to the book even coming out too [8]. Of course there are more critiques than that. Mainstream scholars on any ancient topic will rarely agree on much (e.g scholars on Socrates and the "Socratic problem", scholars on Pythagoras, etc) but they agree on some basic points and that is usually it.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The first rebuttal is behind a paywall (Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus may be published by Brill but the journal's name practically screams "biased" but it is reliable so we are kind of stuck with it) and the second ("Lord Raglan’s Hero And Jesus: A Rebuttal To Methodologically Dubious Uses Of The Raglan Archetype" by Christopher M. Hansen) is on only on one (Element 48) of the 48 points Carrier and not on Carrier's conclusion. I have no idea why Carrier invoked Lord Raglan's points as it seems to vary depending on which author used the thing as demonstrated by the Sienkewicz, Thomas. "Lord Raglan's Hero Pattern". Department of Classics. reference in the Rank–Raglan mythotype article. It doesn't help that some of the criteria in that thing are vague. What is meant by "He meets with a mysterious death"? There is nothing "mysterious" about crucifixion (Jesus) or firing squad (Tsar Nicholas). You could likely get nearly as high a result with Emperor Shōwa.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well that is the problem with using the Rank–Raglan mythotype as a method for determining historicity. A rather large number of historical figures fit various points of the mythotype. Let's see how wide Raglan's theories were:

• "Father is a king" Which would include just about any prince in hereditary monarchies, as well as many royal bastards.
• "Father often a near relative to mother" And how many people are the result of marriages or affairs between siblings or cousins? See for example List of coupled siblings and List of coupled cousins.
• "Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather" Do you realize how common infanticide is?
• "Hero spirited away as a child" The definition would fit most victims of child abduction.
• "Reared by foster parents in a far country" Which would fit several people in foster care, as well as people adopted by foreigners.
• "No details of childhood" Which in the absence of surviving records, could fit anyone from Hammurabi and Horemheb to modern celebrities such as Peter Laird and Jim Lawson.
• "Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)" Which could fit any number of historical figures who married princesses, whether they succeeded to a throne or not.
• "Becomes king" Which would literally fit any male monarch.
• "Driven from throne and city" Basically, a deposed monarch. See our Lists of monarchs who lost their thrones.
• "His children, if any, do not succeed him" Which is typically the fate of kids who were heirs to deposed monarchs.
• "His body is not buried" Which would also fit people who were murdered or killed in battlefields, and whose corpses were not recovered. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the Rank–Raglan mythotype isabout as bad:

• "Hero's mother is a (royal) virgin." Royal is optional
• "The circumstances of his conception are unusual" define "unusual"
• "He is also reputed to be the son of a god"; great way to claim authority before the idea of divine right came along. Alexander the Great did this.
• "On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom". Make sense even they weren't in direct line.
• "A victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast" Basically a "let's show how awesome this guy is" point.
• "For a time he reigns uneventfully". Let's be real here. Just how many kings don't have economic/social/poltical problems during their reign?
• "Prescribes laws". I have to ask just what non-constitutional monarch doesn't prescribes laws?!? Why is this even on the list?!?
• The Mysterious death often occurs on top of a hill but this is broken up into two points.
• "Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs" another weird one.

The list read like a vague group of criteria so as many "legendary" figures could be used while excluding "real" ones. The fact that some historical people score high while some fictional people score low shows the thing to be a total joke. It is not even good indicator of "something is wrong here". Carrier would have been better off throwing that thing into a bin. As for the other points there is Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic (April 20, 2012) which addressed Ehrman's points and their problems (both in presentation and with regards to facts). As for the article behind the paywall (On Richard Carrier’s Doubts by Daniel N. Gullotta) there is On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review by Carrier. If Carrier's statement of "It starts with Gullotta declaring sixth grade math is beyond him and therefore should be ignored." is true the red flags should be going up. For most US university you have to take college level math courses to even get your application looked at.

• "In his conclusion Gullotta only mentions my lower bound probability of “1 in 12,000” but not my upper bound, which is a “1 in 3” odds Jesus existed, the actual conclusion of the book (he mentions the “33%” only in passing mid-article). By altering his conclusion to hide that fact conceals from casual or inattentive readers what my actual conclusion was: that the probability Jesus existed could not reasonably be higher than 1 in 3."
• "I actually repeatedly exclude from consideration any of the fancier historical Jesuses Gullotta is talking about (quite explicitly: read pp. 31-35, and pp. 24-27). He thus misrepresents my book as arguing against some set of already-rejected versions of a historical Jesus, rather than allowing for a mere “gist” of a Jesus (as Gullotta puts it)." just sent up more red flags than at a Moscow Communist rally.

