Talk:Christ myth theory

Thompson a mythicist and intensity of article length, part 2

I've been off of Wikipedia for the last several days because of my workload, though I'm here now. I see Joshua has reinsterted many things, so let's begin by trying to discuss this one. Joshua, you've reinserted Thompson on the basis of him fitting the definition of mythicist per Ehrman's point of view. I don't quite see any such thing. As far as I'm concerned, Thompson's point is that Ehrman misrepresented him when styling him as a mythicist, not merely differed in the definition of his terminology so as to include Thompson's views into mythicism.

Another issue we'll focus on for now is something was reverted back I didn't want to see. A lot of editing I did had to do with the unbelievably intensity of the length of the article, which tediously goes over every mythicist explanation of debated verse rather than provides summarizes of mythicist views. Some of the explanations of "mythicist views" aren't actually mythicist views at all. Every scholar, for example, thinks that Christology was influenced by Jewish Wisdom literature. So what's the point of the section on this? Not only that, but for some odd reason, there are two different sections both about the exact same thing: Jesus being a celestial Jesus. I can hardly tell why, though it's been apparently brought back into the article because it's "interesting" or "seems relevant" or something. Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Thompson, this seems to depend on which definition one takes of mythicism. Following the 'eucumenical' definition (Jesus is a myth), he might be regarded as a mythicist. Following the limited, or 'activist' definition, he isn't, apparently. Alternatively, we can look at how he is regarded by other sources; e.g., Ehrmann. What do other sources say? And which sources are relevant in this regard? And then, we can also look if he is relevant to this article. So, that's three criteria. So, what are the opinions of other editors?

The Wisdom-parallel may be a mainstream-view, but it's also an argument used by several mythicists. So, that makes it relevant, I'd say.

Regarding the celestial being, I've explained this before. There's a subsection on that topic in the section on Paul; and there's a subsection in the section on "Diversity and parallells," which makes comparisons with Jewish ideas. But you're right, there's an overlap; Paul is mentioned there too. I'll take that one up too, and try to merge what can be merged. First finish the notes & quotes.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thompson is reading the themes and motifs found in the gospels in the context of the ancient tradition of the entire “Middle East”.
  

Mǖller, Morgens. "Paul: The Oldest Witness to the Historical Jesus" in T.L. Thompson and T.S. Verenna, eds., Is This Not the Carpenter (Equinox, 2012), 117-118.

[When] my friend and former colleague, Thomas L. Thompson, in The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David from 2005 seeks to dissolve the Jesus figure of the Gospels as a historical figure, making him, so to speak, the epitome of biblical and other—far older—Near Eastern concepts of a royal Messiah, the question of historicity invites us to look in other directions for an answer, rather than to try to identify ipsissima verba Iesu or situations which could have been historical recollections. This is not to deny that the Jesus story in the Gospels is saturated with reminiscences of Old Testament figures and events, the Old Testament being the medium of the Near Eastern Messiah myth. Moreover, in this respect, Thomas L. Thompson's book is an abundant and impressive arsenal of evidence.

2605:A000:160C:83E1:100C:75B8:CB44:F8E5 (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert J. Hutchinson (2015), Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth---and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts, p.8, regards Thompson to be a mythicist. WP:NPOV:

Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

Which would mean, I think, that Thompson can be included, per the broad definition of mythicism, and per Ehrman (and Hutchinson); that his arguments should be briefly mentioned; and that his rejection of the mythicist -qualification should also be mentioned. NB: here too, we see what difference it makes to state that 'the story of Jesus is largely a myth', or to state 'Jesus didn't exist'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've merged the two subsections on Paul and the celestial being. Maybe it needs some fine-tuning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. First of all, Searching for Jesus: New Discoveries in the Quest for Jesus of Nazareth---and How They Confirm the Gospel Accounts is hardly a reliable source. It's clearly a popular Christian apologetic book meant to prove the Bible. I think you're misunderstanding the point regarding Thompson. What Ehrman has said about Thompson is irrelevant, because according to Thompson himself, Ehrman is misrepresenting him, rather than just having some sort of semantic difference. If you think Thompson believes "Jesus is a myth", you'll need to define what he means by myth and show me where he says this, and which definition of mythicism in a reliable source this equates to. Otherwise, his inclusion as a mythicist is totally baseless.

