Talk:Christ myth theory

Antisemetic motives

I've found that a few reliable sources trace specifically Bauer and Drews' support for the CMT to their antisemetism. Should the article note this at some point, or will this just be one more huge target for complaints? Eugene (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Without telling us what the sources are we can't really judge. Such sources would imply that we would have to alter the Arther Drews article as it expressly says in the LEDE "Though never an open supporter of the Nazis, some of Drews' essays suggest a sympathy for some of their ideas, though he rejected Antisemitism.". We don't have a cite for the rejection but given Drews published the Die Christusmythe in 1909 and died in 1935 then clearly he can deny being a Nazi (party formed in 1920), the Moon landings and the Holocaust. I don't know what he would have thought of Shakespeare's works. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism was around long before the Nazi party, so it's certainly plausible that Drews or Bauer might have been influenced by it. Bauer wrote several articles on the "Jewish question", and I wouldn't describe his thinking as particularly enlightened on this subject. The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is much more helpful than Wikipedia's on this, and almost every other, aspect of Bauer's thought.

It would be helpful to have more detail on the sources for this before judging whether the point should be included in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In his 1921 critique of mythicism, Constantin Brunner specifically tied the doctrine to antisemitism:

Now, however, the more Christ stands recognized in general terms as a man, the more ill-starred the Jew Christ becomes. Christ a Jew?! In that case—given the undoubtedly true racial theory—how could the Jewish race be inferior? Then we, who have not produced such a genius, would be the inferior race! This is nonsense, since we are the highest race, as the scientific truth of the racial theory proves, and this in turn demonstrates the indubitable scientific integrity and truth of the theory itself. This Christ is ruining the whole racial theory!

You can read the full text of his critique here.Barrett Pashak (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer's anti-semitism is so well established that I don't think I need to go into it much in general. I've found a source, The College Press NIV Commentary: New Testament Introduction, authored by David A. Fiensy and published by Collge Press, which has this to say on page 91: "Nowhere is the effect of presuppositions so evident as with [Bruno] Bauer. He was a radical Jew baiter and anti-semitist. The idea that the religion that had shaped western civilization could have been founded by a Jew was impossible for him to accept."

I've yet to find such a direct connection between Drews' anti-semitism and his advocacy of the CMT, but I've found this so far:

Their views of the historicity of Christ and the part played in the propagation of the faith by his disciples, especially Paul, undoubtedly unsettled many minds and destroyed many people’s faith in the beliefs of the Christian religion. A number of these critics, such as Arthur Drews, finally went over to Neo-paganism. Their conclusion that a body of mystical doctrine had been adapted by the Jews to their own religion and history and by them foisted upon the rest of the world, was taken up by such writers as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who attempted historical syntheses from a racial point…. After the rise of the National Socialists to power in 1933 various attempts were made to unite these [Neo-pagan] societies into one pagan community. In June 1933 the most successful of these attempts was launched. An appeal, signed by the Professors Wilhelm Hauer, Ernst Bergmann, Arthur Drews and many others, to 'the men of a Teutonic-German Faith Movement' was published, urging the leaders of the different pagan movements to meet together to resolve their differences at the Wartburg near Eisenach.

Leonard Forster, "The New Paganism and the Old Teutonic Religion", German Life and Letters, 2a (2), 1938, pp. 119-131

Also, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, by Rüdiger Safranski (Harvard University Press), contains a notable section in which Drews is said to have condemned Nietzsche for not being enough of a Nazi. The Scientific Origins of National Socialism, by Daniel Gasman (Transaction Publishers), speaks of a “Germanic pagan religious movement” which “directly influenced the religious program of the Nazis” and cites the work of Drews in a footnote. And The Jung Cult : Origins of a Charismatic Movement, by Richard Noll (Touchstone), speaks of Drews' work as part of a larger body of religious literature grounded in folk (völkisch) racism.

There's also a ton of material (much of it from top-tier university presses) explicitly connecting the Religionsgeschichte Schule to overt antisemitism. One of the sources already cited in this article (a blog article by Ben Witherington) says this: "Of course unfortunately, most readers in the 21rst century don't know the history of Biblical scholarship, don't know about the origins of the Religionsgeschichte Schule in Germany during a period when anti-Semitism was rapidly on the rise, and therefore there was a need to explain away the Jewishness of Jesus and the NT (remember the Jesus was an Aryan argument?), and so they now find these sorts of arguments useful or even compelling in the attempt to banish Jesus from the halls of history and relegate Christianity to some third rate Greco-Roman rehash of a religion." The Religionsgeschichte Schule is essential to the Christ myth theory, but we also have an article on Jesus in comparative mythology where this sort of observation might be more appropriate (since not all Religionsgeschichte Schule thinkers denied Jesus' existence). So, again, should we mention the antisemetic currents in Bauer and Drews' thinking? Eugene (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really as you seem to be synthesising this somewhat. The Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil page 300 reference does not mention the "anti-semitic" that you had added to the Drews article so I removed it. Also Drews was then a philosophy professor and so the cherry-picking (well raising picking) of Nietzsche by those ignorant of, but enamoured to, Nietzsche's works, would certainly be an anathema from a purely professional stance. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that anti-semitism played a role in Bauer's account of Christian origins (and that seems to be the case for Drews as well), but unless you can find a quote that explicitly says just that, you're going to encounter so much resistance to putting it in the article that it's not worth trying. (It might help improve Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews, though.) --Akhilleus (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made some substantial changes and additions to Arthur Drews' page and I may eventually get around to Bruno Bauer's page as well. As far as this article goes, though, these are the most explict sources I've been able to find that connect Bauer and Drews' CMT advocacy with their clear anti-semitism:

For Bauer-- in the context of a list of reconstructions of the historical Jesus, "(9) Jesus the non existent. Since B. Bauer in the nineteenth century, a few scholars have suggested that Jesus never edisted at all but was entirely created by the imagination of the Christian community.... Nowhere is the effect of presuppositions so evident as with Bauer. He was a radical Jew baiter and anti-semitist. The idea that the religion that had shaped western civilization could have been founded by a Jew was impossible for him to accept."

David A. Fiensy, The College Press NIV Commentary: New Testament Introduction (Joplin, MO: Collge Press, 1995) p. 91

For Drews--"But the greatest sensation was caused by Drews in radically denying the existence of Jesus Christ, and seeing in Him only an ancient myth.8 Drews was neither an historian nor an original researcher, he relies chiefly upon the works of Smith. Drews -- is a philosopher of the Hartmann school. In his capacity as an Hartmannist, he preaches a religion of pure spirit. And he fights against the historicity of Jesus Christ in the name of a religion of spirit, he contends against the religious materialism which he detests. He is prepared to admit the existence of Christ, as the Logos. But for him the Logos never could have been incarnated into a man upon the earth, within earthly history. The religious materialism of Christianity is a legacy inherited from Judaism, it is a Semitic graft, and Drews in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite, struggles against this materialistic Semitic graft for the religious life of Aryanism, expressing itself in its purest guise in India."

Nikolai Berdyaev, "The Scientific Discipline of Religion and Christian Apologetics", Journal Put', 1927, No. 6, p. 50-68

So should this information be integrated into this particular article, or should we let it go? Eugene (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I say yes, but only in a sentence or two. The details given above should really go into the articles about the men themselves. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparisions to other fringe theories

The list of citations in footnote 135 is getting pretty long (7 quotations). Currently the following goof-ball theories are mentioned:

• Holocaust denial (4 sources)

• Moon Landing Hoax (2 sources)

• Baconian Theory (1 source)

• Green cheese moon (1 source)

(Holocaust denial, along with flat-earthism, also appears again in the subsequent in-line Powell quote and Roswell conspiracies appear in an earlier footnote connected to Craig.)

Now, I don't want to get rid of any of these until after the mediation is finished, but when that's over with we might want to trim footnote 135 to just four sources (in keeping with our convention regarding the lead) that cover all the bases to avoid charges of quote mining. The rest can (and currently do) appear in the FAQ, and with that and the mediation settled and on record, it will be easy enough to refer to when needed. What do you all think? Eugene (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but only if the amount of references will affect the chances that this article will become a FA. Most people simply don't understand how crazy this theory is, and the more references we have, the easier it will be to make the case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if this article becomes a FA, but I think that Bill may be right in saying that a greater number of references may help emphasize how non-mainstream this theory is. It's probably good to remember that to an audience who has little to no knowledge of biblical studies, classics, etc., this theory looks plausible on its face; it's only with some knowledge of the sources and the scholarship that it becomes apparent that the CMT is a non-starter, so it's quite possible that the next FA reviewer will have a similar reaction to the last. One thing to do is to make sure that the article lets the theory speak for itself, that is, gives full and fair explanations of what each theorist thinks--that way, it will be clear that this is an article about the theory, not an article devoted to refuting the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am generally in the "extra sources never hurt anyone" camp, so I would advise not trimming if you don't have to. Many citations show the reader a broader view than that of just a few academics, and hopefully will prevent a similar dispute from breaking out again. NW (Talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep all the citations in the footnote. We'll cut a few only if the FA review demands it. Eugene (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference List

I don't yet know how to edit the reference section when it is made up of "lists". Can someone please search for Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… and add an extra period "." so that the sentence ends with a total of four periods: Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent.... Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I figured it out. Doohhh!!!  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Idea

I'm a tad bit concerned over the line where it discusses how Jesus is similar to other mythological figures. Here it talks about how Mithras was born from a virgin (when he was really born from a rock) and other similar ideas. I realize people who argue in favor of this theory need their backings, but this is just flat out false. Even with "sources" a fib is a fib. The line states it is based on mythological sources, but no mythological sources claim Mithras is born from a virgin woman. I used to come on Wikipedia constantly a while back and just decided to come back with a new username. Thab being said, ss far as I can remember, nothing like this would slide back then. It should undoubtedly be re-worded or something in the near future. Thoughts? --Fdf3 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Misc. Concerns

Saying Christ myth proponents have no evidence is like the pot calling the kettle black. The evidence to the contrary is at least as second hand and speculative. Clearly any contemporaneous misgivings about the authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth (at all) would have resulted in execution and the absolute destruction of associated writings once orthodoxy took hold. The apocrypha barely survived, and they were far less heretical. Are we sure the end quotes and references to no scholars who even entertain the possibility of this is accurate? These sources on that point are nonbiased academic ones without a beef in this? The Bible society one certainly seems inappropriate to be quoting at that spot. The holocaust deniers comparison is rather ad hominem, considering we're talking ancient history deductions versus forensics, photographic evidence, and contemporaneous testimonies. The two aren't even close. My point is the last word on the subject seems oddly one-sided and charged. -Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.1 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Like the page header says, this isn't a forum for discussing the CMT, so try to avoid general comments about the topic. As for your specifc concerns relative to this Wikipedia article, there's no need to worry: see FAQ #2, #3, and #4. Eugene (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Final Touches

Alright, it looks like NuclearWarfare will declare consensus and close the mediation any day now. Once that happens I'll cut the unflattering comparisons from the lead, switch the categorization, and (just to be nice) cut Licona's Answering Infidels blog article. Sophia mentioned a few things that she thinks will hold the article back from FA status: poor-quality sources, synthesis in the "arguments" section, and the rehashing of the arguments for a historical Jesus. Once I cut Licona's blog entry I think every source will be acceptable for FAC, so that shouldn't be an issue. Likewise, I've recently added some refs to the Eddy and Boyd book which themselves make statements about the arguments generally used by CMT advocates, so the synth issue shouldn't be a problem any longer either. That just leaves "affirmation of a historical Jesus".

