Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Edit Request (external link)

Since the article is semi-protected, anonymous users can post edit requests here.

My request is to add this link: Christ Myth Refuted by J.P. Holding. Since there are 7 external links arguing for the myth and only 3 arguing against, it would be a valuable addition. It's also a well referenced article. Anonymous - 6 jan 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.254.77.250 (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out before there are many problems with using Holding aka Robert Turkel in support of a historical Jesus: everything he says is self published which brings up the other problem--all he admits to a Masters' Degree in Library Science--no history, anthropological, linguist, or even theology degree here effectively disqualifying him as an "expert" in any reasonable definition of the word (a key criteria for self published sources) and there are serious questions about his research skills. The only reason I use him as a reference is he is one of the few people outside of bloggers (which are totally useless as references) that refer to the Remsberg (sic) list and he specifically calls Mead a "Christ-myther" a point also used by some bloggers.

By contrast Earl Doherty has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, Richard Carrier had a MA in Ancient History when he wrote the liked material and has just completed his PHd, Dan Barker has a degree in Religion and was a minister, Grady has a M.A. in classical civilization, Robert Price is an acknowledged expert, Luigi Cascioli was originally trained as a minster, and if not for his debates with Gary Robert Habermas Humphreys likely wouldn't qualify as I can't find anything regarding any clear qualifications. However I did find out that Christopher Price states "My formal training in historical studies is limited to a minor in that subject from the University of Houston. Hence my onscreen name of "Layman."" and so he isn't an exper and so out he goes. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Fianlly, Holding's tektonics site fails one key Wikipedia:External_links requirements: it fails the 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority' test and it may fail the 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research' test as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Remsberg

I'm not sure why Remsberg has become such a prominent figure here. As far as I can see, he's made virtually no impact on scholarship--he's not mentioned by any secondary sources I've been able to find except for J.P. Holding's book (and it's been argued on this talk page that Holding isn't a good source, but I notice that a recent edit mentions Holding as a source). Since his book The Christ was published in 1909 and was never revised, it's at best an incomplete source for the history of the JMH, since some important events (such as the publication of Drews) happened after 1909. From the bits of Remsberg I've seen, it doesn't look like he surveys the history of the theory anyway. So why exactly is he important?

Remsberg illustrates a persistent problem with this article. He uses the terms "Christ myth", "Christ as a myth", etc. But not every combination of the words "Christ" and "myth" or "Jesus" and "myth" are the "Jesus myth hypothesis" that's the subject of this article. At the end of Chapter 9 of The Christ Rembsberg discusses two senses of "myth": "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments in support of each hypothesis the writer, while refraining from expressing a dogmatic affirmation regarding either, is compelled to accept the former as the more probable."

Remsberg distinguishes between "historical myth" and "pure myth". "Pure myth" corresponds to what we've been calling the "strong" claim; "historical myth" corresponds to the "weak". "Pure myth" is obviously a form of the JMH; "historical myth" is not. Earlier in Ch. 9 Remsberg says: "A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural." The reference is to David Strauss' Das Leben Jesu, which, in spite of its focus on "mythical" elements in the Gospels, is not a work that anyone would say propounds the Christ-myth theory/Jesus myth hypothesis. At least, I don't think so. So when Remsberg echoes Strauss' argument, I don't think that's an example of the JMH either. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that Remsberg has historical myth divided into two parts: "The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." The second part fits with the positions of Mead, Ellegard, Thompson, and now Wells to some degree. As I mention in the article itself James Patrick Holding calls Mead a "Christ-myther" (in two separate times in two separate articles) and Mead certainly didn't hold that Jesus never existed. Also there is the little issue of the Remsberg list which comes from The Christ (in fact it is chapter 2) which is either used by JMH supporters or challenged by historical Jesus supporters; so Remsberg is not the obscure nobody you're trying to portray him as.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the problem is the Jesus Myth hypothesis covers such a wide range and yet many people try to narrow it. "Other worthy additions to the recent Jesus-as-myth corpus are The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S, whose main focus is the astrological underpinnings and sources of the Jesus myth, and Alvar Ellegard’s Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, which falls into a Wellsian-type category in suggesting that the Jesus of early Christian worship was looked upon as being a man who had lived on earth in a non-recent past, in this case identified with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness."--Earl Doherty in his review of The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank R. Zindler. "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."--Earl Doherty in his review of Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard --BruceGrubb (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you do think that David Strauss is a JMH proponent, then.

You keep on referring to Holding, whom you've said is a bad source. It seems that either we treat Holding as an authority on who's a "Christ-myther" and who's not, and we believe him when he says that Remsberg is not a mythicist; or we ignore Holding. As far as I can tell, the idea that Remsberg's list was influential comes from Holding, too--so should we ignore this as well? (Never mind that Remsberg could easily have influenced the JMH without himself holding the JMH--it seems pretty clear that Frazer influenced the JMH, though he himself didn't regard himself as a proponent.)

As for what you're saying about Mead, Ellegard, etc., this is something we've been over about 6000 times. If someone doesn't think there was a Jesus of Nazareth in the early 1st century CE who inspired Christianity, but instead identifies an earlier historical figure--e.g., the Teacher of Righteousness or Jesus ben Pandera, that's a claim that the historical Jesus didn't exist. Step into a time machine, go back to 25 CE, and you won't find anyone corresponding to any concept of the historical Jesus--you should have set your dial for a century earlier!

It's not really clear to me from the article exactly what Mead claims, but I suppose he's relying on the Toledoth Jeshu to say that the historical figure behind Christianity is actually Jesus ben Pandera. As far as I can see, though, it's only J.P. Holding who calls Mead a "Christ-myther". Again, I thought we didn't want to rely on Holding--but if we're going to, can we get a link or a citation to where Holding says this? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes we have been over the Mead, Ellegard, etc. stuff 6000 times but as demonstrated by the Van Voorst, Robert E, 'NonExistence Hypothesis', in Houlden, James Leslie (editor), 'Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia', page 660 (Santa Barbara: 2003) citation this is considered by Van Voorst to be "Wells's about-face" and yet in Can We Trust the New Testament? Wells expressly states regarding idea that early Christian writers believed Jesus didn't came to earth: "I have never maintained this view, although it has been often imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling wherein they consist." (pg 4).

Every time I bring up this fact you seem to disappear and then we later get the "If someone doesn't think there was a Jesus of Nazareth in the early 1st century CE who inspired Christianity, but instead identifies an earlier historical figure--e.g., the Teacher of Righteousness or Jesus ben Pandera, that's a claim that the historical Jesus didn't exist." thing again, and yet Van Voorst says this is an "about-face". As I have said before either you are right or Van Voorst is; so which is it?

As for where Holding says Mead is a Christ-myther that is dead simple to find; simply put "G.R.S. Mead" "christ-myther" with the quotes in google and do a search and his articles are near the top of the first page. The exact quotes are "The problem is that this report by Zimmern was uncritically picked up by the Christ-myther G. R. S. Mead,..." (Baal of Hay) and "Rev Sabine Baring-Gould (collector of folk songs!) Lost & Hostile Gospels, 1874 - he wrote this BEFORE becoming a parson, Remsberg does it again! His work is an essay on the Toledoth Yeshu, and Christian Evidences; and GRS Mead - a fellow Christ myther - writing on the same subject, severely reprimands him for "very uncritical" use of sources. No points for Remsburg then." (John Remsberg, a Total Incompetent) This is all ignoring the fact I posted the Baal of Hay in reply to YOU using Holding as a reference in your 21:23, 4 December 2008 comment. You were the one to bring Holding into this and now that you are finding he has positions that shoot your position down you want to drop him like a hot potato. Sorry, but as I said before he and another other reference you use is a package deal and you cannot cherry pick those views you like.

I should mention since it was published in 1903 Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? is public domain and the entire text is readily available on the internet. The Gnostic Society Library and Internet Archive both have copies. I should mention that I found a whole list of public domain books regarding Jesus via OpenBooks and am putting that in as a link.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bruce, you're going to have to forgive me for not responding to every single thing you write; there's a lot of stuff on this talk page and it's hard to keep track of it all, especially since it's so repetitive (my eyes kind of glaze over). Of course, you don't respond to everything I write either. For instance, you've never said whether you read the Michael Grant passage that you spent so much time complaining about, or if you only read the little excerpt that's quoted on Earl Doherty's website (and a bunch of other sites too, I think.)

Anyway, on this alleged contradiction between Van Voorst and Wells, you're misunderstanding one or possibly both of them. Van Voorst, in the "Nonexistence hypothesis" article, says: "A final argument against the nonexistence hypothesis comes from Wells himself. In his most recent book, The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells has moved away from this hypothesis. He now accepts that there is some historical basis for the existence of Jesus, derived from the lost early "gospel" "Q" (the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke). Wells believes that it is early and reliable enough to show that Jesus probably did exist, although this Jesus was not the Christ that the later canonical Gospels portray. It remains to be seen what impact Wells' about-face will have..."

Now, the only access I have to The Jesus Myth is the amazon.com preview. Pretty unsatisfactory, but I can see that the back cover says: "Professor Wells has become known as the foremost contemporary exponent of the purely legendary or 'mythicist' theory, but he has recently come to accept that there is a historical basis for one strand of the composite picture of Jesus: that deriving from the lost gospel, known as 'Q'."

There's also a quote on the back cover from Robert M. Price: "Wells's analysis forces one to the inevitable conclusion that the apologists for the historical Jesus are less researchers than spin-doctors, apparatchiks for an ecclesiastical Politburo. His refreshing intelletcual honesty is witnessed by the fact that his own views are amenable to evolution and revision. Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous, moving closer to the recent theories of Burton Mack...."

So, if we can believe the publisher's blurb and Price's quote, Wells (as of 1999) has abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory, and accepts that Q tells us something about a historical Jesus.

As I said, I can't see much of The Jesus Myth. But here is an essay by Wells (a response to Holding, in fact), where he describes his position in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth (this is in the 9th paragraph of the essay): "...I have argued that the disparity between the early documents and the gospels is explicable if the Jesus of the former is not the same person as the Jesus of the latter. Some elements in the ministry of the gospel Jesus are arguably traceable to the activities of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, whose career (embellished and somewhat distorted) is documented in what is known as Q (an abbreviation for 'Quelle', German for 'source')." So there, from Wells' own lips (pen? keyboard?) is the statement that the gospel picture of Jesus is traceable to a Galilean preacher of the early first century. That's the historical Jesus! Further on, Wells continues:

"In the gospels, the two Jesus figures -- the human preacher of Q and the supernatural personage of the early epistles who sojourned briefly on Earth as a man, and then, rejected, returned to heaven -- have been fused into one. The Galilean preacher of Q has been given a salvivic death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the Pauline and other early letters), but in a historical context consonant with the date of the Galilean preaching. Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court.

Again, Wells himself states that he has modified his position, and he now thinks that the career of a 1st century Galilean preacher contributes to the Jesus of the Gospels. This is consistent with what Van Voorst says.

On Holding: you seem to think that I'm some sort of closet J.P. Holding fan. I'm not; I hadn't heard of him until I saw his book on one of those Google Books searches. I thought that a book-length treatment of the JMH might be a useful source for this article, but you're convincing me that he's not a great source. Nevertheless, you're right, it's a package deal--if we use one thing from Holding, everything is potentially in use, including his comment--in a book from 2008, which presumably postdates the essays you provided links to--that Remsberg is not a "mythicist". Frankly, I don't care whether we use him or not, though as I've said many times we have enough academic secondary sources on this topic that I don't think we need to use self-published websites. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't comment on if I had read Grant because I viewed it as irreverent. Phyesalis, E4mmacro, Sophia, and ^^James^^ had all arguing for Grant to be thrown out with Phyesalis saying 22:45, 12 December 2007 "Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies." (I at least tried to prove this with my research rather than just simple claiming it.) Your long quote on 22:05, 8 February 2008 of the relevant passage still had the problems I has which I reiterate here: Grant's statement is not verifiable (he gives no proof in the form of references) and by the evidence above he seems to be simply parroting Dunkerly who wrote his comments back in 1957. This means that the information is some 20 years older then using Grant implies. It also raises the question about research between 1958 and 1976--did Grant do ANY research on the quality of this or did he blow it off using Dunkerly's some 20 year old information? We don't know because Grant provides no references to back up his claim. Also since Grant is actually quoting Dunkerly he is not the source author.

To date not one name of first-rank scholars claimed has been provided. Nor has any reference of why we should "we apply to the New Testament" been provided. I still fully agree with Phyesalis "Seems pathethic to use a quote saying first-rank scholars have again again and annihilated the theory, by somebody who can't name, or is too lazy to find out, who these first-rank scholars are." and you never answered 216.31.13.104's question "In short I will put it to you: cite the page reference in Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" that Grant gets the SECOND quote ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from. While you are at it tell us which of the several books Van Voorst wrote the p. 7 reference is to." The question of why if as Grant said there "much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary" why the EXACT SAME sources have been presented that Scott M. Oser (a Associate Professor of Physics of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia) made a little FAQ countering them has never been answered either.

Holding is, to put it mildly, a disaster. However you seemed to have missed this little gem as a note on page 94: "Remsberg himself seemed equivocal in his commitment to a Christ-myth thesis. He says in his chapter listing these names that it "may be true" that a teacher in Palestine. John Remsberg The Christ (Prometheus Books 1994), 18 but is is clear his sympathies did lie with mythicists." But let's see if Holding is being honest shall we? Here is the Remsburg quote in full: "That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. A Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed -- have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him." The italicized sections are a perfect example of why I hate partial quotes like what Holding is using here. Holding is totally misrepresenting what Remsburg is say.

