Talk:Christ myth theory
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 15 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT
section is for references only |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
(1) FROM BOOKS AND JOURNALS:
(2) SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE CHRIST MYTH THEORY:
Frank R. Zindler, “Where Jesus Never Walked.” American Atheist journal, Winter 1996–97.
(3) FROM NON-PRINT SOURCES (WEBLOGS, ETC.):
|
Request for Comment
![]() |
|
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Copytalk 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)
@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)
- Confirmation bias viz. Bias - as in an inclination towards something, or a predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, or predilection.
- 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)
- Confirmation bias: a systematic error of inductive reasoning.
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
("My consensus"? Haha.) Ehrman is an agnostic. Here is what he says:
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." [10] 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)
- 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." [10] 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)
@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:
- An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
- This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
- This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).
- Rather it is:
- Jesus lived.
- Jesus spoke.
- 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)
Most scholars DO agree.
It's been a while that this info was presented, so here it is again.
Citations
|
---|
|
"Carrier said during an interview that: 'the basic hypothesis ... minimal historicity ... that Jesus was an ordinary person ... I would say all secular scholars agree that that has to be the truth ... the competing view, there are at least seven of us, ...'"
(see this diff). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is, the thesis of 'Christ Myth Theory' is not properly formulated in many of the above denunciations, or in the article lede. Scholarly opinion is merely reflecting the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. That is, you cannot demonstrate that a man meeting basic parameters similar to JoN never existed. The formulation in the info box,
Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels
is much better, as it puts the focus not on JoN's existence, but on his importance relative to other factors that went into the development of Christianity. JerryRussell (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is, the thesis of 'Christ Myth Theory' is not properly formulated in many of the above denunciations, or in the article lede. Scholarly opinion is merely reflecting the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. That is, you cannot demonstrate that a man meeting basic parameters similar to JoN never existed. The formulation in the info box,
- Another possible formulation of 'Christ Myth Theory' would be the thesis that Biblical Jesus is a myth. That is, the belief that there was never a God-man who was born of a virgin, walked on water, and brought Lazarus back from the dead. That's the guy who is a myth, according to 'Christ Myth Theory'. Who invented that myth, or how was that myth invented? Now that's a question that would get some vigorous scholarly debate. JerryRussell (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thus we also have 'Christ Myth Theories' viz. 'Jesus Ahistoricity Theories' - online pdf: Lataster, Raphael (2015). "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources". The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 6:1: 68. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's worth pointing out that mythicists don't have to prove the negative, they simply have to prove the positive part of their claim (that a myth about this Jesus figure, based on much older myths formed at around that time). Given what we know about myths and how they formed, that doesn't appear to be such a tall order. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this article should just be an enumeration of each unique theory—viz. any specific critique of the theory—on the origin of an Ahistorical Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. Prioritized by scholarly weight to avoid repetition of similar theories. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The goal should not be to prove but to describe the various constructions of myth theories and various criticisms. There are many constructions and not only one single "Christ myth theory". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I never said the article should prove anything. Please read my comment more carefully. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- The goal should not be to prove but to describe the various constructions of myth theories and various criticisms. There are many constructions and not only one single "Christ myth theory". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this article should just be an enumeration of each unique theory—viz. any specific critique of the theory—on the origin of an Ahistorical Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. Prioritized by scholarly weight to avoid repetition of similar theories. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Another possible formulation of 'Christ Myth Theory' would be the thesis that Biblical Jesus is a myth. That is, the belief that there was never a God-man who was born of a virgin, walked on water, and brought Lazarus back from the dead. That's the guy who is a myth, according to 'Christ Myth Theory'. Who invented that myth, or how was that myth invented? Now that's a question that would get some vigorous scholarly debate. JerryRussell (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What the CMT is
Here are a bunch of sources clearly stating what the CMT is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- "There have even been learned and intelligent men who have denied that Jesus ever existed: the so-called 'Christ-myth' theory." OMG! OMg! Omg! omg! This citation list is ridiculous, how many times do you have to state the same thing - which may be paraphrased as: The Christ-myth "theory" is the assertion that the Historicity of Jesus is false thus the Ahistoricity of Jesus is true. This of course begs the question: So then what was the origin of Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Rhetorical comment only, please spare me any WP policy blather.