So the only "rebuttals" we have to Carrier's work either center on something (Rank–Raglan mythotype) we likely all agree he should have never put in the work or a Jesus other than the one he defined. Those are not rebuttals to Carrier's work. So we have any that refute Carrier's actual points or ultimate conclusion without doing a snow job on the reader?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about Richard Carrier. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. We as editors are not here to do a book review of any one author's arguments. For this article, he is just one voice out of many other mythicists and his version of mythicism is only one out of the many variant theories of mythicism. But I will just say a few things. The 48 elements you mentioned are just background info which do not lead to any particular conclusions on historicity. Some of those elements are very basic and generally agreed upon by scholars (e.g. earliest Christians were Jews, there was diversity concerning what the messiah was expected to do), but many of the elements are disputed or not really supported by scholars (e.g. Christianity had secret doctrines and different ranks of membership with more advanced members learning more secrets similar to mystery cults.) So these 48 elements are non-sequiturs and most do not seem to be accepted by mainstream scholars. And Carrier does not base his overall conclusion on these in the book by the way. Also, Carrier seems to not be able to interpret data correctly since he seems to incorrectly assess even currently living people and religion. He calls some scholars that have criticized his book "Christians", when they are actually "atheists" like Christina Petterson [9] - clearly showing his ideological bias in his analysis of people and religion. He proceeds to write a whole review of her [10] under the belief that she was a Christian fundamentalist the whole time! He could not even analyze her correctly in that long rebuttal to her. Carrier's strong interest in Rank-Raglan (he spent quite a lot of time on it in OHJ) should indicate how sloppy he is as a scholar in general. And after almost a decade of his book coming out and the prior book before that one coming out too, his conclusions have not been accepted by mainstream scholars for numerous reasons. Instead, numerous rebuttals have already been issued by numerous scholars (Carrier has a list in his blog of 22 scholars by his own count criticizing his book alone) and you can spend the money or find the rebuttals online to see the actual analysis by some of the critics and gauge their rebuttals for yourself. Up to you. But such a discussion belongs elsewhere.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The mainstream scholars can't even agree on what a historical Jesus even is. "The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." Dr. Robert Price (Christ is a Fiction).

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." - Dr. Robert Price

Even Albert Schweitzer stated that the historical Jesus was a creation of the researcher rather than the man who actually lived ca 1st century but he also shows that many of the critics of the Christ Myth don't even get what the point being raised even is: "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." Frazer was so exasperated with the idea that he was denying a historical Jesus that he flat out wrote "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth". G.A. Welsl had much the same treatment even though he was accepting the Gospel (but not Paul's) Jesus had a 1st century historical person as a foundation. If you go back and actual read them John M. Robertson and Arthur Drews weren't exactly throwing the possibility there may be a human interwoven to the story out the window but the accounts we had didn't seem to tell us anything about such a man. Even

Stripped of the extreme crazies Christ myth theory is less about Jesus being an actual flesh and blood man but rather taking the Paul-Gospel account and seeing how much lines up with history and if you strip all the things that should have been noted in secular records but weren't does any useable remain or are you left with some small otherwise nobody that just happened to hit the historical lottery? Perhaps "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?" when if finally comes out will help...or it could just make things even more than a migraine.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The irony of course is that mythicists cannot even agree with each other about Jesus either, despite them being so few relative to the number of mainstream scholars. Price, Carrier, Couchoud, Wells, Brodie, Freke and Gandy, Acharya S for example all have such variant and contradictory portraits of Jesus that none of them are compatible with each other and each one of their Jesuses is a reflection of each of these mythicists - made in their own image. They only all agree that Jesus did not exist and that is where the common ground ends. The book that you just mentioned (Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?) proves the point. Look at the contents [11]. Even Richard Carrier already commented on it and acknowledges the wide range of craziness among mythicists in that upcoming book: "Mainstream experts mostly already agree the miraculous Jesus didn’t exist, but what about a merely human Jesus? This anthology usefully exhibits the full gamut of doubting even that, from the absurd to the sound. Some contributions are not credible, but some are worth considering, and several are brilliant, indeed required reading for anyone exploring the subject." [12] Looks very messy and all over the place. It will not be peer reviewed either as they state that it will be published by Hypatia Press which is not an academic publisher, but a partisan one. It is what it is.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at John Remsburg's work (referenced Critics of the historicity of the Christ section above) as to why there is that variation as there is a huge variation in the meaning of "myth":

1. Historical myth: "a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false. A large portion of ancient history, including the Biblical narratives, is historical myth.
2. Philosophical myth: an idea clothed in the caress of historical narrative. When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth.
3. Poetical myth: a blending of the historical and philosophical, embellished by the creations of the imagination.

