Talk:Christ myth theory

Critics of the historicity of the Christ

"Christ myth" means that there has not yet been a "Christ" (or messiah), or that Jesus the man was not the "Christ", and this position is widely accepted by scholarship.
— User:Wdford

The "Christ myth theory" is not a fringe viewpoint. Virtually every biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the living Christ holds that the "Jesus the Christ" figure is a myth. WP should therefore have two articles "Christ myth theory" and "Jesus mythicism".

1835: David Strauss

It appeared to the author of the work … that it was time to substitute a new mode of considering the life of Jesus, in the place of the antiquated systems of supernaturalism and naturalism.… the recent attempts to recover, by the aid of a mystical philosophy, the supernatural! point of view held by our forefathers, betray themselves, by the exaggerating spirit in which they are conceived, to be final, desperate efforts to render the past present, the inconceivable conceivable. The new point of view, which must take the place of the above, is the mythical. [Strauss 1983, p. 21.]

"New Foe Of Religion Arises". Chicago Tribune. February 6, 1910.

[Arthur Drews] laid down his theories after the classic manner of old time university disputations. The gist of his position in large measure was like the mythical theory of David Strauss, which created a sensation fifty years ago. Strauss held there was verity in the historic Christ, but that the vast mass of miracle and supernatural wonders had been woven like wreaths around the head of Jesus. Drews goes further. He alleges there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.

1842: Bruno Bauer

[W]hether Jesus is the historical Christ, we have answered by showing that everything that the historical Christ is, what is said of him, what we of him is know, belongs to the world of the imagination and indeed to the Christian imagination, thus also with a person who belongs to the real world has nothing to do with. [Bauer 1842, p. 3:308. "Die Frage, mit der sich unsere Zeit so viel beschäftigt hat ob nämlich Dieser, ob Jesus der historische Christus sey, haben wir damit beantwortet dass wir zeigten, dass Alles, was der historische Christus ist, was von ihm gesagt wird, was wir von ihm wissen, der Welt der Vorstellung und zwar der christlichen Vorstellung angehört, also auch mit einem Menschen, der der wirklichen Welt angehört Nichts zu thun hat. Die Frage ist damit beantwortet, dass sie für alle Zukunft gestrichen ist.]

1904: Albert Kalthoff

A Son of God, Lord of the World, born of a virgin, and rising again after death, and the son of a small builder with revolutionary notions, are two totally different beings. If one was the historical Jesus, the other certainly was not. [Kalthoff 1907, p. 28.]

1906: Albert Schweitzer

That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus came to birth … Thus each successive epoch of theology found its own thoughts in Jesus; that was, indeed, the only way in which it could make Him live. But it was not only each epoch that found its reflection in Jesus; each individual created Him in accordance with his own character. There is no historical task which so reveals a man's true self as the writing of a Life of Jesus. [Schweitzer 1910, pp. 3–4.]

1909: John Remsburg

[T]he Christ is understood [as] the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth. [Remsburg 1909, p. 9.]

1997: Robert M. Price

[I]n the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. [Price, Robert M. (1997). "Christ a Fiction". Internet Infidels.]

2021: John W. Loftus

The Jesus [Christ] pictured in the Gospels is a myth. If we must take the mythical tales at face value, then such a person found in the gospels never existed. So, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels never existed. If there was a real human being who was the basis for the Jesus character in the New Testament, he is dead now. [Loftus, John (26 July 2021). "My Talk at the GCRR e-Conference on the Historical Jesus". Debunking Christianity.]

Bibliography

• Bauer, Bruno (1841). Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker (in German). Leipzig: Otto Wigand. 2 vols.; 3rd vol. under the title Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker und des Johannes (in German). Braunschweig: Friedrich Otto. 1842.
• Bauer, Bruno (1850–1851). Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs (in German). Berlin: Gustav Hempel. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) 3 vols.; 4th vol. under the title Die Theologische Erklärung der Evangelien (in German). Berlin: Gustav Hempel. 1852. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kalthoff, Albert (1907) [1904 in German]. The Rise of Christianity [Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beiträge zum Christusproblem]. London: Watts & Co. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Remsburg, John Eleazer (1909). The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence. New York: The Truth Seeker Company. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schweitzer, Albert (1910) [1906 in German]. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede [Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung]. London: A. and C. Black. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) translated by W. Montgomery
• Schweitzer, Albert (1913) [1906, 1st ed.]. Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (in German) (2nd revised and expanded ed.). Tübingen: Mohr. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schweitzer, Albert (2001) [1913 in German]. The Quest of the Historical Jesus [Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung]. Fortress Press. ISBN 978-1-4514-0354-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) translated by John Bowden et al.
• Strauss, David (1983) [1835 in German]. "The Life of Jesus | PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION". In Stepelevich, Lawrence S. (ed.). The Young Hegelians: An Anthology. CUP Archive. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--2db (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC) && update 02:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

WP guidelines state you cannot do your own survey when defining "fringe theories" or saying "virtually all scholars." If you could find a scholarly source that says something like "Christ myth theory is no longer a fringe theory," or "Christ myth theory is not supported by many scholars," that would be the most helpful to your case. I must say though, that would be difficult to find as the majority of scholars (even Price himself has) have stated Christ myth theory is fringe. EternallyNow (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Arguably every modern biblical scholar who is not a devotee of the second-god called Lord Jesus Christ, holds that the living Christ and lord of the Christian community is a myth, and per said myth: historicists argue that Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera was a historical personage and biblicists argue that the literary protagonist (sc. Jesus) of the gospel series (a debated genre of "historical bios" v. "historical fiction") was inspired by a real historical person in the same manner as Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, Santa Claus, etc.. --2db (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pattenden, Miles (19 January 2022). "Historians and the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion & Ethics.

Professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.

--2db (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Christ myth theory" as a popularised though misleading term for the view that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all, though incorrectly (and possibly deliberately) conflating the terms to dismiss the view that Jesus is not also 'divine'.
— User:Jeffro77

Clearly "Christ myth theory" is not always synonymous with Jesus ahistoricity being the most probable explanation for the origins of Christianity. --2db (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Why quote only part of what I said, without context, in a different section when the original section is on this Talk page?? The point is that the article does not need to exclusively use the term ‘Christ myth theory’.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The quoted sub-point supports my overall point here which is indeed not your overall point in the original context of the quote. The use of ‘Christ myth theory’ is problematic, see:

• Requested move: Christ myth theory → Jesus myth theory
• Requested move: Christ myth theory → Jesus mythicism

--2db (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No, my full statement also addressed the broader issues with the term ‘Christ myth theory’.—Jeffro77 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Virtually all"

@CompliantDrone: the phrase "virtually all" has been discussed over and overagain, here and at Talk:Historicity of Jesus; I suggest you first scroll through the talkpage-archives before even starting the next discussion on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "virtually all" should have a notice attached to it that WP does not hold this viewpoint per se, but it is the claim of what WP accepts as reliable sources. --2db (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that WP should not hold viewpoints at all, and that sourced claims always represent the viewpoint of the source, this claim is no different than literally millions of other similar claims. As any competent reader will already know this, it's hard to see what the case for a notice would be. Jeppiz (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:VOICE

Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.

--2db (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No such "notice" should be 'attached'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the lead, there is a quite egregious POV problem. The lead first conflates the 'Christ myth theory' as both views that No Jesus existed at all (i.e. 'Jesus myth') and there may have been a historical Jesus, but elements of myth were added (i.e. Christ myth). To then say that the conflated definition as a whole is widely considered a "fringe theory" is highly inaccurate. It is widely accepted by scholars that Jesus likely existed, was a disciple of John the Baptist, and was executed by the Romans, but there is not solid agreement on essentially anything else of the historical Jesus. More importantly, there is considerably less agreement among scholars that Jesus is 'Christ'. The view that there was no historical Jesus at all is widely considered a fringe theory by scholars, but to also imply that scholars also reject the view that Jesus was not 'divine' is rampantly dishonest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, no argument there. Obviously there is no scholarly consensus that Jesus was Christ. The name "Christ Myth Theory" is a widely accepted term for what is in effect the "Jesus Myth Theory". It's unfortunate, but not something we at WP came up with. If you have suggestions om how to improve it, while keeping with the terms scholars use, that would be great. Jeppiz (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The preference for the term 'Christ myth theory' is itself strongly influenced by a religious POV. A proper resolution to this problem would take more time to consider than I currently have.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced the most problematic statement with a more accurate statement about the specific view about a historical Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Though I see your thinking on this, Jesus non-existence is just one strand of mythicism. Scholars reject the others views too such as "Jesus agnosticism" and the mythical fusion (see paragraph 2 in the lead). Shouldn't we just say "Mythicist views" instead of "Views that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure" (which is only one view out of multiple other mythicist views)? The literature is pretty clear that mythicism is not really a part of the mainstream so it should delineate mythicists from minimalists whom some confuse as being mythicist - like the Jesus Seminar. What do you think?

