Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is no satisfactory title for this article, because the idea that this article is about is referred to in different ways by scholarly treatments. Nevertheless, "Jesus myth hypothesis" is a phrase that is not commonly associated with this line of thought in reliable sources, whereas "Christ myth theory" (with or without a hyphen) is reasonably common. I doubt this will reduce the steady flow of complaints about how the definition of Christ myth theory/Jesus myth hypothesis/etc. is "inconsistent", but hope springs eternal. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, I must point out that "Christ myth theory" has its own set of problems. The definitions for "Christ myth theory" that Price, Remsburg, Bromiley, Walsh, and Dodd give do NOT agree with the definitions given by Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver. But they are all reliable sources.

Since Walsh, George (1998) states in The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers on pg 58 "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." you are left with the question of where Wells' position fits as he has BOTH (Paul's Jesus is mythical but the Gospel Jesus has a historical person behind him) and yet BOTH Price and Doherty are calling Wells a "Christ Myth theorist" after Jesus Myth. To date no reliable source has been produced to explain the variance in the definitions of "Christ myth theory" in ALL the sources sited and until such is produced trying to say "Christ myth theory" mean a certain thing is OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Akhilleus, don't delete huge sections (ala Rembsurg) based on your demonstratively poor research skills (as demonstrated by your original "But I can't find Remsberg mentioned in anything." comment which resulted in me posting a slew of references in talk that I found with not even 1 minute of effort). Searching for "John E (Remsburg|Remsberg) "The Christ"" in google books produces 71 matches and looking for "(Remsburg|Remsberg) "The Christ"" in Google Scholar produces 51 matches so claiming "no reliable secondary source gives him an important role in this line of thought" is a totally OR based claim easily disproved. Nevermind that the Remsburg/remsberg list is popular with the self published/blogger crowd as demonstrated by looking for ""(Remsburg|remsberg) list" Jesus" which produces 230 matches. Since I mentioned way back on the talk pages even Robert M. Price used Remsburg's The Christ as a reference so you must be claiming Robert M Price is not a "reliable secondary source" which is total nonsense. As an administrator you should know better.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, going through the 230 listings I found a direct reference to Remsburg in a 1956 book called Cosmic Creation by Professor Hilton Hotema on page 178. The Remsburg list appears or is referenced in World Transformation: A Guide to Personal Growth and Consciousness‎ by Jawara D. King 2007 on page 35, The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul‎ by Lena Einhorn, Rodney Bradbury on page 24, various books by Acharya S, What on Earth is an Atheist!‎ by Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1972 on page 246, and several more. Like it or not even if Remsburg is not common among Christ Myth (however you want to define that thing) scholars he certainly shows up enough to be mentioned.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean "demonstrably poor research skills", right? Research skills consist of a bit more than doing Google searches, don't they? Where does Price mention Remsberg, by the way? Looking through the archives I don't see where you ever said that, but there's a lot of text to go through, and I get kinda bored reading all that stuff (especially the parts I wrote). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We are still waiting for that reliable source that says Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth and nonhistoricity hypothesis are all synonymous with each other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Holding's books are self-published, so we shouldn't be using him. Hotema tells us that in ancient times, man was originally Breatharian and had spiritual powers no longer easily accessible in our present state of health. He seems some sort of New Age kook. And Remsburg or Remsberg seems no better. My opinion is that without evidence that Remsburg, however spelled, is actually used by scholars as a reference we shouldn't be using him either. dougweller (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But Hotema is a professor! He went to the Antediluvian College of the Ancient Astrologers! His book is published by Health Research Books! How can you say this isn't a reliable source?

Doug has concisely made the point I've been trying to get across, apparently without any success: without scholarly sources that tell us Remsberg/Remsburg is important in the line of thought developed by Bauer, Drews, Robinson, et al., he should not be included in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So I've taken out the Remsberg section again. I'd like to note that despite BruceGrubb's complaints that I took this action without discussion (and that as an administrator I "should know better"), there are two extensive sections in Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 19 discussing the Remsberg section, and why it shouldn't be in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realised a discussion on this had been taking place under the section heading 'name change', silly me, I thought that was about, well, never mind. The point is that numbers don't count (and my numbers were different), quality counts. A lot of those hits were Remsburger's own books, others were people like Acharya (Bruce, why in the world do you even mention him, is that supposed to be for or against Remsburger?). Remsburger's books have been around a very very long time, if they are any good I'd expect to see a lot of mention of him. As for Holding and Hotema.... Anyway, I support the removal of Remsberg. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce tends to discuss the same topics in every section on the page (search the page for the word "monomania"). Acharya S is a woman, I believe. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because Akhilleus has been using a definition even the reliable sources don't agree on. Again, 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." As I said nearly two years ago the definitions of Christ myth theory are all over the place and Christ myth is even worse.

I should mention the whole Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 19 was about the amount of space I gave to to Remsburg (something I had reservations about) NOT if he should be in the article. Akhilleus statement of "no secondary source I've been able to find even mentions Remsberg" shows just how poor his research skills were.

Please note Akhilleus said "no secondary source" NOT 'no reliable secondary source'; ie he couldn't find such material as a 1916 The Publishers Weekly; 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 Creation by 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 and I think you get the point. Even using the wrong spelling of RemsbErg through google scholar produced things like Hanson, JM (2005)Was Jesus a Buddhist? Buddhist-Christian Studies - Volume 25, 2005, pp. 75-89; the two S Acharya books above and even a blog ("Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth?").

You may wonder why I italicized Gordon Stein. Well he was a Ph.D. in Physiology from Ohio State University and was co author of Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography which originally was published by University of California. The snipped view you can get out of this book is "Remsburg wrote three other important freethought books: The Bible (333), The Christ (334), and Six Historic Americans (32)" (sic) (the snipped ends there) So we have a PHD from from an accredited University (Ohio State University) saying in another university publication (University of California) that Remsburg's The Christ was "one of three other important freethought books".

I even pointed out the importance of Gordon Stein in my reply that said "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". Nevermind that Remsburg was regarded so important in his own time that a short biography regarding him appeared in 1911's "The International Who's who" which identifies him as a teacher (sadly it doesn't tell us a teacher in what but that hasn't prevented James Charlesworth being sited as we don't know what his degree is in either.) I am reinstating Remsburg as Akhilleus had his reliable source clear back on 21:27, 20 December 2008 when he replied to my original post. I am going to rework it using 1911's The International Who's who and Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography stuff as there is way too much focus on Holding. The difference in numbers looking for "(Remsberg|Remsburg) list" Jesus is due to the nature of the net. With 200+ references to Remsburg list as well as published books on BOTH sides regarding it something about him needs to be said.

Finally you can't use authors who define the Christ Myth theory as Jesus NEVER existed and then say that people who support Jesus existing in an earlier century are Christ Myth theorists. 'YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS'. You have to admit that the definition does vary form author to author.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

None of that stuff is a scholarly source that indicates Remsberg is an important figure in regard to this theory. There is no consensus to include this material right now; please don't put it back in. However, these sources may be of use in improving John Remsburg (which needs some work). --Akhilleus (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's nice to see that you're sticking to your guns on Professor Hotema. Demonstrably great research skills at work! --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The reworking now states that there is little if anything scholarly regarding Remsburg's list while admitting its popularity with the self published and blogger crowds. Both the 1911 and Gordon Stein reference state Remsburg "delivered over 3,000 lectures, speaking in fifty-two States, Territories and Provinces, and in 1,250 different cities and towns, including every large city of United States and Canada." so the man was clearly important in his own time.

As for "Antediluvian College of the Ancient Astrologers" the logic hole here is to go back Hotema would have had to be there before and yet no mention of his first time there is ever made. Furthermore, Google can only find two idential references to this and it reads like what you would find on a dust jacket. Nevermind it looks like Professor Hilton Hotema is a pseudonym for Dr. George R. Clement but looking under that name doesn't produce anything useful other that he has been publishing stuff since 1926 (Law of Life and Human Health) with a slightly different spelling of his last name (Clemets) and puts LLD and ND after his name in this early book which was republished in 1998 and a little later in The Virgin Mother in addition to LLB and ND, has DC (Doctor of Chiropractic?), OD (Doctor of Optometry?), and PHd listed after his name. And that was about as far as I could take that as there are just too much noise to sift through on this guy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

we can agree that the topic of this article is a fringe theory, not serious grown-up biblical scholarship, yes? In this case, I see no problem with mentioning 19th century crackpots, and this includes both religous crackpots and anti-religious crackpots. Of course, language like "gets a lot of attention by the self published and blogger crowds" is utterly unencyclopedic and may be appropriate for talkpages but certainly not for article space. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the crackpots have to actually have something to do with the subject--and so far, Bruce hasn't demonstrated that. Surely we don't want to stick in every 19th century crackpot who wrote about Jesus into this article. We want the ones related to the article's topic, i.e., the ones who said that Jesus wasn't historical. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can't even agree on what the Christ Myth theory even is as the definition varies depending on what author you provide a fact Akhilleus keeps side stepping. Some define it as Jesus never existing (Wiseman), others define it as simple saying Jesus originated as a myth (Walsh) and others that define it as including some obscure historical person (Dodd and Remsburg). To date Akhilleus has NEVER addressed why Price called Wells a Christ Myth theorist after Jesus Myth which Van Vorst states partly accepted a historical Jesus. Yet Wells states Paul's Jesus was mythical which agrees with Walsh's and Dodd's definitions which would agree with Price's statement but does NOT agree with the definitions used in the lead in. As I asked on the fringe noticeboard thread that Akhilleus started up how can you say an idea is fringe when the reliable sources can't even agree on what the theory even is?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Hiberniantears suggestion and the Wikipedia:Requests for comment guidelines I am starting a section on this issue. Let's cut to the chase and look at the source material (arraigned alphabetically):

"This view states 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,..." Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1982) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) under the heading "Christ-myth Theory" History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17)

"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." (Doherty, Earl (1999) Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard)

"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." (Farmer, William R. 1975 "A Fresh Approach to Q," Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Vol 2), eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith Brill, 1975) p. 43)

"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." (Horbury, William (2003), "The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain Oxford p. 55)

"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." (Jones Alan H. (1983), Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel; Mohr Siebeck, p. 47)

"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,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." (Price, Robert M (!999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1)

"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." (Pike, Royston (1951) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions)

"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)

"The extreme form of denial is, or was, the Christ Myth theory. It affirmed that Jesus was not an actual person at all." (Wiseman The Dublin Review‎ pg 358)

"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)

What we get out of that is a mess. Dodd certainly doesn't agree with Farmer, Horbury or Jones because his "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" comment. Bromiley "story of" would put Wells current position of "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." (Wells (2003) Can We Trust the New Testament? pg 43) in the Christ Myth theorist camp as would Walsh's definition. Dodd's definition is so vague that it could be Remburg's very broad definition and would include Mead, Ellegard, and Wells who are excluded if you use the Farmer or Horbury definitions.

Trying to say the above together forms some coherent definition for what Christ myth theory even is either requires twisting or reading into the source's statements things that are not even there. As I said some two years ago the very definition of what Christ myth theory even is should not be a game of pick that source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's clear to me that 'Christ myth theory' covers all positions that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical figure, whether invented wholesale or based on another historical person. That is how the reliable sources use the term, so what's the issue? --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Taiwan boi. It might be worth mentioning that a number of these sources are ones that I brought to the talk page to show that scholarship describes the Christ myth theory in a consistent fashion. BruceGrubb's insistence that there's no coherent definition is the result of his misreading these sources; if anyone's playing a "game of pick that source", it's him. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Akhilleus, you most certainly do NOT agree with Taiwan boi here. You have repeatedly stated that this article is about the view that Jesus never existed as a historical person, and have rejected any addition of the view that the gospel is a mythological embellishment of an obscure historical person. You're trying to cloud this issue by having it both ways. Either this article should have a broader scope to include views that say Jesus may or may not have been historical but most of the Gospels is embellishment, or it should focus exclusively on those treatments of the Christ-myth that maintain that Jesus is entirely fictional. --davigoli (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not so. The article, to quote a bit of the lead that I wrote myself, says that "Some versions of the theory attribute the beginning of Christianity to a historical founder who predates the time Jesus of Nazareth is said to have lived, such as Yeshu ben Pandera or the Teacher of Righteousness." This is the position of, among others, J. M. Robertson, who is unambiguously said to be someone who denied Jesus' historicity by Schweitzer, Case, Goguel, Weaver, Van Voorst, and Bennett. Yeshu ben Pandera definitely qualifies as "an obscure historical person"; the Teacher of Righteousness may or may not be a historical person, but the Christ myth theorists who mention him thought he was historical. So there's no problem here; the article covers writers who say that there was no historical Jesus, but some other historical person forms part of the basis for the NT accounts.

I'm quite annoyed by the assertion that I'm trying to cloud the issue. What I have said, quite consistently, is that we need to follow what scholarly treatments of this idea say. I've found six academic sources that devote substantial treatment to this idea: Schweitzer, Shirley Jackson Case's The Historicity of Jesus, Maurice Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?, Weaver, Van Voorst, and Bennett. These scholars are consistent in defining this idea as a distinct trend in the quest for the historical Jesus, and they are consistent in who they list as propoents of the theory. All we need to do here is follow the lead of these sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to attract any outside comment it needs to be posted at the appropriate boards: I suggest both Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. It would be worth starting a new section with an even shorter question of the problem, though, because people who comment on RfCs do not always read long posts... --Akhilleus (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus keeps claiming that "that scholarship describes the Christ myth theory in a consistent fashion" but that only is due to his misreading these sources. Reading what is only there in the sources rather than what one wants to be there (ie NPOV's "Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.") it clear the definitions do NOT match no matter how you want to handwave it.

Again he side steps the Price-Wells issue which blows a huge hole in his argument because Wells holds in Jesus Myth that there were two Jesuses: Paul's (a mystic figure of a previous century) and that of the Gospel (a historical man whose life was shoe horned into Paul's version). Remember all Walsh's definition says is "Jesus was originally a myth" which fits Wells' current position like a glove despite Wells also saying the Gospel Jesus has a historical person behind him which is in direct opposition to the definitions Farmer, Jones, Pike, and Wiseman. Furthermore Price and Doherty independently call Wells a Christ myth theorist after Jesus Myth putting them at odds with the definitions Farmer, Jones, Pike, and Wiseman give.

Worse yet in Can We Trust the New Testament? on pg 50 Wells states that as early as Jesus Legend (1996) he had dropped the Jesus of the Gospels is totally mythical idea so why is Price in 1999 saying "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,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era."?