I should point out that Wells also says "The dying and rising Christ of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." in the very essay you refer to. He also lays out his position clearly: "Most of Holding's article is devoted to appraisal of the pagan and Jewish testimony to Jesus. My critics commonly ascribe to me the view that the sparsity of early references of this kind is in itself sufficient evidence that no historical Jesus ever existed. This is not, and never has been, my position. As most inhabitants of the Roman empire in A.D. 100 were still unaware of or uninterested in the Christians in their midst, this sparsity is just what one would expect. My concern has been to counter the widespread belief that these non-Christian references establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a Jesus who lived and died as in the gospels and make any further discussion of the matter unnecessary. Apologists have been glad to exaggerate the importance of the pagan and Jewish evidence in this way because the plentiful Christian notices are so obviously shot through with legend." Wells is clearly saying there are TWO Jesus involved here. If anything Wells reads like the bridge between the "Jesus-myth" (Paul's Jesus "a supernatural personage obscurely on Earth as a man at some unspecified period in the past") and the "Christ-myth" (the Gospel inspired historical Galilean Jesus who "was not crucified, and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death.") Sure Wells accepts the Gospel Jesus has some possible historical foundation but the issue of where Paul's Jesus comes from ("The dying and rising Christ of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin.") remains!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that you never read the full passage from Grant, but only a partial quote. Later on, you complain about Holding using a partial quote to misrepresent what Remsberg says. See any contradiction here?

I'm not seeing the point of what you just wrote about Wells. But if you agree that Wells accepts that the Gospel portrait has some historical foundation in a 1st century CE figure, there's no contradiction between what Van Voorst and Wells say.

Nor do I get the point of your complaints about Holding. I was referring to the footnote that you quote in your post--Holding says that Remsberg is not a mythicist because he thinks there was a historical Jesus. That's basically what you've been arguing all along--Remsberg believes there is a historical core to the NT Jesus, but it's been elaborated by all sorts of myth. So where is the misrepresentation?

Anyway, the text of the article as it now stands makes Remsberg a pivotal figure in the history of the JMH, which is weird. As I've already said, aside from Holding, no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg, let alone makes him an important figure in the history of this idea. This is in strong contrast to authors who were writing around the same time--J. M. Robinson, W. B. Smith, and Arthur Drews all had books reviewed in academic journals in the early part of the 20th century, and receive fairly detailed coverage in secondary sources like Schweitzer and Van Voorst. But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything. Unless there are some secondary sources out there that I haven't seen yet, I have to conclude that Remsberg is being given too much space in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well part of the problem is the proper spelling of the man's name is RemsbUrg with RemsbErg being a common mispelling. Looking for Remsburg "The Christ" through google books gets you not only Remsburg and Holding but a 1916 The Publishers Weeklym The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul‎ by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled (both by Acharya S), Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography by Marshall G. Brown, Gordon Stein, Secret of Regeneration by Hilton Hotema (1998) Cosmic Creationby Hilton Hotema, Evolution and Man: Natural Morality ; the Church of the Future and Other Essays‎ by Elwood Smith Moser 1919, The Game Between the Gods by Michele Lyon, The Crucified Jew: Who Crucified Jesus?‎ by Max Hunterberg (1927), and am I boring you yet?

Good heavens (bad pun) this took perhaps 1 minute of searching and I found Remsburg's The Christ referenced or quoted ALL OVER THE PLACE by BOTH SIDES. Even the wrong spelling got me some of the same hits with things like The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury (2007) and Obstruction of Justice by Religion: A Treatise on Religious Barbarities of the Common Law, and a Review of Judicial Oppressions of the Non-religious in the United States by Frank Swancara (1971) thrown in for good measure. Even searching through google scholar produced things like Hanson, JM (2005)Was Jesus a Buddhist? Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 75-89 as well as the two S Acharya books above. I even found Remsburg on Kenneth Humphreys' Jesus Never Existed webpage. Tell us just how in the name of heaven did you miss all these people to make the statement "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg"??? I found several not only mentioning Remsburg but either reference or citing his book The Christ as well including "The Historicity Of Jesus' Resurrection" by Jeffery Jay Lowder (1995) and "Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth? by "Historicus" of the United Secularists of America, Inc. How sloppy can you get???--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the usual mass of self-published and non-expert sources that don't pass the reliable soruces policy. I suppose I should be a little clearer, BruceGrubb: I'm looking for an academic source that tells us Remsberg is an important figure in the development of the JMH. The only thing you listed that looks like a scholarly source is Hanson's article in Buddhist-Christian Studies, available here. It mentions Remsberg 3 times, but only as a source for material Remsberg quotes, e.g. footnote 2 is "Mūller quoted in John R. Remsburg, The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1909), p. 510." This says nothing about how important Remsberg is (or isn't), it just tells us that Hanson read a quote by Max Müller in Remsberg's book.

I looked at The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul and here Remsberg is only mentioned once (well, he also shows up in the index)--and there's no indication of his importance to the JMH.

So I'll say it again: the text of the article as it now stands makes Remsberg a pivotal figure in the history of the JMH, which is weird. There are several scholarly sources about the history of the JMH: Schweitzer, Van Voorst, Weaver, Bennett. These guys don't mention Remsberg (under either spelling), but they do mention Bauer, Robinson, W. B. Smith, Drews, and others as being influential figures. They apparently don't consider Remsberg worth mentioning at all in connection with the theory. So why we should we have a ginormous section devoted to him here? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to make Remsburg look like a pivotal figure in the history of the JHM. In fact when I started the work on that section I commented "if someone can accurate sum up Remsberg's position without going POV go for it. this IMHO is WAY too long" and that was before I clarified Remsburg's position on myth which even added more to that section. Doherty uses him in "The Mystery Cults and Christianity" but is also critical of him falling into the trap of saying blithely borrowing occurred.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a list of the authors discussed in the secondary sources I've read which treat this issue from a history-of-ideas perspective. I've bolded the authors who receive at least a couple of pages of commentary:

• Schweitzer (1913): Bauer, (Dupuis and Volney as "forerunners"), Kalthoff, some "radical Dutch thinkers", Robertson, Jensen, Niemojewsky, Fuhrmann, Smith, Drews, Bolland, Lublinski
• Goguel (1926b): Drews, Robertson, Smith, Volney, Dupuis, Bauer, "certain critics of the radical Dutch school", (Reinach "does not formally deny the historical existence of Jesus, but suspends his judgment"), Couchoud
• Weaver (1999): Dupuis, Volney, Bauer, Kalthoff, "a Dutch school", Jensen, Drews, Smith, Robertson, Brandes, Couchoud
• Van Voorst (2000): "some disciples" of Lord Bolingbroke, Volney, Dupuis, Bauer, "official Soviet literature", anonymous 1841 pamphlets, some of the "Radical Dutch School", Robertson, Smith, Drews, Wells

Robertson, Smith and Drews repeatedly appear as the triad of key writers from the early 20th century, and they're followed by Couchoud and Jensen in the level of coverage received. None of these secondary sources even mentions Remsburg/Remsberg, as far as I can see. EALacey (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

From Bennett (2001): Robert Taylor (I think this Robert Taylor), Bauer, Frazer, Jung and Campbell, J. M. Robertson, Acharya S, Arthur Drews, G. A. Wells, Joseph Wheless, Joseph McCabe, A. N. Wilson, and R. Joseph Hoffmann. Bennett's approach is not strictly chronological, and includes writers who don't deny Jesus historicity, but have been associated with the Christ-myth theory (which Bennett calls the "Jesus-was-a-myth theory"). Bennett doesn't mention Remsberg at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I should note that some of the sources I listed also refer to authors they distinguish from those who rejected Jesus' historicity; e.g., Schweitzer summarises Frazer's views on pp. 383-384 of the English translation (2000), in the context of the influence of The Golden Bough on Drews. EALacey (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Bennett (2001) I noticed this: "I argue when Christians peruse the Gospels, they see Jesus through the lens of what they already believe about him. For Christians, the Jesus of the Bible and the Christ of faith merge, and the Christ of faith is the Jesus of history." Not every author mentions Mead either but his ideas do show up. Discounting Remsburg just because some authors ignore him while others do is a mistake.--216.31.15.77 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Digging deeper into Bennett's In Search of Jesus I noted that Bennett directly states "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus (pg 205). It does raise a question of how much we can trust the summations authors give us.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

well done

Just want to pop in here as someone who was involved in the last major round of revisions which deadlocked over personality conflicts. This article has gotten much better. Well done guys!

There is a lot of material from older versions of the article. I'd recommend going back and looking at times of high activity. I think you can add a lot more "bulk" on various authors from the archives and the current team looks like they are doing a great job. jbolden1517^Talk 00:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was a lot of lot of material from older versions of the article but much of it was removed for good reasons. Besides the article is still overly long with information that appears in articles getting needlessly repeated or having too much description.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My only complaint is that the "effectively refuted" line somehow made it back in. It's just an "argument from authority", and as such conveys no useful information for the readers. If somebody wants to list a specific refutation, that would be far more useful that merely regurgitating a comment from a theologian. If there is a piece of evidence which demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth (as he is portrayed in the gospels) actually existed, it most certainly should be included. But simply stating that it is "refuted" without provided further evidence of that refutation doesn't accomplish anything, especially since the quote doesn't specify which version of the theory (the "strong" or the "weak") has been disproven. By saying the thesis is "refuted", it almost sounds like the author is saying that there is some sort of evidence which proves that the water-walking, immortal, dead-raising, leper-curing, son of Jehovah found in the gospels was an real historical figure, and that the gospels should be regarded as historical fact. This may not have been the author's the intention, but there are many people who will most certainly read it this way. Most scholars agree that at least some of the gospel tale is mythical - the only debate is over the exact percentage. But saying that the "myth hypothesis" is "refuted" might lead some to believe that the percentage is equal to 0%. -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I still think the article title is misleading and OR. A search on the web for the phrase "Jesus myth hypothesis" mainly throws up wikipedia and its mirrors which is very bad form. Wikipedia should reflect the topic - not create it. The lead sentence is quite convolved and hard to read and there is still a lot of duplicated information. I have to agree with Big Brother that the "effectively refuted" quote is pure apologetics and has no place in this article. Sophia 10:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the title is a problem the alternatives are even worse. Again the problem is that "Christ myth" and "Jesus myth" are used interchangeable even though literally they would mean different things. This is why I decided to rework the lead and use Remsburg as a reference for it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fischer's article at RS noticeboard

Contributors to this article may wish to note Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#When is a peer-reviewed Journal not considered reliable?. EALacey (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You raised good points but as I said they nearly echo my concerns with James Charlesworth and that was ruled as a reliable source. I even cited third party references to bring the validity of the book the Charlesworth used into question something not done yet to keep Fischer out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Remsberg, again

This is what I meant when I said that BruceGrubb was making Remsberg a pivotal figure in the history of the JMH. The current version of the article uses Remsberg as the "core definition" of the JMH.

There are several problems with this. First, we have no evidence that Remsberg is an important figure in the history of this idea, and academic sources (Schweitzer, Van Voorst, Weaver, Bennett) don't mention him. In fact, except for a webpage by J.P. Holding, we don't seem to have any secondary sources who say that Remsberg is a JMH proponent.

Second, BruceGrubb uses Remsberg to make a distinction between a "Christ-myth" and a "Jesus-myth". Remsberg doesn't say this. He does distinguish between different senses in which freethinkers think Jesus Christ is "mythical", but there's nothing in his book that presents "Christ-myth" and "Jesus-myth" as distinct terms. The distinction is BruceGrubb's own interpretation of Remsberg, so placing this interpretation in the article is a violation of the no original research policy.

Third, BruceGrubb is using his interpretation of Remsberg to stretch the scope of this article beyond its proper bounds. This article's subject has been treated by numerous secondary sources, which define the JMH as the theory that there was no historical Jesus. Here's two:

• William R. Farmer, "A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975), p. 43: "The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as an historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community."

• Alan H. Jones, Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983), p. 47: "In particular these rationalist organisations helped to promulgate the quasi-dogma of the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and thus to foster the 'Christ-myth' school of thought, to be encountered later in this study.

• William Horbury, "The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003), p. 55: "Defence of biblical criticism was not helped by revival at this time of the 'Christ-myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare."

And just for fun, let's add Robert M. Price, who I'm not sure we can call a secondary source for the purposes of this article: "Amid this Jesus-din, one seldom catches the strains of the Christ-myth theory long championed by skeptics and freethinkers, namely that Jesus had no more historical basis than Osiris, that the Galilean rabbi and healer of the Gospels is the result of the early Christian imagination clothing an earlier mythic Jesus in the false garb of the first-century Jewish environment." (from [1] "Of Myth and Men"])

These are several recent academic definitions of the Christ-myth theory in which the denial of Jesus' historicity is an essential element. Same thing with Price, who even if not a proponent of the theory is someone who is certainly sympathetic to it. Shouldn't we be using definitions like these, rather than the OR of a Wikipedia editor?

N.b., based on these quotes, I think that "Christ myth theory" (with or without hyphens) is more common than "Jesus myth hypothesis", and I suggest moving to Christ myth theory on that basis. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Price is actually agreeing with the wider definition. The other three are Christian writers doing the usual trick of couching the theory in terms that are easy to pick apart. Still don't know what is wrong with "The Jesus myth" as a title. Any non Christian thinks the "Christ" side of things is a myth - the question this article explores is whether the man is a myth. Sophia 09:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem as Remsburg show is the issue is how much of the Jesus of the Gospels. Futhermore the quote doesn't quite say what Akhilleus claims; here is the full context:

Amid this Jesus-din, one seldom catches the strains of the Christ-myth theory long championed by skeptics and freethinkers, namely that Jesus had no more historical basis than Osiris, that the Galilean rabbi and healer of the Gospels is the result of the early Christian imagination clothing an earlier mythic Jesus in the false garb of the first-century Jewish environment. And yet it can be argued that the many recent attempts to delineate a historical Jesus, one whose portrait can be drawn convincingly as "a marginal Jew" (John P. Meier) or "a Mediterranean peasant" (John Dominic Crossan), a Galilean hasid (Geza Vermes), a Zealotlike revolutionary (S.G.F. Brandon, Robert Eisenman), a folk magician (Morton Smith), shaman (Stevan L. Davies, Gaetano Salomone), a Qumran Essene (Barbara Thiering), or a Cynic-like sage (Gerald Downing, Burton Mack) are themselves so many attempts to historicize the mythic-seeming figure of Jesus who meets us in the Gospels. Each book attempts to show that the story looks a good deal less fanciful if one re-explains it in immanent historical-cultural terms. For Jesus to be the Son of God sounds patently mythic. But if "son of God" meant a holy man especially close to God, or a Judaic monarch, or a sage filled with divine wisdom, or a miracle-working sorcerer, as it could depending on which linguistic context you choose, then we will appear to have brought Jesus down to earth as a person who might actually have existed. [...] "Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus, according to which he is imagined as someone like Asclepius, a demigod savior who came to earth in earlier times, healed the sick, and was struck down by the gods but resurrected unto Olympian glory from whence he might still reappear in answer to prayer. The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era.