I hear you about the "Christ myth" confusion, but it can be avoided by merely using one of the terms they currently use "Mythicist". The vast majority of scholars including Marcus Borg, Crossan, or even Joseph Hoffman (Jesus Seminar) are not mythicists.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The wording I have chosen quite clearly distinguishes views about Jesus being a historical figure from (possibly intentional) implications that 'mythicists' are dismissed for saying Jesus is not 'divine'. I see no good reason to re-introduce that ambiguity. Your suggestion of 'just saying "mythicist views"' might be acceptable if the misleading loaded term "Christ myth theory" were not present in the article. For as long as that term is used, and especially used predominantly, your preferred wording seems unacceptable. (Also, the phrase "non-existence theories" is awful in its own right.) People reading the lead of the article should not be expected to already know what "the literature" says in detail on the matter, nor is it necessary to consider every view in that initial summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But again, that only isolates only one strand. What about the others like Jesus agnosticism and fusion views. These are also rejected and both actually do not automatically reject a historical jesus (they are just very pessimistic) and yet they are mythicist arguments that are also rejected by mainstream scholars. Ehrman and Casey use the terms "mythicists" in their wide reaching criticisms in their extensive surveys. These RS should be used as a generic guide on naming the diverse "mythicts views". Also "Jesus mythicists" or "myth theorists" might be another alternative and capturing the breadth of the views and it would avoid the Christ issue you are talking about too.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly see the Christ myth issue you see. But there are alternatives available instead of just mentioning one stand (Jesus non-existence) and leaving the other views unaddressed despite that the sources do include such views as also being rejected in scholarship.

Perhaps just saying "Views held by mythicists" or "Such views are rejected ...." would work. I think "Such views are rejected...." would be a good continuation from the previous two paragraphs and it would avoid using mythicist. What do you think? Ramos1990 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'other' elements you refer to basically boil down to saying 'maybe Jesus didn't exist', or 'we can't say one way or the other whether he existed' (in addition to hard views that 'Jesus didn't exist'). The common element of those views that scholars reject is some level of probability that 'Jesus didn't exist'. If person A says, "cats aren't real", person B says, "maybe cats aren't real", and person C says, "maybe cats are real but there are so many fanciful things said about them that we can't be sure", the single element that most people would reject is the conclusion that cats might not be real, irrespective of the conditional qualifiers. It is not necessary to overcomplicate (or mask) that in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it would not be sufficient to just sometimes say "Jesus mythicists" or "myth theorists" because the whole article is called "Christ myth theory", which inherently frames the subject in a misleading manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have to disagree since the jesus agnosticism position is not saying 'jesus maybe was not real'. Robert Price clearly states "There may have been a Jesus on earth in the past," and "It doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionised, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype." And the fusion position Wells states "I have always allowed that Paul believed in a Jesus who, fundamentally supernatural, had nevertheless been incarnated on Earth as a man." Hover over the quotes on the second paragraph of the lead.

They do not deny his existence categorically. So this is why I am leaning to just "Such views are rejected...." would be a good continuation from the previous paragraphs 2 and 3 and it would avoid using mythicist. What do you think?Ramos1990 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Since scholars are only really agreed about Jesus being a disciple of John the Baptist and executed by the Romans, it isn't so far from "the evidence is so obscured by myths and dogma that no conclusion can be made about him" could be interpreted, which is a quite slippery slope, as is the view that "it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionised, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype". However, calling some hypothetical person in the distant past (from the perspective of the 1st century) "Jesus" would be a false equivalence and would still fall into the category of saying Jesus—as recognised by scholars—didn't exist. Where mythicists conditionally don't deny his existence, that isn't what scholars are generally rejecting. (Also, Wells saying that 'Paul [maybe] believed Jesus was a real person' is not the same as Wells believing Jesus was a real person.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

'Theory'

This article necessarily refers to the term "Christ myth theory" as a popularised though misleading term for the view that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure at all, though incorrectly (and possibly deliberately) conflating the terms to dismiss the view that Jesus is not also 'divine'. That being as it is, the article should not further misuse the term "theory" elsewhere in the article. This is especially the case because POVs generally expressed on the subject of this article cross over with misuse of the term in the related context of evolution being 'just a theory'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Article balance

There are quite a few significant POV issues in the article body. Various statements characterised as 'mythicist' are actually wholly or largely consistent with the mainstream consensus. A significant portion of the article conflates hard-line mythicist views with other supposedly 'moderate' views, using Wikipedia's voice to distort the line between scholarly and mythicist views.

In the subsections below red text indicates statements in the article about mythicists and green text indicates the mainstream view or statements responding to mythicists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Paul and the gospels

Whereas the scholarly consensus is that little is known about the life of the historical Jesus except that Jesus was baptized, and that he was crucified, the article instead sets an inconsistent standard for 'mythicist' views:

• they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins, as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels, with Jesus being a celestial being who was concretized in the Gospels.
• Some moderate authors, most notably Wells, have argued that there may have been a historical Jesus, but that this historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul.
• According to Wells, a minimally historical Jesus existed, whose teachings were preserved in the Q document. According to Wells, the Gospels weave together two Jesus narratives, namely this Galilean preacher of the Q document, and Paul's mythical Jesus.
• According to Doherty, the Jesus of Paul was a divine Son of God, existing in a spiritual realm where he was crucified and resurrected. This mythological Jesus was based on exegesis of the Old Testament and mystical visions of a risen Jesus.
• In his early work, including Did Jesus Exist? (1975), Wells argued that because the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death by Christians who were theologically motivated but had no personal knowledge of him, a rational person should believe the gospels only if they are independently confirmed. In The Jesus Myth (1999) and later works, Wells argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one, namely Paul's mythical Jesus, and a minimally historical Jesus from a Galilean preaching tradition, whose teachings were preserved in the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
• According to Doherty, the nucleus of this historicised Jesus of the Gospels can be found in the Jesus-movement which wrote the Q source. Eventually, Q's Jesus and Paul's Christ were combined in the Gospel of Mark by a predominantly gentile community. In time, the gospel-narrative of this embodiment of Wisdom became interpreted as the literal history of the life of Jesus.
• In Deconstructing Jesus, Price claims that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a "composite figure", out of which a broad variety of historical Jesuses can be reconstructed, any one of which may have been the real Jesus, but not all of them together. According to Price, various Jesus images flowed together at the origin of Christianity, some of them possibly based on myth, some of them possibly based on a historical "Jesus the Nazorean", and that the historical Jesus has become obscured behind the dogma. Price admits that there may have been a real Jesus figure, but it is no longer possible to be sure.
• "The essays collected in this volume have a modest purpose. Neither establishing the historicity of a historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods."

The article states clearly that mainstream scholars to varying degrees also question the reliability of Paul's writings and/or the gospels, which they say describe the Christ of faith, presenting a religious narrative which replaced the historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine and that the historical Jesus was not like the Jesus preached and proclaimed today; they also recognise that in Paul's writings, Jesus is indeed presented as a 'celestial being' (though having been human); and they also recognise that the gospels were produced later with little agreement about their veracity. all material on Jesus has been handed down by the emerging Church. it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus". The Pauline creeds contain elements of a Christ myth and its cultus.