New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus talked about the spectrum of the historical Jesus "two views of the historical Jesus which stand at the opposite ends of a spectrum of opinion about him." At one extreme is the view that Jesus is a "totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who" (sic) and the other is the the Gospels are entirely factually accurate. He wrote that neither works and "[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."

In Eddy, Paul R.; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic. we have a this huge range broken into four broad categories and even they admit categories are "admittedly over simplistic", "ideal-typical", and a "useful heuristic" and therefore should not be taken as absolute definitions. Yet everybody and his brother seems to say that historical and mythical have clear definite definitions.

Logically, if the "Historical Jesus" is all over the map than its counter argument is going to be similarly all over the place. Heck, if either Michael O. Wise's 72 BCE messiah or Israel Knohl's 4 BCE messiah actually founded Christianity (or Chrestianity as that is how it is spelled our earliest manuscripts) and Jesus took that over rather than actually founding it would fall under Bart Ehrman's definitions of a "mythical" Jesus even if everything else in the Gospels is historical accurate. It doesn't help that there are conflicting evidence there may have been a pagan group called "Chrestians" who followed a Chrestus as far back as the 1st century BCE.

The whole argument is akin to saying that Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round is mythical/historical or that the Battle of Troy was mythical/historical. And about as nonsensical as either all or nothing answer is wrong.--174.99.238.22 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I might add that contrary to the FUD spread around Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt is double blind peer reviewed. Carrier himself spelled this out: "Independent, established professors whom I don't know personally, peer reviewed my book for Sheffield, just as such persons do all books at all academic presses. The standard is two. So any book you read from a bona fide academic press will have been peer reviewed by at least two professors of the subject not known to the author. Indeed, the process is double blind, just as for journals."--174.99.238.22 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Virtually all"

@CompliantDrone: the phrase "virtually all" has been discussed over and overagain, here and at Talk:Historicity of Jesus; I suggest you first scroll through the talkpage-archives before even starting the next discussion on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "virtually all" should have a notice attached to it that WP does not hold this viewpoint per se, but it is the claim of what WP accepts as reliable sources. --2db (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that WP should not hold viewpoints at all, and that sourced claims always represent the viewpoint of the source, this claim is no different than literally millions of other similar claims. As any competent reader will already know this, it's hard to see what the case for a notice would be. Jeppiz (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOICE

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.

--2db (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No such "notice" should be 'attached'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the lead, there is a quite egregious POV problem. The lead first conflates the 'Christ myth theory' as both views that No Jesus existed at all (i.e. 'Jesus myth') and there may have been a historical Jesus, but elements of myth were added (i.e. Christ myth). To then say that the conflated definition as a whole is widely considered a "fringe theory" is highly inaccurate. It is widely accepted by scholars that Jesus likely existed, was a disciple of John the Baptist, and was executed by the Romans, but there is not solid agreement on essentially anything else of the historical Jesus. More importantly, there is considerably less agreement among scholars that Jesus is 'Christ'. The view that there was no historical Jesus at all is widely considered a fringe theory by scholars, but to also imply that scholars also reject the view that Jesus was not 'divine' is rampantly dishonest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, no argument there. Obviously there is no scholarly consensus that Jesus was Christ. The name "Christ Myth Theory" is a widely accepted term for what is in effect the "Jesus Myth Theory". It's unfortunate, but not something we at WP came up with. If you have suggestions om how to improve it, while keeping with the terms scholars use, that would be great. Jeppiz (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The preference for the term 'Christ myth theory' is itself strongly influenced by a religious POV. A proper resolution to this problem would take more time to consider than I currently have.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced the most problematic statement with a more accurate statement about the specific view about a historical Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Though I see your thinking on this, Jesus non-existence is just one strand of mythicism. Scholars reject the others views too such as "Jesus agnosticism" and the mythical fusion (see paragraph 2 in the lead). Shouldn't we just say "Mythicist views" instead of "Views that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure" (which is only one view out of multiple other mythicist views)? The literature is pretty clear that mythicism is not really a part of the mainstream so it should delineate mythicists from minimalists whom some confuse as being mythicist - like the Jesus Seminar. What do you think?

