Talk:Christ myth theory

Question

I am a newcomer to this page with a question - I have scanned the above parts of the talk page but it didn't seem to have been mentioned: couldn't the article do a better job of showing that beliefs in Jesus as history and as myth are not necessarily incompatible? For example the view held by Thomas L. Thompson and by Robert Price (possible others that I am not familiar with) do not rule out the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth - they just maintain that it is the mythological figure as described in the Bible that is important for Christian religion, and that we have no non-mythological sources (mythological in the sense of deliberately working to establish a religious narrative) about the Jesus historical life. And couldn't this fact (that historicity and myth are not mutually exclusive) be an argument for including a mention that is less of a blunt rejection in the main article on Jesus Christ. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I can well understand not reading through everything here. The Jesus myth theory as per the article here does include several variations on the possibility that there was a historical person upon whom the character of Jesus in the NT and elsewhere is at least in part based. There is also the reasonable question above regarding whether all the variations deserve the "blunt rejection", and that I think has been raised earlier. I too agree that the phrasing there could be changed, although given the complexity of the theory and its variations that might be a difficult task. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my point is that I think both articles are set up in a somewhat "black or white" fashion which doesn't do justice to the complexities of the matter. For example the title here seems to indicate that there is a unified "Christ Myth Theory" that has been nearly universally rejected, which is nonsense and obfuscation because in fact there is just a continuum of degrees of beliefs in the the Bible's account of Jesus as literal historical truth, and there is no single united community of scholars that can accept or reject the differing views. Also the question of whether religious people are valid as sources is a wild goose chase as for example in Denmark it is not an uncommon thing even among priests to have beliefs similar to Price's and Thompsons. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And I and a few others agree with your first point about "black or white," and have done so repeatedly on this page. "Jesus myth theories" might well be a better usage. Speaking as a Christian, even a lot of Christians see the NT as containing "mythic" elements, which tend to be ignored here. Partially this is because right now this is effectively a sub-article/spin-off of Historicity of Jesus. That spin-off, and the way in which it was done, has also been questioned. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree then - then I will just let my voice be heard here, and if there are other places where voicing my thoughts might do good then I'd like to know. Thanks for good responses to bad questions.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are views that the figure of Jesus in the NT is partially mythical and partially historical. Just like John Carter says above, the view that the NT contains mythic elements is widespread, and this should be covered at historical Jesus and Jesus, if it isn't already. But this article doesn't have to cover every way in which there's myth in the NT just because it has "myth" in the title. In some ways maybe it would be better if the article was called existence of Jesus or nonexistence hypothesis or something—that way it would be clear that it's not about every sense in which Jesus is mythical, but just about the particular idea that there was no historical Jesus. That said, if this article indicated that it's a common view to see the NT as a mix of myth and history, that might help flesh out the context of the views of Bauer/Drews/Wells et al. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If this article is only about that idea then most of its content belongs somewhere else.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Which parts do you think belong elsewhere? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither Strauss, Russell, Wells, Ellegård, Thompson, Price or Joseph Hoffman espouse that view - they are essentially agnostics - or believers rather in "the legendary Jesus thesis" Bultmann and Mack and Funk also don't belong in this article then.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Strauss didn't advocate that view, but his treatment of myth in the NT was an essential step in making the ideas of Bauer et al. possible. Wells certainly said there was no historical Jesus in his work prior to 1996 or so, and Price, while it's hard to pin down exactly what he thinks, is certainly someone who writes about the CMT quite often. I haven't read Ellegard's book, but only this article in which he says that he thinks the figure of Jesus in Paul's letters is based upon the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, and that the Jesus figure in the Gospels is not historical. Ellegard says that he's developing ideas first put forward by Arthur Drews, Paul Couchaud, and G. A. Wells. So it seems to me that he does belong here. As for Russell, Thompson, Hoffmann, Bultmann, Mack, and Funk, I agree that they do not advocate this view, but Hoffmann at least has commented upon it, so in that sense he's useful as a source. I believe that Bultmann and Mack have also made comments about non-historicity arguments, though not extensive ones. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrier puts Thompson in the ahistorical category in his handout and Price expressly calls Ellegard with the early Wells a mythist so things are not that simple.

