Talk:Christ myth theory

Rewriting suggestions

A lot of the quotations of mainstream academics seem to be personal attacks or logical fallacies of some kind like blank statements and circular logic. It would probably be in this article's best interests to focus on solid arguments against the Christ myth hypothesis rather than going on tangents about mocking the qualifications of the proponents.

Dating and authorship

I take issue with this particular section 'None of the authors were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus, nor did they receive their information directly from eyewitnesses.' Is it really appropriate to write one person's opinion as undisputed fact when scholars such as J.Warner Wallace argue against this exact point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vazra379 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources, please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

From [:Historical reliability of the Gospels]: "Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.[76][77][78]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

" J. Warner Wallace is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California" -so this is far from a mainstream source.Smeat75 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the failed verification tag. The source is this book, and it certainly does appear in the cite, on page 7:

"The consensus of contemporary scholars is that the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, and probably did not receive their materials directly from eyewitnesses."

I've also filled out the citation to make it easier to verify in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vazra379, Joshua Jonathan, MPants at work, and Smeat75: There is actually not such a consensus amongst bible scholars. "John's Gospel as Witness: The Development of the Early Christian Language of Faith" By Alexander S. Jensen discusses the original proponent of the "no eyewitnesses" view --Bultmann--and the greatest theologian of the twentieth century, Karl Barth and their life long theological debate. "It is rather a commonplace to say that for the largest part of the twentieth century, the debate between Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann dominated the hermeneutical discussion in theology. This debate, however, together with the discussion of Bultmann's 'demythologisation'-program has never really come to a conclusion."

N.T.Wright: "Myths of the kind Bultmann envisaged (quasi-folk tales articulating the world-view of a people) characteristically take a long time to develop ... the first generation of Christianity is simply too short a time to allow for such a process. [Bultmann's hypothesis] is "far too complex to be credible." as quoted by Gregory Boyd, page 175, isbn# 978-1-60899-953-8.

"Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective" By Francis Watson says on page 351,"For Bultmann it is the needs of the early church that generate the [gospel] tradition, and genuine recollection is preserved only incidentally... In consequence of this astonishingly one-sided yet influential account, eye-witness recollection and communal tradition are often seen as mutually exclusive ... Yet there is no need for any such choice... According to Martin Dibelius, the evangelists collected and connected independent units of tradition that already possessed a formal form." According to Richard Bauckham, the 'formal forms' of these traditions were "originated and formulated by eye-witnesses."

Any mention of this subject these days should include Bauckham as well as the extra-biblical research and recent archaeological discoveries concerning orality-literacy. But like so much of this article, this relevant information is simply missing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added Bauckham; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Book length footnotes on this article

74.138.106.1 is adding voluminous footnotes all the way through the article, a lot of them with long quotes from Richard Carrier, I haven't read them all as they make my eyes glaze over. I have never seen an article with so many long quotes in footnotes. Do others think this is a good thing?Smeat75 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at Bible and violence. They are there as well. When someone won't let go of a disagreement they lost by consensus--this is often their only recourse to still get their views into the article somewhere. Kind of like cheating huh? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed it as well. I planned on waiting until they stopped, then taking a look at them as a whole to see if there's an agenda being pushed, or too much detail being added. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I planned on waiting until they stopped - there doesn't seem to be a reason to think that is going to be any time soon. Some of the footnotes have footnotes! Seems over the top to me.Smeat75 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'll look into it tonight when I have more time (I'm at work now) to dig through the sources and the article text and make comparisons. It's going to take a bit to sort through it all. If you want to get started in the meantime, I'll be happy to provide input on any specific issues you might find. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen an article with so many long quotes in footnotes.
— User:Smeat75

I have never seen a more contentious article than this one, requiring the absolute maximum in many long quotes in footnotes to clarify the disparate viewpoints held by mythicists. - 74.138.106.1 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of these "notes" are more like little essays such as The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios. The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord. Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God. The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the fourth gospel, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God (see Christology §Apostolic Christology). Some scholars see Paul's writings as an amplification and explanation of the teachings of Jesus. Other scholars perceive that some teachings of Jesus in Paul's writings are different from the teachings found in the canonical gospels (see Pauline Christianity). In a similar fashion, per Paul’s usage of the term Khristós, some scholars see this as an example of Messiah language in ancient Judaism (Novenson, 2012), while others contend that Paul’s usage of the term Khristós is idiosyncratic (see Messiah in Judaism) - note 5. There is one reference to a source here "Novenson, 2012" but that is only in relation to some scholars see this as an example of Messiah language in ancient Judaism. Where does the rest of it come from? It seems to be accurate as far as I can tell but is that really what footnotes are for? User:MPants at work says he plans on "taking a look at them as a whole to see if there's an agenda being pushed, or too much detail being added." I believe the answer is "yes" to both those questions. Having all this verbiage in notes would make it quite difficult for anyone else to edit the body of the article, if they wanted to do that, apart from anything else. I haven't read through all of them, there is only so much of this kind of thing that I can take at a time, but I believe the agenda being pushed is the ideas of Richard Carrier. For instance The concept of the "Mythic Hero" as an archetype was first developed by Lord Raglan in 1936. It is a set of 22 common traits that he said were shared by many heroes in various cultures, myths and religions throughout history and around the world. Raglan argued that the higher the score, the more likely the figure's biography is mythical. Raglan did not categorically deny the historicity of the Heroes he looked at, rather it was their common biographies he considered as nonhistorical (see Rank-Raglan mythotype) is straight out of Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" ( which I have not read, but I have read numerous blog posts, including Carrier's, about it, and reviews). Many many quotes from Carrier and references to his theories. Which maybe is OK since this is the Christ myth theory and Carrier is the leading "mythicist" of today, but my feeling is that these notes need to be severely pruned. I will not do anything about it right now however and see if others agree.Smeat75 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In regards to section "Notes", some are indeed "little essays", derived from germane Wikipedia articles or cited refs, e.g. the Paul note is content from WP articles Christology§Apostolic_Christology, Pauline_Christianity and also Novenson (2012). I regard this as a convenience factor for a non-expert reader to get up to date on a related topic's WP:BLUE salient points without having to read through the entire linked-to-article and also refs like Novenson (2012) can be cited more robustly if needed. And yes sometimes footnotes are used as a succinct summaries of topics, irregardless of typical WP footnote usage.

