Talk:Christ myth theory

Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT

section is for references only
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section is for reference purposes. Citations are listed in reverse chronological order: (1) FROM BOOKS AND JOURNALS: One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist. Maurice Casey, Ph.D. Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Bloomsbury 2014), book cover. [B]y the method I have deployed here, I have confirmed our intuitions in the study of Jesus are wrong. He did not exist. I have made my case. To all objective and qualified scholars, I appeal to you all as a community: the ball is now in your court. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2014) p. 618. In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination put the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2014) p. 600. I am not making a Mythicist argument here, but I do think that the Mythicists have discovered problems in the supposed common-sense of historical Jesus theories that deserve to be taken seriously. Stevan Davies, Ph.D. Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity (Bardic Press 2014) p. 4. As Bart Ehrman himself has recently confessed, the earliest documentation we have shows Christians regarded Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial angelic being. Though Ehrman struggles to try and insist this is not how the cult began, it is hard to see the evidence any other way, once we abandon Christian faith assumptions about how to read the texts. The earliest Epistles only ever refer to Jesus as a celestial being revealing truths through visions and messages in scripture. There are no references in them to Jesus preaching (other than from heaven), or being a preacher, having a ministry, performing miracles, or choosing or having disciples, or communicating by any means other than revelation and scripture, or ever even being on earth. This is completely reversed in the Gospels. Which were written decades later, and are manifestly fictional. Yet all subsequent historicity claims, in all subsequent texts, are based on those Gospels.      We also have to remember that all other evidence from the first eighty years of Christianity's development was conveniently not preserved (not even in quotation or refutation). While a great deal more evidence was forged in its place: we know of over forty Gospels, half a dozen Acts, scores of fake Epistles, wild legends, and doctored passages. Thus, the evidence has passed through a very pervasive and destructive filter favoring the views of the later Church, in which it was vitally necessary to salvation to insist that Jesus was a historical man who really was crucified by Pontius Pilate (as we find obsessively insisted upon in the letters of Ignatius). Thus to uncover the truth of how the cult began, we have to look for clues, and not just gullibly trust the literary productions of the second century. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?” Bible and Interpretation (August 2014). [1] (Cf. Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee [HarperOne, 2014]) A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus. This should teach us how important it is to stop repeating the phrase “the overwhelming consensus says…” Because that consensus is based on false beliefs and assumptions, a lot of them inherited unknowingly from past Christian faith assumptions in reading or discussing the evidence, which even secular scholars failed to check before simply repeating them as certainly the truth. It’s time to rethink our assumptions, and look at the evidence anew.      There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them. Richard Carrier, Ph.D. “Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus?” Bible and Interpretation (August 2014). [2] ”Genesis is no longer regarded as scientific or historical for the most part. The exodus is mostly a myth. There’s no indisputable trace of David or Solomon from their time, and no trace of Jesus--after centuries of searching in his supposed environment. So, if you look from 1900 to 2014, you’ll see that most biblical scholars don’t believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Solomon, maybe David. . . You can see what a big difference there is.      “So, is it Jesus’ turn now? Well, maybe. See, doubt about Jesus is real, doubt about his bodily existence as recorded in the New Testament. More scholars are [now] willing to challenge this historicity openly.      “There are three possible positions when it comes to Jesus. You can be a ‘historicist,’ you can be a ‘mythicist,’ or you can be an ‘agnostic’. . . An agnostic says: ‘Well, the data are insufficient to settle the question one way or the other.’ That’s where I am.” Hector Avalos, Ph.D. “A Historical or Mythical Jesus? An Agnostic Viewpoint.” Lecture given at the University of Arizona, June 7, 2014. [3] Perhaps no historical figure is more deeply mired in legend and myth than Jesus of Nazareth. Outside of the Gospels—which are not so much factual accounts of Jesus but arguments about His religious significance—there is almost no trace of this simple Galilean peasant who inspired the world’s largest religion. Reza Aslan Ph.D, “Five Myths About Jesus,” The Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2013. [T]he Bible accounts of Jesus are stories rather than history. The accounts are indeed history-like, shaped partly like some of the histories or biographies of the ancient world. Fr. Thomas Brodie Ph.D, founder of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2012) p. xiii. Our conversation was relaxed until it somehow turned to my work, and she asked what it was that most concerned me about the Bible.      Eventually I said, "It’s just about Jesus."      Her questions were gentle, but she did want to know more. I was physically holding myself together, and looking down at the carpet. Then looked up.      "He never really existed," I said.      "Oh, that’s what I believed since I was a little girl," she responded. Fr. Thomas Brodie Ph.D, founder of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2012) p. 41. [Dr. Everard Johnston, lecturer at the Seminary of St John Vianney, visited Dr. Brodie in 2004 and took his time in perusing Brodie’s book. On connections between 1 Corinthians and the Old Testament, he muttered:] "In the same order… the same order apart from minor modifications."      [Brodie writes:]We turned to the gospels, discussing the extent to which they too are a product of the rewriting. Suddenly [Johnston] said, "So we’re back to Bultmann. We know nothing about Jesus."      I paused a moment. "It’s worse than that."      There was a silence.      Then [Johnston] said, "He never existed."      I nodded.      There was another silence, a long one, and then he nodded gently, "It makes sense." Fr. Thomas Brodie Ph.D, founder of the Dominican Biblical Centre, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Sheffield Phoenix 2012) p. 36. [S]urely the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear, or even to work out what kind of historical research might be appropriate. Such a normal exercise should hardly generate controversy in most fields of ancient history, but of course New Testament studies is not a normal case… [R]ecognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability… In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality. Prof. Philip Davies, "Did Jesus Exist?" in The Bible and Interpretation journal (Aug. 2012) [4] So what do we have here by way of evidence for Jesus? No certain eyewitness accounts, but a lot of secondary evidence, and of course the emergence of a new sect and then a religion that demands an explanation. As the editors of Is This the Carpenter rightly recognize (and Mogens Müller’s essay in the volume especially), we really have to go through Saul/Paul of Tarsus. This is because his letters are the earliest datable evidence for Jesus, and because, if we accept what he and the author of Acts say, his writing is almost certainly the only extant direct testimony of someone who claims to have met Jesus (read that twice, and see if you agree before moving on). We need not (and should not) trust everything S/Paul says or accept what he believes, but explaining Christian origins without him is even more difficult than explaining it without some kind of Jesus. But in S/Paul we are not dealing with someone who knew the man Jesus (his letters would have said so). There are three accounts in Acts of an apparition (chs 9, 22, 26), including a voice from heaven. If this writer is correct—and the letters of S/Paul do not confirm the story in any detail—the history of the figure of the Jesus of Christianity starts with a heavenly voice, a word (cf. prologue to Fourth Gospel) perhaps on a road, even to Damascus… Prof. Philip Davies, "Did Jesus Exist?" in The Bible and Interpretation journal (Aug. 2012) [5] The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of independent evidence for an historical Jesus, remain sceptical about his existence. Stephen Law, Ph.D (Heythrop College, University of London). “Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus.” Faith and Philosophy 2011. Vol. 28:2, April 2011. There is one rebuke regularly leveled at the proponents of Jesus mythicism. This is the claim--a myth in itself--that mainstream scholarship (both the New Testament exegete and the general historian) has long since discredited the theory that Jesus never existed, and continues to do so. It is not more widely supported, they maintain, because the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming and this evidence has been presented time and time again. It is surprising how much currency this fantasy enjoys, considering that there is so little basis for it. Earl Doherty, Jesus Neither God nor Man (Age of Reason Publications, 2009) p. viii. Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a man who was God. We do not know who that someone was, or where he wrote his story. We are not even sure when he wrote it, but we do know that several decades had passed since the supposed events he told of. Later generations gave this storyteller the name of “Mark,” but if that was his real name, it was only by coincidence. Earl Doherty, Jesus Neither God nor Man (Age of Reason Publications, 2009) p. 1. It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press 2007), p. 272. Jesus was eventually historicized, redrawn as a human being of the past (much as Samson, Enoch, Jabal, Gad, Joshua the son of Nun, and various other ancient Israelite Gods had already been). As a part of this process, there were various independent attempts to locate Jesus in recent history by laying the blame for his death on this or that likely candidate, well known tyrants including Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and even Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BCE. Now, if the death of Jesus were an actual historical event well known to eyewitnesses of it, there is simply no way such a variety of versions, differing on so fundamental a point, could ever have arisen. . . Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology. Instead, he is a fiction. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press 2007), pp. 274–75. So, then, Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that (1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. (2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. Moreover, (3) the Jesus who “walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own” is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, (4) ‘Christ’ as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press 2007), p. 279. It appears, as Price suggests, that most of what is known about Jesus came by way of revelation to Christian oracles rather than by word of mouth as historical memory. In addition, the major characters in the New Testament, including Peter, Stephen, and Paul, appear to be composites of several historical individuals each, their stories comprising a mix of events, legend, and plot themes borrowed from the Old Testament and Greek literature. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), cover flap. Why are the gospels filled with rewritten stories of Jonah, David, Moses, Elijah, and Elisha rather than reports of the historical Jesus? Quite likely because the earliest Christians, perhaps Jewish, Samaritan, and Galilean sectarians like the Nasoreans or Essenes, did not understand their savior to have been a figure of mundane history at all, any more than the devotees of the cults of Attis, Jercules, Mithras, and Osiris did. Their gods, too, had died and risen in antiquity. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), pp. 66–67. [H]e may have begun as a local variation on Osiris, with whom he shows a number of striking parallels, and then been given the title “Jesus” (savior), which in turn was later taken as a proper name, and his link to his Egyptian prototype was forgotten. Various attempts were made to place his death—originally a crime of unseen angelic or demonic forces (1 Cor. 2:6–8; Col. 2:13–15; Heb. 8:1–5)—as a historical event at the hands of known ancient rulers. Some thought Jesus slain at the command of Alexander Jannaeus in about 87 BCE, others blamed Herod Antipas, other Pontius Pilate. Some thought he died at age thirty or so, other thought age fifty. During this process, a historical Jesus became useful in the emerging institutional consolidation of Christianity as a separate religious community, a figurehead for numerous legitimization myths and sayings. The result was that all manner of contradictory views were retroactively fathered onto Jesus, many surviving to puzzle gospel readers still today. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 67. [The epistles attributed to Paul] neither mention nor have room for a historical Jesus who wandered about Palestine doing miracles or coining wise sayings. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 68. As Helmut Koester and James M. Robinson have shown in Trajectories through Early Christianity, the compilers and readers of such gospels [as the Gospel of Thomas] dis not revere a savior Jesus so much as a wise man Jesus, a Socrates, Will Rogers, or Abe Lincoln. Theirs was not a superman who walked on water or ascended into heaven. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 68. One of the chief points of interest in [The Generations of Jesus/Toledoth Jeshu] is its chronology, placing Jesus about 100 BCE. This is no mere blunder, though it is not hard to find anachronisms elsewhere in the text. Epiphanius and the Talmud also attest to Jewish and Jewish-Christian belief in Jesus having lived a century or so before we usually imagine, implying that perhaps the Jesus figure was at first an ahistorical myth and various attempts were made to place him in a plausible historical context, just as Herodotus and others tried to figure out when Hercules “must have” lived. Robert Price, Ph.D, Th.D, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (Signature Books 2006), p. 240. The blunt truth is that seismic research by a few specifically neutral scholars, most notably Orientalists and Egyptologists, has been deliberately ignored by churchly authorities for many decades. Scholars such as Godfrey Higgins (1771–1834)m author of the monumental tome Anacalypsis, the British Egyptologist Gerald Massey (1828–1908), and more recently, and most important, the already cited American specialist in ancient sacred literature Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1881–1963) have made it clear in voluminous, eminently learned words that the Jewish and Christian religions do indeed owe most of their origins to Egyptian roots. Rev. Tom Harpur, M.A., The Pagan Christ (Thomas Allen 2005, Kindle edition) Chapter 1. Whether the gospels in fact are biographies--narratives about the life of a historical person--is doubtful. Their pedagogical and legendary character reduces their value for historical reconstruction. New Testament scholars commonly hold the opinion that a historical person would be something very different from the Christ (or messiah), with whom, for example, the author of the Gospel of Mark identifies his Jesus (Hebrew: Joshua = savior), opining his book with the statement: “The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, God’s son.” Thomas Thompson, PhD. The Messiah Myth (Basic Books 2005) p. 3. The most striking feature of the early documents is that they do not set Jesus’s life in a specific historical situation. There is no Galilean ministry, and there are no parables, no miracles, no Passion in Jerusalem, no indication of time, place or attendant circumstances at all. The words Calvary, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Galilee never appear in the early epistles, and the word Jerusalem is never used there in connection with Jesus. Instead, Jesus figures as a basically supernatural personage who took the “likeness” of man, “emptied” then of his supernatural powers (Phil. 2:7)--certainly not the gospel figure who worked wonders which made him famous throughout “all Syria” (Mt. 4:24). G. A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Open Court 2004) p. 2. This astonishingly complete absence of reliable gospel material begins to coincide, along its own authentic trajectory, and not as an implication of some other theory, with another minimalist approach to the historical Jesus, namely, that here never was one. Most of the Dutch Radical scholars, following Bruno Bauer, argued that all of the gospel tradition was fabricated to historicize an originally bare datum of a savior, perhaps derived from the Mystery Religions or Gnosticism or even further afield. The basic argument offered for this position, it seems to me, is that of analogy, the resemblances between Jesus and Gnostic and Mystery Religion saviors being just too numerous and close to dismiss. And that is a strong argument. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Prometheus 2003) p. 350. My analysis in this book has led me to conclude that all the earliest Christian documents, first and foremost among them Paul’s Letters, present Jesus as somebody who had lived and died a long time ago. Hence neither Paul nor any of his contemporaries could have had any experience of the earthly Jesus, nor of his death. To them the crucifixion and resurrection were spiritual events, most likely in the form of overwhelming revelations or ecstatic visions. It was this heavenly Jesus that was important to these earliest Christians, just as the heavenly, spiritual world was vastly superior to the material one. Many scholars have considered Paul’s obvious lack of interest in Jesus’ earthly life as surprising and hard to explain. . . Alvar Ellegård, Ph.D. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (Overlook Press 1999) p. 4. [T]he Gospels’ picture of Jesus as a Palestinian wonderworker and preacher is, as I shall show, a creation of the second century AD, when their Church had to meet challenges caused by competing movements inside and outside their church. An important way to meet the new situation was to create a history for that church, a myth of its origin. The central ideas in that myth were that Jesus was man who had lived and preached his Gospel in Palestine at the beginning of the previous century, and that he had been crucified and raised to heaven around AD 30. None of this mythical history is supported by any first-century writings, whether Christian or not. . . Alvar Ellegard, Ph.D. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (Overlook Press 1999) pp. 4–5. There is no credible evidence indicating Jesus ever lived. This fact is, of course, inadequate to prove he did not live. Even so, although it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative, it is possible to show that there is no need to hypothesize any historical Jesus. The Christ biography can be accounted for on purely literary, astrological, and comparative mythological grounds. The logical principle known as Occam’s razor tells us that basic assumptions should not be multiplied beyond necessity. For practical purposes, showing that a historical Jesus is an unnecessary assumption is just as good as proving that he never existed. Frank R. Zindler, “How Jesus Got a Life.” American Atheist journal, June 1992. [I]t is hardly to be denied that in reifying, personalizing and finally historicizing the Christ principle in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian theology has diverted the direction of man's quest for the blessedness of contact with deity away from the inner seat of that divinity in man himself and outward to a man in history. Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D. India’s True Voice (Academy Press 1955) p. 7. The Christians of the third and fourth centuries were plagued to distraction by the recurrent appearance of evidence that revealed the disconcerting identity of the Gospel narrative in many places with incidents in the "lives" of Horus, Izdubar, Mithra, Sabazius, Adonis, Witoba, Hercules, Marduk, Krishna, Buddha and other divine messengers to early nations. They answered the challenge of this situation with desperate allegations that the similarity was the work of the devil! Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D. Who Is This King of Glory? (Academy Press 1944) p. 35. For the heavenly Christ subsequently to receive the name Jesus implies. . . that the form of the salvation myth presupposed in the Philippians hymn fragment [Phil 2:5–11] did not feature an earthly figure named Jesus. Rather, this name was a subsequent honor. Here is a fossil of an early belief according to which a heavenly entity. . . subsequently received the cult name Jesus. In all this there is no historical Jesus the Nazorean. P.L. Couchoud, “The Historicity of Jesus.” The Hibbert Journal 37 (1938) p. 85. [T]he urgency for historicizing Jesus was the need of a consolidating institution for an authoritative figurehead who had appointed successors and set policy.” Arthur Drews, Ph.D. The Christ Myth (1909; rpt. Prometheus 1998) pp. 271–72. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism and clothed by modern theology in a historical garb. Gerald Massey, The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ (Pioneer Press 1884) p. 395. “It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind… there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”   Frederic W. Farrar, Ph.D. The Life of Christ (Cassell, London, 1874) (2) SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST MYTH THEORY: On the inaccurate portrayal of Pilate and Jesus’ trial in the gospels:      The Gospels portray Pontius Pilate as an honest but weak-willed governor who was strong-armed by the Jewish authorities into sending a man he knew was innocent to the cross. The Pilate of history, however, was renowned for sending his troops onto the streets of Jerusalem to slaughter Jews whenever they disagreed with even the slightest of his decisions. In his 10 years as governor of Jerusalem, Pilate eagerly, and without trial, sent thousands to the cross, and the Jews lodged a complaint against him with the Roman emperor. Jews generally did not receive Roman trials, let alone Jews accused of rebellion. So the notion that Pilate would spend a moment of his time pondering the fate of yet another Jewish rabble-rouser, let alone grant him a personal audience, beggars the imagination.      It is, of course, conceivable that Jesus would have received an audience with the Roman governor if the magnitude of His crime warranted special attention. But any “trial” Jesus got would have been brief and perfunctory, its sole purpose to officially record the charges for which He was being executed. Reza Aslan Ph.D, “Five Myths About Jesus.” The Washington Post, Sept. 26, 2013. Showing how Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, about the year 110 CE fought the contemporary opinion that Jesus was not physical: [Jesus] suffered all these things for us; and He suffered them really, and not in appearance only even as also He truly rose again. But not, as some of the unbelievers, who. . . affirm, that in appearance only, and not in truth, He took a body of the virgin, and suffered only in appearance, forgetting as they do, Him who said, ‘The Word was made flesh’ [Jn 1:14]. . . I know that he was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that he was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now. The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1 (Eerdmans 1985) p. 87. Showing that Paul probably did not know any historical Jesus: The New Testament epistles can be read quite naturally as presupposing a period in which Christians did not yet believe their savior god had been a figure living on earth in the recent historical past. Paul, for instance, never even mentions Jesus performing healings or even as having been a teacher. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press, 2007) p. 274. On the lack of archaeological evidence for Bethlehem at the time of Jesus: But while Luke and Matthew describe Bethlehem of Judea as the birthplace of Jesus, “Menorah,” the vast database of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) describes Bethlehem as an “ancient site” with Iron Age material and the fourth-century Church of the Nativity and associated Byzantine and medieval buildings. But there is a complete absence of information for antiquities from the Herodian period--that is, from the time around the birth of Jesus. . . [S]urveys in Bethlehem showed plenty of Iron Age pottery, but excavations by several Israeli archaeologists revealed no artifacts at all from the Early Roman or Herodian periods. . . Furthermore, in this time the aqueduct from Solomon’s Pools to Jerusalem ran through the area of Bethlehem. This fact strengthens the likelihood of an absence of settlement at the site, as, according to the Roman architect Vitruvius, no aqueduct passes through the heart of a city. Archaeologist Aviram Oshri, Ph.D. “Where Was Jesus Born?” Archaeology, Nov.–Dec. 2005, pp. 42–43. In favor of jettisoning the passage known as the "Testimonium" of Josephus (1st century CE Jewish writer) as an early witness for the existence of Jesus: Codex 76 contains Photius' first review of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Although Photius reviews the sections of Antiquities in which one would expect the Testimonium to have been found, he betrays no knowledge of any Christian connections being present in his manuscript. Frank R. Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (American Atheist Press, 2003) p. 48. On the gospel stories being adaptations of Old Testament stories: As for the gospel stories, as distinct from the sayings, Randel Helms and Thomas L. Brodie have shown how story after story in the gospels has been based, sometimes verbatim, on similar stories from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint... [E]ven the account of the crucifixion itself is a patchwork quilt of (mostly unacknowledged) scripture citations rather than historical reportage. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. Deconstructing Jesus (Prometheus 2000) pp. 257–58. On the life of Jesus corresponding to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype: [A]s folklorist Alan Dundes has shown, the gospel life of Jesus corresponds in most particulars with the worldwide pardigm of the Mythic Hero Archetype as delineated by Lord Raglan, Otto Rank, and others. Drawn from comparative studies of Indo-European and Semitic hero legends, this pattern contains twenty-two typical, recurrent elements. Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Th.D. Deconstructing Jesus (Prometheus 2000) p. 259. On “Jesus” being entirely non-physical in the Book of Revelation: While Revelation may very well derive from a very early period. . . the Jesus of which it whispers obviously is not a man. He is a supernatural being. He has not yet acquired the physiological and metabolic properties of which we read in the gospels. The Jesus of Revelation is a god who would later be made into a man. . . Frank R. Zindler, “Did Jesus Exist?” American Atheist journal, Summer 1998. On the town of Nazareth not having existed in the time of Jesus: Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historicans or geographers mention it before the beginning of the fourth century. The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) and conducted military operations back and forth across the tiny territory in the last half of the first century, mentions Nazareth not even once--although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth! Josephus tells us that he was occupied there for some time. Frank R. Zindler, “Where Jesus Never Walked.” American Atheist journal, Winter 1996–97. On Paul’s silence regarding an earthly Jesus: [The Pauline letters] are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.      These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by him ‘of Nazareth’). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter’s denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)      These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission since, according to the gospels, he worked so many. . .      Another striking feature of Paul’s letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher. . . G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Prometheus 1988) pp. 22–23. In favor of eliminating the "brother of Jesus" passage as found in (the 1st century CE Jewish writer) Josephus, and therefore removing James as a witness to the historicity of Jesus: On Ant. [Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus] 20:200 we conclude by suggesting that the phrase 'the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ' did not originate with Josephus. Rather, a Christian anxious to capitalize on the positive light in which an early Christian was placed, took the opportunity to insert these words. Prof. Graham H. Twelftree (Regent Univ. Sch. of Divinity, Virginia), Ph.D. "Jesus in Jewish Traditions," in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, (Sheffield Academic Press, 1982) p. 300. Doubt regarding the existence of Jesus was current in early Christian times: Justin [Martyr], in his Dialogue with Trypho, represents the Jew Trypho as saying, “You follow an empty rumor and make a Christ for yourselves. . . If he was born and lived somewhere he is entirely unknown.” L. G. Rylands, Ph.D. Did Jesus Ever Live? (London 1936), p. 20. Showing that a Christian writer of the 2nd cent. CE (Justin Martyr) himself drew strong parallels between Christianity and Paganism: And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. Justin Martyr (c. 100–c. 165 CE), First Apology, ch. 21-22. (3) FROM NON-PRINT SOURCES (WEBLOGS, ETC.): Brodie’s book [Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus] doesn’t have to convince everyone. What it does accomplish is help establish that a serious scholar can indeed take a mythicist position. It helps show that mythicism is an intellectually viable position even if not universally convincing. Tom Dykstra, author of Mark: Canonizer of Paul. Blog (July 20, 2014) [6] Throughout Ehrman’s book [Did Jesus Exist?], the one theme that he keeps repeating over and over again is his assertion that no reputable New Testament scholars deny the historicity of Jesus. I pointed out some of the problems with this view already in my last post, and now Brodie’s book certainly blows that assertion out of the water. Brodie is not some half-educated interloper in the field of New Testament scholarship; he is an established biblical scholar who heads an institution devoted to biblical scholarship and has published widely on topics in New Testament studies… A more realistic and constructive approach is to see our coming to terms with a nonhistorical Jesus as the modern counterpart to medieval Christians’ coming to terms with the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe. Tom Dykstra, author of Mark: Canonizer of Paul. Blog (Dec. 25, 2012) [7] Ehrman falsely claims in his book (DJE?) that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity at USCD. . . And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter) and Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself (Richard Carrier) and Robert Price, as fully qualified independent scholars, and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown, that is more than a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus. And most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. That makes seven fully qualified experts on the record, three of them sitting professors, plus two retired professors, and two independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record. We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Philip Davies." --Richard Carrier, "Ehrman on Historicity Recap" (2012 Freethought Blogs,[8] But it's not that Earl [Doherty] advocates lunacy in a manner devoid of learning. He advocates a position that is well argued based on the evidence. Prof. Stevan Davies, CrossTalk post 5438 (Feb. 26, 1999). [9] “We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”  Dr. Constantin von Tischendorf. Codex Sinaiticus. (British Library, London)