"Accordingly, though the Gospels are entirely fictional in their portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant preacher and wonderworker, accompanied by twelve disciples, Paul's Jesus was indeed a historical figure, namely, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness." ("Theologians as historians" by Allvar Ellegard Lunds Universitet)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." Out of my life and thought: an autobiography By Albert Schweitzer (pg 125; 1998 edition)

"While Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth, his work became a source book of ideand data for many who did. In fact, Schweitzer inclued Frazer in a list of scholars who 'contested the historical existence of Jesus...John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arther Drews'(above cited; Bennett, Clinton (2001) In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images pg 205)

The comparison of Ellegard, Schweitzer, Price, and Bennett's comments only goes to show why things are a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus. If you have a good RS reference for saying that "it's a common view to see the NT as a mix of myth and history", then I would certainly add it in for context. I am aware of several authors who certainly have said the NT is partly myth, but who has said this is a "common" view please? Many thanks Wdford (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tales of gods impregnating mortal women are generally regarded as myth. Also, walking on water, exorcism, resurrection, etc. The idea that the NT not partly myth is pseudoscience. Noloop (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The first part is myth but the walking on water, exorcism, resurrection, etc parts can be explained as imperfect interpretations of actually events.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen authors who postulate that virgin births and impregnations by deities were actually quite common - they were usually the result of promiscuity, rape or incest, about which the maiden (and perhaps her family) were reluctant to be completely honest. If Jesus' father was a rapist, and Joseph was merely a kindly old man who gave refuge to some damaged goods and her bastard son, you can quite see why the Catholic Church would have tweaked the facts when they had a chance. On the other hand, the Egyptian kings (and perhaps other kings also) were regarded as living gods, and those gods really did impregnate lots of maidens. Who knows how many perverts there were running around rural Greece raping gullible sherpherd girls and claiming to be Almighty Zeus.

Some have claimed that the gospels incorporate imperfect translations of material that was written originally in Gnostic code, or even the codes of mystery schools of other nations, and that they have thus been completely misunderstood by later scribes (who then altered the material in an attempt to make sense of it according to their own limited knowledge of things). For example, I vaguely recall that the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes was a coded message that the preachers and teachers were the loaves and fishes, and these needed to be multiplied in order to "feed the masses" spiritual information, because Jesus could not address the huge crowd all by himself. Jesus himself is recorded as saying that the true meanings of his teachings are only intended to be understood by the inner circle, and that one should not cast pearls before swine - are the modern clergy and the historians part of the understanding classes, or are they swine?