Having all this verbiage in notes would make it quite difficult for anyone else to edit the body of the article, if they wanted to do that, apart from anything else.
— User:Smeat75

Per sections "Article Lede" and "Overview" this is a moot point since there is no ref. or notes content in these sections (they have been moved to section "Notes", "References"). Other footnote content can also be moved out of the the body of the article. - 74.138.106.1 (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The potential problem with all of that is the assumption that this much detail is WP:DUE. If it is, then that's all fine and good. If not, we'll deal with that and figure out what to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

{{ref|group=qoute}} for the quotes which are now contained in the references, as a starter. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind; I took a note look at the notes and references; what a nightmare. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory

This article begins by saying this is a fringe theory--then it goes on to give nearly equal representation to both sides. This fails to meet Wiki requirements on what is due based on what has been stated about the theory. I would like to add more into the traditional view sections to beef things up a bit and thereby have the article more representative of modern scholarship--if anyone objects, please say so and we will find consensus--because I am already doing research for this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The main topic is the pov of CM-theorists, not the historicity of Jesus nor his meaning in Christianity. I expect readers to come here to get to know more about this, not to get details from traditional theology. The extensive Carrier-quotes are undue, but the info you just added is also quite detailed, I think (in concreto, O'Stout), and could 'get a Carrier' as well: turn part of it into footnotes. Ask yourself: is the info you'd like to add from authors who respond to the CMT, or is it your selection from the traditional view on Jesus and Paul? If the latter is the case, then you're not writing about CMT as presented by relevant authors, but sort of creating your own work on CMT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Ehm... How mainstream is Stephen O. Stout? The "Man Christ Jesus": The Humanity of Jesus in the Teaching of the Apostle Paul:

Does the Apostle Paul have any use for the person of Jesus presented in the Gospels? Critical scholarship thinks not, but this book argues that Paul not only mentions more than seventy specific details of the historical Jesus, but he also commends the character of Jesus and echoes His teachings repeatedly in his letters and sermons-in full agreement with the Gospel accounts.

Three citations in Google scholar; that's not much for a publication from 2011. Given his departure from "critical scholarship," Stout may not be the best representative of "mainstream scholarship." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yay! Someone answered! Hello! Thank you so much for responding--and so reasonably. Thank you for not just reverting--which I am sure was a temptation--but let me see if I can talk you into continuing to hold off on that. Let me begin by attempting to establish what I think we agree upon. First, I agree this is an article about a certain point of view, nevertheless, I think we both agree it still has to remain neutral. That is often a difficult and somewhat fine line to walk, I know, especially with controversial subjects, and I agree this has, overall, done a fine job.

Second, you say you expect readers to come here in order to know more about this subject. I agree with that too. But that must-- surely-- include something about why it is still considered fringe by mainstream scholars even though this idea has been around since the second century. Why isn't it more accepted? should be indirectly addressed or those people to whom you refer will read this and go away with only partial information and a false impression.

I am totally with you on the proper goal--simply inform the reader--perhaps defining what that involves in the details are what we will focus on here.

BTW, I note there is no discussion of gnosticism here. Is there some reason? They were the original "Christ was not a human" advocates.

I am not doing original work though I understand that is important to check. The books--or the chapters within certain works--are specifically about Paul's view of the historical Jesus.

Stout is most definitely mainstream. This is just his first book. That particular quote sounds a little combative doesn't it? But I have other references for each of his points--which was a nice handy concise list--so I can multi-reference them, and I will, I just have to go back and add them--after after...  :-) Stout is more mainstream than G.A.Wells. Wells did eventually become mainstream about the existence of the historical Jesus but he remained on the edge concerning Paul. I say this with confidence having read up on who fits where in books like: The Originality of Jesus: A Critical Discussion and a Comparative Attempt, by Per Bilde. Beginning on page 58 and going to page 68, he names, in chapter two, historical Jesus scholars (which discussion includes Paul) from 1970-2012 as splitting into three schools: the traditional, the eschatological, and the liberal. On that bellcurve, the mainstream--the majority--are traditional. Wells was liberal, and among those who argued against an historical Jesus in his early works. N.T.Wright is mainstream. I am working on one of his books on Paul and the historical Jesus right now. He is probably the world's premiere Pauline scholar, and he says what Stout says.

At any rate, surely there is not disagreement over what the mainstream majority view is, right? Just how much of it to include? CM is not even a minority view, it is fringe, so I am thinking that following the rules for similar articles --like Intelligent Design maybe--is important in order to do a full, accurate job representative of the breadth of modern scholarship on this subject. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777. You say above "this idea has been around since the second century" but as the article states "The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France." The Christ myth theory, as it is defined in this article, is the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all and that idea did indeed originate in late 18th century France.