The article also claims that In his later writings, G.A Wells changed his mind and came to view Jesus as a minimally historical figure though Wells' view was consistently that Jesus likely existed but that most of what is in the Bible about him is not reliable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This issue is still not resolved, with continued misuse of Wells' views from 1996 onwards presented as 'mythicist' views. (I have struck out a previous statement about Wells from when I had not yet properly considered the various sources beyond the misrepresentations present in the article. Wells did indeed explicitly change his view, and that fact is distorted in the article by the continued misuse of his later works. However, the phrase "minimally historical" is misused, apparently to discredit Wells' later works regarding 'Christ' as a myth rather than 'Jesus' as a myth.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul's references to Jesus

• Wells, a "minimal mythicist", criticized the infrequency of the reference to Jesus in the Pauline letters and has said there is no information in them about Jesus' parents, place of birth, teachings, trial nor crucifixion.
• Wells says that the Pauline epistles do not make reference to Jesus' sayings, or only in a vague and general sense.

But those statements are consistent with the fact that modern biblical scholarship notes that "Paul has relatively little to say on the biographical information of Jesus"--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This issue is still not resolved, and relies entirely on unsuitable use of Wells' later works when he was no longer a mythicist. The phrase "minimal mythicist" is also inappropriate here for the same reason.--

Development of early Christianity

The possibility that early Christianity was significantly influenced by non-Jewish beliefs is characterised as 'mythicist' though it is not actually relevant to whether there was a historical Jesus. (It is actually entirely unsurprising that early Christianity would be influenced by Greek and Roman ideas, just as earlier Jewish belief was influenced by Babylonian, Persian and Greek concepts.)

• early Christianity was widely diverse and syncretistic, sharing common philosophical and religious ideas with other religions of the time. It arose in the Greco-Roman world of the first and second century AD, synthesizing Greek Stoicism and Neoplatonism with Jewish Old Testament writings and the exegetical methods of Philo, creating the mythological figure of Jesus.
• Doherty notes that, with the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek culture and language spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean world, influencing the already existing cultures there. The Roman conquest of this area added to the cultural diversity, but also to a sense of alienation and pessimism. A rich diversity of religious and philosophical ideas was available and Judaism was held in high regard by non-Jews for its monotheistic ideas and its high moral standards. Yet monotheism was also offered by Greek philosophy, especially Platonism, with its high God and the intermediary Logos. According to Doherty, "Out of this rich soil of ideas arose Christianity, a product of both Jewish and Greek philosophy", echoing Bruno Bauer, who argued that Christianity was a synthesis of Stoicism, Greek Neoplatonism, and Jewish thought.
• Robert Price notes that Christianity started among Hellenized Jews, who mixed allegorical interpretations of Jewish traditions with Jewish Gnostic, Zoroastrian, and mystery cult elements. Some myth proponents note that some stories in the New Testament seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah, Elisha, Moses and Joshua in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Price notes that almost all the Gospel-stories have parallels in Old Testamentical and other traditions, concluding that the Gospels are no independent sources for a historical Jesus, but "legend and myth, fiction and redaction".
• According to Doherty, the rapid growth of early Christian communities and the great variety of ideas cannot be explained by a single missionary effort, but points to parallel developments, which arose at various places and competed for support. Paul's arguments against rival apostles also point to this diversity.
• According to Carrier, the genuine Pauline epistles show that the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul believed in a visionary or dream Jesus, based on a pesher of Septuagint verses Zechariah 6 and 3, Daniel 9 and Isaiah 52–53. Carrier notes that there is little if any concrete information about Christ's earthly life in the Pauline epistles, even though Jesus is mentioned over three hundred times.

Yet, scholars have also argued that Paul was a "mythmaker", who gave his own divergent interpretation of the meaning of Jesus, building a bridge between the Jewish and Hellenistic world, thereby creating the faith that became Christianity. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, a number of early Christianities existed in the first century CE, from which developed various Christian traditions and denominations, including proto-orthodoxy. According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism. According to Philip Davies, the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed "composed of stock motifs (and mythic types) drawn from all over the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The presentation of this issue is not entirely neutral in the article, though it does not misrepresent Wells and the contrasts given are probably acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

False dichotomy

Various statements in the article present misleading black-and-white thinking wherein suggesting that the gospels were influenced by anything other than narratives of the historical Jesus are necessarily at odds with mainstream scholarship:

• mythicists argue that although the Gospels seem to present a historical framework, they are not historical records, but theological writings, myth or legendary fiction resembling the Hero archetype. They impose "a fictitious historical narrative" on a "mythical cosmic savior figure", weaving together various pseudo-historical Jesus traditions, though there may have been a real historical person, of whom close to nothing can be known.
• According to Robert Price, the Gospels "smack of fictional composition", arguing that the Gospels are a type of legendary fiction and that the story of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels fits the mythic hero archetype. The mythic hero archetype is present in many cultures who often have miraculous conceptions or virgin births heralded by wise men and marked by a star, are tempted by or fight evil forces, die on a hill, appear after death and then ascend to heaven. Some myth proponents suggest that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history.
• Wells "regard[s] this Jewish Wisdom literature as of great importance for the earliest Christian ideas about Jesus".
• In his later contribution "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), Price concludes that the gospel story is a "tapestry of Scripture quotes from the Old Testament."
• He also argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
• According to Thompson, "questions of understanding and interpreting biblical texts" are more relevant than "questions about the historical existence of individuals such as ... Jesus". In his view, Jesus existence is based more on theological necessity than historical evidence. He believes that most theologians accept that large parts of the Gospels are not to be taken at face value, while also treating the historicity of Jesus as not an open question. In his 2007 book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the Biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are not historical accounts, but are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek and Roman literature. Those accounts are based on the Messiah mytheme, a king anointed by God to restore the Divine order at Earth.

However, it is entirely compatible with the existence of a historical Jesus for both Paul's writings and the gospels to also draw on other sources or themes. Among contemporary scholars, there is consensus that the gospels are a type of ancient biography, a genre which was concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, as well as including propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works. Ehrman notes that the gospels are based on oral sources, which played a decisive role in attracting new converts. Christian theologians have cited the mythic hero archetype as a defense of Christian teaching while completely affirming a historical Jesus. the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects. Most of the themes, epithets, and expectations formulated in the New Testamentical literature have Jewish origins and are elaborations of these themes. The article, attempting to assert that the characterisation of Jesus was not based on 'gentile' influences, acknowledges that elements are instead derived from earlier Jewish literature: According to James Waddell, Paul's conception of Jesus as a heavenly figure was influenced by the Book of Enoch and its conception of the Messiah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This issue is not yet resolved, though it could be acceptable apart from the misuse of Wells' later works regarding other sources that influenced the development of Jesus as presented in the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Weasel words

Supposedly 'mythicist' dating of Paul's writings is characterised using weasel words:

• most mythicists argue that the Pauline epistles are older than the gospels

Rather than this being something that mythicists "argue", The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to AD 50–60 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains one of the earliest Christian creeds expressing belief in the risen Jesus (53-54 CE), namely 1 Corinthians 15:3–41

'Mythicist' characterisation of the Testimonium Flavianum is also treated with weasel words though it is viewed similarly in mainstream scholarship:

• Myth proponents argue that the Testimonium Flavianum may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, … The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage in book 18, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery.

• Some myth proponents note that some stories in the New Testament seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah, Elisha, Moses and Joshua in order to appeal to Jewish converts.

It is not merely the view of 'mythicists' that various elements of the gospels 'seem to' "reinforce Old Testament prophecies", it is inherently required for the genre of 'Messianic prophecy'.

There are also some instances of terms such as 'claim' where a more neutral word should be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved, tentatively.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Double-standard for 'argument from silence'

The article employs a double-standard regarding the 'argument from silence':

• Paul's epistles lack detailed biographical information … there is a complete absence of any detailed biographical information such as might be expected if Jesus had been a contemporary of Paul, nor do they cite any sayings from Jesus, the so-called argument from silence
• Myth proponents claim there is significance in the lack of surviving historic records about Jesus of Nazareth from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding that Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they note that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 AD.
• The "argument of silence" is to be rejected, because "it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist."

But the article says it is notable that "the mystery cults are never mentioned by Paul or by any other Christian author of the first hundred years of the Church," despite the fact that it would be contrary to their purpose to mention them even if they did draw on them. Also Van Voorst employs argument from silence, Wells cannot explain why "no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There probably isn't much that can be done about this, unless there are sources that rebut Ehrman's and Van Voorst's own arguments from silence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Vagueness

• Yet another view is that there may have been a historical Jesus who lived in a dimly remembered past, and who was merged with mythical and literary figures in the Gospels.