Although many such authors have made assertions about mythology in the NT, I have not yet found an RS that says that "it's a common view to see the NT as a mix of myth and history". My question / request to Akhilleus was for an RS that says this is a common view, as the Christian POV pushers have thusfar fudged this important fact quite thoroughly. Wdford (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see also my comment two sections above submitted at 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC). The discussion there might be another useful perspective in the context of this section. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Wdford - that interpretation is surely Augustinian??? And while I have read several 'codex' theories for both the parables and the miracles, they all allege different meanings. However, there seems to be a reasonably consistent view among scholars of such things that the 'original' text for the synoptic gospels was just sayings and parables, and the sequence of events was interpolated (a shortish time) later (eg the earliest texts of Mark's gospels stop before the resurrection, and everyone seems to agree that the story of the woman taken in adultery first appears after the rest of the accounts have established themselves) - but after the first round of 'Pauline' letters. This would be fine if St Luke were a biographer finding and interviewing eyewitnesses, but is a mess if Ellegard is right, because it really does leave us with two Jesuses. Cracking fun.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Although not too much fun if you are a fundamentalist Christian. While some people apparently call St Luke "the greatest historian", or purple praise of similar ilk, Luke contradicts Matthew in some fundamental aspects of the Nativity, and he contradicts the author of Acts (apparently himself) re who was king when the Conception took place. I have previously tried to include such material in the article Historicity of the canonical Gospels, but it was repeatedly reverted by a POV pusher. Therefore, if anybody has an RS that clearly says that "it's a common view to see the NT as a mix of myth and history", or words of similar import, I would be grateful. Wdford (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In the course of a traditional "Nine lessons and nine carols" Advent service, all of the information on the timing of the Nativety from Matthew and Luke is read out together - and of course Herod, Augustus, Quirinus and the census don't all coincide. And, of course, the traditional way these days to fix the date of the Nativity is by Halley's Comet anyway, assuming that this was the 'star in the East'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, although, according to our article on Halleys Comet, it appeared in 12BC and again in 66AD, so it would not have been anywhere near either Matthew's traditional dating nor Luke's dating - unless we accept 12BC under Herod and then redate and recalibrate quite a few things (e.g. Jesus was well into his 40's when he died etc). Wdford (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Against Heresies, Book 2 chapter 24 paragraph 5 Bishop Irenaeus c185 said the Gospel and Elders indicated that Jesus was in his late 40s if not early 50s when he died. The problem is Luke's date for the start of Jesus ministry (c28CE) and his approximate age (about 30) is also given which forces you to move the death rather than birth date.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking about moving the birth date to accommodate Halleys Comet, not to accommodate the fairy-tales of the Elders. 66AD would be too late, as Jerusalem was destroyed too soon thereafter to give the rest of the NT time to happen, so it would have to be 12BC. This meshes with Herod, and can still mesh with Pilate, but this leaves Luke out on the sidewalk. Wdford (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wdford, you just demonstrated one of the biggest problems on these talk pages--people read but they don't understand the implications of what is being said. If Bishop Irenaeus hadn't quoted Luke then you could move the birth date--a 47 year old Jesus in c36CE would put you at c12 BCE (there is no year zero) which would agree with Halley's Comet. The problem is he did mention so that option does a major crash and burn.

I should mention that Halley's Comet is only one theory regarding the Star of Bethlehem and not the one I have seen used the most. The one I have seen used the most is that the "star" was actually an Astrological event. Of course only Matthew mentions the star, the Magi, and Herod's slaughter of children and given his efforts to prove prophesies (some of which don't even exist) Occam's Razor would suggest throwing out Matthew and addressing the internal conflicts in Luke and yet supporter of Historical Jesus keep using what has to be the least reliable of the two birth accounts. No wonder CMT supporters tend to portray the pro historical Jesus side as a Kingdom of the Blind.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well actually Bruce, the RS's hold that both nativity stories are BS, so I don't really stress over this. Its most likely that the author of Matthew made up the whole thing about the Star, as well as the Magi, the Massacre, the Flight to Egypt and possibly the entire gospel itself. Its very probable that "Matthew" himself never actually existed either. However, since Halley's Comet was mentioned, I gave some opinions for interest sake, based on that the RS's regard the nativity stories (among other things) as "fringe". Even if the core nativity story has some vague basis in fact (after all, Jesus must have been born somehow), I don't think Luke's version has any more credibility than Matthew's version, and so Irenaeus quoting Luke is as meaningless as Dubya quoting a CIA report about WMD. Not a big deal in itself, other than to indicate just how "fringy" the so-called "mainstream history" actually is.

PS: Be careful about using Occam's Razor. According to Occam's Razor, gravity is explained by the world being flat, thunderstorms are due to the gods getting angry and photography is witchcraft. The simplest explanation is seldom the correct explanation. Wdford (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Occam's Razor applies to any of the above.

Observations of the Earth's shadow on the moon, ship masts as they sail off into the distance, and of and of monuments long distances away at the same time show that the Earth is a globe (6th century BC on for the West) so any theory of gravity would have to take those observations into account.

regarding Thunderstorms supernatural explanations are ad hoc and not science.