Request for Comment (rfcid=64934AA)

I am asking for comment regarding recent edits made by Gonzales John (talk). My main concern is that the edits appear to violate the neutrality of the article. The use of phrases such as "Christ myth theories are, in the modern age, not taken seriously by virtually all competent scholars" and "a person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts", coupled with the elimination of more than 20,000 bytes of referenced material as "excess info" and "undue weight" (quoting directly from edit summaries) and earlier revisions describing this as a "conspiracy theory" lead me to believe that this editor has a non-neutral agenda they wish to impose.

I have asked Gonzales John to please refrain from making such edits and instead bring their concerns to this Talk page. Rather than let this devolve into an edit war, I would value input from other interested editors as to what direction this article should take. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

To make the entire picture clear to your insistence: my edits were done not based on what I believe (unlike as you claim), but on what the scholarly consensus says. Simply per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue Weight; we should make it clear that the vast majority of scholars have a consensus that a historical Jesus did exist. This article's amount of coverage on the arguments and criticisms should be based on how many scholars take each seriously. The reason why I removed large amounts of data was in order to make the sizes of the sections of the proponent's arguments and the criticisms equal in size, in order to make the consensus of majority of the scholars clear.

Besides, the Christ myth theory is rarely taken seriously by present-day scholars. To quote:

• In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". (Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.)
• Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". (Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.)
• James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". (Sykes, Stephen W. (2007). "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus". Sacrifice and Redemption. Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-521-04460-8.)
• Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". (Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.)
• Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Gonzales John (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that this article is about the theory itself, not whether the theory is widely held or accepted. The edits you want to make give the impression of saying, "This is a bunch of hogwash," a perception backed up by your earlier edits describing it as a "conspiracy theory." Whether or not you believe it is entirely irrelevant: we, as editors, must not allow our personal opinions to influence our neutrality. This article should be limited to "Here is the theory, here is the history of the theory, here are the people who have championed it and why, here are the people who have objected to it and why," without letting personal bias get in the way of that information. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Gonzales John, I have asked you to respect the RfC and hold off on your changes until others have had a chance to weigh in. I find it unfortunate that you declined to honor that request. I will wait on reverting your edits until I am clear of the Three Revert Rule, but mind you that other editors are free to bring the article back to the state it was in before you began editing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if this article is not about whether the theory is widely accepted, it should still reflect the scholarly consensus, per WP:Undue Weight. Also, as I have said countless times now, my edits were not based on my feelings, but rather on the scholarly conesensus.Gonzales John (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

John's edit does not violate the neutrality of the article. The edit concisely informs the reader of the current state of the CMT among virtually all scholars. It's a fringe theory, plain and simple, as the quotes amply demonstrate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is not only one single "Christ myth theory" but each proponent writes a somewhat similar narrative constructed from the available information. These ideas about myth are closely coupled with ideas about historicity of Jesus and the premise that Jesus is the origin of Christianity. These three sets of ideas are emotional issues for Christians and conflated quite a bit. This article has a history of edits that push points of views instead of describing what the various constructions of myth theories and various criticisms are. For example, I think that Robert Price's quote in the article describes the subtlety of at least Price's construction: "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean." I think large scale removing and replacing harms the article and that those kinds of edits are emotional but well intentioned. The article should describe what the various narratives constructed by proponents are and criticism of specific narratives. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There being different versions of the Christ myth theory does not mean that we should include ALL view points, and the Christ Myth theory itself has little importance in the first place. Besides my edit pemrits the article to include all the notable proponents' viewpoints. Per WP:PlotGonzales John (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gonzales John: no, of course not all but the differences should be described even if they are fringe because the article is WP:SUBPOV. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I must point out that what TechBear is saying violates some of the most basic principles of Wikipedia, especially WP:NPOV. Let me be clear: we do not say "here is the theory", not in this article nor elsewhere. NPOV explicitly states that both fringe theories and minority viewpoints should clearly be indicated as such. We do not try to create any false balance between proponents and opponents where no such balance exists. Virtually every competent academic agree that the moonlandings happened, that the earth isn't flat, that Caesar was a real person, that Jesus was a real person, that the earth wasn't created in seven days, that the moon has never been split etc. We can present all of these conspiracy theories, but not pretend they have some academic credibility. Once again, this is not my opinion, it's a main rule at Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Reply The NPOV guideline says that if the article is about A, and there is a related fringe theory B, then B should not be given undue weight. That does not apply here, as the article is about B, not A. If the article is about the fringe theory, then the non-neutral approach is to use the article as a platform for ridiculing it. TechBear | Talk |

Contributions 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not using it as a platform to ridicule it, I was just putting in the scholars' opinions and consensus. I never seriously put in something that says "this theory is utter nonsense" ("conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean a nonsensical theory); since that is the case, one might conclude that you're just defensive of the Christ myth theory since you feel that I'm ridiculing it even though I'm clearly not.Gonzales John (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that this article should present the case that there was no such person as Jesus. It " means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The idea that Jesus never existed (the "Christ myth theory") has zero support among ancient historians in reliable sources and the article must make that clear. However I haven't looked at this article for two years, I got so sick of arguing about this and related articles and having to go to AN/I and WP:DRN and participate in RF/C's over and over and over that I took a two year wikibreak. Looking at the article again it seems pretty good to me. I think it is right to discuss the historical proponents of the idea and to include the crucial quotes from the two most authoritative sources who have bothered to refute this fringe theory, Ehrman and Michael Grant, which it does. Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There is still too much unnecessary info here, and the section of the proponents remains over five times the size of the criticisms sections;the criticisms of many of the proponents aren't even mentioned. And the consensus definitely isn't made clear yet; the opposite probably is, even.Gonzales John (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This article should be split between two articles;

• Christ myth theory
• The History of Christ myth theory

There is an overwhelming amount of history in this article, which has no relevance to the modern debate and would make a substantial history article on its own. Then after moving the historical content, this article should be reduced to a stub and rewritten per WP:consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that the new sentence that opens the article "The Christ myth theory is a hypothesis that claims that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" is an improvement on the previous one "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism[1]) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed." I think "mythicism" does need to be explained in this context. "A person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts" should be rephrased, "taken lowly" is not very good English -not taken seriously, maybe. Also not really convinced of the necessity of removing so much material on historical proponents of the theory. At some point an important quote in the criticism section was moved to a footnote - John Dominic Crossan "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." I think that should be in the main body of the article since it states clearly and simply why historians do not accept the Christ myth theory, instead of just,as now, having a number of quotes from authorities that dismiss the theory without giving any reason.Smeat75 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm against the wholesale changes made by Gonzales John. I think there's some merit in the idea of pruning down the history section, but not as drastically as the proposed edit does. It's also fine to include more on the scholarly reception of the CMT, but any such additions should concentrate on *why* scholars think the CMT is loopy. The Ehrman quote that's at the end of the lede in Gonzales John's preferred version doesn't explain why an advocate of the CMT would have trouble getting an academic job, and so isn't that helpful in telling readers why scholars have such a low opinion on the CMT. So, I think Gonzales John raises some good points, but I am against the particular edits he has made. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I think Akhilleus is right both to reverse the premature closure and to restore the old version until the RfC has been closed. Having said that, I support the proposed changes. If the only reason to oppose the pruning of the history section is that it is drastic, then let it be drastic. There's nothing wrong is a drastic removal of bad content, and I agree with all those who think that the content is bad. As several users have pointed out, it reads more like a long history section of the theory, and in large part by disresputed non-scholars proven wrong decades ago. I think the proposed changes give a stronger focus on the actual CMT. Where I agree with Akhilleus is that a stronger case should indeed be made for why scholars reject CMT. It's fine to say that virtually all scholars reject the CMT (as they do, and as we source), but at least a summary of why they reject it would be suitable. Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". (Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.) Including this, maybe along with a summary of the evidence, should be enough.Gonzales John (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to eliminate the historical information, which can be valuable to scholars, so long as the article continues to clearly present the picture that these are no longer given credence. However, to achieve better balance, I would suggest grouping the objections to Jesus' existence thematically, rather than by author, and including in each section the chief critiques of the objection. Authors who presented similar theses would not need separate space, reducing the bulk of the article considerably. Do others agree? Clean Copy^talk 10:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I do.Gonzales John (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree to this approach, provided that the "chief critiques" must present actual argument, and not just a blanket statement of unsubstantiated rejection from a (potentially biased) critic. I think it would be useful for the readers to know the difference between a rejection based on evidence vs a rejection based on personal religious beliefs etc. Wdford (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wdford (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC) , Bart Ehrman is an agnostic, so he can't possibly be biased here.Gonzales John (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose User:Gonzales John edits as non-neutral. Christ Myth is a minority theory, but is not pseudohistory, pathological or crackpot. Some formulations are theories about conspiracy, others are not. I do not support deletion of large amounts of relevant sourced material, but would not oppose creation of a new 'history of Christ Myth Theory' to contain much of this information. JerryRussell (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw support for new 'history' article based on notability concerns for stand-alone article on that topic. JerryRussell (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussellI never said that CMT is a crackpot; I just made it clear that many prominent scholars, Christian or otherwise, say that most competent scholars don't take it seriously anymore.Gonzales John (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply As discussed below, I have found through research in the archives, that User:Gonzales John and others have quietly overturned the outcome of a 2014 DRN proceeding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_89#Christ_myth_theory, in order to redefine Christ Myth Theory as equivalent to 'Jesus Denial', the thesis that Jesus' non-existence can be factually proven. 'Jesus denial' is a non-tenable hypothesis not held by any notable modern CMT advocate. Also, Gonzales John's edits remove sections on Thomas Thompson and Richard Carrier which were earlier upheld by consensus of an RfC.Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_56#RfC_about_the_length_of_sections_on_Thompson.2C_Carrier_and_others I appreciate that Gonzales John says he doesn't think CMT is 'crackpot' and as such, WP:FRINGE applies but WP:PSCI does not, and CMT should not be compared to flat-earth theory. Most versions of CMT are not theories about conspiracy, either. JerryRussell (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found one more relevant not-that-old RFC, Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_53#Requests_for_comments.2C_moving_forward from Feb. 2015, which ended with a consensus list of CMT proponents to be kept. The edits proposed by Gonzales John constitute another mass cutback, without any specific discussion of individual proponents and why they need to be eliminated. JerryRussell (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussell, however, prominent scholars have compared it to pseudoscience, and that goes to show just how much scholarly consensus thinks of it.Gonzales John (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

GJ, your previous edits denounced this as a 'conspiracy theory'. What is your actual position: does WP:PSCI apply, or not? Your earlier edits seem to indicate you think it should, and so does this comment. It should be obvious, however, that a few scholars putting up a straw man and then calling it pseudoscience, does not make a scholarly consensus. JerryRussell (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

CMT is not exactly a pseudoscientific theory (which just might suggest that we should not treat it exactly as one), but it is a fringe theory since most competent scholars don't accept it, and according to an unbiased, prominent scholar it prevents people from getting a job at a religion-analyzing academic department the same way the pseudoscientific creationist view prevents one from getting a job at a bona fide biology department.Gonzales John (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

GJ, I believe you're quoting Ehrman here. What makes you say he is unbiased? I'm not debating his qualifications or reliability as a source, but he was trained at Princeton Bible Seminary, teaches in a Religious Studies department, and obviously has a certain fondness for Christian theology in spite of his claims to have become an atheist. I think there's clearly a bias there.

Ehrman is mostly correct that CMT advocates can't get jobs at Religious Studies departments. But, fundamentalist Christians who are also creation scientists can! What does that tell you about who is pseudo-scientific, and who isn't?

Your statement that we "just might" not treat CMT as pseudoscience, is rather enigmatic as to your intentions. What are you really saying here -- does WP:PSCI apply, or not? There is a huge difference in the consequences: WP:FRINGE is for respected minorities, which should be described neutrally in source voice, and then criticized by the majority view also in source voice. JerryRussell (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Or, GJ, look at WP:FRINGE/PS for the difference between 'pseudoscience' and an 'alternative theoretical formulation'. The claim that Historical Jesus certainly never existed, might be 'pseudohistory'. But, the claim that Christianity originated as some sort of pagan religion that later invented or adopted a historical or historicized founder, is more of an alternative formulation. JerryRussell (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jerryl, you no doubt mean well but if you think Ehrman has a bias for Christianity, the only possible explanation is that you haven't read his books. 19/20 books he write are explicitly aimed at disproving key Christian beliefs, and he spends a lot of time debating Christian apologists. I know that if one takes a sufficiently extremist position, one can accuse anyone of bias (some far-right extremists in Israel accuse Netanyahu of having a Palestinian bias, and that is comparable) but since I don't see an extremist view in your writings, I can only assume a lack of knowledge of the main part (~95%) of Ehrman's work. Much can be said about him, but certainly not that he has a Christian bias. Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

2

To respond to JerryRussell's comment above, I don't think there's any need for hand-wringing about whether the CMT is pseudoscience or not, because I don't think there's a difference in the way pseudoscience and fringe theories are supposed to be treated on Wikipedia. In every article the mainstream view must be made clear; in this article it should be made clear that most academic experts on early Christianity regard the CMT as quirky at best, and some describe it in much the same way as historians describe moon landing conspiracy theories. I also think people are not quite understanding why Ehrman said a CMT proponent would be unlikely to be employed in a religion department. It's not because departments impose some sort of ideological or confessional test, it's because to buy into the CMT you have to treat the evidence in ways that don't conform to standard scholarly methods. If you deny evolution, you're not just turning your back on a body of evidence but on a widely accepted way of working with that evidence; methods in history and religious studies may not be scientific, exactly, (which is why I'd personally shy away from the label "pseudoscience" here), but there are accepted methods, and CMT proponents are by and large turning their back upon them. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Ehrman's bias is not 'Christian' per se, certainly not fundamentalist, but there is a worldview associated with being a Princeton theology school graduate and professor of religious studies. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I haven't read a lot of Ehrman but I've read 'Did Jesus Exist' and most of 'How Jesus Became God', and I think he has a bias, just like most anybody else in the world does.

Thanks for saying you don't see an extremist bias in my writing, but actually I do have a POV which I've confessed on-Wiki, as the author of the article on Caesar's Messiah. Based on what the definition of CMT is, I'm trying to decide if Roman Origins theory belongs in the category or not.

Akhilleus, I could be mistaken, but my impression is that if we as editors determine that something is pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory, based on consensus of the sources, we're supposed to describe it as such in Wiki voice. Whereas if it's an alternative theoretical formulation, it is described in source voice. For an example of what happens to a theorist that's clearly designated as pseudohistory by Wiki editors, look at David Irving and I'm not saying that the treatment is inappropriate for him, I'm saying that CMT is not in the same category. JerryRussell (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation bias viz. Bias - as in an inclination towards something, or a predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, or predilection.