The phrase 'dimly remembered past' in the lead should be replaced with something more specific, such as 'before the first century'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Resolved, at least currently.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

At a quick glance: the article gives an overview of the mythicists pov('s) and arguments; even if there are arguments that are also being used by mainstream scholarship, it still is an overview of the arguments of mythicists. Mainstream scholarship arrives at other conclusions than the mythicists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times already - mainstream scholarship actually shares with the mythicists the core conclusion that the Gospel Christ is a work of fiction. The only differences between mainstream scholarship and the mythicists revolve around what percentage of the gospel story is potentially historical fact. Mainstream scholarship holds that all the supernatural bits of the gospel story are not historical fact, but that most of the mundane details are probably fairly historical. The mythicists (on average) hold that most of the mundane, non-supernatural bits of the gospel story are probably also pretty doubtful. If the article would just reflect this reality, honestly and transparently, then this dissention would evaporate. However there has long been a determined effort to carefully word all these Jesus articles such as to allow the impression that mainstream scholarship supports the historicity of the Gospel stories. Wdford (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The way the article is presented, it doesn’t simply indicate that mainstream scholarship ‘reaches different conclusions’. Some of the conclusions of mainstream scholarship are in fact the same conclusions as those of what the article describes as ‘moderate’ mythicists. I have already provided examples above of how essentially the same views and conclusions are characterised differently to make more of the mythicists’ views appear contrary to scholarship than is actually the case. (And obviously that does not include the more extreme mythicists views that no historical Jesus existed at all).—Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The question now is how to fix this? See e.g. this link to Alvar Ellegard [1]. How do we go about amending the wording to accurately reflect the true level of overlap? Wdford (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

To fix this... there is a quite obvious first step... much of the 'overlap' constitutes mainstream views that are separately presented as the views of 'mythicists' but that actually cite Wells' works from 1996 onwards, when he was explicitly not a mythicist (confirmed by Van Voorst). If such statements cannot be sourced instead to Wells' works from prior to 1996 or to other actual mythicists, they should be removed entirely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mythicists do not live in a vaccum. They borrow from some scholars whom they favor for their thesis that Jesus did not exist or is mythological. However it is important to note that the scholars they use or select do not use the same point to arrive at a mythicist conclusion. Mythicits will agree with mainstream scholars on basic information that is found in the texts, for instance that there is little biographical information on Jesus in Paul's writings. That is universally understood by all scholars. However, mythicists take that information and ignore the nuances of mainstream scholars which argue that none of that implies that Jesus was only conceived as a celestial being.

Mythicists do not come up with completely new scholarship. They merely distort mcuh of the schaolrship that is out there and come up with odd conclusions because of their misinterpretation and distortion. The fact that critical scholars like Bart Ehrman wrote a whole book detailing the differences between his liberal interpretation of the evidences and how mythicists misinterpret the evidence should show how mythicists deviate from mainstream scholarship.

Why not read what Ehrman observed as the basis for what the differences are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.10.226 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Jeffro77, personally I would agree with virtually everything you say, so I don't dispute it. At the same time, parts of it very much comes across as your interpretation various mythicists' views, and that risks venturing into original research. Again, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but if we have a source X saying Y, then we cannot insert Z instead based on our opinions. I write this as your lengthy arguments above are mainly based on how you think things stand, but rather weak on sources to support it. So please remember we are bound to report what reliable sources say. Of course that doesn't mean we should have errors in the article, and if you identify passages that go against what sources say, they should of course be modified. But once again, the article must be based on what sources say, not on how any of us interpret said sources. Jeppiz (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The core problem with the article is kind of illustrated by the IP editor above, though unwittingly. There is some ‘poisoning the well’ of the term ‘mythicist’, and the article conflates the views of hardcore mythicists with other views that are actually consistent with mainstream views but do not phrase things as Christians might like. For example, Thomson is not a mythicists at all but instead says whether Jesus existed is separate to other analysis, and other than Ehrman’s accusation that Thomson is a ‘mythicist’ and Thomson’s response, other statements of Thomson’s views have been misused in the article. There are similar issues with Wells.

Additionally, there is the inherent POV of preferring the awfully erroneous term ‘Christ myth theory’ which isn’t a ‘theory’, and it really is the mainstream view that ‘Christ’ (not ‘Jesus’) is actually a myth. The article consistently refers (disparagingly) to the ‘Christ’ myth throughout the article though other terms exists, giving implicit preference to views that endorse Christ as ‘divine’, without sufficiently indicating that the mainstream view is that the existence of the real Jesus with what is actually known and agreed about him by scholars is actually relatively mundane.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman actually wrote: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesus are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time."

This is very similar to the definition of Doherty, who described "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." Ehrman differs from Doherty really only on the last clause, namely that "no single identifiable person" underlay it all.

Can we add this to the lead? If Ehrman is good enough to cite for defining the CMT, of which he is not a proponent, then surely he is good enough for definiing the mainstream view as well? Wdford (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A summary of Ehrman’s statement should be in the lead and the full quote should be in a suitable place in the body. In general, the lead should summarise article content and isn’t the place for extended quotes.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman's comment on that is not the mainstream view. That is clearly his own view on that. Clearly the scholars who are Christian, which are the majority of scholars on Christian topics clearly would disagree with that. But that statement is already cited in the lead in the last sentence either way - with numerous other citations which show the diversity of understandings of Christ in mainstream scholarship. "The The Historical Jesus : Five Views" provides a wide range of views that are held on that. So technically there is no one view on that. There are multiple.

Touching on the other parts of the discussion, yes I agree with some of the comments above that we should stick to the sources per wikipedia policy. They are the guide and they are the content of the article. It seems that we are moving away into WP:FORUM and engaging with original research or even synthesis and pushing in interpretations that are not in sources. The sources clearly define Christ myth theory and they address it consistently (e.g Robert Price, Gullotta, Van Voorst, Ehrman, Casey, etc). Casey, Van Voorst, Ehrman, and others make arguments how mythicts diverge from mainstream views (which are diverse, but not to the point of mythicist level of denialism). This is why they make surveys about what mythicist arguments look like, how mythicists operate and what they are aiming to achieve. Robert Price himself, a godfather of mythicism, summarizes it pretty consistently too and provides an overview of typical myhtiicts arguments and positions in many of the sources here. None of these sources or authors argue that if a mythicist overlaps with mainstream scholarship, it is some sort of validation that they are mainstream, or close to being mainstream. The sources themselves, which is the policy on wikipedia, are what make the delineation that they are not mainstream.

The red and green quotes from the article itself above, are not stand alone sentences, they are properly cited with sources too (sometimes multiple sources). I don't see any issues if the sources make such claims. No matter if they overlap, contradict, or not to some degree, we are not here to WP:SYNTHESIS sources. It is what it is.

It would just as odd as saying that since Intelligent design does agree with evolutionary theory on numerous points, that somehow it is absorbed into evolutionary theory views and is thus mainstream with it. There are numerous agreements between holocaust deniers and holocaust historians, but they differ on major and important ones and that makes the differences between fringe and mainstream. Keep in mind that mainstream scholarship in religious matters tends to be theologically neutral as a matter of practice. So you will always get mundane, neutral, middle ground assessments of Muhammad, Buddha, and any other religious figure.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn’t the case that the article must only refer to the subject as ‘Christ myth theory’, and it is the case that there is cherry picking involved in the article presentation, and that the views of so-called ‘moderate mythicists’ are misrepresented in the article. None of that falls into WP:FORUM.—Jeffro77 (talk)

"Moderate mythicist" is not a term in any source. That is wikieditor terminology at this point. If you are talking about Wells, then his views can be clarified with proper sourcing. His views did evolve and he eventually became a minimal historicist. For example, he stated "When I first addressed these problems, more than thirty years ago, it seemed to me that, because the earliest Christian references to Jesus are so vague, the gospel Jesus could be no more than a mythical expansion and elaboration of this obscure figure. But from the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, the personage represented in Q (the inferred non-Markan source, not extant, common to Matthew and Luke; cf. above, p. 2), which may be even earlier than the Paulines. This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these-The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth-may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus." (Cutting Jesus Down to Size (2009) p.14)Ramos1990 (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation of what I have said to suggest, essentially, 'well it's what the sources say so we have no choice'. The problem is one of presentation. The article presents more of a contrast between mythicist and mainstream views than is actually the case. It then says that 'mythicist views are wrong' (though I have cleaned up some of the most egregious wording), 'poisoning the well' about everything 'mythicists' say even where elements are actually a mainstream view.

