Talk:Christ myth theory

Historicity from the Epistles

Historicity from the Epistles is typically asserted from:

• Jesus was born of the seed of David (Rom. 1:3).
• Jesus was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4).
• Paul knew people called Brothers of the Lord (1 Cor. 9:5 & Gal. 1:19).
• On “the night” before he died Jesus handled bread and wine and taught Christians the theological ritual of the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:23).
• In “the days of his flesh” Jesus cried and prayed to God to save him (Heb. 5:7).

Perhaps the mythicist′s arguments on these points should be more fully featured in the article? – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul knew people called Brothers of the Lord (1 Cor. 9:5 & Gal. 1:19)Galatians 1:19 says Paul met with James, the "Lord's brother", not "people called Brothers of the Lord." Josephus also refers, as you are very well aware, to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.". Having two independent attestations like that for someone from antiquity who is not an Emperor or military hero or queen or some such member of a super-elite is exceedingly rare. This is one of the major reasons why classical historians do not take the Christ myth theory seriously, we can say for sure, with certainty, as much as any event in history can be sure, that Jesus had a brother named James and as I have already quoted Bart Ehrman on this page "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it". I think that point could be strengthened in this article. Of course "mythicists" attempt desperate and convoluted arguments to try to make these two clear confirmations of each other that Jesus had a brother called James go away but it doesn't convince actual historians, only other "mythicists" or gullible members of the public who know nothing about ancient history.Smeat75 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Per http://biblehub.com Interlinear Greek:

• 1 Corinthians 9:5 —the brothers of the Lord
• Galatians 1:19 —the brother of the Lord

74.138.111.159 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Prince Philip is the brother of John Frum, a man who as currently presented by his followers likely didn't exist, so even if the "Lord's brother" is read the way you claim it doesn't prove anything. In fact, the noted anthropologist Peter Worsley stated in an 1957 paper "Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum." Heck, Jean Guiart's 1952 paper "John Frum Movement in Tanna" not only documents three natives using the name "John Frum" but the various statements made about John Frum, various people claiming to be his son (last I check non existent people don't have kids), and a letter from 1949 that states "The origin of the movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago." which would put the real John Frum in the 1910s somewhere rather then the 1930s that is currently claimed by the believers.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And that argument will start to gain some traction just as soon as ole Phil starts preaching the good news of John Frum. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't help as this is a perfectly valid method in anthropology. I should mention that even the article on James the Just acknowledges Paul uses the exact same Greek word ("adelphos" ie brother) in 1 Corinthians 15:6) so either Jesus had one huge family (more than five hundred brothers) or the word is not being used in the biological sense. Q.E.D.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The Historicity of Jesus (which is what this concerns) is not anthropology. it's history. And round here, "Q.E.D." usually translates to "I have no idea what I'm talking about" so I would advise not ending your comments with that tired old canard. Also, your sidetrack about the etymology of "adelphos" doesn't address my point. Finally, your argument about it isn't even coherent. Just being a Greek word doesn't mean it can only be used in one sense, every single time it's used. For crying out loud, my 5-year old could figure that one out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

As the article on anthropology itself points out over in Europe is is sometimes "grouped under other related disciplines, such as history." In fact, even in the United States there are fields that directly connect anthropology with history. I would go so far as to say given what the many versions of the Christ Myth theory try to do (ie get into the minds of the Christians of 1st to 4th century) that Ethnohistory and Historical anthropology are more the fields in play here then straight up history.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The Greek term "ἀδελφός" has several different meanings, depending on context. See: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:7:22.LSJ:

• 1) "son of the same mother", "brother"
• 2) "kinsman", "tribesman"
• 3) "colleague", "associate", "member of a college"
• 4) "term of address, used by kings... esp. in letters...as a term of affection, applicable by wife to husband"
• 5) "brother (as a fellow Christian)", "of other religious communities, e.g. Serapeum"
• 6) metaphorically, "fellow".
• 7) In adjective form, "brotherly or sisterly"
• ) In adjective form, "of anything double, twin, in pairs".