To date the only thing we have gotten regarding the Price-Wells mess is Wells' comment to Holding: "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." (please note that both Apologetic Quotation Marks and italics are used in the original work). Using Wells own comments in Jesus Myth and Can We trust the New Testament? the sentence most logically reads "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.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've covered each one of these points, somewhere in the extensive archives of this talk page. Sadly, BruceGrubb keeps on writing the same things over and over again, as if I haven't written anything. So I'm not going to bother to repeat myself; anyone who's interested and has a lot of time on their hands can read through the archives. However, I thought the point of this section was to get outside input, and that's not going to happen unless there's a listing at the requests for comment noticeboards--I suggested two appropriate subpages of WP:RFC in my post above. I'm not going to list this myself, because I would frame the issues quite differently than BruceGrubb has in this section. However, if BruceGrubb doesn't list this at WP:RFC soon, I may do so in a couple of days. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) I tried and got "Login error:" and yes everything looks like I should be allowed to use the RFC tool but it isn't working.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC tool seems to be broken right now, but you can post the request using the instructions at WP:RFC. If it isn't working for you just post the text you want here and I'll put it on the pages myself. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it was something I was doing wrong. I did the manual posting following the instructions to the letter and I think I did it right but double check.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How is Christ myth theory defined and is there more than one definition?

are there diffs for various proposals here? --Ludwigs2 02:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is read the lead of the article and then the talk page section just above this one. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources, I would say that people use the terms somewhat differently: non-historicity thesis is a form of myth-theory, but the Christ myth theory is more a rejection of the quest for the historical Jesus than the historicity of Jesus. While "quest" historians try to peal off theology from religious texts to get to a historical core, myth-theorist claim the core is either non-existent, trivially generic, or otherwise completely irrelevant. Contrast this to the mainstream view as expressed by Stanton: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." Vesal (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It can be argued that even within the non-historical crowd there are those who would agree with the "gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically" part as they point out conflicts between the Gospels themselves (synoptics vs John, details of the various Gospels of where Jesus when and when, etc) and with history (Mark vs Luke) as basic for there view. Stibbe who is a staunch historical Jesus supporter states in John as Storyteller(Cambridge University Press) "The real issue is therefore not whether Jesus existed but how much the gospel of John actually tells us about the historical Jesus." I should note as far as google books is concerned Stibbe is the only author who actually quotes Stanton's passage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best definition is that the character of Jesus spoken about by Paul and other Christian early epistles is not meaningfully historical. Which is to say that while there may have been an earthly man or men for whom some small fraction of the gospel stories is true, the 1st century epistle writers did not have this person in mind when they wrote of Jesus. They were writing about someone they viewed as existing in the distant past and/or on another plane of existence. The connection between the Christian faith of the epistle writers and any recent (for them) historical person is accidental. jbolden1517^Talk 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• well, I was involved in this discussion some months back (I think) and I thought the issue was resolved then. since that's apparently incorrect, here's my new two cents. the only substantive issue involved in this topic is the debate over whether or not Christ is the real, true, singular Son of God. all this foofaraw about whether JC was an 'embellished historical figure' or a 'purely mythological creation' is a red herring, since the notable aspect of both positions is that they deny that JC was supernatural or divine. write the article to encompass both positions (pure myth and mythologized person), from the perspective that they are both arguments against the divinity of an actual SoG (which is the way, historically, they are both usually used). and don't shoot the messenger (meaning me...)   --Ludwigs2 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ludwigs2, I don't mean to "shoot the messenger," but I find your position a little strange. Most scholarship on the historical Jesus presupposes that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being, not the SoG. If I understand your proposal, the result would be that this article would cover Albert Schweitzer, Paula Fredriksen, the Jesus Seminar, Geza Vermes, Burton Mack, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan etc., because each one doesn't think that Jesus was supernatural or divine. But such an article would devote zero space to the authors that this article currently covers, because in the context of scholars like Fredriksen, Vermes, Funk, and Crossan, people like Arthur Drews and William Benjamin Smith are forgotten men. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • hey, it's just 2 cents worth of opinion. the problem is that the RfC is not very well defined; you guys seem to be having an RfC on the subject "What is this article about?" which is a bit open-ended. for instance, I wouldn't have gathered from the above discussion or the current article that you all want to focus on a particular and relatively obscure group of theorists and historians. you're the experts on this subject, not me... is it that you want to exclude 'historical jesus' arguments entirely? if I remember correctly, there was a problem where you were all trying to decide whether a mythology built around real people who weren't jesus (e.g., earlier prophets, or a combination of several individuals' lives) counted as historical or mythological. is that still on-going? --Ludwigs2 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the response. It's probably worth clarifying what the RfC is about, because it seems like editors who aren't familiar with the material are just going to shrug their shoulders and say "huh?" For my part, I think the current version of the lead describes the subject well, and the specific authors covered in the "history" section are basically the "particular and relatively obscure group of theorists" the article should deal with. Presumably, other editors have a different lead and a different list of authors the article should cover...but that's for them to say. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
        • But that is the point of why the RfC descriptor is worded the way it is: "How is Christ myth theory defined and is there more than one definition?" The article is dependent on how, through reliable sources, the term is defined and if that usage varies then claiming Christ myth theory is one and only one definition is OR. I also don't see how Ludwigs2 suggestion of "write the article to encompass both positions (pure myth and mythologized person)" would "devote zero space to the authors that this article currently covers". Sure we have one sentence blurbs on Edwin Johnson and Radical Dutch school but that is hardly "zero" though both could be a lot better. I still think Hiberniantears' "Christ Myth theory is a term which encompasses various debates concerning the existence and nature of, or the relationship between a historical Jesus and the concept of a Christ" is a good one as it addresses all the definitions available in the reliable sources without choosing certain ones over others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Ludwigs2's suggestion (and for that matter, Hiberniantears') could result in the article covering scholars like Burton Mack, Paula Fredriksen, and others who think that the NT has elaborated upon the career of a historical Jesus. Once you start writing an article about those scholars, putting in people like the Radical Dutch School, Bruno Bauer, or George Albert Wells becomes undue weight, because these people have had almost no influence on mainstream scholarship.
          • Bruce, you've written a lot about how you think the definition should be changed, but very little about the practical changes to the article that would result. Aside from Remsberg, what other authors do you think should be added to the article? Who do you think should be left out? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Akhilleus, you're drifting off topic. The point of this RfC is to deal with how Christ Myth Theory is defined and if any of the reliably source definitions available include the idea of a historical Jesus even if some of those definitions are along the lines that historical Robin Hoods and King Arthurs are found (like Mead, Ellegard, and Wells current 'distant past likely mythical Paul Jesus + historical 1st century would be messiah = Gospel Jesus' position). This RfC is NOT about who we are to include in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
              • It's not off topic. As far as I can tell, the definition you prefer would drastically alter the focus and scope of the article, in ways that you don't seem to understand. Asking you what authors you think should be included in the article is a way to try to figure out what you actually want the article to look like. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Call it the non historical theory if you want to focus on that portion but don't say that Christ myth theory/Christ myth/Jesus myth is the nonhistoricity hypothesis because the reliable source material does not uniformly support such a position. I would have no problem with the lead in being reworked as "The nonhistoricity hypothesis (sometimes also called the Christ myth theory, Christ myth, or Jesus myth)" This would acknowledge that all uses of these terms are not the nonhistoricity hypothesis which is the biggest problem with the article as it currently stands. We would have to throw out Mead, Ellegard, and Wells' current position as they do argue for a historical Jesus (abet in a different century for the first two and Wells for some form of composite person) but if scholars can find historical Robin Hoods a full century after the stories take place then these guys are basically arguing for a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'm still not seeing the problem, here, with having two sections in the article - the 'non-historical jesus' section and the 'historical but non-jesus basis' section. probably best not to use those exact titles... the first section could be dedicated to the more obscure scholars, while the second section could be dedicated to the people that Akhilleus thinks will take up all the space. you can balance the two positions with a discussion in the lead about the relative prominence of each group.
                    • Ludwigs2, Bruce has changed the subject here. The two groups you just mentioned, the "non-historical Jesus" and the "historical but non-Jesus basis", are both saying there is no historical Jesus (and we have academic sources that say so, one even mentions Mead specifically). The problem that I was talking about earlier is when you try to include the idea that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth and the New Testament is an elaboration of this historical person, because that's the position that many, perhaps most, scholars of early Christianity take. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
                      • ok, then maybe that's the first issue. does the article exclude those theories where there is an actual singular historical individual to which the New Testaments all refer? --Ludwigs2 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent) Ludwigs2, I'm confused by your wording. Are you asking: 1) does the article exclude any theory that a historical figure supplies some basis for the figure of Jesus in the New Testament? or 2) does the article exclude theories that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC - 33 AD), who supplied some basis for the character of Jesus in the New Testament? or 3) does the article exclude theories that there was a historical figure (not Jesus of Nazareth) that supplied some basis for the figure of Jesus in the New Testament? These are pretty different questions. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

lol - and my question was: which of those questions are you dealing with, and which not? look, to my (fairly ignorant) mind you have a lot of fiddly-diddly distinctions here (real live historical Jesus; real live historical person (not-jesus) in the right time frame; real live historical person (jesus or not) in a different time frame; real live historical people (not all jesus) combined across different time frames, non-historical mythological figure, and probably more). which of these possibilities does the article want to talk about? I'll tell you frankly, from the position of an interested neophyte, I don't want to get involved in all the fiddly-diddly stuff; I just want you to tell me a basic set of theories, delineated nicely. all the gory details can be dealt with each in its own section as needed. there is obviously confusion in the sources over what the term 'Christ-myth hypothesis' means; what you need to do is spell out three or four prominent uses of the term, and then in separate sections you can get into the details of how different sources tweak out different meanings of each of these prominent uses. my sense here is that you guys have gotten your heads so deep inside this issue that you've forgotten this article should be understandable to your average high school student. see what I'm saying? so what are the 3 or 4 prominent uses of the CMH in sources? (I think you've spelled most of them out above, but still...) --Ludwigs2 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, these questions aren't fiddly-diddly at all: they're what separates a fringe theory from mainstream scholarship. So: the topic of this article is the idea that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, and the character of Jesus we find in the New Testament is a fictional creation of the early Christian community. Some writers believe that an earlier historical person such as Jesus ben Pandera supply some basis for the figure of Jesus in the New Testament; these writers (such as GRS Mead and John M. Robertson) still think that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth, so they're part of this article.

What's not part of this article is the position that there was a "real live historical Jesus" (as you put it) in the right time frame, who did everything that the Gospels say; nor is the position that there was a real live historical Jesus, in the right time frame, whose career was elaborated with all sorts of mythical material to become the figure described in the New Testament. For that, you go to historical Jesus.

Now, what I'm not dealing with in this post is the use of the term "Christ myth theory", but in case it wasn't clear, I think every single quote that Bruce has brought to this page (and remember, I brought most of them to the talk page first) refers to the theory of the nonexistence of the historical Jesus. But, as I've said, the term is secondary to the topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

hey, even fringe theories need love.   so, ok, we have a distinction: exclude all theories that have a real live dude doing and saying (in essence) what the Gospels report. cool. so now, what's the issue? does Bruce want to include something you want to exclude, or exclude something you want to include, or is this just a dispute over how you want to phrase or depict the issue? --Ludwigs2 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, fringe theories need love. I wouldn't be spending so much time on this one unless I found it interesting. I'm not sure I quite agree with the way you put it in your last post, though, because this article needs to include people that say Jesus ben Pandera was a partial basis for the Gospel accounts--he was (probably) a "real live dude", but not the real live Jesus of Nazareth (they were in different timeframes). Sorry if this seems fiddly-diddly, but it's probably best to be precise. As for where Bruce and I differ, I'm no longer sure what he wants this article to look like, and I hope he'll tell us 1) what he thinks the topic should be and 2) which theorists should be covered in it. (If you're curious to know which authors I think the article should cover, I think EALacey gives a good list here.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

eh, I'm no stranger to fiddly or diddly on my own turf. no worries. let's see what Bruce has to say: maybe this whole issue will magically disappear. --Ludwigs2 04:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic should reflect what the source material says and given the loose way Christ myth theory is used that is just isn't going to cut the mustard. Trying to say Welsh's definition does not support Wells' current position despite Price calling Wells a Christ Myth theorist shortly after the book came out just confuses the issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The one thing that I really don't understand regarding Akhilleus' position is how one hand you can have Robyn Hode, Simon de Montfort, and Sir John de Evill (or Sire Johannes d'Eyvile in the English of the day) can be presented as historical Robin Hoods despite their careers being well after 1199 (Robyn Hode is the latest at 108 years) and yet on the other ideas about Jesus living 100 years before the Gospel timeframe are somehow nonhistorial. Wouldn't suggesting a person who lived 108 years after the timeframe of the stories that they appear in be more nonhistorical (Robin Hood) then suggesting the person who inspired the stories they appear in lived 100 to 200 years before (Jesus ala Mead and Ellegard)? It just doesn't strike me as a consistent way to look at the definition of historial.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce: again, this is well into fiddly-diddly territory. a line has to be drawn somewhere/somehow; the question is how it's going to get drawn. the new testament, as I understand it, is fairly specific about the timeframe that Jesus is supposed to have lived in (noting events and people that are known through other sources); would someone living 100 years earlier really pass muster as Jesus? the tales of Robin Hood, by contrast, have a bit more wiggle room, time-wise. or would it work to divide it by the theorist's perspective (e.g., exclude those theorists who think they are actually talking about Jesus, and include only those who think they're talking about someone who wasn't really jesus? --Ludwigs2 09:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It may appear fiddly-diddly territory but Wells' current position to some degree fits the Robin Hood model. Beginning with Jesus Legend (1996) going through Jesus Myth (1999)and finally in Can we Trust the New Testament? you see the progression of Wells' current idea that the Gospel Jesus is a synthesis of Paul's Jesus who belonged to an an earlier time and a historical 1st century Galilean preacher (Can we Trust the New Testament? pg 43-44) The really messy part is that Wells expressly states in Jesus Legend pg 12: "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." and yet in 1999 Price and Doherty are calling Wells a Christ myth theorist and current Jesus myth supporter respectively.

If as Akhilleus contends Christ myth theory is the non historical position (which I don't think the source material uniformly supports) something is really wonked with Price and Doherty putting Wells in the non historical category in 1999 when Wells expressly states that is not his potion in 1996. The Gospel Jesus Wells portrays in Jesus Legend through Can we Trust the New Testament? is essentially a composite character and in one sense cannot be historical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. I'm sure this is a valid concern in a detailed discussion of the issue, but at the moment (unfortunately) it creates an obstacle without suggesting a remedy. what is the problem (in terms a neophyte like me can understand) and what is a possible solution? or would you rather continue this endless argument until the issue becomes moot in the real world? (probably a few thousand years for that...) --Ludwigs2 21:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)What "obstacle without suggesting a remedy"? To put it bluntly as possible Christ myth theory, Christ myth, and Jesus myth are NOT always synonymous with nonhistoricity position and claiming so in a sentence effectively defining the four terms as synonyms is OR. For example, take Burton L. Mack who uses "Christ myth" in a totally different way from nonhistoricity (More along the lines of historical myth) and you see the problem. Digging around some more I found William Henry Fitchett's 1911 The Beliefs of Unbelief has a full chapter called "The Theory that Christ is a Myth" where he talks about both what Remsburg called the historical myth and pure myth with with a lot more space given to taking apart the pure myth idea.