Now, I think this section adds a lot to the article. But it is long-ish for a summary section (of historicity of Jesus). Also, the FA intelligent design article doesn't have a sizeable sub-section rehashing evidence for evolution. So, what to do? Should we just leave the section as is? Should be try to reduce its size? Should we chop it up and integrate its material into the "arguments section" (e.g. "In contrast to the scholarly mainstream [ref], CMT advocates reject the ostensible allusions to Jesus in the writings of Josephus...")?

Also, does anyone have any additional (reasonable!) concerns with the article that should be addressed prior to its next FAC? Eugene (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing? Eugene (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You've done a terrific job here. But, since you ask, I would like to see some Jewish scholars quoted in either the text or the FAQ. In particular, I would like to see Constantin Brunner referred to. He has an extensive essay on mythicism that I have posted here Barrett Pashak (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't included Brunner because, despite his notability, he was a philosopher and not either a historian or a biblical scholar. A few Jewish scholars are nevertheless referenced in the article: Alan F. Segal is cited in connection with the principle of embarrasment, and Louis Feldman is cited (and indirectly cited again) in connection with the writings of Josephus. If you know of any other Jewish biblical scholars or historians who've commented on this topic, by all means, let us know. Eugene (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got a couple. Joseph Klausner wrote:

And when we look afresh into all that has been said of these three [the Gospels, Jesus, and Christianity], during the first twenty years of this century, we come to the conclusion that nearly all the many Christian scholars, and even the best of them, who have studied the subject deeply, have tried their hardest to find in the historic Jesus something which is not Judaism; but in his actual history they have found nothing of this whatever, since this history is reduced almost to zero. It is therefore no wonder that at the beginning of this century there has been a revival of the eighteen th and nineteenth century view that Jesus never existed.--Jesus of Nazareth: His life, times, and teaching (London: Allen & Unwin, 1925), p. 105.

There is also Ist Jesus eine historische Persönlichkeit? by Gottlieb Klein, a Swedish Rabbi (I haven't read this work).

Just for the record, I feel that the exclusion of Brunner is arbitrary, and deprives this article of a reference to one of the best critiques of the theory. Barrett Pashak (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Klausner would be a nice addition to the article. I haven't been able to find an easily readable online version of Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, though; do you know where I can find one? Eugene (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Online, there are only a couple of editions in Google Books that provide snippet view (here and here), which is enough to verify the quotation.Barrett Pashak (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Klausner reference would fit nicely in the "Early 20th century" section, in connection with the allusion to the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, since that movement is now widely seen as having been anti-Semitic in nature. I'll get some more sources together and make the addition soon. Eugene (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the Klausner quotation in the "Early 20th century" section. I've also added a brief comment on the anti-Semitic trajectories of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule to help transition to the quotation. I imagine that some editors may not like dragging the big A-S into this article, but I've sourced the comment with a work written by a professor at a state University in Sweden published by the University of Chicago. If that proves insufficient, I have another couple sources (one from Princeton University Press and another from Brill) which support the statment, but I thought adding three new sources to the bibliography to support one clause in one sentance seemed excessive. Eugene (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is expanding the "Popular prevalence" section to include references to such things as The God Who Wasn't There and The Jesus Mysteries. Other than that, I'd say the article is fairly complete. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC),

The Jesus Mysteries is refernced in the Recent proponents's "Other writers" section in connection with Freke and Gandy. As for the The God Who Wasn't There if we were going to include it I think it would fit better in the "Popular culture" section than "Popular prevalence". I'll put it in. Eugene (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. I think the "Popular prevalence" section should be merged with the "Popular culture" section, since they seem to naturally go together. Is there a reason for keeping them separate? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

When I added the "popular prevalence" section I put it at the end of the article to address the concern raised on the peer review page. A reviewer said that allowing the article to end with Powell's quote seemed a bit heavy-handed and WP:UNDUE and gave the impression that the article was a hit piece. While I have no love for the CMT, I do want the article to be as serious and high-quality as possible so I took the complaint seriously and thus added the section to make that the proverbial "final word".

I can understand the desire to merge the two sections you mentioned, but I think keeping them distinct may be best. "Popular culture" details pop attempts to "push" the theory (following the sections on scholarly and semi-scholarly attempts to push the theory) while "popular prevelance" details how successful such attempts (pop & scholarly) have been in different countries. If we merge them, then we'll either have to locate the merged section where "popular culture" now stands, thus re-raising the WP:UNDUE, etc. concerns, or we'll have to put it were the "popular prevelance" section currently is, splitting the pop treatments off from the rest of the history of advocacy. I think that former possibility is unhelpful and the later is awkward. I'd rather just keep the status quo on this. Eugene (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say I disagree with the reviewer mentioned above. The Powell quote is appropriate, especially because the CMT is a fringe theory. Also, I just think the article ending with the "popular prevalence" section is a little awkward. Nevertheless, if you think that it still reads ok, then I can live with it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, Bill; Powell's quotation would be a really nice and definitive way to end the article. I mean, talk about closure! But I want the FAC to go as smoothly as possible, so I think we should just grit our teeth and let this go. Eugene (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to appreciate the mere editorial effort that went into polishing this article, but sadly the scope issues remain as unaddressed as ever. This appears to be essentially a bid to inflate the notability of crank authors like Doherty by putting them in a timeline including respectable 19th century authors. --dab (𒁳) 20:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I disagree about the (lack of) stand-alone value of this article, but if you really think this page is sympathetic to the CMT, please, for the love of God, say something on the FAC, I'm dying out there! Eugene (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Atheism?

How does this article fall under the scope of Wikiproject Atheism? That seems an undeserved tag. NJMauthor (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a popular theory with many in the non-academic and scholarly "atheist community"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do articles in wikiproject Atheism include popular theories in an "Atheist community" rather tha Atheism itself? NJMauthor (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who originally included this article in wikiproject Atheism. I wouldn't resist it's removal from that list. Eugene (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I can't seem to find the text... care to? NJMauthor (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most atheists are smart enough to know their history and know how to make an analysis of historical documents and whatnot. On the internet the Christ Myth theory may be popular, but I've never met an atheist in actuality who honestly thought that Jesus was not a historical figure. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I could say that up until the time of me meeting Dan Barker a few weeks ago. --Ari (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I too have heard it in real life. It doesn't have to do with atheism, it has to do with the failure of a person's system of informational hygiene.NJMauthor (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To Barker you might add Doherty, Price, Zindler, Salm (among others) and published authors/atheists who write regularly on the JesusMysteries list. Things are changing, and it's useless to live in the dead past.Renejs (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's terribly unproductive to live in the dead scholarship of the past, skeptical theories propounded in the 19th and very early 20th century and all that. Oh... wait... you meant that the Christ myth theory is "coming back" and that we aren't living far enough back in the dead past. Sorry, my mistake.

In any event, this isn't a forum, so let's try to keep the discussion about the article. Eugene (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of Doherty, Price, and Zindler, but who is Salm and what are his qualifications? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

He's a piano teacher who's been pushing a goof-ball theory about Nazareth not existing for a while now. He published a book a little while back through American Atheists and it was torn to shreds by professional archeologists. Interestingly enough, Salm's first name is "René". René Salm, René S., Renejs anyone? Eugene (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If Salm is actually Renejs, it should be noted that I just had to revert one of his edits in the Nazareth article. He seems to be a disruptive editor, so we should be prepared to face the same thing in this article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reported him to the WP:ANI; hopefully he doesn't become the current heir (there always seems to be more of them) to the fringy opposition to this article. Eugene (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, ReneJS but I cannot say that I have met yourselfRene J. Salm, Doherty, Price or Zindler. Anyway, a whole one of those names has relevent credentials - and I wouldn't even have heard of someone as marginal and unknown as Salm if it wasn't for you constantly vandalising the book into Nazareth.--Ari (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If he is Salm, he deceptively referred to himself in the third person above. Does he want to disguise his (obvious) disposition to POV? NJMauthor (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to determine who initially included this article in Wikiproject atheism. I suppose that some sort of case could be made for its inclusion on the grounds that a notable minority of atheists embrace the theory in certain countries and that it was a part of the Soviet anti-religious campaign, but that seems pretty meager to me. I've also noticed that while the page has had GA status for almost two months now, no one over at Wikiproject Atheism seems interested enough in the article to bother putting it on their "Recognized content" list.

I'm going to drop the Wikiproject Atheism affiliation. If anyone objects, feel free to say so. Eugene (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point in having a Wikiproject affiliation? What is the practical effect of being in or out of such an affiliation? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know. My guess is that there's some implict sense of obligation to keep the articles on your list in good shape. Eugene (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I say just remove it and later, if necessary, it can always be added in again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The connection is that the theory is popular in low brow atheism. People feel smug about "debunking" Christianity, and it does not seem to occur to them that logically the non-existence of Jesus doesn't preclude theism any more than the existence of Jesus proves theism.

About 90% of these Wikiprojects serve no purpose whatsoever. They are just about slapping your project template on articles written by other people, a sort of drive-by tagging effort. --dab (𒁳) 19:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, this is definitely not in the scope of Wikiproject Atheism. Belief in god(s) has nothing to do with the debate over the existence of Jesus. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead's new paragraph order

What's the general feel regarding the new paragraph order for the lead? Eugene (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Methinks it will sink the FAC even faster. Sophia ♫ 21:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I have to actually agree with Sophia - gasp! :) I would put

The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles,[2] biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship.

back at the end of the lead. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'll change it. It is always refreshing, though, when someone like dab thinks the page isn't being hard enough on the CMT. Eugene (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What I find disheartening is statements like Graham Colm's that

Much of mainstream biblical scholarship is conjecture in my view.