There it is not once but twice. Note Price also calls George A. Wells a "Christ-myth theorist" here. Now this is the Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/ 2000) of Free Inquiry magazine and the position Price is describing for Wells is practically straight out of "The Jesus Myth" (1998). Doherty states ""The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." "Professor Wells has always maintained that this is the way Paul regarded his Christ Jesus, as a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time." As I said before Wells is the bridge between "Jesus myth" and "Christ myth".--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, unless you think Osiris had some historical reality, with the first instance of "Christ-myth theory" Price is certainly talking about a theory that says Jesus was not historical. When Price describes Wells, he says that the Pauline epistles describe a fully mythic Jesus, who was later historicized in the Gospels. There's no indication in this essay that Wells regards Jesus as a historical figure. In Deconstructing Jesus, on p. 115, when Price describes how Wells has changed his mind and now allows that the career of a historical Galilean preacher underlies the Q document, Price writes: "The power of Burton Mack’s case is such that he has managed to convince the great proponent of the Christ-Myth theory in our day, George A. Wells, to abandon the ground he defended for so long." (I quoted this passage at greater length above.)

I can't say why Price doesn't address Wells' shift in position in "Of Myth and Men", but it's very clear in Deconstructing Jesus that he regards Wells as abandoning the Christ-myth theory. Wells himself says that he can no longer be described as a "mythicist": "...it will not do to dub me a 'mythicist' tout court." (I quoted this above, too.) In sum, Price's use of "Christ-myth theory" is always as a theory that involves the denial of Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the different definitions for Christ Myth and Jesus Myth is OR. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that different definitions for Christ Myth and Jesus Myth is OR when Remsburg clearly shows the large range. Remsburg clearly defines "Christ Myth" as ranging from "Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved" to "the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination." Mead, Ellegard, Thompson, and now Wells all hold to the first part though their "Original Jesus" ranges from c200 BCE to contemporary to the time the Gospel Jesus supposedly lived.

As for the "abandon the ground he defended for so long" comment on Wells by Price this in reference to the idea that the Gospel Jesus was an entire fiction. Wells feels there is enough evidence that Q existed and that it in part describes the actions of a historical person. BUT, and this is the key point, Wells still holds that Paul's Jesus was a totally separate entity, a "pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time." Wells is more blunt about the matter of the historical Jesus related in the Gospels and Paul's Jesus in Can We Trust the New Testament? (2003): "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." (pg 43) In short, Wells argues that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character formed from the mythical Jesus of Paul and the ministry of a Galilean Jesus who was was not crucified; the Galilean Jesus giving a time frame and Paul's mythical Jesus requiring various elements to be added to the Galilean Jesus' life to make the two "fit". For example, Paul's vision c30 CE requires the Galilean Jesus to have been crucified and resurrected before that date regardless of what "really" happened to him. Well contends that other elements such as the birth and the betrayal came from the OT. In a nutshell, Wells has effectively lopped off the two key things that separated the Gospel Jesus from the other would be Christs running around at the time: the birth and the death stories. All that really leaves you as "historical" is the ministry and there are issues on how much of that has been mythologized. If this looks schizophrenic, it is. It is like Wells is trying to have his cake (Paul's Jesus was a myth) and eat it too (the ministry of some Galilean preacher named Jesus who did not get crucified inspired the Gospels). If anything, Wells current position raises the question of how much can you strip from the Gospel Jesus and still say he has a historical basis. Past a certain point you start getting Robin Hood and King Author issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note looking around under "Christ-myth Theory" I found this under the heading "Christ-myth Theory" in Dodd, C. H. (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17: "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." The book is not the easiest thing to read but being a University Press book it does poke a big hole in Akhilleus attempts to limit the scope of the definition as the position Dodd presents in 1938 is nearly identical to Wells' current position.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him" is a reference to a figure such as the shadowy Jesus ben Pandera who plays a part in the Christ-myth theories of John M. Robertson and G. R. S. Mead. It's nice to see that you're recognizing the superiority of academic sources, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Dodd doesn't give us a time frame for this "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name". It could just as easily echo Wells current position. As I said the book is hard to read (about as bad as Binford) and is not well organized.--4.240.213.98 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is borderline OR. The variety of terms used by various authors, along with imprecise definitions of these terms, makes it very difficult to pin down exactly how these authors are linked or what their primary tenets are, as anyone can see from this protracted discussion. It's extremely unfortunate that so-called scholars have used the terms "Jesus" and "Christ" interchangeably, and the use of the term "mythical" to supposedly indicate a negative historicity (a "could not have happened" as opposed to "may not have happened") is likewise misleading. Most of our problems here are sifting through contradictory usage, so if this article has any legs to stand on at all I'd like to see some serious scholarly work that clears the waters and addresses these terms and the authors in question, and not just opposition criticism. --davigoli (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But even among "scholarly work" there is a lot of variety. Farmer, Jones, and Horbury give one definition which doesn't quite match Dodd's which is vague enough to include an "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" living in the same time period. As I said that is a lot of spin doctoring going on both sides of this issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work on trimming down Remsburg but that editor went a little too far. We need to keep in the fact his definition of "Christ Myth" was very broad effectively including Historicity of Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

removed OR

I've been removing a section at the beginning of the "history" section, because it's original research. This edit shows what's going on. The removed material begins by asserting that "The biggest problem with the terms "Christ-myth" and "Jesus-myth" is that their definitions vary from author to author and are sometimes used interchangeably." Aside from the unencyclopedic tone, this is clearly an editor's individual assessment of the situation, rather than that of a secondary source. It also involves an implicit assumption (also made on this talk page) that there ought to be a distinction between "Christ-myth" and "Jesus-myth", but there is no evidence that anyone makes such a distinction. The sentence also says that the terms are "sometimes used interchangeably"--in fact, I question whether anyone makes a systematic distinction between the two at all. BruceGrubb claims that Remsberg makes a distinction, but the phrase "Jesus myth" occurs nowhere in his work.

To continue through the removed section, the use of the quote from Dodd is again OR--the sentence uses an editor's own observation about Dodd (unclear timeframe) to advance an original argument--namely, to imply that Dodd says some Christ-myth proponents believe in a historical Jesus of Nazareth, something that Dodd does not say.

Finally, the last sentence, particularly the "Jesus never existed part of the Jesus myth hypothesis" bit, is also OR--it's invented terminology, and the entire notion that the JMH covers a wider range than non-historicity theories is itself OR, and not supported by any secondary sources. It might be good to remember that we're dealing with a specific idea (or set of ideas), with identifiable proponents, covered by scholarly treatments such as Van Voorst. The subject of the article does not include every single writer who talks about "Christ" and "myth" or "Jesus" and "myth". It's defined by the quotes from Farmer, Jones, and Horbury above, and the denial of Jesus' historicity is a central element of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Most books I have read explore a whole range of options and favour one or two. Apologetic sitessimplify it down to "did he" or "didn't he" as it is easier to attack. The question has to be whether this subject is going to be phrased in terms of its opponents or its supporters. I personally never agreed with the original split of the article as it forced problems like these and made it harder for a reader to get a broad understanding of topic. Sophia 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to get a little ridiculous. Any reasonable person that looks at even a small sampling of the literature can see that the terms "Jesus Myth" and "Christ myth" DO vary. Farmer, Jones, Horbury define it as saying Jesus NEVER existed (effectively throwing out the Jesus existed in an earlier century idea that even Akhilleus agrees is part of the concept), Dodd talks about "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." but nothing about if this man was contemporary to the Gospel Jesus or in a past century, and then you have Remsburg who defines "Christ-myth" as ranging from Jesus, a real person, being the foundation of the Gospel Jesus to both Jesus and Christ being total fictions.

It is NOT OR to show that the definition of what "Jesus Myth" and "Christ myth" even is varies. You cannot cherry pick sources and retain NPOV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First things first, I semi-protected the page given the obvious use of an IP to prolong this particular edit war. I'll also give a short duration block warning to the involved editors here. As for the content, Akhilleus is in the right here. The section, as it appears, has OR issues. That isn't to say that the claims are without merit (and I do not know enough about the academic debate to say one way or the other), but in order to exist in the article it would need some rephrasing and far better sourcing to substantiate the point. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential WP:UNDUE problems

Looking over this quickly, the sheer volume of material (over half the length of Jesus itself) is striking. In particular the long History section gives me pause. I have to question whether any of these people are as important as the space devoted to them makes out. My impression (based on a quick glimpse at the references) is that these fellows are heroes to the skeptics and largely forgotten by anyone else, even secular academics. It seems to me that this section needs to be reduced drastically, and that the impact of these fellows has to be owned up to. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources should be WP:reliable and WP:verify, which does not necessarily mean WP:notable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that seems to be a complete non-sequitur. If sourcing is relevant to this particular issue, it is sourcing for the implicit claim that these people are all really important. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mangoe, it's true that the authors covered in this article haven't had a huge impact (that's the nature of a fringe theory, after all), but there are some academic sources that cover this theory: 2 chapters of Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus, a chapter of Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament, sections of other books by Weaver and Bennett, and scattered mentions in journal articles. That seems like enough to establish notability of the topic in general, but I think we're devoting too much attention to some people, and not enough to others. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the topic is notable. What seems to me unbalanced is that there is 50% more material devoted to the proponents of the theories than there is to the theories themselves, especially considering that (from what I can tell) these people are non-notables outside of this field, and that (once you dig through everything else to find this out) this is a fringe theory.

At present, it seems to me that the criticism section needs to go into the lead, and the arguments section needs to come next. The history section needs to come last and be reduced considerably. Mangoe (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was once devoted mainly to arguments for and against, and I think that concentrating on the arguments of individual writers is an improvement. (Please note that the large majority of the "history" section is about arguments, not personalities.) The authors cited above by Akhilleus, like Schweitzer and Weaver, discuss the topic by treating individual authors consecutively, and generalise only with brief remarks like "proponents reject supposed Greco-Roman evidence for the historicity of Jesus". Schweitzer actually distinguishes between "symbolic" and "mythical" interpretations of the gospels, and makes it clear that some of the authors he discusses don't fit into either category. Also, most modern criticism of the theory is directed against specific authors (often in the form of book reviews). Without significant original research, an "arguments for and against" section can't be much more than a list of points attributed to individuals – so why not discuss the views of (say) G. A. Wells all in one place so the reader can see how they fit together? EALacey (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why the current format of the article is far better than what we had before. It becomes critical when the definitions authors use for "Christ-Myth" vary which I might add is a big problem with the article. Even at the beginning it states with citation that "Volney believed that confused memories of a historical but obscure Messianic claimant could have contributed to Christianity when they become linked with solar mythology." (Wells, G. A. (April–June 1969). "Stages of New Testament Criticism". Journal of the History of Ideas 30 (2): 157). Yet you have other reliable references that state the "Christ-Myth" (or Jesus-Myth) says Jesus NEVER existed and then you have eliable references like Dodd that are unclear as to what the definition exactly is. When what the "Christ-Myth" even means becomes a game of of pick that reference is any wonder this article still has problems? I agree that some parts are way too long (I said that when I put in the Remsburg part) but sometimes you have to quote an author enmass like that less you run into OR problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I second BruceGrubb here - the previous incarnation with criticism at the top, then arguments, and finally history, made that version an incoherent jumble. The flow of the article should proceed from a concise and general lede covering the basic position, then into the history, and concluding with criticism; otherwise, how can criticism be understood except in the context of the arguments of the proponents? But I do think the Arguments section is going to be difficult to disentangle from the history, as the position is indeed largely historical and the arguments have shifted over time as new evidence has come to light/been discredited. --davigoli (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something here. I just do not know of any WP guideline that says a source must be more than reliable, and verifiable. Where is the rule saying a source must be notable? Also there are those who were notable, but now forgotten. But the WP guideline is that notability is not temporary [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you keep referring to sources. These fellows aren't sources; they are subjects. The problem seems to me that their importance as subjects is being inflated. It would be more useful to summarize what they said more succinctly and give a more accurate expression of their reception by outsiders. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about those individuals. There are in the article as sources that support arguments, on one side or the other. They are being cited as reliable sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there is a lot of spin doctoring on both sides going on here. For example, in his review of Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard, Doherty states "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." While strictly speaking this is true Wells does NOT say there wasn't a 1st century Jewish preacher named Jesus who inspired the Gospel Jesus. The pro historical Jesus is no better as Van Voort calls Wells change of position an "about face" and yet Wells is still holding that Paul's Jesus was a myth. It is almost to the point you have to go straight to the source to find out what an author is really saying.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Focus of article, past or present?