Photography is witchcraft (ie magic) is an example of Clarke's Law ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") not Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor must be looked at in the context of system theory. In some respects this is what the CMT crowd was doing: what is more likely -- there was a man who did most of what the Bible said he did and yet every contemporary chronicler missed all these events or that he was originally a mythical person given the trappings of history possibly including some obscure teacher of the same name who stumbled around the Galilee for a while. Their position is that we are asked to believe that man who was considered so much a problem that the Jewish Leaders met on the eve of their holiest days to get rid of him and was made to suffer a punishment reserved for traitors and slaves for simple blasphemy was so obscure that Josephus at best make only a minor note regarding him. Efforts to show the Tanna natives that John Frum didn't exist in 1957 was a spectacular fail (The Pacific Islands: an encyclopedia Lal, Brij V.; Kate Fortune (2000) University of Hawaii Press Pg 303) and this was less then 27 years after John Frum has appeared to people in visions and about 17 years after a native taking that name was exiled from the island due to causing problems. Paul's epistles date from an early of 48 CE (Galatians) to a late of 150 CE (Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) with 55-62 the general range so the idea that Jesus was in the mold of John Frum is not that off the wall. Yet we are told that such a thing is impossible when we have an example that is isn't right in front of us.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. A proper application of Occam's Razor requires that the explanation appropriately accommodates all known facts. As more facts are discovered, so the application of the Razor changes. In the case of the Jesus myth, almost all the facts are currently in dispute, and so the Razor is of little application. However, we can place some reliance on the following:

• Almost everything we know (or think we know) about Jesus of Nazareth derives from the gospels, and the gospels are known to be unreliable, full of errors, interpolations and fictions.
• Christianity was designed at a Roman strategic conference, with the objective of synthesizing a religion that could be used to draw together a multi-cultural empire.
• In order to be successful and competitive, the new Christian religion incorporated all the “attractive” elements of the existing religions in the Empire, including Egypt, Babylon, Judaism, Mithraism, Greek paganism and Roman paganism, with the added benefit that no personal effort or expense was required to achieve Paradise.
• Christianity holds that we are all born sinners, so we have a cast-iron excuse for sinning (the classic “society made me do it” defense beloved of American defense lawyers).
• The new religion also carefully avoided anything that could be tested in this life, so that adherents could only challenge them on non-delivery after they were dead, and even then a failure to achieve Paradise could be blamed on the adherent having had “insufficient faith”.
• Anything that goes wrong is blamed on the adherent themselves, and anything that looks like BS is “A Holy Mystery”, which will one day be revealed to those that believe sufficiently – a classic case of the emperor’s new clothes only being visible to the elite.
• The Romans chose a hero arbitrarily, settled on Jesus, and then built him up exactly as the Bush Administration built up Jessica Lynch.
• Those scrolls that supported the new paradigm were declared sacred, those that sort of supported it were edited and then declared sacred, and the rest were outlawed and burned (sometimes along with their owners).
• People want to believe in something, now matter how bizarre, as the John Frum example demonstrates.
• The Church and its princes grew enormously wealthy as a result of the blind faith of the illiterate, and maintained their advantage by torturing to death anybody who acquired a copy of the Bible to read for themselves.
• Over the millennia, many have come forward to declare that the Church version of the gospels is fraudulent, and these have been declared as heresies and their advocates murdered.