Again if you want this to be about the nonhistoricity position simply rework the lead in to "The nonhistoricity hypothesis (sometimes also called the Christ myth theory, Christ myth, or Jesus myth)"

As for Akhilleus statement, "What's not part of this article is the position that there was a "real live historical Jesus" (as you put it) in the right time frame, who did everything that the Gospels say; nor is the position that there was a real live historical Jesus, in the right time frame, whose career was elaborated with all sorts of mythical material to become the figure described in the New Testament. For that, you go to historical Jesus" he has still not explained Wells current position which says Paul's Jesus belonged to an earlier time (Christ myth theory as Akhilleus), yet supports the Jesus of Q as being historical (per Van Voorst and Walsh), and whose position is called Christ Myth theorist by Robert M Price. He may claim he has explained it but he really hasn't.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. so, on reading this, I'm inclined to think that the lead might start with something like: "The Christ myth theory (also known as the nonhistoricity hypothesis, Christ myth, or Jesus myth) is a set of academic and philosophical theories arguing against the idea that the depiction of Jesus in the New Testament is a historically accurate representation. Versions range from theories which postulate a historical individual whose life was embellished into the New Testament stories, to those which suggest that the Jesus of the bible was based on earlier historical figures, and even theories which argue that the Jesus of the Bible was a construct based on mythological personas." that would allow for separate sections on each of those various theories, which would be more complete but still keep the more obscure theories from being swamped by the better documented ones. --Ludwigs2 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, but this lead is far too inclusive. As I've said before, mainstream scholarship on the historical Jesus says that the New Testament figure of Jesus is not "a historically accurate representation"--for instance, very few scholars think that the historical Jesus performed miracles. So your lead would result in an article that could include the position of the Jesus Seminar; in such an article, which would devote most of its space to mainstream scholarship, the figures the article currently covers--like Bruno Bauer, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews--would be eliminated, per WP:UNDUE. This would be especially ironic, as it's Drews' book Die Christusmythe (translated into English as The Christ Myth) that gives us the name of the Christ myth theory.

As I've also said many times, Bruce's contention that there's inconsistency in the definition of the Christ myth is wrong. But at least we're at a point where he recognizes the nonhistoricity thesis is a distinct topic. That's real progess. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus again reads things into editor's comments that simply are not there. I have never denied that the nonhistoricity thesis was a distinct topic; what I have denied is that the terms Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth, and nonhistoricity thesis are always synonyms as the lead in expressly states. If you want to have this article on the nonhistoricity thesis then use that instead of terms that very depending on the author. Trying to say Burton L. Mack's use of Christ myth somehow deals with nonhistoricity thesis which the lead in does by making them synonyms is insane and trying to handwave it away by saying not all uses of Christ myth and Jesus myth are nonhistoricity thesis just confirms the lead in is OR and POVish.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Here is another nail in the Christ myth=non-historical claim of the introduction: "Mack argues that Mark superimposed the Christ myth' onto the tradition of the historical Jesus." Knight, Jonathan (2004), Jesus Continuum International Publishing Group ISBN 0826469817 pg 51. If the Christ myth is the the non-historical position then how can Mark have 'superimposed this on the tradition of the historical Jesus'? Here are some more nails: "The gospel will no longer be the document that accounts for (records, attests, tells the story of) Christian origins generated by the historical Jesus." (Mack, Burton L. (2003) The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy‎ pg 18) "The christos- martyr myth in 1 Cor 15:3-5 has been called the "Christ myth" because christos is the name Paul used for Jesus when he cited the myth." (Mack, Burton L. (2003) The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy‎ pg 112)--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, I added a comment above about the Christ-myth being more a rejection of the Quest than a rejection of historicity. Superimposition would make sense under this. Mack may accept the existence of a historical Jesus, but is arguing that we can no longer access that person from Mark's account. Do you agree? Vesal (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure I agree. If we still had Remsburg here you would see that his definition of Christ myth ranges from the non-historical position to the historical 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." as well as "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 many meanings of the term myth is explored in "Slippery Words" Myth" by JW Rogerson which I found in Sacred Narrative by Dundes and says the same things Remsburg did.

But and here is the point I have been raising for the last two years and only a handful of editors get: if the connection between the Gospel Jesus and the man he is based on is basically nil then wouldn't the Gospel Jesus be non-historical? Look at the definition Bromiley (1982) gave us for Christ Myth theory: "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek, and its basis is sought in the parallels, actual or legendary, to the Gospel records concerning Jesus". Not just that the man was a myth but also the story about that man is a myth as demonstrated by Bromiley's condemnation of Bertrand Russell and Bromiley's later attempt at showing the Gospel Jesus is totally historical starting out with of all things Thallus. Never mind that Wood also charges that Bertrand Russell "toyed with the Christ Myth theory". This all matches the definitions of Dodd and Pike but NOT the definitions of Farmer, Horbury or Jones. Things just go down hill from there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In reading this debate I want to concur with Bruce Grubb's position. People like Crossen are either irrelevant or opponents of the Christ myth crowd. By in large they presuppose a church founded by a historical "Jesus" living in the 1st century that then evolved. That is they affirm that the Jesus Christ Paul writes of "was really and truly crucified under Pontius Pilate". It is the denial of this claim that is absolutely central to the Christ myth crowd. jbolden1517^Talk 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know someone other then davigoli, and now Dbachmann agrees with my point. As I said a long time ago the source material on BOTH sides is a mess. The very term Christ myth is a total disaster varying from author to author and Christ myth theory is not much better. Then you have the "amateur" element (Holding, Acharya S, McDowell, etc) who make both sides look somewhat irrational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest deleting the current RFC, and then reposting it to a new section summarizing the issue. I came here from the RFC and it would take me an hour to read the article and wade through all the talk page. BTW, the RFC is double-posted.

My first impression is that the intro of the article was not clear. I would change the article title to "Jesus myth theory" and write the first paragraph something like this (add refs as necessary):

The Jesus myth theory (also known as the nonhistoricity hypothesis or Christ myth) is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians. To support the theory proponents have documented similarities between stories of Jesus and those of Krishna, Adonis, Osiris, Mithraism, and a pre-Christian cult of Jesus within Judaism. Some authors attribute the beginning of Christianity to a historical founder who predates the time Jesus is said to have lived.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's name originally was Jesus myth theory but it was changed to its current title because there is at best one reliable source that uses anything along the lines of Jesus myth theory and it actually uses the term ""Jesus Myth" theory"" and there has not been any evidence that this source is used by any of the others. Futhermore claiming that Jesus myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Christ myth are synonyms when there is evidence that they are NOT always used that way is POV and not allowed. Mack is a primary example of someone who uses Christ myth in a different manner as is Remsburg and several others I have cited over the last two years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By all accounts this article is effectively dead - "...anyone who says that Jesus never existed "today -in the academic world at least- is grouped with skinheads that deny the holocaust and scientific hold outs who want to believe that the Earth is flat." And with lovely encyclopedic writing such as "Van Voorst is quite right in saying...", deservedly so I say. Coupled with a name that gets virtually no ghits [6] no one is going to find it anyway. Sophia 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Van Voorst is quite right in saying..." is a quote from Doherty, so if you want to call him unencyclopedic, go right ahead. The first quote is from a reliable source, so I'm not sure why you think it's proof that this article is dead--I would rather say it's good evidence that the subject of this article is considered a fringe theory. I recently found a pretty similar quote in Michael J. McClymond, Familiar Stranger: an Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Eerdmans 2004) pp. 23-24: "Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response--on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio." This, too, seems like a good indication of how this theory is regarded by scholars.

Do you have some other suggestion for the article's title? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1) It's not clear it's a direct quote as there are " marks all over the place. 2) There is verifiable datable evidence for the holocaust and that the earth is spherical - anyone who thinks the literary evidence for the existence of Jesus is of the same calibre cannot in all honesty call themselves a scholar. Using quotes of such ilk smacks of desperation and attempts to cheaply discredit an idea. The quote is unsuitable for the article as it is an extreme view of the subject - attempts to defend its inclusion underline why this subject will never have a suitable article on wikipedia. 3) As for the name - what was ever wrong with "The Jesus myth"[7]? Sophia 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sophia, with respect I think your heavy emotional investment in the subject is clouding your judgment. It's always frustrating when the scholarly literature doesn't support us, or relegates our cherished beliefs to the fringe, but that's life. I don't think that's sufficient justification for heavy handed rants in the Talk page (though I do sympathize, we all feel like that from time to time). Let's focus on improving the actual article content, shall we? As Akhilleus has helpfully pointed out, the words 'Van Voorst is quite right in saying' are Doherty's, and very telling words they are too. To answer your question, it appears Grubb objected to the title 'The Jesus Myth'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Emotional investment? Unlike some who edit here, my world view does not depend on the historical existence or otherwise of someone called Jesus of Nazareth. Please deal with the issue - should an obviously extreme quote be used? Do you really think it is fair to class doubts of the authenticity of ancient documents with the denial of gas chambers that exist, and refusal to accept that a world that has been photographed is spherical? There are a lot of quotes that could be used so editorial judgment will come into play here, it's not just a case of using any old apologists opinion. The whole criticism section flies in the face of the MOS anyway. Sophia 17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your well established practice of responding with emotional outbursts to edits you don't like, and making sweeping statements such as that 'By all accounts this article is effectively dead' speak very strongly otherwise concerning your emotional investment in the subject. I personally think that the quote is over the top, an easy hit at a soft target, like punching someone with Down Syndrome. But Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored, and there are plenty of equally strong (if not stronger), quotes in Wikipedia by atheists commenting on a wide range of religious subjects, including Christianity in general and Christ in particular. Whether I think or you think or anyone else thinks that the quote is 'fair' is irrelevant. I can't remove quotes from Doherty on the grounds that I don't think them 'fair', for example. How absurd to even appeal to such a strange idea. I suggest you revisit Wikipedia's policies concerning content. If the source is reliable and notable, there should be no issue. In this case the source is both notable and reliable. The quote could be prefaced with a note that this represents an extreme reaction to the 'Jesus' Myth' hypothesis, but I don't find anything in Wikipedia which says that quotes can't be used simply because you, Sophia, think them to be 'unfair'. Content is not included or excluded on the basis of what you do or do not like. There are formal policies in place, please read them. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think everyone should refrain from making personal assumptions about editors who work on this article. It's not that helpful to speculate about anybody's worldview.

Since I've found two different authors who compare the theory with holocaust denial, I don't think the idea can be rejected out of hand as extremist--especially since we've got plenty of other quotes that communicate disdain and dismissal of this article's subject.

As far as the title, "The Jesus Myth" is unsuitable because we don't use "the" at the beginning of an article title unless it's part of the name of a book or other artistic work; "Jesus myth" would be fine, except that it's so ambiguous people would try to put anything that had to do with a combination of "Jesus" and "myth" in the article. It would end up being a grab bag of unrelated topics. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is unnecessary. Seriously - if this is the level of "scholarship" that is going into this article we don't need Godwin's law to kill it off. A bit of research shows that Michael J. McClymond claims no research specialism in the area of ancient bibliography so should not be used to sum up the field, and Mark Allan Powell writes books about "Loving Jesus" so any fair minded person would treat his summation with caution. Jesus myth is how this subject is most popularly known - we can't change that and shouldn't. It is a bit of a rag bag field and will need careful handling but we are supposed to reflect the world - not force it to fit into a convenient box. Sophia 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Speculation is unnecessary." That's what I said, but somehow you seem to mean it differently. Whatever.

Michael J. McClymond is an associate professor in the Department of Theology at Saint Louis University, with well-reviewed books published by Johns Hopkins University Press, Eerdmans, and Oxford University Press. That's the kind of scholar that this article should cite, and someone who's in a good position to know how this idea is currently received in academia. The book in which Powell made his comment is published by a reputable press (Westminster John Knox), received at least one favorable review (Reviews in Religion and Theology 7 (2000) 135-136; the reviewer called the book "balanced and thorough"), and the book is cited a number of times is subsequent academic literature [8]. This looks like a fine source to me.

If people want to move this page to "Jesus myth", I'm won't stand in the way; I'm not in favor of that move, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So the Jesus myth should be in the same categories as the holocaust denial and the flat earth theory? Pseudohistory? Sophia 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to put it there, go ahead. I think categories are silly. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange view for an editor of an encyclopedia. If you are interested in finding related information, categories are invaluable. Try going into a book shop with no sections. As to the quote - have you read pages 3 and 4 particularly of the link you gave above? There are some quotes in there that I would be interested in using here. Sophia 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you just recently tried to get this article categorized WP:FRINGE. Strange to hear you saying "I think categories are silly". --davigoli (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In brief, my position - and would think we should be able to agree on this - is that this question is not fringe, but it is indeed controversial, and the article should avoid taking a position on it. The field at large is rife with controversy, and even established "divinity schools" at universities like Johns Hopkins don't really have much archeological credibility compared with other fields, given the constituencies they serve. Theologians of any stripe are tainted with POV bias, as their field is fundamentally unscientific. I'm fine with having opinions of these scholars in the article, for example, in the criticism section -- I'm not going so far as saying they're worthless or should be censored, or that their critiques are invariably faulty -- but NOT ok with elevating their opinions to the final word on the topic (such as Akhilleus seems to want to do in the introduction). --davigoli (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis effort really went nowhere. As I said exactly the confusion over what the term Christ Myth Thoery and the other supposed synonyms like Christ Myth really mean is this article's biggest problem. Christ Myth could just as easily talk about the story about Jesus being a myth as the man himself; at least with Jesus myth you were a little more focused on the man rather than the story that has grown up around him. I should note that Mack in Who wrote the New Testament? The Lost Gospel, "Rereading the Christ Myth: Paul's Gospel and the Christ Cult Question,", uses the term Christ Myth to talk the story around Jesus while still accepting the existence of a historical Jesus behind that story proving that the term is NOT the same as non-historical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say I find the quote

anyone who says that Jesus never existed "today -in the academic world at least- is grouped with skinheads that deny the holocaust and scientific hold outs who want to believe that the Earth is flat."

in rather poor taste. What this is trying to say, the "Christ myth theory" is a fringe topic and the haunt of crackpots. We have long established that this is the case and I do not think we need such enlightened commentary from the Trinity Lutheran Seminary in order to drive home the point.

The historian's view on this is... ta-da: Jesus was just some bloke. Who became the focus of a doomsday cult about a century after he died. The Christ-mythers with their pulp publications along the lines of "revelations the Vatican didn't want you to read -- the juicy facts about the mythical Christ-Osiris" are cranks. For the purposes of this article, this has been clear as day for about two years now. No need to mention the holocaust. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are cranks, yes, there are plenty of authors on this subject who are indeed fringy. I have no problem treating specific authors as fringe. But that is not the same as the question itself being fringy, and that does not dismiss everyone who writes on this topic as fringy. Doing so is an association fallacy. --davigoli (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Davigoli, you're still fairly new to Wikipedia, so I think you are probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia categories, a Wikipedia-specific system of putting articles into related groups. They are listed at the bottom of (almost) every Wikipedia article; currently, this article reads "Categories: Historicity of religious figures | Jesus and history | Perspectives on Jesus | Hypotheses | Mythemes". Click on any of those categories and you'll be whisked away to a page that lists articles placed in that category. SOPHIA was asking whether I think the article should be listed in Category:Pseudohistory, and my response is that I don't care because I think the entire category system is silly. But looking at the articles grouped in that category, I would say that the article probably doesn't belong there.