User:Mangoe argues that the article should focus on the modern argument - and most likely have a pro-Jesus, anti-"fringe" POV. I totally disagree. As I understand it, the modern argument is truly dead, and supported by only a few scholars. The historical argument however has huge importance. As you see above, this article is also part of WikiProject Atheism. Questioning the historicity of Jesus was an important step in questioning the authority of the Bible. Now the question is largely irrelevant; those that want to question religion have gone far above this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is just what is the modern argument of the Jesus myth hypothesis? Is it Price's there is not enough of the historical Jesus remaining to find, Ellegard version of Mead's inspired by an earlier historical teacher, S Acharya's revival of Dupuis theories, Wells' current 'Paul's Jesus was a myth but there is something historical behind the Gospel Jesus' theory, Doherty's the Jesus of the Gospel never existed, or something else like Thompson? There is a huge range to the Jesus myth hypothesis some of it more plausible than others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Krohn, that isn't my argument at all. Also, if one takes the Schweitzer/Bauer thesis presented in the article, things happened the other way around: the article is arguing (seemingly using Schweitzer as its authority) that Bauer's doubts about scriptural historicity opened the way to larger doubts. But here's the rub: I'm looking at the 1911 Britannica, and its comment on these theories is "This line of criticism has found few supporters, mostly in the Netherlands"; one presumes they refer to the Radical Dutch. I gather from looking around that Bauer's elevation, as it were, came through Marxism, though Marx's famous quip surely owes nothing to Bauer's doubts. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish we had more on the Radical Dutch position other than blurb we have. While it relates to the article it kind of sits there with no indication if it had any influence on what came later. Albert Kalthoff is also another 'ok that was interesting but did this lead anywhere?' blurb. Of course in a subject that has had such a varied past I imagine we will have a few lines of thought that didn't really go anywhere or have reappeared in different versions.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has access to Simon J. DeVries, Bible and Theology in the Netherlands (CNTT 3; Wageningen: Veenman, 1968) 52-55, that might tell us more. The "Radical Dutch School" seems to have been an academic dead-end, as far as I can see. There's more info available about Kalthoff, though--Schweitzer is a good starting point. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Editors here should have been notified by Akhilleus that he has taken discussion of this article to the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and that some separate discussion has occurred there [3]. Moreover, since Mangoe has come to edit in response to that notice, the process seems to amount to WP:Canvassing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The article order

I've done a quick skim over the article structure for the past 1500 or so revisions, and I have to say first of all that I haven't found any version that puts the criticism first, though versions from about a year ago are more forthright in acknowledging in the lead that ahistoricity is a minority view among historians. On the other hand what seems to have happened is that a pretty reasonable structure with a brief "history" section doesn't work now that this section is by far the largest part of the article. If that section is going to continue to be so large, it needs to follow the "arguments" section (which needs a better title, by the way). I'm going to try a rather gross rearrangement in that wise, and we can see how that goes. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this change. The "arguments" section is not good; by combining arguments from different authors it creates a version of the "hypothesis" that no single person holds. At points it crosses the line into OR. It encourages a polemical tone, and is likely to degenerate into a repository of pro and con positions.

In contrast, the history section provides a clear narrative of the development of this line of thought. The regular editors of this article agree that the switch to this format has led to a distinct improvement in the article--that's about the only thing we can agree on here. The article should certainly devote some attention to the arguments various theorists make, but that can be done as part of the "history" section. In fact, I think this article should be all history, and the arguments section should be removed entirely. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Akhilleus here and am moving the "arguments" section to where it originally was. The arguments section is quite frankly a mess and still needs a massive clean up so having it so early in the article just creates problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I think as more and information on the various authors comes to light the "arguments" section will likely disappear as it will have become redundant. As it stand the "arguments" is a synthesis that no one person supports. I should mention the 01:26, August 24, 2005 edit of this article was nearly entirely arguments with perhaps a paragraph of history before it. Furthermore, if you look at other controversial topics like New Chronology (Fomenko), the various Creationism articles, and Intelligent design history (though it may not have that exact title) nearly always starts the article and what arguments section may exist follows the history. If those articles don't start out with an "arguments" seciton why should this article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

John Frum vs Jesus

Looking around to see if anyone had made this connection I discovered that Richard Dawkins of The God Delusion has and that there is even a video (under the title Origin of Faith - John Frum vs Jesus) on youtube regarding that. While not a Jesus myther in the classic sense Dawkins does show the same thing I been saying--the John Frum movement shows how even the extreme views of the Jesus myth are plausible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly right, and while I wouldn't agree with Dawkins here, I do think the sheer plausibility of the JMH makes it a candidate for serious scholarly consideration; given that the broader "historicity of Jesus" question is historical in nature, it is unrepeatable, and the discussion relies on interpretation and verification of historical documents and archeological evidence, and given the inconclusive and spotty nature of the evidence at hand, will probably never have a definitive interpretation in the same way that data in the natural sciences do, or that better-documented historical events do either. Therefore, I don't think this article should be categorized as WP:FRINGE. --davigoli (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't write Wikipedia articles on the basis of what we think. We write them on the basis of what reliable secondary sources think. Mainstream scholarship unambiguously defines the denial of Jesus' historicity as a fringe idea, and many of the proponents themselves complain about the disrespect they receive from mainstream NT scholarship (e.g. Doherty, whose quotes are still in the article, I think). The fact that some Wikipedia editors find the idea plausible (or implausible) is irrelevant. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about writing some it based on what Tom Paine wrote: It is not the existence, or non-existence, of the persons that I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend.[4]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, Akhilleus. While you have found some mainstream sources that indeed support your statement, there are many others (already offered here) that support the contrary. You're cherry-picking. --davigoli (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. The denial that Jesus was a historical individual is not something that is accepted or even commonly discussed in current NT scholarship. Where have you offered a source that says this is a mainstream scholarly view? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Naturally so. Mainstream NT scholarship is devoted primarily to apologetics. As BruceGrubb points out, this is a hotly contested issue, an impartiality is hardly to be found in either camp. An unbiased assessment of the evidence would conclude that there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion. The arguments put forth by Van Voorst are dismissive and argue on fallacious grounds (appeal to motive, excluded middle, and so on), not on basis of fact. The "Jesus-Myth" people primarly question the grounds of the evidence used to propose the idea of a historical Jesus; "proving" that he didn't exist is naturally not possible, and as we've been saying there isn't really anyone who thinks they can do that. The assertion that is the JMH that all the evidence for Jesus' existence is circumstantial and inconclusive does not necessarily amount to an assertion that nonexistence can be "proven", and even scholars who incline to this view do so with that caveat.

An honest survey of the field of NT scholarship recognizes that it is a deeply politicized and not particularly scientific endeavour, and while there are scholars contributing great work, "mainstream consensus" does not carry the weight it does in the natural sciences. --davigoli (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One should point out that Akhilleus's position of "denial that Jesus was a historical individual" is not supported by all the scholarly or even amateur positions presented. It certainly is not in agreement with Dodd, Mead, or Ellegard who all have some historical person involved. As I said elsewhere how can historical scholars seriously look at the idea of the "historical" Robin Hood having lived a full century AFTER the time period of stories and yet other historians dismiss the idea of Jesus having lived in the 1st century BCE or earlier? The inherent illogic and inconstancy of such a should be obvious.

Nevermind, Remsburg's position that Christ is a myth has become mainstream; the debate is now how much of the Christ story is myth and how much is historical. All the Jesus myth hypothesis really does is look to see if there are ways Christianity could have formed without there being a historical Jesus. It cannot prove there wasn't a Jesus in the 1st century anymore than you can prove there wasn't a John Frum in 1930 especially as Jesus was a VERY common Jewish name in the 1st century. Sure some of the JMH theories read like they came from Planet Illuminati but to focus only on those and ignore the 'he may have existed but nothing remains to tell us what he was really like' is to do a disservice to the concept as a whole. It would be like only focusing on those scholars who hold that every part of the Gospel is historical and point out all the ad hoc and contrived Rube Goldberg level nonsense they go though to try and get everything to fit (the temporal problems between Matthew and Luke getting the brunt of it.)

As I said before the question of whether Jesus existed is moot because no one can denigh that a small movement called Christianity sprung up in the 1st CE and there are far more interesting questions to ask then if the founder really existed. Questions like how diverse was belief regarding Jesus and his life from 1st to the 4th century, or why did certain heretical branches have the views they did, and were there influences form other religions on early Christianity, are far more interesting.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the historicity question (not just the JMH) is in itself a dead end, as Burton Mack discusses. Obsession with the question of historicity misses the point entirely, and scholars who regard the JMH as "refuted" are exactly as fringy as those who think they can definitively disprove Jesus' existence. --davigoli (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Davigoli, you began by accusing me of cherry-picking, but you end by saying the JMH is fringy. What's up with that?

Bruce, I've said it enough times that I think I should have a cut-and-paste response at the ready (not that I think you'd listen), but if an author says that the historical founder of Christianity is Jesus ben Pandera or the Teacher of Righteousness or some other figure who lived in a timeframe different than the early 1st century CE, then they are talking about someone other than Jesus of Nazareth--i.e., they're not talking about the historical Jesus. Robertson, Ellegard, and Mead are all naming a historical founder other than Jesus of Nazareth, and each one of them seems to think that the historical Jesus never existed. In other words, the definitions of Farmer/Jones/Horbury/et al. cover Robertson/Mead/Ellegard quite well (as long as their opinions have been reported accurately here). This is how Van Voorst defines the subject as well, as I've already indicated above. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, your blatant misrepresentation of what other authors say (such as Davigoli who does NOT say the JMH itself is fringy) is indicating that you possibly have a POV ax to grind.

As I asked before how can some historians on one hand seriously suggest a historical basis for Robin Hood a century after the period he supposedly lived and yet any idea that Jesus lived a century before the Gospel account is dismissed as non-historical? The clear inconsistency of such a position should be obvious to anyone who bother to even look at it and yet you have side stepped this point repeatedly. Nevermind, Dodd's definition is at odds with Farmer/Jones/Horbury because as I have explain before NEVER means never; ie Jesus not existing ANYWHERE in history not just him not existing in the period noted in the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, as another editor pointed out saying Santa Claus (nicknamed St. Nick) is a myth and fiction is a totally different thing than saying Saint Nicholas is a myth and fiction.

If you think you need a "cut-and-paste response" then I should have one regarding John Frum, Cooter Brown, Robin Hood, and King Arthur because each shows that parts of the JMH are not as off the wall tin foil hat delusional as most opponents of the JMH make them. Sure of the theories regarding on how the Jesus myth came about read like Oliver Stone's JFK on an acid trip (Joseph Wheless case in point) but then again some of the theories on the historical Jesus side are just as bad as they try to prove every point of the Gospels as historical fact. Since Dawkins in chapter 5 on page 202 of his The God Delusion states "Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed." you have a counter argument against those historical Jesus supporters who contend that there is no other way to explain the rise of Christianity. Note that Dawkins doesn't say Jesus didn't exist but if you look at the John Frum example you see that the connection between the John Frum of the religion and any particular John Frum you might find in the historical record is essentially nil.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless this business about Santa Claus, John Frum, etc. is brought up by a JMH theorist (and it sounds like Dawkins isn't one), then it has no relevance here. This page is about deciding how to improve the article--it's not a chat room where you try to convince people of the plausibility of the theory (or lack thereof). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, since the Santa Claus reference WAS brought up in one of the articles that you commented on you (Christ is Fiction) clearly haven't been really reading this stuff. While the John Frum Jesus Christ connection is sparse in the realizable sources department is does appear with annoying regularity in blogs. But back to realizable sources, as with Remsburg Dawkins doesn't say Jesus didn't exist but he is more dealing with the divine side of things than the historical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless this ... is brought up by a JMH theorist (and it sounds like Dawkins isn't one), then it has no relevance here - But Akhilleus, we've already established that just who is and who isn't a JMH theorist and what it means to have credentials in the field is not very well defined. Dawkins certainly has allegiances with Robert Price (via The God Who Wasn't There), and is not particularly won over by most of the claims made in the New Testament. Likewise, Burton Mack (whose inclusion you've protested earlier) is not a JMH theorist per se but devoted an entire book - The Christian Myth - to an explanation of Christian origins that does not require a historical Jesus; his work is so mainstream and his credentials so ironclad that it seems a little POV-problematic to exclude his work from the article; even though he doesn't discuss the historical Jesus question directly, he circumvents a need for it, thereby undermining many of the "refutations" of the JMH that insist only a historical Jesus could be responsible for Christian origins. His work is quite an important corollary to the laser focus on the historical Jesus.

Also, it's a little hypocritical to make admonishments like This page is about deciding how to improve the article--it's not a chat room where you try to convince people of the plausibility of the theory (or lack thereof) when you've silently nominated the article for WP:FRINGE status without discussing the basis of that move first. --davigoli (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has had fringe status since the moment it existed. I'm not the one who determined that. Nor am I the one who has defined the scope of this subject. Davigoli, I don't really understand what you think the scope of this article is--at times, it seems like you think that this article covers every intersection of myth and Jesus. But it's not; the article is about a particular strain of thinking about the historical Jesus. We've got secondary sources that treat this line of thinking as an interesting, but obscure and fringy, current in the study of early Christianity, and those sources give us a well-defined set of authors who are important in this line of thinking--see the list in the first Remsberg section.

Burton Mack is certainly an important scholar, and his work should be covered somewhere in the articles that branch from historical Jesus and articles about early Christianity. But why would he belong in this article? Does he draw upon Bruno Bauer, John M. Robertson, Arthur Drews, or G. A. Wells for inspiration? I doubt it; as far as I can see, he doesn't mention them in his work. Instead, he refers to such scholars as Jonathan Z. Smith, Paula Fredriksen, and Bart Ehrman. Does anyone call him a "Christ-myth" theorist (much less an advocate of a "Jesus myth hypothesis")? Somehow I doubt it; the closest thing you're going to get is Price saying that G.A. Wells has now moved to a position like Mack's. Does Mack deny that Jesus was historical? No, by saying that the quest of the historical Jesus is misguided, he is hardly saying that Christianity lacks a historical founder. So why would he be in this article? Do you think Rudolf Bultmann belongs here, too? Because he talked about myth in the New Testament quite a bit, I believe...