You also say "BTW, I note there is no discussion of gnosticism here. Is there some reason? They were the original "Christ was not a human" advocates." The Christ myth theory, as presented in popular books and on websites a lot today, is not that "Christ was not a human" but that he never existed at all. Some gnostics did say that Christ only appeared to be human but was actually pure spirit but gnostics did not say he never existed at all, so discussion of gnosticism does not belong in this article.Smeat75 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Then the article is internally contradictory since it plainly says: "According to modern proponents of the Christ myth theory, Christianity started with the belief in a new deity called Jesus,[3][4] "a spiritual, mythical figure",[75] who was derived from Jewish writings,[30][31] which shows Greek influences and similarities with Pagan saviour deities. Elements of the Christ myth and its cultus can be found in the Pauline epistles,[76][77][78] see the Christ hymn of Philippians 2:6–11.[26] This new deity was fleshed out in the Gospels—which added a narrative framework and Cynic-like teachings—and eventually came to be perceived as a historical biography.[4] According to George Albert Wells et al., these sayings may come from a real person, of whom close to nothing can be known.[79][80][81][82] However, for such a person to be considered "the historical Jesus in any pertinent sense", Carrier contends such a person must comply with his definition of a minimal historical Jesus." Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Carrier, the "rock star" of Christ mythers today, says that there was a Jewish belief in an angel called Jesus who only existed in heaven and then somebody made up the idea that this angel was on earth in human form (the Gospels). It is really a simple idea which I have long felt this article makes needlessly complicated. "Jesus Did Not Exist... was published November 12, 2015, with foreword and afterword by Richard Carrier". That's really all there is to it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am familiar with Carrier's work. It is a simple idea, I agree. It's just not a new idea. It is pretty much the exact same core idea that gnostics had in the second century: Jesus was never a human man: he never lived. That's it. It is simple. There are other details that come and go around that core concept but "formal" or not, the roots of this go back long before the 18th century. I'm sure the author of that section was perfectly on target about a more formal form of it coming about in the 1700's, it's just that I was surprised at the absence of gnosticism because "Jesus never lived as a physical human being" was around long before Carrier.

I have been looking at other articles on controversial fringe topics for examples of how those articles are structured and written. Intelligent Design Since Intelligent Design is also fringe, I was interested in seeing what proportion that article had included on what "mainstream" thought actually is. Once you're past the history--every section contains a "mainstream" rebuttal of ID's assertions. I am not talking content here, I am just talking structure. The structure of this article contains a back and forth presentation of both views. Once you get past the opening, it's a good solid article that covers the topic without ever losing sight of what the scholarly consensus actually is.

This one is also a controversial topic--sort of semi-fringe: Kalam cosmological argument The fourth line is "Since Craig's original publication, the Kalam cosmological argument has elicited public debate ..." That not only recognizes the controversy right up front, it gives a nice hook for building a full two thirds of the body of the article around that debate. It acknowledges and includes both sides effectively.

Religious violence Religion and violence is one of the best written most consistently neutral and well researched up-to-date Wiki pages I have ever read. It too is a highly debated topic and it deals with that by presenting all arguments to a representative degree.

So many of these controversial articles involve religion, and when dealing with such touchy, controversial subjects, including discussion of that very controversy--why there is one, what the other side says, etc. --is absolutely necessary for a good quality page on the topic. Fringe theories says it best of course: "The prominence of fringe views needs to be put into perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field;"

In other words, Christ myth needs more controversy--if you get what I am saying here. It needs to include the debate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk; thank you for your appreciation; appreciated! I rewrote my original post, but let me kind of rewrite it here: there's a third point of view, namely the agnostic/atheistic pov, which says that any believe in a Godly Jesus deviates from a naturalistic way of thinking, and therefore also is kind of fringe. Not a new idea either; in Montaillou reports of scepticism on the resurrection of Jesus can be found. This relates to your request for an 'objections-section': there is a difference between fringe theories in sciences like physics and biology, and "fringe theories" in a scholarly tradition like theology. For many, theology is not science; so, how can there be "fringe theories" in a field which is not a science? At best, there can be authors who deviate from mainstream beliefs, or from mainstream critical textual studies. But those critical approaches are a part, nota bene, of the CMT.
I think that the article is quite outspoken about the mainstream views on Jesus and Paul. Adding theories from authors who depart from the mainstream critical view on Paul (see the blurb of the book by Stout) is not helpfull in this regard; at best, it can be noted that there are (Evangelical?) authors who depart from this mainstream in the opposite direction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's some fancy footwork! The change you made to Stout as "contrary to critical scholarship" is incorrect. Please reference mainstream scholars who state the view of Paul as believing in a historical Jesus is not the majority/mainstream view. Yes there are some scholars who support that view--absolutely--but not N.T.Wright the world's premiere Pauline scholar, or Sanders, or Hengel, or Köstenburger, or others that do form the majority view. If you were right in that claim concerning Stout's views, then saying this is a fringe view would be wrong--and it isn't wrong. It can't be both things--a fringe view but also something the majority of mainstream scholars agree with. That defies definition. Here on Wiki Fringe theory "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." It's either fringe or the majority agree with it--one or the other. But this reinforces my point. This article has created a false balance just as this response does.

There absolutely is a difference in fringe theories in science and religion, and philosophy, and history and everything else. That difference does not mean they don't exist anywhere else but science. Everything distributes on a bell-curve, it's unavoidable, and in every bell some things are at the extremes. It doesn't prove it might not one day become the mainstream view--but then by definition it will no longer be at the fringes.

The agnostic/atheistic point of view is 3-6% of the population in this country and about the same worldwide while the theistic view is anywhere between 70% to 90% depending on country. Calling belief itself fringe is a truly masterful reinterpretation of facts though, I have to give you that. There are a few biblical scholars who are atheists or agnostic, but that percentage is even lower than the population percentage. I didn't look for those since this article already contains their views. But that is all completely beside the point and inapplicable to the discussion of this article. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks about that. It matters what the sources say pertinent to this article.

The three google references you offer on Stout's book are not to the same book I reference. I am removing the section on Stout as you wrote it. I will bring it back with all the additional references that support his view as mainstream in modern scholarship when I can put it in as a whole unit rather than piece-mealing it in order to prevent an edit war. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Man Christ Jesus", salespromo (emphasis mine):

Does the Apostle Paul have any use for the person of Jesus presented in the Gospels? Critical scholarship thinks not, but this book argues that Paul not only mentions more than seventy specific details of the historical Jesus, but he also commends the character of Jesus and echoes His teachings repeatedly in his letters and sermons-in full agreement with the Gospel accounts.

