Talk:Christ myth theory

Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT

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

Request for Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributions 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

This article should be split between two articles;

• Christ myth theory
• The History of Christ myth theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirmation bias: a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No-exist solution

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

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

Very roughly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP 96 says :"There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the bible...Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives." Nick Thorne says "Your "scholarly consensus" is comprised entirely of Christian scholars".As I know from experience on this and related pages, the same (incorrect) points are likely to be made by new editors to this page over and over again, that is why I think that it is important to have quotes from historians who could not possibly be called "Christian scholars" in the article, and that they should say why they dismiss the CMT, not just "no one takes it seriously" or such like comments. There is an important quote from Ehrman at the article Historicity of Jesus "Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus" that really sums it all up, that is it. That quote should be in the article."Mythicists" will try to dismiss the Tacitus and Josephus passages as worthless, but historians do not. At some point in this article I believe there were other quotes from classical historians (not "Christian scholars") but they have been removed, I think. Also in the Historicity of Christ article - "Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee". Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." [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)

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

• For example:

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

• Rather it is:

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

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

Premature RfC Closure

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

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

Most scholars DO agree.

It's been a while that this info was presented, so here it is again.

Citations

[T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected. G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218 It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed. G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27 "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain" Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179 "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt." Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence. Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) pp. xxxiii & 54 The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question. Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269 If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible. W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", George Mason University's History News Network, 2004 [The non-Christian references to Jesus from the first two centuries] render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score. Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 124 [A]n attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible. I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.) (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004) pp. 15–16 A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese. N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48 A school of thought popular with cranks on the Internet holds that Jesus didn’t actually exist. Tom Breen, The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus: Dispatches from the Intersection of Christianity and Pop Culture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) p. 138 I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character... We must [, according to Christ myth advocates,] perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites and beliefs of early Christians were distilled from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely disparate, so devoid of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind, you rake together a thousand irrelevant thrums of mythology, picked up at random from every age, race, and clime; you get a "Christist" to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakespeareans we have seen nothing like it. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the Views of J. M. Robertson, A. Drews and W. B. Smith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009/1914) pp. 42 & 95 Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed. Leander Keck, Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) p. 13 While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history. Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233 It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus... Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 (2nd ed.) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) pp. 80 & 166 We do not need to take seriously those writers who occasionally claim that Jesus never existed at all, for we have clear evidence to the contrary from a number of Jewish, Latin, and Islamic sources. John Drane, "Introduction", in John Drane, The Great Sayings of Jesus: Proverbs, Parables and Prayers (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 1999) p. 23 By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived. Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, Rudolf Bultmann & Karl Kundsin; translated by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962) p. 62 Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction It is the nature of historical work that we are always involved in probability judgments. Granted, some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed and really was crucified, just as Julius Caeser really existed and was assassinated. Marcus Borg, "A Vision of the Christian Life", The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Marcus Borg & N. T. Wright (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 236 To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. 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. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200 I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188 Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121 The historical reality both of Buddha and of Christ has sometimes been doubted or denied. It would be just as reasonable to question the historical existence of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne on account of the legends which have gathered round them... The attempt to explain history without the influence of great men may flatter the vanity of the vulgar, but it will find no favour with the philosophic historian. James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 7 (3rd ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 311 We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE. Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999) p. 38 [T]here is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) p. 33 Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. Will Durant, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972) p. 557 There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993) p. 10 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. Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 34 Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16 No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings. James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. xxi–xxv [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25 The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church. Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8 There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century. Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009 I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008 What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007 Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship. William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009 The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) p. 29 This is always the fatal flaw of the 'Jesus myth' thesis: the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. [Robert] Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really. James D. G. Dunn, "Response to Robert M. Price", in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) p. 98 Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes the stories of the New Testament any more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?' The critics can be answered satisfactorily...For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion [of embarrassment] demonstrates that Jesus existed. Alan F. Segal, "Believe Only the Embarrassing", Slate, 2005 Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123 Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine [of Alexandria]'s fate as an unhistorical myth... Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p. 37 An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) pp. 435–436 In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007 The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given. Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p. 32 While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 8 & 23–24 You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can't eliminate them. That's why you have to put certain checks and balances in place… Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You're never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe. Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) p. 112 If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying. John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000 A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat. Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) p. 168 When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, 'Do you really believe that?' Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. William Lane Craig, "Question 90: Jesus and Pagan Mythology", Reasonable Faith, 2009 Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008 The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. For some it's simply too horrific to affirm. For others it's an elaborate conspiracy to coerce religious sympathy. But the deniers live in a historical dreamworld. John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006) pp. 14-15 I just finished reading, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The first view was given by Robert Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… The title of Price’s chapter is 'Jesus at the Vanishing Point.' I am convinced that if Price's total skepticism were applied fairly and consistently to other figures in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Nero, etc.), they would all be reduced to 'the vanishing point.' Price's chapter is a perfect example of how someone can always, always find excuses to not believe something they don't want to believe, whether that be the existence of Jesus or the existence of the holocaust. Dennis Ingolfsland, "Five views of the historical Jesus", The Recliner Commentaries, 2009 The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, 'Jesus Never Existed!' 'They won’t listen to me!' and label those inside the arena as 'Anti-Intellectuals,' 'Fundamentalists,' 'Misguided Liberals,' and 'Flat-Earthers.' Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says 'The Holocaust Never Happened!' Michael R. Licona, "Licona Replies to Doherty's Rebuttal", Answering Infidels, 2005 Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming. Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008 An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth. Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002) p. 164 An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare. Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256 When all the evidence brought against Jesus' historicity is surveyed it is not found to contain any elements of strength. Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1) It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial resemblances, of debatable interpretation into the systems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls... The historical reality of the personality of Jesus alone enables us to understand the birth and development of Christianity, which otherwise would remain an enigma, and in the proper sense of the word, a miracle. Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926) pp. 30 & 244 Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed. John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎ (London: Skeffington & Son, 1933) p. 31 That both in the case of the Christians, and in the case of those who worshipped Zagreus or Osiris or Attis, the Divine Being was believed to have died and returned to life, would be a depreciation of Christianity only if it could be shown that the Christian belief was derived from the pagan one. But that can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing. Edwyn R. Bevan, in Thomas Samuel Kepler, Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950) p. 44 The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position. Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9 Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity… UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited. Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166 One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism." James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010 In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian. Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23 To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23. When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories [i.e. the Christ myth theory] he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels. Morton Smith, in R. Joseph Hoffman, Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 48 Of course, there can be no toleration whatever of the idea that Jesus never existed and is only a concoction from these pagan stories about a god who was slain and rose again. Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Menorah, 1943) p. 107 Virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that there is enough information from ancient non-Christian sources to give the lie to the myth (still, however, widely believed in popular circles and by some scholars in other fields--see esp. G. A. Wells) which claims that Jesus never existed. Craig L. Blomberg, "Gospels (Historical Reliability)", in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992) p. 292 In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today. Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196 Dr. Wells was there [I.e. a symposium at the University of Michigan] and he presened his radical thesis that maybe Jesus never existed. Virtually nobody holds this position today. It was reported that Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University, even though he is a skeptic himself, responded that Dr. Wells's view was "absurd". Gary Habermas, in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989) p. 45 I.e. if we leave out of account the Christ-myth theories, which are hardly to be reckoned as within the range of serious criticism. Alexander Roper Vidler, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 253 Such Christ-myth theories are not now advanced by serious opponents of Christianity—they have long been exploded ..." Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church (London: SCM, 1959) p. 14 In the early years of this century, various theses were propounded which all assert that Jesus never lived, and that the story of Jesus is a myth or legend. These claims have long since been exposed as historical nonsense. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the first three decades of our era, probably from 6-7 BC to 30 AD. That is a fact. Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976) p. 65 There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavor to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen. George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) p. x The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case Charles E. Carlston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3 Although it is held by Marxist propaganda writers that Jesus never lived and that the Gospels are pure creations of the imagination, this is not the view of even the most radical Gospel critics. Bernard L. Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999) p. 159 Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_89#Christ_myth_theory