--Akhilleus (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Akhilleus, I would point out that the fringness of this article was decided on what has been shown to be a flawed definition. As I said before what definition of what "Jesus myth hypothesis"/"Christ-myth theory"/"Christ-myth"/"Jesus-myth" is shouldn't be a game of pick that reference. Trying to say that everything that uses "Christ-myth" or "Jesus-myth" doesn't refer to the Jesus myth hypothesis is just OR song and dance to cover up the fact the definitions for the terms don't even have a consistent definition.

As for as you seeing things you showed you don't look very hard when you claimed "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg" and I showed that even with the mispelling it was insanely easy to find secondary sources which you then tried to blow off as "self-published and non-expert sources" enough though one of the authors was none less than Gordon Stein and I only gave a partial list of what I was able to find. I looked and found that in A Myth of Innocence Burton Mack makes a reference to another book Wells so he knows something about Wells' work.

Again we have the "lacks a historical founder" statement directly contradicting definitions made by Dodd and Remsburg showing that you still haven't got it. No historical founder means exactly that: none in the 1st century CE or in the 1st century BCE or 2nd century or ANY OTHER CENTURY. You can't use authors who define the Jesus Myth hypothesis as Jesus NEVER existed and then say that people who support Jesus existing in an earlier century are Jesus Myth hypothesis supports. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. It has to be one or the other; either the definition you are trying to use are flawed or positions like Mead and Ellegard are not part of the Jesus Myth hypothesis. Either way you will have to explain using RELIABLE REFERENCES how "Christ myth" is not always Jesus Myth hypothesis and why Mead has been called a "Christ Myther".--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wouldn't be too bothered if Mead and Ellegard were left out of this article--they don't seem to have had much impact. However, I'll point out once more that a historical founder who lived in 100 BCE is not the historical Jesus, it's somebody else. By the way, as far as I can remember, "lacks a historical founder" is my wording, meant to be equivalent to "no historical Jesus". A bit sloppy on my part, I guess, but subtlety has kind of gone out the window on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Price does use Mead as a reference at least twice: Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and an article called Was Jesus the Son of Zacharias?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As to my own POV, I don't personally have a dog in this race; I don't have an opinion or feel personally qualified to give an strong opinion on the historical existence of Jesus. My main confusion when I first found this article was based around the title, and I'm mostly concerned that other readers do not confuse this article with the comparative mythology article. I do think it's the nonexistence question is a reasonable one to ask, and I have enough firsthand experience in a Bible college to know that there's an unreasonably strong institutional bias against asking it. (That's not to say that all NT scholars are biased, but when we talk about "many" or "most" or "mainstream" scholars it's good to keep in mind what that means.) Furthermore, the Jesus Project should put the lie to the idea that the JMH is a "dead" question or a "fringe" question. There is certainly ongoing research here, and chances are it will not get definitively resolved any time soon. --davigoli (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"I'm mostly concerned that other readers do not confuse this article with the comparative mythology article." Well, that's something I'm concerned with also, but the incessant attempts to define this article as being about something other than the nonhistoricity thesis make it more likely that this article will be confused with Jesus in comparative mythology. I'm not sure that's the article where Mack's work belongs--it seems more like there ought to be an article on Christian origins or something like that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there is a lot of comparative mythology used in the Jesus myth hypothesis and the boundary between heavily mythologized historical person and so much mythology is present that a historical founder is not needed or can be found in all the "noise" is a very fine one. It certainly doesn't help that "Christ myth" and Jesus Myth" are used to describe the concept when they are also used in other ways. It is like asking was there a historical John Frum--the religious concept of John Frum has overshadowed what historical record exists. As far as the religion is concerned the native that called himself John Frum was a pretender and the "real" John Frum was a white American GI who appeared to the village elders 10 years previously and that was happening within living memory. In fact John Frum is so near a textbook example of what some extreme JMH claimed are saying that I am surprised they he has been used so little.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Defining the Jesus myth hypothesis (again)

Again we seem to have problems on exactly what "Jesus myth hypothesis" encompasses. Wells is referenced regarding "Volney believed that confused memories of a historical but obscure Messianic claimant could have contributed to Christianity" showing that even one of the two "founders" of the Jesus myth hypothesis didn't exclude the possibility that there was a historical person behind the stories.

It doesn't help that the terms "Jesus Myth" and "Christ Myth" vary depending on the author. For example, the 1965 The Psychoanalytic Review‎ by National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis defines the term in a manner totally different than any person in the historical Jesus debate. Then you have books called "Jesus Myth" that are more about the myth surrounding Jesus than any argument about if he was a historical person (Andrew M. Greeley's The Jesus Myth case in point) or in fictional books that use the term in the same manner (James M. McGrenere's 2005 Michael: The Last Pope? pg 570 another case in point). D. S. Amalorpavadass (1976) Ministries in the Church in India: Research Seminar and Pastoral Consultation‎ pg 399 is yet another variant in how the term is used.

As much a mess as "Jesus myth" is "Christ myth" is even worse. Remsburg defines it so broadly as to include the Historicity of Jesus, Dodd is so vague with his '"Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." comment that you have no idea if he is talking along the lines of Mean or something similar to Remsburg, and then you have Farmer, Jones, and Horbury defining it so narrowly as to exclude idea like Mead and Ellegard.

As I have repeatedly said the very definition of what "Jesus myth hypothesis"/"Christ-myth theory"/"Christ-myth"/"Jesus-myth" is shouldn't be a game of pick that reference. Trying to say that everything that uses "Christ-myth" or "Jesus-myth" doesn't refer to the Jesus myth hypothesis is just OR song and dance to cover up the fact the definitions for the terms don't even have a consistent definition.

If we are going to be NPOV regarding this topic we must ask if the definitions have changed and certainly address the fact that there are other ways the terms "Christ-myth" and "Jesus-myth" are used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to be NPOV regarding this topic, we need to reflect what reliable sources say about it. We have several such sources: Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver have useful treatments of the subject, and the opening section of Drews' Die Christusmythe has a useful historical survey at the beginning as well. Yes, there's a terminological issue--I don't think any of the writers I just mention use the term "Jesus myth hypothesis"; "Christ-myth theory" is more common, sometimes "Christ-myth debate". Van Voorst uses "nonexistence hypothesis", Bennett uses "Jesus-was-a-myth school", others refer to deniers of Jesus' historicity without using any set term. But no matter what term they're using, the people I've just named talk about the same line of thought, going from Dupuis/Volney to Bauer to Robertson/Smith/Drews; more recent writers include G.A. Wells, as well as some other writers. (Oddly, Price never makes it in, even though Bennett mentions Acharya S and Earl Doherty.) That's what this article is about. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, are you being particularly dense? According to Wells Volney himself did NOT exclude the possibility that "confused memories of a historical but obscure Messianic claimant" could have been port of the Christ Myth. If you actually read The Origin of All Religious Worship (it's public domain and there are several versions online though it is not the easiest thing to read or quote) chapter 9 page 216 you will see that the focus is on the myth of Christ not if the man himself was historical. "If it is asked: whether there ever existed a man, charlatan or philosopher, who called himself Christ, and who had established under that name the ancient Mysteries of Mithras, of Adonis, &c., it is of very little importance to our work, whether he may have existed or not." In short, no matter how you hand wave it Volney NEVER said Jesus didn't exist. So the idea that the Jesus myth ALWAYS says jesus didn't exist is DOA right fromt he beginning. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "particularly dense", have you noticed that you're talking about Volney, but you've linked to a book by Dupuis? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition in the lead is exactly wrong. Saying that the New Testament story of Jesus is a myth is entirely separate from claims that the myth is, or may be, remotely based on an actual person. The lead sentence should read something like this: The Jesus myth hypothesis (also known as the Christ-myth theory or sometimes simply Christ-myth or Jesus-myth) is the theory that the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament is a myth, and not an historical account. The myth may have been loosely based on an actual person. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. You want a different article, I think--Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, possibly. The theory that there was no historical Jesus is a notable subject in its own right, and that's what this article concerns. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is your definition of the article, a definition that puts the article into a straight jacket. There is no historical evidence at all for the existence of Jesus, aside from the beautiful story told in the New Testament, and that clearly is a myth -- unless we present as fact the immaculate conception and virgin birth, the announcement of the coming birth by an angel to Mary, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, the restoring to life of the dead Lazarus, the curing of an epileptic by banishing obsessing spirits, the resurrection of Jesus after his death, etc. It is a very beautiful story, but clearly a myth and not history. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you've been told over and over again, most scholars would agree that the episodes you mention are fictive or mythical. This has been a prominent element of critical biblical scholarship since the 19th century, at least. However, most scholars think that the NT narratives are mythical/theological/fictional elaborations on the career of a real person, Jesus of Nazareth. This article is about people who think there's no real Jesus of Nazareth. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen nothing but surmise about the possibility of an historical Jesus. But the New Testament story is clearly myth, as discussed, for example, by Tom Paine. You keep arguing that claims, that the story of Jesus being a myth, is fringe; when actually claiming that the story is history is fringe.

Malcolm, you seem to be willfully obtuse on this point. There are (at least) three possible views we're discussing here: 1) Jesus of Nazareth is historical, and the NT story is historical, including the miracles; 2) Jesus of Nazareth is historical, but much of the NT narratives are mythical (however that term is understood); 3) The NT narratives are entirely mythical, and there was never a historical person named Jesus. #1 is probably the position of many people, but few scholars; #2 (which covers a huge range) is the opinion of most scholars; #3 is our subject. For some reason, you keep on collapsing #2 and #3, and don't even recognize that there's a distinction to be made. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The point you just skipped over (again) is 4) NT narratives have so many mythical elements that the historical person behind them is unfindable. I will again point you cannot say the JMH is Jesus NEVER existed and yet call people who put Jesus in a different time period as part of the JMH because the TWO POSITIONS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE because a Jesus existing in different century is still a Jesus who existed. You have not yet explained how candidates for a historical Robin Hood who lived a full century AFTER the period the stories are set in can be presented and yet a Jesus presented in a period before the Gospel stories is somehow non-historical. Like it or not the Jesus Myth Hypothesis does have three parts to it: the Jesus never existed as a historical person, the Jesus in the Gospels never existed (with various candidates being suggested), and the Gospel Jesus has had so much added that nothing of the historical man remains.

Another issue you have not touched on is how much has to match for a candidate to be viable as a "historical" Jesus. Is Bishop Irenaeus' Jesus who would have had to be born c15 BCE for 50 years old claim to match up valid even though it requires throwing the birth stories of Matthew and Luke out the window? Is the Jesus of The Jesus Myth who was never crucified valid? How about a Jesus how fits Luke at being born c6 CE? Or better yet how about what some amateurs have called the minimal Jesus that essentially has the Gospels as wild exaggerations spread by his followers and the real man was basically a nobody who other than get a handful of converts and causing enough problem to get himself crucified didn't do much.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm pretty tired of repeating myself, so I'm not going to do it. Let's just keep in mind that reliable sources (such as Schweitzer, Weaver, etc.) say that theorists such as John M. Robertson, who named Jesus ben Pandira as a possible basis for Christianity, is someone who denied the historicity of Jesus. If you find this contradictory, I invite you to publish on the issue--then we can cite you. Otherwise, we'll go with what our secondary sources are telling us. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out these sources are package deals. Schweitzer includes Frazer with Robertson in his list of a fact reiterated by Bennett (2001) In Search of Jesus despite the fact "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," (pg 205). and if you don't believe Bennett then here is Schweitzer himself: "...discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others , who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (Out of My Life and Thought, 1931) Ironically, Weaver lists James Frazer along with Herbert Spencer as supporters of "then-prevailing idea that behind myths of origin are actual historical personages" (The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950 pg 59) Then you have what Robertson said in The Jesus Problem (1917) "As I have repeatedly stated, I began without misgivings by assuming a historical Jesus, and sought historically to trace him, regarding the birth myth and the others as mere accretions." So of the two "reliable sources" you bothered to actually list one of them has got it WRONG.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's how Robertson started. How did he end? Clayton Bowen's review of Robertson's The Historical Jesus: a Survey of Positions and The Jesus Problem appeared in The American Journal of Theology 23 (1919) pp. 378-381 under the heading "Books on the Historicity of Jesus". Bowen said that The Jesus Problem "is in the main a presentation of Mr. Robertson's notion of how Christianity, with no Jesus and nothing corresponding to the gospel story, got started in the world. The whole is an impressive display of the extraordinary, futile ingenuity of which a gifted but unsound mind is capable. There is no reason why this sort of thing might not be written interminably, concerning any historic phenomenon whatsoever." Sounds like Robertson ended up without a historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)I checked on link The American Journal of Theology and it seems to have the same qualifications as the Journal of Higher Criticism. In fact not only is there no mention of any kind of peer reviewing but it states that it was "edited by the faculty of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago". Expending the faculty of a Divinity School c1919 to allow an unbiased review of anything regarding Jesus not existing is on par with expecting an unbiased article of the Jewish people out of a German university between 1934 to 1945.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"I checked on link The American Journal of Theology and it seems to have the same qualifications as the Journal of Higher Criticism." That's pretty funny! I suggest you try that one out on WP:RSN. Anyway, I'm struggling to figure out what relevance this has to the discussion. Are you saying that the editorial board of the journal was so biased that we can't trust Bowen's summary of The Jesus Problem? That's pretty silly, considering there are other sources that tell us what Robertson thought--and they agree with Bowen. (N.b., these sources have actually read Robertson, something which I doubt you have done.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny? I'm being serious here. There is nothing "silly" about the potential bias of a Divinity School c1919 especially in a "home brew" Journal that ended publication in 1926. Considering the whole volume is available at google books one can look through the other articles and see if the journal is constant or allows really bizarre stuff. And some of the main articles (like 'Our soldiers' doctrine of death') do tend to make you go 'huh?' thought nothing seems to go into total tin foil hat land. Furthermore, the one thing true academic journals have in common is being polite. Phrases like 'Mr so and so is misreading/misunderstanding the material' or 'this interpretation is flawed for reasons x, y, and z.' are near cliche (It is nearly on the level of one of those Tex Avery cartoons where two cavemen exchange pleasantries while they beat the crap out of each other). The very phase "unsound mind" is inconstant with this and I seriously doubt Clayton L. Bowen of the Meadville Theological School had a medical degree which would have qualified him as determining someone's mental fitness. Nevermind that just one sentence later Bowen says how is it plain to every reader how flawed Robertson's position is; if it was that plain then the whole Christ myth/Jesus Myth ball would not still being kicked around some 90 years later.