The question of whether this article is a fringe theory has nothing to do with Wikipedia categories; it has to do with this theory's place in mainstream thought about Jesus. And it should be obvious, from the sheer number of scholars we can cite who say in various ways that this is a crank theory, that this belongs squarely in the fringe category. Ask yourself, if you were to walk into a class on early Christianity at the University of Michigan, Swarthmore College, or Princeton University (none of which are affiliated with a Christian denomination)--do you think they're going to spend a lot of time in that class discussing the nonhistoricity of Jesus? Do you think this is a hot topic of research that spawns numerous articles in journals on ancient history, early Christianity, the ancient Near East, etc.? The answer is no, because, as Dab says, this theory is the haunt of crackpots. And unlike many fringe theories, we actually have statements from a number of academics who actually tell us that this theory is the haunt of crackpots. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the entire "historical Jesus" question is the haunt of crackpots. From what I've read, most early Christianity studies are not that interested in the particulars of Jesus' biography (as there is very little direct evidence of it) but rather about the formation of the early church, early Christian writers who left something behind (like Paul or the Gospel authors), and the cultural context of first-century Palestine. Likewise, do you think classical scholars spend a lot of time arguing about whether Socrates existed? Does his physical existence matter to determine the influence of the teachings attributed to him? No. What can be ascertained of his biography - if he existed at all and was not merely a fabrication of Plato - may be academically interesting and the subject of some research but is not a central concern for the historical question of the influence of the Athens school. People on both sides of the question too often treat the "historical Jesus" question as though the foundations of Christianity would come crumbling down if his existence were to be disproven; fact is, the teachings remain influential and the main focus of research, whether there was a single historical personage named Jesus who lived ca. 4 BC - 33 AD behind them or not. Certainly, his teachings are of human origin; there must therefore be someone who said them at some time, but what else do we know about this person? Why choose certain Gospel facts and not others as criteria for historicity? Do we then say that people who question the existence of Socrates are crackpots, because their area of study is not the central focus of classical scholarship? --davigoli (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If any classical scholar asserted that Socrates was merely the invention of Plato, s/he'd be laughed right out of the academy, since there's ample evidence that he existed--Socrates appears in the writing of Aristophanes, Xenophon, and several other writers who were personally acquainted with him. I don't know of anyone who said that Socrates was fictional, but I'd like to know about anyone who does!

It is difficult to determine what Socrates' actual philosophical opinions were, but this doesn't stop people from trying--Gregory Vlastos is one good example of an ancient philosopher who devoted some time to figuring out the "Socratic problem"--see, e.g. Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher. This may not be the most vital question in ancient philosophy, but it's a question that everyone who studies Plato seriously has to think about; it's probably a topic covered in any class on Plato or any introductory course on ancient philosophy.

As for the entire "historical Jesus" question being the haunt of crackpots, I suppose it all depends on one's perspective; certainly there are reasonable scholars who say that we can't know anything about the historical Jesus (except that he existed), but we can know something about the development of early Christianity. On the other hand, there are plenty of prominent scholars who think we can know something, sometimes quite a bit, about the historical Jesus--John Dominic Crossan, Paula Fredriksen, and Geza Vermes, to name a few. These folks are solidly in the mainstream of current scholarship. So, at least in terms of how things are portrayed on Wikipedia, they can't be called crackpots. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus on this point (ironically M. M. Mangasarian in The Truth about Jesus is He a Myth? makes a comparison between Jesus and Socrates) but I think the supporters of a historical jesus shoot themselves in the foot when they the compare not believing in Jesus to not believing in Julius Caesar, Socrates, Shakespeare, Eisenhower, and dozens of other strawmen arguments. I leaves you wondering 'if their case is so strong why resort to these kinds of strawmen'?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The publisher of the said book is Westminster John Knox Press (part of Presbyterian Publishing Corporation). Make of that what you will.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the crackpotness of challenging a "historical Jesus" as I pointed out in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19#John_Frum_vs_Jesus some of the points can be seen in the John Frum cargo cult. Richard Dawkins fully accepts that Jesus existed while stating "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." God Delution pg 202) and just a little later on saying "Second is the speed with which the origination process covers its tracks. John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all." God Delution Chapter 5. Just as the mythical 1930s literate American GI John Frum replaced the illiterate 1940 native who used that name as far as the cult is conserned in the space of one generation (ie 20 years) it is quite reasonable that the Gospel Jesus replaced the Jesus Paul knew especially given the uncertainty of when the canonal Gospels as we know them came into being. This is ignoring the 40 plus non canon gospels that floating around in the 2nd through 4th centuries. Even Paul acknowledged there was a problem with noncanonal material in Galatians 1:6 (c46 to c54 CE) and that could be just 10 years after the Gospel Jesus supposedly died. If as Wells currently contends the Gospel Jesus is some form of composite character then in one sense he is no more historical than 1930s literate American GI John Frum is even if there a person close to him in time and space.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In regard to whether the Powell quote is in bad taste--it may well be. It doesn't really matter whether it gets used in the article or not. But, we seem to have a situation here where we could produce twenty quotes from scholars saying that this is a crackpot theory, and some of the editors here would refuse to see this as evidence that this is a fringe theory--because all the scholars are biased! --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic is fringe in the sense that it is not mainstream - I have never tried to portray it as otherwise. That is not the same as crackpot. There are crackpots in the field in the same way that there are crackpot Christian groups who advocate the world is 6,000 years old and armageddon is on the way. Mark Allen Powell does indeed sum up the whole field beautifully in the link that Akhilleus gave: "...In a sense, nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened. History, especially ancient history, deals with degrees of plausibility. Some matters do come to be regarded as facts after careful analysis of evidence, but the standards by which this evidence is evaluated are grounded in beliefs. Honest historians readily admit to the role that ideology plays in their discipline. At the very least, they approach their task with ideas about what is intrinsically likely or unlikely and about what constitutes good evidence. Such ideas are inevitably debatable.

With regard to Jesus, the task of defining what constitutes a historical approach can be especially difficult. For one thing, most scholars who study Jesus are likely to have a personal investment in the outcome of their work. In itself, this problem is not unique, since historians do not usually study people about whom they care nothing. But with Jesus, the level of investment tends to be especially pronounced." Page 3 [9] Sophia

Bad taste, Ad hominem, and straw man all mixed together. it is ironic that Hayyim ben Yehoshua's Refuting Missionaries (which we threw out ages ago under reliable source grounds) points out that unlike Jesus "the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are numerous eyewitness reports." It is kind of pathetic than an unreliable source is more truthful and honest with its audience than a supposedly reliable one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

davigoli, if there were serious authors, it would be WP:UNDUE to discuss the cranky ones. The point is that there are no serious authors here: the topic of this article is very specific, distinct from the general historicity of Jesus article and also from the general mythography of Christ article: it is specifically the combination of "non-historicity argued based on mythography" which we discussed here. And I am confident that if there was any serious material on this, it would have turned up by now. In a sense, nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened is a truism, and a non-starter. We don't have a Julius Caesar myth theory or Otto the Great myth theory or Isaac Newton myth theory simply due to the fact that nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened I fully agree with the rest of Sophia's comment: this is what our historicity of Jesus discusses. It doesn't establish why we need this article on top of that one. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you DO realize the In a sense, nothing can ever be proven absolutely to have happened nonsense is also come from Powell (on pg 3 in fact), Right? Also are you saying Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) better known for his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden) with Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology) with The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) with The Pagan Christ are all not "serious authors"? Be careful how broad a brush you use as you may get paint on yourself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that there is serious literature on the historicity question, and guess what, we already have a serious article on that. "Christ myth" as a topic going beyond rational assessments of the question of historicity is not serious. And yes, Robert M. Price is most certainly not a serious author. Why are you claiming Price is a "professor"? "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" doesn't even pass WP:ORG, and if you google it, you find it is only ever mentioned in connection with Price. Anyone can call themselves "professor". If I make myself Professor of Theology at a to-be-founded Swiss Cryptotheological Seminary, will you let me detail my views in article space? This stuff has been debunked long ago, and it does nothing for you to copy-paste the references back at me. I insist that whatever has any value here can easily be included under historicity of Jesus, and the rest is of historical (pre WWII) interest at best, the "recent proponents" descending into the absolutely pathetic. --dab (𒁳) 19:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, dab, you seem otherwise such a reasonable editor, one who wouldn't call good-faith editors and scholarly writers "absolutely pathetic". Perhaps you're having a bad day. Anyway, saying "this stuff has been debunked long ago" without telling how (the counter-arguments in the text only offer often awkward, alternative explanations for the raised problems; the remainder are just quotes from people saying that it is all bunk) is straight out of the creationist's handbook, and I don't think you admire their logical methodology. Even if this theory is debunked, it deserves a page, one with quotes containing the arguments that effectively debunk it. It may very well have been argued away logically, but there is no hint of that argument in the current text. Perhaps your issue is semantic though; I get the impression that you are using a much narrower definition than a lot of other editors seem to use. Yours may be one to which most recent proponents don't even subscribe. Afasmit (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that Price doesn't seem to qualify as a serious writer. But also agree that detailing why the theory is now written off seems reasonable as well. I'm assuming that the recent discovery in the past few hundred years of external evidence of Pontius Pilate and others, the fact that there were no (apparent) questions regarding the historicity of the person of Jesus within the first few centuries of Christendom, and that the conspiracy of fraud required to assume the character of Jesus was created would have to be extremely, almost certainly unworkably, large are the prime reasons the question is now considered debunked. And it probably really would help if we could all agree on some scope for this article. God knows there are enough articles already about Jesus, but if it would make most sense to break up this article further, and if the daughter articles met notability standards, I think that might make the most sense. Maybe the best way to do it is to make independent articles on the most notable books regarding the subject, and then have the discussion/response regarding each one's theories in those independent articles? John Carter (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the proposal to detail why the theory is debunked risks turning the article into a series of pro and con arguments. I've said all along that this article should take a historical approach, with sections devoted to prominent proponents of the idea of Jesus' nonhistoricity, as the "History" section now does. If the article gets fleshed out, reactions to each thinker can be put into the History section, rather than being broken out into a separate "criticism" section at the end. Ultimately, I hope the "Arguments" section disappears; as EALacey said in a post that's in the archives somewhere, by compiling a bunch of "typical" arguments, the "Arguments" section creates a composite argument not held by any single individual, and is effectively WP:OR. It also includes a hefty dose of unreliable sources at the moment.

I don't think the article needs to be broken up, either. More detail could easily be provided at articles like Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, etc. Most of the authors covered in this article are notable because they said there was no historical Jesus, so I don't think there would be much point in having separate articles for their biography and their books. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Akhilleus regarding the structure. The article originally started out with mainly arguments and that just didn't work very well at all. The main reason that the "Arguments" section still exists at all is that we haven't gotten enough detail on the various existing authors or we haven't found a reliable/notable enough source that raises a certain counter point.

Regarding Price, His Phd is from Drew University which is accredited by Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and it is out of the Theological School which has the additional accreditation of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada so it's not like he is on the same level as "Dr." Kent Hovind whose degrees seemed to come from diploma mills. Furthermore, professor is simply defined as someone who is a member of the faculty at a college or university; it doesn't make any distinction between accredited and unaccredited institutions. Finally, we still have Ellegard, Zindler, and Harpur being called non "serious authors".--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article gives "authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells" as the main proponents. Neither Ellegard, nor Zindler, nor Harpur are listed as endorsing this "theory". They have written about Christ and mythology, yes. That doesn't make them "Christ-mythers". Although I am not sure I would accept Zindler as a "serious author" on this. The question doesn't arise, seeing he isn't as much as mentioned in the article. You are being disingenious. Also, if I see "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" or "Drew University" once again mentioned with a straight face in an attempt to give credibility to Price, I think I will have to open a window and scream.

And yes, I am prepared to stand by my judgement that neither Doherty, nor Price, nor Wells are "serious authors" on this topic by any stretch of WP:RS. Whatever merit is in Wells can be discussed in h3 paragraph at historicity of Jesus, and in greater detail on his own page. No need for this one. I have already stated that I accept this topic as valid for the purposes of the history of biblical study, the same way phlogiston is relevant to the history of physics. It belongs in the same category as Panbabylonianism, Urmonotheism and friends: a question that has seen heated debate a century ago, but which has been pretty much settled and is only contentious in books written by and for lay readers, not in academia, making it a trope of popular culture.--dab (𒁳) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Drew University is a legit school (unless there's something I'm missing). Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary, on the other hand, has only slightly more credibility than the Royal University of Upper Saskatchewan. So I agree with the other editors that Price is not a serious writer. That wouldn't mean that he needs to be entirely removed from the article, of course, since this is a haunt of crackpots--but we shouldn't think of his self-published internet essays as a WP:RS. This renders quite a bit of material in the talk page archives moot; I wish I had known that Johnnie Colemon was unaccredited before... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Drew is an ok school, or "private university", or preparatory school for Methodist ministers. I don't want to attack Drew, and I think we are agreed in any case that Price is a fringe author. It's just that Price pretty much appears to be the chief ratio essendi for this article. --dab (𒁳) 16:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, just because Ellegard, Zindler, or Harpur are not listed in the article doesn't mean they are not Christ myth theorists as Akhilleus defines the term.

The very title of Ellegard's book is Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ which alone should tell you something and if you had actually been paying attention you would see that it is listed in the Further reading section. Ellegard's book is a modern version of Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? using not the Jesus of the Talmud but the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea scrolls. Unless you are with my contention that historical means Jesus in any time period regardless of it being 2nd century BCE or 1st century CE then you have to agree with Akhilleus that anything not within a reasonable temporal distance of the c4 BCE to c36 CE of Gospel Jesus has to be non-historical. These two authors are in fact where the "Some versions of the theory attribute the beginning of Christianity to a historical founder who predates the time Jesus of Nazareth is said to have lived, such as Yeshu ben Pandera or the Teacher of Righteousness." in the lead in come from; they just don't happen to be credited. (I have fixed that).

Regarding The Jesus the Jews Never Knew here are Frank R. Zindler's own words:"The historical Jesus has always been made to stand on two legs: the New Testament and Jewish literature. The New Testament leg I consider to have been sawed off long ago. Amputation of the Jewish leg has been, I hope, the achievement of this book. With both his legs missing, the figure of Jesus must now either hover in the air -- like the 'god he started out as in the Christian mysteries or like the Yeshu he became in the Toldoth -- or he must fall to earth like a deflated balloon." --Frank R. Zindler.

I refer you to Welsh's definition of Christ Myth theory: "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" Zindler's position by his own words clearly fits that definition.