The logical way of renaming the following two articles would be be to use a boolean scheme with only two possibilities:
- Historicity of Jesus → "Jesus Historicity theory"
- Christ myth theory → "Jesus Ahistoricity theory"
And then to create two new articles:
- "History of the Christ myth theory"
- "History of the Historicity of Jesus"
96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- These are almost entirely opponents of the theory, essentially they are constructing a straw man so that they can more easily demolish it. How many actual Christ Mythicists take the position that they can absolutely prove that Jesus never existed? Carrier doesn't, he just says it isn't very likely. JerryRussell (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Almost entirely opponents of the theory"? Are you serious? Everyone who is employed at an accredited institution thinks that the CMT is a dead thesis. It is certainly a fringe theory and some of them say so in very harsh language. Carrier is so far out of the mainstream of current academic scholarship that he is unemployable in any accredited university. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but it is abundantly verifiable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- User:Bill the Cat 7, I don't question that most New Testament scholars employed at accredited institutions agree that historical Jesus existed. Therefore, CMT should be treated according to WP:FRINGE rules. You don't need to prove that. My question is, who gets to decide what 'Christ Myth Theory' is? Should it be defined by its opponents, or by its most credible proponents? Carrier says he can't prove Jesus didn't exist. Price says the same thing. So did Wells. JerryRussell (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims: Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research should be described clearly within their own articles. A WP:NPOV presentation of the CMT claims of proponents—of a fringe theory—in this article does not inherently ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter and thus is in accordance with WP:FRINGE policy. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- "These are almost entirely opponents of the theory, essentially they are constructing a straw man so that they can more easily demolish it" - user Jerry Russell above. This question "What exactly is the CMT" has been discussed and argued about for years on this page, went to DRN, etc. etc. An editor emailed Robert Price and asked his opinion a couple of years ago, you can see the discussion here in the archives [11]. 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."Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also Jerry Russell, did you see the quote in the list of citations below "JESUS CHRIST, MYTH THEORY OF.The theory that Jesus Christ never existed.Bill Cooke, Dictionary Of Atheism, Skepticism, & Humanism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005) p. 278" Hardly likely to be an opponent of the idea on religious grounds. The CMT is the idea that a historical Jesus never existed.Smeat75 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Per "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory - Can the same be said of "Jesus Historicity theory" ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Its not rocket science, if Jesus Ahistoricity is true (in the context Evidential probability which does not imply 100% certainty) then the most probable origin of Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity is ________(fill in the blank via Evidential probability, also called Bayesian probability). 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Smeat75 for the links to historical discussions. The DRN noticeboard discussion was ended with a compromise, which was summarized by User:Akhilleus as follows:
So here's my one-sentence statement of the dispute: seven editors have agreed that the first sentence of the article could read "The Christ Myth Theory...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels", and one editor does not agree to this.
- If that's what was agreed to, why doesn't the lede currently say this? It's in the info box. JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Although FWIW, I largely agree with the position taken by @Wdford:. So that makes it at least "two against many", rather than "one against many". JerryRussell (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- So if I understand correctly, criticism of the CMT, that is not relevant to this article is - gainsaying the CMT by asserting that Historicity of Jesus is true thus the CMT is false. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi IP96, it's my opinion that to effectively oppose CMT, the mainstream critics need to show not only that Jesus existed, but also that he was the founder of the religion. Of course many critics have argued against CMT simply on the grounds that Historicity of Jesus is true, and I don't want to suppress that argument from being discussed in the text. Also, some proponents of CMT have made the simple claim 'Jesus never existed' and I'm not trying to suppress that fact either. JerryRussell (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above seem to be heading steadily in the wrong direction and starts to infrine on WP:NOTAFORUM. It's not for any of us to establish if the CMT is true or not nor to establish if Jesus existed or not. It's quite simply to present the basic ideas of CMT and explain why mainstream scholars universally reject it. Unfortunately, every time IP96 gets into the discussion, it has a tendency to head off into making personal deductions and arguments based on sources rather than presenting the main claims of the sources. Jeppiz (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Cry me a river;
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." CMT [Christ myth theory] is such an ancillary article.
This is an ancillary article to Historicity of Jesus as the subject is a notably discussed within academia in conjunction with the Historicity of Jesus (see Google Scholar). This article is also WP:FRINGE and per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims: Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research should be described clearly within their own articles. A WP:NPOV presentation of the CMT claims of proponents—of a fringe theory—in this article does not inherently ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter and thus is in accordance with WP:FRINGE policy.
- The Wikipedia Fringe classification is not a derogatory term, or a way to push your truth by misrepresenting WP:FRINGE policy to suppress policy compliant content per your professed absolute belief in the Historicity of Jesus.
96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jeppiz and IP96, to bring the conversation back on-topic, do either of you have a position on the definition of CMT as it's stated in the lede? Can we at least go back to the consensus position from the 2014 DRN proceedings? The lede back in Dec 2012 was even better, with excellent sourcing, stating: [12]
The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.... The strongest version of the myth theories contends that there was no real historical figure Jesus and that he was invented by early Christians. Another variant holds that there was a person called Jesus, but much of the teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references. Yet another version suggests that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is a composite character constructed from multiple people over a period of time....
The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism or Jesus ahistoricity) refers to several theories that hold that the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus can be extracted from them, and some proponents furthur assert that it is more likely than not that there was no real historical Jesus. It has been accepted by some academics as a fringe theory.
96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it would help a lot if the lede were to define the CMT properly to begin with. The opening paragraphs quoted above were excellent and accurate. However, over time there have been repeated forays by some editors to undermine the CMT by defining it inaccurately, and then promptly piling in to demolish the incorrect definition as "fringe". If the lede openly admitted that some definitions of the CMT accept a possible historical Jesus-person but deny that the Jesus-person in question was a divine being around whom a new religion was founded, etc etc, then things would probably proceed more smoothly.