On the Wisdom literature, I think you also misunderstood me here. Yes, I'm aware that mythicists discuss it. The point is that the arguments they make aren't new, or have any particular thing to do with mythicism. They're just repeating what scholars say. This is not at all notable for the mythicist position.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What Thompson thinks of Ehrman's qualifications of his (Thompson's) work, is only relevant insofar that it should be mentioned, since Thompson disagrees with Ehrman. Ehrman is one of the most notable authors on the topic; if Ehrman argues that Thompson is a mythicist, that's noteworthy, and not "baseless." See WP:RS and WP:NPOV; see also this note, which cites Maurice Casey.

The fact that myhticist have a similar stance on the Wisdom-literature as mainstream authors, does not mean that it is not notable. It's a core argument for several mythicists. When you provide an overview of their (main) arguments, you provide an overview of their main arguments, not of their (main) deviations from scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: The Messiah Myth, "About the book":

...in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is besides the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The key term in that "about the book" is where it says the Jesus "of the Gospels" didn't exist. Neither does Ehrman think such a Jesus existed. But Thompson was quite clear that he never argued that Jesus didn't exist, period. I also find your argument regarding Ehrman unconvincing. A false claim in a notable book remains a false claim. If a notable author called Thompson a creationist, and Thompson went on to write a full article on how he was misrepresented, that would clearly fail to justify inclusion of him as a creationist. You've also offered no references for the Wisdom claims of mythicists being central to any of their views. Given this deadlock in our views, I think we should let another person or two break the deadlock.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

From the Wiki-article:

Thomas L. Thompson (born 1939), Professor emeritus of theology at the University of Copenhagen, is a leading biblical minimalist of the Old Testament, and regarded as a myrhicist by several authors.("Ehrman.2012.p11_15", "Casey2014"

Ehrman:

A different sort of support for a mythicist position comes in the work of Thomas L. Thompson.

Thompson:

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.

Ehrman does not state that Thompson denies the existence of Jesus; Ehrman states that Thompson gives "A different sort of support for a mythicist position." So, Thompson is misrepresenting Ehrman; and Ehrman regards Thompson to take a mythicist position. See also Ehrman's definition, as quoted in the lead, a paraphrase of Doherty:

the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.

Ehrman does not state that mythicism is limited to the stance that Jesus did not exist.

Regarding the Wisdom-argument, you stated:

Some of the explanations of "mythicist views" aren't actually mythicist views at all.

You further stated:

The point is that the arguments they make aren't new, or have any particular thing to do with mythicism. They're just repeating what scholars say. This is not at all notable for the mythicist position.

From the Wiki-article:

According to Wells, Doherty, and Carrier, the mythical Jesus was derived from Wisdom traditions, the personification of an eternal aspect of God, who came to visit human beings.

References

Wells (1996), The Jesus Legend, p.xxv:

I continue to regard[ this Jewish Wisdom literature as of great importance for the earliest Christian ideas about Jesus.

They (the mythicists) try to explain where 'Jesus' came from, if not from an historical person. That's part of their argument, and quite relevant; they're not just shouting "Jesus didn't exist!", they're saying "Jesus was (and is) a myth, and this is part of this myth." They explain where the myth came from. That's quite relevant. And if that's in line with mainstream scholarship, it makes it even more relevant, showing that they're not complete cranks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I can accept the point you make regarding the Wisdom stuff, though you're certainly not right to say that this shows they're complete cranks. Accepting the earth is round doesn't make a creationist less of a crank. Anywho, in order to maintain the Thompson part, you'll need to show, at this point, that Thompson believes Jesus had nothing to do with the founding of Christianity to sustain Ehrman's definition.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Among many other works, Thomas L Thompson wrote the book "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David". (Random House, 31 Mar 2013). The on-line review states that: "But in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed. …. In Thompson's view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long-established messianic traditions." That sounds fairly conclusive, don't you think? Wdford (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ehrman and Casey regard him as a mythicist, and threat him as such in their publications. Ehrman is a relevant WP:RS source. But what you may be hinting at is that Thompson is not part of this popular ('populist'), polemical CM-'movement', as he himself also implies. Can we make that clearer, somehow, without committing WP:OR? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My quote above is actually found inside the book itself, in the intro section called "About the Book".