I hear you about the "Christ myth" confusion, but it can be avoided by merely using one of the terms they currently use "Mythicist". The vast majority of scholars including Marcus Borg, Crossan, or even Joseph Hoffman (Jesus Seminar) are not mythicists.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording I have chosen quite clearly distinguishes views about Jesus being a historical figure from (possibly intentional) implications that 'mythicists' are dismissed for saying Jesus is not 'divine'. I see no good reason to re-introduce that ambiguity. Your suggestion of 'just saying "mythicist views"' might be acceptable if the misleading loaded term "Christ myth theory" were not present in the article. For as long as that term is used, and especially used predominantly, your preferred wording seems unacceptable. (Also, the phrase "non-existence theories" is awful in its own right.) People reading the lead of the article should not be expected to already know what "the literature" says in detail on the matter, nor is it necessary to consider every view in that initial summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But again, that only isolates only one strand. What about the others like Jesus agnosticism and fusion views. These are also rejected and both actually do not automatically reject a historical jesus (they are just very pessimistic) and yet they are mythicist arguments that are also rejected by mainstream scholars. Ehrman and Casey use the terms "mythicists" in their wide reaching criticisms in their extensive surveys. These RS should be used as a generic guide on naming the diverse "mythicts views". Also "Jesus mythicists" or "myth theorists" might be another alternative and capturing the breadth of the views and it would avoid the Christ issue you are talking about too.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly see the Christ myth issue you see. But there are alternatives available instead of just mentioning one stand (Jesus non-existence) and leaving the other views unaddressed despite that the sources do include such views as also being rejected in scholarship.

Perhaps just saying "Views held by mythicists" or "Such views are rejected ...." would work. I think "Such views are rejected...." would be a good continuation from the previous two paragraphs and it would avoid using mythicist. What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'other' elements you refer to basically boil down to saying 'maybe Jesus didn't exist', or 'we can't say one way or the other whether he existed' (in addition to hard views that 'Jesus didn't exist'). The common element of those views that scholars reject is some level of probability that 'Jesus didn't exist'. If person A says, "cats aren't real", person B says, "maybe cats aren't real", and person C says, "maybe cats are real but there are so many fanciful things said about them that we can't be sure", the single element that most people would reject is the conclusion that cats might not be real, irrespective of the conditional qualifiers. It is not necessary to overcomplicate (or mask) that in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it would not be sufficient to just sometimes say "Jesus mythicists" or "myth theorists" because the whole article is called "Christ myth theory", which inherently frames the subject in a misleading manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have to disagree since the jesus agnosticism position is not saying 'jesus maybe was not real'. Robert Price clearly states "There may have been a Jesus on earth in the past," and "It doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionised, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype." And the fusion position Wells states "I have always allowed that Paul believed in a Jesus who, fundamentally supernatural, had nevertheless been incarnated on Earth as a man." Hover over the quotes on the second paragraph of the lead.

They do not deny his existence categorically. So this is why I am leaning to just "Such views are rejected...." would be a good continuation from the previous paragraphs 2 and 3 and it would avoid using mythicist. What do you think?Ramos1990 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Since scholars are only really agreed about Jesus being a disciple of John the Baptist and executed by the Romans, it isn't so far from "the evidence is so obscured by myths and dogma that no conclusion can be made about him" could be interpreted, which is a quite slippery slope, as is the view that "it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionised, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype". However, calling some hypothetical person in the distant past (from the perspective of the 1st century) "Jesus" would be a false equivalence and would still fall into the category of saying Jesus—as recognised by scholars—didn't exist. Where mythicists conditionally don't deny his existence, that isn't what scholars are generally rejecting. (Also, Wells saying that 'Paul [maybe] believed Jesus was a real person' is not the same as Wells believing Jesus was a real person.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

'Theory'

This article necessarily refers to the term "Christ myth theory" as a popularised though misleading term for the view that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all, though incorrectly (and possibly deliberately) conflating the terms to dismiss the view that Jesus is not also 'divine'. That being as it is, the article should not further misuse the term "theory" elsewhere in the article. This is especially the case because POVs generally expressed on the subject of this article cross over with misuse of the term in the related context of evolution being 'just a theory'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Article balance

There are quite a few significant POV issues in the article body. Various statements characterised as 'mythicist' are actually wholly or largely consistent with the mainstream consensus. A significant portion of the article conflates hard-line mythicist views with other supposedly 'moderate' views, using Wikipedia's voice to distort the line between scholarly and mythicist views.