As for Harpur: "The Pagan Christ asserts that none of the bible happened in history, yet all of it happened/happens within us. [...] "Instead, his discoveries cry out to proclaim not Jesus but Christ, the suffering and risen God incarnate: the spiritual reality of every human soul who is destined for union with God. The Christ myth of the Gospels is our deepest human meaning and truth. Is Harpur right in abandoning the Jesus of History for the Christ of Faith?" (Blackburn, Barry (2004) "Pagan Christ or historical Jesus or both." Catholic New Times Sept 12, 2004

Again the Historical Jesus is thrown out just as Drews did nearly a century before. The term Christ myth is expressly used by reviewer and this is in the Catholic New Times so they certainly wouldn't be using some non standard definition of Christ mythnow would they? Now if they are using this term to say something different then everyone will have to finally admit that as I have been saying for nearly 18 months Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth, and nonhistoricity thesis are NOT always synonyms with one another as the lead in expressly states. I should mentiontwo other authors (Loschiuk and Porter) expressly state that Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ position there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth but neither use the term Christ myth regarding it. Now admittedly Loschiuk used Vantage Press but Porter used Clements Publishing so we have three indepent source saying the same thing--Harpur supports the non historical position.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that Robert M Price does have an insane list of Theological Publications but one get mammoth overload just looking at that list.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

well great, then if, according to you, there are serious supporters of this "theory", why does the article only discuss the non-serious one, and cover the serious ones only by mentioning them under "further reading"? This is silly. The article as it stands doesn't make a serious case. You are saying that this may be the case, but if the article would discuss other authors than the ones it does, it could be shown that the theory has some merit. Then why the hell don't we throw out Price & friends under WP:UNDUE and discuss the real literature instead? Since you seem to view this theory in a favourable light, the burden would rather rest on you to establish that there is anything worthwhile to it. I would tend to agree that the list as maintained by RMP is aptly described as "insane", but I would not of course want you to "get mammoth overload" (whatever that is). One decent reference is worth more than a couple of dozen crappy ones. I think it would be a great step forward to stop discussing Price already and begin looking into the potentially worthwile literature. --dab (𒁳) 14:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you do understand this article has major POV problems right? The article as it stands tries to say that Christ myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Christ myth, and Jesus myth are synonymous with each other which can be proven though other source to be total POV nonsense. Mack certainly doesn't use Christ myth that way and then you have Remsburg and the 1911 Bibliotheca Sacra By the Xenia Theological Seminary of the United Presbyterian Church used it to refer to he myth surrounding the man as well as the idea that the man himself may be a myth. The Pacific Unitarian (1916) talks about but Drews book Christ Myth and the idea of the Christ Myth "Not only in its origins, but throughout its history, the Church has found the center of its faith in the Christ myth, and not in the historical Jesus." Johnson, Roger A. (1974) Brill Academic Publishers, Netherlands pg 106. shows again that Christ myth does NOT always mean non-historical showed that the "also known" claim is a OR statement with no support.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light Walker & Co., 2005, ISBN 0802714498, 9780802714497, 246 pages[10]

The book is "A provocative argument for a mystical, rather than historical, understanding of Jesus, leading to a radical rebirth of Christianity in our time."

The argument goes like

"What had begun as a universal belief system built on myth and allegory was transformed, by the third and fourth centuries A.D., into a ritualistic institution based on a literal interpretation of myths and symbols. But, as Tom Harpur argues in The Pagan Christ, 'to take the Gospels literally as history or biography is to utterly miss their inner spiritual meaning.' ... His message is clear: Our blind faith in literalism is killing Christianity."

This appears to be a perfectly serious book. The gist is clear. Harpur is not trying to disprove the historicity of Jesus, he is saying that the question is irrelevant for the Christian faith, because it is the myth that counts, not the historical details. There can be a Christian religion with or without a historical Jesus, but there cannot be one without the Christ myth. The "historicity of Jesus" question is of interest to historians, but not necessarily to Christians.

I have a lot of sympathy for this position, and the flap blurb on "our blind faith in literalism" also makes clear that this is directed at the North American bible thumping demographics, because I can't think of anyone else who is suffering from blind faith in literalism. Certainly not the Vatican.

Harpur is thus pointing out why the the "Christ-mythers" are cranks: it isn't possible to discredit Christianty by proving that "Christ is a myth". Indeed, you could only discredit Christianity by establishing that Christ isn't a myth. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the historicity question is irrelevant for faith is a serious argument. I haven't read this book, but it looks like Harpur does concern himself with the historicity question (at least if the reviews are right), and relies on such eminent Egyptologists as Gerald Massey in doing so. The Pagan Christ was a best-seller in Canada, so the book is clearly notable, but I'm not sure that it's serious... --Akhilleus (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This review of Harpur is worth looking at. It may well be that Harpur combines a serious theological argument (the part dab discussed above) with some shoddy history/mythography. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for takes on this position, there are plenty of established authors who assume that Jesus is an obscure historical figure blown greatly out of proportion and mythologized beyond recognition after his death. In Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, John Shelby Spong, starts with Paul, the earliest canonized Christian writer, and moves on to discuss the Gospels - actually products of differing schools of thought who give a variety of conflicting biographical details - and discusses how concepts like Jesus' kerygma evolved, Matthew and Luke reached back into Old Testament prophecy to add stuff about the virgin birth and the Bethlehem account, how things like Herod's Massacre of the Innocents were fabricated, and how the resurrection was incrementally distinguished from the ascension (they were apparently, in Paul's mind, the same event). Spong makes the case against a literal reading of the Bible, pointing out at the same time the timeless spiritual themes in the mythical elements. Other writers such as Karen Armstrong take the same tack: they don't bother to question Jesus' historical existence, as it's simply not a fruitful line of inquiry, but always with statements like "Jesus remains an enigma" or "Not much can be known about the historical Jesus". Most writers in this vein leave aside that question, wisely recognizing it as tangential. Writers who harp on it are probably not adding much. But I'd say it remains a valid question to ask, along the lines of "Not much can be known about the historical Jesus, if he existed at all". Unfortunately, I don't know of any writers who take this moderate position. It seems like if there were any, they might belong in this article, but until I can produce some, I'll have to sit on my hands. --davigoli (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with both Akhilleus and Davigoli. Just to be absolutely clear on this: I never disputed that historicity of Jesus is a serious article, which we should definitely keep and improve. But it is also a fact that Christ myth theory is currently a separate article, different from historicity of Jesus. I argue that it has transpired that this is untenable. Christ myth theory is just a pop-culture content fork of historicity of Jesus.

All the arguments we keep hearing on why this article is valid do in fact go to defend the historicity of Jesus article, which isn't under dispute in the first place. They all gleefully ignore the actual question of why this article is justified as standing separate. To add to this, we even have historical Jesus as an article separate from historicity of Jesus. I would argue that this is already pushing WP:CFORK. This means that Christ myth theory is a third article on a topic already fully exhausted elsewhere.

I don't have access to the Harpur book, but based on both the blurbs and the reviews, it is an accessible (i.e. popular, aka dumbed-down) account of an actual grown-up position, "transcending" both redneck bible-thumping and annoying told-you-so-sucker teenage atheism. Which means I am glad to hear it was a bestseller. But obviously we are an encyclopedia and we do not base our articles on "for dummies" literature, so the question is rather moot. But I may be doing injustice to Harpur, as I said, I haven't seen the book and perhaps it is excellent. Either way, it is about explaining grown-up Christian spirituality to the bible-thumpers and the atheist nerds, not about expounding the "Christ-myth theory". --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff does belong in the Historicity of Jesus article. However as this is a fringe area, any attempt to explore it in detail there has problems with undue weight. This is a topic that is of public interest so deserves an article. Go into any large bookshop (in the UK at least) and you will see "The Jesus Mysteries" or "The Messiah myth" or some such books. People like Thompson, I think, come the closest when he describes the historicity of Jesus as an assumption, not a finding of history. Unlike Socrates, Julius Caesar or others mentioned here, the only written accounts come decades after the supposed events, the letters of Paul by someone who never met Jesus, and the Gospels written by unknown authors for an unknown purpose. Josephus wasn't born when Jesus died and all other external mentions are even later or smack of making the evidence fit the facts. I never have understood the resistance to admitting that the facts are thin, and open to great interpretation (to say the least). With the physical evidence it is just as cranky to state that he existed for definite as it is to say he didn't - however Christianity is real and has changed the world. I never saw this article as documenting attempts to "discredit" Christianity - just to have a balanced counter view to the apologetically driven over interpretation of meager evidence. Sophia 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd largely agree. While the Christ Myth pursuit is theologically bankrupt and largely the haunt of cranks, I don't think it's correct to infer that the historicity question has been settled. (Perhaps a better - though more extreme - analogy than Socrates might be the historical Gautama Buddha, who is a believable enough historical figure but who is not documented directly until hundreds of years later; he is largely assumed to have existed, though it is also possible that he is a fabrication.) Historicity remains a working assumption, not a settled question, and that's a line this article needs to walk. I suppose my qualm is that the Van Voorst addresses an argument from silence: the fact that scholars are not pursuing the question does not necessarily imply that it has been definitively solved. I'm perfectly happy with an article that deals with fringe authors on a misguided mission, provided that it doesn't reach too far in discrediting them to make claims that aren't actually true. --davigoli (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be honest the historical Jesus pursuit can be just as "theologically bankrupt and largely the haunt of cranks" as the Christ Myth side is and not just with the 'NT Jesus is entirely historical' crowd either. As for Gautama Buddha Western scholars have long used terms that really don't apply to Buddhism. Buddhism was and is more interested in the message rather than the messager. Unlike Jesus it is not critical that Gautama Buddha be the son of a deity, that he performed miracles or many of the things regarded about Jesus. Another critical difference between Buddhism and Christianity is skepticism as well as self discovery. In Buddhism it is not claimed that there is one way to Enlightenment--it is mostly a path of self discover with few if any markers along the way. In Christianity the message IS the messager; if Jesus was simply a human man and not a demi-god who rose after death then as Paul himself said your faith was in vain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind that some of the reviews of and comments on Harpur's book expressly state he rejects a historical Jesus (Loschiuk, Porter, and Blackburn) and even among the reviews Akhilleus posted point to "Christ Myth Theory": "For Harpur, both literalist and modern critical attempts to locate the Jesus of history are dead ends. Transcending both positions, he believes that the real Christ is a universal archetype; a classic, pre-existent myth, known essentially by all humanity." (Holst) matches Welsh's definition of Christ Myth Theory. Nenonen's beginning statement effectively says the same thing. Then you have "In 2004, former Anglican priest and New Testament professor Tom Harpur wrote a book called The Pagan Christ, in which he argued that there was no historical Jesus..." (Bedard, Stephen J. (2009) "Unmasking the Pagan Christ: The Documentary")

To put it bluntly HOW MANY AUTHORS EITHER EXPRESSLY STATING OR IMPLYING HARPER ARGUED AGAINST A HISTORICAL JESUS DO YOU FREAKING NEED?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a review of this crackpots scholarship. [11] Hardyplants (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Harpur is a crank, but Gasque is a crank too. Cranks left and right in this field. Harpur's sources are indeed suspect, but many prominent mythographers, anthropologists, and other scholars of myth and religion agree there is a very strong correlation of Egyptian mythemes carried into Jewish and later Christian mythology - in fact, the Hebrews in their long years of exile in both Egypt and Babylon picked up many, many themes from both Sumerian and Egyptian mythologies, re-contextualizing them for their own culture. So while on the one hand I'm tired of the Blavatskian/Da Vinci Code intrigue around "what the Church doesn't want you to know", I'm equally tired of timid people who are shocked - shocked! - at the suggestion that Christianity is less than completely original. This review is actually a good example of the general tenor of the discussion, as sloppy work rises to counter sloppy work. It's really hard to find solid, even-handed writing that cuts through the murk. --davigoli (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree he is far outside the mainstream and belongs to this article. Dbachman, if Harpur is pointing out that "Christ-mythers" are cranks because they think historicity is important to Christianity, then they are in good company; see The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith, where the importance of the historicity is defended by an interesting twist: "The Christ who is the object of faith must be seen as historical; the Jesus who is reconstructed by historical scholarship is always shaped by commitments to faith." Vesal (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Gasque conveniently ignores Alvin Boyd Kuhn supposedly got his Theosophy from no less than Columbia University in 1931 and fails to tell his readers what his own PHD is in, and History News Network is NOT run under the auspicious of George Mason University I take his review with a little bit of salt. This does bring up an important point--why does so much of the material on BOTH sides of this issue have problems? As I said elsewhere Creationism and New Chronology get better treatment than this and they are even more off the wall.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading over WP:CFORK I have to agree with Dbachmann that this article as it stands does seem to have little validity on its own. IIRC Davigoli has also suggested eliminating this article as the subject is a disjointed mess--which is in large part due to the way Christ myth is used by some authors. A related problem is the difference between saying Jesus didn't exist in any way shape or form and idea that the relationship between the Gospel Jesus and historical Jesus is basically nil is not made very clear in this article. The simple logic that if the relationship between the Gospel Jesus and historical Jesus is basically nil other than name and being in the right time and place then the Gospel Jesus is for all practical purposes non historical seems to have been missed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to explain this WP:CFORK business to me, because I don't see how it applies here. This article treats a distinct trend within the study of the historical Jesus--and as such should be considered a sub-article of Quest for the historical Jesus. Sadly, that article doesn't even mention this one, but it should contain a section summarizing this article, in accordance with summary style. Even in the present state of affairs this article is not a content fork, but a sub-article of Historical Jesus, summarized at Historical_Jesus#Criticism_as_myth.

I agree with others that the existence of Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus raises eyebrows, but there is at least a rationale for their separation--historicity of Jesus deals with the sources, while historical Jesus deals with the reconstruction. The material covered by this article warrants no more than a sentence or two in those articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a discussion going on if Quest for the historical Jesus should be be merged into Historicity of Jesus so the lack of a link here makes sense. Looking over historicity of Jesus again I can say a LOT of what is in this article under Arguments can be eliminated with a link back to that article and that article is far better regarding NPOV. As for Historical_Jesus#Criticism_as_myth there is still an excluded middle regarding Jesus didn't exist at all and there simply is not enough reliable information to reconstruct a truly historical Jesus. While not a scholar JohnLArmstrong does give a good illustration of just what kind of mess the Jesus Timeline is in; some part of the Gospels must be said to be in error to get everything to work and if inerrantcy gets into the argument you can kiss that idea goodbye.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's post of 21:35, 26 February makes clear what I had implicitly assumed all along, this user's interest is not in an objective disussion of the historicity question, but rather a "debunking of Christianity" based on the opinion that Christianity places too much importance in the "messenger". This is a respectable opinion, but an opinion nonetheless, and belongs on Criticism of Christianity with proper references. Here, it is simple "coatracking". The statement if Jesus was simply a human man and not a demi-god who rose after death then as Paul himself said your faith was in vain not only makes undue assumptions on the religious convictions of another user, it also, again, implies a theological opinion as fact. Paul is of course saying that the Christ myth is essential to Christianity. This is exactly the point: assuming that Jesus was a historical rabbi doesn't make you a Christian, only spiritual attachment to the Christ myth will. This is undisputed. But it seems to be too much for some people to grasp that it is possible to suppose a historical nucleus for the Christ myth regardless of the religious importance of the Christ myth. Is Obama unhistorical because his biography illustrates the "American dream" myth, which can be shown to predate him? No, he is notable because his biography happens to align with a pre-existent myth. Illustrating a myth and being historical are two completely orthogonal qualities. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you're saying (though I can't speak for Bruce); for my part, I don't really claim to know, but my hunch is there is a historical figure behind the Jesus myth. But there is a real problem with a lack of primary, eyewitness evidence: we simply don't have firsthand evidence of Jesus. I don't think this leads to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist, but it is likewise going too far to conclude that his existence has been proven. Even Paul, who wrote that contentious statement about "if the resurrection was a myth, your faith is in vain", never personally saw Jesus: his writing was an example of the importance of faith that he sought to emphasize. I find the whole thing to be a moot point anyway: Christianity had its influence and took its course with or without a historical founder. I actually don't care, but do think the question remains open, probably to never be solved unless some new evidence turns up. My chief concern - as I've said here before - is that it should be clear that the "myth" around "Jesus" is what is key, not the historical person who may or may not have existed. "Debunking" the claims of the most extreme Christ-mythers does not invalidate the strong influence of pre-Christian Greek, Egyptian, and Sumerian mythological themes upon the mythological process of the early church, which almost certainly did take place. I would be much happier with this article if it provided non-Christian writers who dismissed the claim of non-historicity while acknowledging the dynamics of syncretism that get caught up in the CMH arguments, which is the baby that gets thrown out with the bathwater by writers like Van Voorst. --davigoli (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in "debunking of Christianity"; I am just relating the fact that claimed events of Gautama Buddha's life is not as critical to Buddism as those of Jesus are to what became 'mainline' Christianity are. Even today the debate about Jesus Christ tends to go into a myth, madman, or messiah mindset with most of the weight on the messiah end. The problems with taking either the myth (historical or total) or a madman tacks all the while still subscribing to Christianity as it generally is practiced should be self evident. As I said before given how common the name Jesus was and the number of would be messiahs appearing during that time odds are that likely was a man Jesus who thought he was the messiah.