It seems to me from this book that Thompson clearly regards the Jesus-figure of the gospels as mythical. Thompson states in Chapter One that "The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of a historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified." Thompson obviously wants to be categorized as a serious historian rather than a pseudo-historian, but at the same time he clearly regards Jesus as a non-historical figure. Perhaps we can just quote him in his own words? Wdford (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Careful about making the same mistake Ehrman did. Thompson pointed out to Ehrman that he's not at all saying Jesus didn't exist, just that a lot of the stuff is legendary. This is, in fact, exactly his views, and he should be distinguished from what people mean when they use the word "mythicist". However, Thompson has not clarified whether or not he thinks that Christianity does, in fact, go back to Jesus, so this itself is not out of dispute.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in my own two cents here to the point about the length of this article. I think that this version is much tighter and sums up the key points in a way that a reader coming to the topic could get her or his head around. I think a reversion to something like this would be advisable. Magic1million (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Christ myth theory#Continuous addition of critiques within scholarship by non-mythicists:

As explained before: context is needed [...] Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
JJ is correct. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories for more information. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

All of section Five should go.

"Individual proponents are irrelevant"

It's somewhat tiresome that we rehash the same old arguments year after year. A FAQ would be needed. To state the obvious: individual proponents are irrelevant. We should present the arguments, not the persons. Having a paragraph on every lunatic (and some serious ones as well) who believes in the CMT is completely irrelevant. Frankly, who cares is Onfray or Ellegård believe in CMT? They are as much authorities on Jesus as Trump is on tomato salad.
In short We should of course keep all arguments for CMT made in reliable ssources and we should of course reference these arguments. We should remove the entire section about individuals. It serves no purpose, just makes the article longer and more repetitive without adding anything of value. Jeppiz (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea, though I don't think that individual proponents are irrelevant. The whole idea is propagated by just a few individual propoenents (and repeated by a host of blogs and minor authors, of course). Giving a short overview of the main proponents seems relevant to me, as some sort of "Who's who." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua! I agree, and your reply made me realise I was unclear, so I will expand a bit. I do think we should still have an overview of main proponents, but perhaps more in the style of a sentence or two in a common overview paragraph. Both the historical ones and the current main proponents, very briefly mentioned. (For the likes of Ellegård, Onfray etc. I think we can ignore them entirely) Jeppiz (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jeppiz, the entire thing can be relegated to a paragraph at most that gives a nice and concise "who's who" summary. I've already done major work summarizing these sections, but frankly, they're still far too long. Many of the proponents listed aren't even proponents at all, but have simply influenced other proponents (David Strauss, John Remsburg, James Frazer, etc). Almost a third of the section on Thomas Brodie isn't even on mythicism but about the personal repercussions to Brodie's career for supporting mythicism. Individual names of advocates should only come up as specific arguments are mentioned throughout the article.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

David Strauss was highly influential on the western understanding of what "myth" is, laying some of the fundamentals on which CMT could rise; James Frazer also influenced the CMT'ists. That's what makes them relevant here. A theory is not only about it's proponents, but also about it's ideas and influences. The Remsburg-list has also been used, and expanded, by CMT'ists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The section with "Key arguments" was added four years ago; it's interesting that the empahsis of the article seems to be shifting more and more from a collection of bios (ha! oh irony) on CMT-authors, to an overview of their arguments. Yet, some essential elements are missing from such an overview:

• I'm reading Thompson now; interesting read. He explains what "myth" is. Which made me realize that, apart from the short section on Strauss, our article does not explain what "myth" is. This looks like an omission to me. I'm not sure, by the way, if Wells, Doherty, Price or Carrier explain what 'myth" is. Ehrman (2012): Rarely do mythicists define what they mean by the term myth.
• We also don't explain - don't know? - how the post-War CMT parallels the second quest for the historical quest for Jesus, nor how it is informed by, or neglects, the third quest. Casey (2004) is relevant in this regard, arguing that Wells repeated the Religionsgeschichtliche Schules arguments (anybody care to expand that article?). Wells clearly correlates with the second quest, and dismisses the variety of Jesus'es portrayed by this second quest. Doherty is also mainly informed by the second quest, I guess, but give his publication-dates, may also have incorporated publications from the third quest. How about Carrier, who leans on Doherty? And how about Price, Thompson, and Brodie?
• What's also missing is why the CMT has gained such a popular appeal. Ehrman (2012) refers to websites which spreah the CMT-gospel, but devotes must of his 2012-publication to the well-known CM-authors. Yet, it is this popular appeal which has given the CMT such a weight, provoking strong reactions from both sides, also here at Wikipedia. There's probably no scholarly study on the present-day popular appeal of the CMT, but it's relevant here.