• Ehrman is the poster child for confirmation bias in regards to "Jesus Historicity theory" viz. "Jesus Ahistoricity theory". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you say that? He is one of the most reliable scholarly sources, and is an agnostic himself. He definitely doesn't have any pro-Christian bias, so nothing would make him biased when it comes to the CMT.Gonzales John (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation bias: a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

• Lataster lays out all his errors. - Lataster, Raphael (November 12, 2015). Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists. ISBN 1514814420. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't follow all this but generally speaking TechBear is wrong and Gonzales John is right. The "neutral" way to describe CMT is that it is fringe. The neutral way to describe astrology is that it is pseudoscience. WP is about the mainstream view, and the mainstream view says that CMT is fringe. Therefore, WP says that CMT is fringe. We have no choice. We're just editors. No one cares what we think or what "the truth" is. If the mainstream view is wrong, then we are honor bound to be wrong, too, in exactly the same way. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan Tweet, I'm puzzled by your statement. Where did TechBear say CMT is not WP:FRINGE and how does the existing article fail to explain mainstream views? Since everybody is quoting Ehrman here, you might be interested to know that he said "I think Wells -- and Price, and several other mythicists -- do deserve to be taken seriously, even if their claims are in the end dismissed." Wells and Price are currently the mainstay of the article, but under Gonzales John's re-write of the lede, we would no longer be able to discuss them, since by G J's definition they are not mythicists. JerryRussell (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wells, Price, and Carrier have each described the CMT as the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Gonzales John's rewrite of the first sentence is quite faithful to these writers' summary of the Christ myth theory! (It may be helpful to remember that what works as a soundbite-type summary, as one might do in the first sentence of a long article, can be significantly expanded and nuanced in subsequent sentences and paragraphs...) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The current definition is consistent with a similar definition given by Ehrman and also Doherty: Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the current lead sentence is a reasonable beginning. But the shorter version, most recently proposed by Gonzales John, is consistent with definitions given by Price, Wells, Carrier, Ehrman, and many others, so people shouldn't be writing as if that version of the lead would exclude Wells, Price, or any other mythicist. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if CMT is defined as the idea that Jesus didn't exist, then we would have to qualify the lede by noting that modern figures such as Price, Wells and Carrier implicitly reject CMT by admitting that historical Jesus might have existed, but if so, he had little or nothing to do with the origin of Christianity, or Christ of the gospels. But in spite of such admissions, Price, Wells and Carrier are widely regarded as adherents of CMT. So it winds up being a round-about way of saying what the existing lede says. JerryRussell (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am seeing some merit in the idea that CMT was defined in the 19th century as the idea that Jesus didn't exist. But if Wells, Carrier, Price, and Doherty have all renounced that idea and admitted that historical Jesus might have existed, do we need a new name for their theory, and thus an entirely new article? Historical Jesus Agnosticism, perhaps? JerryRussell (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

JerryRussell, you seem to be missing that Price, Wells, and Carrier all refer to the CMT in such terms as "the hypothesis that Jesus never really existed" and regard themselves as mythicists. If, when they're being precise, they say that it's likely or highly probable that Jesus didn't exist, but they're not absolutely certain, they do not "implicitly reject" the CMT—they regard it as more probable than any alternative. That's still advocating the CMT! At one point I think Carrier says he thinks the odds of Jesus existing are 1 in 12,000, which really doesn't sound like he has much doubt. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, 'being precise' is important to modern CMT theorists, and it should be important to us in formulating the lede. CMT was originally formulated in the 19th century in reaction to a Historical Jesus model from Strauss which was very primitive compared to modern Historical Jesus theses. Price, Wells and Carrier don't want to divorce themselves from 19th century CMT but they recognize a need for more care in formulation of a modern statement of the thesis.

I understand that Thompson rejects being classified as CMT because of this very same issue, and here's a quote from Brodie: I could never say, in crude terms, that Jesus Christ never existed.... the crude statement of non-existence seemed grossly inadequate. It may be true, but it is so far from the whole truth that it is a radical distortion. [10]

I agree with Akhilleus, virtually every mythicist tend to support the idea that Jesus never existed. The idea that the historical Jesus was different from the Jesus of the gospels is an entirely different theory. Actually, that's the established majority view in academia, the view argued by a long number of scholars (including Ehrman) who completely reject CMT. Even though the only thing Carrier's (1 in 12,000) proves is that Carrier would never have passed an introductory Bayesian course, it's clear that Carrier is very much favouring the idea Jesus never existed. Price basically argues the entire gospels are just retellings of stories in the old testament. I don't which mythicist in the last 20 years (and that's what matters - we can talk about the earlier inspirations, but science always evolves and a view nobody is holding is not very relevant) we would offend by saying that they entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. It seems perfectly factual and neutral. Jeppiz (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I agree that CMT theorists are willing to entertain the idea that historical Jesus didn't exist. On the other hand, it seems like it wouldn't bother them much if he did. Carrier is arguing for a range of 1/12000 (or more) at one extreme, to a figure of 1/3 at the other. I don't get the feeling he would be much offended by anyone arguing for the 1/3 figure. And considering how far the mainstream has moved towards the mythicist position, I find myself wondering if our debate here is missing the point of what the disagreement is really about.

I'm concerned that this discussion has wandered into TLDR territory for the closing editor. So as much as I feel it's worthwhile, and could lead to a new evolution in the article, I wonder if we should break it off for now? JerryRussell (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, rather we should close it; the general consensus in this discussion is that the drasticality of the trimming of the historical section is irrelevant, since most of the content to be removed is quite bad, and that the edit in question does not violate the article's neutrality.112.211.194.145 (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

IP112, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor or admin to close the RFC. Normally this would be done after 30 days. So, please be patient. JerryRussell (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No-exist solution

I think that this article's chronological structure is totally appropriate for the subject, but the actual criticisms that developed should be worked into the narrative, rather than just having a list of everyone who wrote anything in favor of the idea from 1795 onward followed by a collection of contemporary quotes asserting that nobody takes it seriously anymore. Either way, someone's going to have to dig up those historical criticisms or the article is going to be weak. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A chronological structure is just irrelevant and repetitive history, this article should contain three sections that are actually relevant and not repetitive.

Very roughly:

I. There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the bible. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn’t), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives.

II. The bible is about a fictional supernatural character named "Jesus Christ" from which a historical Jesus can not be derived or distilled.

III. Enumeration of each unique theory (some perhaps requiring their notable exception from the previous sections I. & II.) on the origin of Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. Prioritized by scholarly weight to avoid repetition of similar theories. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No thanks; against the scholarly consensus of, in Ehrman's words, the real experts. Also, this comment is quite off track from the discussion, and oversimplifies all the anti-existence conspiracy theories.Gonzales John (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your "scholarly consensus" is comprised entirely of Christian scholars. They are hardly likely to look with favor upon any idea that strikes at the very heart of their most deeply held beliefs. Those beliefs may be sincerely held but it disqualifies those holding them from being able to be objective when considering whether or not the key figure in those beliefs is mythical or not. The lack of independent corroborating evidence for the biblical stories is fatal to claims of a scholarly consensus that Jesus is not mythical. What do non Christian scholars say about this? We should be seeking out those views, if they can be founď, rather than parroting the statements of non impartial writers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

("My consensus"? Haha.) Ehrman is an agnostic. Here is what he says:

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". (Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.)

There you go.Gonzales John (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

IP 96 says :"There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the bible...Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives." Nick Thorne says "Your "scholarly consensus" is comprised entirely of Christian scholars".As I know from experience on this and related pages, the same (incorrect) points are likely to be made by new editors to this page over and over again, that is why I think that it is important to have quotes from historians who could not possibly be called "Christian scholars" in the article, and that they should say why they dismiss the CMT, not just "no one takes it seriously" or such like comments. There is an important quote from Ehrman at the article Historicity of Jesus "Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus" that really sums it all up, that is it. That quote should be in the article."Mythicists" will try to dismiss the Tacitus and Josephus passages as worthless, but historians do not. At some point in this article I believe there were other quotes from classical historians (not "Christian scholars") but they have been removed, I think. Also in the Historicity of Christ article - "Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee". Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." [11] Other quotes from *classical historians* -" Graeme Clarke, senior lecturer at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia....(asserts) "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian who would even twinge with doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." "Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University"...(says)"Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance." "Mythicists" say there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, people who have studied ancient history say the evidence is "overwhelming". As I said earlier, I also think the Crossan quote should go back into the main text of the article, not just a footnote. The Grant quote is very important, yes, but here again those of us who have been involved with this page over time will be aware that it will be repeatedly challenged by editors who will say it is out of date, so the article does need more than just that.Smeat75 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realise that IP96's first point is a quote from Richard Carrier. All the more reason why quotes from historians need to say why they reject the idea that "there is no evidence for Jesus' existence", not just that they do.Smeat75 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne, Secular scholars Bart Ehrman and professor of religious studies Zeba A. Crook and others do assert the historicity of Jesus (with the notable caveat that some might be fired/punished otherwise). However, there is no consensus on the historicity of Jesus that allows for a proper definition.

• For example:

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

• Rather it is:

1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus spoke.
3. Jesus was crucified.

"As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing." (Tom Dykstra (2015). Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship. The Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS). 8 (1): 29.) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Premature RfC Closure

For some reason, User:112.211.194.145 has closed this RfC twice claiming that there's a consensus. I see no such consensus, and I find it a bit odd that an IP user who has made all of four edits to Wikipedia--two to this talkpage, and two to the article--is taking it upon him/herself to close the RfC. So I'm reverting the closure, and the IP user should leave it to someone else to close the RfC when consensus becomes apparent. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: I agree. I do not see consensus to remove this multiple times. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

21st century proponents

Add those holding the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint:

• Avalos
• Droge
• Lataster
• Noll

96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion we should be paring down the proponents, not adding more. Of the four people mentioned above I think only Lataster has significant publications about Jesus' ahistoricity, so I'd add him. Do the others have academic publications on the CMT? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively: List the holders in summary of the viewpoints: "Jesus agnosticism" viz. "Jesus atheism". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering how CMT detractors are always trying to drive home the point that only a tiny minority of qualified scholars believe CMT, there's some merit in a list of counter-examples. Avalos has a chapter in "The End of Biblical Studies" called "The Unhistorical Jesus" where he mentions his support for CMT, but his main point is that there has been no progress in Historical Jesus research since Reimarus in ~1778. JerryRussell (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a publication about the CMT, then. Has Avalos published an article or a book about the CMT? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing on his list of selected pubs on his academic web page. But, I did find this little popular homily, where he justifies his agnosticism on the question. Not exactly a heavyweight contribution to the field, but his position is clear. Also, he mentions that he thinks CMT is gaining, not losing, adherents. [12] JerryRussell (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but he says he's not a mythicist: he's an agnostic about historicity. So he explicitly says he doesn't identify himself as a proponent of the theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahah, isn't that exactly what we're debating above? Whether Jesus agnostics are mythicists? To my reading, all modern mythicists except maybe Acharya are agnostics. JerryRussell (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ken Humphreys is also pretty clearly in the 'Jesus Atheist' camp. There are too many other mythicists I haven't read, I shouldn't be making generalizations. But the big names are cautious. JerryRussell (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Helpful who's who list of mythicists at Vridar [13]

mentions that Noll wrote a chapter in Thompson & Varenna, and that Droge allegedly wrote a paper comparing Jesus to Ned Ludd, but Google can't find a copy. IP96, you might take a look at that list and see if there's anyone else you think we're missing. JerryRussell (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• At the Amherst conference in 2008 Droge said publicly that he had no idea whether there was a real Jesus, and gave a presentation using Ned Ludd [...] Droge simply hasn’t published on this [that he has no idea whether there was a real Jesus]. --http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1026#matter 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly believe that whichever way we proceed, we really need to get away from this practice of listing proponents. I cannot remember seeing any article on any other theory which consists of lists (and autobiographies!) of proponents. This is not the place for that. We're interested only in the ideas of CMT. Of course we will refer them to the people who have put them forward, but not by telling in detail who those people are. Adding a list of CMT proponents also seem very dubious; I don't say it's the attention, but it may come across as an argument of numbers "Look at all these people saying X". In that case, we'd also need to make a list of "All people rejecting X". I really really wish we could get away from this focus on persons and focus on ideas and facts instead. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz is correct in principle. However the problem is that different proponents offer different forms of the CMT - ranging from "Jesus was a complete fabrication" all the way down to "Jesus was a real Jewish preacher but the Christian deity stuff is a fabrication" - which is very close to mainstream thought. The different forms are also not entire separate - they overlap in many respects, and different proponents overlap differently. We might therefore be stuck with "he said this but she said that". An alternative might be to list the ideas, such as "Idea A) Jesus was a myth like Osiris - supported by x y & z. Idea B) Jesus was real but not divine - supported by c d & e. Idea C) etc." However I fully agree that we should delete the biographies of the proponents. Wdford (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz says I cannot remember seeing any article on any other theory which consists of lists (and autobiographies!) of proponents. So I looked around a little, and that's right. And there aren't any comprehensive lists of proponents of other fringe theories, either. But, the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories has a section, towards the end, on proponents. That section doesn't pretend to be comprehensive, but lists some of the most prominent organizations & individuals. There is a link to a sub-article, 9/11 Truth movement, that provides much more information, again without any claim to being comprehensive. My guess is that most proponents who are notable enough to have their own Wiki articles, are linked in one way or another from these pages. Creation Science is mostly about ideas, but it has a history section, and a brief list of prominent proponent organizations. That article is IMO an excellent example of how an obviously fringe idea should be treated according to NPOV, by the way. JerryRussell (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Should the list of Modern proponents be revised to the following:

• George A. Wells
• Thomas L. Thompson
• Thomas L. Brodie
• Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier
• Robert M. Price
• Raphael Lataster

96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC) and update 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC) & strike 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an odd break in our narration, between the 1930's and the 1970's. I guess that's a real break in the literature, and there are no notable mythicists in that period? If so, I agree that instead of breaking the sections by centuries, we could create a 'modern' period beginning in 1970. I would advocate keeping Allegro and bringing back Acharya S, but I understand they might be controversial. JerryRussell (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

We also have Kuhn & Harpur. Both of them are supporting pagan mythicist views similar to Massey and Acharya S. I would support combining Kuhn & Harpur into a single section, and mentioning Acharya S and maybe Freke & Gandy in this section too.JerryRussell (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revision of modern proponents:

1. John Allegro
2. George Albert Wells
3. Alvin Boyd Kuhn
4. Christ Myth proponents in the Soviet Union
5. Tom Harpur
6. Thomas L. Thompson
7. Thomas L. Brodie
8. Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier
9. Robert M. Price

Also see §Lataster below. And I have copied the Allegro and Harpur content to their respective articles. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) & 17:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus as a fictional character, based on someone else?