- I note also that the argument against the CMT is based almost entirely on the argument in favour of the Historicity of Jesus, which has its own article. The "criticism" section can thus be reduced to a single paragraph that notes that "most scholars accept that some sort of original Jesus-person existed in some form", and refer the reader to that article for the historicity discussion. The CMT article can then be a discussion of the CMT, which I submit is the appropriate approach. Wdford (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- To avoid the dog-piling of gainsaying criticism from future editors it should be noted that gainsaying the CMT by asserting that Historicity of Jesus is true thus the CMT is false, is a valid criticism, but that repeating its variations are just saying the same thing:
- Josephus is true thus the CMT is false.
- The gospels are true thus the CMT is false.
- etc. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- To avoid the dog-piling of gainsaying criticism from future editors it should be noted that gainsaying the CMT by asserting that Historicity of Jesus is true thus the CMT is false, is a valid criticism, but that repeating its variations are just saying the same thing:
Citations
|
---|
Citations:
|
A little more history
Several editors above suggested that it would make a lot of sense to have this article organized by general themes or distinctive viewpoints within the overall umbrella of CMT, rather than simply have a chronological / historical organization.
Not so long ago, that was exactly the case. As of Aug. 9, 2013, this article was over 170K bytes long, and organized mostly topically, but with a history section as well.
Around Aug. 8, 2013, an extensive talk-page discussion began on the definition of CMT, with no obvious consensus that I could discern.
On Aug. 10, an editor by the name of PiCo re-wrote the lede to change the definition of CMT so that it included only those who would deny Jesus' existence. On the talk page, he said I'm not trying to railroad anyone here, but I think that if I don't edit boldly nothing will happen.
Between Aug 11 and Aug 13, the article was cut to less than half its original size, and the previous organization was lost. Nothing was left except the chronology. Smeat75 and Akhilleus supported the changes, which were not contested on the talk page until Aug. 29. At that point, another editor, Greengrounds, questioned the extensive deletions. An ANI ticket was raised and Greengrounds was blocked on behavioral grounds, and there was no further discussion about the deleted materials.
I'm not saying we should return to the Aug 2013 version of the article, but in my opinion a lot of excellent, highly relevant and well sourced material fell under the knife, defined into irrelevance by the change in definition of CMT -- including material organized exactly as suggested by Clean Copy, Gonzales John and Wdford in the recent discussions.
In particular, sections 'Myth theories and responses', 'Arguments from Silence', 'Ancient Sources', and 'Fantasms and myths' seem to present an excellent overview of CMT positions.
The 2013 version of the article was being criticized on the basis that the earlier definition was so broad that it could include most any biblical scholar who thought that Gospel Jesus included any mythological components. I can understand that criticism. But if we went with the 2014 consensus "The Christ Myth Theory...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels"
that shouldn't be a problem, and I believe most of the material cut in 2013 could come back with minor updates.
Thoughts? JerryRussell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The modern debate:
- The Silence of Paul.
- The Silence of Jesus.
- The Suspicious Lacunae.
- The Gospel Genre.
- Predictions of expected extant evidence from theories: ahistoricity v. historicity.
- etc.
96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- One more piece of history: the 2014 consensus about the lede held until May 20 of this year, when it was changed by MXfurry without any talk page discussion that I can find. JerryRussell (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to allow the critics of the CMT to define the CMT (inaccurately). Allow the proponents to define their own theory. Let's restore the May 20 version of the lede, and polish it up from there. Wdford (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Agree: A WP:NPOV presentation of the CMT claims of proponents—of a fringe theory—in this article does not inherently ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter and thus is in accordance with WP:FRINGE policy. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to allow the critics of the CMT to define the CMT (inaccurately). Allow the proponents to define their own theory. Let's restore the May 20 version of the lede, and polish it up from there. Wdford (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Jerry, the version from 2013 had some advantages, but also some rather serious advantages. It gave very little space to critics, and mainly consisted of laying out the CMT arguments by laymen while ignoring the academic view. That's something that could be edited, of course. Another big problem, and one that most users agreed to address, was the excessive amount of space given to what can only be described as tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists. I'm not talking about the serious CMT proponents here (Price for instance) but people with absolutely no academic competence in the field making absolutely bizarre claims (Ellegård, Allegro, Murdock etc.). A problem we've had on this article for years is that some people have used it as PR, doing long and irrelevant autobiographies of even the most outlandish conspiracy theorists. So yes, the version in 2013 was rather long, but it was long for precisely the wrong reasons. We need more focus on the actual CMT and less focus on the individual proponents, not the other way around. Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Modern scholarship rectifies these issues as the substandard editor contributions you noted may now be addressed by WP:weight and other policies applied within this article to PR & irrelevant content. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jeppiz, I hadn't heard of Ellegard before you mentioned him, but your description of Allegro and Murdock as having absolutely no academic competence is what strikes me as odd. They weren't PhD's but had master's level training. Considering the manifest scorn heaped on their views by traditional academics, I think their decision not to pursue the PhD career path was very rational. Nevertheless they're very well known in the field, and some mention of their work is appropriate. The version from 2013 that I'm looking at has one sentence about Allegro and two sentences about Murdock, which doesn't seem disproportionate considering their contributions to the field. Ellegard has a link, and that's all. According to his Wiki bio page, he has a PhD in English syntax. We've had this discussion before: I believe that interdisciplinary work is essential to scientific progress, and extremely narrow credentialism is not justified by Wiki policies.