The feminine form is "ἀδελφή", which also has multiple meanings. See: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)delfh/

• 1) "sister"
• 2) "kinswoman"
• 3) "term of endearment", ; "applied to a wife"

Since the term is still in use in Modern Greek, I would assume you are aware that you can call just about anyone "brother". Did you thing that the popular Greek song "Αδέρφια μου, αλήτες, πουλιά" (1970), “My Brothers, Footloose Tramps, and Birds” was talking about biological siblings? Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Professor Phantasm and his/her definition of "adelphos" as brother. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Professor Phantasm, please note that at the top of the page is a banner that says This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article so discussing Prince Phillip, John Frum,natives of Tanna, or what you think the word "brother" means, does not belong here.Smeat75 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not "my" definition and these are not my points either. Read some of Carrier's 2014 On the Historicity of Jesus. Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 (you know the only freaking peer reviewed Christ myth book out there) and blog comments on material he missed finding regarding his book before trying to invoke nonsense. The John Frum connection (as well as the Prince Phillip one) is on pages 9-10 and 160. Carrier goes the route of a gloss that was inserted into the main text at a later date in addition to the other reading of "brothers" as alternative hypothesizes.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're just here to argue that mythicism is real, I know an admin that would be happy to topic ban you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Article title and first sentence

Please note this op-ed on excess parenthetical "metadata" in lead. I just removed one of the "alternative names", plain "mythicist", as ridiculous. Obviously, in context, as Maurice Casey was writing in the "citation", the term "mythicist" can be used to refer to supporters of this theory, but only in context. Do we really need to burden the opening sentence with a list of variant names? (I really do not believe this is how normal encyclopedias are written.) Then we should consider the title: as I understand it, theologically speaking "Christ" is more a title than a reference to the person. In this case the title would more correctly be "Jesus myth theory"; the list of alternatives could be removed, and perhaps a sentence added about historical variation in the names used. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I could agree that "Jesus myth theory" may be a better title, considering that many scholars accept that a historical Jesus likely existed but that there was also a mythological one (with the powers attributed in the Gospels, the Christ of the Christians). It is probably somewhat contentious and would require a proper move discussion (WP:COMMONNAME also taken in consideration). —PaleoNeonate – 09:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME the title should stay as the "Christ myth theory" as that is what its proponents call it. It is a silly term, I agree, it uses the word "myth" inaccurately, but that is what it is known as.Smeat75 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Section:Opponents

New user Lygu1560 blanked the section "Opponents" which reads "Few scholars have bothered to criticise Christ myth theories, regarding them as too outlandish to be worthy of serious criticism. Some notable exceptions are Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and Philip Jenkins" with an edit summary "Removing clear religious bias from phrasing"along with other changes that I reverted. He was adivised on his talk page by User:PaleoNeonate not to reinstate those edits without opening a discussion on this talk page. Today he blanked the same section again, ignoring this advice referring again to "clear religious bias" which is ridiculous, it is a matter of established historical fact, not religion, and those writers are historians. So I put it back again and user Imaginatorium took it out again with an edit summary "No, there is no consensus (among thinking people, not your "scholars") for this abusive and loaded description. Do no revert again without attempting to justify on talk". According to WP:BRD it is Lygu1560 who should have opened a discussion on talk after I reverted him, not me. And "thinking people" do not matter one little bit on WP, "your "scholars" are everything. I did not write that section but it is strictly accurate and should stay. I can expand it if wanted with more quotes from "your scholars" on what absolute nonsense the Christ myth theory is.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a quote, with a reference, to that section from another one of "your scholars" - " Paul L. Maier, former Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and current professor emeritus in the Department of History there has stated ""Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance." I have many more along the same lines if desired.Smeat75 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence that Lygu1560 and Imaginatorium object to with a direct quote from Robert van Voorst.Smeat75 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph is still ludicrously biased. Of course you have "many more along the same lines", but they are all faith-based, and fundamentally inadmissible. I will edit the paragraph again, and remove the "bothered" word; please do not put it in without a neutral source that says that an independent survey found that a majority of these "scholars" said nothing because they "couldn't be bothered". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