There is an entire category of mythicists(?) who claim that Gospel Jesus is a fictional character based on some well-known historical figure. Excluding self-published and blogs, we have 'Roman Origins' theorists:

Joseph Atwill -> Titus Flavius

Francesco Carotta -> Julius Caesar

Kenneth Atchity -> Augustus Caesar

Stephan Huller -> Herod Agrippa II 1

And, what I might call 'Jewish Zealot origins' theorists:

sv:Lena Einhorn -> 'The Egyptian' 2

Daniel Unterbrink -> Judas the Galilean 3

Einhorn is a very well-known European documentary film-maker and author. She doesn't have a Wiki page, but I'm sure she would meet WP:GNG. Huller and Unterbrink, probably not.

Richard Carrier mentions that he thinks Jesus is a fictional compound character based on several historical figures, though he doesn't say which ones.

I'd like to solicit some opinions. Should all this be covered here in this article? Or, one or maybe two new articles? JerryRussell (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a new list: "List of Jesus historicity dissidents". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have RS sources, lets build a section in this article. If it gets big enough, we can spin it out later? Wdford (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not a big enough subject to warrant more than a single article. We only need to include the views of people with historical expertise.Charles (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those do not belong in this article because they are not the Christ myth, which is the idea that Jesus never existed. You can try creating a new article about "Jesus was really a Roman emperor" or whatever and link to this one.Smeat75 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Could I point out that none of the six people listed above have any qualification in the field. As I've said several times, I think we really need to move away from this cherrypicking of "whichever crack-head said something cool about Jesus" to look at people who actually have a minimum of competence in the field. Jeppiz (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75, it comes back to the definition of 'Christ myth theory'. All of these authors are saying that the New Testament is historical fiction. It should be pretty obvious that Jesus of Nazareth is not the same person as Augustus Caesar or even 'The Egyptian', and also that scholarly pictures of 'historical Jesus' as compiled during the three 'quests' have little or no resemblance to such as Titus Flavius. These authors are generally discussed in context of CMT. But if we want to go with a very narrow definition of what CMT is, then this doesn't belong here.

Jeppiz, I agree that none of those authors have the qualifications which you have deemed optimal. My choice for these particular authors was based on the fact that their books are published by reputable publishers. That happens to be Wiki's actual minimum requirement for RS. Of course whatever content is created about this topic needs to meet the consensus of the group. JerryRussell (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO the labeling, is confusing:

• Historicity of Jesus → "Jesus Historicity theory"
• Christ myth theory → "Jesus Ahistoricity theory" (theory for the origin of a—non-historical Jesus Jesus not accepted by "Jesus Historicity theory" proponents—in relation to the origin of Christianity)

Ideally they should both contain Agnostic proponents, for the evidential values they claim; for the historical Jesus & for the origin of Christianity sans historical Jesus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, I agree the terminology is confusing. But, the phrase "Christ Myth Theory" or "mythicism" is widely used in the RS literature. 'Jesus ahistoricity theory', not so much? I support keeping the existing title, and explaining the situation as clearly as we can in the lede.

Price quote

• Price is quoted saying, "There might have been a historical Jesus, but unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." --Jacoby, Douglas (2010). Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible: Finding Truth in an Age of Doubt. Harvest House Publishers. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-7369-3759-7.

This public speaking quote appears to be taken out of context and published. Additionally, it was WP:Synth combined in this article with Price's published agnosticism writings to IMO portray Price as demanding an unreasonable level of proof. I do not recommended its deletion as quotes of the previous WP:Synth have been propagated on the Internet. But rather adding sources that clarify the original context of the quote. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• All the content for Price needs to copied over to his article Robert M. Price, then his section in this article can be trimmed down.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) & strike 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pointless discussions if they don't lead anywhere

For about a month now, there have been extensive discussions about how this article should look. Parallel to these discussions, there have been close to 100 edits to the page, and these edits rarely reflect the discussions. This is not the proper way to do things. We have a list of things that many users have commented upon, and we have not yet reached consensus on a single thing. The proper way to edit Wikipedia is to discuss, reach a consensus for changes, and implement those changes. If we have a talk page filled with discussions and an article page that does not reflect those discussions, it all becomes rather pointless. I would like to encourage everybody, but especially 96.29.176.92 and JerryRussell to refrain from editing until we have reached a consensus. I have restored the article to its format prior to the long list of changes. This is not necessarily a preference for that version nor an opposition to all changes that have taken place, but a reminder that edits should reflect the discussions, not be disconnected from them and not pre-empt them. Instead of relentless edits, what about making a concise list of the outstanding topics. It seems there is a general consensus for moving the article in a more academic direction, with more focus on what CMT is, based on WP:RS, and less focus on both individuals and non-experts. What we need it better edits, not more edits. I am very close to bringing this topic to arbitration, as discussions seems to go absolutely nowhere and the article is as bad as ever. Jeppiz (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan Tweet reviewed this article at your request. Since then there have been 60 revisions that you find objectionable. Is that correct ? You have also restored several WP:Synth violations in this process. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I really think the "criticism" section is inadequate as it does not give the reasons why historians reject this theory, only that they do. It was better in previous versions a couple of years ago but has been cut down too much.Smeat75 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not in criticism but for the record of the current discussion on RVed content. There has been "1" minor edit to the the "criticism" section. ==Criticism==. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, Do you have any objection to restoring "§Pauline epistles" as this section was clearly created per consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the current discussion on RVed content, 36 revisions were to five sections:

‎‎

• Pauline epistles: 16
• Robert M. Price: 8
• Tom Harpur: 6
• ‎Thomas L. Thompson: 3
• Richard Carrier: 2
• George Albert Wells: 1 96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz wrote: It seems there is a general consensus for moving the article in a more academic direction, with more focus on what CMT is, based on WP:RS, and less focus on both individuals and non-experts. I would agree this is the general consensus, but with the important caveat that this is a field in which expertise needs to be construed broadly.

Also, I certainly had the perception that the Pauline epistle section was being created in accordance with consensus. I'm disappointed if you don't feel that this was moving the article in the direction that we've been discussing. Could you please explain what objections you have to that section, and why you say the article is not getting better? JerryRussell (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Leave the Pauline Epsitles section - if it needs to be improved, then lets improve it. We cannot blot out any CMT proponent who is not a mainstream professor, because mainstream professors are by definition not CMT proponents. We agreed to remove the biographical material, which is being done. If more is needed, then proceed. We agreed to clarify the criticism section, so that instead of merely listing a range of POV parrots all stating that CMT is rejected by all POV parrots, we should include WHY the mainstream believes a historical Jesus did exist. That has not yet happened. I will take the responsibility to do the first draft thereof. Wdford (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96 and Wdford, I really appreciate your support and your edits this morning, but I've decided to revert them. This is in respect to Jeppiz' request that we stop editing and await the development of a real consensus. Jeppiz is threatening to take us to Arbcom. If he does that, our conduct needs to be above reproach. We are here to build an encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia goals and policies. WP:RFC says: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.

I thought the edits we've been making were non-controversial and in accordance with the emerging consensus. It seems that perhaps Jeppiz doesn't agree with any of it. So I suggest we hold off until the RfC is closed, and then resume normal editing. Please? JerryRussell (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• OK, the current talk before us is:

§Request for Comment

§New article section: Pauline Epistles

§21st century proponents

How many days until the RFC expires & what section edits should be avoided. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, I think we should just stop editing until the RfC closes. It was opened August 14, and RFC's normally stay open for at least 30 days, so we're looking at about a 10 day wait.

For the record, I've just looked at the edit history and in spite of a best faith effort, I didn't succeed in reverting all the edits that you and Wdford made this morning. There were a bunch of our earlier edits to the sections on various modern proponents that have survived all the back-and-forth. These were largely detail edits to provide clarifications, fix sourcing and eliminate synth problems, and I'm totally puzzled how Jeppiz could object to any of that. But if he does, we should probably revert all that stuff too. Easy enough to bring it back after the RfC. JerryRussell (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not voted on the RFC, just commented. Do you oppose or support the RFC ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but which RfC are we waiting on? I am only aware of the RfC on the non-neutral deletions made by Gonzales John - which should not need to lock down all editing on the article. Is there another RfC that I missed?

I'm also not sure why Jeppiz is threatening arbitration - I thought we had agreed to focus on what CMT is, rather than focus on individuals - although it is obvious (to me) that the CMT is whatever its proponents say it is (and not what its detractors claim it to be). We also agreed that the Criticism section must report WHY the mainstream rejects the CMT, not merely list a series of claims. Since we have consensus for all this, why can we not implement the necessary edits?

What are we waiting for really ? Wdford (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, I strongly oppose the RFC, and I'd recommend that you also oppose it. Strictly speaking, in the RFC, TechBear simply said"I am asking for comments... as to the direction this article should take." That's pretty open-ended, and I can understand why it's hard to see a consensus, because it's so unclear what the question is. As Wdford says, the RFC seems to be in reaction to the massive deletions and non-neutral edits to the lede made by Gonzales John. Those edits could be construed as extending across the entire article, there was very little untouched by GJ's knife. So as per wp:RFC that I quoted above, I think we're honor bound to respect Jeppiz' request to stop editing until the RFC closes. Gonzales John has been respecting the admonition to stop editing.

I framed my answer to the RFC as "Oppose Gonzales John's edits as non-neutral" which I hope is a clear stance.

Jeppiz explains at his talk page here: fixing_Christ_myth_theory what he thinks is going on at this page. Without naming names, he states that certain editors are 'conspiracy theorists' who 'scorn policies'. So he thinks it's a conduct issue, and that's why he is threatening to go to Arbcom. JerryRussell (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz has for years been calling for the editors at this article to obey the policy of WP:RS, which in his interpretation means allowing only mainstream classical history professors to be cited on this article. The point which Jeppiz flatly refuses to get, is that this is not an article about mainstream classical history. The EXPERTS on mainstream classical history are the mainstream classical history professors. The EXPERTS on the Christ Myth Theory are the CMT theorists, who are not usually themselves mainstream classical history professors. The issue of "who is a reliable source on the CMT" has therefore been argued here for years. The issue is obviously further clouded by religious emotion, where some of the CMT supporters are inclined to propose in return that any author who is themselves Christian should be automatically disqualified as "reliable".

At the Historicity of Jesus article we cite the mainstream classical history professors, and we make it clear to the reader that the mainstream historicity argument is based on three disputed mentions in two non-Biblical sources, plus some subjective deductions - which people like Ehrman describe as "abundant and overwhelming evidence". Nobody has a major problem with telling the truth at that article. At the CMT article we should similarly cite the experts on the topic, who are the CMT proponents - some of whom are recognised scholars and some of whom are total nut-jobs. To allow detractors like Ehrman etc to define the CMT (which Ehrman does incorrectly) is not encyclopediac at all. The "other side" (whom Jeppiz describes as conspiracy theorists) claim that the weight of the article should be focused on the topic of the article, ie the theory itself in its many variations, and that it is sufficient to mention that mainstream scholars disagree without trying to bludgeon a reader with sheer weight of parrots.

None of this is recent, and none of this is going to be solved by the RfC. This is NOT a conduct issue - although Jeppiz is not alone in trying to frame it that way - this is about the interpretation of "who is a reliable source on the CMT"? I would argue that the people who know the most about the CMT are the people who proposed the theory in the first place. Jeppiz disagrees. Which Wikiforum resolves policy interpretation issues? Wdford (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wdford, of course you're right that this has been going on for years, and I'm the newcomer who has just wandered into the room. I've only been editing at Wiki since about March, so I'm far from an expert about the various dispute resolution forums.

I agree it's not a conduct issue, but let's not turn it into one by violating the policy (or is it a guideline, or an essay? I'm not sure) against doing contentious edits in the middle of the RfC over clear objections from Jeppiz. That's as much of a strategy as I have at the moment.