Where there is overlap between mythicist and mainstream views, a more balanced presentation would present a single passage about what is agreed (rather than providing two separate pieces with the mythicist view characterised more negatively but really expressing the same views), and then state their varying conclusions. For example, the view that the "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is actually a mainstream view.

Where there is no actual disagreement in a particular element, it should either be removed altogether or at the very least greatly condensed. For example, the supposedly 'mythicist view' that "the Testimonium Flavianum may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the 4th century or by others" is in fact a mainstream scholarly view.

Other POV issues include the implicit characterisation of certain conclusions as uniquely or inherently 'mythicist', though they are not actually pertinent to whether a source also believes in a historical Jesus, For example, "Some mythicists, though, have questioned the early dating of the epistles". (Additionally, the use of "some" for two completely incompatible views of 'mythicists' in that paragraph is far too ambiguous, especially if there is actually one predominantly favoured view.)

The views of Wells' later works and of Thompson also should not be expressed as mythicist, except in very direct quoted statements by specified authors, and if a rebuttal exists from the 'accused' author, that should also be included (as is currently provided for Ehrman's views of Thompson and the latter's response).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What you keep on proposing is original research or even synthesis of sources - constantly sounds like you want to make wikieditor judgements of the quality of the arguments the sources make and make judgments of how they relate to each other. This is synthesis and original research. Are you an authority on this topic? No and me neither. Wikieditors do not determine what is common ground or what is not between these views. The sources have to make those distinctions or arguments themselves - if they even do - not us. The current format works very well because there is a place to place views by mainstream scholars (there may be more than one view) and a place to place mythicist views (there may be more than one). The contrasting does not poison the well at all. It shows the views in a raw fashion for readers to see since each has their own space on a particular issue. The whole section does show significant differences in views between both camps - especially the conclusions. Keep in mind that mythicists have been heavily criticized for +200 years and are fringe, so one would not expect sources to give charitable treatment to their views or be welcoming.

When you say "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is the mainstream view, it is incorrect. There are multiple views ranging from the Christian views, Jewish views, Muslims views, and Secular views. See for example The Historical Jesus: Five Views presents a small sample of the different views available. There are wide range of views on this and of course most scholars do not call Paul's conception of Christ a "myth" either.

In the Josephus Testimonium stuff section shows significant differences between mythicists views and mainstream views. Bart Ehrman states "Mythicists have argued, however, that the entire passage was made up by a Christian author and inserted into the writings of Josephus." (Did Jesus Exist? p. 61). He states that the other passage on Jesus in Josephus (Antiq. 20) is also seen as a complete invention too (p.59). He cites examples like Doherty and Wells on this too. Indeed even Carrier and Price, who are cited in that section in the article believe that both Jesus references are complete fabrication and not original from Josephus and that most scholars are mistaken for not seeing that. So clarification would probably be good there - based on what the sources actually do state.

Readers can make their own interpretation of both groups and they can determine for themselves if there is a difference or not between the mythicist camp and the mainstream camps - keep in mind that mythicists differentiate themselves form the rest of the scholars so it is them making themselves stand out. It is not for us a wikieditors to say what is common and what is not common between them, if the sources do not claim so.

Ramos1990 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect on various points. For example, you claim that I say ""historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is the mainstream view" whereas I correctly stated that it is a mainstream view (though it is indeed a widely agreed position), which is not the same as mainstream consensus. You also made a similar error earlier in this thread when you referred to a view of Ehrman not being the mainstream view. Your comments about other statements from Josephus where there are divergent views is also misdirection from where the common view is misrepresented. It therefore seems that you are happy with various POV issues as they currently stand. It is also not necessary or appropriate to add every 'criticism' of any particular view simply because such criticism exists. It remains the case there are considerable POV issues in this article. I have pointed out the problem, but there are not enough editors discussing the issue, and you seem to prefer the status quo for your own reasons. I will therefore wait for other editors to comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is more criticism available than support for mythicits views - which may be why mythicists often feel there is a POV issue here (usually it s only them that feel this way, not all the rest of the editors). In reality its is the academic sources that are being very critical of mythicism. And presenting those abundant sources in this article is not POV per wikipedia policy. We are bound by sources and what they state, that is the policy. I have always said that there are numerous views in mainstream scholarship, not one, as that is well established by the sources in the article. However, you and others keep on pushing only one "christ myth" view and tend to want to weasel word the article as if mythicism is close to being mainstream by association rather than by actual sources. And also ignoring the criticisms laid out by the actual sources - whether right or wrong. There are numerous points of agreement between holocaust deniers and holocaust historians, but they differ on major and important ones and that makes the differences between fringe and mainstream.

It constantly sounds like you are trying to debate the merits of mythicism (how true it is) rather than complying with wikipedia policy on sources and avoiding original research/syntheisis. Ramos1990 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah… so now you’re trying to falsely imply that I am a ‘mythicist’. You claim that you have “always said that there are numerous views in mainstream scholarship”, yet you contradicted that supposed position when you falsely claimed that I said something was “the mainstream view”. I will continue to wait for input from more honest and less biased editors.—Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No just stating the common situation that occurs here. Mythicists generally get offended more than the rest here. Your views are your own - whatever they are - and mine mine. When I say I always said there are numerous views in mainstream scholarship, that is not talking about you, it is about the field - the broad spectrum of views in scholarship that of course exist. I never isolated one view or pushed for only one view in this discussion precisely because there are multiple and even provided a source ("The The Historical Jesus : Five Views") a few times too. Apologies if there was a misunderstanding.Ramos1990 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: any concrete proposal? Your critique is too broad, and I have to agree with Ramos1990. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have pointed out that there are various specific POV issues and I have offered some suggestions about how presentation could be improved (and grouping consistent views in a single paragraph as I suggested is neither ‘synthesis’ nor ‘original research’ as falsely claimed). It is also entirely disingenuous to suggest that editors can't assess whether two ideas are consistent, and if that really were the case, it would be impossible to have any paragraph in any article contain any statements that are attributed to more than one source. I will leave it for broader discussion at this point, particularly since I have been falsely accused of bias, including blatantly false claims about what I supposedly said is “the mainstream view”, along with other implications. I have already done some copy editing to improve some of the more straightforward issues with the article.Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

At the least, I will wait for other editors to show good faith by providing quotes at Talk where requested in the article comments/quotation request templates, and fixing the mischaracterisation of Wells’ more recent views (specifically, mid-90s onwards) as ‘mythicist’.—Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

When I have more time I will remove the more obvious examples of misuse of Wells' works from 1996 onwards. If editors believe those references to Wells' later works should not be removed, i.e. they believe that those works are still 'mythicist' despite the fact that Wells explicitly wasn't from at least 1996 onwards (such that up until Wells' death in 2017 this was also a violation of WP:BLP rules), confirmed by Van Voorst, clear justification needs to be provided. Alternatively, editors will need to provide other sources to support those points that are misusing Wells' later works. It is not sufficient to highlight points by Wells that indicate that Christianity had other influences in addition to the historical Jesus, as this is also well recognised in mainstream scholarship.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed references to Wells' later works that were falsely characterised as the views of mythicists. If anyone wishes to restore any of the points removed, you must provide an appropriate source, citing either Wells' works prior to 1996, or a different explicitly mythicist author. It is not sufficient to provide a mainstream source that happens to state a view that is common to mainstream sources and mythicists. I also saw no basis in the cited sources for describing Wells in his later works as a "minimal historicist", which seems to have been an editorialisation in Wikipedia's voice to dismiss Wells' later views. If terms such as "minimal historicist" or "minimally historical" are used, please quote the phrase and provide the specific source, especially if the term is used to describe the views of a specific person.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Definitions

• Carrier 2014, p. 34. [NOW FORMATTED].