In the subsections below red text indicates statements in the article about mythicists and green text indicates the mainstream view or statements responding to mythicists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Paul and the gospels

Whereas the scholarly consensus is that little is known about the life of the historical Jesus except that Jesus was baptized, and that he was crucified, the article instead sets an inconsistent standard for 'mythicist' views:

• they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins, as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels, with Jesus being a celestial being who was concretized in the Gospels.
• Some moderate authors, most notably Wells, have argued that there may have been a historical Jesus, but that this historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul.
• According to Wells, a minimally historical Jesus existed, whose teachings were preserved in the Q document. According to Wells, the Gospels weave together two Jesus narratives, namely this Galilean preacher of the Q document, and Paul's mythical Jesus.
• According to Doherty, the Jesus of Paul was a divine Son of God, existing in a spiritual realm where he was crucified and resurrected. This mythological Jesus was based on exegesis of the Old Testament and mystical visions of a risen Jesus.
• In his early work, including Did Jesus Exist? (1975), Wells argued that because the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death by Christians who were theologically motivated but had no personal knowledge of him, a rational person should believe the gospels only if they are independently confirmed. In The Jesus Myth (1999) and later works, Wells argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one, namely Paul's mythical Jesus, and a minimally historical Jesus from a Galilean preaching tradition, whose teachings were preserved in the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
• According to Doherty, the nucleus of this historicised Jesus of the Gospels can be found in the Jesus-movement which wrote the Q source. Eventually, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly gentile community. In time, the gospel-narrative of this embodiment of Wisdom became interpreted as the literal history of the life of Jesus.
• In Deconstructing Jesus, Price claims that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a "composite figure", out of which a broad variety of historical Jesuses can be reconstructed, any one of which may have been the real Jesus, but not all of them together. According to Price, various Jesus images flowed together at the origin of Christianity, some of them possibly based on myth, some of them possibly based on a historical "Jesus the Nazorean", and that the historical Jesus has become obscured behind the dogma. Price admits that there may have been a real Jesus figure, but it is no longer possible to be sure.
• "The essays collected in this volume have a modest purpose. Neither establishing the historicity of a historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods."

The article states clearly that mainstream scholars to varying degrees also question the reliability of Paul's writings and/or the gospels, which they say describe the Christ of faith, presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine and that the historical Jesus was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today; they also recognise that in Paul's writings, Jesus is indeed presented as a 'celestial being' (though having been human); and they also recognise that the gospels were produced later with little agreement about their veracity. all material on Jesus has been handed down by the emerging Church. it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus". The Pauline creeds contain elements of a Christ myth and its cultus.

The article also claims that In his later writings, G.A Wells changed his mind and came to view Jesus as a minimally historical figure though Wells' view was consistently that Jesus likely existed but that most of what is in the Bible about him is not reliable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul's references to Jesus

• Wells, a "minimal mythicist", criticized the infrequency of the reference to Jesus in the Pauline letters and has said there is no information in them about Jesus' parents, place of birth, teachings, trial nor crucifixion.
• Wells says that the Pauline epistles do not make reference to Jesus' sayings, or only in a vague and general sense.

But those statements are consistent with the fact that modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus"--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Development of early Christianity

The possibility that early Christianity was significantly influenced by non-Jewish beliefs is characterised as 'mythicist' though it is not actually relevant to whether there was a historical Jesus. (It is actually entirely unsurprising that early Christianity would be influenced by Greek and Roman ideas, just as earlier Jewish belief was influenced by Babylonian, Persian and Greek concepts.)

• early Christianity was widely diverse and syncretistic, sharing common philosophical and religious ideas with other religions of the time. It arose in the Greco-Roman world of the first and second century AD, synthesizing Greek Stoicism and Neoplatonism with Jewish Old Testament writings and the exegetical methods of Philo, creating the mythological figure of Jesus.
• Doherty notes that, with the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek culture and language spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean world, influencing the already existing cultures there. The Roman conquest of this area added to the cultural diversity, but also to a sense of alienation and pessimism. A rich diversity of religious and philosophical ideas was available and Judaism was held in high regard by non-Jews for its monotheistic ideas and its high moral standards. Yet monotheism was also offered by Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, with its high God and the intermediary Logos. According to Doherty, "Out of this rich soil of ideas arose Christianity, a product of both Jewish and Greek philosophy", echoing Bruno Bauer, who argued that Christianity was a synthesis of Stoicism, Greek Neoplatonism, and Jewish thought.
• Robert Price notes that Christianity started among Hellenized Jews, who mixed allegorical interpretations of Jewish traditions with Jewish Gnostic, Zoroastrian, and mystery cult elements. Some myth proponents note that some stories in the New Testament seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah, Elisha, Moses and Joshua in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Price notes that almost all the Gospel-stories have parallels in Old Testamentical and other traditions, concluding that the Gospels are no independent sources for a historical Jesus, but "legend and myth, fiction and redaction".
• According to Doherty, the rapid growth of early Christian communities and the great variety of ideas cannot be explained by a single missionary effort, but points to parallel developments, which arose at various places and competed for support. Paul's arguments against rival apostles also point to this diversity.
• According to Carrier, the genuine Pauline epistles show that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul believed in a visionary or dream Jesus, based on a pesher of Septuagint verses Zechariah 6 and 3, Daniel 9 and Isaiah 52–53. Carrier notes that there is little if any concrete information about Christ's earthly life in the Pauline epistles, even though Jesus is mentioned over three hundred times.