The real issue is how accurate a record are the Gospel records we have of that Jesus. The less accurate we say they are the more of a disconnect we have between the story of Jesus and the actual man; if enough of a disconnect occurs then the Gospel Jesus is non historical because his relationship with the actual man is effectively nil.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one way to resolve some parts of the disagreements about the lead would be to attribute the equivalence between the terms "Crist myth theory", "nonhistoricity hypothesis", and "Jesus myth" to some reliable source that explicitly states that these are the same ideas. I believe BruceGubb has at least made a sufficient case that I at least doubt these are the same, hence a reliable source for this claim would be useful. Vesal (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is as I said two years ago is that the reliable source material is a mess with each author effectively using his own definition. Now having said that I have no problem with nonhistoricity hypothesis and Jesus myth being given a tentative equivalence as the very term Jesus myth implies that the man Jesus is thought to be a myth. What I do have a problem with is Christ Myth theory (and previously Christ Myth which another editor threw out agreeing with my point regarding it) being made into a synonym for "nonhistoricity hypothesis".

Sure you can find some sources that say Christ Myth theory is the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" BUT (and here is where the problem is) you can find other sources that use Christ Myth theory in a DIFFERENT WAY as the citations in Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Christ_myth_theory_definitions Christ myth theory definitions shows. Even the term non-historical has problems as saying that the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree or many other legends are non-historical doesn't mean the people at the core of those legends didn't exist. I know it sounds like hair splitting but saying the story of Jesus is non-historical is a quite different thing from saying the idea of a 1st century would be messiah (ie Christ) Galilean Jew called Jesus is non-historical. It is quite possible to say the Gospel Jesus is non-historical while admitting there was a man behind the story but he has been so obscured nothing of the actual man remains.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure you can find some sources that say Christ Myth theory is the "nonhistoricity hypothesis"... Well, yeah. That's what "also known as" indicates. It doesn't imply complete equivalence. This is a non-issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, what the also known as indicates is a synonym between Christ Myth theory and "nonhistoricity hypothesis" something that cannot be proven from the source material. All that can proven is some authors use Christ Myth theory for "nonhistoricity hypothesis" but not all. The fact Welsh's definition would include Wells' current position (this is not OR as Price uses the term Christ myth theorist for Wells and Doherty calls Wells a current Jesus myth supporter while directly referring to Jesus Myth) shoots your claimof non-issue full of holes given the quote by Van Voort. And don't whine about Synthesis of published material because that is what the current lead in is doing and has been doing nearly from the get go.

Given Wikipedia:No_original_research ( "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.) unless provide a reliable source that connects all three current definitions together your constant claims of this being a non-issue are totally meaningless per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. If you have a problem with my literal reading of this policy there is the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard where the issue can be thrashed out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)DIgging around some more I found some more reliable source material that shows other definition for Christ Myth theory outside of the "nonhistoricity hypothesis" used in the lead in: The Princeton Theological Review‎ (1914) by Princeton Theological Seminary p 512-513.

On a side note if anyone has the complete text of Christian Apologetics‎ by Alan Richardson 1955 pg 105 and J.R. Arkroyd (1922), “The Christ Myth Theory,” Review & Expositor 19 : 182-187 seeing some relevant quotes would better flesh out what is going on with the term.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well gee whiz, the Princeton Theological Review piece you mention starts here, and is a review of a book entitled Jesus the Christ: Historical or Mythical? A Reply to Professor Drews' Die Christusmythe, whose author is Thomas Thorburn; the reviewer is William Hallock Johnston. This is clearly talking about the Christ myth theory in the sense used in this article. A relevant quote: "Jesus Christ has been the centre of controversy in every century of our era, but it has remained for our own to frame the question, Did Jesus live? as a proper subject for academic discussion. The controversy is not an edifying one from any standpoint...It is apparent that the 'Christ-myth' theory is more than an eccentricity of criticism, or the frenzied attempt of a reckless scholar to attract attention to himself. The mythical theory is indeed the direct outcome--although parenthood may not be acknowledged--of that quest of the historical Jesus which has sought to find within or behind the Gospels a peasant-prophet reduced to the dimensions of mere humanity." It's obvious from the title of the book and the preceding quote, but if one reads through the full review, there's no question that the Christ myth theory in question is that of Drews and J. M. Robertson--i.e., the subject of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So that's your quote that shows that the nonexistence hypothesis and the Christ myth theory are the same thing--Johnston refers to the ideas of Drews and Robertson as the Christ myth theory, Van Voorst refers to it as the nonexistence hypothesis, Bennett calls it the Jesus-was-a-myth-school. Of course, the quotes that you keep on trotting out also refer to the ideas of Drews, et al. as the Christ myth theory, so I'm not sure why this keeps on coming up.

By the way, Richardson's Christian Apologetics does not name Drews, nor any other specific person as an advocate of a Christ myth theory, but rather "Marxist historians": "It is an official dogma of Marxism that Jesus never lived; Marxist historians have often convinced themselves of the truth of the 'Christ-myth' theory, and they quite sincerely believe that they have arrived at this conviction as the result of a completely disinterested and 'scientific' examination of the historical facts and sources." (p. 105) Though no specific Marxists are named here, this resembles a point I've seen made in several sources, including Van Voorst--Marx was a student of Bauer's, so supposedly Bauer's ideas about the non-historicity of Jesus made their way into official Soviet doctrine through that connection. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"The mythical theory is indeed the direct outcome — although parenthood may not be acknowledged — of that quest of historical Jesus which has sought to find within or behind the Gospels a peasant-prophet reduced to the dimensions of mere humanity." is the passage I an talking about and I would point out in the same issue of that publication there is this little gem: "The "real" Jesus is the "historical" Jesus, and the "historical" Jesus is the Jesus of the Gospels--the Jesus of primitive Christian faith as set forth in in the documentary evidence." pg 140. which creates all kinds of problems regarding the meaning of Christ Myth theory especially given Wells' current position so you are right back where you started. And we are still waiting for that publication that links all three terms together.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that creates no problems whatsoever. Pointing out that the "mythical theory" is an outcome of the quest for the historical Jesus (in its 19th century German liberal Protestant form) is standard; see Schweitzer and Weaver.

Your second quote is from here, a review of The Life and Teachings of Jesus according to the Earliest Records by Charles Foster Kent. This book is not about the Christ myth theory, and the review barely mentions a "mythical" view, so why are you bringing this up at all? Besides, you have misinterpreted the passage, which says--quite transparently--that the Gospels give evidence of a historical Jesus. This has nothing to do with Wells' position, but I suppose it's hard to get that when one sees the world through Wells-colored glasses. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And despite all this we STILL don't have that source that connects all three terms together or that shows that Christ myth theory is always used for non-historial. Also, it is not Wells colored glasses but the fact Wells' fits Walsh's definition so well (supported independently I might add) and yet not some of the others; all we have gotten is a bunch of OR nonsense claiming all the uses for Christ myth theory are the same. Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. That means you cannot claim Welsh's use of Christ myth theory is the same as Farmer, Horbury or Jones or that Bromiley's story of somehow relates to Wiseman's usage without an article that says so. All we can site is what is directly supported, not a OR Synthesis that tries to match some definitions with others despite their clear ambiguity (Dodd case in point).--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Walsh is not a prominent scholar of religion (just search for academic reviews and citations of his book if you don't believe me), so I'm not sure why you attach so much importance to him. In any case, "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" doesn't conflict with what this article says at all. As far as OR/SYNTH, I would submit that without a source that says explicitly that "Christ myth theory" means different things in different authors, it's you who are reaching conclusions that are not stated explicitly by any of the sources; for instance, you've just synthesized your interpretation of Walsh and your interpretation of Wells. (Both of which, I would say, are faulty.) We have several sources that say explicitly that the Christ myth theory is the line of thought carried out by Bauer, Drews, Robertson, et al., and none that say explicitly that the Christ myth theory is not what these guys proposed, but a theory proposed by an entirely different group of thinkers. So I'm having difficulty figuring out what the heck you're going on about. Are there any actual changes you think need to be made to the article, or are you just here to fill up the talk page with complaints about terminology? If you're so convinced that there's OR here, why don't you go to the no original research noticeboard? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Walsh used Transaction Publishers which qualifies as a reliable source and and we have seen no evidence that any of the sources you have produced are "prominent scholar of religion" either. Walsh clearly conflicts because "Jesus was originally a myth" up to the 1st century AD when that story was attached to a contemporary would be messiah is the Christ Myth Thoery by definition and flies in the face of non-hiostorial. You can't interpretate or handwave to make it fit but only use exactly what Walsh give us. As for my conclusion about Walsh and Wells being a synthesis this ignores the statements of Price and Doherty which support that position (and I noted above). I would remind you that by the logic above the reasoning you and EALacey used to keep Fischer out of this article could qualify as synthesis because no reference saying that he isn't relevant has been produced. Neither has the source linking all three terms together and I have noticed you have not tried to put Christ myth back in the list either as you can't or won't defend it being synonymous with non-historical despite Akhilleus saying "Bruce's contention that there's inconsistency in the definition of the Christ myth is wrong" (which I proved with various sources like Mack to be totally incorrect and Cuñado agreed with me as he threw Christ myth out as part of the lead in).--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)I should point out that Akhilleus doesn't realize that his statement of "What's not part of this article is the position that there was a "real live historical Jesus" (as you put it) in the right time frame, who did everything that the Gospels say; nor is the position that there was a real live historical Jesus, in the right time frame, whose career was elaborated with all sorts of mythical material to become the figure described in the New Testament. For that, you go to historical Jesus" conflicts with Wells current position which agrees with Welsh's definition as independently stated by BOTH Price and Doherty. Akhilleus has provided no reliable source evidence showing his interpretation of Welsh is the correct one nor any regarding the definitions that don't exactly fit. As I mentioned elsewhere to which Akhilleus replied I brought this up in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_reliable_source_conflict and no one cared Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#academic_sources_at_Jesus_myth_hypothesis and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis were certainly more lively but nothing came of those either. Three noticeboards and no resolution yet and yet Akhilleus somehow taking this to a fourth will somehow magically fix this mess?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason "no one cares" is that your dispute is difficult to understand: "Wells current position which agrees with Welsh's definition as independently stated by BOTH Price and Doherty." What?? Anyway, I suggest leaving the difficulty of the terms aside for a while. What do you suggest that this article should be about in terms of content? Should it include Wells' current position?? (Maybe, Wells is simply no longer a true myth-theorist.) Really, what should this article cover, and if it is to include superimposition theories, how does that differ from mainstream accounts? Yes, it may be a more gradual spectrum from literalism to non-historicity, where Wells current view is somewhere between the Jesus Seminar and non-historicity theories; but for the purpose of an independent article, the scope has to be somehow specified. Where do you suggest to draw the line? Vesal (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Price calls Wells a Christ Myth Theorist in 1999 after Jesus Myth was published and described the premise in that book; Doherty called Wells a CURRENT Jesus myth supporter while directly referring to Jesus Myth so claiming true myth-theorist doesn't apply.

As for what the article should cover I am not sure thanks the variations in the definitions. Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman expressly deal with the Jesus NEVER existed position (which by definition would excluded the Jesus existing in the 1st century BE or earlier theories per the Robin Hood and John Frum examples I have previously given). Jones expressly states that the idea is the man being called non-historial.

Then you have Bromiley who expressly states story of rather than the person in his definition. Pike's definition is annoying vague as it not clear if he means the man or the story of the man. Dodd's is so vaguely worded that it could include a historical Jesus as he give no time frame. Welsh's definition is an eluded middle with its own set of problems.

Trying to say all these different definitions somehow define Christ Myth Theory the exact same way with no references that link them together to back up that claim flies in the face of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. The material as it stands doesn't support the lead in's premise that Christ Myth Theory is used in anything even resembling a standard way. It certainly doesn't help that Christ myth by itself is used in an even broader context (as demonstrated by Burton L. Mack, Remsburg, Fitchett, Knight, etc) or that even among scholars (JW Rogerson) and non-scholars (Remsburg) the very term myth has different meanings. As I said a long time ago the literature here on both sides is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

everyone agrees this is a mess, but what is to be done to fix it? Imo, what we have here is a blatant violation of WP:SYN and WP:CFORK. The article should be redirected to historicity of Jesus until we have literature about the "Jesus myth theory" phenomenon, i.e. authors reviewing the history of this phenomenon, as opposed to a bunch of primary literature by "Jesus myth" apologists. The reason we cannot come to a solid conclusion here is that the very article topic is flawed from the outset. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, we have such literature, and it's cited in the article. There are two chapters in Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus that deal with non-historical theories. In the 1910s and 1920s, when Arthur Drews and others attracted public attention, several books were written about the Christ myth theory--including Shirley Jackson Case's The Historicity of Jesus, F. C. Conybeare's The Historical Christ, or an investigation of the views of J.M. Robertson, A. Drews and W.B. Smith, and Maurice Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?. There are several recent scholars who do indeed review the history of this phenomenon: van Voorst (the first chapter of Jesus Outside the New Testament), Walter Weaver (two sections of The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950), and Clinton Bennett (a big section of In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images--the page introducing the section is not part of the Google books preview). None of these sources are primary literature by "Jesus myth" apologists; the modern sources treat the Christ myth theory as a (distinctly odd) trend within the study of the historical Jesus. This is much more complete scholarly treatment than most fringe ideas get. This article simply needs to follow the treatment given in these sources--and, in fact, it basically does, up until the "recent proponents" section. After that, it's all a garbled mess.

If this topic has become obscure, it's because of discussion on this talk page, which seems to be taking place in some universe other than that of the secondary sources, in which the subject matter that this article should cover is clearly defined--instead, here, the opinions of guys like Doherty and Price reign supreme, and BruceGrubb's misinterpretation of a straightforward statement by George Walsh somehow threatens the existence of this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is what I think. Since this topic is primarily of historical interest, one should probably flatten the structure, so that the body of the article is primarily the current "history" section. The "argument" section should be incorporated into that kind of a structure. When discussing recent proponents (e.g., Wells), it should be placed in the context of current scholarship. It seems to me that Wells' theory is like an extreme position on the Gospel of John. Quoting again from Stibbe's John as Storyteller: "The real issue is therefore not whether Jesus existed but how much the gospel of John actually tells us about the historical Jesus". Here, the mainstream position would say there is much to be learned from John, while someone like Wells would claim a complete disconnect. Am I right? Vesal (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call Wells's current position a total disconnect; he certainly was saying there was something to Q as early as Jesus Legend a view that has grown stronger with each successive book (Jesus Myth and Can we trust the New Testament?) on the topic. Wells current position agrees with Welsh's definition of Christ Myth theory with Paul's Jesus being a quasi mythical person belonging to a previous century but accepts the Q Jesus being historical with the merging of the two producing a non historical composite character called the Gospel Jesus (Jesus Myth directly referenced by Doherty and Price reiterates the position in general)

Again we see the attempt to strawman other editors point by applying generalities that are not there. I never claimed "Doherty and Price reign supreme" only that they use terms Christ Myth Theorist and current Jesus myth supporter with regard to Wells current position and the best Akhilleus has come up with is Wells arguing against Holding's use of the term (clearly WP:SYN as Wells is not debating the use of the terms used by Doherty and Price).