[T]hree minimal facts on which historicity rests:

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

• Loftus, John W. (2021). "Preface". In Loftus; Price (eds.). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press. ISBN 978-1-83919-158-9.

All biblicists need for someone to exist is for a literary figure to be based on a real historical person. So Jesus existed too! It doesn’t really matter if Olive Oyl, or Dr. Watson existed, or Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Popeye, Sherlock Holmes, and Santa Claus were based on historically attested figures. So likewise, it doesn’t really matter if Lazarus or Judas Iscariot or Joseph of Arimathea existed. These additional literary characters are not relevant to the “historically certain” fact that Jesus existed.

• Lataster, Raphael (2019). Questioning the historicity of Jesus : why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse. Leiden. pp. 2f. ISBN 978-9004397934.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[We should] use the term ‘ahistoricists’ to encompass both the ardent ‘mythicists’ and the less certain ‘agnostics’.

--2db (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Viewpoints

[F]rom the mid-1990s I became persuaded that many of the gospel traditions are too specific in their references to time, place, and circumstances to have developed in such a short time from no other basis, and are better understood as traceable to the activity of a Galilean preacher of the early first century … This is the position I have argued in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004, although the titles of the first two of these—The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth—may mislead potential readers into supposing that I still denied the historicity of the gospel Jesus. These titles were chosen because I regarded (and still do regard) the virgin birth, much in the Galilean ministry, the crucifixion around A.D. 30 under Pilate, and the resurrection as legendary. [Wells 2009, pp. 14–15.]

• Wells, George Albert (2009). Cutting Jesus Down to Size: What Higher Criticism Has Achieved and Where It Leaves Christianity. Open Court. ISBN 978-0-8126-9656-1.

--2db (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed

The gospels do not support a rounded figure but a historical Jesus of some sort probably existed

The gospels do not support a Jesus figure and a position of agnosticism is held on the historicity of Jesus

Jesus is probably ahistorical

Bart Ehrman – American New Testament professor and writer

George Albert Wells – English Professor of German and writer

Raphael Lataster – Australian credentialed teacher of religious studies and writer

Richard Carrier – American credentialed historian and writer

The final viewpoint of G. A. Wells is that of the "biblicist", not the "historicist".
As is

R. Joseph Hoffmann – American theologian and writer

I no longer believe it is possible to answer the 'historicity question'. … Whether the New Testament runs from Christ to Jesus or Jesus to Christ is not a question we can answer. [Hoffmann, R. Joseph (2009). "Threnody: Rethinking the Thinking behind The Jesus Project". Archived from the original on 9 October 2009. The Bible and Interpretation]

--2db (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC) && 21:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Lives of Jesus"

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Christ myth theory

Hi. In this edit, you have said to "stick to the term", though the 'term' "Lives of Jesus" doesn't appear to actually be the title of anything, nor is it clear that that plural term is sourced to anything, but instead seems to be an analogy based on a single work with a singular name. Can you confirm whether the plural form is sourced to anything, or otherwise establish why it is necessary to 'stick to the term'? Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

End of copied part

I've corrected the plural. From the Wiki-article (emphasis mine):

A first quest for the historical Jesus took place in the 19th century when hundreds of Live of Jesus were written. David Strauss (1808–1874) pioneered the search for the "historical Jesus" by rejecting all supernatural events as mythical elaborations. His 1835 work, Life of Jesus,[45] was one of the first and most influential systematic analyses of the life story of Jesus

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You have emphasised the title of Strauss' work (which I didn't change), but that is not the issue at all. Strauss didn't write "hundreds of Live of Jesus".

A first quest for the historical Jesus took place in the 19th century when hundreds of Live of Jesus were written. David Strauss (1808–1874) pioneered the search for the "historical Jesus" by rejecting all supernatural events as mythical elaborations. His 1835 work, Life of Jesus,[45] was one of the first and most influential systematic analyses of the life story of Jesus

What is your basis for the actual text in question??--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"What" Philip Davies asks, "does it mean to affirm that ‘Jesus existed’, anyway, when so many different Jesuses are displayed for us by the ancient sources and modern NT scholars? Logically, some of these Jesuses cannot have existed. So in asserting historicity, it is necessary to define which ones (rabbi, prophet, sage, shaman, revolutionary leader, etc.) are being affirmed—and thus which ones deemed unhistorical. In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality . . . Does this matter very much? After all, the rise and growth of Christianity can be examined and explained without the need to reconstruct a particular historical Jesus." (Davies, Philip R. 2012. "Did Jesus Exist?". The Bible and Interpretation.)

• Pattenden, Miles (19 January 2022). "Historians and the historicity of Jesus". ABC Religion & Ethics.

Professional historians of Christianity — including most of us working within the secular academy — tend to treat the question of whether Jesus existed or not as neither knowable nor particularly interesting. Rather, we focus without prejudice on other lines of investigation, such as how and when the range of characteristics and ideas attributed to him arose.

--2db (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t have any bearing on the very specific matter in this thread.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"The Life of Jesus" research

[T]he historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures … We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus [Leben-Jesu-Forschung tr. "Life of Jesus Research"] came to birth… [Schweitzer 1910, pp. 3–4. NOW WITH EMPHASIS]

• Schweitzer, Albert (1910) [1906 in German] (in en). The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede [Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung]. London: A. and C. Black. translated by W. Montgomery. --2db (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

None of this explains or justifies the other editor insisting on saying “hundreds of “Lives of Jesus” were written”. Rather than only quoting sources that make no direct comment on the actual question, it may help to simply state whether any source really says that ‘hundreds of “Lives of Jesus” were written”, which seems unlikely..—-Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Stevens, Jennifer (2010). The Historical Jesus and the Literary Imagination, 1860-1920. Liverpool University Press. pp. 72f, n.3. ISBN 978-1-84631-470-4. (Available Online)

Hugh Anderson states that ‘All the Gospel materials bearing on the life of Jesus were so assiduously studied by liberal Protestant theologians that within the space of a few generations, some sixty thousand biographies, so it is estimated, had been produced’

--2db (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It would help if you would discuss rather than just providing a source with no context, though it seems from the source you have provided here that the specific wording "hundreds of Lives of Jesus" (with a single title given to hundreds of separate works) is indeed not supported by the source. The only question remaining based on that source is whether the article should say hundreds or thousands.--06:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The following phrases:

• Das Leben Jesu
• der Leben-Jesu
• The life of Jesus

are synonymous with

• Biography of Jesus

And

• The lives of Jesus

is synonymous with (and also nuanced sarcasm of)

• Biographies of Jesus

For the article "Biographies of Jesus" is more suitable but less humorous. --2db (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

... none of which would seem to justify Lives of Jesus formatted as if it were a title (and the article shouldn't really contain "nuanced sarcasm" either). Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Richard Carrier "fringe" tactic

A common tactic used per this article is to paint Richard Carrier as "fringe". Therefore nothing in what he writes about is authoritative or trustworthy except when citing his own views. Even when Carrier is restating mainstream conclusions he is "fringe". In the Academy of scholarship it is possible, often likely, that one will find a scholarly work that is WP:RS while its overall thesis is "fringe".--2db (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There are issues in the article regarding the implication that any view expressed by anyone labelled a ‘mythicist’ is wrong by default (though some of that has been mitigated by more correctly stating that it is the specific claim that ‘Jesus didn’t exist’ that is fringe rather than the lazier conflation). However, the only statement about Carrier in the article currently that might misconstrue a mainstream view as that of ‘mythicists’ is “Carrier notes that there is little if any concrete information about Jesus' earthly life in the Pauline epistles.” Other than that, treatment of Carrier in the article seems fairly balanced. More serious is the misrepresentation of Wells’ later works and views as ‘mythicist’ (when Wells himself and Van Voorst say he wasn’t), including characterising his later mainstream position that Jesus was indeed a Galilean preacher as only “minimally historical” in Wikipedia’s voice.—Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The following content addition should not be an issue.

Rejecting the "Criteria of Authenticity", Carrier writes:

The growing consensus now is that this entire quest for criteria has failed. The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method. [Carrier 2012, p. 11.]