It seems to me that the addition (or expnasion), somehow, of these three elements, would improve the quality of the article, lifting it above the polemical level of "'Jesus didn't exist' - 'See, all mythicists are cranks'." But I don't know, yet, how to do that in a usefull way. Some history of science, c.q. history of ideas, is needed here, not more theology. And, of course, the section-headers "19th- and 20th century proponents were chosen to reflect the content of the sections, but not as a restriction of those contents to proponents only. Context is needed to understand the CMT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

From Encyclopedia Britannica, Religionsgeschichtliche Schule:

an approach that emphasized the degree to which the Bible and the ideas contained within it were the products of their cultural milieu [...] studied the influence of various ancient religious and philosophical traditions on the emergence of Christianity [...] Christianity’s customs and dogmas developed over time and in response to socioeconomic factors as well as influences from other traditions—in particular, Hellenistic Judaism and the religions of the Roman Empire.

Sounds familiair indeed. This kind of info makes the CMT more understandable, as well as the criticisms. Especially for the editors who don't like the CMT: this kind of info helps to explain why the CMT is dismissed by mainstream scholarship, neutralizing the polemical counter-argument that it's all Christian fundamentalism etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As always, I would propose that we use the "definition" of a myth as it is used by the Mythicists - to use any other definition would distort the context of the CMT. Perhaps in the Proponent sections, we should try to give the "definition" of "myth" as it is used by each Proponent, to the extent possible? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've already been going through Wells (1997), The Jesus Legend, to find some info on the background of his interest, but that book seems to contain little on what a "myth" actually is. Yet, the Wiki-article on Myth is already informative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This is largely a non-scholarly theory and the word "myth" is used inaccurately to mean "something that is not true". Academic definitions of "myth" are not relevant here. Some have tried to switch the term used to "Jesus ahistoricity theory" but it has not caught on.

There is no point in having this article unless there is some distinction made between mainstream scholarship and this idea. If this article is twisted round to say "Jesus did not perform miracles therefore the Jesus of the gospels is a myth" there is no point in having it.

It is indeed a popular idea on the internet and elsewhere that Jesus did not exist. "Jesus Never Existed, After All", article in the Huffington Post 2017 [1]. Raphael Lataster has published one book titled "Jesus Did Not Exist" and another called "There Was no Jesus" [2] And here is a youtube vid of Lataster with Richard Carrier, an hour and a half, expounding on the title of the video "Jesus Did Not Exist " with Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster', as the description says why we believe Jesus is purely a myth and was not an historical figure. Not a historical figure, that is what this means. These are only a few examples among thousands There needs to be some article on WP on the popular and simple idea "Jesus did not exist", showing why the scholarly consensus rejects that. If this article isn't going to be that, there should be another one elsewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smeat75: if that's their understanding of what "myth" is, then that's a really poor understanding. Sad. Apparently, they don't understand David Friedrich Strauss "third way." Anyway, even more reason to explain how the methodologies differ, and why mainstream scholarship rejects the methodology, and therefore also, the conclusions, of mythicists. NB: it also illustrates why Thompson doesn't want to be placed in the "Jesus-did-not-exist party"; while, actually, his approach is truly a myth-oriented explanation, in the full and rich sense of the word. Maybe the article shpuld be moved to "Christ myth theories"? ;)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree that the article should be renamed "Christ myth theories" - there are clearly nuances of opinion among the mythicists themselves, and their detractors constantly attempt to package all of the various Myth Theories into a simplistic (and incorrect) "they all say Jesus never existed so they are all cranks" package.