About RS, I wonder if we could reach a compromise with Jeppiz that this article should be primarily based on the very best RS available, but that other sources may be briefly mentioned in summaries, with links to sub-articles if they exist? I can certainly agree that there are some problems with the article. The history / list of proponents does include some items that might be undue weight, and could be substantially cut back. My preferred strategy would be to create the new, topically organized sections first (such as the one on the Pauline Epistles) and then do the cutting. JerryRussell (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

With no topical organization, you get the situation I found with Price, of editors mucking up his real argument. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why hasn't anybody mentioned this RFC from Feb. 2015, Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_53#Requests_for_comments.2C_moving_forward? That RFC ended in a consensus list of proponents to be included in the article. Speaking of talk that goes nowhere: what's the point of having an RFC, if its outcome is so easily forgotten? 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

CMT definition, again

We've talked about the DRN process last 2014 that settled on a definition of CMT. I understand you were opposed to the consensus, and I think I understand your reasons. But I'm not sure I understand what you'd like to have instead, and what problems have been caused by the 2014 version of the lede? JerryRussell (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My main problem with this article is that some editors are determined to misrepresent what the CMT actually is, so that they can more easily demolish it. The argument about the definition long ago was precisely about that point. I can live with the resultant compromise, although it is still not strictly correct. Some CMT proponents claim that "No human Jesus ever existed, the entire cult is pure myth from the ground up". This contradicts the fragile "evidence" on which the historicity argument is based, and thus is contradicted by most historians and scholars. However other CMT proponents allow that "A human Jesus may well have existed in that time period, but if so he had little or nothing to do with Christianity, and the rest of the Christian cult is based on pure myth". This is very close to the mainstream position, which fact threatens the easily-demolished straw-man they have been trying to establish. Part of their attack is therefore to claim that only mainstream historians are qualified to define the CMT, even though the mainstream historians in the main are trying to demolish the CMT at the same time, and that the people who actually proposed the CMT are not qualified to define their own theory. Wdford (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about if the lede goes something like this: The Christ Myth Theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, mythicism, or Jesus ahistoricity theory) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. However, many modern mythicists admit that Historical Jesus may have existed, but if so, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the Gospels.

I wonder if anyone would see this as an improvement over the existing 2014 consensus lede? JerryRussell (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I would not see that as an improvement. I have already quoted on this page what leading mythicist Robert Price said when he was emailed by an editor during the (loooooonnnnnngg) discussions held about this issue here two years ago -" Price said ""I'd say the CMT is the position that no historical Jesus existed. The issue of "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory; rather it is a question of how firmly one holds to the theory." I would point out that Raphael Lataster, who you talk about below, has had two books published, one called "There Was No Jesus" and the other "Jesus Did Not Exist". That is the Christ myth theory, like Wdford "I can live with the resultant compromise" of what is now in the lead but I actually would prefer it to say "The CMT is the idea that no historical Jesus existed". I am not going to try to change it though and I really think it would be wisest to let the definition stand as it is.Smeat75 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just as a cautionary note, Lataster may of been highlighting the claims of "Jesus atheism" proponents in those books. Per a recent Youtube interview he noted his advocacy for the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75, I'm also fine with the existing lede, but there seems to be this simmering discontent about it. Gonzales John had changed the lede, and then Akhilleus and Jeppiz got in this huge argument with me above in the RFC, justifying GJ's version. So I'm looking for something that might satisfy everybody.

How about: The Christ Myth Theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, mythicism, or Jesus ahistoricity theory) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. However, many modern advocates do not hold firmly to the theory. On the contrary, they argue that Historical Jesus may have existed, but if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the Gospels. JerryRussell (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point of trying to change the lead right now; finding agreement on something different is too difficult. I don't have a problem with retaining the current version of the first sentence. I maintain that Gonzales John's version of the first sentence is accurate, as the quote above from Robert Price above indicates. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Leave the lead as is - it is more complete than Gonzales John's version. Price is not the only proponent, and his version of the CMT is not the only version. Wdford (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CMT is the home for all Jesus theories not accepted as "Historicity of Jesus" theories by mainstream historical Jesus proponents, this should be made as clear as possible. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The CMT (also known as the <alt labels list>) refers to several theories for the origin of Jesus in relation to the origin of Christianity. The hypothesis for these diverse theories include: the hypothesis that Jesus never existed, or if he did exist, no meaningful historical verification is possible; the hypothesis that Jesus did exist but had virtually nothing to do with the origin of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels; the hypothesis that Christianity started, just like all the other Mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world; the hypothesis that Christianity started as a variation of Gnosticism; etc.. These so called "Christ Myth" theories contradict the mainstream historical view, which concludes that Jesus was a Jewish religious reformer. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Lataster

Extended content
The "Ice age" is melting, Lataster has spoke at Oxford University to much applause and published with Cambridge University. His analogy of "Harry Potter", that if you strip away all the layers of Myth and Fabulation, then you are left with a real—but insignificant—boy living in a closet, is priceless. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96 made a comment about Lataster above, and Gonzales John deleted it, complaining it was OT. If the post is indeed OT, I believe the correct way to deal with it per WP:TPO is to use collapse templates.

The talk guidelines also indicate that talk pages are for the purpose of discussing improvements to the page, and not for discussing personal opinions. So I'd like to re-phrase IP96's contribution, as it effects the article:

Shall we have a section on Raphael Lataster, or shall we mention him somehow in our article narrative? Judging from his Wikipedia article and his teaching website 1, he is working on a PhD in Religious Studies but hasn't finished it yet. He is definitely an advocate for CMT, but it's not clear to me whether he has offered any major innovations to the topic. He's met Wiki GNG by virtue of some self-published books which have been reviewed in reputable publications, and by virtue of his own peer-reviewed publications and an editorial in the Washington Post.

Considering that our article is currently structured as a historical review of significant proponents, I believe he should be briefly mentioned, with a link to his Wiki page. Also, his statements in reputable publications should meet the minimal requirements for consideration as RS, although my guess is that we can find better sources for most of what he has to say.

In my opinion, there are currently several sections for people who don't merit that much attention in the article. Among modern proponents, Allegro is definitely on that list, and probably Kuhn, Harpur, and the Soviet Union proponents. Those could all be consolidated into a single section, along with Lataster.

In saying this, I'm not meaning to denigrate those authors or their contributions in any way. But we need to avoid TLDR problems in this article.

Jeppiz is complaining that we talk endlessly and never reach consensus. Let's see if we can do it for Lataster!! JerryRussell (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Raphael Lataster is a leading proponent of the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint and has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject and on the claims of "Jesus atheism" proponents (Official website). 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, I am having trouble understanding Lataster's position. In all his recent papers he's been advocating for Jesus agnosticism. Fitzgerald's review of "Jesus Did Not Exist" says: Lataster argues there are not two, but three sides of the argument, and takes up the case for agnosticism himself. Here he does a masterful job; Lataster excels at demonstrating where each side of the debate shines, and where their arguments fail. Yet what is most remarkable – and most refreshing – about Lataster’s threefold presentation is that he doesn’t keep to the safety of the shallow, moderate middle like so many before him. There’s a reason why the book doesn’t have a watered-down, diplomatic title like “Did Jesus Not Exist?” So Lataster has clearly understood for a long time, the appeal of the agnostic position. He didn't invent it, it's been part of mythicism at least since Wells. How can he have it both ways, giving his book a sensational title "Jesus Did Not Exist" and yet actually advocating agnosticism? Fitzgerald's statement is intriguing, but on the final analysis, it feels like a silly non-sequitur. JerryRussell (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that the title serves two functions - highlighting the nature of the debate à la Ehrman viz. Carrier; as a book marketing attention grabber. As they say, Don't judge a book by its cover. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In the title, maybe he means that Biblical Jesus (the miracle worker) didn't exist? In Price's most recent book (Blaming Jesus for Jehovah) he wants to talk about Biblical Jesus, not historical Jesus. Acharya S 2011 'Who was Jesus Christ' doesn't care much about historical Jesus, either. JerryRussell (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Now until some convincing piece of evidence about a Biblical, historical or purely mythical Jesus (or the beliefs of the earliest Christians) is found in future, it seems that the most rational position on Jesus would be a complete rejection of the ‘Christ of Faith’ or ‘Biblical Jesus’, and holding to an agnostic-type position on a more mundane, ‘Historical Jesus’. Maybe there was such a Jesus, maybe there was not. In the absence of convincing evidence, it is possible, but not necessarily probable, and certainly not certain."

——Raphael Lataster, in There Was No Jesus, There Is No God

Per the case for "Historical Jesus" agnosticism, "...the justification of agnosticism is already made obvious by consulting the people arguing for Jesus’ historical certainty. ...Simply peruse the sources for yourself. Do that, and also hear from the historicists how they 'prove' Jesus’ existence. ...If the case for Jesus is unconvincing, then agnosticism is already justified."

——Lataster, Raphael (2015-11-12). Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists, (Kindle Locations 676-683). Kindle Edition.

• Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up;

Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions? Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable. —Raphael Lataster (December 18, 2014). "Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up". Washington Post.

• Lataster, Raphael (29 March 2016). "IT'S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE". Think. 15 (43): 65–79. Think, Volume 15, Issue 43, Summer 2016, Published online by Cambridge University Press

* Jesus Did Not Exist. Probably

Now, with the help and support of numerous other academics, itself quite noteworthy, I have become more assertive in declaring that Jesus’ non-existence is not merely possible. It is probable.  ——Raphael Lataster (12 April 2016). "Jesus Did Not Exist. Probably". Church and State.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Christian origins

The lead could really use some clear information about how mythicists think Christianity started. It mentions euhemerism, but there's a lot more detail to offer. Paul and others imagined Jesus as a spirit, and by the time Mark was written, he was re-imagined as a man. Anyway, that's the story that's being hinted at in the lead. Let's make it clear. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was a consensus to wait for the RfC to be concluded before we made major edits to the article. Also I think it is too simplistic to say "historians discredit" ..." virtually all of the Gospel of John". A lot of historians of classical history do not specifically address the Gospel of John but make it very clear that it is a historical fact as much as any other that Jesus existed,the subject of this article,due to multiple attestation in ancient sources. Discussion of the historicity of the Gospel of John belongs in Historical reliability of the Gospels.Smeat75 (talk) 02:53, 5 Septer 2016 (UTC)

If you want to assert that Christianity started, just like all the other Mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world:

1. Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements.
2. Monotheism: transforming polytheism into monotheism (via henotheism).
3. Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults.
4. Cosmopolitanism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all “brothers”); you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it.

All four points are important for the origin of Christianity.

• For the origin of Jesus in relation to the origin of Christianity then it is "Syncretism". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Many mythicist positions accept the historical existence of a human being who called himself Jesus. (ref. Dodd, Charles Harold (1938). History and the Gospel. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 16–17. ...a religion may be based upon, the teachings of a sage or holy man, without any especial reference to the events of his life [...] in the period to which the origins of Christianity are to be assigned, ...were groups which had relations with the Jewish religion, and some of these last came to identify their Saviour-god with the Jewish Messiah, and created for him a mythical embodiment in a figure bearing the cult-name 'Jesus', derived from a Hebrew word meaning 'salvation'. Or alternatively, they seized upon the report of an obscure Jewish holy-man bearing this name, and arbitrarily attached the 'cult-myth' to him.) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

• First draft

Mainstream historical viewpoint: • 1st century Jew from the Galilee • Had a following/disciples • Was crucified by the Romans • Prefecture of Pontius Pilate (26-36 AD) • Believed to have risen from the dead by followers • Numerous stories attached to his life and deeds afterwards

May have also: • Performed miracles • Spoke/taught on religious matters

96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, I liked the draft of the new criticism section. But I think we'll also need to keep most if not all the material from the old section as well, with all the quotes from experts denouncing the Christ myth theory. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As to the items of support for Paul's knowledge of Jesus: does anybody know, have historicists explained why they think the few uncharacteristic references to an earthly Jesus in Paul should not be considered late interpolations? JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

More Criticism content can be skimmed from the April 13, 2016 debate Did Jesus Exist? with Craig A. Evans.

And the 2016 YouTube playlist (15 videos) presentation that notes—historical and mythical—Jesus problems, "Did Jesus Exist? Fishers of Evidence"[www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL52hLFfWhVYzkRpKDphFMnavzEETZNBFx] - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC) & update 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A criticism section should be devoted to criticism of the CMT; it should not be a restatement of the mainstream position(s), which should be found at historical Jesus. If the criticism section uses material that was not written in response to the CMT to implicitly or explicitly refute the CMT, that's arguably WP:SYNTH. It certainly can give the reader the impression that the article is a back-and-forth argument rather than a description. In addition, some of the discussion above makes me concerned that a revised criticism section would not be written from a mainstream point of view. For instance, it is not a mainstream view that references to "an earthly Jesus in Paul" are uncharacteristic; the way in which some CMT advocates distinguish between an earthly and heavenly Jesus is quite different than anything found in mainstream treatments of Paul, and interpretations of what Paul says about a historical Jesus are similarly weird. To write a criticism section based on the presumptions of CMT advocates would not be a good move. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

However, if we follow the suggestions of Akhilleus above, then the criticism section will be simply a list of sources all parroting that "Jesus really did exist, everyone believes that", with no actual explanation of WHY this is the mainstream position. That is not really valuable - we may just as well stick to a single sentence that says "most mainstream scholars believe that a real historical Jesus did actually exist in some form, although not necessarily as described in the gospels". Surely it would be more helpful to readers if we add an extra paragraph explaining WHY this is the mainstream position - just a summary, with a link? The mainstream parrots use phrases like "the evidence is abundant, overwhelming even". Surely we should at least mention what that evidence is, so that readers can understand what mainstream parrots consider to be "abundant and overwhelming" evidence? Wdford (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Akhilleus, Should the "mainstream criticism" be derived from the peer reviewed sources of the acknowledged experts on the "Historicity of Jesus" ?