Daniel Gullotta notes that per the criteria of authenticity, "Many of Carrier’s concerns and criticisms have been longed noted and echoed by other historical Jesus scholars." In support of this claim, Gullotta repeats the extensive list of citations (Gullotta 2017, p. 345, n. 127.) that were originally given by Carrier in Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (pp. 11, 293f, n. 2-7). Additionally, Gullotta also gives the following citations that were not given in Carrier's 2012 work:

• Le Donne, Anthony (2009). The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David.
• Rodriguez, Rafael (2010). Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text.
• Charlesworth, James H.; Rhea, Brian, eds. (2014). Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions : the Second Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus Research, Princeton 2007.
• Crossley, James (2015). Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus. Oxford University Press.
• Bernier, Jonathan (2016). The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity: Toward a Critical Realist Philosophy of History in Jesus Studies.
• Keith, Chris (2016). “The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research”. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 38 (4): 426–455. doi:10.1177/0142064X16637777.

--2db (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If there are mythicist views about the various ‘criteria’, such could be included in the article if clearly stated and properly attributed. But the suggested addition doesn’t seem suitable. Rather than just an assertion that ‘the quest has failed’, a suitable addition would give Carrier’s view of the manner in which he says they have failed (and Carrier's assertion that there is such a consensus is not sufficient). Providing a long list of citations as a response in the article body rather than as references would also be quite ugly, and doesn’t tell the reader anything about the actual response.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It is notable that the term "minimal historicist" appears to have been coined and defined by Carrier. And it is also the case that the term refers to someone who accepts the same ideas that are in fact the only elements of Jesus' life that are agreed upon by mainstream scholars. And it is also the case that both Wells and Van Voorst explicitly state that Wells was no longer a mythicist from the mid-1990s onwards. And yet the article has dozens of references to Wells' later works that are characterised as the views of 'mythicists', even though those views are also held by various mainstream scholars. Some editors at this Talk page maintain that Carrier is unreliable for presenting any mainstream position (even where Carrier agrees with the mainstream view), though both the article and editors at Talk freely use the terms "minimal historicist" (and related forms such as "minimally historical") to describe Wells and his views. The same editors go on about how 'we must go by what the sources say' to the extent that even the suggestion of putting similar ideas in the same paragraph is supposedly 'synthesis and original research'. Yet those same editors are content with the blatant misrepresentation of Wells' views from 1996 onwards as both a 'mythicist' and a 'minimal historicist'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Jesus ahistoricity theory is the antithesis of the Jesus historicity theory. However a thesis/antithesis definition is problematic, because while the consensus may be that the historicity of Jesus is true, what is meant by the term "Jesus"—other than an entirely Earth based Homo Sapient specimen (no longer extant)—is anybody's guess. --2db (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

So as far as the mainstream scholarly position goes, no such existential conundrum exists (and to the extent that it might be perceived to exist, is irrelevant here), and it really only serves as a distraction from the actual issues raised regarding article content.—Jeffro77 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Per "the mainstream scholarly position", who are the WP expert sources when the mainstream scholarly position is that the NT corpus is irrelevant to the issue of assigning a probability for the (a)historicity of Jesus¿

[U]nlike ‘guilds’ in professions such as law or medicine, it is not apparent what members of the ‘guild’ of biblical scholars have in common, other than a shared object of study and competence in a few requisite languages, and therefore what value an alleged consensus among them really has, especially on what is a historical rather than a linguistic matter. [Meggitt 2019, pp. 459–460).]

--2db (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Another distraction. Can you comment on what needs to be done to actually improve the article rather than offering ‘deepities’?—Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately 2db has a very long history of similar behavior. I don't doubt that the intention is good, but after years of this, it starts to become disruptive. Compentence is needed to edit Wikipedia and it appears to be missing (see the IP's comment after 2db changed the content of the IP's comment). 2db, I know you think we are all part of some great cabal keeping the WP:TRUTH out (you've made that clear numerous times) but in reality we are editors with different opinions and certainly open to other opinions if sourced and well-argued. Unfortunately, you don't seem to able to engage in discussions. For years now, you just post these ill-argued and badly formated blocks of text, and then complain of a cabal when others are not convinced, like you again do above. At some point, even well-intentioned editing becomes disruptive if it doesn’t add anything and just repeats the same argument (see WP:HEAR). After several years of the same behaviour, and no improvement, I fear we're already past that point. Jeppiz (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mythicists generally get offended more than the rest here
— User:Ramos1990

Yes I see that clearly. --2db (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Falsely characterising editors as mythicists to avoid discussing article content (or for any other reason) is inappropriate. See also WP:NPA.-Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The secular & non-secular "equivalence" tactic

New Testament scholars should concede that the kind of history that is deemed acceptable in their field is, at best, somewhat eccentric. Most biblical scholars would be a little unsettled if, for example, they read an article about Apollonius of Tyana in a journal of ancient history that began by arguing for the historicity of supernatural events before defending the veracity of the miracles ascribed to him yet would not be unsurprised to see an article making the same arguments in a journal dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus. [Meggitt 2019, p. 458.]

• Meggitt, Justin J. (2019). "‘More Ingenious than Learned’? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus". New Testament Studies 65 (4): 443–460. doi:10.1017/S0028688519000213. --2db (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A tactic used per this article is to claim that there is no difference between between the secular academy and the non-secular academy. For example, it is mainstream in the secular academy that the "entire quest for criteria" has failed.

• Crook, Zeba (1 January 2014). "Matthew, memory theory and the New No Quest : original research". HTS : Theological Studies. 70 (1): 1–11. doi:10.4102/hts.v70i1.2716. [Abstract] … although numerous criteria have been developed, refined and used extensively in order to distinguish between original Jesus material and later church material, those criteria have long been unsatisfactory…

[T]he traditional quest criteria do not accomplish what they were intended to…

--2db (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Article split

This article should be split into two articles a) history of and b) modern arguments. The logical date to split is c. 1995:

• Wells becomes a biblicist
• Doherty publishes his work on the WWW
• Price publishes Christ a Fiction, while not denying the the historicity of Jesus but warning "[V]irtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth."

--2db (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary to make an a additional article, which would probably be undue weight. Just don’t misuse sources of non-mythicists as the views of mythicists. It’s not terribly complicated. In particular, it would be especially dishonest to present Wells’ later non-mythicist views as a ‘modern argument’ of mythicism.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Mythicism is a worldwide topic of massive popular discussion and interest, it would not be be undue weight to split the article. It would obviate the issue with Wells, who should not even be mentioned in the second article about modern arguments. It would also obviate the farce of appealing to 1975 scholarship as if it is current and relevant to modern peer reviewed arguments. --2db (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no ‘appeal to 1975 scholarship’, nor is there any need for such. The article is full of sources for recent scholarly responses to mythicist claims. If you are deeply concerned about proper sourcing, go through the article and remove improper references to Wells’ later works, and where possible, provide relevant mythicist sources instead. If statements characterised as the views of mythicists cannot be properly sourced to mythicists, those statements should be removed. Also, the scholarly view of mythicists claims is such that scholars often don’t even bother mentioning them, generally considering the matter settled, or they might relegate it to a footnote, so the appeal to popularity also isn’t justified. (If you mean it’s ‘massively popular’ among the general public (a bit of an overstatement), that doesn’t change the scholarship or the general public’s ability to access the article.)—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

All the barnacles of pre-1990s criticism of mythicism should be removed from this article since, "the article is full of sources for recent scholarly responses to mythicist claims." After all this article is about mythicism, not the history of the criticism of mythicism. --2db (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No. If there are redundant sources superseded by newer sources, just remove the older sources. If there are points made in older sources that are not covered by newer sources, leave them intact (unless they are being misused). The proposed split would seem to fall under trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and sounds an awful lot like a POV fork.—Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"the article is full of sources for recent scholarly responses to mythicist claims." and "If there are points made in older sources that are not covered by newer sources" indicates that this article is indeed crufted with outdated criticism that that is not maintained by recent scholarly responses to mythicist claims. --2db (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is directly covered by my previous response above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me guess: the main subject of an article on recent "scholarship" would be Richard Carrier? Who, as a 'peer-reviewed author', doesn't want to be associated with people who aren't in the scholarly fold; or compared with people who have retracted their fringe views, showing that even mythicists who follow logical arguments fall in line with mainstream scholarship? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The logical date to split is c. 1995...
— User:2db

Carrier was a good boy atheist historicist back then and only became a dirty mythicist due to the 2008 financial collapse. LOL --2db (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Not appropriate for Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition article content

Let me guess: the main subject of an article on recent "scholarship" would be Richard Carrier?
— User:Joshua Jonathan

Well no.