While I understand that the scholarly consensus is against the myth theory, which the article should portray, I also agree that the tone of that sentence was problematic. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Imaginatorium, that is fine. I agree that it is better to have a specific quote from a scholar rather than saying they "couldn't be bothered". This is how achieving consensus is supposed to work, not through edit-warring. (Though it really, really isn't "faith-based" to say that Jesus certainly existed, it is history-based, there are many professors and scholars of classics and ancient history quoted in the article and you will not find a single one who says anything different. Do you really think it is "fundamentally inadmissible" to cite what a "Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and current professor emeritus in the Department of History" says on this matter of ancient history?)Smeat75 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You do not seem to be very familiar with the empirical method: one of the rules is that you are not allowed to Know the answer before you look for it. The paragraph below from Maier is classic apologetics: he knows the answer, so he repeats it a lot, and hopes that will be convincing. (His text might need copy-editing if it is a transcript.) This article is (supposed to be!) about people who have actually looked at the evidence, and found it extremely flimsy. The only evidence I have yet seen is, well, the Bible, plus about three sentences (paragraphs) in Roman writers. The counter to this never seems to be to point to any more evidence: either we are told we "don't know how modern schoarship works" (well, how does it work?) or we are told that this extremely flimsy evidence is immensely strong by the standards historians use, which leaves me wondering quite what historians are doing. Maier in particular appears to claim that there is as much evidence for both JCs, Christ and Caesar, which I do not think many (real) historians would accept. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

On WP we as editors do not decide that a professor of ancient history and emeritus professor of history isn't a "real"historian because he does not follow the empirical method. All we do is quote what scholars such as Maier say. This article allows the mythicists to make their case and then says why the scholarly consensus rejects it. There is a very big difference between ancient history and more recent history, sources for ancient history are very few, independent multiple attestation of an event from antiquity such as there is for the crucifixion is exceedingly rare.Smeat75 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

one of the rules is that you are not allowed to Know the answer before you look for it. - It is the Christ mythicists who do that, not historians. Anyone who knows anything about ancient history and examines the evidence with an open mind will conclude that Jesus certainly existed. It is the mythicists who have made up their minds and will not let the evidence get in their way.Smeat75 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Maier quote

Maier, Paul L. (2010) ap. "Historian Interview: Paul L. Maier". Apologetics 315 podcast. (13 December 2010) @ http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/12/historian-interview-paul-l-maier.html

[Per the argument that Jesus never existed] anybody who is using that argument is simply flaunting his ignorance, I hate to say it but it's about that bad. We have more documentation on Jesus Christ then anybody in the ancient world as far as that's concerned. There is no question whatever in the mind of any serious scholar anywhere in the world that there certainly was a historical personality named Jesus of Nazareth.

Now you can argue about whether he [Jesus] was the son of God or not, you can argue about the supernatural aspects of his life. But in terms of the historical character there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary and all the evidence is in the favor and I just can't stand the computer blogs and so many other would-be authorities trying to use this argument: "He's only a myth, he never lived." Well that's simply ridiculous on the face of the facts.

Cf. Ben Stanhope (2 March 2015). "Salon.com's Remarkably Bad Historical Jesus Article". Remythologized. [Maier cited:] The following quotes are taken from a video and audio compilation "Do Historians Believe Jesus Existed." YouTube video, 6:05. Dec 27, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP15Pc2Lljc— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:160c:a232:c5ea:e9b4:d2f9:f543 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Once Again (sigh), It Seems that I need to Post This - Sources Saying that "most scholars agree"