• Dale Allison
• Richard Carrier
• Bart Ehrman
• Amy-Jill Levine
• Geza Vermes 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Carrier is not an expert - even if his views on the subject were widely accepted, he has no training in mathematics, Hebrew or archaeology although he may possibly know some Koine Greek - and there is some doubt as to whether his work is peer reviewed (he actually appears to have got a couple of his friends to write reviews of it that SPP accepted as sufficient reason to publish, bypassing their normal systems). Ehrman's work on the Historical Jesus is not peer reviewed, being aimed instead at a popular market distinct from his academic work. Maurice Casey is, however, and should be on that list.31.54.50.158 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, for Carrier, it is a WP:Truth issue. We work with the given available WP:RS material in a context constrained by WP:Weight per the Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy.

Carrier gives a robust definition of Jesus which should be summed up along with all the other definitions given by the "Historicity of Jesus" experts:

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

Viz. the non-experts (per "Historicity of Jesus") consensus definition:

1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus spoke.
3. Jesus was crucified.

Per Casey;

• Maurice Casey (22 May 2012). "The Jesus Process: Maurice Casey". The New Oxonian. Retrieved 12 September 2016. - do not overlook the comments section for more criticism.
• Maurice Casey (16 January 2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-567-01505-1.

Per others;

• Vermes, Geza (2010). The Real Jesus: Then and Now. Augsburg Fortress, Publishers. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-1-4514-0882-9. The historical Jesus can be retrieved only within the context of first-century Galilean Judaism. The Gospel image must therefore be inserted into the historical canvas of Palestine in the first century CE, with the help of the works of Flavius Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and early rabbinic literature. Against this background, what kind of picture of Jesus emerges from the Gospels? That of a rural holy man, initially a follower of the movement of repentance launched by another holy man, John the Baptist. In the hamlets and villages of Lower Galilee and the lakeside, Jesus set out to preach the coming of the Kingdom of God within the lifetime of his generation and outlined the religious duties his simple listeners were to perform to prepare themselves for the great event. [...] The reliability of Josephus's notice about Jesus was rejected by many in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but it has been judged partly genuine and partly falsified by the majority of more recent critics. The Jesus portrait of Josephus, drawn by an uninvolved witness, stands halfway between the fully sympathetic picture of early Christianity and the wholly antipathetic image of the magician of Talmudic and post-Talmudic Jewish literature.
• Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C.; Crossan, John Dominic (10 January 2009). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. p. 4. ISBN 1-4008-2737-X. There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by john, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE).
• Allison, Dale C. (1 November 2010). Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Baker Academic. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-8010-3585-2. We can, nonetheless, make numerous informed judgments—for instance, that the Romans crucified Jesus as "king of the Jews"—and we can, happily, judge many propositions more probable than others. It is, for example, much more credible that Jesus was a millenarian prophet than that the eschatological enthusiasm reflected in so many early Christian texts appeared independently of his influence. Still, a vast ignorance remains, and our reach often exceeds our grasp. Time after time, if we are honest, arguments concocted to demonstrate that Jesus really did say this or really did do that fall flat. Historians of Jesus, including myself, have too often assumed that we should be able, with sufficient ingenuity, to reconstruct the genealogy of almost every individual tradition. But it is not so. Some things just cannot be done, and desire does not beget ability.

James Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making

Dunn, James D. G. (29 July 2003). "8.1. Jesus the Founder of Christianity". Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 174–183, 253. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2. If the starting assumption of a fair degree of continuity between Jesus and his native religion has a priori persuasiveness, then it can hardly make less sense to assume a fair degree of continuity between Jesus and what followed. The initial considerations here are straightforward. [a. The Sociological Logic] Several indicators have long been familiar. For one thing, it has long been recognized that the historian needs to envisage a Jesus who is 'big' enough to explain the beginnings of Christianity. For another, the first followers of Jesus were known as 'Nazarenes' (Acts 24.5), which can be explained only by the fact that they saw themselves and were seen as followers of 'Jesus the Nazarene'; and then as 'Christians' (Acts 11.26), which again must be because they were known to be followers of the one they called the 'Christ'. Moreover, Jesus is explicitly referred to once or twice in the early tradition as the 'foundation' (themelion), which Paul laid (including Jesus tradition? ), and on which the Corinthians were to build their discipleship (1 Cor. 3.10-14); or as the 'corner stone' (akrogōniaios) which began the building and established its orientation (Eph. 2.20; 1 Pet. 2.6). [...] [b. Teachers and Tradition] This a priori logic is supported by the evidence that the passing on of tradition was part of church founding from the first. Paul was careful to refer his churches back to such foundation traditions on several occasions; the evidence is hardly to be explained as references solely to kerygmatic or confessional formulae. Rather, we find that it includes community tradition (1 Cor. 11.2, 23), teaching on how the new converts should live (e.g., Phil. 4.9; 1 Thess. 4.1; 2 Thess. 3.6), and traditions of Jesus in accordance with which they should conduct their lives (Col. 2.6-7; kata Christon in 2.8). [...] [c. Witnessing and Remembering] Two important motifs in the NT also confirm the importance for the first Christians of retelling the story of Jesus and of taking steps actively to recall what Jesus said and did. One is the motif of bearing witness. The motif is particularly prominent in Acts and John. In Acts it is stressed that the role of the first disciples (or apostles in particular) was to be 'witnesses' (martyres) of Jesus (1.8). Particularly in mind were the events of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.41; 13.31). But it is clear from 1.22 and 10.37-39 that Luke understood the witnessing to include Jesus' ministry 'beginning from the baptism of John'. Paul preeminently is presented as a 'witness' of Jesus (22.15, 18; 23.11; 26.16). [...] More striking still is the motif of remembering, also important for identity formation. Already Paul stresses the importance of his converts remembering him and the 'traditions' which he taught them (1 Cor. 11.2; 2 Thess. 2.5). And close to the heart of the Lord's Supper tradition which Paul passed on was the exhortation to remember Christ — 'Do this in remembrance of me' (eis tēn emēn anamnēsin) (1 Cor. 11.24-25; Luke 22.19) — by no means a merely cognitive act of recollection. 2 Timothy retains the motif with reference to well-established traditions (2.8, 14), the first (2.8) echoing the (presumably well-known) formula with which Paul reassured the Roman believers regarding his own gospel (Rom. 1.3-4). ...In short, the witnessing and remembering motifs strengthen the impression that more or less from the first those who established new churches would have taken care to provide and build a foundation of Jesus tradition. Particularly important for Gentiles taking on a wholly new life-style and social identity would be guidelines and models for the different character of conduct now expected from them. Such guidelines and models were evidently provided by a solid basis of Jesus tradition which they were expected to remember, to take in and live out. [...] [d. Apostolic Custodians] The idea of the 'apostles' as themselves the foundation of the church, or of the new Jerusalem, appears already in Eph. 2.20 and Rev. 21.14. More striking is the fact that a clear emphasis of the early chapters of Acts is the role of the apostles as ensuring continuity between what Jesus had taught and the expanding mission of the movement reinvigorated afresh at Pentecost. ...Peter, James, and John to which our texts testify. They were evidently reckoned as the first men among the leaders of the initial Jerusalem community (Acts 1.13) — Peter certainly (1.15; 2.14; 5.1-10, 15, 29), with John as his faithful shadow (3.1-11; 4.13-19; 8.14), and James by implication (12.2). Fortunately for any concerned at such over-dependence on Acts, Paul's testimony confirms that a Jerusalem triumvirate (with James the brother of Jesus replacing James the executed brother of John) were generally accounted 'pillars' (Gal. 2.9). ...Paul's concept of apostleship is somewhat different from Luke's. But it coheres to the extent that Paul regarded his apostolic role to consist particularly in founding churches (Rom. 15.20; 1 Cor. 3.10; 9.1-2). And. as we have seen, a fundamental part of that role was to pass on foundation tradition (above §8.1b). [e. How the Jesus Tradition Was Used] The circumstantial and cumulative evidence cited above is not usually given the weight I am placing upon it. because Paul in particular seems to show so little interest in the ministry of Jesus and so little knowledge of Jesus tradition. [...] The apparent silence of Paul, pp. 181–183 [...] My suggestion, then, is that the Jesus tradition formed such an insider's language among the earliest Christian communities; Paul's use of it in Romans (to a church he had never visited) implies his confidence that this language was a language common to all Christian churches, given by the founding apostle when he/she passed on the Jesus tradition to the new foundation (§§8.1a and b above). [...] [In Summary of the Jesus tradition prior to its being written down.] I noted the strong circumstantial case for the view that, from the beginning, new converts would have wanted to know about Jesus, that no church would have been established without its store of foundation (including Jesus) tradition, and that the churches were organised to maintain and to pass on that tradition. The importance of remembering Jesus and learning about him and of responsible teachers is attested as early as we can reach back into earliest Christianity, in Jewish as well as Gentile churches. The apparent silence of Paul and the character of the Gospels themselves provide no substantive counter-argument.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's important that we give the reader a summary of the mainstream view. I wouldn't call it a criticism section. I'd call it the historical Jesus section, and it would summarize the historical image of Jesus and the evidence for his existence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that could work. Wdford (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible lead:

Some of the notable experts who have published peer reviewed books on the historicity of Jesus using the most current scholarship available on the subject include; Dale Allison, Amy-Jill Levine and Geza Vermes, all of whom believe that the historical Jesus existed. And whom also tend to see Jesus as a Jewish preacher who never claimed to be God nor had any intention to found a religion. Levine further notes, "There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus’ life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by john, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE)."

96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC) & update 00:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Essential Criticism

The RfC was deleted by a bot without an admin closing it with any conclusion as to the question asked. So I have put back into the "criticism" section the quotes I feel are essential.Smeat75 (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel these quotes are "essential"? What do they add over and above a sentence that says "The majority of mainstream scholars support the mainstream view and reject the CMT"? Wdford (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Because they are quotes from historians that explain clearly and concisely why the existence of Jesus is not doubted by scholars of ancient history - independent multiple attestation in ancient documents, exceedingly rare.Smeat75 (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Worshiping Jesus as a deity

Per new mainstream content on followers of Jesus in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death and began worshiping Jesus as a deity:

Worship:

• Christology § Apostolic Christology
• Son of God (Christianity) § Pauline epistles
• Christianity in the 1st century § Worship of Jesus
• 1 Corinthians 15 § Early Christian creed

Foundation:

• Origins of Christianity
• Jewish Christian § Jewish origin of Christianity
• Apostolic Age § Early leaders
• Early centers of Christianity § Jerusalem
• History of Christianity § Apostolic Church
• History of early Christianity § Apostolic Age
• James, brother of Jesus § Paul's epistles
• Persecution of Christians in the New Testament § Galatians

• James Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making

Dunn assumes a real continuity between Jesus and the Jesus movement. Given that assumption, he writes,

Sociology and social anthropology teach us that such groups would almost certainly have required a foundation story (or stories) to explain, to themselves as well as others, why they were designated as ‘Nazarenes’ and [later] ‘Christians.’