I agree. John Remsburg's The Christ (reprinted as Christ Myth in 2007) expressly breaks "myth" down into three broad categories: historical, philosophical, and poetic. To quote Remsburg regarding historical myth - "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." In fact the real old stuff, be it Frazier, Robertson, Mead, or Remsburg didn't throw Jesus the man out with the mythical Gospel Jesus bathwater. Even Constantin-François Volney was will to consider that where was an obscure historical figure (though he felt he had been integrated into an already existing mythology) As New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall pointed out in his I Believe in the Historical Jesus the very term "historical Jesus" has an insane range from Jesus existed exactly as described in the Gospels to Jesus existed as a human being in the same way King Arthur existed as a human being (there is something there but the details of the actual person have been effectively lost). Heck, Bart Ehrman even includes a Jesus who existed "but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" (ie Jesus either cooped an existing movement or it was turned into Christianity after he died) as part of the Christ Myth...and that reference is in the freaking lede.--2606:A000:131D:4413:99C7:38A4:1301:F7F9 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is expressing what the "mythicists" think there, he isn't saying he agrees with it.Smeat75 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You missed the point being made - the Christ Myth Theory is not just Jesus didn't exist as a human being and that definition is coming from someone who is against it. Israel Knohl's The Messiah Before Jesus postulates that Jesus was inspired the incidents surrounding a previous messiah who was killed by the Romans in 4 BCE. Then there is Michael O. Wise postulates a messiah who died 72 BCE. If either of them are right and Jesus did commender and already existing "Christian" movement then he per Bart Ehrman's criteria "had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" and would part of the Christ Myth Theory. --172.75.0.187 (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Providing context

Smeat75, and also Wellingfordtoday, thanks for your input and thoughts. It is challenging, and is providing new thoughts about the necessity to provide context, not just persons. I've added info on the historical quest for Jesus, including the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Apparently, the CMT has to be understood against the backdrop of this quest; the RgS, especially Bultmann, has played an important role in the waning and waxing appeal of this quest, and is regarded as an important influence on Wells, who initiated the revival of the CMT. Mentioning the RgS correlates with the critique on Wells that his approach is an outdated RgS-approach.
Somehow, it must be possible to incorporate the (scholarly) understanding of what "myth" is in this section; that also opens the possibility to introduce the 'nothing but myth' approach of some mythicists, in their respective sub-sections. Smeat75, would you be able to find (written) sources which explicitly apply this kind of reductionism?
To the section on "Present day#revival" we should something about the influence of internet, as mentioned by Ehrman (as an aside: I was introduced to the CMT about ten years ago, thanks to internet), and the popularization and polemical stances to which this has led. I hope we can find more info on this.
Altogether, I think this provides more context, making clearer where the CMT comes from, and why it is rejected by mainstream scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