I should point out that you ignored the whole Frazer mess. Likely because it would require you to admit that either Schweitzer or Weaver doesn't know what the blazes they are talking about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, you don't seem serious. Complaining about Bowen's lack of a medical degree, which means that he can't say that someone is crazy, doesn't seem very serious. "the one thing true academic journals have in common is being polite" is a pretty silly thing to say, too. Now, Bruce, you really ought to look into the history of The American Journal of Theology a bit more--in 1921, it changed its name to The Journal of Religion, which is one of the most prominent journals in the field. The institution with which it's associated, the University of Chicago Divinity School, is one of the best schools of religion in the world. But, if you've got some kind of problem with it, please take it to WP:RSN than filling this talk page with more complaints.

I ignored your comments about Frazer because I think they're unimportant. I find it much more likely that you don't know what you're talking about. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dupuis

Just a note on why I reverted in the Dupuis section: we have a secondary source that tells us Dupuis rejected Jesus' historicity: George Albert Wells, "Stages in New Testament Scholarship," Journal of the History of Ideas 30 (1969) pp. 147-160. On p. 159, Wells says: "And Dupuis has even dispensed with the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus." That's pretty clear, and even if a Wikipedia editor comes to a different conclusion by reading snippets of Dupuis on their own, we shouldn't prefer original research to published scholarship.

Even if the quotes weren't being used to give an impression that Dupuis allowed for a historical Jesus, I'm not sure they would belong: this article has too many direct quotes that don't help to illuminate the subject.

Volney does indeed allow for some kind of historical founder of Christianity, but he's so vague that it's not clear whether he means Jesus of Nazareth, or some other guy. If you look at scholarly reactions to Volney, it's clear that in his day and later he was viewed as denying Jesus' historicity.

On both Volney and Dupuis, it should be remembered that these are antecedents to the Christ-myth theory (the phrase Schweitzer uses is 'great forerunners'), rather than exponents of the full-blown theory. They're thus part of scene-setting for figures such as Bauer, Robertson, Smith, and Drews. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for keeping an eye on this perpetual troublespot, Akhilleus. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"And Dupuis has even dispensed with the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus." is NOT the same as saying "Dupuis rejected the historicity of Jesus entirely" The proper relevant synonyms for "dispense with" are 'to get rid of; do away with', 'To manage without' and in some dictionaries 'render needless' and 'dispose of' so Wells' quote would be more accurately stated as 'And Dupuis has even done away with the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus.' or 'And Dupuis has even managed without the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus.' depending on the context that the sentence was in. The first is more an argument against a historical Jesus which better fits what Dupuis was actually doing as he has issues with Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Interestingly Dupuis takes Suetonius at face value and points out this creates a conflict between him and Tacitus and the simplest solution is to throw both of them out. Saying that he answered 'no' to his own question "Shall we look for testimony of the existence of Christ, as philosopher or impostor, in the writings of heathen authors?" is a better representational of what Dupuis said then a questionable paraphrasing of Wells' actual comment. When in doubt quote as much as is possible and reasonable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we in for another few months where you complain about the representation of a source you haven't even read? Let's remember something, BruceGrubb: the material on Dupuis was written by User:EALacey, at User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis; you yourself put it in the article with this edit. I'm sure that EALacey read Wells' article and has represented it faithfully; I'm sure of that because I've also read it, and Wells says that Dupuis did not think there was a historical Jesus. (This is also what other scholars say about Dupuis.) So, if you want to contend that the text in the article misrepresents what Wells says, please do us all a favor and go read the article; then maybe we'll have something worth talking about. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there's a later article by Wells ("Friedrich Solmsen on Christian Origins," Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (1973) 143-4), which is a response to Friedrich Solmsen's response to Wells' 1969 article. On p. 143, Wells says "The question of a date of birth I mention in connection with the views of Dupuis, who did deny Jesus' historicity on grounds which--as I clearly state--I regard as inadequate." Again, that's pretty clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

convenience break

(remove indent)Doing a search regarding one of the other sources I stumbled on "The Jesus Myth" Barbara G. Walker from Freethought Today (August 2007) Vol. 24 No. 6. The article never comes out and say just what the Jesus Myth is and in fact can be confusing to someone only vaguely familiar with the material as to WHAT is it is arguing. If anything resembling a definition can be pulled from the article it is that Jesus Myth here is being used as Remsburg used "Christ myth" which only serves to prove what I have been saying--the definition of the term Jesus Myth varies and there is little if any consensus on what the term means.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the comments on this page are written as if we were trying to create a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia. There are multiple academic sources discussing the views of Bauer, Robertson, Smith, Drews, Wells and a few others as a phenomenon within New Testament criticism, and none (that I'm aware of) challenging this analysis, so the subject is eligible for an article in Wikipedia per the notability guideline (under what title is another question). For the purpose of that article, it doesn't matter whether other authors happen to use some collocation of the words "Jesus", "Christ" and "myth" to mean something else. At most, it calls for a separate article (Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, Rationalist views of Jesus, whatever) and a disambiguation page. EALacey (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, basically, this article is about a school of thought, with identifiable figures. To be charitable to Bruce's argument, though, it seems that one of the things he's trying to say is that there are figures who are identifiable as "Christ-myth" theorists who don't deny the historicity of Jesus. However, Bruce's arguments seem to be quite confused, and he still hasn't understood exactly what's meant by saying there's no historical Jesus. In addition, Bruce rarely cites secondary literature, but relies on his own interpretation of primary sources; his latest post about Barbara Walker is merely the latest in a series of examples. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well having a working definition would help define what the blazes the article is about. Trying to say that authors "happen" use the terms "Jesus Myth" and "Christ Myth" to mean something else is just OR song and dance to avoid the fact that the terms do NOT have a standard definition. For example, look at this definition of JESUS MYTH THEORY out of Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions (1951) by Royston Pike--"The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin." The 'mainly' in this definition is a problem because it suggests that some of the Gospels record might not be of mythological origin ie historical. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1982) defines the Christ myth theory thus: "This view hold that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." Since Bromiley not only mentions Bertrand Russell but says "This negative attitude is shared by P. Graham, The Jesus Hoax (1974)." even while admitting Russell leave the question about there being a historical Jesus open it is clear that Bromiley defines "Christ myth theory" as simply questioning the validity of the Gospel account and not if the man Jesus lived or not. And this is only the tip of the definition contradiction iceberg. Trying to ignore it is NOT going to make it go away as the more I look the more contradictions I keep finding. We have to face the fact that the definition of what this even is is a total mess even if we limit ourselves to the narrowest of reliable sources. Remsburg certainly doesn't agree with Dood who does NOT (no matter how much Akhilleus wishes otherwise) agree with Farmer/Jones/Horbury and they don't all agree with Bromiley.

I fully understand what "no historical Jesus" means, Akhilleus. It means he didn't exist in ANY CENTURY no matter what little OR spin you try to put on it per the example of Robin Hood I keep giving to show why the Farmer/Jones/Horbury definitions are basically crap if you include Mead and Ellegard. Mead and Ellegard kick that idea in the head and Mead has been called a "Christ myther" by one source. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We've got a nice working definition; it's in the lead right now. You don't understand what "no historical Jesus" means, because as I've pointed out many times, the same scholars who give us our working definition say that J. M. Robertson denied that there was a historical Jesus--but believed that Jesus ben Pandira might have supplied some historical basis for Christianity. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Which still leaves Wells and his Jesus Myth book which in in the long article which you yourself pointed us to (A Reply to J. P. Holding's "Shattering" of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus (2000)) comments regarding Holding. If you go back the article Wells felt was worth writing this on you find this little gem:

"At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have)."

Wells put it as bluntly as anyone can: "The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles." Yet Holding happily still puts Wells in the Jesus Myth camp. Why Wells took the trouble to address arguments that ramble on like a cross between a politician and Binford (with more on the former and very little on the later) I have no idea but Wells obviously felt that Holding was worth some merit, otherwise Wells wouldn't have written an article regarding Holding's comments. Personally and professional I find Holding a joke and a very bad one. Even Acharya S has better academic credentials (at least they are in related fields) than Holding does even if her theories do go overboard from time to time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're apparently missing the part where Wells says Holding misunderstands Wells' current position, and that Wells can no longer be called a "mythicist". I quoted the relevant section of Wells' essay above; do try to read it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss it but Holding certainly missed Wells position that Paul's Jesus was a myth given his statements in Shattering the Christ Myth in that he stated that Wells had abandoned the Jesus myth completely by the 1990s (xvi) when Wells was clearly still going for the Paul's Jesus was a myth as late as Can We Trust the New Testament (2004). Also if you look at the relevant quote ("Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court.") you will see two things. First, mythicist is in quotes which means it is being used in a special or nonstandard manner (sometimes referred to as Apologetic Quotation Marks) and second, tout court means "without further explanation or description". In short the passage does not say what you claim it is saying.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting point. Those quotes are also called scare quotes, and here they indicate that "mythicist" is Holding's term, not Wells'. Tout court often means "simply" or "without qualification", but let's go with what you said. Wells' sentence can be rewritten as: "Now that I have allowed that there is a historical Jesus, it will not do to call me a 'mythicist' without further explanation." In other words, he's moved away from the nonhistoricity argument, and he can't be called a "mythicist" in the sense that Holding normally uses it. Which, you know, is consistent with what I've been saying all along, that Wells has moved away from the JMH.

Now, there's no reason not to say, in this article and in George Albert Wells, that Wells has altered his position, such that he now thinks the Q source gives evidence of a historical Jesus (which is not the same as the Christ of the Pauline epistles). But this is not the JMH as our sources define it, and Wells himself says that "mythicist" is no longer an accurate label for him. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you hold that Christ Myth Theory = JMH then the definitions of Bromiley (1982), Rembsburg (1903) and some degree Dodd (1938) don't fit the one you have presenting via Farmer, (1975), Jones (1983) or Horbury (2003).

Nevermind, your interpretation does not address why Price AND Doherty called Wells a "Christ-myth theorist" and "current [...] Jesus mythicist" respectively with Doherty specifically referring to Jesus Myth Furthermore it does not address this comment by Wells himself in Can We trust the New Testament? pg 49-50: "In my first books on Jesus, I argued that the gospel Jesus is an entirely mythical expansion of the Jesus of the early epistles. The summery of the argument of The Jesus Legend (1996) and The Jesus Myth (1999a) given in this section of the present work makes it clear that I no longer maintain this position (although the change is perhaps not as evident from the titles of those two books as it might be)." If this is not enough here is a direct quote from Wells' The Jesus Legend: "What I have denied is not that Paul believed in a historical Jesus, but that he believed Jesus to have lived the life ascribed to him in the gospels (written after Paul's time) where he figures as a teacher and miracle-worker in Pilate's Palestine, and therefore as a contemporary, or near contemporary of Paul."

In short, what Wells is actually saying here and spells out in Can We trust the New Testament? is that the Gospel story of Jesus is a myth with Paul's Jesus belonging to an earlier time with some elements of a contemporary "Christ" being added when the Gospels were written (whenever that was) with Paul's vision dictating when this Gospel "Christ" had to lived, died, and was resurrected (ie before Paul saw him in a vision) regardless of what the historical facts were. Since Wells himself states that he had thrown out the idea of Jesus being entirely mythical by the time of The Jesus Legend (1996) and Price comments on this ("The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era" while still calling Wells a "Christ-myth theorist" and Doherty calling Wells a "current [...] Jesus mythicist" while directly referring to Jesus Myth we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the term Christ-myth theorist does NOT exclude the idea of a contemporary Jesus in part inspiring the Gospels.

Take a good hard look at the way Doherty presents Jesus Myth: "The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." Nowhere does Doherty say that Wells is saying Jesus didn't exist but only that Wells the Gospel Jesus did not exist and yet he presents this position as part of the Jesus mythicist position. This is independently supported by Price.

When taken in the light of what Wells himself, Price, and Doherty have said there can be only one way to read Wells "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court." statement without putting any OR into it: "Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" (as Holding defines it) without further explanation or description. The 'simply' definition doesn't really make sense and 'without qualification' is simply a rewording of 'without further explanation or description'. Also, "scare quotes" is simply another name for Apologetic Quotation marks. Also per the reference from Trask, Larry (1997). "Scare Quotes". University of Sussex Guide to Punctuation. University of Sussex. these types of quotes are "often similar to prepending a skeptical modifier such as so-called or alleged to label the quoted word or phrase, to indicate scorn, sarcasm, or irony" The second part of "Scare quotes may be used to express disagreement with the original speaker's intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement or disdain, or without even explicitly acknowledging it. In this type of usage, they are sometimes called sneer quotes." has no reference so I take take that with the required mountain of salt.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Actually if you hold that Christ Myth Theory = JMH then the definitions of Bromiley (1982), Rembsburg (1903) and some degree Dodd (1938) don't fit the one you have presenting via Farmer, (1975), Jones (1983) or Horbury (2003)." No, unless you're reading as tendentiously as possible.