"Conjecture"!? Do ancient historians think that their profession is about "conjecture". I may be wrong, but I think historians would disagree with that assessment. I made the point on the FAC page that nothing involving ancient history is about "proof". It's about probabilities, and the VAST majority of biblical historians, as indicated in the footnotes of this article, think that the CMT is bogus. And this article makes that abundantly clear, per Fringe (levels of acceptance). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the FAC discussions have turned into past discussions here. Claims that Christian academics cannot be trusted, Biblical scholarship itself is pseudohistory (except when someone supports CMT?),The Society of Biblical Literature is automatically suspect and other ridiculous claims demonstrate a clear ignorance of the field and are far from neutral. --Ari (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The end of the article lead which you removed could be added to the lead in the Scholarly Reception section. NJMauthor (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could be added to the Scholarly Reception section, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the lead. The lead section of every article should give a summary of the article as a whole, so there should be some mention of the bogus nature of the theory in the lead. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. NJMauthor (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone know who coined the expression "Christ-myth theory" and how it was first described? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who used the expression first, but it's almost certainly a reaction to Arthur Drews' book Die Christusmythe, translated into English as The Christ Myth. From a quick Google Scholar search I can see "Christ-myth theory" used on p. 632 of this article from 1926. Some other articles from the same era refer to the "'Christ-myth' theory"; e.g. on p. 513 of this 1924 article in the Journal of Philosophy, Walter Horton says: "After rejecting the 'Christ-myth' theory of Kalthoff, Drews, and Wm. Benjamin Smith, he might be expected to deal seriously with the problems which concern the psychology of the real Jesus..." Clearly an instance of taking Drews' title and applying it to a group of people who share the same basic ideas. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Akhilleus. I see it was used in The Princeton Theological Review in 1914, p. 512. [1] That's as far back as I've been able to take it so far. It might be worth contacting some of the people who've written about it to ask when it was first used. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here referred to in 1917 by The Independent (p. 31) as the "Smith-Drews hyphenated Christ-myth theory."

The Methodist Review, 1913, p. 480. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Primitive Christianity and its non-Jewish sources, by Carl Clemen and Robert George Nisbet, 1912, p. 6.

New lead

An ip user has made many edits recently. Most of them are fairly minor, but (s)he has drastically altered the lead. The lead no longer uses the words "pseudoscholarship", "dissmissive", and so on; the original FRINGE identifying sentence has been replaced by a clause quoting Graham Stanton. The quote is helpful, and I imagine the the new lead will not raise as much ignorant opposition in FAC, but I wonder if the editors here feel it is strong enough to identify the topic for what it is in accordance with WP:FRINGE. What say ye? Eugene (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd probably stop using phrases such as "ignorant opposition" when you're trying to get through a FAC. Not helpful. Second, you should credit SlimVirgin, not the IP editor, for the Stanton clause. Third, I don't think the current lead adequately sets out that the theory is fringe, but I think it improves on the previous wording. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stanton is the most reputable of the sources listed in the lead that I can see, and we need someone very credible for in-text attribution because he's saying that practically no historians subscribe to this, which is a big claim. Regarding the Stanton quote: "Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed ..." etc. We cite that as Stanton 2002, but the first edition of that book was 1989, I believe. Did he only say this in the 2002 edition? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the 1989 edition said that, isn't it best practice to cite the most recent version? As for the thought expressed, it's hardly uncommon--aside from the other quotes given in the lead, there's a bunch of stuff in FAQ #2 at the top of the page. I realize that readers unfamiliar with this area of scholarship won't know how fringy the Christ myth theory is, but Stanton et al. are fair representations of what the majority of scholars think. How can the lead communicate this in a way that doesn't arouse the suspicion of readers unfamiliar with this topic area? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In a case like this I don't know. If he wrote it in 1989, and not in 2002, as a reader I'd like to know that, I think. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the concern. Is it that Stanton may have written the text in 1989 and not in 2002, or that the text appears in the 1989 edition, but not in the 2002? In any case, the text appears on p. 145 of the 2002 edition: [2]. That's the edition I'd cite. As for when Stanton wrote the sentence in question it's hard to know, since book publication can be a multi-year process. However, as I've already indicated, and as you can see from FAQ #2, the thought is commonplace. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that when he wrote most historians etc, was that first published in 1989 or in 2002? That the text wasn't changed in 2002 simply means it wasn't revised, and I'd be reluctant to draw conclusions from that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2002 version has been expanded (see the preface) and as far as my memory serves the quote is still in there as the section still remains. My understanding of the works of lead is that it has to make clear the standing of the theory, and in this case it is clearly fringe and should be noted as such. This in itself should not raise suspicion, especially noting how verifiable this fact is. --Ari (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was been revised much. If you look at page 143, Stanton writes that the most recent Wells book was in 1996. But it was in 1999, according to our article. Assuming we're right, that means that Stanton 2002 is out of date. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to the 1996 book necessitates it being found in the more recent volume. I do not think it is out of date, nor does it change the fact that Stanton didn't note a shift towards CMT as there was no shift. --Ari (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC problems

The FAC is likely to fail barring swift and massive editing. This doesn't bother me, because I don't think the GA and FA processes do much to ensure quality (or for that matter compliance with Wikipedia policies).

However, the editors of this article need to look carefully at the concerns raised at the FAC regarding the article's neutrality (or lack thereof). Sure, it's easy to pooh-pooh the reviewers' lack of familiarity with the Society of Biblical Literature and the assumption that every scholar of early Christianity is necessarily a Christian, but the vast majority of Wikipedia readers have no idea what the SBL is, and the mythical "man in the street" generally assumes that people who study religion are themselves religious. In other words, the reactions of commenters at the FAC probably represent the reactions of most readers who stumble across this article. So if you're interested in crafting an article that accurately represents the CMT and communicates this information well to readers, take the FAC commentary seriously.

The main problem is the perception that the article is a refutation of the theory rather than a history or explanation of it. So make sure that the article doesn't look like a debunking. Yeah, the information that this is a non-mainstream/fringe theory is essential. But the article doesn't need to include an extensive explanation of why the theory is wrong; historicity of Jesus, historical Jesus, etc. set out the mainstream view. (Incidentally, if you look at http://stats.grok.se you can see that Christ myth theory attracts little traffic compared to other Jesus articles.)

So, quick fixes: 1) make sure the article isn't giving disproportionate space to refutation. Reduce the size of the "counter-arguments" section (even the title is a problem). Perhaps go back to the old title of "scholarly response", and get rid of everything but the intro section of the current "counter-arguments" section. Then, try to pare that down. The point of this article isn't to describe scholarly responses to the CMT but to describe the CMT itself.

2) lose the comparisons to Holocaust denial. Entirely. No matter what validity there may be to the comparison, rhetorically it's a mistake. It's not essential to establishing the fringe status of the theory, and including it provokes strong reactions, as the last couple of months have proved. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, "counter-arguments" has already been changed to "reception": [3]. Things are moving quickly, I see. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree FAC is shot this time around, again. I had asked if anyone wanted to register some final concerns prior to the FAC, and I did specifically ask about shortening the "affirmation" of a historical Jesus" section. But no one said anything. So fine, let's either shorten that section or integrate it into the rest of the article somehow.

As for cutting the Powell quote, no way; I absolutely disagree. Powell is probably the most authoritative source on the CMT's reception in mainstream scholarship, given his position with the SBL, and I can't go along with just cutting it to accomodate the prejudices of this article's critics. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to inform a reader on a topic (s)he's not familiar with; the idea of removing text from such a medium because it doesn't conform to the a priori assumptions of the uninformed seems completely anti-thetical to that goal. Eugene (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Most biblical scholarship is done by religious people, not all I admit, but the academic structure with thousands of well funded theological seminaries, and ancient links to church establishments (in the UK certainly) mean that to be a non religious (non christian in the UK) biblical scholar is difficult. To expect people to accept research produced in this environment as non biased will take careful handling, in the same way as if the vast majority of lung cancer research was funded by tobacco companies. Extreme views are stated with more certainty that the facts support - that would not survive in the scientific world without strong challenge from others. To show the CMT as it is received by academia really involves a lot of silence (not an interesting subject - as you can never prove a negative), some moderate well written discourse on the unlikeliness of it all being made up, and some hell fire and thunder apologetics. The CMT is the same, unprovable either way so not an interesting question, interesting and plausible alternative history, and Da Vinci Code look alikes. We need to acknowledge the extremes in both camps but this article would be most interesting (and likely to survive a FAC) if it were settled in the middle ground. Sophia ♫ 07:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are advocating here. Are you unaware that this article cites a number of non-Christian authors? (See FAQ #3.) Are you suggesting that we not describe this topic as WP:FRINGE? Eugene (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject as a whole is fringe but what is interesting about it is the middle ground. Emotional overstating of the case either way does not make for good reading. Sophia ♫ 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates

Just to note that the templates are using a citation style in the References section that doesn't exist outside WP, so far as I know.

Wood, Herbert George (1934), Christianity and the Nature of History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

They're also slowing load time down somewhat. I'm finding preview particularly slow. If I were writing this, I'd remove them, but I'll leave that for others to decide. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The citation template is the standard Wikipedia template. I don't see how this is an issue. Eugene (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought cite book was the standard for books. It would deliver a recognized style:

Wood, Herbert George (1934). Christianity and the Nature of History. Cambridge University Press.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the problem is. Is it the non-standard punctuation, or that both the place of publication and the publisher are being provided? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

knee jerk reversion

SlimVirgin, why did you simply revert my careful corrections to the page here? Not only are there stylistic issues involved, your revert restored factually incorrect information (e.g. Durant was a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, not a philosopher) and cut categories that had been agreed to in mediation. Please change it back. If you really want to include a picture of Marx instead of the agitprop, fine, but don't just roll back. Eugene (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see agreement to these categories anywhere, I saw objections. If there are errors in what I wrote (e.g. the Durant issue), please point them out and I can fix them, but I can't see the point in e.g. the Soviet image. How is that connected to the Christ myth theory?

Eugene, do you know when the expression "Christ-myth" or "Christ-myth theory" was first used? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs}

It's connected because it was part of a Soviet Propaganda campaign, although not under the exact name "Christ myth theory". NJMauthor (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what this image and its interpretation have to do with the argument that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. Making that link seems like original research. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The picture was not appropriate. Also the article says that the Jesus myth was in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia but the ref just talks about "textbooks". Is there an accurate ref to support this? Sophia ♫ 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the picture was appropriate because it was part and parcel of the same anti-religious campaign of which the CMT was a "cornerstone". I also thought it was nice since it broke up the monotony of a bunch of pictures of guys' faces. As for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the ref cites two sources, one by Nikiforov and one by Metzger. The Metzger source discusses the GSE, but I didn't think the assertion of a flat fact was controversial enough to warrant a long quotation in the footnote. Silly me. As for Will Durant, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his history writting. Given this attainment and his massive writting in the area of history, to identify him in this article as a philosopher seems like a subtle POV attempt to undermine the authority of his quotation (much like the attempt to incorrectly date Stanton's book's publication; much like calling Stanton a "theologian" and not a biblical scholar; much like the change to the lead that cut seven sources; much like cutting the pseudoscholarship cat); please change this. With regard to the pseudoscholarship categorization specifically, it was agreed to as a part of the consensus compromise formed in the mediation, a consensus of which Sophia was a part. To remove it now would likewise require consensus. I'm objecting, so such a consensus doesn't exist; please reinsert the cat tag.