Yet, scholars have also argued that Paul was a "mythmaker", who gave his own divergent interpretation of the meaning of Jesus, building a bridge between the Jewish and Hellenistic world, thereby creating the faith that became Christianity. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century CE, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy. According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism. According to Philip Davies, the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed "composed of stock motifs (and mythic types) drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

False dichotomy

Various statements in the article present misleading black-and-white thinking wherein suggesting that the gospels were influenced by anything other than narratives of the historical Jesus are necessarily at odds with mainstream scholarship:

• mythicists argue that although the Gospels seem to present a historical framework, they are not historical records, but theological writings, myth or legendary fiction resembling the Hero archetype. They impose "a fictitious historical narrative" on a "mythical cosmic savior figure", weaving together various pseudo-historical Jesus traditions, though there may have been a real historical person, of whom close to nothing can be known.
• According to Robert Price, the Gospels "smack of fictional composition", arguing that the Gospels are a type of legendary fiction and that the story of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels fits the mythic hero archetype. The mythic hero archetype is present in many cultures who often have miraculous conceptions or virgin births heralded by wise men and marked by a star, are tempted by or fight evil forces, die on a hill, appear after death and then ascend to heaven. Some myth proponents suggest that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history.
• Wells "regard[s] this Jewish Wisdom literature as of great importance for the earliest Christian ideas about Jesus".
• In his later contribution "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), Price concludes that the gospel story is a "tapestry of Scripture quotes from the Old Testament."
• He also argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
• According to Thompson, "questions of understanding and interpreting biblical texts" are more relevant than "questions about the historical existence of individuals such as ... Jesus". In his view, Jesus existence is based more on theological necessity than historical evidence. He believes that most theologians accept that large parts of the Gospels are not to be taken at face value, while also treating the historicity of Jesus as not an open question. In his 2007 book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the Biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are not historical accounts, but are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek and Roman literature. Those accounts are based on the Messiah mytheme, a king anointed by God to restore the Divine order at Earth.

However, it is entirely compatible with the existence of a historical Jesus for both Paul's writings and the gospels to also draw on other sources or themes. Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography, a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works. Ehrman notes that the gospels are based on oral sources, which played a decisive role in attracting new converts. Christian theologians have cited the mythic hero archetype as a defense of Christian teaching while completely affirming a historical Jesus. the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects. Most of the themes, epithets, and expectations formulated in the New Testamentical literature have Jewish origins and are elaborations of these themes. The article, attempting to assert that the characterisation of Jesus was not based on 'gentile' influences, acknowledges that elements are instead derived from earlier Jewish literature: According to James Waddell, Paul's conception of Jesus as a heavenly figure was influenced by the Book of Enoch and its conception of the Messiah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Weasel words

Supposedly 'mythicist' dating of Paul's writings is characterised using weasel words:

• most mythicists argue that the Pauline epistles are older than the gospels

Rather than this being something that mythicists "argue", The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to AD 50–60 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains one of the earliest Christian creeds expressing belief in the risen Jesus (53-54 CE), namely 1 Corinthians 15:3–41

'Mythicist' characterisation of the Testimonium Flavianum is also treated with weasel words though it is viewed similarly in mainstream scholarship:

• Myth proponents argue that the Testimonium Flavianum may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, … The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage in book 18, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.

• Some myth proponents note that some stories in the New Testament seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah, Elisha, Moses and Joshua in order to appeal to Jewish converts.

It is not merely the view of 'mythicists' that various elements of the gospels 'seem to' "reinforce Old Testament prophecies", it is inherently required for the genre of 'Messianic prophecy'.