To make full sense of this, we should actually use the "definition" of "myth" which the mythicists themselves use - if we use a different definition then we might misrepresent the Theory. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory. We do not define fringe theories using the definition of those theories the fringe theorists use. For instance WP does not define Paleolithic diet as " based upon characteristics of ancient diets that will help to optimize your health, minimize your risk of disease, and lose weight" as paleodiet.com does but as " a modern fad diet[2] requiring the sole or predominant consumption of foods presumed to have been the only foods available to or consumed by humans during the Paleolithic era.[3]" - cited to reliable, scholarly sources. Scholarly sources are always preferred.Smeat75 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are always preferred, except when they blatantly misrepresent the topic under discussion. The WP "definition" of the Paleolithic diet is totally accurate. However if the paleodiet gurus had somehow misread the naming conventions of ancient periods and had called their Paleolithic Diet the Paleocene Diet by mistake, then for WP to define the diet as "a fad diet consisting of charred dinosaurs" would be a blatant misrepresentation of the topic, although perhaps pedantically correct. Wdford (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, as shown in older versions of this article, the Christ myth theory has had so many definitions over the decades that there are some that are not fringe theory. If you go over the real old stuff you find that things are not as simple as is claimed in the article. For example, John M. Robertson stated "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles" (Robertson, John M (1910) Christianity and mythology) In the same work Robertson states "it is historically possible, and not very unlikely, that there were several Jesuses who claimed to be Messiahs" Further on he says "After Paul, there might conceivably have been, say, three Jesuses who taught and figured as Messiahs — a second Jesus without cognomen, a third who was a Nazarite, a fourth who "came eating and drinking."" Note what a man who Albert Schweitzer said "contested the historical existence of Jesus" is not saying Jesus didn't exist as a human being anymore then Sir James George Frazer did (who clearly stated "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth"). It is the situation of seen with Wells where even after excepting the Jesus of the Gospels was based on a real man was still called a Christ Mythist.--2606:A000:131D:4413:44A8:F236:E5E0:F4E5 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a good solution would be to reorganize the article along the lines of the various theories that CMT might refer to, with a brief narrative describing each. Rather than giving all the historical views, the contextual accounts could be nested under the heading that best fits the aspect of CMT they are refuting. This could allow the merging of a number of the existing sections - at a minimum synthesizing sections 1 & 2 and pulling in and contextualizing the sections on the proponents. Maybe a primary section heading like "Primary theories of CMT" and then sub-headings stating the viewpoint, like "There was no historical Jesus." Then, under that sub-heading we could have a brief overview of the arguments against Jesus existing as an historical person, the arguments against that specific understanding (e.g. Tacitus & Josephus, etc.) and then a *brief* catalog of the proponents of this CMT viewpoint. I am hopeful that an approach like this could be used to pare down the article length substantially. Magic1million (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The (main) different stances are mentioned in the beginning. But thay are not stand-alone theories; those authors have influenced each other. For a coherent presentation, I think it's best to keep them together. As for section one and two: section provides context fot eh Cmt, while section two gives an overview of the main arguments, as a further introduction. It seems to me that it works fine. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually as represented by the article the very soft Christ Myth theory of Drews and Robertson are portrayed as being part of the Jesus didn't exist camp despite the fact when you read what they actually say they make no such claim. More over on older version of this page stated that per G. A. Wells (1969) "Stages of New Testament Criticism," Journal of the History of Ideas, volume 30, issue 2 that Volney allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be intergraded into the myth but was a little vague on just what that meant though G.A. Wells' last (Paul's Jesus was legendary but the Gospel Jesus was based on an actual person but that guy was not crucified) version which was called "Christ Myth" would be the most recent version.--2606:A000:131D:45A7:9A0:427E:1A97:DEBE (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Continuous addition of critiques within scholarship by non-mythicists

Joshua, I just checked back on the page and continue finding you adding criticisms within scholarship of scholarship rather than criticism of mythicists against scholarship. This Wiki page isn't about what Meier or Hendel (a non-NT scholar who has no expertise on this topic) thinks is wrong with scholarship, it's what mythicists think is wrong with scholarship.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The section is on "Mainstream historical-critical view"; the mainstream approach has had it's criticisms too; per WP:NPOV, those criticisms should be mentioned too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. There should not be ANY section in this article on a "mainstream historical critical review". That deserves it's own Wiki page. Mythicism is not a "mainstream historical critical review".Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As explained before: context is needed. It would be helpfull if you'd folllow Wiki-policies, not merely your personal opinions about what Wikipedia is and how it works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

JJ is correct. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories for more information. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's Mainstream historical-critical view, by the way, not mainstream historical critical review. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Philip Davies

Joshua, I only sometimes look here. Now by a quick look it seems to me that you are currently the main originator of article changes. Just one comment. It seems to me that even the reference to http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml has again disappeared. I find obvious that Davies' voice, in particular articulated in the second and third paragraph, should be represented in the article; at least to demonstrate that not all scholars in this area are "Ehrman-like". In my attempts in the past, always somebody replied to me "Davies also writes there "Am I inclined to accept that Jesus existed? Yes, I am."", by which such "somebody" meant that we should thus ignore Davies' words in the above mentioned paragraphs. I can only hope that you are not like such "somebody", and that you will find an appropriate way to represent such voice in the article. (I am not a native speaker, and I also have no energy to try to "fight" myself for such an obvious thing.) Thank you.Jelamkorj (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ehm.... I'll try to find back the reference, and then read what your comment is about. This is a loaded article, of course; I try to keep a balance between the different factions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jelamkorj: Davies was used as a source for this note:

While proponents like Earl Doherty, Price, and Carrier, are concerned with the origins of Christianity and the genesis of the Christ-figure, the perception of and debate about the Christ myth theory has increasingly turned to the simpler question whether Jesus existed or not({{refn|group=q|name="existence.simplification"}}) and consequently with some scholars proposing a more moderate position.({{refn|group=q|name="Davies.2012.evidence"}}