As far as I know, "Christ myth" goes back to Drews' book by that title, published in English in 1910. Eugene (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just curious and I don't have access to the Metzger book, I didn't realise it was part of the GSE. The pseudoscholarship was always a compromise and I would be ok either way. Wikipedia categories are supposed to be ways to find related ideas, not definitions of a topic. Sophia ♫ 15:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Source requests

1. We need a citation from Durant for the following: "He argues that if the Gospels were entirely imaginative, these and other issues in the life of Christ would probably not exist; a purely creative narrative would likely present Jesus in strict conformity with preexisting messianic expectations." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

2. We also need sources for this paragraph that was added under "popular culture":

The Christ myth theory has entered popular culture through a variety of venues. Films such as Zeitgeist, The God Who Wasn't There, and Religulous discuss it at some length. Richard Dawkins has made passing reference to the theory in The God Delusion, arguing that it is possible to mount a "serious, though not widely supported" case that Jesus never lived at all. Slogans such as "Jesus never existed" have also made appearances in graffiti and on merchandise of various kinds.

We need sources, preferably secondary sources, that show this theory was discussed in these films (I've seen one of them and I don't recall it being mentioned). Richard Dawkins isn't part of popular culture. And the slogans issue seems OR-ish; if it was the only unsourced part (unsourced to secondary sources) I wouldn't mind, but as part of an unsourced paragraph about pop culture, it looks like a Wikipedian mounting a case. We could find grafitti saying anything to show that X had entered popular culture. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote that paragraph a few months back. After having cut my teeth with this article regarding a number of wiki policies, I agree that the merchandise and graffiti information seems a bit OR-ish and I wouldn't object to cutting it. The films, however, shouldn't be problematic: the theory is mentioned in Religulous, occupies a huge section of Zeitgeist, and is the central thesis of the God Who Wasn't There. Finding some online secondary sources for these shouldn't be a problem--in fact, I think the Forbes interview mention's Zeitgeist several times. As for Richard Dawkins, his book absolutely is a part of pop-culture; it's quite well recieved among pop-atheists, was on the NYT's best-seller list, has appeared in the cartoon Family Guy, and, as I recall, was the go-to source a certain plucky editor used to fact-check this article a while back during its first FAC. Eugene (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to any of it so long as you can find sources who say exactly what you want to say in the article, with no embellishments. Given how contentious this is, we should stick strictly to the sources, and use only secondary sources for any interpretation of the primary sources. See NOR. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins receives a mention in Paul Barnett's Messiah" (2009) (a popular level book). Also, Dr John Dickson (in the Forbes invterview) mentions him in a video as well as a paper presented to the Society for the Study of Early Christianity which can be found in their website newsletter. Will check it if there is actually a need for it. --Ari (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes to the article

Note: Please be careful in hasty alterations to the article. For example, the article now mixes American and British English. NJMauthor (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you give examples, they can be fixed. Without examples it'll be hard to spot them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Most people familiar with British English and American English would be able to spot them without specific examples. But in the name of cooperation:

"the Jesus of early Christianity was the personification of an ideal saviour to whom a number of stories were later attached.[1]"

NJMauthor (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which word you want changed. If it's saviour to savior, both were in the article before the recent changes. See here from January, for example. Feel free to change to whichever you prefer.

Do you have any other examples? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow down! NJMauthor (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a no. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop Removing WP:CON Material You Personally Dislike

SlimVirgin, you continue to remove the cat tags despite having been informed that the pseudoscholarship cat is the result of a concensus reached through mediation [4]. This is now the second time you are being informed. The mediator in that case has indicated [5] that to ignore that compromise would constitute a violation of WP:CON. Your changes on this matter have now been reverted three times by two different editors. Given the above, if you persist in removing the cat I will consider it edit warring and I will report the matter to the appropriate noticeboard. Stop. Eugene (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please keep these issues on this talk page, please, rather than posting to my user talk too? I don't know anything about the mediation as I wasn't part of it, but I do know it's POV and inaccurate to call the work of people like George Wells (to name just one) "pseudo-scholarship" or Soviet propaganda. Also, please don't use headers to attract negative attention to editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene is just reverting my work here, including my addition of entirely uncontroversial material. [6] [7] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you ought to learn how to spell “consensus” before claiming one exists. As a side note, I think the current “Christ myth theory” is both loaded and imprecise. Taken at face value, it only suggests a theory that no “Christ” (i.e. anointed one, son of “God”, messiah, savior, etc.) existed, and that Jesus may have been a real man but was not the “Christ”. Something like “Jesus myth theory” more clearly would describe the belief Jesus did not exist in any capacity. Overall I think the most straightforward title would be “Existence of Jesus” but this already exists as a redirect to Historicity of Jesus. Whether we really need two articles I have no opinion. ―AoV² 01:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think this should be called Jesus myth, Jesus myth theory, or something similar—or else folded into Historicity of Jesus. This article isn't about the religious or "Christ" aspect. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the quotation provided in FAQ #1 (see especially the quotation from Eddy & Boyd); the term "Christ myth" is basically the standard name for this topic in the secondary literature. If you think we should hyphenate the name though (i.e. "Christ-myth theory"), I think I'd support that proposal. Eugene (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Jesus Myth" was the historical name of this article and made much more sense as this really has nothing to do with the "christ" side of things. The name change has only confused things ever since. Both terms seem to be used but "Jesus Myth" actually gets more ghits. Sophia ♫ 08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Price

Eugene, could you explain why you removed that Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, that he contributed to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009) with Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock, and that he said in 2009 Jesus may have existed but "unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." And why you reverted my edit to the alt text (which doesn't adhere to what's currently regarded as appropriate)? [8] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material on Price's affiliation with the Jesus Seminar as it's clear you're trying to make him look impressive, which is WP:DUNE here. No other person mentioned in the article has a mini-CV attached to their name, why should Price? As for The Historical Jesus: Five Views, I don't know what you're talking about; his section still refers to his involvement in the book. The skeleton quote isn't a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but it seems redundant given that the section already speaks of "complete agnosticism regarding Jesus' historicity". As for the alt-text, WP:ALT calls for a graphical description of the image in question for blind people using text readers, not some unhelpful note calling redundant atttention to the caption which merely states "Robert M. Price". Eugene (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make him look impressive. I'm just trying to describe who he is to counter your efforts to do him down. These have included some questionable edits by you to his article, and to the dab page, even removing that he's a theologian. We need to offer the facts here, not try to persuade. As for the alt, see WP:ALT please; the old guideline is no more, and what you wrote was POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You're tilting at windmills here. I haven't removed "theologian" from before Price's name in the current version of the article. The alt text for Price's picture ("An older man with a full beard grimacing playfully at the viewer") doesn't stike me as POV; what precisely do you object to as biased? Based on WP:ALT's comment regarding the Queen of England's picture it seems that you're right about the current alt text being inappropriate, but that then seems to be true of almost all the pictures in the article, so why are you objecting to Price's specifically? To show that I'm not just being obstinate, I'll put an allusion to Price's work with the Jesus Seminar into his section that doesn't look like a mini-CV. Eugene (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Last month you removed that Price was a theologian from the dab page, [9] and replaced it with "skeptic," with no indication of what that meant. In November [10] you added this to his article: "It should be noted though that Price is often viewed as sub-academic, the Society of Biblical Literature's Review of Biblical Literature describing his work as 'not a serious discussion of the issues' so much as 'an extremely bitter rant.'"

"It should be noted though" is an example of language that is really never acceptable in articles, not to mention "sub-academic". It looks as though you're trying to undermine him on several pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be categorized as "pseudohistory"?

There is currently a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as a historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose inclusion. Categories are incapable of nuance or referencing. This theory has been expounded by some well-known academics, including the historian Bruno Bauer, the philosopher Arthur Drews, and more recently the German professor G. A. Wells. If it's being taken seriously by university academics, even if they're in a minority, it shouldn't be categorized bluntly as pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship, no matter how much some biblical scholars may dislike it.