- I don't know what you mean when you say the old article "mainly consisted of laying out the CMT arguments by laymen". What I see is that it consisted of a description of CMT arguments based on well documented and authoritative sources, as paraphrased by Wikipedia editors, just like any other wiki article. The descriptions of CMT arguments were liberally interspersed with replies from mainstream opponents of CMT, just as one might expect. So I'm puzzled by your view that these materials needed to be deleted, and I see very little by way of talk-page discussion at the time it was done.
- I've copied the deleted materials to my sandbox, here User:JerryRussell/sandbox and I propose that we review & discuss whether the material is suitable for re-introducing into the article. Anyone can feel free to make edits in my sandbox. JerryRussell (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am guessing that the rejection of the noted authors is predicated on the WP:FRINGE and WP:weight policy, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". But I am not up to date on the specifics or even if the rejection is valid per WP policy. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- JerryRussell, I'm not going to rehash the whole previous discussion. People like Allegro, Murdock and Ellegård are not WP:RS and whatever you personally think of them is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant. Having a PhD in a completely different field does not give competence in all other fields. A PhD in Greek literature does not make one a specialist in brain surgery. That's all I'm going to say about that, as I find the continuous discussion of this obvious point disruptive. I know of few other pages that keep attracting conspiracy theorists eager to include their pet gurus like this one and it's very tiresome. WP:RS applies across the board, not just when it suits our needs. Jeppiz (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Flashback On Thomas L. Thompson:
You can read WP:RS, although it changes a bit from topic to topic. An article in a respected newspaper would usually be WP:RS on current affairs but not necessarily WP:RS on academic subjects. With regards to Jesus, the best publication is by a Professor in the field, by an established academic publisher and peer-reviewed. Please note that while Thompson is a specialist on the old testament, that does not make him a specialist on the new testament just like being a historian specialist on Genghis Khan is not a specialist on Mahatma Gandhi. As for Verenna, he is not RS on anything in this field, he's a man with opinions, not a scholar, and the same thing for for Earl Doherty. This does not mean they cannot be right, that's not what RS is about. As for Thompson (or anyone else) making claims about themselves, these claims should be backed up by independent sources or we should indicate that it's just a claim from the person concerned.To take a relevant example. Both Thomas Thompson are Bart Ehrman are scholars, both of them publish both on the old testament and the new testament. The difference is that Thompson is a scholar on the old testament (implies knowledge of the old Hebrew language, ancient Egypt, Cananite legends, ancient Israel), Ehrman on the new testament implies knowledge of the Koine Greek language, Roman Israel, Gnosticism, apocalyptics). What Thompson writes about the old testament is WP:RS, but not what he writes about the new testament, and what Ehrman writes about the new testament is WP:RS, but not what he writes about the old testament. Both Thompson and Ehrman are noted scholars, both of them have lots of opinions about their own field and about the other's field. They are both RS in their own filed, not RS in the other's field. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Your hyper-specificity on historicity expertise in regards to the historicity/ahistoricity of Jesus is nonsense. Your are attempting to establish a false context that only experts that have expertise in a specific field are WP:RS by using specious examples. Try to WP:HEAR that a horse warfare expert is WP:RS on how Ghengis Khan may have used his horses when the preserved written records on the subject are lost or unreliable. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi IP96, Thompson is an excellent example, especially considering his background and impact in areas such as the historicity of Abraham. I see that in this case, the matter was resolved by an RFC. Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_56#RfC_about_the_length_of_sections_on_Thompson.2C_Carrier_and_others (JerryRussell) 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus was "summarize their opinions about CMT" which included Thompson, Thomas L. (20 April 2009). "Historicizing the Figure of Jesus, the Messiah". The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Basic Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-7867-3911-0.
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.
96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus was "summarize their opinions about CMT" which included Thompson, Thomas L. (20 April 2009). "Historicizing the Figure of Jesus, the Messiah". The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Basic Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-7867-3911-0.
- IP, are you intentionally being disruptive or can't you help being disruptive? What's the point of posting long quotes. Let me inform you about linking. Yes, I remember what I wrote and I remember your answer. I stand by what I wrote, a PhD (and I have one myself) does not make one a universal expert. So the argument "Hey, this guy is a PhD so he automatically qualifies" is just plain stupid. I agree with you that an expert on horse warfare is a WP:RS on how Ghegis Khan used horses. That is precisely the argument I've made, repeatedly. Being an expert in a relevant field. That's the idea here, citing recognised experts in the field rather than cherrypicking non-experts because you share their view. Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I did use the <-small-> tag and I can barley read it on my 60 inch monitor, are you using a mobile ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- IP, are you intentionally being disruptive or can't you help being disruptive? What's the point of posting long quotes. Let me inform you about linking. Yes, I remember what I wrote and I remember your answer. I stand by what I wrote, a PhD (and I have one myself) does not make one a universal expert. So the argument "Hey, this guy is a PhD so he automatically qualifies" is just plain stupid. I agree with you that an expert on horse warfare is a WP:RS on how Ghegis Khan used horses. That is precisely the argument I've made, repeatedly. Being an expert in a relevant field. That's the idea here, citing recognised experts in the field rather than cherrypicking non-experts because you share their view. Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nevertheless Jeppiz: Carrier and Thompson won the RFC, in spite of Thompson's alleged lack of relevant qualifications. I found IP96's post of the quote above to be very informative and helpful, and I assume he posted it for my benefit. Please be civil and assume good faith.