"existence.simplification":

Simplification:
* Ehrman (2012), p. 4: "The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist. That is what this book will set out to demonstrate."
* Thompson (2012a), §. Comment #4: "I think it is very difficult to establish the historicity of figures in biblical narrative, as the issue rather relates to the quality of texts one is dealing with. I work further on this issue in my Messiah Myth of 2005. Here I argue that the synoptic gospels can hardly be used to establish the historicity of the figure of Jesus; for both the episodes and sayings with which the figure of Jesus is presented are stereotypical and have a history that reaches centuries earlier. I have hardly shown that Jesus did not exist and did not claim to."
* Dykstra, Tom (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. 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.

"Davies.2012.evidence":

Davies, Philip (August 2012). "Did Jesus Exist?". www.bibleinterp.com. The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 29 January 2017.: "The rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth should be tested to see what weight it can bear [...] I don’t think, however, that in another 20 years there will be a consensus that Jesus did not exist [the "Jesus atheism" viewpoint], or even possibly didn’t exist [the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint], but a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability."

A fine piece of WP:OR ("existence.simplification") and WP:SYNTHESIS ("Davies.2012.evidence">), I'm afraid... It seems to me that the perception of and debate about the Christ myth theory has increasingly turned to the simpler question whether Jesus existed or not applies to blogs and internet-fora, not to the scholarly discussions.

Davies' comment that a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability. makes sense, though; it seems to me that the shifting focus from "the" historical Jesus to 'Jesus as remembered by the early Christian movement(s)' is somehow "similar" to what Davies says here. Somehow, the articles on the historicity of Jesus are not up-to-date; they lack an overview of research from, say, the last 15 years. This is also indicated by the repetition, in all those articles, of the two 'basic facts' of Jesus'life that scholars agree on: baptism and crucifixion. That is, they can agree on that following the criteria-methodology. But, as recent critics seem to have pointed out: what does that tell us about Jesus' meaning, the impact he had on others? Something's missing... As Davies himself writes: it is how he was understood that matters, it is that which created Christianity.

Also, the reservations some recent scholarship has show about the possibility to "know" who the historical Jesus was, comes close to Price's "agnosticism," which indeed reminds of Davies' comment.

What may also matter here is this comment by Davies: What I can see, but not understand, is the stake that Christians have in the unanswerable question of Jesus’ historicity and his true historical self [...] an already accepted dogma looking for rationalization [...] [Paul's] 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). That is, the central subject of Paul and the Gospels is not "the" 'historical Jesus', but the arisen, exaltated Christ, who was in Heaven, and appeared from there at earth (Ehrmann). That's not a historical Jesus, but, excusez le mot, a mythological Jesus. It seems to me that there is a middleground between hardcore mythicism on the one hand, and hardcore opposition to mythicism at the other hand... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua, I can see that you have reintroduced Davies (I corrected a typo in "Davis"). I would myself stress "the rather fragile historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth" to show that not only the mythicists do not find this evidence "overwhelming" (despite the claims by Ehrman and the like) but I will not try to interfere in the article. (Btw., I remember reading Robert Funk who surely accepted historicity but acknowledged that there are also good reasons to doubt it; unfortunately, I cannot recover where I read this by Funk.) But at least the wikipedia readers have now again the possibility to "click" on Davies, and realize that the situation is more complicated than the people like Ehrman try to claim.Jelamkorj (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Robert W. Funk ap. Neil Godfrey (22 October 2018). "Postscript to my Constructive Exchange post". Vridar. "In my view, there is nothing about Jesus of Nazareth that we can know beyond any possible doubt. In the mortal life we have [of Jesus] there are only probabilities." – 2605:A000:160C:83E1:9065:A807:83CA:E7FF (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Which echoes the idea presented in a 1934 Cambridge University Press book called Christianity and the nature of history which said "The sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte lends colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure". Note that the wording puts Christ-myth theories in the "theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure" category. If they had been different things it would have said 'The sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte lends colour to Christ-myth theories as well to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure'--2606:A000:131D:4413:44A8:F236:E5E0:F4E5 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)