  Wikipedia:Categorization says "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It's certainly true that the Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus never existed at all) has been expounded by some well-known academics. There was, as SlimVirgin notes, the notoriously anti-Semitic Bruno Bauer who found "the idea that the religion that had shaped western civilization could have been founded by a Jew... impossible... to accept" [11] There was also, as SlimVirgin also notes, Arthur Drews, a non-specialist and Nazi-sympathizer who "in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite, struggle[d] against this materialistic Semitic graft for the religious life of Aryanism".[12] And, lest we forget, there's also G. A. Wells, just as SlimVirgin notes: another non-specialist who pushed the theory "not for objective scholarly reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes"[13]--who, by the way, has now abandoned the theory.[14] Please, before weighing-in, take a look at the article's FAQ on this issue; it appears as question #2. This is a slam dunk. Eugene (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Advocate Support (per Backtable). The Chrst myth theory is a theory that goes against popular belief, this popular belief being that Jesus is real. Pseudohistory is defined as a theory or set of theories that go against what is widely accepted as a factual aspect of history. Thus, I wouldn't mind this being categorized as such. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. Are you implying that “popular belief” and “factual aspect of history” are the same thing? Using this category implies that the dead reckoning behind one popular belief is somehow more sound than that of the dissenting view. I will not tell you what to believe or disbelieve, only what to avoid presenting as fact. ―AoV² 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  I guess they are meant to be the same thing. I wasn't thinking about the correlation of those phrases when I was writing that. By the way, note that I said "what is widely perceived as a factual aspect of history", instead of stating "factual aspect of history" by itself. Thus, that meant that it didn't necessarily reflect my thoughts. I believe Jesus is real, but that was not a factor in my argument. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. If mainstream scholarship considers it false and the methods by which it is commonly investigated to be inherently unscientific/historical, it is pseudohistory. It is not just an expression of bias, it is the real scholarly opinion. NJMauthor (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. To call this pseudo-history is to take for granted that Jesus existed. If enough evidence existed to prove or disprove that assertion, we wouldn′t be having this conversation. The best answer I′ve found is “maybe”. ―AoV² 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. Did you read FAQ #2? Eugene (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi AoV2, I believe to call it pseudo-history has a lot more to do with disregard for historical method by proponents. In the eyes of essentially all historians, there is clearly enough information about Jesus not just to tell us that he existed, but what he taught, the shape of his ministry and much more. --Ari (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trusting sources penned a generation or two after his estimated death does play the dickens with historical method, I′ll grant you that. ―AoV² 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the place for debate, although Paul writing about meeting Jesus' brother James and apostles in Jerusalem is a lot different to the situation you would like to imply. On the point of source criticism, this links the traditions far closer than penning of the gospels, etc. Anyway, my point stands. They criticise disregard for historical method, not whatever your POV website seems to think. --Ari (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. As our reliable sources have made clear, mainstream scholarship considers the theory pseudohistory. This is backed up by number reputable scholars from all fields of the ideological, many of whom have gone to the extent of comparing it to other frigne pseudo-historical theories. Factors that seem to generally be noted by the mainstream towards this theory is that it is pseudo-historical for disregarding historical method. --Ari (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agreed to the compromised to get the far worse pseudohistory removed. Having reread WP:CAT I can see that my understanding of how cats are used is out of date and this should not be used here as it is controversial and too wide sweeping. Some authors would fall under that cat but there are many others who would not. Sophia ♫ 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. The life and historicity of Jesus Christ are part of academical studies and debates. Michele Bini (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is on the Christ Myth theory, not academic debate on the life of Jesus - see historical Jesus. Your claim that the historicity of Jesus is debated in academic circles is not the case. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose For something to be included in the pseudohistory category, there should be consensus among specialists of the field that it is a false theory, which I don't think exists. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll further investigate this and come back to it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus, and there are no peer-reviewed academic works arguing the case that I am aware of. As Professor Robert E. Van Voorst notes, "The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." (Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.14.) I would ask the people voting here to please make themselves aware of the debate, especially before making statements on consensus. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Per reasons stated by Eugene and others. Personally, I don't believe that we are even taking this vote. As Eugene stated, it is a slam dunk. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, taking a vote seems to be a way to circumvent what scholars have to say in favour of editors personal opinions. --Ari (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely... this is insanity! Did nobody read the FAQ? NJMauthor (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it IS insanity. Apparently, there are some that think a consensus can change facts. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Get enough editors in here unfamiliar with the topic and I suppose a "consensus" out of ignorance is a useful political tool. NJMauthor (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ^^James^^ (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

James, your Oppose vote is meaningless without giving a reason. NJMauthor (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many people looking at this subject seriously without crying holocaust (while not necessarily agreeing). One example is Clinton Bennett in In Search of Jesus. Second, most of the people crying holocaust are dyed-in-the-wool Christians. That does not necessarily make them wrong, but I hesitate to add the tag based on their characterizations. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless someone can make a serious, successful challenge to the sources used to support the claim in the article and in FAQ 2 that this view is considered untenable by the vast majority of historians. The article on psuedo-history doesn't seem to actually define psuedo-history, but I'm going with the assumption that it's the equivalent of psuedo-science, which I understand, and that assumption doesn't seem to be debated by anyone here.Yoshi348 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I spent quite some time searching through peer reviewed journals and couldn't find anything supporting the position that Jesus was a myth but found articles refuting the idea. I trawled through several websites that supported the idea but they did not cite any peer reviewed work. I'm a bit surprised by this and hope that anybody casting a vote that opposes the inclusion will be able to demonstrate that there are historians out there that genuinely consider this a valid proposition. aineolach (u · d · c) 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fringe indeed, but where are the quality sources classifying this as pseudo-history. (That has a connotation of ideologically driven fabrication and a Nazi sting to it.) Sources saying this is refuted are indeed CUP/OUP level, but the pseudo-history rhetoric and comparisons to holocaust denial are at best Westminster Fort Knox. Vesal (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't have a lot to add, but I would point out that at this point serious scholars are starting to question the claims of the Historical Jesus school as extreme, and, as their name suggests, the Historical Jesus scholars never claimed they're wasn't a historical Jesus. Adam sk (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I don't care about what categories appear in this article. As far as I can tell the category system exists to cause disputes among Wikipedia editors rather than to help Wikipedia readers. However, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, and as such is pseudohistory/scholarship. G.A. Wells is a bona fide academic, sure, but the fact that he is a scholar of German rather than of early Christianity is relevant. Scholars in fields that deal with early Christianity (religious studies, ancient history, and so on) think this theory is a fringe theory; many of the theory's current advocates acknowledge that it's rejected by mainstream academia. Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews were also bona fide academics (well, Bauer was until he lost his university post because of his views on Jesus)--but Bauer was 19th century and Drews early 20th century. The categorization is about how the theory is perceived now, not in 1852 or 1922. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also Robert M. Price, a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, with two doctorates in theology. He's doesn't work in a maintream university, but he's nevertheless regarded as a specialist in this area by those who do. That he's a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and was invited to contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), along with Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock, are both strong indications of that, in my view. I see that both of these points about Price have been removed from the article by Eugeneacurry. [15] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree strongly with your point about categories and disputes. The main purpose of them often seems to be as a weapon against people and ideas that someone doesn't like. It's time we tried to sort it out as a project.SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that Robert M. Price doesn't work at a mainstream university. The Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary is an unaccredited institution; it's apparently not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and it seems to pop up on Google exclusively for its association with Price. [16] This is in fact a great indication that we're dealing with a fringe theory: its advocates come from outside the relevant academic fields (Wells) or teach at unaccredited unknown institutions. Sure, Price is a notable figure and his views should be covered in this article, but he should not be taken as an indication that the theory has become mainstream within religious studies. It's nice that he was invited to contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views, but this is easily seen as a cynical attempt to boost sales by including a "controversial" view in the book; if you read the text, the other contributors are usually polite to Price, but it's clear that some of them are thinking, "Why do I have to respond to this guy?" Again, he is a notable figure, it's worth including him in the article, his membership in the Jesus seminar and his appearance in the book should be noted in the article. But none of this is an indication that Price's views are mainstream, or even representative of a significant minority opinion within religious studies. He's an oddball.

I would like to see the community tackle the issue of categories, but I'm not optimistic that it's possible. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm minded to try it, but it's not an area I've ever involved myself in, so I'd need to read up on previous attempts. We've had similar problems with editors adding the "pseudoscience" category to anything they don't understand or like. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you said: "If it's being taken seriously by university academics, even if they're in a minority, it shouldn't be categorized bluntly as pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship". Does that then mean that you oppose the pseudohistory cat on the holocaust denial page because holocaust denial is "taken seriously" (i.e. advocated) by a "minority" of "university academics" like Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson? (I'm not surprised to see SlimVirgin hasn't responded to this.)Eugene (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problems you discuss here are tied to the idiosyncratic definition of article scope. The owner of this article, Eugeneacurry, insists on treating a loosely connected series of opinions on the "nonhistoricity of Christ" as a single topic, but separate from the debate on the historicity of Christ in general. This is WP:SYNTH to begin with, and you end up with an article that is cobbled together from partly pseudo-scholarhsip, partly fringe scholarship and partly bona fide but outdated scholarship. This problem will not go away, nor will this article ever be stable, before the owner condescends to look into its relation to the articles with overlapping scope and try to sort the issues between these articles as a group instead of obsessing over getting an "FA" star for this particular page. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It will amaze you dab but I think you are totally correct! Sophia ♫ 10:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be a case of SYN. People are being lumped together in a way that's not obviously legitimate. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree with this. These authors have been discussed together as a distinct line of thought about the historical Jesus. There are extensive discussions about this in the talk page archives. See this post, in particular, [17], which names Schweitzer, Goguel, Weaver, and van Voorst as scholars who have given substantial discussion to the CMT. There's no shortage of academic sources that discuss this idea and who treat authors like Bauer, Drews, and G.A. Wells together. The scope of other articles about Jesus might be a problem, but this article has an easily defined scope, and we can follow the lead of other sources (such as the ones I just named) in constructing the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. I'm starting to wonder if we are all reading the same article.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

well, I agree with Akhilleus to a certain point. This article is certainly much better than it used to be, and it actually manages to paint a coherent picture of the history of the idea. But I maintain my point that the above discussion on whether this is "pseudohistory" is symptomatic: it is and it isn't. It is an account of a bit of perfectly respectable historical scholarship paired with a discussion of a number of "popular" authors of more recent years who can be considered fringe, or even "pseudo". This remains a problem. It doesn't mean that we need to tear down the entire article, but it does mean that much better integration in our disparate "Jesus and history" articles, each with their own separate history of controversy, is desperately needed.

in recognition of the progress that has been made, you will note that I am no longer calling to split this up among other articles (because it is now one of the better articles we have on this), but there are remaining WP:DUE issues. Especially, since this is about historical scholarship now discredited, the Quest for the historical Jesus article is very relevant, and content needs to be balanced between the two articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you feel progress has been made. (I'm serious, no snark.) What are you proposing now, though? Would you just delete a bunch of the more modern authors? Eugene (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as I see the scientific consensus is significantly in favor of the historic existence of Jesus. But it's not as if the sceptics' theory is fringe. It's still a scientific theory of a minority, pretty much in the same way theories about global warming not happening or not being man made, which are adopted by a 3% of scientists are not considered fringe. List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming: this article is not in any "pseudo" category. --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Marx's picture

On my computer the Marx picture seems to be disrupting the page somehow and I can't fix it. If this is just some quirk of my machine then so be it; if it's an actual issue with the article please fix it because I can't figure out what's actually wrong. Eugene (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had it, but nope--still an issue. Eugene (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

CMT and cats

(moved from SV talk) The cat tag agreed to in mediation was "pseudo-scholarship" in clear distinction to "pseudo-history". Therefore "pseudo-scholarship" is the current WP:CON category tag. Given this, even if you can could establish a consensus against "pseudo-history" (which already exists per the mediation, BTW) it would be irrelevant to the question of "pseduo-scholarship". Were you to attempt to remove specifically the "pseudo-scholarship" cat on the basis of a non-sequiter consensus it would be an instance of disruptive editing and a further example of your edit warring. Eugene (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what was agreed in mediation. The cat that you added to the article was pseudo-history, but the same arguments apply to pseudo-anything-else. You need to gain consensus here on talk if you want to add them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely does matter what was agreed to in mediation. I never intended to add the pseudo-history cat to the page post-mediation, it was an over-sight wrought by the massive amount of editing and reverting that's taken place in the article recently which I've since corrected without prompting. This is now, I believe, the fourth time you are being warned about removing the WP:CON pseudo-scholarship cat tag without achieving a new consensus on the matter--either on a whim or through the use of, apparently, irrelevant polling. I've tried to correct the poll title so that it can be relevant but you've changed it back; I consider my attempt a good-faith effort to keep this moving forward, but if you are adamant about pursuing a non-sequitur, I can't stop you. Eugene (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling it pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship amounts to the same thing. It violates WP:CAT, which says: "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." This is exactly the kind of situation that addresses. There is no consensus to add these, and it violates the guideline.