Despite his claims Akhilleus still has not produced the reliable source that shows Christ myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Jesus myth as always meaning the exact same thing. WP:SYN is quite clear on this; you cannot have one source say A=B and another source say B=C and in the article say A=C (This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research) One should note that Akhilleus no longer defends Christ Myth as a synonym as he did for months before Cuñado threw it out effectively agreeing with the points I had made. Per WP:SYN and other requirements is NOT required by wikipedia that I prove the terms are not synonyms but rather the burden is on the editors who claim they are synonyms.

I fully agree with Dbachmann claim of WP:SYN with regard to the lead in. I should point out Shirley Jackson Case's book make NO reference to Jesus myth or even uses the exact term non historical and mentions Christ myth only once and does it in such a vague way it not clear how she is using it.

In search of Jesus By Clinton Bennett is even more of a disaster as on page 205 as I pointed out 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009. And yet on 12 February 2009 Akhilleus stated "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."

Well for one, Schweitzer does NOT present a coherent position between 1906 (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) and 1931 (Out Of My Life and Thought) regarding Frazer. Second, Schweitzer in 1931 and Weaver conflict regarding where Frazer stands so the "coherent position" takes some more lumps and finally who points out these conflicts? Why Bennett. So much for a coherent position. More like WP:SYN out the wazoo.

Another problem not really touched on here is saying the Gospel Jesus is non historical the same as saying Jesus the man was non historical? Wells current position is that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character created from Paul's semi mythic Jesus from an earlier century and some 1st century teacher named Jesus. When someone says Jesus Christ didn't exist are they talking about the Gospel Jesus or the actual man?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK some quotes addressing WP:SYN. Hector Hawton May 1966: Ties Volney & Bruno Bauer leading to Thomas Whittaker, W.B. Smith & Arthur Drews leading to J.M. Robertson. The thesis they advanced, "the alleged historical events that Christianity were based on had never occurred" Price, Acharaya S and Doherty cite one another as working on the same themes. Doherty and Wells cite each other as working on the same themses. Freke and Gandy define the Jesus Mystery thesis, "Orthodox Christianity was a derivation of Gnosticism and Gnosticism came from a synthesis of Judaism and Pagan Mystery religion" which includes most of the authors. I think we can put this argument synthesis argument to rest. jbolden1517^Talk 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No because the WP:SYN issue is the claim in the lead in that Christ myth theory, nonhistoricity hypothesis, and Jesus myth always mean the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with synthesis in the way Freke and Gandy are using the term. Besides Jesus Mystery thesis is not even listed as an alternative for Christ myth theory in the lead in. Again WP:SYN is quite clear on this; if source 1 says A=B and source 2 says B=C you canNOT combine the two and say A=C. The only thing valid for that is a source that directly states that A=B=C.

Nevermind none of this explains why Price calls Wells a Christ Myth theorist after Jesus Myth which describing the position Wells held in both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth nor explains why Doherty called Wells a current Jesus myth supporter while directly referring to Jesus Myth. "G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference to Can we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover of Can we Trust the New Testament?) Here is total refutation that Christ myth' theorist only means non historical as the term is used in reference to a book that accepts the Q Jesus as historical (but not the Gospel Jesus). This is driven home by this full review of Can we Trust the New Testament? by Price which states "In every volume Wells reiterates his case for a mythic Jesus, but this is hardly "vain repetition." [...] No, the chastened Wells admitted, there had indeed been a historical wisdom teacher named Jesus, some of whose sayings survive in the Gospels via Q. But this historical Jesus had nothing to do with the legendary savior Jesus whom Paul preached about."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See, Price reigns supreme! We don't care what Price says about Wells. Price is a "professor" at an unaccredited theological seminary. His self-published essays are not reliable sources; what he says about Wells is irrelevant. Your complaints about synthesis, as jbolden1517 said above, are groundless. So please stop typing the same thing over and over again. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Strawman reigns supreme! "We don't care what Price says about Wells." Right because this shoots your straight jacked definition of Christ Myth theory clean out of the window. And we STILL don't have that source that links the three definitions together only unsupported OR attacks on the authors that prove the lead in to be so much WP:SYN nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Like me just throw this out. What about using Hawton's definition? (Orthodox Christianity was a derivation of Gnosticism and Gnosticism came from a synthesis of Judaism and Pagan Mystery religion)

• I think this captures what we are looking for,
• it explicitly ties together the earlier authors,
• It is a statement that the later authors would concur with
• It separates off people like Crossan (who for example believe in the crucifixion as a historical event of key importance)
• It allows to reference an author
• It allows us to discuss people like Pearson, Turner, Brauer which provides the context for Freke

jbolden1517^Talk 15:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some others (this is from the May 2007 version): The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus". The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered.[1]

or The approach of the Jesus-myth hypothesis towards historicity is that, literature which can be dated should be used to show the evolution of the development of a legend. In particular the best earliest sources available are the epistles. So they should constitute the primary source of knowledge about early Christianity. This contrasts with the mainstream approach which holds that since Jesus is the "founder" of Christianity an understanding of early Christianity requires one to focus attention on the gospels even though dating is far less certain jbolden1517^Talk 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me who Hawton is. Do you mean Hector Hawton's introduction to J. M. Robertson's Pagan Christs (University Books 1967)? If you're going to advocate including this, we need a better idea of what he says--"Orthodox Christianity was a derivation of Gnosticism and Gnosticism came from a synthesis of Judaism and Pagan Mystery religion" seems totally off-topic to me. Yes, some of the Christ myth authors talk about "Gnosticism" as a/the origin of Christianity, but as a definition of the Christ myth theory, this isn't that helpful. But, as far as I can tell, Hawton didn't hold any academic position (see the preface to his Philosophy for Pleasure. So I'm not sure why we would regard him as more authoritative than the secondary sources the article already uses--particularly Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver, who are all academics. And their work addresses all of your bullet points above (except that I'm not sure who Crossen is, and who some of the people mentioned in your last bullet point are).

As for the older versions of the lead you've quoted, I think they are inadequate. "The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus" is an unclear statement, and could include the ideas of a broad range of thinkers, including some who think there was a historical Jesus (e.g., Rudolf Bultmann). In contrast, saying that "The Christ myth theory (...) is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians" is much more clear. It makes it clear that the Christ myth theory includes two ideas: 1) that there was no actual, living Jesus of Nazareth who inspired the New Testament, and 2) the stories about him develop on some basis other than history. These are defining characteristics of the Christ myth theory that we find named over and over again by secondary sources (many are quoted on this very talk page). As I keep on saying, we just need to follow the lead of our secondary sources! The current version of the lead does that. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while is may be clearer saying "The Christ myth theory (...) is the contention that Jesus did not exist as a historical person and that the story of Jesus developed as a myth among early Christians" that statement is NOT supported by all the source material. Bromiley expressly states story of, Walsh says it is simply the idea Jesus started out as a myth, Pike is annoyingly vague (man or story about the man? don't know), and Dodd's "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" fits the minimal Historical Jesus approach because it give no time period to this person. Wood certainly doesn't help with his comments regarding Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson. Again, unless a source can be found that ties Bromiley, Walsh, Pike, Dodd, and Wood together and with the other uses of the term Christ Myth theory the lead is is basically WP:OR as there is effectively cherry picking of certain sources over others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what this section is doing. It seems to be presenting an alternate timeline of the development of Christianity, based not on the work of a single author, but employing bits and pieces of a bunch of different writers. Isn't this synthesis? And what's the point of it anyway? This article is supposed to be the history of the idea that there was no historical Jesus. Instead, it's starting to look like the Bizarro World version of historical Jesus, with a fully developed timeline of the alternate history of early Christianity. It's this kind of thing that justifies Dbachmann's characterization of this article as a content fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles have subarticles. I think this is a subarticle of historical Jesus, dealing in detail with one particular theory. Orthodox Christianity presents another theory. John Dominic Crossan,E. P. Sanders et. al present yet another theory. Raymond Brown, Meirs, yet another (liberal Catholic). Morton Smith (Christianity emerged out of the Jewish magical cults) presents another. If we wanted infinite length articles on history of Christianity this all could be merged but History would be much to long. We are trying to describe as best as possible a family of theories proposed by a diverse group of authors of two centuries.

This is encyclopedia writing in the classic sense. Taking a body of sources and providing a reference to them which is contrastive. In terms of avoiding WP:OR you'll notice Wells is cited throughout. This is his timeline, the table format is original but there is no policy against reformatting from authors. jbolden1517^Talk 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Its turning into a coat rack for arguments against the "orthodox" understanding of Christianity. These are off topic and synth, plus based on very biased sources. We are not here to argue a position but report what legitimate sources say. Hardyplants (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is a reliable source on what they themselves think. Policy is clear on this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. I'll leave the table out for now to give you time to respond why Wells and Doherty are not reliable sources on Mythicist thinking. jbolden1517^Talk 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Doherty isn't a reliable source. Most of what gets cited in this article is self-published stuff from his website. He has no demonstrated expertise in early Christianity, ancient history, classical languages, etc. etc. It's possible to use such sources according to the section of WP:V that you linked to, but that doesn't mean that he's actually a reliable source. Wells is better, in that secondary sources have actually covered his writing. But that doesn't mean that the article should suddenly turn into "The Origins of Christianity according to G. A. Wells."

As for the table, why do we need it? As written, it was definitely synthesis. If it were written so that it was presenting only one author's ideas (e.g., the entire chart laid out how G.A. Wells thought Christianity developed), I still don't think it should be there, because I don't see how it assists the reader in understanding the article's topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Doherty is a reliable source on Doherty and a well respected expert on the Jesus myth as verified by the other writers and a popular following. What you are arguing is that he isn't a reliable source on history, and ancient languages which is completely irrelevant to this article. This article is about a theory, not about the correctness of the theory. In other words what you are arguing is that Doherty cannot be cited as an authority outside of this article, so for example the middle Platonism article couldn't say "Pauls depiction of Jesus is classic Middle Platonism" (ref Doherty....)

As for the table, it is there because the article doesn't actually describe the theory in any depth. For example Special relativity actually describes the theory, explaining the main ideas of the theory to the reader. This article simply provides a history of authors it doesn't actually describe the theory. The next step is to actually explain to someone what those authors believe and why. jbolden1517^Talk 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point quite well. Doherty can be cited to explain what Doherty thinks. This is an exception to the rule that we're supposed to use reliable sources; it doesn't mean that Doherty becomes a reliable source. It also doesn't mean that Doherty becomes an authority on other proponents of the theory; we cite him to explain what he thinks, and nothing more. (But that first requires a decision whether the article should describe what he thinks, or not.)

As for describing the theory in depth, that should be done in the sections on individual authors. Each one of them argues different things, and the article should not synthesize a single theory that no individual author holds (this is the basic problem with the "arguments" section). You want the article to say in more detail what G. A. Wells thinks, well, fine--but it should go in the section devoted to Wells, not held up as an example of "the theory". Special relativity is not a good analogy here, because it is a scientific theory, proposed by a single theorist. The "theory" that this article deals with is not a theory in the scientific sense, and comes in different flavors depending on which author you look at. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the authors themselves don't hold relatively similar theories. For example

1. Christianity emerged from Hellenistic Judaism, it did not come from Palestine
2. The pseudo christian epistles from about 200 BCE form a continuum with the 1st century christian epistles
3. Gospel material was accepted later than epistle material.
4. Belief in rising dieties in these communities preceded any belief in the existence of an actual historical event

etc.... They differ on minor details, like the actual mixture of mystery cult vs. middle Platonism in their gnosticism. With say Doherty pushing strongly for middle platonism while 19th century authors were heavily focused on mystery cult aspects.

So present a positive case, why don't you believe there is in fact a relatively consistent theory, given that the authors do believe there is one?

As for Doherty for example, not being an expert on Jesus myth. He is constantly cited by the broad community of Jesus myth supports as an expert on the theory. He doesn't have an academic reputation but that is why people like Pearson (who is unquestionably seen as an/the expert on Egyptian Christianity) are important. jbolden1517^Talk 14:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The authors are consistent in saying that there was no historical Jesus, but their theory of how early Christianity develops can be quite different. The difference between middle Platonism being the major source vs. mystery religions being the major source is not a "minor detail".

First of I said "actual mixture, not major source. And actually it is in the last generation or two since we've put together what the gnosticism of 100 BCE - 100 CE looked like. That it had both middle Platonism and mystery components. And again the writers i this theory don't agree that they have substantially different theories than one another. They believe they are quibbling over details. jbolden1517^Talk 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Doherty, when you say "He is constantly cited by the broad community of Jesus myth supports as an expert on the theory" you seem to be referring to the fact that a lot of websites and popular literature refer to him...but we have scholarly literature on the history of this topic, and Doherty makes little to no impact on that literature. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What scholarly literature do we have on the history on the "Christ myth theory" that is recent? (Genuinely asking). The only writer I can think of who has done a comprehensive study is Murdock and if you won't accept Doherty I don't see how you accept her. jbolden1517^Talk 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaver (1999); Van Voorst (2000 and 2005--the latter is Jesus: a Guide, ed. Houden, basically the same material is found in Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia); Bennett (2001). I mentioned each one of these authors in the "secondary sources" section above; none are advocates of the theory, but scholars placing the theory in historical context. Full cites for each are in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good list. Well Weaver stops in 1950. But he does link to Robinson, and Robinson links himself to people of the previous century who were doing this sort of exploration. As for Voorst, Voorst IMHO is agreeing with me. He outlines 6 objections to Wells (p14):

1. Argument from silence
2. Dating of the gospels
3. Invention vs. evolution apparent on the gospel tradition.
4. What the earliest people believed (1st and 2nd century literature about Christianity)
5. Non Christian witnesses and the theory of their construction
6. implications of the non historical argument

I would be willing right now to accept that list as the structure of the article to avoid claims of synthesis. That is definitely close enough to where I want to go. Addressing the evidence (pro and con) on those 6 points and some material as to how the fit together is perfect. Would using Voorst's list solve your issue regarding synthesis?

As for Bennett I couldn't find the relevant definition. jbolden1517^Talk 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside your original objection to my table was that Wells, Doherty, Robertson didn't have theories that were substantially the the same. Your sources above, are linking them. jbolden1517^Talk 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the Jesus Project, which is an ongoing but slow-moving survey. They just had their first symposium in December 2008. I honestly don't think the academic heavy lifting has been done in this area that a) its proponents believe they have done, and b) its detractors believe has failed. That seems to be the working assumption of this project: attempting to start "tabula rasa" with no assumptions about Jesus' existence or nonexistence, then working from the contributions of a range of established scholars. But until they have something to show for it, it'll be something to keep an eye on. --davigoli (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but we can't use stuff that isn't written yet. jbolden1517^Talk 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious why I removed this section. This article is about the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The removed text says nothing about the theory that there was no historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Those writers demonstrated an example of a Christian community (the Sethians) which developed a Christianity the absence of historical input and then later came to believe that there were historical events. That is positive evidence for the case. That is a proven example of exactly what the Jesus myth supporters claim happened more broadly.