- For the sake of moving the discussion forward, I have gone through the material at my sandbox page and eliminated all references to Allegro, Ellegrand, Acharya/Murdock, and anybody else who I consider obviously open to challenge. A weakness of the old material was the dependence on GA Wells, but since he is so extensively discussed in RS rebuttals, and since he is considered historically the first and best source of many of the arguments (aside from Strauss and Bauer) his continued inclusion is justified.
- My feeling is that the entire section on "context & background" at my sandbox, is largely redundant to the existing sections on chronological development / well known proponents, and I wouldn't advocate to bring it back. The rest, I think, is pretty good. JerryRussell (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just as a short reminder: We have an ongoing RfC to decide between two versions, the current one and the one suggested by Gonzales John. There is not even a suggestion to revert to a version from three years ago or any version you may have in your sandbox. Please note that this is not a criticism of the version you may have there as I haven't read it, just a reminder that it's not one of the options being discussed and if you want to put it forward (as you of course have every right to do), then please file a new RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jeppiz, reading an RFC to divine a consensus is tricky business, but what I see above is that five editors have clearly opposed Gonzales John edits. Another five have expressed that the existing article is poorly organized and needs a lot of work, but I don't think those editors were supporting the direction advocated by Gonzales John. Only three editors have clearly supported Gonzales John's changes. In your case, you mentioned a goal of getting rid of bad content, but you didn't say what you think about GJ's POV changes to the lede.
The work I've been doing is in hopes of supporting those editors who think the existing article needs a revised organization. I'm not sure whether a new RFC is necessary at this point, or whether a new consensus might emerge out of the existing RFC. Or, the content from 2013 could be introduced gradually into the existing article. It's possible there will be no opposition to well-sourced and neutral content. JerryRussell (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, my view on GJ's suggestion is ambiguous. I think it had some good elements, but some problems as well, which is why I have not expressed a clear 'support' or 'reject' option. If you come up with a better version, then great. The one thing any new version really should include is what --Akhilleus said about "*why* scholars think the CMT is loopy". A problem for a long time has been that people have cherrypicked sources just to match their own view, pretty much ignoring WP:RS. Both "sides" are at least partly guilty of some offenses there, though I dare say the CMT camp has gone much further by digging up obvious RS-failures such as Murdock, Allegro, Ellegård and some others. My opposition to them is based on RS, not on any opposition to CMT and I would not mind a more detailed exposure of some main theories of Price and Carrier. Still, they must not (as per NPOV) be presented in such a way that readers believe they are commonly accepted or even that they form a notable minority position. It's a fringe position (in the neutral sense of the word) and what we'd really need is more sound scholarly sources. If StAnselm, Jonathan_Tweet and Isambard_Kingdom have the time, I'm sure they could much of real value. Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jeppiz, WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Inasmuch as this is an article about Christ Mythicists, wouldn't it be permissible to refer to sources such as Murdock, Allegro and Ellegard according to that policy? As to other materials, WP:RS says "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" and that books can be used if published by "well-regarded academic presses". Murdock would fail that test, but Allegro and Ellegard might pass. It doesn't say that "only professors in the specific most relevant topic are qualified under any circumstances". JerryRussell (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- The key terms are "high-quality mainstream publications" and "reliable third-party publications" and "well-regarded academic presses", anything they print can be used in the article within WP:weight constraints, you might get some answers at Wikipedia:Questions. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jeppiz, WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Inasmuch as this is an article about Christ Mythicists, wouldn't it be permissible to refer to sources such as Murdock, Allegro and Ellegard according to that policy? As to other materials, WP:RS says "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" and that books can be used if published by "well-regarded academic presses". Murdock would fail that test, but Allegro and Ellegard might pass. It doesn't say that "only professors in the specific most relevant topic are qualified under any circumstances". JerryRussell (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi IP96, I agree that high-quality, well-regarded, mainstream sources are best, although the other sources used in the article have been subject to editorial scrutiny for some time, and can be construed as falling under the exceptions I mentioned. I also think Jeppiz is right that Price and Carrier are the most highly reliable sources at this point, and can form the backbone of the article, along with mainstream RS. JerryRussell (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose formulating a new RFC.
- CMT RFC Questions: withdrawn and closed
Should a new article be created: "The History of the Christ myth theory" and the historical content from the current CMT article moved to it.Should the content proposed by JerryRussell be merged into the current CMT article, or should the CMT article first be reduced to a stub, or should no change be made to the current CMT article.