As for the mediation, it obviously doesn't apply to editors who weren't part of it, and even those who were don't seem to have agreed. And anyway, consensus can change. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling it pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship apparently does not amount to the same thing since Sophia objected to the one but agreed to the other. The agreement hammered out in mediation was 4 to 1 in favor of including the Pseudo-scholarship cat tag on this page so, sure, consensus can change, but the burden is on the person seeking to alter the page to demonstrate that a new consensus has emerged. So far you haven't even attempted to do that, apparently, since you are resolved to debate an irrelevant cat tag that was already removed from the article as a result of the consensus achieved in the mediation. Eugene (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, you seem to be engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There was no agreement. Sophia looked as though she agreed reluctantly, and has anyway said she did so without reading WP:CAT, and James objected. And in any event, there are editors here now who didn't take part in the mediation. I see you're also removing external links that could inform people about the background to this, and you misrepresented the response you got on the RS noticeboard about adding the publication date of the first Stanton edition. I don't see the point of that kind of editing.

Please gain consensus for the categories or remove them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, your assesment of the situation differs markedly from that of the mediator assigned to the case.[18] I've no intention of going around and around with this. I've made my position clear. There currently is a consensus to include the pseudo-scholarship cat, if you want to remove it you must build a comparable consensus now to remove that particular cat. As for Stanton, the RS board said that was unnecessary to include the pub date of the first edition as we are citing the 2nd edition. It seems you were the only one trying to include it while a number of other editors were objecting; again, try actually building a consensus. As for the external links, the Time Magazine article was about a different topic and the book was antique and written by an unknown. Bill the Cat has raised the possibility of a new mediation; I'm not really eager for that, but if you think it is necessary it would give you a chance explain why you think the sources mentioned in the article and the FAQ aren't enough to establish the theory's status as pseudo-scholarship. Eugene (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you simply can't ignore facts by building a consensus among editors on the Talk page. Did you even bother to read the FAQ? Did anyone on "your side" bother to read the FAQ? If this goes to mediation, you will lose in what perhaps would be the fastest mediation ever performed on Wikipedia. The large number of facts are against your position. Please drop your contentious insistence that the CMT is not pseudo-scholarship. It's a behavior unbecoming of an admin with your vast experience. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chart

I don't know the history of this chart from September 2009 being removed, but I found it helpful. Would anyone object to its being restored in some form? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is good but it could be a case of SYNTH. However it could replace the horrible for/against section at the end as it shows clearly the different takes on the Jesus story and allows the reader to follow the links themselves. Sophia ♫ 16:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite well-sourced, but I don't know who wrote it or why it was removed, so maybe there were issues with it. I'll look around a bit more. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I object very strongly to restoring the chart. Its removal was discussed here, and probably in other places; the talk archives are a huge mess. The chart is inappropriate for this article because it attempts to give a broad overview of the range of attitudes towards the historicity of Jesus. But this article is about a discrete sub-topic within the study of the historical Jesus, and one which gets very little attention in mainstream scholarship. The place to give a broad overview of approaches to reconstructing the historical Jesus is an article that deals with the topic as a whole—historical Jesus, maybe.

There are huge synthesis problems with the chart as well; views on this topic are too diverse to be summarized in three columns. It was also clear that not all of the sources used in the construction of the chart supported the text. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this not the problem with this article, though—that it offers no context, no continuity, no nuance? Any attempt to provide context, even by adding a Time mazagine article, is removed or objected to. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the lack of context is a severe problem. I think the way to deal with it, though, is to provide context in the lead, rather than through a chart. (Also, it may be the case that the sections on individual authors don't do enough to contextualize the author's work amongst their contemporaries.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest SlimVirgin, the Time Magazine article wasn't about the Christ myth theory. Eugene (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But nothing is, in your view. Wells doesn't subscribe to it. Price doesn't subscribe to it. No one does, because you've set up a straw man position. That allows you to say that it's ridiculous, and that this or that person has at last come to their senses and done a volte face, the minute they introduce any nuance. Any unnamed person who still clings to it is an anti-Semite, or a Nazi, or a Soviet propagandist, or an anti-Christian bigot, or a pseudo-something, or a disruptive lunatic. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I think we could do with some context or nuance here. Wells certainly subscribed to the theory in many of his books, but changed his position to allow that there was a historical Jesus. Price never directly affirms support for the theory, but argues for its plausibility, and says that it's more likely that Jesus didn't exist. That's basically an endorsement of the theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I should also add: I don't think the article in Time discusses the Christ myth theory, so it's unclear to me why it would appear in the external links section. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It was intended to provide background, which is what EL is often used for. Do we have any academic sources who explicitly define the "Christ myth theory"? I see allusions to it in the sources, but have any of the scholarly sources offered a clear description of it and its limits? I see a distinction between the minimalists and the mythologists, but do the people named in this page all clearly define themselves as the latter? I'm concerned that we're allowing their views to be defined by their opponents. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the Time article would be very helpful at historical Jesus, but I don't think it's what we need here. (The article is an admirably clear explanation of issues surrounding the Jesus Seminar. A somewhat trivial fact that I learned from the article is that Paul Verhoeven, the director of "Showgirls", is a member!) As for academic sources, I've mentioned several already--Schweitzer, Goguel, Weaver, and van Voorst (full citations in the article). Bennett, Case, and Hoffmann's introduction to Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene also provide overviews. One important point about terminology: not everyone uses the phrase "Christ myth theory"; van Voorst, for instance, calls it the "nonexistence hypothesis". Schweitzer doesn't have a set term for it at all, as far as I can tell. But "Christ myth theory" is found in scholarly literature more widely than any term for the theory that I've seen. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead should introduce the theory as defined by academics A and B to say X, Y, and Z. My concern, as I said, is that we've set up a straw man—or we're parroting someone else's straw man—which is why we're able to say this person has changed his mind, or that person didn't ever really subscribe. It would be easy to create articles on versions of philosophical theories so lacking in nuance that no one really agrees with them, and indeed such theories are often invented by opponents precisely so they can do that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Martin

I've added an opposing view to the lead from the philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University to offset Stanton. [19] When I'm able to I'll expand in the text on Martin's view of Wells's arguments, which he writes are sound. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I think the Martin quote is good, it does not belong in the lead. It should be worked into the main body of the article. If the consensus is that it remain in the lead, then I will add context (per Evaluating claims) - something like this (context part is underlined):

There are extreme academic views such as those of philosopher Michael Martin of Boston University who argues that, while it is true that the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted, and that anyone arguing against it may be seen as a crank, a strong prima facie case can be constructed that challenges it.

It really ought to go in the main body, though, probably under Other writers, especially since Martin is basically regurgitating Wells. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It has to go in the lead per NPOV, because editors here want the lead to say that denying Jesus's existence has no academic support. It's therefore important to name one mainstream senior academic who argues that a case can in fact be made for it. If you want to say his views are extreme, Bill, you will need a source for that, and it will have to be a high-quality source because there are BLP issues.

I think we all need to stick closely to the content policies and guidelines. No OR, no SYN, no violations of WP:CAT. Let's just stick to the policies, because doing that tends to resolve most disputes. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be against leaving it in the lead, but if that is the consensus, I can live with it. However, it will have to include context (as I mentioned above, per Evaluating claims; as well as levels of acceptance). Furthermore, his view, like all Christ-mythers, IS extreme and there are plenty of quotes in FAQ #2 that prove it. This theory is, after all, a fringe theory. Thus, there are no BLP issues, so don't bother going there. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He isn't a historian or biblical scholar so it doesn't have mainstream academic support. Like Wells, historical Jesus studies isn't their academic field, nor is he academically promoting it in the relevant literature. Similarly, the claim that historicity is taken for granted is one that goes against what the actual historians say. All we have is a non-expert trying to push an agenda that appears to do nothing but back up his publishing theme. --Ari (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I can only say again—we have to stick to the core content policies. They are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP for living persons. If you want to call someone an extremist, or add any other context, you need a reliable source that says exactly what you want to say, and if that person is a living person, the source must be a high-quality reliable one. There is no way round that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And I can only say again that the WP:Fringe policy cannot be conveniently ignored. And I'm not the one calling his views (not the man) extreme. I mean, did you even bother to read WP:Fringe? Let me quote one of the relevant portions (underline added):

Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context — e.g. "There are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn, suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus's Prophecies are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind."

This is the last time I'm going to ask you to read FAQ #2 before I conclude a case of "I didn't hear that". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FRINGE is a guideline, and the policies take precedence. It's also not clear that FRINGE even applies. We now have a second modern mainstream academic saying that a case can be made, and although you were able to dismiss Wells as a professor of German, you'll find it harder to dismiss a philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion. But the key point is that the core content policies take precedence over any guideline (or any FAQ or consensus on any talk page). SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that "fringe" applies? You're kidding, right? Now you seem to be simply pushing your POV. By the way, it was Eugene who (rightfully) dismissed Wells, not me. Be that as it may, it's not about who we (you, me, et al.) think is right or wrong. It's about what the vast majority of scholars think (which is something you should know). Since they are quoted abundantly in the FAQ, ignoring the FAQ (and FRINGE) is not helpful to this discussion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why the Martin quote is in the lead. This article is about the Christ myth theory. The lead should contextualize the theory's level of acceptance within academia (which is virtually nil). A simple statement to that effect should be sufficient. As it stands the lead reads like an argument--you have Stanton saying that most historians believe that Jesus existed, and then Martin is used to undercut this, both by saying that "the historicity of Jesus is taken for granted" (instead of being based on evidence and arguments) and by the implication that, since one philosopher says a case can be made against Jesus' existence, Stanton is wrong. I have no problem with using Martin as a source, but I don't think he should be given this prominence in the lead. The fact that one academic philosopher finds Wells' arguments compelling doesn't alter the fact that the Christ myth theory hasn't won acceptance in biblical studies or ancient history; giving Martin such prominence (especially since he has the last word in the paragraph) may easily give the reader the impression that the theory is more widely accepted in academia than it actually is. As Martin himself says at the end of the chapter which is cited in the lead: "...since Wells's thesis is controversial and not widely accepted, I will not rely on it in the rest of this book." (p. 67, [20]). Martin says a few other times that Wells' thesis isn't widely accepted. He also refers to Wells as "the most respected contemporary critic of the historicity of Jesus" on p. 38. If Martin says the most respected critic of Jesus' historicity hasn't met with much acceptance, this means that the theory in general hasn't won much acceptance; this source should not be used in such a way to imply something that he doesn't say.