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This contribution does not appear to be signed. Please say if you added it. Otherwise it could be removed. It is of zero significance, because "Most scholars have to agree" in order to keep themselves in employment. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I added the user's name and timestamp. —PaleoNeonate – 12:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It is of zero significance, because "Most scholars have to agree" in order to keep themselves in employment. Non sequitur. Most US-based lawyers have to agree that individual constitutional rights trump statutory law in order to keep themselves in employment. That doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Most contractors have to build to code in order to keep themselves in employment. Most police officers have to follow statutory guidelines and respect suspect's constitutional rights in order to keep themselves in employment. Most physicists have to avoid contradicting the standard model in order to keep themselves in employment. The list goes on and on. Attempts like this to reframe the scholarly consensus as a "party line" that must be toed ignore the blatantly obvious question of why that because the consensus to begin with. And in the modern age of growing secularism and outspoken atheism (including more than one of the world's leading Jesus scholars), attempting to answer that question with "religious dogma" is one of the most ignorant assumptions one could make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I added it, yes. And if you remove it, I'll just add it back in again because it is of great significance. If you can't see that, I can't help you. On the other hand, if you want to discuss it further, feel free; I'm willing. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I was the one who added the humorous image near "expressions of contempt". —PaleoNeonate – 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We do not use self-published material as sources

IP 71.218.57.83 added material from a book "Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed" by a non scholar, R G Price, printed by Lulu Publishing Services which is a self publishing service. See WP:SPS Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources... if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. I am removing the references to that self-published book.Smeat75 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I also left a similar message on their talk page. Thanks for the comment, —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate for Wikipedia?

"The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines." Does not seem to me to be a balanced comment whatever the evidence. "specialists in biblical criticism" is surely a biassed sample. Hughwill (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Does not seem to me to be a balanced comment whatever the evidence. How it seems to you, me or any other editor is irrelevant. What is stated by reliable sources is what matters, and the bit you quoted is stated by multiple reliable sources.

"specialists in biblical criticism" is surely a biassed sample. No, it is not. "Criticism" in that sentence does not mean what you think it means. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants says is correct. 'Biblical criticism' is an academic field, in which many leading experts are explicitly non-Christian, and have published widely on aspects of biblical criticism going against a religious view. No bias whatsoever. All this sentence say is that almost every expert in the relevant field consider it a fringe theory, just as almost every biologist consider intelligent design a fringe theory, almost every geographer consider flat earth a fringe theory etc. Jeppiz (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Far too much certainty there. I know you believe it's justified, but many see it differently. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Believe what is justified? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

My issue is when you go through the material on how "Christ myth theory" is defined it is not all in the 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being' camp.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We finally have a clear definition after years of arguing about this. "In the peer-reviewed scholarly Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Daniel N. Gullotta" states that "The Christ myth theory is "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence." See WP:RS and especially the section WP:SOURCETYPES "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." We do not argue with reliable sources here and the Gullota quote is exactly that, we just reference the reliable sources. If you want to dispute them you have to start your own blog or go to another website.Smeat75 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

when you go through the material on how "Christ myth theory" is defined it is not all in the 'Jesus didn't exist as a human being' camp.^{[citation really needed]} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman (who we cite in the article as a reliable source) states that a Jesus who existed but "had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" would also qualify as part of the Christ Myth. So a Jesus who preached a form of Judaism that Paul and others turned into Christianity (Remsburg's position) or someone who took over an already existing movement (ala Michael O. Wise or Israel Knohl) would both quality as Christ Myth theories. Eddy and Boyd's 2007 Jesus Legend conflates the idea of Jesus didn't exist (at all) with Jesus existed but the Gospel account is so legendary that the actual man is totally different but just on this side of recognizable; they also state a work by Wells that clearly accepts the Gospel Jesus as an actual person was in the same world as those who side Jesus didn't exist as a human being. Side note, Mike Bird, who serves on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, stated "I can tell you that the Jesus mythicist nonsense would never get a foot in the door of a peer-reviewed journal committed to the academic study of the historical Jesus." So here was have a person on the editorial board of the journal you are presenting clearly stating that his journal is bias against the "Jesus mythicist nonsense" position.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I would have been happy with just a reference to Ehrman. Yeah, I guess that's true. Good job. As for the rest of your comment: Yeah, I would certainly hope that everyone on the editorial board of a journal that we regularly used is biased against nonsense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Professor Phantasm, what's the source for the Mike Bird quote? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)