"The History of the Christ myth theory" would not be an article per se but actually a list of "Christ myth theory proponents" arranged in a chronological order. And thus would require little to no maintenance. It will not present theories in context or perform any other encyclopedic function. Contributions can be limited and appropriately screened by WP policies. - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC) and update 12:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) and question strike 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC) and close 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. There is no need whatsoever to put the history into a separate page. I fail to see why this is even being proposed. We do not need another time wasting RfC. Charles (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No. If you take out the "history" material, there is virtually nothing left. The CMT consists of the views of its proponents - and since different proponents have different views, in order to report the CMT we need to report the views of the various proponents. It is also inappropriate to limit "valid proponents" to persons who are serving professors in biblical history etc, as Ehrman has pointed out that people who are proponents of the CMT will never be appointed as professors to begin with. Wdford (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Wdford, up above in the RfC, Clean Copy wrote
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.
and you agreed, sayingI 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.
So now I'm confused as to whether you've changed your mind. It seems to me that the arguments of the various CMT theorists are indeed all working from a common core. Perhaps Richard Carrier's book is an exception, it pioneers a lot of new ground.
- Hello Wdford, up above in the RfC, Clean Copy wrote
- If all you're saying is that you're opposed to creating a new 'history' article, I see your point. 'History of Christ Mythicism' might not even be a notable topic in and of itself, and might be a sitting duck target for AfD. JerryRussell (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- First question is withdrawn.
- This article is currently just a list of "Christ myth theory proponents" masquerading as an article. There is no topical presentation of theories in context with each other. This article was jacked about 3 years ago and and since then has been utterly worthless in regards to its encyclopedic function, other than being a mundane list and for collecting repetitive gainsaying criticism. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- If all you're saying is that you're opposed to creating a new 'history' article, I see your point. 'History of Christ Mythicism' might not even be a notable topic in and of itself, and might be a sitting duck target for AfD. JerryRussell (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Basically all I was saying is that I'm opposed to creating a new 'history' article. I do agree with grouping by theme - that is probably the most realistic way to portray the CMT, although there will be a lot of overlap between the various themes and the various authors. This would however certainly reduce the verbiage and make the article more useful.
- The critiques of the CMT can basically be grouped into five main points:
- Jesus was mentioned in the non-gospel sources of Josephus and Tacitus - true, but the authenticity of these three paltry "mentions" is disputed.
- The criterion of embarrassment, which states that Jesus must have been real because a Christian fraudster creating a fake cult would not have made his god-man look bad. This is patent nonsense, as the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc were all disgusting swine who freely engaged in deceit, betrayal, murder, rape, incest, treachery and all manner of evil shite. The Judeo-Christian god is suspiciously squeaky-clean in comparison, although the Old Testament god is occasionally portrayed as a cruel and capricious monster.
- It is impossible to suppose that cult-founders of the 1st Century would have invented the whole Jesus-backstory out of fresh air, so there must have been a real human at the base of it all, even if most of the gospels is pure myth. This point does carry some weight, but then again, the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc all had impressive backstories - often far more detailed than that of Jesus of Nazareth.
- There is no hard evidence for most historical figures, so the absence of any hard evidence for Jesus does not mean he never existed. True, but that doesn't mean that he did exist, either. And anyway, a) there are few claims for supernatural acts by most other historical figures - they do all at least stick to the basic laws of physics; and b) there is no hard evidence for the existence of the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc either, so if the absence of physical evidence is no obstacle to the historicity of Jesus, then surely the same standard must apply to the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc?
- Lots of scholars are certain that Jesus really lived. This is pretty much what it all boils down to. Mmmmmmmm.
- Since these same arguments are applied against all CMT proponents, it might on reflection be better to have a criticism paragraph that summarize this, and refers the reader to the Historicity of Jesus article for the detail. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- A criticism paragraph is probably the best solution.
- As I understand: 1&5 are simple gainsaying - thus note that it is valid and refer the reader to the Historicity of Jesus & summarize why repetition of all the possible variations adds nothing more to the criticism.
- The others can noted in summary, although it will probably be ignored as some editors love the smack-down of a full quote of the Ehrman. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that a thematic treatment is the best approach. As for Wdford's post above, could I kindly point out (again) that it's not our task to offer our individual interpretations of scholarly references. Perhaps I misread some statements, but sometimes I've had the impression some users believe that this is the article where we give CMT a "friendly" treatment and let it sets out all its arguments more or less unopposed. That is the misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We can, and should, have articles on fringe and minority theories but NPOV is very clear that even in these articles, the majority academic view is given priority. So if Wdford is just laying out a personal view, then fine (though read WP:NOTAFORUM. If Wdford is making a proposition that first we present CMT in detail, then a short criticism section that mainly is about the CMT reply to mainstream scholarship, then no. Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wdford thought that Wdford had been very clear about what Wdford is proposing: that the CMT be described in detail (since this is after all the CMT article), and that the views of mainstream scholarship be properly reflected IN SUMMARY rather than an exhaustive list of parrots, and that the ACTUAL BASIS of those criticisms be accurately reflected in the article so that readers can clearly understand the underlying substance thereof. Since the ACTUAL BASIS of those criticisms is in reality very limited, a centralised summary thereof might be useful in helping the reader as well as in reducing the wordage - which is apparently the core objective of this initiative? Wdford (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe Jeppiz is correct, that the article needs to clearly state the reasons for 'mainstream' opposition to CMT. However, I'm not sure this needs to be judged on strict parity of text length, as Gonzales John suggested above. The main purpose of the article is not necessarily to give a 'favorable' view of CMT, but it should give an accurate and nuanced view. While the mainstream of biblical critics ultimately disagree with CMT conclusions, many of the points raised by CMT authors are non-controversial. Also, I believe many mainstream critics are attacking a straw man, rather than seriously addressing CMT issues, many of which go un-answered by the critics.