I would prefer leaving Martin out of the lead. I also think the Stanton sentence should be replaced with something that directly addresses the theory--Stanton says that most historians believe Jesus existed, and only addresses the theory by implication. One way of doing this is to return to a quote that was used in earlier versions of the article, van Voorst's statement on p. 16 of Jesus outside the New Testament [21] that "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds...Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." Quote it directly, or summarize it, either way will work. This statement isn't inflammatory, doesn't smear anyone as a crank, but simply says that the theory has not won acceptance and is now regarded as refuted within the relevant scholarly fields. Van Voorst wrote after Martin and mentions him in a footnote, so he was taking Martin's defense of Wells into account. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, it would be highly POV to state or imply that this theory has no mainstream support, when we know of mainstream academics who do give it some credence. Let's just tell the story to the best of our ability—who says what—without imposing POVs and censorship. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't understand your response. You've found one academic philosopher who thinks the case is strong. And he says, several times, that the theory is controversial and not widely accepted. So he should not be used to imply the theory is mainstream—he says the theory is *not* mainstream. If we're going to talk about imposing POVs, surely using a source to imply something he doesn't say qualifies. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He's not being used to say that it's mainstream. He's being used to say what he says and no more, namely that a strong case can be made, although the historicity is otherwise taken for granted. Please stop looking at this through the frame others have set up (it's fringe! we're not allowed to say this or that!). Let's just find the most knowledgeable sources at the most mainstream universities and tell people what they say without prejudice. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's use mainstream sources from mainstream universities. Let's tell people what these sources say without prejudice. I'm happy to stay within the "frame" that mainstream scholarship has set up: it says that this is a fringe theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the point of using the van Voorst quote is that he is an expert in the field who has looked specifically at the theory, and is thus in a good position to judge whether it is accepted in biblical studies and ancient history. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin is an expert in the field too. His area is philosophy of religion. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of religion is quite distinct from New Testament studies. Martin is unfamiliar with scholarship on the NT and his arguments about the historicity of Jesus are based entirely upon Wells, who isn't an expert in NT studies either. There's a reason I keep saying "biblical studies and ancient history." It's an interesting fact that the modern-day academics who endorse the Christ myth theory come from outside biblical studies, but this isn't an indication of the theory's status within biblical studies. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who isn't opposed to it is belittled. Price has two doctorates in theology, but he's not in a university so he isn't really a theologian. Wells is a professor of German. Martin's a mainstream philosopher of religion who's written about this very issue, but he hasn't read the right books. :)

Guys, come on. The one thing that's clear is that these people have more relevant qualifications than anyone on this page, so far as I know, so we could perhaps extend a little respect to them, and just tell readers what they say. The reader is interested in their views, not in ours, and also not in our attempts to hide their views. It's worth bearing that in mind. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, look. Van Voorst has more relevant qualifications than anyone on this page, so far as I know, and he makes the point that Martin is unfamiliar with NT scholarship and relies entirely upon Wells. (see p. 14, note 32, of the book I've already linked to.) Van Voorst makes the rather important point that biblical scholars and classical historians regard the Christ myth theory as a dead letter, and this is after taking Wells and Martin into consideration. So let's tell readers what he says. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He is also not a neutral observer [22], something any reasonable person can see. Sophia ♫ 23:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither is Martin, I suppose, since the quotes in question come from a philosophical case against Christianity. But as I've said many times, when selecting sources for this article we should care about their expertise, not their creed. Van Voorst has strong academic credentials, and a distinguished record of publishing; he's clearly an expert in this subject. Haven't we been having this argument since 2007 or so? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, how exactly is a philosopher an expert in the field of historical biblical studies? And on the point of qualifications, my qualifications in the field of ancient history outweigh Martin's apparant nil by quite a bit. No one denies that Price has qualificatins as far as I know, but he is a lone voice whose position is at an unaccredited school and he seems to make no effort to scholarly defend or publish his theory in academic publications. When his works, published for popular audiences with a clear agenda such as his Jesus is Dead by Atheist Press, are reviwed by scholars we get this.

Van Voorst would probably be the best to go with in the lead. He is an academic who engages the hypothesis and makes statements on the acceptance of this theory. Van Voorst's judgements are backed up by countless scholars so there is no reason to question it on this point. --Ari (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy is the application of a set of analytic tools to a number of areas, such as philosophy of mind, religion, psychology, law, knowledge, ethics, science, and so on. It's a rigorous discipline, where arguments and evidence are studied and broken down. I can't think of a more appropriate academic to study an issue like this than a philosopher, and especially a senior philosopher of religion at a mainstream university like Boston University with a PhD from Harvard; see Michael Martin. In addition, he's a published source on this specific issue. And his claims are modest. He acknowledges that his position is a minority one, but says that a strong challenge can be made to Jesus's historicity and it's important to say that up front.

Van Voorst is a former priest and professor at a United Methodist liberal arts college, and at Westminster College, Oxford, a former teacher training college and not part of the university. I'm not saying we can't use him as a source at all, but Martin is a more mainstream source. We certainly should not remove Martin from the lead and replace him with Van Voorst.

You seem to want to confine things to biblical scholars (not known as a rigorous discipline), who are likely to reach the same conclusion. The article needs fresh blood. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So you agree that Martin is not an expert in the field of historical biblical studies. Just as my supervisor with a PhD from Cambridge and many years teaching experience in New Testament and ancient historical studies is not an academic expert in philosophy. Van Voorst is a reputable scholas whose work is found on academic bibliographies around the world. His academic book is mainstream and accepted by relevent academic fields. To say that a philosopher is more mainstream than a biblical scholar in terms of historical biblical studies is completely ridiculous and shows that you have a clear agenda - one which at all costs wishes to avoid what mainstream scholars say.

Biblical scholarship is actually a very rigorous field, especially historical Jesus studies. I cannot think of any field of ancient history which holds such stringent historical methedology as is done towards historical Jesus studies. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about on so many points of discussion here. --Ari (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand how Martin can be a "more mainstream source" when he acknowledges that his position (borrowed from Wells) isn't mainstream. Nor do I understand why the position of one philosopher, who doesn't specialize in studying the history of Christianity, is a better source than a scholar from a field whose very essence is studying the history of Christianity. Martin comes to the topic of the historical Jesus as an outsider, in much the same way that a biblical scholar who starts writing about Kant would. There's no necessary reason why a biblical scholar couldn't produce good work on Kant, but if said scholar displayed ignorance of basic philosophical method and unfamiliarity with current scholarship on Kant, it's unlikely that his work would be taken seriously by academic philosophers. That's the basic problem with Martin's chapter on the historicity of Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask how you know that—that Martin's chapter displays ignorance of basic methods and scholarship? Do you have a source saying that? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Random break

From my understanding, Price's "doctorates" are from an unaccredited school. And why should someone specializing in German have a say so in this matter? Does that mean that a specialist in French Medieval poetry should also have a say? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding of WP:V to suppose that only climate change scientists can be used as sources on climate change. Where there's no dispute, we're happy to defer to them, but that mentality can lead to a tiny group of uber-specialists, who almost certainly agree with one another, getting to control content via their Wikipedian admirers. It means that scientists not specializing in that narrow area aren't taken seriously when they say, "We don't think this science is any good." It means that when newspapers obtain emails about allegedly doctored results, Wikipedians can try to keep that out on the grounds that the journalists aren't specialists. WP:V, the sourcing policy, has been written with precisely this situation in mind:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.

The essence of NPOV is that no single group has a monopoly on truth, or is given such a monopoly on Wikipedia. This article needs to be opened up to all reliable sources who've addressed this issue, particularly academic ones, not just a tiny coterie of biblical scholars. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it would be highly POV to suppress facts, which is what you are trying to do. Nice try, though. Also, I like Akhilleus' suggestion regarding the lead. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harpur is mainstream as well. [23] Not sure why he's not in the article. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, James. I also wondered why Martin wasn't in the article. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Both Harpur and Martin might be worth covering in the article, but Harpur doesn't bear on the question of acceptance within academia, because Harpur left academia some time ago. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they can be in the article but not the lead. Also, it might be time to work up some criteria for inclusion. Eugene (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin, Qualifications, and Sources.

I created a new section so we can continue the discussion. I'm not sure why it was originally under "Charts". At any rate....

(Cut/paste from "Random Break")

From my understanding, Price's "doctorates" are from an unaccredited school. And why should someone specializing in German have a say so in this matter? Does that mean that a specialist in French Medieval poetry should also have a say? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding of WP:V to suppose that only climate change scientists can be used as sources on climate change. Where there's no dispute, we're happy to defer to them, but that mentality can lead to a tiny group of uber-specialists, who almost certainly agree with one another, getting to control content via their Wikipedian admirers. It means that scientists not specializing in that narrow area aren't taken seriously when they say, "We don't think this science is any good." It means that when newspapers obtain emails about allegedly doctored results, Wikipedians can try to keep that out on the grounds that the journalists aren't specialists. WP:V, the sourcing policy, has been written with precisely this situation in mind:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.