As for everything you've said about Doherty's essay, you're misreading it--but I'm not going to bother with a detailed exposition, experience has shown it gets us nowhere. If you like, you can try to explain what's going on in the second paragraph of the essay you've been quoting, where Doherty characterizes "mythicists" in a way that agrees with the definition in the current version of the article, but why bother? You'd be wasting your time and mine. Let's just say that the self-published internet essay of a person with no academic expertise in the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, and that nothing written by Earl Doherty is going to change the definition set forth in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(removeindent)I noticed you didn't address Price's statement or Bromiley's definition in this as they blow your position clean out of the water. Since as I pointed out regarding the suggestion that Holding website's being included Doherty has degrees in Ancient History and Classical Languages your claim of "no academic expertise" is more POV nonsense. Going over some more of the literature it I have noticed that some authors can go page ater page after page without every expressly defining the way they are using "Christ myth" (Independence and Exegesis by Alan H. Jones is one such case). Price himself says something very interesting regarding this in Deconstructing Jesus pg 260-61:

"Traditionally, Christ-Myth theorists have argued that one finds a purely mythic conception of Jesus in the epistles and that the life of Jesus the historical teacher and healer as we read it in the gospels is a later historicization. This may indeed be so, but it is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last. In the gospels the degree of historicization is actually quite minimal, mainly consisting of the addition of the layer derived from contemporary messiahs and prophets, as outlined above. One does not need to repair to the epistles to find a mythic Jesus. The gospel story itself is already pure legend. What can we say of a supposed historical figure whose life story conforms virtually in every detail to the Mythic Hero Archetype, with nothing, no "secular" or mundane information, left over? As Dundes is careful to point out, it doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionized, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype. But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through.

Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

Now 'historicization' has two different meanings: "to make historical" and "to use historical material" (Webster online dictionary). While King Arthur is up grabs regarding which definition you would use I think we can both agree that Alexander the Great and Caesar Augustus clearly fit the second definition (I don't know enough regarding the quality of material on Cyrus to make a comment on him) given the amount of other supporting material such as coins minted during their supposed reigns, mosaics made in their honor during their supposed reigns, and in the case of Caesar Augustus not only letters written by and to him but contemporaneous writings about him. Using the second definition totally shoots down the idea the Christ-Myth theorist holds there is nothing historical behind the Jesus of the Gospel story.

Dundes is interesting in that his book Sacred Narrative contains an article by JW Robertson regarding the use of the term myth and is a far more detail examination of it than Remsburg gave us. Sure Robertson believes in a historical Jesus but his statements regarding what can be meant by 'myth' is an improvement over what Remsburg gave us in 1910. His Interpreting Folklore is interesting on anthropological grounds.

On a side note while I don't know if its quality is any good I did run into a translation of Klaus Schilling's [summery of Drews The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present] while looking for Drews actual work and thought I should at least mention it for editors that want to flesh out the article a little more and who want some other authors to look at.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"I noticed you didn't address Price's statement or Bromiley's definition in this as they blow your position clean out of the water." This usenet-style putdown is amusing, Bruce, but ignores the fact that I've already said Bromiley's definition fits what's already in the article, and that I've commented extensively on Price's essay. Short version: your reading is incorrect. I could address the rest of your post in detail, but as I've already said, past experience indicates it will have no effect, so I'm not going to take the time. Rest assured that I read it, I find it unconvincing (especially how you've interpreted the word "historicization", which is obviously not what Price intended) and I see no reason to change anything in the article based upon it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not really touched on Bromiley definition at all because he clearly states "This view hold that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." Furthermore, Bromiley presented Lucian, Bertrand Russell and P. Graham as some examples of this line of thought; to suggest that Lucian (of the 2nd century CE) and Bertrand Russell held that Jesus NEVER existed is totally insanity and even Bromiley states that Russell leaves the question of Jesus of Nazareth himself existing open. Yet Bromiley presents Lucian and Bertrand Russell as examples of the "Christ myth theory". No matter how you hand wave it Bromiley's definition does NOT match the definition presented by Farmer/Jones/Horbury and there is no way you can make it fit without addressing how the author of a book published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (who Van Voorst used) came up with a definition so at odds with what you are presenting via Farmer/Jones/Horbury that it is not funny. Unless you have scholarly proof that Lucian of the 2nd century said Christ never existed.

Never mind you have not addressed the issue of Price himself calling Wells a "Christ-myth theorist" in Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/ 2000) of Free Inquiry magazine long after Jesus Legend (1996) where Wells abandoned the Jesus was entirely mythical position, a fact Wells himself restates in Can We trust the New Testament (2004). Nor have you addressed the definition Price gave us in Deconstructing Jesus that only with the most "tendentiously as possible" reading known to man could be said to support the Farmer/Jones/Horbury definition. Unless you have scholarly proof that the very existence of Alexander the Great and Caesar Augustus has been debated to the same degree as Jesus. Face it, Akhilleus, I can find scholars whose definition of "Christ myth theory" does NOT match the one used by Farmer/Jones/Horbury with one using the very same publishing company as Van Voort and the other being Price himself. You can David Copperfield this all you want but the fact remains the DEFINITIONS DO NOT AGREE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The definitions are fine. Regarding Bromiley, he doesn't present Lucian, Bertrand Russell, and Graham as examples of a Christ myth theory; you need to learn to read more carefully, and understand when writers are moving to a new subject. I have addressed your points about Price; you're just not paying attention. And indeed, you are being as tendentious as possible, when you pull out the dictionary, and find a definition of "historicize" that lets you claim Price is saying the opposite of his plain meaning.

So, enough of this. If you're unhappy with the quality of the discussion here, there are many options for getting outside input. Posts to WP:FTN seem to go nowhere, so maybe you can pursue the other steps in WP:DR. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)The defintions are not fine. Bromiley talks about Lucian right after the sentence (which I might add is an introductory sentence) he mentions "Christ Myth theory" so if Bromiley doesn't consider Lucian as an example of "Christ Myth theory" why is he mentioned? Bromiley clearly states "This view hold that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." Now saying the story of a person is a piece of mythology is NOT the same as say the person themselves didn't exist. The stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Paul Reveres' famous ride via Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, or the umteen dime novels of various 19th century people like Jessie James, Wild Bill Hickok who undeniable existed cases in point (George W. Chilcoat and Joan M. Gasperak (1984), Young Adult Literature: The Dime Novel or How to Vitalize American Literature Classes, National Council of Teachers of English clearly state that some of the early dime novels stories were in fact using real people and real events while not claiming to be real history). Furthermore, Bromiley presents Thallas as "proof" of a Historical Jesus that along with his other points shows that Bromiley belongs to the 'Gospels are entirely trustworthy historical documents' part of the Historical Jesus school which is as much a joke as the 'there is proof Jesus never existed' part of the Christ myth school is. Nothing here that shows Bromiley is even close to the definitions given by Farmer, Jones, and Horbury.

On Farmer, Jones, and Horbury the books in question are all available with limited previews at Google book and there is nothing on "Christ myth" on page 43 (There are references on pages 93, 133 and 134 which are sadly unviewable) so either this is a way different edition or the page number in the reference is messed up. Jones on section 2.5.2 The Christ Myth Question he notes "There appears to be no definitive survey of Christ-myth theories," and then give a list of both supporters and opponents who provide more detailed surveies of the material: Kummel, Drews, Goguel, and Wood. This give us some more information to work with.

I know that you and EALacey have said this is effectively a square vs rectangle problem but if you can show (as I have repeatably have) that one of the supposed synonyms (ie Christ myth) is NOT consistently used that way then there will always be POV issues as people can point to uses of Christ myth that are more like Remsburg and Burton L. Mack (who effectively uses the term Christ myth the same way Remsburg does and Mack is college professor in early Christianity) rather than being synonymous with what Dodd and Bromiley present neither of which agree with Farmer, Jones, and Horbury without some really broad reading meanings. As I said before the biggest WP:NPOV problem with the article is the very statement "The Jesus myth hypothesis (also known as the nonhistoricity hypothesis, the Christ-myth theory or sometimes simply Christ-myth or Jesus-myth)" in the lead in. Once you say the Jesus myth hypothesis is synonymous with Christ-myth you create the impression that Christ-myth is synonymous Jesus myth hypothesis and that is the problem.

I should mention, you were the one who stealth trotted this out to WP:FTN and found out there wasn't any consensus one way or another there either. On top of that you made the statement "AFAIK Frazer only indicated that he thought there was a historical Jesus in a footnote in the 3rd edition of the Golden Bough, published in 1922" which created the logic puzzle of how could Schweitzer in 1913 have said Frazer believed in a historical Jesus if the point wasn't made clear by Frazer until 1922. As tempting as it is to be silly or sarcastic and make some quip about Schweitzer and H.G. Wells, I have to ask what were you thinking adding this piece of possible information unless Schweitzer did a post 1922 update of The Quest Of The Historical Jesus that you forget to mention?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By p. 43, I suppose you're referring to Farmer, William R. (1975), "A Fresh Approach to Q", which is here. P. 43 is available, and I've already quoted it above.

Bromiley doesn't present Lucian as an example of a Christ-myth theorist. What he says is that one particular argument used by Christ-myth theorists, the idea that Jesus' miracles are imitations of Hellenistic miracle workers, goes back to Lucian. This is readily apparent to one who reads with a critical eye. Let's remember, too, that the section of Bromiley we're talking about is entitled "Did Jesus Ever Live?" which is a clear indication that we're talking about the historicity of Jesus, despite how you'd like to parse Bromiley's use of the word "story". I'm not sure whether you're being tendentious here, or simply failing to understand what you're reading, but either way you're not understanding what Bromiley is saying--despite the fact that it's not that complicated. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, when you mention that I created some kind of logic puzzle with my remark about Schweitzer, I must (again) ask you to be more careful in your reading. Where have I said that Schweitzer said that Frazer affirmed a historical Jesus? (Hint: EALacey and I are different people.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you are using the old 'divert the issue from the real problem at hand because I can't see it' tactic I have seen scholars on both sides in this messy issue engage in. You presented a logic problem for EALacey, something you clearly didn't get and if you can't get something that obvious how can you get what Bromiley actually said? I should mention this is not the first time you have read things into editor's statements that are simply not there and only exist if you are reading the passage with some concepts already in mind.

I figured that this was different and now I see it was because it was part 2. But why not tells us that you were using part 1 of a several part book??

Back to Bromiley. Why even use Lucian and Bertrand Russell as examples in the first place if you are using the total non historical position? It just doesn't make sense. And worse as a rebuttal the first thing Bromiley presents is Thallas--a "source" that is a total disaster as it is really some 4th century person (Eusebius) supposedly quoting what a 3rd century person (Julius Africanus) supposedly summing up Thallus. We saw that kind of nonsense with the Bermuda Triangle mess and it is insane and inane that any scholar worth the name would present Thallus as proof of a historical Jesus unless they are arguing for the Did the Biblical Jesus exist? ala McDowell and Stroble position which is way different from simply saying did Jesus existed in some form but the Gospel stories tell us little about this man aka Wells' position which Price himself called in Free Inquiry magazine Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/ 2000) "Christ-myth theorist".

As early as 1914 Hegeler of the Hegeler Institute in The Monist argued against the use of the very term "Christ myth" though more on the use of the term "myth" which he was more narrowlying defining than even anthropologists of his day. Doing some more digging I found "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ- myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History" Transaction Publishers pg 58 which is as you will see is a very excluded middle position that creates a mess of problems. Where does Wells Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth position fit in this definition and why does it conflict with Dodd's? Nicholas Patrick Wiseman (1964) The Dublin Review‎ pg 358 said "'The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." which totally slams the door on Mead and Dodd as well as later authors like Wells and Ellegard which again proves the definition is NOT consistent. Herbert George Wood (1955) in Belief and Unbelief since 1850 said "When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." just confuses the issue is as Bertrand Russell NEVER said Jesus didn't exist and Wood clearly saying here that saying the Gospels are not representable of the life of Jesus is an alternative to the Christ-myth theory.

Face it, Akhilleus, I can keep showing that your definition is not consistent and will will keep looking and posting examples of how it is not consistent.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's "logic puzzle" is absurd. It is logically quite possible for someone to clarify a statement which has already been understood by at least some people. In fact, this is an everyday occurrence.

I've actually looked up Frazer's discussion of Jesus in the second edition of The Golden Bough, which was the most recent when Schweitzer was writing. The hypothesis Frazer sets out (vol. 3, pp. 186–198) is that a Jewish ritual at Purim or Passover involved two convicted prisoners who played the parts of Mordecai and Haman from the Book of Esther, after which "Haman" was executed and "Mordecai" released. After Jesus' opponents engineered his arrest, Pilate tried to persuade them to allow Jesus to personate Mordecai, but Barabbas was selected for this role and Jesus was crucified as Haman. Jesus' cleansing of the temple is an example of the ritual licence allowed to a "temporary king". The Jewish ritual was based on Babylonian rituals involving the symbolic execution of a god, and this affinity contributed to the rapid spread of Christianity in Asia Minor. All this clearly assumes a historical Jesus, and I can't see that Frazer anywhere discusses the possiblity of nonexistence. The Fortress Press edition of Schweitzer's Quest gives a perfectly accurate summary of Frazer's position. Can we please do away with the allegation that this edition misrepresents Schweitzer (which should never have been made at all without reference to the German)? EALacey (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Note 90

Regarding note 90, "Recently ,OA has shown that the 'i' in Christus was actually changed from an 'e' and "Accordingly, the scribe originally wrote about Chrestiani, Chrestians.",", this is not correct. The article does not show that the "i" in Christus was changed - only that the "i" in Christianos was changed. The last part of the sentence is correct, but "Christus" ought to be changed to "Christianos"./83.252.208.200 (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions versus arguments

I had moved some of the JMT critic's opinions, peppered through the text seemingly to remind people that it is a crackpot idea, to the "criticism" section. Akhilleus reverted these and some other edits saying "this is not a valid reason for hiding or softening this material". It's unclear to me what "this" is, as there were a variety of reasons for the different edits, but each of these reasons seem valid to me:

First, the introduction ended with the blanket statement "Among biblical historians and scholars, the hypothesis receives little discussion, for example Robert Van Voorst has written that "the theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."[6]". This leaves the casual reader the impression that the hypothesis is a fringe theory ("strongly refuted"), not to be taken seriously, and he/she may move on. The supporting quote comes from a Protestant pastor, who would be naturally inclined to believe that the argument has been settled. In fact, the last paragraph of the article counters Van Voorst's assertion effectively, and the sentence is thus at best misleading. It would be valid to quote from a source an approximate number of adherents, which will show that indeed it is a minority view point among biblical scholars. This should, again, not be surprising as the vast majority of biblical scholars are Christians who would be consciously or subconsciously disinclined too consider this option. Finally, an almost identical statement by Van Voorst ("biblical scholars and historians regard the Jesus-never-existed thesis as effectively refuted") was already in the criticism section.