My reading of the source literature is that most CMT authors are primarily focused on showing that Biblical Jesus is mythical and/or fictional, and don't really care whether some minimal 'historical Jesus' existed or not. Carrier's formulation is focused on the question of whether some person known as 'historical Jesus' was really the founder of the religion of Christianity, or whether the religion was created through some other process.
Wdford's answers to various mainstream criticisms of CMT are interesting. Wdford, can you get citations for those arguments from CMT authors (the more reliable the better)? If so, perhaps we can work them into the article. If not, I'm afraid Jeppiz' comments would apply, that we can't use original research or personal reflections in Wiki.
I've been re-reading Carrier's book this morning, and also a snatch of Acharya S, and realizing that we can do a lot better than the old text from 2013. I'm no longer recommending bringing the old materials back, at least not without extensive revisions first. JerryRussell (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wdford's points are unfortunately all wrong, so it is most unlikely he(?) will be able to source them. To summarise:
- (1) Jesus was mentioned in the non-gospel sources of Josephus and Tacitus - true, but the authenticity of these three paltry "mentions" is disputed. False. There is no dispute about Tacitus (there is one article from 1964 that suggests the mention may be from another work by Tacitus, but no suggestion he did not write it). There is one article disputing the second, passing reference to Jesus as the brother of Jacob by Richard Carrier, which despite Carrier's remarkably egotistical claim that every single scholar on the subject would have to alter all their work to take this into account, boils down essentially to 'Jesus didn't exist, therefore this reference is wrong, ergo I suspect it is a marginal note that was incorrectly copied'. The other Josephan passage, the longer one, clearly has been altered, but the majority of scholars tend to the view that there was a genuine kernel that was emended. The only really big name I can think of of the top of my head who stands out against that and for full falsification is Joseph Hoffman.
- (2)The criterion of embarrassment, which states that Jesus must have been real because a Christian fraudster creating a fake cult would not have made his god-man look bad. This is patent nonsense, as the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc were all disgusting swine who freely engaged in deceit, betrayal, murder, rape, incest, treachery and all manner of evil shite. The Judeo-Christian god is suspiciously squeaky-clean in comparison, although the Old Testament god is occasionally portrayed as a cruel and capricious monster. Wdford here misunderstands the criterion of embarrassment, which means something altogether different - not that 'Jesus looked bad' but that it was impossible to visualise the Jewish Messiah being crucified in such a humiliating and shameful death, therefore it is unlikely that it was invented.
- (3) It is impossible to suppose that cult-founders of the 1st Century would have invented the whole Jesus-backstory out of fresh air, so there must have been a real human at the base of it all, even if most of the gospels is pure myth. This point does carry some weight, but then again, the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc all had impressive backstories - often far more detailed than that of Jesus of Nazareth. And all established over a much longer timeframe. The gospels and the Pauline epistles, not to mention Josephus and Tacitus, were writing within a hundred years of Jesus' death. The myths of Horus and Heracles grew over millenia.
- (4) There is no hard evidence for most historical figures, so the absence of any hard evidence for Jesus does not mean he never existed. True, but that doesn't mean that he did exist, either. And anyway, a) there are few claims for supernatural acts by most other historical figures - they do all at least stick to the basic laws of physics; and b) there is no hard evidence for the existence of the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc either, so if the absence of physical evidence is no obstacle to the historicity of Jesus, then surely the same standard must apply to the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc? In a sense that's true, but it is also a circular point. We have evidence for the existence of Jesus, even if Davis (a minimalist, let it not be forgotten) describes it as 'fragile'. Therefore, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, we will go with such evidence as we have. Those who wish to go against this can write fiction.
- (5) Lots of scholars are certain that Jesus really lived. This is pretty much what it all boils down to. Mmmmmmmm. Wikipedia summarises scholarship. If you wish to work with the paranoid conspiracy theories of third rate pseudoscholars like Dorothy Murdock, or for that matter Richard Carrier (whose foray into German history included a memorable and repeated claim that David Irving was not a Holocaust denier in order to try and present him as a reliable source) I suggest you patronise an atheist apologetics forum. Here, we will stick with scholars - those people who know what they are talking about and have the necessary training and skills to interpret source material correctly.