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)

Citations

Citations: Defense of Biblical criticism was not helped by the revival at this time of the 'Christ-Myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare. William Horbury, "The New Testament", in Ernest Nicholson, A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p. 55 Zindler depends on secondary works and writes with the aim of proving the Christ-Myth theory, namely, the theory that the Jesus of history never existed. John T. Townsend, "Christianity in Rabbinic Literature", in Isaac Kalimi & Peter J. Haas, Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006) p. 150 The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as a historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community. William R. Farmer, "A Fresh Approach to Q", in Jacob Neusner, Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1975) p. 43 Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder. Maurice Goguel, "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118 The Christ-Myth theory (that Jesus never lived) had a certain vogue at the beginning of this century but is not supported by contemporary scholarship. Alan Richardson, The Political Christ (London: SCM, 1973) p. 113 If this account of the matter is correct, one can also see why it is that the 'Christ-myth' theory, to the effect that there was no historical Jesus at all, has seemed so plausible to many... Hugo A. Meynell, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (2nd ed.) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991) p. 166 [W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory. George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998) p. 58 The Jesus-was-a-myth school... argue[s] that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth, that he never existed. Clinton Bennett, In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images (New York: Continuum, 2001) p. 202 Though [Charles Guignebert] could not accept either the Christ myth theory, which held that no historical Jesus existed, or the Dutch Radical denial that Paul authored any of the epistles, Guignebert took both quite seriously. Robert M. Price, in Tom Flynn, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007) p. 372 As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend. Paul R Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165 Price uncritically embraces the dubious methods and results of the Jesus Seminar, adopts much of the (discredited) Christ-Myth theory from the nineteenth century (in which it was argued that Jesus never lived), and so on. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006) p. 25 For as "extreme" a critic as Rudolf Bultmann, the existence of the historical Jesus is a necessity; and if historical criticism could successfully establish the "Christ-myth" theory, viz., that Jesus never really lived, Bultmann’s enture theological structure would be shaken. George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) p. 15 And a recent attempt to revive the Christ myth theory (that Jesus was simply invented as a peg on which to hang the myth of a Savior God), hardly merits serious consideration. Reginald H. Fuller & Pheme Perkins, Who Is This Christ?: Gospel Christology and Contemporary Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983) p. 130 ...on the one hand, literal acceptance of everything in the New Testament as the veridical record of what happened, and, on the other, some form of Christ-myth theory which denies that there ever was a Jesus. But neither of these extreme positions stands up to scrutiny." John Macquarrie, The Scope of Demythologizing: Bultmann and His Critics (London: SCM, 1960) p. 93 But in contrast to the Christ-myth theories which proliferated at an earlier time, it would seem that today almost all reputable scholars do accept that Jesus existed and that the basic facts about him are well established. John Macquarrie, "The Humanity of Christ", in Theology, Vol. 74 (London: SPCK, 1971) p. 247 His published work on the Synoptic Problem had already contributed towards exploding the theory of the “Christ-myth”—that Jesus as a historical person never existed—by providing the two oldest records of His life to be genuine historical documents." George Seaver, Albert Schweitzer: The Man and His Mind (New York: Harper, 1955) p. 45 In Germany, England, Holland, America, and France, a group of scholars developed the hypothesis that Christ had never lived at all, the Christ-myth theory. Margaret Hope Bacon, Let This Life Speak: The Legacy of Henry Joel Cadbury‎ (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987) p. 22 There have even been learned and intelligent men who have denied that Jesus ever existed: the so-called "Christ-myth" theory. Donald MacKenzie MacKinnon, Objections to Christian Belief (London: Constable, 1963) p. 67 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

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)

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)

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)

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 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

1. 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.
2. 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, saying 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. 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.

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)

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:

1. Jesus was mentioned in the non-gospel sources of Josephus and Tacitus - true, but the authenticity of these three paltry "mentions" is disputed.
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.
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.
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?
5. 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)

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.)
3. 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)