The essence of NPOV is that no single group has a monopoly on truth, or is given such a monopoly on Wikipedia. This article needs to be opened up to all reliable sources who've addressed this issue, particularly academic ones, not just a tiny coterie of biblical scholars. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(Now continuing)

No one is suggesting that quotes from non-specialists can't be used. The problem is when such sources are used to give the false impression that a fringe theory is merely a respectable, minority opinion. The CMT does not fall into that category. Rather, it is utterly rejected by nearly all mainstream scholars, and no one in the scholarly community pretends otherwise. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Price's doctorates are from accredited universities. His teaching position is at an unaccredited theological seminary. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I misunderstood. Do you know the name of the school(s) where he got his credentials? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Drew University. He got a Ph.D. in Systematic theology in 1981, and and Ph.D. in New Testament in 1993. Robert M. Price covers this briefly. Drew is a fine school; it's teaching at an unaccredited institution that sends up a red flag. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a place for Thompson and "The Messiah Myth"; Whether the gospels in fact are biographies - narratives about the life of a historical person - is doubtful. (p.3). He also refers to how "...figures such as Jesus are created." (p.16). The book sleeve itself says "Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed." Sophia ♫ 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the Jesus of the gospels never existed is not the same thing as saying the historical Jesus never existed. Rudolf Bultmann thought the quest for the historical Jesus was beside the point, but he didn't doubt that there was a historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course a historical Jesus existed, according to Mason, Josephus mentions 21 of them! It was a very common name at the time. The whole point is that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is not historical. Sophia ♫ 00:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SOPHIA, it should be obvious that when I say historical Jesus I mean one particular guy by that name. As for the gospels not being historical, many scholars would agree that major parts of the gospels bear no relation to a historical event. Many would agree that they're not biographies, but rather theological narratives. That's not the same thing as saying there was no Jesus behind the stories, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So, on the topic of qualifications - since when were the opinions of philosophers with no relevent qualifications to take precedence over academic historical works by biblical scholars as "more mainstream"? --Ari (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

Okay, I've tried to sort this out, but I'm going to add the POV tag now, something I very rarely do, because Eugene has just removed Martin. [24] That combined with all the other omissions and commentary make me feel that this article is inherently POV and OR-ish. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I also want to draw attention to Eugene's edit summary: "Removed addition of Martin from lead as consensus against it (Akhilleus, Bill, Eugene vs. SlimVirgin; 3:1" We don't do NPOV by numbers. We do it by policy, and if you have a statement in the lead saying "no or very few academics take X seriously," you are obliged by NPOV to add a dissenting voice if there is a reliable one. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I agree with the need for the tagging, this article contravenes WP:NPOV. Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Martin quote btw. Seems much more balanced. It would be nice to allow other editors some time to comment before claiming consensus has been reached. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the addition of the tag - let's hope it brings in fresh eyes and sources. Sophia ♫ 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't do NPOV by number. But neither do we suppress facts by numbers (as was attempted by the pseudo-whatever vote above). Furthermore, I'm not saying that there should not be a "dissenting voice" in the lead; I'm only saying that it should be in context. You are attempting to mislead the readers into believing the CMT is simply a minority position. It isn't; it's been rejected over and over again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's deeply disheartenly to find the Ivy-League educated chair of the SBL's Historical Jesus Section dismissed as "biased".[25] (The SBL, far from being some benighted fundamentalist group as some of the editors here have tried to characterize it, is a member of the American Council of Learned Societies, right alongside the the APA--American Psychological Association.) Even more depressing is that, apparently, even agnostics like Bart Ehrman are now also thus dismissed for pushing a pro-Christian "POV".[26] I remember when some of this page's critics objected to strong statements appearing without particular attribution; now it seems that even such attribution isn't enough--full deletion is necessary. I also see that the not-so-subtle insinuation that Christians are inherently untrustworthy has resurfaced.[27][28][29] It's fairly clear that some of the editors are trying very hard to de-FRINGE this article and misrepresent the CMT as a respectable minority position in contradiction of literally dozens of high-quality reliable sources published by a wide variety of specialists from all over the ideological map. This has been a problem for a long time and the more reasonable editors have tried to address it with everthing from simply RfCs to formal mediation. Apparently that isn't enough. I think it's time for arbitration. I've posted a request on the ArbCom notice board and hopefully they can sort this out. Eugene (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is an active attempt to get the article locked [30]. Apparently changes you don't agree with are "edit warring". Sophia ♫ 23:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, changes that are not supported by the vast majority of RS's is considered "POV pushing". Sophia, you KNOW that the CMT is fringe; why do you seem to indicate otherwise? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

This interesting article suffers from a a biased tone. Before this article can ever be re-considered for FA status, this must be addressed. I get a strong impression that some editors are not prepared to work with others to establish neutrality. This neutral tone can be achieved without loss of meaningful content, but not by reverting edits without considering their merits. This is a well-written and researched contribution, the only obstacle to it's promotion is the soap boxing. For goodness sake, let the facts speak for themsevles—Wikipedia readers are discerning. With regard to reliable sources, these have to be chosen very carefully and not cherry-picked to support a biased view. If you guys want to progress the article, I strongly suggest that a less combative style is adopted. Believe it or not, I want to see Wikipedia have the best article on the internet on the Christ myth theory, but this can only be achieved through collaboration and not conflict. Graham Colm (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we are hitting a wall here. Some editors honestly think that to even consider the idea that Jesus did not exist makes you a holocaust denying ignorant crank. They also take it as anti christian bigotry if it is suggested that an evangelical christian may not be the best source of an unbiased quote. I honestly don't know how we will get round this. Sophia ♫ 23:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, an RfC might be a good step. Please note that I've already said the Powell quote doesn't need to be here; I think we can have an informative article without it. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No Sophia, no one is saying that "considering" the possibility that Jesus did not exist makes a person equivalent to a Holocaust denier (HD) through and through. It's not the motivation of Holocaust deniers (which is antisemitism in most if not all cases) that is at issue; it's their unsupportable and "crazy" claims no matter what their motivations truly are. In other words, it's not antisemitism that motivates those who support the CMT (although that is indeed the case in some instances); it's the outrageous, and unsupportable, claims themselves.

Also, an RFC is pointless at this point. This needs to go to mediation, since no amount of "outside" opinions can change the facts. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, Graham, I don't believe that you DO want to see the "best article on the internet". You have said that:

Much of mainstream biblical scholarship is conjecture in my view.

Well, that's NOT what mainstream scholars believe, nor what scholars have consistently stated over and over again - if you want to claim that Much of mainstream biblical scholarship is conjecture, then please provide some reliable sources that say so. I don't think you can. It is simply your POV, and that should not be used in determining anything regarding this article. I realize that you, and those who side with you, will attempt to prevent this article from achieving FA status, but the fact of the matter is that you can only delay it, not prevent, it. When more and more editors read what the vast majority of scholars have to say, this article will eventually reach FA status. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has an opinion. The mark of a good editor is whether you can work with others to balance an article - see writing for the opponent. Sophia ♫ 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And, were all my other comments at the FAC unhelpful? Why be so aggressive? This is not true, "I realize that you, and those who side with you, will attempt to prevent this article from achieving FA status, but the fact of the matter is that you can only delay it, not prevent, it," and it contravenes WP:Civilty. Graham Colm (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments were unhelpful ONLY in the sense that they don't represent mainstream scholarship. I am NOT attacking you personally, and I sincerely regret it if that is how it came across. Over the last few months, I have seen various comments that would seem to indicate that the CMT is a legitimate minority position. It isn't - it is an untenable position because it has no basis in the best available evidence. Perhaps the evidence will change in the future, but as of right now, it's all we got to go with. Therefore, trying to make the CMT appear as being anything other than a fringe theory, and trying to make the article appear as if it has significant minority support is POV and misleading. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Soft Mythicists

There is sometimes only a very thin line between "soft mythicists" and "hard mythicists". From what I gather, the soft mythicist might say something like- "Jesus existed, but we don't know much or anything about him because so much of it is myth and there is so little if any reliable evidence." I can see little difference between the two positions and would like to broaden the scope of the article a little to add some context. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some detail about which authors you think are "soft mythicists"? Are there secondary sources that discuss this? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about "soft" or "hard" mythicists, per se. It is about that ''Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure, and that the Jesus of early Christianity was the personification of an ideal savior to whom a number of stories were later attached." That Jesus existed but [add whatever qualifications here] is NOT the subject of this article. At any rate, Akhilleus' question is valid and demands a response. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your own opinion. The problem with the article is that it doesn't define its limits. It should start with a definition of the Christ myth theory from a reliable source, and more than one definition if they differ. It should make clear whether it's a term used mainly by proponents or opponents. It should explain the history of the theory and the naming of the theory. It should outline the different ways in which a person might be such a theorist (soft, hard), sourced to secondary sources to avoid OR. In other words we need to apply some minimal scholarly standards to our own work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's NOT my "opinion", and the article CLEARLY defines its limits (see my previous quote) - although I'm fairly sure that you don't really care, since your opposition seems to be based on your philosophy rather than on the best evidence (as described by mainstream scholarship). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't alter the mainstream terminology to fit our bias of what is "clearer to the reader." Like Bill the Cat said, the limits of CMT are clearly defined in the article. NJMauthor (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to ask that we stick especially closely to the content and behavioral policies on this page, because doing that tends to resolve most disputes. In particular we shouldn't be expressing our own opinions, but should stick closely to the sources. There's no point in our discussing on this page who is or isn't properly qualified; we should be looking to see which reliable sources (within the meaning of the sourcing policy) are publishing in this area—particularly which academics are publishing—then simply telling the reader what they say. In our behavior toward one another, no personal attacks or incivility, and no 3RR violations. To get outside views, we should be using RfCs and third opinions, and asking for help at the relevant wikiprojects.

For my own part, I'm willing to commit to sticking very closely to the policies, and I hope others will make that commitment too. It will make everything a lot easier. Life's too short for us to be miserable over this. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If that really was what you wanted, it would be a clear case of "this is a fringe theory not argued by relevent scholarship in any relevent academic context." Muliple academics from all ideological fields have made this clear as has been demonstrated. The end. Instead, you argue that we should reject what the historians say as they are not mainstream, and see what a proponent of the marginal hypothesis who has no relevent expertise or qualifications has to say as representative of mainstream. Why? Because in your personal opinion philosophy is a rigorous field but historical studies isn't? I cannot help at be sceptical at your new claim to follow the sources when you have tried at all corners to do everything but that. --Ari (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The content policies are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. We should focus on the policies. If there are academics saying a case can be made, we just tell the reader that. If there are other academics saying, "this is nonsense," we tell the reader that too. We use in-text attribution for contested views, without censorship, without puffery. If editors here would carefully read the content policies, and if we would all stick to them closely, a huge percentage of the disputes on this page would melt away.

And I didn't say history is not a rigorous field, but we have a paucity of academic historians as sources. History is a rigorous field, as is philosophy. But again, that's the kind of discussion that's pointless. Please let's stick to the published sources, preferably those working within academia, and just write up what they say. Let's look in particular for good secondary sources who give us an overview of the primary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You said biblical studies isn't a rigorous field, and you've indicated that you think philosophers are better sources than scholars in biblical studies. I'm not sure how this is sticking to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. If we want to "stick to the published sources, preferably those working within academia, and just write up what they say," we can include Martin's statements that Wells' views are controversial and not widely accepted, and we can include Van Voorst's judgment that Martin's case is flawed because he relies entirely upon Wells for his knowledge of New Testament scholarship.

Or we could try to exercise our critical jugdment, and have a discussion about which sources we should include in the article, and how they should be included. Because Wikipedia's content policies are not intended to make us into stenographers; if that's how we're supposed to apply the policies, then we should just turn the article into a list of quotes.

If you want good secondary sources who give an overview of the primary sources, I've already listed some: Schweitzer, Goguel (with Hoffman's introduction), Bennett, Van Voorst. Many of these are available on Google books. There are relevant sections in the introduction to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (not fully available on Google books, I think, but there are other ways to obtain books). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)