Moreover even excluding the example of the Sethians things like the development of Egyptian Christianity back the basic thesis of people like JM Roberts. This btw is why we need a long description of the theory. There is more to it than "there was no historical Jesus". There are a huge number of details. In the same way that the thesis for special relativity is "all observers see the same speed of light" but the details require quite a bit more explication. jbolden1517^Talk 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that demonstrates this alleged connection, or is this your own argument? None of the secondary sources I mention above mentions the Sethians in connection with the Christ myth theorists that this article covers. "things like the development of Egyptian Christianity back the basic thesis of people like JM Roberts", unless there is a secondary source that explicitly makes this connection, also sounds like an original synthesis. Without a secondary source that makes some kind of connection between Birger A. Pearson and the Christ myth theory (a connection which the text does not even try to make), this material needs to stay out of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure the entire book on Freke and Gandy advances this thesis. Plotinus considers Christians to be heretics from Neo Platonism (Plotinus#Plotinus_and_the_Gnostics) not from Judaism. Hans Jonas argues that Christianity emerged from a synthesis of Egyptian, Hellenic, Babylonian and Iranian influences. He specifically discusses how the "violently anti-Jewish biases" of Judaism could emerge from a Jewish context (not Palestinian Jewish though). Turner is actually documenting a case of exactly what people like Doherty are talking about. Schmithals "Gnosticism in Corinth" has Paul encountering a pre-existing gnostic Christian sect.

Robertson advances a more primitive form: Rhodian rite + mystery play + historical rephrasing = gospel account.

I can keep going. jbolden1517^Talk 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is Pearsons take on the issue of Gnosticism and Earely Christianity in Egypt - [12] He favors the idea that Chistianity came first and then later Gnostisim in Egypt. Hardyplants (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree you have the right book. Though I would suggest Chapter 13 where he addresses this connection directly in terms of Baeur. He discusses the Epistle of Barnabas which is early in Egyptian Christianity to argue for a non gnostic group of Christians in Alexandria prior to the 2nd century. He also agrees with Bauer that the Gnostic Christians were dominant until Panteus (180) which is Doherty date as well. He asserts that Valentinianism comes from Sethianism (which predates the "historical crucifixion"). The point of all of this is that Pearson is documenting the evolution of early Christianity using a literary not a historical model. He talks very freely about proto-Christianity associated with books from 0 BCE and earlier. In other words he doesn't assume anything interesting about Palestine happened in the year 30 CE jbolden1517^Talk 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So clearly he does not belong in this article, unless you are doing original research and synthesis. Hardyplants (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of synthesis does not require that we not document multiple authors. If person X says A depends on B and person Y proves A then it is not synthesis to show both. It is synthesis to then say B is proven if neither X or Y said it. "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." In our case X does say that B is proven.

The article on special relativity is not written in German and uses late 20th century math. People are freely synthesizing Einstein with later differential geometry he didn't use. I think you and Akhilleus are trying to apply standards to a theory that basically we can't apply any intelligence at all which not what WP:OR says. jbolden1517^Talk 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JBolden, from what I'm piecing together from your statements I see "X says A depends on B", then "Y proves B", not A. There is clearly and uncontroversially a heavy neoplatonic/mystery cult influence in early Christianity. It's clear that the Mithras/Adonis cults were closely related to Christianity, and such cults were springing up all over the place at that time (indeed going back to Tammuz/Osiris). Whether the first Christians interpreted the life of a historical man through that lens, or whether the man himself was fabricated (as were so many other "real" figures in so many other legends of antiquity), is the concern of this article, not the secondary arguments used to support it. All this stuff about gnosticism and mystery religions is supporting evidence, but does not itself stand or fall with the Christ Myth Theory. The latter depends on the former, but not the other way around. It's very important to keep that point clear in this article. Also, we have articles such as Life-death-rebirth deity and Jesus Christ in comparative mythology as main articles for this information. --davigoli (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish we had threading, this is a response to Davigoli. Lets take Bauer as a specific. I would agree that the arguments for Bauer don't depend on non historicity of Jesus. Bauer does depend on Acts being false. He does very much depend on things like the fact that Paul encountered a pre-existing gnosticism which was at least proto-Christian. Jesus myth in arguing that Christianity emerged not from historical events presents evidence for Bauer. Conversely, Bauer presents evidence that Acts' version of how Christianity developed is false. Chapter 13 of Doherty (a Riotious diversity) quite literally quotes Bauer against Crossen and makes use of Bauer's ideas with respect of Hebrews. So in that direction the tie is absolutely explicit. I think it is obvious and defendable that Freke and Gandy are using Bauer (and I'm sure I can find sources). That is an explicit link in one direction and an implicit link in the other. jbolden1517^Talk 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JBolden, I am a little confused by what you are trying to say here. WP:SYN says is a major no-no to use Source 1 saying A=B and combine it with Source 2 which says B=C to say A=C. You can cite both points independently (ie A=B, B=C) but by WP:SYN you cannot directly combine them (ie A=C) unless you can find a source that does it for you. That is why you cannot combine Dodd's or Welsh's definitions of Christ Myth theory together or with those Farmer, Horbury, or Wiseman nor any of these with the definitions used Jones, Bromiley, or Pike. All you can do by WP:SYN is say what they directly and explicitly state. So if Bromiley uses story of in his definition then you have to go with that and nothing else as far as Bromiley is concerned. Similarly if Welsh simply says "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" that is ALL you can use Welsh for unless you find a source that directly and explicitly links his definition to any of the others. Similarly if a well known author calls someone a Christ myth theorist and directly references a book that includes a historical Jesus then you cannot use other sources to continue to claim Christ myth theorist=non historial--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First off I didn't say that. I said if source 1 says A=B, then source 2 about A is on topic. A different situation. As for a source, About as authoritative source as they come, The apostle's creed:

born of the [virgin] Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

Or the Nicean Creed:

came down from heaven, and was incarnate [by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary], and was made man;

... he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate

That is the crucial denials are: born of a human mother (i.e. a real person), existed at a particular place and time. Someone who denies that the Jesus Christ of Paul/the epistles fulfills either of those two criteria is a believer in the Christ Myth. We can come up 200 variations on this theme (and you can see some above and in the archive) but in the end that's the definition. The gnostic writers are showing that people who did not believe in a historical material Jesus believed in "epistles". That is the original "Christ myth writers" from 1900-2100 years ago. The people these very words were directed at. If you are saying that the other writers don't actually uses the term this way. Well first off understand, we made it up 2 years ago when we split historicity material off from the more general article on myth. Wikipedia essentially invented the term, "Jesus myth hypothesis". It was our term. The organization of material existed because we needed to separate off things that are mainstream (Jesus story contains mythological elements), that say C.S. Lewis would have no problem agreeing with, with things that were a niche historical theory that a C.S. Lewis would unequivocally deny. For example last month we broke off Hospice Care in the United States from Hospice and Palliative care. Ultimately that separation came from Wikipedia need to organize material not from the underlying literature. The real reason for the split was because historicity and theology had already split and were mirroring that split. We have to organize the material somehow.

If this article is not about people who deny the historicity of Jesus then what is it about? jbolden1517^Talk 18:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article is about a "niche historical theory". The thing is, we have scholarly literature that defines what this theory is and who advocated it (see my post above in the "Theory of Christian Development" section). They make it clear that this is a theory of the 19th-20th (21st) centuries; they do not say that Gnostic writers are Christ myth theorists. So putting them here is an act of synthesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You replied to me before I had a chance to reply to your comments above. Do my comments above change anything? jbolden1517^Talk 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to do with the "Gnostic writers" section: part of my problem is that it's simply not clear what that section is doing in this article. But it seems to me that you're saying that the Gnostics didn't think there was a historical Jesus, and that therefore they belong in this article. My position is, this article is about a theory that has antecedents in 18th century writers, but is really a 19th-21st century phenomenon. And that opinion comes straight out of the secondary sources. So unless we have secondary sources that say the Gnostics are in the same category as Bauer, Drews, et al., they shouldn't be in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First off I realized the confusion with Bauer. I meant Walter Bauer not Bruno Bauer. Sorry about that. As for the rest of your point, whether there were ancient people who denied the historicity of Jesus goes directly to your 6 points of disputes above. Further while not in the secondary literature, the primary literature focuses heavily on the methodology by which myth came to be confused with history. So in some sense this article:

1. A bunch of 19th -21st century authors who make the chase against the historicity of Christ (includes Gnostic writers)
2. A bunch of people who deny the historicity of Christ (includes the Gnostics themselves).

jbolden1517^Talk 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is no secondary source that says these two groups are advocating the same theory, right? None of the secondary sources I named above say, for instance, that Bruno Bauer was influenced by Sethian Christianity, or that Arthur Drews continued the thought of Valentinius. If there are no secondary sources that say this, combining these two groups in one article is synthesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doherty says he was influenced (chapter 13) by Meeks, Braur (Walter). He sites Braur's followers: Pagels, Pearson as influences. So there is an explicit site. Freke and Gandy make the case that gnosticism was the original Christianity, and again site Braur, Schmithals and Pagels. Ellegard sites Pearson, Pagels, Schmithals, John D Turner directly. You want sites of a connection the authors themselves assert the connection. And Robertson does the same thing going back 100 years with all the predecessors.

The secondary literature your are quoting from doesn't present a fully developed version of the myth case, you have to go to the authors themselves. jbolden1517^Talk 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with bolden1517 that the secondary literature is in places a mess. Schweitzer supposedly says one thing about Frazer in 1906 (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) and yet in 1931 (Out Of My Life and Thought) says the exact opposite. Bennett even points out that Schweitzer in 1931 puts Frazer in the same category as John M Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews despite Frazer never saying there wasn't a historical Jesus a fact that some editors continue to ignore.

I have also pointed out that Christ myth by itself is used in an even broader context than Christ myth theory (as demonstrated by Burton L. Mack, Remsburg, Fitchett, Knight, etc) and the use of myth varies even among scholars (J.W. Rogerson) and non-scholars (Remsburg). By normal standards of English Christ Myth theorist should refer to a theorist who holds to the Christ Myth but it has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the very term Christ Myth varies. Burton L. Mack, Remsburg, Fitchett, Knight, etc all use Christ Myth in a way that includes a historical Jesus while other authors use the term to talk about non historial theories. If you look at Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Christ_myth_theory_definitions you can see that variations in Christ myth theory do exist and to date not one source tying all these variations together has been produced.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Bruce. I think the definition we had 2 years ago solves this problem, by use of the term "meaningful historicity".

The Jesus-myth hypothesis disputes the meaningful historicity of Jesus. It argues that in light of mythological aspects of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the gospels and epistles it is pointless to call those pieces of the cultural climate that gave birth to the Jesus myth which possibly can be traced back to an individual (or individuals) the "historical Jesus". The majority of Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject this pessimism and believe that there is meaningful information which can be recovered.[1] (note the article at the time was called Jesus-myth hypothesis)

It ties everyone together. If you are disputing that they should be tied together, they think they should be tied together, popular culture ties them together, their opponents tie them together.... jbolden1517^Talk 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

jbolden1517, are you saying that A) ancient Gnostic writers are Christ myth theorists, or that B) modern writers about Gnosticism are Christ myth theorists? Whichever one it is, you have (implicitly) acknowledged that the secondary sources don't say that Valentinus, Schmitals, Turner, Pearson, and Pagels are proponents of the theory. So this article should not mention them as such--but the section we have in the text right now implies that Birger A. Pearson and John D. Turner believe there was no historical Jesus. Somehow, I doubt these scholars hold this position, and for the article to imply that they do is undesirable.

If Doherty/Freke/Gandy say that the Gnostics didn't believe in a historical Jesus and draw upon Gnostic writers in crafting their own version of the theory, then that can be mentioned in sections devoted to Doherty/Freke/Gandy (if we include these guys--I really don't think they warrant more than a couple of sentences). But the article shouldn't present the Gnostics as advocates as the same theory as Bauer/Drews/Robertson/Wells--our secondary sources make it clear that this is a theory of the 19th-21st centuries. A full exposition of Gnostic views on Jesus belong in a different article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Akhilleus. I'm saying that (A) is true (for 1st century gnostics). I'm also saying that Walter Braur, Schmitals, Turner, Pearson, and Pagels are proponents of the theory because they provide evidence for it. For example if you look at Special Relativity you'll see discussion of Galileo who explicitly denied the relativity of time. He is still listed because his notion of the relativity of velocity was a crucial step in the development of the theory. I don't you need to personally believe a theory to advance it. On the other hand I have no problem with adding a disclaimer that there is no evidence that Pearson or Turner has directly advocated the Christ myth theory if we stay with this definition.

I personally happen to believe they do believe it in the more limited sense the term was used originally. But as currently defined you all have tightened the definition to the point that virtually no one qualifies. For example Doherty believes that Q3 is historical, which one could argue means he doesn't meets the definition as written.

I like the idea of a decomposition in theory and tracing the writers. If there is general agreement I'd be happy to do that. So for example the table goes under Wells, the discussion of Gnosticism under Freke and Gandy. We can put Doherty as a mediating figure and detailed informational source. So agreed. Should I go ahead and start implementing? jbolden1517^Talk 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

John E. Remsberg, Chapter 9 [13] (books is published but now public domain):

Gives a 4 fold breakdown

• 1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.

• 2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.

• 3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.

• 4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth -- that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.

He goes on to say the real difference between 3 and 4 is which came first. I think that gives us exactly what we are looking for, a secondary source that includes everyone we want and excludes everyone we don't. jbolden1517^Talk 13:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively--just look in the archives, starting with Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19#Remsberg. BruceGrubb thinks that Remsberg is an important source, for reasons that are not clear to me. I think that we should not use Remsberg at all, because

1. He was not an academic, but we have several scholarly sources on this topic

2. There is no indication that Remsberg had an influence on the authors whom academic sources call Christ myth theorists (Drews, Robinson, Wm. B. Smith, Wells, etc.). The only source that says Remsberg was an influence on the theory is J. P. Holding--and we've decided that Holding, as a self-published author, is not a reliable source.

3. Secondary sources (and primary ones, for that matter) define the "Christ myth theory" as the theory that there was no historical Jesus of Nazareth. That's Remsberg's #4. BruceGrubb has been arguing, repetitively and at great length, that Remsberg defines the Christ myth theory as #3 and #4 together. Using Remsberg in this way dilutes the article topic such that the article could include anyone who believes that there was a historical Jesus, but the New Testament gives us nothing useful to reconstruct his life. But that is not the way that Van Voorst, etc. describe the topic of this article--it's about the "niche historical theory" that Jesus didn't exist as a human being.

So, as I have said many times, I don't think we should use Remsberg--he's a marginal figure at best. We have good secondary sources written by academic experts in the study of the historical Jesus (Van Voorst, Bennett, Weaver)--we just need to follow their lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Seems reasonable. I do agree with Bruce (and Remsberg) that 3 and 4 form a continuum and that we can't cut the line on the edge of 4. My Doherty example above. But I absolutely want to exclude the pure #3s. I included davigoli's suggestion which I think accomplishes this. jbolden1517^Talk 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I restructered the info in the "Other Writers" section. The original kept flipping back and forth and I thought it would read better as one unit. jbolden1517^Talk 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)