There are also some instances of terms such as 'claim' where a more neutral word should be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Double-standard for 'argument from silence'

The article employs a double-standard regarding the 'argument from silence':

• Paul's epistles lack detailed biographical information … there is a complete absence of any detailed biographical information such as might be expected if Jesus had been a contemporary of Paul, nor do they cite any sayings from Jesus, the so-called argument from silence
• Myth proponents claim there is significance in the lack of surviving historic records about Jesus of Nazareth from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding that Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they note that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 AD.
• The "argument of silence" is to be rejected, because "it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist."

But the article says it is notable that "the mystery cults are never mentioned by Paul or by any other Christian author of the first hundred years of the Church," despite the fact that it would be contrary to their purpose to mention them even if they did draw on them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Vagueness

• Yet another view is that there may have been a historical Jesus who lived in a dimly remembered past, and who was merged with mythical and literary figures in the Gospels.

The phrase 'dimly remembered past' in the lead should be replaced with something more specific, such as 'before the first century'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

At a quick glance: the article gives an overview of the mythicists pov('s) and arguments; even if there are arguments that are also being used by mainstream scholarship, it still is an overview of the arguments of mythicists. Mainstream scholarship arrives at other conclusions than the mythicists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times already - mainstream scholarship actually shares with the mythicists the core conclusion that the Gospel Christ is a work of fiction. The only differences between mainstream scholarship and the mythicists revolve around what percentage of the gospel story is potentially historical fact. Mainstream scholarship holds that all the supernatural bits of the gospel story are not historical fact, but that most of the mundane details are probably fairly historical. The mythicists (on average) hold that most of the mundane, non-supernatural bits of the gospel story are probably also pretty doubtful. If the article would just reflect this reality, honestly and transparently, then this dissention would evaporate. However there has long been a determined effort to carefully word all these Jesus articles such as to allow the impression that mainstream scholarship supports the historicity of the Gospel stories. Wdford (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The way the article is presented, it doesn’t simply indicate that mainstream scholarship ‘reaches different conclusions’. Some of the conclusions of mainstream scholarship are in fact the same conclusions as those of what the article describes as ‘moderate’ mythicists. I have already provided examples above of how essentially the same views and conclusions are characterised differently to make more of the mythicists’ views appear contrary to scholarship than is actually the case. (And obviously that does not include the more extreme mythicists views that no historical Jesus existed at all).—Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The question now is how to fix this? See e.g. this link to Alvar Ellegard [13]. How do we go about amending the wording to accurately reflect the true level of overlap? Wdford (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mythicists do not live in a vaccum. They borrow from some scholars whom they favor for their thesis that Jesus did not exist or is mythological. However it is important to note that the scholars they use or select do not use the same point to arrive at a mythicist conclusion. Mythicits will agree with mainstream scholars on Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].basic information that is found in the texts, for instance that there is little biographical information on Jesus in Paul's writings. That is universally understood by all scholars. However, mythicists take that information and ignore the nuances of mainstream scholars which argue that none of that implies that Jesus was only conceived as a celestial being.

Mythicists do not come up with completely new scholarship. They merely distort mcuh of the schaolrship that is out there and come up with odd conclusions because of their misinterpretation and distortion. The fact that critical scholars like Bart Ehrman wrote a whole book detailing the differences between his liberal interpretation of the evidences and how mythicists misinterpret the evidence should show how mythicists deviate from mainstream scholarship.

Why not read what Ehrman observed as the basis for what the differences are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.10.226 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Jeffro77, personally I would agree with virtually everything you say, so I don't dispute it. At the same time, parts of it very much comes across as your interpretation various mythicists' views, and that risks venturing into original research. Again, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but if we have a source X saying Y, then we cannot insert Z instead based on our opinions. I write this as your lengthy arguments above are mainly based on how you think things stand, but rather weak on sources to support it. So please remember we are bound to report what reliable sources say. Of course that doesn't mean we should have errors in the article, and if you identify passages that go against what sources say, they should of course be modified. But once again, the article must be based on what sources say, not on how any of us interpret said sources. Jeppiz (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The core problem with the article is kind of illustrated by the IP editor above, though unwittingly. There is some ‘poisoning the well’ of the term ‘mythicist’, and the article conflates the views of hardcore mythicists with other views that are actually consistent with mainstream views but do not phrase things as Christians might like. For example, Thomson is not a mythicists at all but instead says whether Jesus existed is separate to other analysis, and other than Ehrman’s accusation that Thomson is a ‘mythicist’ and Thomson’s response, other statements of Thomson’s views have been misused in the article. There are similar issues with Wells.