This explains all the known facts, and is supported by what evidence actually exists. However a billion people still believe (or at least continue to pretend to do so), like the billions who continue to smoke cigarettes despite ample scientific proof that they are poisoning themselves. Go figure. Wdford (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus=nicotine? Is that the argument? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.2.142 (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any actual proof that people were killed for simply possessing a bible (opposed to stealing from the church as before the printing press they were expensive)? Also if you really look at the charges of heresy you can find very earthly reasons behind them--elimination of debt being at the top of the list. With the coming of the Renaissance came the power of the secular state and that is when persecution stepped up. Interesting, this is when secular rulers promoted their own interpretation of scripture. For example, while the Roman Catholic Church was having fits over the vacuum implying a place where God wasn't the Anglican Church in England portrayed it was the earthy shadow of the place angels and souls resided and if they existed so did God who was represented by his earthly authority the King/Queen of England (who was and still is the head of the Anglican Church). So here you had exact opposite conclusions from the same piece of evidence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you are losing me here - are you still arguing for Occam's Razor, or are you now agreeing with me that the Christian scriptures have been perverted over the millenia to support greed and the divine right to rule? Wdford (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Both really. You would be hard pressed to find any religious view of the world that hasn't been perverted to support certain groups over others. My point was that no active effort on the part of the powers that be was needed to form a Christianity that best suited their needs. Paul himself warned "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:4, KJV) So even by 50 to 60 CE Christianity was already fragmenting into different sects with their own versions of Jesus and their own Gospels. By 331 CE it would have been a simple matter of picking the sect that best suited the needs of Constantine I and even there things didn't go as planned. Already existing differing theological views resulted in schisms before Rome fell and then the East–West Schism happened followed by the Protestant Reformation occurred for much the same reasons.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bruce, Ireneus quoting Luke only proves that Ireneus had read Luke, not that Luke is in any way "true" (for a given value of true). Also (anecdotal) the low churchmen of my acquaintance were happier to accept Halley's comet and a move of the historical dates than they were to accept any kind of astrology (it being of course the work of the Divel).Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wdford, I don't think this is quite what you're looking for, but Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993) p. 5, says "The significance of Reimarus's work lies not in its skepticism, but in the fact that it was the first critical assessment of the life and teaching of Jesus which concluded that the true Jesus of history was very different from the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels, the Jesus in whom Christians have historically placed their faith. His critical assessment brought an important part of the contemporary philosophical discussion to bear directly upon gospel research. In the place of dogmatic orthodoxy (i.e. the historical Jesus = the Jesus of the Gospels, who is none other than the Christ of orthodox Christianity) there arose dogmatic skepticism (i.e. miracles cannot occur; all documents that describe miracles are therefore mythological)." Subsequent to Reimarus the task of historical research on Jesus was to strip away the miraculous/mythical content of the NT to get at the "real" Jesus. But the quote I gave you doesn't establish what the common view is right now... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That was certainly the view of scholars on the Quest for the historical Jesus. I don't think it's consistent with the view of, say, Dr John Dickson, quoted above [1] as a reliable source for the view of those searching for the 'historical Jesus'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Help! This section has obviously encountered a timewarp :0 @Bruce Grubb re people being killed for possessing the Bible - yes indeedy. Read all about John Wycliffe or William Tyndale who were persecuted (Tyndale was executed, Wycliffe died naturally but was dug up and gibbeted years later) for distributing the Bible in English--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tyndale has always interested me. I tried to track down the Tyndale Bible once, without success. That would be a fun article to tackle with the aim of geting it to GA status. Noloop (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to be careful saying that John Wycliffe or William Tyndale were killed for possessing a Bible. Wycliffe was attacking both the authority of the Pope and that of the English King which given his connection to a revolt against the king put his on the "men dangerous to the State and need to be eliminated" list. Declaring his Bible was a mistranslation and full of "heretical" comments was just a quick way to get rid of him. William Tyndale also attacked the Pope's authority during a time when the relations between Rome and England were rapidly deteriorating and so the old solution of "proclaim the troublemaker a heretic" was put forth. The Anglican-Protestant and later Enlightenment propaganda mills wasted little time in making these men martyrs who braved the tyranny of Roman Catholicism to bring the common people the Bible. In fact, that is what most of our view of the Middle Ages and Renaissance is--propaganda.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re. "Complete" acceptance

I have removed the word "complete" from the first sentence of the counter-arguments section since the phrase "never achieced complete acceptance" suggests that there has been substantial acceptance of CMT by Biblical scholars and Historians when in point of fact there has been virtually complete rejection of CMT by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormarm (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The article is 6,699 words long, which means it needs a lead of 3-4 paragraphs that summarize the article, per WP:LEAD. I've therefore restored the last consensus lead, because someone had removed most of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I still have issues with the lead in. Not only is it annoyingly vague but as I pointed out a long time ago the actual George Walsh reference states "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ myth history and the theory he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" has many problems. By the definition Walsh gives us a Jesus who lived c100 BCE would still be a "historical" Jesus and the introduction fails to explain how Euhemerism is not an example of a "mythological character". If we cannot make such a distinction then I say it is time to consider a reevaluation of the article via WP:CFORK--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's badly written. Print it, show it to people in your life that don't know about this topic, and see what their reaction is. All of the extra information is a tangle of random compromises. If you think it needs a more comprehensive intro, then I'd suggest you sort _what_ needs to go into the lead. Like bullet points. See if anyone has valuable objections (don't that or do this) and rewrite the first few paragraphs. The lead as it is now, reads like the product of fighting committee. Good luck. 96.33.159.130 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I think the lede is pretty good, it gives a seemingly reasonable and neutral introduction to the topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the lead give a very flawed introduction to the topic as a look over Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/definition will show (where all of the things 96.33.159.130 has suggested have already been done! Ellegard, Mead, and perhaps Robertson all say the Gospel Jesus is a historialized myth based on the actions of a Jesus who lived c100 BC.