Stephen Law holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed. Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."

Law's position is challenged by Robert G. Cavin and Carlos A. Colombetti who in collaboration, present four items of evidence. They also invoke a Bayesian 0.99 prior probability for mundane claims about a historical Jesus. Lataster notes the "incredible assumption" made by Cavin and Colombetti, such that "their 'bracketing' of the material in the sources makes the incredible assumption that the obviously mythical material should not at all make us sceptical about the rest" and further "Cavin and Colombia would be happy to proclaim the 0.00001% of a story's mundane claims as being almost certainly true, even if 99.99999% of the story consisted of supernatural fiction."

Rejecting Cavin & Colombetti's "resort to illogical Christian apologetics", Carrier writes, "Stripped down to its purest generalization, Law’s principle essentially argues that when instead we have evidence for a source’s unreliability, the probability of any mundane detail in the story being true doesn’t increase. It stays at 50/50 . . . . Until we get good independent evidence for it. Cavin & Colombetti present no logically valid or factually sound objection to this conclusion." Lataster writes:

All too often I see philosophers comment on biblical claims with an inadequate knowledge of the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and religion in general. This can lead to scenarios . . . where too much credence — more than some Christian scholars of the Bible in some cases — is given to the sources. And all too often, I see biblical scholars make logical claims without the vitally important critical framework of the analytic philosopher. I believe that both are needed to answer questions of this sort. We need the knowledge and nuance of the specialist scholar of religion and the logical acuity of the analytic philosopher.

Scholars such as Hector Avalos and John Gager make the same sorts of criticism of the methods of their peers, as those leveled by Lataster against said peers—being scholars who really do seem to be operating within a bubble of logical and methodological flaws. Lataster further cites examples of these scholars appealing to “hermeneutics of charity” in which they insist that scholars should assume “traditions” found in the gospels should be accepted as authentic until someone points out clear reasons not to.

Another problem is the supernatural in the gospel narratives. It is not sufficient to remove the supernatural and then suspect the mundane remnant of having some probable historicity. Very often it is the supernatural that is the very point of the story; remove the supernatural and one has removed anything of interest. The supernatural is not the embellishment; it is the core of and the reason for the story.

The most problematic issue of historical Jesus scholarship is the extent to which Christian scholars—and many atheists—tend to assume that the gospels contain some historical core material or are derived from reports of historical events. Lataster writes, "Using the Gospels to argue for Jesus’ existence may be circular reasoning. Arguing from external sources would generally result in a much more convincing case."

A common objection is that “ahistoricists” or “mythicists” do not have an alternative explanation for Christian origins. However given Paul’s testimony that he hallucinated a Jesus constructed from the Jewish Scriptures, it only need be shown that the historicist doesn’t have real evidence that would make his purely human Jesus existing more probable than not." Lataster writes:

This is similar to the agnosticism over God’s existence. Those agnostics do not need to have evidence that God does not exist. They just need to be unconvinced by the lack of good evidence for God’s existence. In other words, my case for Historical Jesus agnosticism does not need to rely on good alternative hypotheses, though it certainly can be strengthened by them.

--2db (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of Wells

Almost immediately an editor has sought to restore the mischaracterisation of Wells' later views as mythicist, despite this being explicitly against Wells' stated position, which has been quoted at this Talk page by both Ramos1990 (talk · contribs)[2] and 2db (talk · contribs)[3], and explicitly confirmed by Van Voorst. Ramos1990 and others have unequivocally stated that we must go by what sources say, yet editors are happy to ignore the direct sourced statements that show that Wells was not a mythicist from the mid-1990s onwards. If editors continue to want to misrepresent sources in this way, I'll take the matter to the nPOV Noticeboard. See also WP:IDHT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In particular, Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) has restored all of the misrepresentation of Wells, and added a further unsourced assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Wells departed "from a strict mythicist view", with a weaselly use of "strict" to continue to misrepresent Wells' later views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The article clearly states, multiple times, that Wells changed his views. Given the influnce of Wells, NPOV requires to mention both stances. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You have (deliberately?) missed the point. I removed material that falsely characterised Wells' later works as mythicist. It is not sufficient to simply say Wells was no longer a mythicist, but still cite his material from 1996 onwards as the view of mythicists. It is a very blatant misuse of Wells as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the article. Your statement (emphasis mine) I also saw no basis in the cited sources for describing Wells in his later works as a "minimal historicist", which seems to have been an editorialisation in Wikipedia's voice to dismiss Wells' later views. strikes me; I see no dismissal there, on the contrary. All of Wells views are relevant for this article, his earlier, and his later. And note that Wells, in his later works, argued for two separate traditions, which were fused; this still departs from mainstream scholarship, which has no doubt that Paul elaborated on an historical Jesus, using mythemes which had already been introduced by Jesus' earliest followers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

And now you're trying to misrepresent what I said again. The misuse of "strict" dismisses Wells' later views as 'still a bit mythicist' rather than 'dismisses Well's views as irrelevant' as you are falsely implying about what I said. It is indeed a mainstream position that details about the historical Jesus were 'fused' with other mythical elements. And I still see no source for the use of the phrase "minimal historicist" in reference to Wells's later views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

For example, in this edit, you added in that Wells' "changed his views in later works", but you are citing his later works for the view presented as the view of mythicists.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you should be very carefull with your wording. Apart from a grammatical error - details about the historical Jesus were 'fused' with other mythical elements - what's mythical about the historical element? - "fused" suggests two separate strands of thought, or traditions. Previously you stated the view that the "historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul" is actually a mainstream view. That's definitely not what mainstream scholarship argues. It argues that the perception of Jesus has always been embedded in, and framed by, religious narratived and mythemes. It does not say that the mythological Christ was "another tradition." It seems to me that your thinking is too binary. You want to restrict the article to a treatment of 'strict mythicism'; that's not how it works. The topic is broader than that, and if you think that Wells' later position is misrepresented, you should improve the text - as also suggested by Ramos - instead of removing what you don't like. Reality is fuzzy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha. You're telling me to be 'careful with my wording' at Talk, but you insist on presenting Wells' later works as the view of mythicists throughout the article en masse, along with the unsourced characterisation of Wells as a "minimal historicist". (And whilst I do sometimes make the occasional typo at Talk, I didn't make a grammatical error where you claimed.)

You can try to mince words all you like, but "The mainstream scholarly view is that the Pauline epistles and the gospels describe the "Christ of faith", presenting a religious narrative that replaced the historical Jesus who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine". As such, it is indeed the mainstream view that Paul's 'Christ of faith' includes elements of myth. And it remains the case that Wells' later works are misrepresented in the article.

It is blatantly dishonest to claim I simply removed 'what I don't like'. The misuse of Wells' later works is strewn throughout the article, and I also previously indicated at Talk that the lazy conflation of various ideas as 'mythicist' even where they are consistent with mainstream scholarship is a significant problem. Therefore it would be best to remove the incorrect sourcing as a priority, and then add in correctly sourced statements that do not misrepresent Wells' later views, or otherwise provide alternative sources for those views.

It is quite disappointing that long-term editors of this article are at best complacent and at worst complicit in the misrepresentation of the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The difference between "fused" and "replaced" is lost on you? And no, it is not best to remove the incorrect sourcing as a priority. We only remove large amounts of text in cases of blatant vandalism. Try imcremental improvements, instead of continuously repeating your broad-stroke criticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It is fallacious (false dichotomy) to claim that any distinction regarding exactly what parts of 'Paul's Jesus' are mythological is necessarily mythicism (even if other views are not mainstream but still present Jesus as a historical figure). There is also very little agreement in mainstream scholarship about the actual life of Jesus, with only broad agreement regarding his baptism and execution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Also still waiting for a source for the classification of Wells' later views as a "minimal historicist".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Other editors to comment

Distractions aside, the article still misrepresents Wells' later works as the views of mythicists, which is explicitly contrary to sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)