Apparently, that's what the publisher hinself writes. I suggest you first use the talkpage to validate the relevance of this source; Stout himself is not helpfull in this respect. Stout p.xi:

Stephen Stout, in the present revised version of his doctoral thesis, builds on Wenham's important contribution and yet significantly goes beyond it.

Page xiii:

... fellow evangelicals

Page xiii:

Additional research in Pauline studies revealed a growing trend among popular critical scholars to divorce Paul from Jesus

page xiv:

Chapter 3 includes a study of the "Man Christ Jesus" in Paul's letters, challenging the assertion of critical scholarship that Paul was a mythmaker who turned the simple Galilean peasant preacher into a divine being.

Page 64:

It is declared a fait accompli of critical scholarship that the apostle Paul has "very little to say on the life of Jesus" and has meager or no interest in the historical life of Jesus.

It seems to me that Stout himself contradicts your presentation of Stout as representative of 'the' mainistream theological view on Paul; on the contrary, he confirms in almost the exact same words what the Wiki-article says:

Modern biblical scholarship also notes that Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus.

So, the article does not say that maintream scholarship does not say that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus; it says that 'Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus'. A doctoral thesis, from an evangelical, who goes against the trend in critical studies, and has been referred to only three times, does not seem to be the best source to contradict mainstream views on Paul; let alone to present such a minority view as being representative of the majority view. Apart from that, there's still no need to start a polemic against the CMT digging up sources which seem to contradict the CMT, yet don't mention it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Stout himself is clearly trying to sell books. The apostle Paul did have little to say about Jesus, no one disputes that surely--it's just how that is interpreted is the debate. That was one of the quotes you removed. It is dealt with in one of two ways and one of them is the CM approach and the other is Stout's and Wright's and so on. But look, let's not argue over one author. I will let him go. I don't know if Stout is evangelical or not, this is my first encounter with him, I have no commitment to him, I just thought his content was concise and applicable. If we can stop arguing over him, would you agree the article needs to convey the fringe nature of this view better? Without your personal feelings on CM--just on how the article is represented. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Keeping Barnett's quote is good. Thank you. See--we can cooperate. I will dump Stout and find more like Barnett and Hengel and Wright. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that the article is already quite explicit about the fringe-nature of the CMT:

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines; it contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of a historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine.

And

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.

References

What more could you possibly add to this, except WP:UNDUE elaborations of mainstream points of view? Keep it concise, which it already is.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: regarding atheism in the USA, see Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought. In the Netherlands, only about 16% believes in God, while 25% is explicitly atheistic. See Voor het eerst meer ongelovigen dan gelovigen in Nederland. And 49% doesn't belong to any denomination. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay good, we agree it's fringe theory. That's a good starting point. I am also completely in support of WP:UNDUE and am actually attempting to comply with those policies in what seems to me to be a more consistent manner. You ask, "What more could you possibly add to this, except WP:UNDUE elaborations of mainstream points of view?" I think more mainstream is due than is presently in the article. And the article you refer to explains why I think that.

WP:UNDUE says: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant" and "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." "...minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader."

"Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." And that is exactly what this article does.

Yes, Europe is more atheistic than America, and America is becoming more so, however, while I have already stated that is irrelevant to this article one way or the other, your personal views and opinions are apparent in this article, it does seem to be affecting your neutrality, and it may be contributing to your unwillingness to allow representative balance in this article. Stating it's a fringe theory up front--then failing to include sufficient content to support that view--is the problem here. What this article has is good, but it needs to communicate that the two views are not equally valid. It does not do that right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that the topic of this article falls under WP:Fringe policy (non-perjoritve), the primary content of this article is a WP:NPOV presentation of the significant viewpoints held by myth proponents.

• The viewpoints of myth proponents are disparate and without a clear majority consensus amongst them, thus this article presents several. This article should still make appropriate reference to the mainstream majority viewpoint wherever relevant. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, may briefly state the modern mainstream position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief.
• Some aspects of WP:Fringe policy may not be germane in regards to an article about a fringe topic (but would be in a normal article where fringe content is being added). - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE:

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views [...] In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

This article is dedicated to a minority view. It makes "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint," including links to the relevant Wikipedia-articles. It explains "the majority view [...] in sufficient detail," so "the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it." It also identifies "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view."

That being said, there is a difference between treating critics of the CMT in more detail, and elaborating mainstream theology which contradicts the CMT, yet does not refer to the CMT. That might be WP:OR (remember, Stout represents a minority view himself) and/or WP:SOAPBOX (for evangelical, or other Christian, views). See also WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

NB: don't forget that this article mentions actually three points of view, namely "orthodox Christian theology," mainstream scholarship, and the CMT:

While orthodox Christian theology and dogmas view Jesus as the incarnation of God/Christ on earth, mainstream scholarship views Jesus as a real person who was subsequently deified. [Arnal-note] Mythicists take yet another approach

Arnal-note:Arnal, William E. (2015). The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism and the Construction of Contemporary Identity. Routledge. pp. 75ff. ISBN 978-1-317-32440-9. "Whether Jesus himself existed as a historical figure or not, the gospels that tell of him are unquestionably mythic texts. ...Investigations into the historical Jesus require, by contrast, that the gospels be used as historical sources, and in fact the main difference between “conservative” and “liberal” scholarship revolves around how much legendary accretion is stripped away in order to arrive at the “historical core,”...