"Accordingly, though the Gospels are entirely fictional in their portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant preacher and wonderworker, accompanied by twelve disciples, Paul's Jesus was indeed a historical figure, namely, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness." (Theologians as historians Alvar Ellegård Scientific Communication Lunds Universitet pg 171-172)

The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ myth history and the theory he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" George Walsh

The phrase Christ myth was and is used to describe things other than Drews' book the phrase "Christ myth theory" has similarlly taken on slightly different meanings sometimes encompassing ideas that are only tangential to Drews' original position:

• Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community

• Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58)(one possible reading of Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

• Jesus was historical but lived c100 BCE (Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)

• The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism (Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)

• The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character and therefore non historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85)

• Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

• The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review

• "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley) There are six different ways myths are thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena with "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent." (Bulfinch's Mythology, "Origin of Mythology" chapter)

To date NOTHING explaining these conflicting definitions has been found.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Price is not a reliable source for the opinion of "mainstream church scholars"

I've deleted the clause "although mainstream church scholars agree that material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value". Robert Price is an atheist, why is he being used as a source for "mainstream church scholars"? Laker1988 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think Price is the source of the material you removed? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The talk archives here give the source of the sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_39

Do a "find" search for "face value". The article referenced Price, which I mistakenly took as the source. Apparently it was written by G.A. Wells, who is also an atheist. This is what came up:

Here's excerpts from the entry on "Jesus, historicity of" from The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Prometheus 2007), written by G.A. Wells: Denying Jesus' historicity means asserting that Christianity is based on a founder figure who is wholly mythical. This was the position argued by Bruno Bauer in 1850 and later; he was supported at the turn of the century by Arthur Drews in Germany, William Benjamin Smith in America, and John M. Robertson in England, among other, in a fierce debate on the subject that was not without some impact even on Christian scholars. Thus in chapters added to the second German edition of his famous history of life-of-Jesus research, Albert Schweitzer allowed that Christianity must reckon with the possibility that it will have to surrender the historicity of Jesus altogether, and must have, in readiness for such a contingency, a metaphysical basis for its belief…by around 1920 nearly all scholars had come to regard the case against Jesus' historicity as totally discredited…Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches…However, from about 1960 an increasing number of skeptics have come forward with denials of Jesus' historicity. In my first books on Christian origins, I myself denied it, but in works published since 1995 I am not quite as radical…The more radical view that there was no historical Jesus at all is still vigorously defended by a few scholars, notably Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price. Laker1988 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The source(s) are in the footnote after the sentence or paragraph. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to? The sentence clearly came from the G.A. Wells written entry in the encyclopedia of unbelief, which is referenced in the sentence. Laker1988 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Stanton too, and many others. Almost no one argues that material about Jesus in the New Testament can be taken at face value. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be right, it may be wrong, but there is absolutely no reliable source to substantiate it. I highly doubt that the Stanton source says the exact same thing as the encyclopedia of unbelief entry written by G.A. Wells. Laker1988 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stanton seems to say the same thing on p. 55 of the book cited, though Amazon is only letting me see half the sentence. But lots of other sources say it too, obviously. Read the first and second subsections of the second section, for example. Did you look for a source yourself? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Stanton and G.A. Wells are only cited once each in the sentence. It is extremely unlikely that Wells' statement is also repeated by Stanton, which is the source used for the previous clause. The talk page archives and this wikipedia page are the only hits I could find for the clause concerning mainstream church scholars. Laker1988 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Both Stanton and Wells make similar points, as do others in the article (e.g. the sections I mentioned), and many other sources not mentioned in the article. Have you read the article, Laker? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You did not mention any sections previously. Can you link me to a source or provide a quote? It is clear that the mainstream church scholars clause is cited by G.A. Wells; Stanton does not make the same statement. Stanton is used as a source for the previous clause in the sentence. Laker1988 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)