My second edit adds an essential assumption to R.T. France's argument, which is essentially a straw man. As he "argued that arguments from silence are unreliable", it was also fun to point out that he then uses one himself (and a weak one for that matter). I'd agree that the latter edit may be too polemical. I'd settle for having the whole argument removed, as it is somewhat embarrassing for the author. Alternatively, the author may be misquoted, in which case this sentence needs to be rewritten.

In my third edit I moved the two opinions that it is "foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories" (Charlesworth) and that the hypothesis "fails to satisfy modern critical methodology, and is rejected by all but a few modern scholars" (Grant) to the criticism section. These statements do not contribute anything to the section they were in ("Comparisons with Mediterranean mystery religions") and certainly are not arguments, but are good examples of the dismissive view well-read scholars have on the subject. Criticism seems to be the place to be for these.

With apologies for adding to the outrageously long (18 archives!) discussion. Afasmit (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, these are not valid reasons to weaken or hide these criticisms. Running throughout your post is the idea that you find the opinions of these scholars weak or invalid for various reasons. Which is fine, but Wikipedia articles are based on the opinions of reliable sources, not those of individual editors. We certainly shouldn't be adding personal commentary to the article, such as you did by commenting that France used an argument from silence.

Van Voorst may be a pastor, but what's relevant for this article is that he is a professor and the author of a well-regarded academic book on non-Christian sources of evidence for the historical Jesus. (I don't know why, but it's often the case that editors who complain about the "bias" of our sources neglect the fact that these people hold academic posts.) Van Voorst is an expert in this subject, and is a good authority on the reception of the JMH within academia. So when he says this is a fringe theory, you can trust him. What's more, when you're dealing with a fringe theory, it's appropriate to characterize it as such in the lead of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus is right about the reliable sources point which I find ironic given the way he won't admit the very definitions of "Christ Myth" and "Christ Myth Theory" can be shown to vary depending on which source one looks at. For example, Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History" Transaction Publishers pg 58 states "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." This agrees with Price calling Wells a Christ-myth theorist in Free Inquiry magazine Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/ 2000) and depending on how you read might agree with Dodd (1938) as well but it does NOT agree with the definitions of Farmer, (1975), Jones (1983), Horbury (2003), or Wiseman (1964).

Wiseman in The Dublin Review‎ pg 358 was quite blunt: "The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." Not only does this conflict with Dodd's definition but it also raises the question of how how positions like Mead and Ellegard fit into all this.

Finally you have Herbert George Wood (1955) who in Belief and Unbelief since 1850 said "When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." which when you think about it would put Bertrand Russell on par with Price which would argue for Russell's inclusion in the article if only to clarify the issue. Especially given the way Price uses the term "Christ myth" in Deconstructing Jesus pg 260-61 (cited above) which can have two meaning depending how us read historicization. The fact Price says "Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate." clearly indicates Price was going for the 'to use historical material' defintion which would fit Wells later Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth position after which Price was still calling Wells a "Christ-myth theorist".

The biggest problem I have is once you have shown that "Christ Myth" and "Christ Myth Theory" are not consistently defined then how do you claim they are short hand terms for something else?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

van voorst

User:TAway has removed the Van Voorst quote from the intro several times today (e.g. [5]) with no explanation besides edit summaries that denigrate Van Voorst as a pastor.

It's appropriate for the lead of any article to place its subject in a larger context; for this article, that means explaining how the JMH fits into the wider field of study of the historical Jesus and the development of early Christianity. With almost no exception, academics who study early Christianity regard the JMH as a non-mainstream theory (even Price, who's clearly sympathetic to the JMH, regards it as outside the mainstream). The Van Voorst quote is an effective way of illustrating the status of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The disputed text is clearly intended to convey the opinion that the hypothesis belongs to the (lunatic) fringe. I suppose you cling to the admitted broad definition that Wikipedia:FRINGE currently has for a fringe theory (including any conjectures, non-mainstream hypotheses, or speculations). However, this same guideline says "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources".

You respond: "Van Voorst is a reliable source". Well, first, he is only one source. Far more importantly, unlike most scholars, biblical history scholars primarily have a by definition irrational (faith-based), pre-conceived notion of the subject they study. This has nothing to do with them being otherwise good scholars; it just means that you can't use the argument that they, as experts in the field, do overwhelmingly agree that a critical item of their faith is true, and that contrasting hypotheses are therefore "effectively dead" and not hold by any "reputable scholar", and that adherents "are foolish to" even think that way, to use some of the juvenile language currently quoted in this text.

Furthermore, as I wrote before, the "reliable source" opinion of Van Voorst is refuted at the end of the article, so ending the summary with his statement is deceiving at best. I suggest to replace the last two sentences of the intro with "The majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the hypothesis" and attach (a bunch of) references. His quote should join the others in the "criticism" section. Afasmit (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As I pointed before there are Reliable source problems with the VERY DEFINITION which raise how fringe the "Christ Myth" theory really is (See Remsburg's and Dodd's definitions above). In fact it has gotten so bad that is am putting up citations in the main claim and editors are going to have to PROVE "Christ-myth theory" "Christ-myth" are ALWAYS used as short hand for Jesus myth hypothesis. I might also add that Google books shows ONE and only one book that uses the exact term "Jesus myth hypothesis"; it is a totally obscure book that to date no editor has even mentioned: Turner, J.E. (1931) Revelation of Deity Macmillan company (Original from the University of California) and even there it is really ""Jesus Myth"" hypothesis". Now the original paper Turner wrote is available through Internet archive and it reveals that the author's full name was J. E. TURNER, M.A., PH.D. and this originally came from the University of Liverpool BUT (and here is the sting in the tail) his use of "Jesus myth" is at best confusing. Take a look at this quote for example:

"In the first place, it seems quite impossible to regard the existence of Jesus as wholly, or even mainly, mythical in the sense that the records are only the outcome of subsequent exaggeration of an actual character which in itself possessed little that was extraordinary; and whether such exaggeration was deliberate or not is here a quite subordinate issue."

Here Turner sets up the impression that 'myth' as he is defining it is anything other than taking the Gospels as totally historical documents but then he shifts gears and get a more a focus on the nonhistorial position leaving you totally confused when Turner finally gets to the term "Jesus myth". Google scholar is not much help either as "Jesus myth hypothesis" produces only three "references" (having looked at them I am using the term very loosely); hardly enough to use as the title for the article though the alternatives are even worse.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"The disputed text is clearly intended to convey the opinion that the hypothesis belongs to the (lunatic) fringe." Um, well, if that's what scholars think, then that's the opinion that the article needs to convey. Your statement that biblical scholars are "faith-based" is incorrect and irrelevant; the point is to give the reader an accurate picture of how the JMH is viewed within academia (not favorably). As I've said before, however, if you really believe that all biblical scholars are incapable of rationally evaluating arguments about the historicity of Jesus because it's an article of faith that he existed, that guarantees that the JMH is fringe.

If you want to replace the quote with a sentence such as "The majority of biblical historians and scholars are dismissive of the hypothesis" (with footnotes), that's fine. I'm sure that in a few weeks someone's going to come along and complain that it's inaccurate (this is a recurrent topic which you'll find in many of the talk archives), claiming that statements about the JMH's non-acceptance are merely the opinion of individual people, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that only one scholar seems to have even used the exact term JMH and did it in 1931 I find your position laughable, Akhilleus. Sure you can find bloggers who used it but bloggers are not reliable sources. I am also flagging the whole claim that Jesus myth hypothesis is also called Christ-myth theory and Christ-myth as it can be shown that those terms can shown to vary from author to author.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're focusing way too much on the use of various phrases and too little on the fact that there's a coherent position that this article discusses--i.e., the idea that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth. It's a simple thing to understand, so I'm very confused why you keep on trying to muddy the waters. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you keep choosing to ignore that the definitions do NOT say the same thing. Trying to say that Dodd, C. H. (1938) in History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17 with his "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." is saying the same things as "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory." (Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History" Transaction Publishers pg 58) and that is saying the same thing as "The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." (Wiseman, Nicholas Patrick (1964) The Dublin Review‎ pg 358) is totally POV insanity.

Never mind you have things like "When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." (Wood, Herbert George (1955) Belief and Unbelief since 1850). But Bertrand Russell NEVER claimed Jesus didn't exist so how on earth is he toying with the Christ-myth theory? The position just doesn't make sense.

NPOV is quite clear on this: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." When the very definition of a term used can be shown to be inconstant then claiming that that term is used for something is is OR no matter how you want to handwave it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, by now I'd think you'd have figured out that repeating yourself is no way to convince me that you're right. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

By the kind of logic you have presented to other editors you must be admitting to a POV bias. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and it isn't so fun whent he shoe is on your foot is it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bruce, I don't think it's useful to bring up this issue on every thread you participate in. ^^James^^ (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I only bring this particular point up when it is relevant. The fact is that "Christ myth" and "Christ myth theory" do vary is a definite problem. The definitions of Price, Remsburg, Bromiley, Walsh, and Dodd do NOT say that the Christ myth theory says "Jesus did not exist as a historical person"; they in fact say different things. Walsh's definition fits Wells current position (which admits to a Historical person in the 1st century being part of the story but a precursor myth existing) and agrees with BOTH Price and Doherty calling Wells a "Christ Myth theorist" after his Jesus Myth book. No matter how much people want to tap dance around this issue, the fact is that even "Christ myth theory" is NOT synonymous with Jesus myth hypothesis or nonhistoricity hypothesis. It is way past time they deal with that fact.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You bring this up in relation to every thread on this talk page and on any noticeboard where this article is mentioned. It's just a touch monomaniacal, don't you think? Anyway, it's not relevant to whether Van Voorst should be cited in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is totally relevant if Christ myth theory can be shown NOT to be "Jesus did not exist as a historical person" which it can making Van Voorst's statement irrelevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, consider the possibility that you have things backwards. Try this: this article is about the theory (hypothesis, idea, supposition) that Jesus didn't exist as a historical person. What that idea gets called is a secondary issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, it is you who has things backwards. Saying Jesus existed in an earlier century still says he existed as historical person as demonstrated by the historical Robin Hoods found a century AFTER the events in the stories supposedly happened in prove. Nevermind you have again avoided how Wiseman's and Dodd's definitions don't conflict. Wiseman (1964) expressly states "The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." while Dodd (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17 says: "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him."--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Monomania" doesn't seem strong enough. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not "Monomania" to point out that the definitions do vary. You still didn't address the conflict between Wiseman and Dodd, likely because you would then have to admit the definition does vary. Never mind that Bromiley (1982) focuses on the 'story of' aspect a point Malcolm Schosha brought up before I even found Bromiley. Face it, Akhilleus, the reliable sources regarding the very definition of what "Christ myth" and even "Christ Myth theory" even is do vary and there in is the problem. Trying to handwave the problem away by claiming OR nonsense as all appearances of "Christ myth" and "Christ Myth theory" are not the same as Jesus myth hypothesis is not going to work. Furthermore to date only one reliable reference even using the term '"Jesus myth" hypothesis' has been produced and I was the one who produced it and it was some obscure 1931 paper.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of monomania, it seems Akhilleus can't handle the fact that the entire premise, tone, and focus of this article is entirely Original Research by him, constructing a straw-man school so that that people like Van Voorst can knock it down. It's Akhilleus who is focused intently on the idea that the JMH must exist in some coherent form and that it is definitely a fringe theory, and that established scholars like Van Voorst have no institutional bias and can therefore be trusted to pronounce judgments on the "acceptedness" of such a theory.

This whole article stinks of OR. It should be subsumed in "Historicity of Jesus" and "Jesus in Comparative Mythology". --davigoli (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research.

"Established scholars" are exactly the kind of sources Wikipedia relies upon. Whether they have institutional biases is irrelevant; Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Price, Remsburg, Bromiley, Walsh, and Dodd used definitions that do NOT agree with Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver and you cannot cherry pick reliable sources definitions or twist them to fit each other. Doing such is OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes Doherty may have never made

Cleaning up the Doherty section I found the "well-informed amateur on the internet" quote he supposedly made was NOT in the article referenced and searching via google didn't produced anything other than other versions of this page. The same thing was true of "the non-professional scholar" quote. I have thrown both out out and I ask no more sentence fragments be used. Give us full sentences so we can easily check and see if they even really exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotes come from here, but the way they were being used in the article didn't accurately reflect what Doherty was saying. I don't reason a reason to put them back in.

In general, partial quotes are fine as long as an accurate citation is given (which was done in this case) and the quotes faithfully reflect what the original source was saying (which wasn't the case here). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the quotes weren't entirely accurate either--our article said "well-informed amateur on the internet" when Doherty has merely "informed amateur on the internet". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That explains why my search for "well-informed amateur on the internet" (supposedly an EXACT quote) didn't produce anything useful. I should mention that the phrase is more accurately "informed 'amateur' on the internet" (using possible Apologetic Quotation Marks) which is still not a faithful reflection of Doherty's actual point. I dislike partial quotes because it is so easy to take them out of context as what happened with Doherty. It also makes it harder to find them (too much 'noise') .--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)