Your beef may not be with the mythicists, but with critical scholarship. We can expand the info from critical scholarship, of course, but why would we? It wouldn't make the orthodox cause more credible, would it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an obvious asymmetry between this case and that of (say) alternative medicine, where the "fringe theory" is faith-based: here it is the majority view that is faith-based. That does not make it wrong, but it does load the argument differently. To be honest, in most cases "fringe theory" is a euphemism for "crackpot nonsense", but the Christ myth theory is certainly not such; in terms of validity, I think it is precisely as valid as the mainstream view. After all, the argument against CMT (anything Carrier says, for example) inevitably starts with "No serious Bible scholar doubts the historicity of Jesus", but goes very quiet when it comes to producing actual evidence. AFAICS, the independent historical evidence consists of a about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing. None of this makes CMT true, but it is a very weak counterargument.

I think the fact that this is a minority view should be reflected by a compact article, giving the outlines of the CMT view. It certainly does not need to recite over and over again the fact that billions(?) of people Believe the opposite. Notice that strictly speaking this has almost nothing to do with atheism, which would have no problem whatsoever with the historical Jesus, and naturally adopts a neutral viewpoint. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

it is the majority view that is faith-based - this is absolutely incorrect. Anyone who knows anything at all about ancient history will be aware that there is noting unusual in any way about knowing about all sorts of people from antiquity from a single passing reference in one of the pitifully few works of history from antiquity that survive that may have been written a hundred years or more after that person's death. The striking thing about Jesus, to anyone who has studied classical history, is not how little evidence there is that there was such a person, but how much. That is why you have people such as "Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University' saying things like "I know of no ancient historian ... who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming". (quoted in article). the independent historical evidence consists of a about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing - there is not a single classical historian, not one, who looks at a passage in Tacitus and thinks or says "Hmm, Tacitus says this person did such and such a thing but this is the only place this person is mentioned and I don't think that is convincing evidence that this person ever existed". It just doesn't work that way."three short paragraphs in Roman history books" is three times as much evidence for a person's existence than we have for hundreds of personages from antiquity. I think the fact that this is a minority view should be reflected by a compact article - I would agree that the article is too long and unnecessarily complicated for what is a simple idea - there was never such a person as Jesus. They made it all up. Accepting that there was a real person that the Jesus stories are based on is nothing, but nothing, to do with faith. It is a matter of historical fact.Smeat75 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Smeat75: regarding (emphasis mine)

"I know of no ancient historian ... who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming".

"Christ" is per definition a faith-based claim, not a historical fact. As a rhetorical argument: there are many Jewish and Islamic historians; their faith does not regard Jesus to be a/the Messias, so they probaby won't say that Jesus was the Christ. As Paul and Boyd notice, Josephus didn't write "the Christ," but "called Christ." That being said, the majority view (among scholars) seems to be that there was a historical person, who was baptized an crucified; and most Christians regard this person to be the Messias. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"Christ" is per definition a faith-based claim - Clarke is just using the common name there, just as if you refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes you are not endorsing the idea that that Hellenistic king was "God made manifest" (Ephiphanes).Smeat75 (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, first Joshua Jonathan. It makes "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint," but there is not a single reference to the mainstream response--which was forceful--listed in the 18th-19th century section, or in the early twentieth century, or in modern proponents--which really should be modern views and include them all. There is virtually no mainstream view included in this article from the Gospels section on down. That looks like about 80% of the article. This leads any reader to the conclusion Imaginatorium has erroneously reached: that the argument "goes very quiet when it comes to producing actual evidence" and "the independent historical evidence consists of about three short paragraphs in Roman history books (Josephus et al), written a century after the event, and not actually very convincing. None of this makes CMT true, but it is a very weak counterargument." He has actually proven my point. That's exactly what this article conveys through omission.

Now, Imaginatorium. Both the CM and the traditional view of the historical Jesus can be considered faith based. Assuming any response to CM is "faith" while CM isn't seems to be part of the problem here. That assumption has led to a failure to include the appropriate amount and kind of response that has allowed this article to become non-neutral and non-representative. The "independent historical evidence" for CM is much weaker than the traditional view but this article doesn't include any of the recent historical or archaeological work that's been done. You reference Josephus, yet Alice Whealey's work is not included in this article. Where the CM view is based on Paul and the gospels, the mainstream view of those should be included with appropriate representation of what the arguments actually say and who said them and why. Where this asserts Hellenization and Greek mystery religions as an explanation, a discussion of the counterarguments with appropriate references from scholars like Edwin M. Yamauchi should be mentioned as well. For heaven's sakes, Massey is in this article as though he were a legitimate scholar recognized by real Egyptologists! With no counter of any kind!

There have been discussions of the assertions of mythicists, based solely on analysis of the basis and probability of those assertions, as long as there have been assertions from mythicists, and what those said are nowhere to be found in this article. That's misleading.

You have concluded there is only a weak counterargument because that's how this article presents it, thereby proving my point. This article has a point of view. You have stated it quite well.

And thank you, I agree this has nothing to do with atheism. It really has nothing to do with anything but whether or not this article accurately reflects the real cross section of views on this topic. Since many of those views are simply omitted, I don't see how anyone can argue anything but no, it doesn't. That should be fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I realise I did not use enough care in wording. (And my impression of the debate is from watching various presentations and debates, not just from reading this article.) When I said "faith-based", this is not really accurate. I suppose I should say something like "influenced by faith". I'm sure there are people free of faith who have come to the conclusion on rational grounds that Jesus was a historical figure; but they are a tiny fraction compared with the people for whom their faith means that they already Know the answer. People who Know the answer cannot be relied on to make rational judgements on matters which might give a different answer. What percentage of the scholars deemed eligible by the ridiculous Footnote 1 are Believers? What percentage of the institutions housing these scholars are ones which require a profession of belief from their academics? Whatever the percentage is, the temptation is to produce a Gish gallop of hundreds of scholars who opine this and that, but most of whose views can be disregarded by any rational person. Meanwhile, there is no-one (surely!) for whom their faith compels them to Believe in the non-historicity of Jesus. (Not to say there are not also people who find such a conclusion congenial, and argue dishonestly for it.)