Jesus’ disciples remembered him as a teacher, an exorcist, a healer; their stories told of their preserving his teachings and imitating his doings. Eventually, these memories were organized into gospels, a distinctive form of ancient biography. Dunn concludes that the Jesus movement would have wanted to remember the Jesus tradition and that the spread of the Gospels attests to an interest in “knowing about Jesus, in preserving, promoting, and defending the memory of his mission and in learning from his example.” —Theological Studies 68 (2007) p.19

96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul’s knowledge of Jesus

Paul’s knowledge of a human Jesus (from seven authentic Pauline epistles circa 50-60 CE):

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

• Jews killed Jesus

Galatians 1:19

• Meets James, “a brother of the Lord”

Galatians 4:4-5

• “Born of a woman”

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

• The ”Last Supper”

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

• Jesus dying and being buried; people see Jesus

Romans 1:1-4

• Jesus “seed of David”

Dunn on the apparent silence of Paul

Dunn, James D. G. (29 July 2003). Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 181–183. ISBN 978-0-8028-3931-2. Paul in particular seems to show so little interest in the ministry of Jesus and so little knowledge of Jesus tradition. We cannot assume that he ever encountered Jesus personally or had been in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus' mission. On the other hand. Paul would surely have used the two weeks spent in Peter's company (three years after his conversion) to fill out his knowledge of Jesus and of the traditions of Jesus' mission and teaching from Jesus' leading disciple (Gal. 1.18). Nevertheless, the fact remains that Paul cites Jesus explicitly on only three occasions, all curiously in 1 Corinthians (7.10-11; 9.14; 11.23-25), though he also implies that had he known Jesus tradition relevant to other issues of community discipline he would have cited it (1 Cor. 7.25; 14.37). At the same time, there are various echoes of Synoptic tradition in Paul's letters, but none which he refers explicitly to Jesus; nor does he cite Jesus' authority to give the teaching more weight. Does this evidence suggest Paul's own lack of interest in 'remembering' what Jesus said and that it was Jesus who said it? Those who argue for an affirmative answer seem to forget that the pattern we find in Paul's letters is repeated elsewhere within earliest Christianity, particularly in the letters of James and 1 Peter. Only occasionally is Jesus cited as the authority for the sayings quoted. Usually the teaching which echoes the Jesus tradition is simply part of more extensive paraenesis, without explicit attribution to Jesus. ...It is generally recognized that when groups become established over a lengthy period they develop in effect their own identity- and boundary-forming language, that is, at the very least, the use of abbreviations, a kind of shorthand and code words which help bond them as a group and distinguish insiders from outsiders (who do not know the language). The whole point is that in in-group dialogue such in-references are not explained; on the contrary, it is the recognition of the code word or allusion which gives the insider-language its bonding effect; to unpack the reference or allusion (for a stranger) in effect breaks the bond and lets the outsider into the group's inner world. My suggestion, then, is that the Jesus tradition formed such an insider's language among the earliest Christian communities; Paul's use of it in Romans (to a church he had never visited) implies his confidence that this language was a language common to all Christian churches, given by the founding apostle when he/she passed on the Jesus tradition to the new foundation.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

euhemerism and the opposite of euhemerism

The lead's description of euhemerism is the opposite of euhemerism. Euhemerism means looking at stories of a god and surmising that they're based on a mortal. That's what historical Jesus scholars do; they see a mortal figure behind the divine myths. Christ myth authors do the opposite of euhemerism. They look at stories of a man and surmise that they're based on myth about a god. Mythicists call what they do "euhemerism", but it's the opposite. I added the contradictory tag. Not sure what else to do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Euhemerism viz. Apotheosis, The term "Euhemerism" has been "Cronenberged".

By result:

• man → deity = Apotheosis
• deity → man = Euhemerism

By Cronenberged popular usage:

• man → deity = upward Euhemerism
• deity → man = downward Euhemerism

The Cronenberged popular usage is the odd notion, that we know what Euhemerus was thinking and what is motives were, when he made a deity into a man, rather than just simply saying this is what actually resulted from him, full stop! 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that there is any "Cronenberged popular usage"? From what I can see, the definition of Euhemerism is perfectly clear: namely a form of apotheosis where the human is not a well-known historical figure, but is nonetheless believed to exist. Carrier always gets this wrong, but who else does? JerryRussell (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How do we know Euhemerus really believed that a human Zeus existed ? I will not argue the point but note that, "Hostile to paganism, the early Christians, such as the Church Fathers, embraced euhemerism in an attempt to undermine the validity of pagan Gods." Did the early Christians believe that a human Zeus existed ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"the definition of Euhemerism is perfectly clear: namely a form of apotheosis where the human is not a well-known historical figure, but is nonetheless believed to exist": Where do you find that definition? It flatly contradicts the regular definition of euhemerism, which is the opposite of apotheosis. Euhemerism means denying the reality of a god and saying that the god's stories are based on a nonmagical, non-godly mortal. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

All I know about this, is what I read in Wikipedia :) Also I just checked my copy of Acharya's 'Christ Con', and she uses it according to Jonathan Tweet's definition. She also mentions that there are several 'tombs of Zeus' in the area of Crete, where credulous (and not just early Christians) go to pay their respects. JerryRussell (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I wryly note the "several" per several 'tombs of Zeus', good for business I imagine. And I just want to make the point, that Euhemerus might of been a conniving atheist, who did not actually believe his own propaganda, and thus to attribute an interpretation of mythology, to him IMO is just pure speculation. But I leave that to editors of the Euhemerism article, I would be happy with saying; that the Biblical Jesus was the product of being Cronenberged—from a deity to a supernatural human :) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@User:Jonathan Tweet, Given that Euhemerism, Euhemerist, Euhemeristic is a well defined interpretation of mythology.
While asserting,
that per "Euhemerization" the -ize suffix in Greek and English means “to do like,” hence “to do like Euhemerus did”, thus functional Euhemerism is the application of the term "Euhemerization" as a functional terminology viz. "Deification", that ignores any interpretation of mythology as irrelevant. Thus what Euhemerus was thinking and what his motives were, when he made a deity into a human is irrelevant, all that matters is the functional result—Euhemerus made a deity into a human.

Then per Euhemerization (Functional Euhemerism):

• before (human) → after (deity) = Deification
• before (deity) → after (human) = Euhemerization

Brief Note on Euhemerization by Richard Carrier on April 13, 2016
Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did by Richard Carrier on July 31, 2015  -96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A blog post by Richard Carrier is not a good source to justify placing an idiosyncratic definition of euhemerism into this or any other Wikipedia article. It's not even necessary for this article. Carrier's argument can be described without using the word "euhemerism", and the article would be clearer to the reader if the word wasn't used—then we can avoid getting bogged down with explanations that Carrier uses the word in a non-standard way. But there's no reason why Carrier's idiosyncratic use of the word should be in Euhemerism, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Christ Myth Theory is a fringe theory"

Is the Christ Myth Theory really a fringe theory? How does one define a theory to be on the fringes of mainstream? --Ratha K (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Per this article, it is a fringe theory, because it is accepted by a small number of academics in relation to the consensus mainstream theory accepted by most academics. This relationship can be altered if:

• The mainstream consensus fragments into multiple theories.
• Many more academics start holding this theory until it becomes the new mainstream consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a source for this, i.e. "small number of academics"? --Ratha K (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that (academics & science are similar in this context) then per Fringe theory, A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters. And per Fringe science, Some theories that were once regarded as fringe science, but were eventually accepted as mainstream science, are: Plate tectonics, Heliocentrism, and The Big Bang theory. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand what fringe theory means. I am trying to ascertain whether this is an opinion or a fact. --Ratha K (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ratha K, up above on this talk page is a section Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Most_scholars_DO_agree. including a collapsed box entitled "citations". If you open the accordion, there are quotes from many scholars denouncing Christ Myth theory, as well as quotes from the most prominent mythicists agreeing that they are a tiny and beleaguered minority among scholars.

I think one problem is a confusion about the definition of mythicism. Most of the criticisms are insisting that Jesus existed, while most mythicists admit that maybe he did. Getting beyond that, mythicists question whether historical Jesus had anything much to do with the development of early Christianity, while the dominant view is that Jesus the Christ did indeed set in motion that chain of events that created the religion. At the moment I don't have references at my fingertips to demonstrate this, it's just an OR observation on my part. JerryRussell (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the summation, Jerry. After spending about 45 minutes going through the current and archived discussions, I realize my question have already been asked and addressed in far greater depth several times over. I have to say though that the current page is a very poor shadow of the [May 2013] version, IMO.--Ratha K (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problem here is that neither side of the argument has much to go on. Non Christian references to a Jesus are so rare and disputed that CMT is at one end of a spectrum of possibilities. I would call it a minority rather than a fringe view.Charles (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Ehrman, there are two experts in Bible scholarship/classics who hold to Christ Myth Theory and neither of the two has a tenured professorship in the field. If there were several full professors defending it, we would call it a minority view. Minority in this case means "many scholars, but not most". Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt it's a fringe view, as can be deducted by some of the citations listed above. And it's going to be a long time, if ever, that the CMT achieves even in the barest sense a view which can be classified as "minority". At this point, its kind of like expecting the theory that we didn't land on the moon, or that the moon is made of green cheese, to become a minority viewpoint. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that more Greco-Roman historians do not bump Humpty Dumpty down. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How to get the RFC closed?

The RFC bot has moved our RFC off the active list. Should we post a request for closure at Wikipedia:ANRFC? It looks like a long backlog there. Would it be considered improper to try to recruit someone to do the closure? @Akhilleus:, @Ian.thomson:, any suggestions? JerryRussell (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Rved bot here and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, now close as normal. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC) & strike 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96 Motion for RfC closure

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 August 2016); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

Per #Request for Comment (rfcid=64934AA)

• There clearly is no consensus in support of the content redaction proposed/implemented by Gonzales John.
• There clearly is a consensus in support of creating new content by theme/topic.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96: I, for one, agree that this was the result of the RfC. We did not have a unanimous consensus, but there was a clear numerical predominance, and I didn't see any compelling policy-based arguments for Gonzales John's massive deletions of sourced text, nor his changes to the lede.

Thanks for your patience. If you want to resume editing normally, I won't revert you. JerryRussell (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:, @Gonzales John:, if you want to contest this closure, please let us know? JerryRussell (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bill the Cat 7:, @Jonathan Tweet:, comments? JerryRussell (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, I am not asking for more comments about the RFC topic. I'm only asking whether we've read the consensus correctly, or whether anyone feels that we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to evaluate the outcome. JerryRussell (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Consensus is tricky to judge because it's not just a number vote and not all arguments are relevant to determining consensus. If the issue is contentious, do we have an outside editor who can come in and close the discussion for us? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources

According to WP:SPS, self-published sources should be avoided, and would only be in the worst case acceptable if the writer is an authority in his field. Both the Lataster and Carrier quotes were from self-published sources, I have removed them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Thompson and other modern proponents

Although Thompson rejects the label of 'mythicist', I believe this is because of the confusion over whether mythicism can include 'Jesus Agnosticism'. Thompson clearly holds views that are consistent with other major modern mythicists, and is grouped with mythicists in all the RS discussing his work.

As was discussed in the talk sections above, Allegro, Kuhn, and Harpur have been combined into an umbrella section because of the similarity of their views. The amount of text in the combined section has been substantially cut back for readability. The Soviet proponents have also been included in this section. JerryRussell (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Per followers of Jesus in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death and began worshiping Jesus as a deity. viz. followers of Jesus in life heaven who continued as an identifiable movement after his death and began worshiping Jesus as a deity.

The viewpoint that the historical Jesus is not necessary to explain Christianity, is held by:

• Kurt Noll
• Thomas L. Thompson

96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a citation where Thompson makes it clear that he thinks "the historical Jesus is not necessary to explain Christianity"? I don't think he expresses that view in his book, which he clearly says is not about the historical Jesus. Given that he's refused the label mythicist, I don't think we should be shoehorning him into this article unless he has clearly stated he adhere to the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Bible and Interpretation - Is This Not the Carpenter: A Question of Historicity? (London: Equinox Press, forthcoming 2011)". www.bibleinterp.com. The ancient world's many mythic and theological representations of a figure comparable to the Jesus of New Testament texts are not alone decisive arguments against historicity, but they are part of the picture, which needs to be considered more comprehensively. Literarily viable figures have been represented—historically—in many clarifying ways. ...the New Testament is to be defined neither as a history of the early Christian church nor as an account of the life of a man named Jesus and of that of his followers. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This quote does not say that "the historical Jesus is not necessary to explain Christianity." It says that the NT is not a historical account; these two positions are not the same thing. I don't think this quote justifies placing Thompson in this article, especially when he has refused to classify himself as a mythicist. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is some historical account other than the NT, that documents the immediate origin of Christianity, then somebody should update James Dunn, as per Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making he cites the NT as the sole historical source for the immediate origin of Christianity ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, do you think Thompson's view could be characterized as that 'the mythical elements are sufficient to explain Christianity'? I think he makes this argument; and if the mythical aspects are sufficient, then historical Jesus is not necessary.

But if you think he is not mythicist, then what is he? What article should his views be covered? Surely not mainstream? JerryRussell (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Having just carefully re-read Thompson's essay in response to Ehrman, I don't believe he specifically renounced the title of 'mythicist'. Instead, he attacked Ehrman for his belief that Jesus existed, and lambasted him for being unable to give any proof for it. JerryRussell (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thompson wrote: "Bart Ehrman has recently dismissed what he calls mythicist scholarship, my Messiah Myth from 2005 among them, as anti-religious motivated denials of a historical Jesus and has attributed to my book arguments and principles which I had never presented, certainly not that Jesus had never existed. Rather than dealing with the historicity of the figure of Jesus, my book had argued a considerably different issue..." He's saying that Ehrman is wrong to call Thompson a mythicist, and that he did not deal with the historicity of Jesus in his book. Since this article concerns a theory about the historicity of Jesus, Thompson does not belong in it since his work, according to his very words, does not deal with the historicity of Jesus.

It's pretty easy to say that 1) since Thompson says the NT is not a historical account, therefore 2) there is no evidence that Jesus was historical, so 3) Christianity does not originate from a historical Jesus. The problem is that Thompson didn't say #2 or #3, so this article should not attribute those positions to him. Same deal if you modify #3 to "Christianity probably doesn't originate from a historical Jesus. In fact, Ehrman drew those conclusions in his book and classified Thompson among those who doubt that there was a historical Jesus, and Thompson said that Ehrman had misunderstood his book. I don't think this article should make the same mistake, especially since we have figures such as Price and Carrier who are clear that they are mythicists and provide ample material for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

stronger content for argument

"that Jesus agnosticism is the only evidential conclusion possible"

This line does not describe the mythicist argument, just the conclusion of the argument. Anyone who supports any view can claim the exact same thing about their view, that it is the only evidential conclusion possible. Here's how I would describe the argument: "that the evidence is so weak that no one can really know one way or another whether Jesus existed." If there's more to the argument than that, please expand this line So that it failure summarizes the argument. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)