- Incidentally I would point out that one sentence in the lede is wholly inaccurate and effectively unsourced. The CMT is not traced to MArcion heresies - it has a clear, well-defined link to nineteenth century scholarship. The sources quoted are Dawkins The God Delusion (which is not peer reviewed and is classified as a work of polemical fiction) Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great (which is also a polemic and is written by yet another individual who repeatedly claimed in the face of all evidence that Irving is not a Holocaust denier in order to annoy the liberal left) and Thompson's The Messiah Myth (Thompson is a minor figure whose Old Testament work is increasingly regarded as irrelevant and has no expertise in this field). I have removed that sentence; if it is to be reinstated it needs to be supported with actual scholarship. 86.153.32.61 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wdford's points are unfortunately all wrong, so it is most unlikely he(?) will be able to source them. To summarise:
- Hello IP86, the lede did not say anything about Marcion heresies in particular -- it could just as well refer to Celsus, Porphyry, Arius, or others. It mentions 'core tenets' of the thesis, and makes no claim of a direct causal link of influence. Thompson's Old Testament work is also widely regarded as having produced a sea change in that field. The Messiah Myth was published by Basic Books which is a respected academic publisher, and is therefore clearly RS. JerryRussell (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- JerryRussell, could you please point out where exactly Thompson says anything about "core tenets" of the CMT going back to antiquity? As far as I remember, Thompson says nothing about the history of the CMT, and really nothing about the CMT at all—in the Messiah Myth he says he's not saying anything at all about the historical Jesus, so I've always been perplexed why his book is included in this article at all. But certainly I don't think anything he writes supports the sentence 86.153.32.61 removed—which is not that surprising, since the sentence is erroneous. The CMT really takes form in the 19th century, with some antecedents in the 18th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Akhilleus, I confess I was relying on the work of earlier editors, and I haven't verified what Thompson said. Is there a quick and easy way to search history to find out which editor created the item? Perhaps they could pinpoint a page reference. The phrase "core tenets" does beg the question, what those core tenets are. JerryRussell (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm pretty confident that Thompson's work doesn't support the text in the lead, so I'm going to remove it. Anyone who wants to restore the text should supply a source. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm thinking of putting Thompson's book on my reading list. As of right now I don't have a copy. JerryRussell (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Jeppiz asked me to weigh in, perhaps because I have a number of good RSs for this topic. One of them is Historical Jesus, the only university-level textbook I have found on the topic. Here's how the textbook handles the topic.
- An introduction lays out the history of the idea as well as the ideological context. Some atheists want the gospels to be inscrutable so they can mock Christianity. Some Christians also want the gospels to be inscrutable, in their case to affirm that only faith matters and not the unkind things that historians say about Jesus.
- The introduction names a few prominent scholars up until about 100 years ago: Baeur, Kalthoff, and Drews. It doesn't seem to mention later scholars by name. (I surmise that this is probably because there have been no serious mythicist scholars for the last 100 years. They've all been polemicists and apologists rehashing the same old arguments.)
- The body of this section then raises thirteen separate objections to historians being able to conclude anything about Jesus. He addresses each objection in turn. Historians can indeed discern probable features of Jesus and his career.
The main thing to bear in mind on this page is that the reader must never be in doubt as to the academic standing of CMT. It is a fringe idea, not even a minority view. The Jesus Seminar says that Jesus was not apocalyptic. That's a minority view held by a number of important scholars on the topic. The view that historians can't identify a historical Jesus—that view is fringe. I'm an atheist myself, but there's no getting around the fact that historians actually know what they're talking about when it comes to Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Jonathan Tweet, I'm having trouble finding the book you're describing. Google Books has books by that title (more or less) by Le Donne, Habermas, Crossan, Beilby & Eddy, Bond, Evans, Keener, Weaver, Charlesworth, and Zahmt, but none of them looks like a textbook. JerryRussell (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
New article section: Pauline Epistles
IP96 created a new section in the article, describing Richard Carrier's views on the Pauline Epistles. I added a few clarifying remarks, and brought in some supporting materials and mainstream views for NPOV. I hope other editors will agree that this is consistent with the direction the RfC is going, that there has been substantial support for a more topical organization of the article. JerryRussell (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of the section as it's currently written. The basic structure is: mainstream scholarship says this about the Pauline epistles, Wells and Carrier say something else, Eddy and Boyd refute them, and then here's two Pauline passages that pertain to Jesus' historicity. There's not enough detail on Wells and Carrier for someone who hasn't already read Wells and Carrier to understand their arguments (e.g., what is "celestial deity" supposed to mean here? Aren't all deities celestial?) It's unclear why Eddy and Boyd are brought in (they weren't responding to Carrier, so writing as if they did is WP:SYNTH), and the last paragraph of the section doesn't seem to relate to anything that came before. In general, I'm wary of the topical organization because it makes it seem as if all CMT proponents hold the same position on some topic. In fact, Carrier's position on the Pauline epistles is quite different than Wells', and from earlier figures such as Arthur Drews. I think this is potentially very confusing for readers. Furthermore, topical sections should be a description of various positions rather than an argumentative back-and-forth, which is what they can easily become; I think language such as "Eddy and Boyd present multiple arguments that serve to refute such mythicist hypotheses" crosses the line from being descriptive to being argumentative. I'd rather have a section that clearly lays out Carrier's views and any notable responses to them. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Mid-importance Mythology articles
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia requests for comment