Anyway, about the article: I think it would be better if there was an article on the Historicity of Jesus which gave majority space to the majority opinion and minority space to the minority opinion, but for various WPreasons this is not likely to happen. Meanwhile, this is an article on the minority opinion, so I think it could well be kept as short as possible, and of course if Carrier makes a claim for which there is an empirical refutation, it should be included. But there should be no attempt at "balance", if you think that means showing Carrier is obviously wrong, because of... just another list of scholars.

I think it would be productive to discuss the structure of the article, and hammer out a better plan. Perhaps an introductory section should be much more general, in putting this into historical context. (Who were the gnostics? Were they really ancient Jesus-mythicists? If so this should surely be mentioned.) I think aiming to reduce rambling prose and superfluous footnotes etc would be a step in the right direction. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Who were the gnostics? Were they really ancient Jesus-mythicists? If so this should surely be mentioned. No. Gnostics were not ancient Jesus-mythicists. They did not say Jesus never existed and all of the stories about him are sheer invention, they said he was not a human being, even though he appeared to be one, he was pure spirit in human form. I am opposed to any discussion of gnosticism in this article.I think aiming to reduce rambling prose and superfluous footnotes etc would be a step in the right direction. Agree.Smeat75 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT :

...articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail...

If there can be an article dedicated to the historical views of Flat Earth, then there can also be an article dedicated to the historical views of Christ Myth. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note I have not at any time disputed the validity of this article's existence. Let's get that strawman out of the way. Let us please also dispense with the highly biased discussion of people of faith being incapable of anything but bias as well. It's a prejudice and an offensive attitude and it's not even pertinent. Let's please put an end to that from here on out and stick to what is in the article and how it measures up to Wiki standards.

Isn't there already an article on the historicity of Jesus? If not then there should be--but it should not be this one. This article has a valid place on Wikipedia, and I don't support changing that. If that is what is being discussed. All views should be represented on an encyclopedia. It's what we do here.

There is also nothing wrong with the structure of the article in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with its representation of the CM theory. It does a very thorough and careful presentation of mythicist arguments. Please note--I have not requested that a single word be removed from this article--not even Massey. Because I believe it is well written, clear--and though not at all concise--I like it and think it is mostly a good article. I don't see anything wrong with the introductory section as it stands. It presents the CM view with clarity and in this article I find it appropriate. The problem I have is that there is nothing representing the mainstream view in the rest of the article--80% of the body. And what that produces is neither neutral nor balanced and as a result, the article is misleading as to what the views on this theory actually are.

Yes gnosticism can be loosely seen as a progenitor in the manner we trace things to Plato and Aristotle and so on. Gnostics were the first to say "Jesus was never a real human man". Mention of them is only worth a line or two but it probably should be here in the history--at least that they existed and that the claim was being made that far back.

I am 100% in consensus with completely eliminating the rambling footnotes. It's my opinion rambling footnotes are generally used in an attempt to by-pass consensus. It's a way to get your viewpoint in the article without actually having to reach consensus to actually get it in the article. It's cheating. And it's done a lot here. You have my vote to remove them.

It would be completely productive to hammer out a plan. Absolutely. That is a suggestion that can genuinely move us forward. Thank you. It is my suggestion that some counterpoints in the body would be sufficient--nothing that's already here needs changing. Really. It's a good article. I have no problem with what's in it--I only have a problem with what isn't. So let me fix that one issue.

I'll tell you what. I will copy what I think needs additions, I will make changes that are representative of alternate views, and I will do it all in my sandbox only. When it's together, I will contact you here and you both can access my sandbox, read the changes, request changes to the changes, criticize, have input -- all before I put anything into the article. Jonathon didn't like Stout so I got rid of him; I am responsive to the concerns of others. I will go so far as to promise nothing will happen on this article unless and until we have consensus. If you will agree the article could in fact use some balancing, there is no reason why we can't do that in a way that satisfies everyone. I will even do my best to keep it concise--(though in all fairness, this article is anything but concise). How does that sound? It will require you accept the inclusion of things you disagree with. Can you?

You like Carrier that's clear. A lot of people do. But if you were going to write an article on him for Wiki, you would have to include his detractors as well as his supporters--and they would have to be proportionally representative of how many think whatever--right? This is not an article on Carrier, but that contrasting information should still be here in truncated form, and it's not--not in any form. That absence speaks. I am cooperative, but I am also insistent that Wiki measure up to its own standards. If you agree to my bend-over-backwards proposal, it will be incumbent upon you to be as unbiased as you claim you are in response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, Quest for the historical Jesus, Portraits of the historical Jesus, Jesus in comparative mythology; and Richard Carrier. That's five articles on the historicity of Jesus, not to mention the Jesus-sidebar that I just added, which contains links to ca. 40 articles. Quite a lot, for a person of which scholars state that we can only be certain that he was baptized and crucified. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's sufficient surely--it doesn't need this one too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Massey is in this article as though he were a legitimate scholar recognized by real Egyptologists! With no counter of any kind!
— User:Jenhawk777

Who were the gnostics? Were they really ancient Jesus-mythicists? If so this should surely be mentioned.
— User:Imaginatorium

I am opposed to any discussion of gnosticism in this article.
— User:Smeat75

If there can be an article dedicated to the historical views of Flat Earth, then there can also be an article dedicated to the historical views of Christ Myth.
— User:74.138.111.159

• This article is not dedicated to the historical views of Christ Myth.