Additionally, there is the inherent POV of preferring the awfully erroneous term ‘Christ myth theory’ which isn’t a ‘theory’, and it really is the mainstream view that ‘Christ’ (not ‘Jesus’) is actually a myth. The article consistently refers (disparagingly) to the ‘Christ’ myth throughout the article though other terms exists, giving implicit preference to views that endorse Christ as ‘divine’, without sufficiently indicating that the mainstream view is that the existence of the real Jesus with what is actually known and agreed about him by scholars is actually relatively mundane.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman actually wrote: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesus are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time."

This is very similar to the definition of Doherty, who described "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." Ehrman differs from Doherty really only on the last clause, namely that "no single identifiable person" underlay it all.

Can we add this to the lead? If Ehrman is good enough to cite for defining the CMT, of which he is not a proponent, then surely he is good enough for definiing the mainstream view as well? Wdford (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A summary of Ehrman’s statement should be in the lead and the full quote should be in a suitable place in the body. In general, the lead should summarise article content and isn’t the place for extended quotes.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman's comment on that is not the mainstream view. That is clearly his own view on that. Clearly the scholars who are Christian, which are the majority of scholars on Christian topics clearly would disagree with that. But that statement is already cited in the lead in the last sentence either way - with numerous other citations which show the diversity of understandings of Christ in mainstream scholarship. "The The Historical Jesus : Five Views" provides a wide range of views that are held on that. So technically there is no one view on that. There are multiple.

Touching on the other parts of the discussion, yes I agree with some of the comments above that we should stick to the sources per wikipedia policy. They are the guide and they are the content of the article. It seems that we are moving away into WP:FORUM and engaging with original research or even synthesis and pushing in interpretations that are not in sources. The sources clearly define Christ myth theory and they address it consistently (e.g Robert Price, Gullotta, Van Voorst, Ehrman, Casey, etc). Casey, Van Voorst, Ehrman, and others make arguments how mythicts diverge from mainstream views (which are diverse, but not to the point of mythicist level of denialism). This is why they make surveys about what mythicist arguments look like, how mythicists operate and what they are aiming to achieve. Robert Price himself, a godfather of mythicism, summarizes it pretty consistently too and provides an overview of typical myhtiicts arguments and positions in many of the sources here. None of these sources or authors argue that if a mythicist overlaps with mainstream scholarship, it is some sort of validation that they are mainstream, or close to being mainstream. The sources themselves, which is the policy on wikipedia, are what make the delineation that they are not mainstream.

The red and green quotes from the article itself above, are not stand alone sentences, they are properly cited with sources too (sometimes multiple sources). I don't see any issues if the sources make such claims. No matter if they overlap, contradict, or not to some degree, we are not here to WP:SYNTHESIS sources. It is what it is.

It would just as odd as saying that since Intelligent design does agree with evolutionary theory on numerous points, that somehow it is absorbed into evolutionary theory views and is thus mainstream with it. There are numerous agreements between holocaust deniers and holocaust historians, but they differ on major and important ones and that makes the differences between fringe and mainstream. Keep in mind that mainstream scholarship in religious matters tends to be theologically neutral as a matter of practice. So you will always get mundane, neutral, middle ground assessments of Muhammad, Buddha, and any other religious figure.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn’t the case that the article must only refer to the subject as ‘Christ myth theory’, and it is the case that there is cherry picking involved in the article presentation, and that the views of so-called ‘moderate mythicists’ are misrepresented in the article. None of that falls into WP:FORUM.

"Moderate mythicist" is not a term in any source. That is wikieditor terminology at this point. If you are talking about Wells, then his views can be clarified with proper sourcing. His views did evolve and he eventually became a minimal historicist. For example, he stated "When I first addressed these problems, more than thirty years ago, it seemed to me that, because the earliest Christian references to Jesus are so vague, the gospel Jesus could be no more than a mythical expansion and elaboration of this obscure figure. But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, the personage represented in Q (the inferred non-Markan source, not extant, common to Matthew and Luke; cf. above, p. 2), which may be even earlier than the Paulines. This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these-The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth-may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus." (Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009) p.14)Ramos1990 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary. [Wells 2009, pp. 14–15.]

• Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.

--2db (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitions

• Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].

[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

• Loftus, John W. (2021). "Preface". In Loftus; Price (eds.). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press. ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9.

All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too! It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.

• Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the historicity of Jesus : why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse. Leiden. pp. 2f. ISBN 978-9004397934.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[We should] use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’.

--2db (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)