Many issues would be simplified if a new article was created as Historical views of Christ Myth and then moving the historical viewpoint content in this article to the new article. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that. But it won't improve this article. This reads like a blog from a mythicist. Not Wiki standards in my book. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Now--do you think you can talk them into sharing? [History of Christ myth]Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Named footnotes and references

I've tried to clean-up the clutter of named footnotes; it worked to a certain extent, but now there are five error-warnings in the notes-section. I'm trying to find out why; I'll continue later. Meanwhile, if anyone's got an idea, please try. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The problem seems to be with the six notes which were first in the top half of the notes-section; this revision does not contain the warnings. They probably need the <ref group=web name=X> notation.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope, that doesn't solve it either. See this version. As far as I remember, references within references don't work; nice problem to fix for some technical-minded editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd

Sorry to bother you all again. The correct Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times seems to be page 189. Eddy & Boyd do mention "Jesus son of Damneus." I've made some corrections, and changed

Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd note that Josephus mentions several people named Jesus, and speculate that when Josephus called James the "brother" of Jesus of Nazareth in the Antiquities, he was referring to another Jesus when read in context.

into

Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd, who are critical of Christ Myth theorists, note that Josephus "mentions twenty-one other people with the name Jesus," and argue that when Josephus called James the "brother" of Jesus of Nazareth in the Antiquities, he did so to distinguish him "from the other persons named 'Jesus' he had already mentioned."

Quite a difference, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The phrase "speculate that when Josephus called" was inserted here, but was a copy-edit of an already existing text. Things seesm yo have gotten mixed-up here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Feldman and Hata address--and refute--this convincingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you refer to; Feldman, Louis Harry; Hata, Gōhei (1987). Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Brill. p. 56. ISBN 90-04-08554-8. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I do. It contains Zvi Baras' article in chapter 16 on Origen and the martyrdom of James. Baras is hard over that the Testimonium was altered which is why I like to use him. On page 341 he says, "Josephus reference here to "Jesus called the Messiah" is considered authentic by most scholars." I also use Alice Whealey who reflects Feldman's view that some of the Testimonium is authentic, and this one: Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–1980) By Louis H. Feldman. Starting on page 705 Feldman lists 4 scholars who regard the larger passage in Antiquities as completely genuine, 6 who regard it as mostly genuine; 20 who accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; and 13 who regard it as being totally an interpolation. As to discussion of the different Jesuses, Unterbrink who is also a proponent of full interpolation, and has no respect of any kind for the traditional view still says in his book "The Three Messiahs: The Historical Judas the Galilean, the Revelatory Christ Jesus and the mythical Jesus of Nazareth" in chapter five under "the Mythicist interpretation" all the many reasons this reassigning of names is absurd and the reference to James remains the "strongest pieces of evidence against the mythicist view." Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Methodology for the two facts of Jesus' life

So, how come mainstream scholarship states that "[these] two facts [of baptism and crucifixion] in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent (Dunn)"? As a twist: how come most of the narrative of Jesus is dismissed by mainstream scholarship? What are the "the methodology and presuppositions of historicity proponents" of which Cmt's are "often critical"? Something about these methodologies should be added. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice the subtle difference between (emphasis mine)

the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the accounts of a historical Jesus

and

the mainstream historical view, which is that the gospels include many legendary elements which are religious elaborations added to the accounts of a historical Jesus

The first quote is a criticism of the Cmt, referring to mainstream scholarship, stressing the point that there has been a historical Jesus; the second is a representation of mainstream scholarship, stressing the point that most of the Biblical accounts of Jesus are not regarded by mainstream scholarship to be historical facts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

So, how come mainstream scholarship states that "[these] two facts [of baptism and crucifixion] in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent (Dunn)"? Paul says he met Jesus' brother, James (Galatians 1:19). " Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (from Historicity of Jesus). Both Paul and Josephus say independently that Jesus had a brother named James. Therefore this is as close to hard fact as you can get in ancient history and as Bart Ehrman has said "That is pretty darn good evidence that Jesus existed. If he did not exist he would not have had a brother."[1]. On the baptism, also from Historicity of Jesus article, it says "The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent. Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus." On the crucifixion, this article quotes John Dominic Crossan -"That [Jesus] 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." That's really all there is to it. I would point out that "almost universal assent" is not the same thing as "consensus". There is so much evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified that historians mostly do not bother to refute the Christ Myth theory, they just snort with derision at the idea and dismiss it as silly.Smeat75 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken on there being consensus on only two points about Jesus. The textbook A. J. Köstenberger et al wrote: "The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament" says on page 470-471, "In the last quarter of the twentieth century, a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Paul's letters occurred ... since E.P.Sanders in 1977 in "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" ...Sander's portrayal of ancient Judaism has become so widely accepted it has become the consensus view." What is that view? It is not one thing--but it includes a list of things that can be known about the historical Jesus.

In 1985 Sanders continued his landmark work in "Jesus and Judaism" saying there are 8 things that can be discerned about the historical Jesus: his Baptism, that he was a Galilean itinerant preacher who was reputed to do healings and other 'miracles', he called disciples and spoke of there being 12, that he confined his activity to Israel, that he engaged in controversy over the Temple, that he was crucified outside of Jerusalem by the Romans, that those disciples continued as a movement after his death.

In his 1993 work, "The Historical figure of Jesus" he added 6 more: that Jesus was likely born in 4-6 BC under Herod the Great (the Gregorian calendar is wrong), Jesus grew up in Nazareth, Jesus taught in small villages and towns and seemed to avoid cities, Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples, he was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities apparently at the instigation of the high priest, his disciples abandoned him at his death, later believed they saw him and thereafter believed Jesus would return.

In 1996, N.T.Wright added 6 more things that can be known about the historical person of Jesus: Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, his message was a summoning to repentance, he used parables to teach about the kingdom of God, he used cures and 'miracles' to provide provenance for his message and his claims of who he was, he was inclusive, sharing a table with both Torah-observant Jews and "sinners".

C.A.Evans in "Authenticating the activities of Jesus" in his study concluded 3 more items could be added to Wright's and Sanders' lists: it was the public who declared Jesus a prophet, the Romans crucified him as "King of the Jews" and within three months of his death his followers were preaching in Jerusalem that he was Messiah ruling from Heaven.

Paul Barnett asserts nine more. Consensus varies on what can be known about the historical Jesus but I am tired of typing on this now because it is not what this article is about. As to "legendary elements"--I say the same. Let's keep the focus on the article and its content.

Does this mean you do not accept the offer I extended in my response to Imaginatorium above? Please read what I wrote to him and respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Kostenberger et al. (second edition), preface: a critical approach toward the Bible is wrong, because "scripture is the product inspiration"... Your choice of sources seems to reflect personal beliefs which are different from a critical reading of the primay sources. But it's interesting, and I'll look-up 470-471 too; thanks. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Right... Köstenberger et al. write that since the Reformation Protestant scholars "have viewed Paul's letters as a polemic against Jewish legalism", but since Sanders "many scholars concluded that such legalism did not exist in first century Judaism." As Köstenberger et al. write, this is about Second Temple Judaism, not about the question how much can be derived from paul about a historical Jesus. See also E. P. Sanders and New Perspective on Paul. Anyway, let there be some more points of agreement, but that's not the point here: most of the events and sayings attributed to Jesus are rejected by mainstream scholarship; why? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added Sanders to the note on Jesus' biography. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay--here's part of the problem with this comment and this article--only the part of the statement that agrees with your a priori position is presented. That preface goes on to say: "..to be equipped the student must be diligent... that diligence involves a thorough acquaintance with the historical, literary and theological aspects of the NT ... we can gain much by paying careful attention to the historical...". It doesn't say "a critical approach toward the Bible is wrong". Köstenberger is considered a relevant enough scholar, Wiki has a page on him. That should be sufficient to use him. It's easy enough to reference Sanders and Wright without the Köstenberger quote since all I used from him directly was "this represents consensus". Yes Sanders' view is about Jesus being Jewish--which impacts evidence he was an historical figure and does in fact include that list. That is the only aspect of Sanders' view that is on topic here. We keep straying off topic into your opinion on this subject rather than sticking to the article itself. I didn't. That's all.

Please tell me you understand belief does not automatically make academics incapable of objectivity any more than atheists who have also made a determination of their opinion are necessarily incapable of objectivity just because they have an opinion. Having an opinion doesn't automatically have to close us off from understanding the complexity of any question. But really, your personal opinions of their views--or what mine might be--are not relevant. I would appreciate a cease and desist on all comments concerning personal beliefs one way or the other.

If we start eliminating every source in this field written by believers, that will eliminate about 98% of the scholars in it--and will then --in no way-- reflect consensus in the field. Shall we turn around and exclude all the sources that begin from any position or just the one you disagree with? That is a kind of special pleading that has no place in a wiki-article.

One way to cope with this is to identify authors as 'evangelical' or whatever--but that will of necessity have to include sources you have already referenced--things like academic reviews of Carrier's work are largely unavailable because it is not considered academic quality work by the majority. If position in the field disqualifies some, that should be an even-handed standard applied to all.

This is not a personal blog. This is a wiki article that should sum up the sources --all the sources that represent the consensus view--and that's all it should do. Please address my comments on the absence of balancing material in 80% of the article. Let's make a plan on how to address those issues. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a book on methodology. Quote: "Despite the frequent claim of legendary-Jesus theorists that the skeptical position on the burden-of-proof question is a necessary element of truly critical scholarship...there are as a matter of fact many solid, critical, NT scholars who do not adopt it. Indeed a wide range of scholars have argued the opposite..." Page 366, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Gospels By Paul Rhodes Eddy, Gregory A. Boyd.

"...recent findings in orality-literacy studies must be factored into any discussion in historical critical research into the gospels"--same page--but completely missing from this article. Any methodology that only includes one point of view is not wiki-worthy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

New article: History of Christ myth

Rough draft @ User:Jenhawk777/History of Christ myth. 74.138.111.159 (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the point of this proposed new article? Is the idea to remove all the historical proponents of the Christ myth from this one? And it starts off with inaccurate discussion of gnosticism and docetism. "Different gnostics believed different things about the death and resurrection of Jesus. But some were people, whom we know as docetists, [who] believed that the death and suffering of Jesus were things that only appeared to happen, or if they happened, didn't really happen to the core of Jesus' spiritual reality."[2]. They said Jesus only appeared to be a human being but was actually an angel in human form, not that he never came to earth at all and all the NT stories about him are untrue. Also Celsus certainly was not a gnostic.Smeat75 (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the point either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The History of Christ myth article would contain the following content:

1. Relevant historical content about the Christ Myth.
2. Relevant historical content that is not about the historical Jesus.
3. Relevant historical content about people who assert that Christ Myth is derived from an ahistorical Jesus.

74.138.111.159 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In this article you have: According to Carrier, the genuine Pauline epistles show that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul believed in a visionary or dream Jesus, ...Carrier further argues that according to Paul (Philippians 2.7), Christ "came 'in the likeness of men' (homoiomati anthropon) and was found 'in a form like a man' ...that he was only sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' ... This is a doctrine of a preexistent being assuming a human body, but not being fully transformed into a man, just looking like one".

Gnostics believed Jesus was a celestial spiritual being who was good, and since they believed matter was evil, they did not believe he was a real human man--he just appeared to be one. He did not bleed and die as a human would have if crucified because he never lived as a human. He was therefore never physically resurrected. There were varieties of gnosticism with lots of additional details that certainly have nothing to do with Christ myth, but its core teaching was "Jesus never lived". Please explain to me how it is not legitimate to include this as the embryonic idea "Jesus never lived."

Having a second article would resolve some of the conflict here. There has been little responsiveness of any kind, and no real cooperation, on dealing with the concerns presented here. There is a possessiveness of this article and no attempt to directly address the issues. A connected article would alleviate some of that, perhaps prevent the need for arbitration. That is--if--you sent some of the material to it and helped work on building that one too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thats not exactly right. Carrier says Peter and Paul believed Jesus had a human body. But that information was only known by dreams.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)